PDA

View Full Version : By remaining in the race, is Hillary trying to sabotage Obama's campaign?



Laisrean
March 26th, 2008, 12:01 AM
What do you guys think?

It seems to me that the mudslinging these two are doing towards one another is going to pretty much guarantee a GOP victory in November. Obama is almost certainly going to win the Democratic nomination, so all Hillary is accomplishing by staying in the fight is to ensuring Obama won't have the full backing of the party until it is too late for him to effectively challenge McCain.

Right now, McCain is running unopposed, basically. He has his party's nomination clenched, so he's off to a good head start with Hillary and Obama fight amongst themselves. If Hillary cared anything at all about her own party she would drop out so that Obama would have a better chance, but by staying in the race she is acting like a little kid who isn't allowed to have something so they make sure their sibling can't have it either out of jealousy. Destroying Obama would benefit Hillary if she were to run again in 2012. It will be easier for her to run against President McCain (who may be dead by then anyway, considering his age) than it would be for her to run against President Obama.

So my opinion is Hillary is being a selfish brat who is thinking about only herself and not about whats best for her party as a whole.

TheWomanMonster
March 26th, 2008, 12:13 AM
She wants to win..
I don't blame her.

If she sees herself as the better candidate why would she withdraw from the race?

Jeremy Westenn
March 26th, 2008, 12:18 AM
What do you guys think?

It seems to me that the mudslinging these two are doing towards one another is going to pretty much guarantee a GOP victory in November. Obama is almost certainly going to win the Democratic nomination, so all Hillary is accomplishing by staying in the fight is to ensuring Obama won't have the full backing of the party until it is too late for him to effectively challenge McCain.

Right now, McCain is running unopposed, basically. He has his party's nomination clenched, so he's off to a good head start with Hillary and Obama fight amongst themselves. If Hillary cared anything at all about her own party she would drop out so that Obama would have a better chance, but by staying in the race she is acting like a little kid who isn't allowed to have something so they make sure their sibling can't have it either out of jealousy. Destroying Obama would benefit Hillary if she were to run again in 2012. It will be easier for her to run against President McCain (who may be dead by then anyway, considering his age) than it would be for her to run against President Obama.

So my opinion is Hillary is being a selfish brat who is thinking about only herself and not about whats best for her party as a whole.

Ok. First off. Back it up. Your acting under an air of entitlement and inevitability to the idea that Obama will win the nomination.

First off, she's not loosing now in the ways that she had it against her before. She's going to win double digits in PA, and after this Jeremiah Wright flap things have gone extremely her way, in fact the first couple days after that she had a 7 point lead over Obama in the national polls of Democrats. The notion that that has not hurt him and that it's yesterdays news is non sense. My professor of political science from my community college, who is one of the smartest people I know and an Obama supporter, said quite truthfully that the damage that did is more then anyone is anticipating or letting on. It's big, I know Obama foot soldiers who are nervous about what that did because the people they are talking to day to day have mentioned that on more then one occasion as a hit against the candidate they are being lobbied for.

Next thing you gotta realize is that she has a good showing in all of the coming primaries. For one, primaries favor her, and she's expected to win a LOT more then PA.

So, when she's gaining momentum, when she's got the upper edge after the poor judgment(of a candidate running ultimately on nothing but judgment) of Obama, when she's going to get huge wins in the primaries and can now, even more so then before, make a great case that she is more electable in the General Election then Obama after all this flap.... Why should she bow out?

The notion that she's all ready lost is so absurd you should be embarrased for putting it forth.

- Jeremy

pawnman
March 26th, 2008, 08:25 AM
Ok. First off. Back it up. Your acting under an air of entitlement and inevitability to the idea that Obama will win the nomination.

First off, she's not loosing now in the ways that she had it against her before. She's going to win double digits in PA, and after this Jeremiah Wright flap things have gone extremely her way, in fact the first couple days after that she had a 7 point lead over Obama in the national polls of Democrats. The notion that that has not hurt him and that it's yesterdays news is non sense. My professor of political science from my community college, who is one of the smartest people I know and an Obama supporter, said quite truthfully that the damage that did is more then anyone is anticipating or letting on. It's big, I know Obama foot soldiers who are nervous about what that did because the people they are talking to day to day have mentioned that on more then one occasion as a hit against the candidate they are being lobbied for.

Next thing you gotta realize is that she has a good showing in all of the coming primaries. For one, primaries favor her, and she's expected to win a LOT more then PA.

So, when she's gaining momentum, when she's got the upper edge after the poor judgment(of a candidate running ultimately on nothing but judgment) of Obama, when she's going to get huge wins in the primaries and can now, even more so then before, make a great case that she is more electable in the General Election then Obama after all this flap.... Why should she bow out?

The notion that she's all ready lost is so absurd you should be embarrased for putting it forth.

- Jeremy

If they all win their base states and split Indiana, Hillary will still lag in delegates. She'd need 70%+ of the superdelegates to vote her way at the convention...and how popular would that make her come poll time, to tell all the folks who voted for Obama, who has an overwhelming lead in the popular vote "You don't know what you're doing". Several superdelegates have said they'll vote for whoever has the delegate lead or the popular vote, anything else would be a huge blow to the democratic party.

That said, I'm sure Hillary's not above fracturing the party and grinding it down for her own interests. I mean, she was the first to say Florida and Michigan shouldn't be counted (I found it funny that the Dems weren't counting votes, given all the ruckus they made over the last two elections), and now she's desparately trying to get those results to count...despite the fact Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

ETA: As a conservative...I find the whole thing entertaining. I hope they both stay in all the way up to the convention.

Jeremy Westenn
March 26th, 2008, 10:10 AM
First off, pagans that are conservatives remind me of working men that vote Republican. It's like a chicken that supports Colonel Sanders.

Moving on again it's a superdelegate issue, and with the fact that Obama is appearing more and more unelectable the idea that she could capture the national democrats support over him even though he has a delegate lead and then battle it out for the superdelegates votes, etc. etc. it's very possible she will still win.

IvyWitch
March 26th, 2008, 10:37 AM
First off, pagans that are conservatives remind me of working men that vote Republican. It's like a chicken that supports Colonel Sanders.

I wasn't aware that Pagans aren't allowed to choose their own political affiliation. Being a Republican isn't incompatible with being a Pagan. Being a member of the Religious Right isn't very compatible with being Pagan, but I've yet to meet a Pagan Republican who didn't think the RR deserves the boot.

Why should all Pagans be Democrats or Independents?

Jeremy Westenn
March 26th, 2008, 11:46 AM
Why?

Because you would be if you were a decent human being.

/sticks tongue out.

Phoenix Blue
March 26th, 2008, 02:01 PM
First off, pagans that are conservatives remind me of working men that vote Republican. It's like a chicken that supports Colonel Sanders.

Why?

Because you would be if you were a decent human being.

/sticks tongue out.
ADMIN MODE

Item 1: People have the right to be Pagan and conservative, just as people have the right to be Christian and liberal. If you're not comfortable with a wide variety of political and religious views, maybe MysticWicks isn't the forum for you.

Item 2: I suspect you were trying to be funny. Fail. Comments that accuse people of being indecent human beings are disrespectful -- don't make them, even in jest.

David19
March 26th, 2008, 02:28 PM
I wasn't aware that Pagans aren't allowed to choose their own political affiliation. Being a Republican isn't incompatible with being a Pagan. Being a member of the Religious Right isn't very compatible with being Pagan, but I've yet to meet a Pagan Republican who didn't think the RR deserves the boot.

Just to play devil's advocate, there's nothing stopping a Pagan being part of the Religious Right either, granted, the other members of the religious right might see them as wierd or not accept them, but if a Pagan happened to share some of the same views, they could choose to ally themselves with the religious right (for example, there are some Pagans who don't like LGBT people, or who do look down at other religions, etc so they'd probably be welcome in the RR).

Also, RR doesn't have to mean Christian, either, IMO, you can be a right-wing fundamentalist Wiccan, right-wing fundamentalist Heathen, etc.

Sorry for getting OT, there.

Back to the OP, I don't think she's trying to sabotage the campaign, like TheWomanMonster said, if she thinks she's the best candidate, why should she drop out?.

Also, Hilary is just being a great politician - she's out for herself, just like every single other politician, Obama included.

You could also argue whether Bush wanted to sabotage the Republican party, as he doesn't give a great image for them (dumb, homophobic, fundamentalist Christian, etc).

Personally, I think it'd be quite cool if the Democrats got in 'cause, from what I've been told and heard on this forum, it seems there the most liberal (therefore, being more open to LGBT people, etc).

Laisrean
March 26th, 2008, 02:45 PM
There are too many different kinds of Paganisms to say that all Pagans must vote for one party in particular. Besides, politics and religion can (and probably should) be separate anyway. People will vote however they like, but you shouldn't say that makes them a terrible pagan or a terrible human being for it.

pawnman
March 26th, 2008, 06:39 PM
First off, pagans that are conservatives remind me of working men that vote Republican. It's like a chicken that supports Colonel Sanders.

Moving on again it's a superdelegate issue, and with the fact that Obama is appearing more and more unelectable the idea that she could capture the national democrats support over him even though he has a delegate lead and then battle it out for the superdelegates votes, etc. etc. it's very possible she will still win.

You can be pagan and conservative because to me, they both support personal responsibility over waiting around for a handout.

Jeremy Westenn
March 26th, 2008, 07:33 PM
ADMIN MODE

Item 1: People have the right to be Pagan and conservative, just as people have the right to be Christian and liberal. If you're not comfortable with a wide variety of political and religious views, maybe MysticWicks isn't the forum for you.

Item 2: I suspect you were trying to be funny. Fail. Comments that accuse people of being indecent human beings are disrespectful -- don't make them, even in jest.

Roger. :( Sorry.

/bows to mod :fpraise:

Jeremy Westenn
March 26th, 2008, 07:33 PM
There are too many different kinds of Paganisms to say that all Pagans must vote for one party in particular. Besides, politics and religion can (and probably should) be separate anyway. People will vote however they like, but you shouldn't say that makes them a terrible pagan or a terrible human being for it.

I was trying to make a funny. >_<

PrincessKLS
March 26th, 2008, 07:51 PM
I really don't think we'll suffer another 4-8 years of a Republican president. I believe Obama will win. It's quite possible that Hillary will become first woman vice president. Besides don't they wait until the summer to announce the nominee?

Philosophia
March 26th, 2008, 08:00 PM
You can be pagan and conservative because to me, they both support personal responsibility over waiting around for a handout.

:wtf:

Laisrean
March 26th, 2008, 08:04 PM
It's quite possible that Hillary will become first woman vice president.

I don't think that will happen because of the bad blood between the two of them. My guess is Obama would choose someone else, like maybe Bill Richardson or Wesley Clark.

Seren_
March 26th, 2008, 09:08 PM
So my opinion is Hillary is being a selfish brat who is thinking about only herself and not about whats best for her party as a whole.

Then again, with all the mudslinging and the hard fought primaries and caucuses between them both, who is it that the media are focusing on? By keeping up the fight, she's doing a good job of keeping all eyes on the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Over here you hardly ever hear about McCain and it's pretty much a given that he doesn't stand a chance anyway. Everyone's talking about Obama and Clinton (Obama mostly positive, Clinton mostly negative), and whatever happens all the attention is making them much more familiar to the public eye. It could equally be argued, based on the idea that there's no such thing as bad publicity, that their mudslinging is only serving to make them appear the stronger candidates for presidency. After all, what's McCain doing? The less focus there is on him, the less people will think of him as a viable option. Theoretically of course. Politics ain't as simple as that.

Jeremy Westenn
March 26th, 2008, 11:32 PM
I really don't think we'll suffer another 4-8 years of a Republican president. I believe Obama will win. It's quite possible that Hillary will become first woman vice president. Besides don't they wait until the summer to announce the nominee?

No, generally we'd know before the convention, but since we'll have a brokered convention we won't know till after probably. It's likely either of them will be the others VP I think. As for what one person mentioned about Richardson or Clark being Obama's vp, no, and no.

I think Obama would choose someone with more experience than Richardson, probably someone with a lot of foreign policy experience. And as for Clark, he's a Clinton supporter, he's endorsed and campaigned for her, I don't see it happening. :/

Jeremy Westenn
March 26th, 2008, 11:33 PM
Then again, with all the mudslinging and the hard fought primaries and caucuses between them both, who is it that the media are focusing on? By keeping up the fight, she's doing a good job of keeping all eyes on the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Over here you hardly ever hear about McCain and it's pretty much a given that he doesn't stand a chance anyway. Everyone's talking about Obama and Clinton (Obama mostly positive, Clinton mostly negative), and whatever happens all the attention is making them much more familiar to the public eye. It could equally be argued, based on the idea that there's no such thing as bad publicity, that their mudslinging is only serving to make them appear the stronger candidates for presidency. After all, what's McCain doing? The less focus there is on him, the less people will think of him as a viable option. Theoretically of course. Politics ain't as simple as that.

Something interesting about Obama and McCain: In the amount of time it took McCain as the designated nominee to raise 12 million dollars Obama raised 55 million, and I imagine Hillary raised more then McCain to.

IvyWitch
March 27th, 2008, 12:00 AM
I was trying to make a funny. >_<

Strange, I don't think "you're not a decent human being" is funny no matter what the timing or situation.

Jeremy Westenn
March 27th, 2008, 01:42 AM
Strange, I don't think "you're not a decent human being" is funny no matter what the timing or situation.

Now I will tell you what I told some other people, seriously consider getting a sense of humor. I'm done with this now. Your not worth the time.

IvyWitch
March 27th, 2008, 02:00 AM
Now I will tell you what I told some other people, seriously consider getting a sense of humor. I'm done with this now. Your not worth the time.

Well, apparently I am if you bothered replying in the first place. :smile:

I find it pretty funny that if someone doesn't find the same things that you do funny that means that a person doesn't have a sense of humor. I have a great sense of humor, I just don't happen to think your joke was funny. What's so terrible about that?

Jeremy Westenn
March 27th, 2008, 02:10 AM
Well, apparently I am if you bothered replying in the first place. :smile:

I find it pretty funny that if someone doesn't find the same things that you do funny that means that a person doesn't have a sense of humor. I have a great sense of humor, I just don't happen to think your joke was funny. What's so terrible about that?

Meh. -_- Call a truce?

pawnman
March 27th, 2008, 08:05 AM
Then again, with all the mudslinging and the hard fought primaries and caucuses between them both, who is it that the media are focusing on? By keeping up the fight, she's doing a good job of keeping all eyes on the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Over here you hardly ever hear about McCain and it's pretty much a given that he doesn't stand a chance anyway. Everyone's talking about Obama and Clinton (Obama mostly positive, Clinton mostly negative), and whatever happens all the attention is making them much more familiar to the public eye. It could equally be argued, based on the idea that there's no such thing as bad publicity, that their mudslinging is only serving to make them appear the stronger candidates for presidency. After all, what's McCain doing? The less focus there is on him, the less people will think of him as a viable option. Theoretically of course. Politics ain't as simple as that.

She's certainly keeping all eyes on the democrats...she's put herself and Obama under the microscope, so that all of America will know all of their faults, and McCain will be starting from a relatively clean slate.

Not to mention, it'll be great when McCain doesn't have to say anything, he'll be able to take Clinton's sound bites for use against Obama, or Obama's against Clinton. Either way, it keeps him above the fray.

RoseKitten
March 27th, 2008, 12:49 PM
No, generally we'd know before the convention, but since we'll have a brokered convention we won't know till after probably. It's likely either of them will be the others VP I think. As for what one person mentioned about Richardson or Clark being Obama's vp, no, and no.

I think Obama would choose someone with more experience than Richardson, probably someone with a lot of foreign policy experience. And as for Clark, he's a Clinton supporter, he's endorsed and campaigned for her, I don't see it happening. :/

Yeah, except that Obama has already come out and said that he won't run under her. And it would be an insult to Hillary to run as Obama's VP, and she'd end up running the country like Cheney does with Bush.

RoseKitten
March 27th, 2008, 12:50 PM
I don't believe that Hillary staying in the race is bad for the party. There is no way that Obama will win against McCain, he's not qualified, or ready, for the position, and the general public will see this. Hillary is the only Dem that can face against McCain, although she probably won't get the nomination if she can't win the popular vote. It's too close to call, still, and I think Obama is a moron for thinking he can beat McCain when he has no experience.

Jeremy Westenn
March 27th, 2008, 01:13 PM
Thank you Rose for pointing out the obvious. Not having any real legislative experience, and having no foreign policy experience while running in wartime against a candidate that can easily set himself as the foreign policy candidate= epic fail.

pawnman
March 27th, 2008, 01:47 PM
I don't believe that Hillary staying in the race is bad for the party. There is no way that Obama will win against McCain, he's not qualified, or ready, for the position, and the general public will see this. Hillary is the only Dem that can face against McCain, although she probably won't get the nomination if she can't win the popular vote. It's too close to call, still, and I think Obama is a moron for thinking he can beat McCain when he has no experience.

And Hillary has experience doing what? Attending state dinners hardly qualifies you as a foreign affairs "expert".

RoseKitten
March 27th, 2008, 02:00 PM
And Hillary has experience doing what? Attending state dinners hardly qualifies you as a foreign affairs "expert".

Hey, I'm not a Hillary supporter either. Fact is, she *is* more qualified due to her experience in office. I never said she was an expert either. Hillary has experience in office, including the White House. Obama really doesn't have anything to go on at all.

Phoenix Blue
March 27th, 2008, 02:18 PM
Hey, I'm not a Hillary supporter either. Fact is, she *is* more qualified due to her experience in office. I never said she was an expert either. Hillary has experience in office, including the White House. Obama really doesn't have anything to go on at all.
George W. Bush has eight years of experience as president. Would you vote for him?

Jeremy Westenn
March 27th, 2008, 02:25 PM
And Hillary has experience doing what? Attending state dinners hardly qualifies you as a foreign affairs "expert".

No but I imagine being on the Senate Armed Services Commitee probably counts for something, or did you conveniently forget?

Jeremy Westenn
March 27th, 2008, 02:28 PM
George W. Bush has eight years of experience as president. Would you vote for him?

First off, don't compare Hillary to Bush. Secondly, perhaps Georgie not having any experience is part of the reason why we are in the mess we are in now. So, maybe, Hillary's long time in office is a + for her.

Don't compare things that aren't comparable as if they were valid. Your not speaking about Hillary by writing that, your trying to get him to respond to something completely different from her but everything to do with the current President.

Laisrean
March 27th, 2008, 02:36 PM
First off, don't compare Hillary to Bush.

Why not? They both have a lot in common. After all, they both support the war, torture, and the Patriot Act. You don't have to take my word for it, though. Just look into her voting record and you'll see she voted in favor of all of those things and more.

So basically, Hillary is just George Bush dressed in drag.

Phoenix Blue
March 27th, 2008, 02:45 PM
First off, don't compare Hillary to Bush.
Why not? They both have experience. I'm pointing out that "experience" is not the be all and end all of a candidate's qualifications -- and can actually be a negative if what I want is something other than four more years of the same old shit.

Phoenix Blue
March 27th, 2008, 02:46 PM
No but I imagine being on the Senate Armed Services Commitee probably counts for something, or did you conveniently forget?
Non-sequitur. The Armed Services Committee has nothing to do with foreign policy. From the Committee on Armed Services Web site (http://armed-services.senate.gov/about.htm):


Aeronautical and space activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems or military operations; the common defense; the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, and the Department of the Air Force, generally; maintenance and operation of the Panama Canal, including administration, sanitation, and government of the Canal Zone; military research and development; national security aspects of nuclear energy; naval petroleum reserves, except those in Alaska; pay, promotion, retirement, and other benefits and privileges of members of the Armed Forces, including overseas education of civilian and military dependents; selective service system; and strategic and critical materials necessary for the common defense.

RoseKitten
March 27th, 2008, 02:50 PM
Why not? They both have experience. I'm pointing out that "experience" is not the be all and end all of a candidate's qualifications -- and can actually be a negative if what I want is something other than four more years of the same old shit.

I never said it was the end all. But it is a HUGE concern for me when it comes to Obama. I don't want a n00b in office, and I don't want Hillary either. (If they were all still alive), what about Washington, Lincoln, etc.? They have experience as well, and they did some pretty awesome things. Hillary scares me if given an office, but for different reasons than Obama.

All I've been saying is that from a party stand-point, if the Dems don't want a Rep president, than they should nominate Hillary, because the experience does matter in the end. I don't think Obama could hold his own as president, and while I wouldn't likely like Hillary as president, she'd atleast get things done instead of being walked all over.

*shudder* I really don't want either of them in office though. O.o

Laisrean
March 27th, 2008, 03:02 PM
Why not? They both have experience. I'm pointing out that "experience" is not the be all and end all of a candidate's qualifications -- and can actually be a negative if what I want is something other than four more years of the same old shit.

There's that old saying that power corrupts, so in Obama's case having not been in power probably makes him less corrupted than someone like Ted Kennedy or yes, Hillary Clinton. Someone who has been in the system for a long time forgets what it is like for ordinary citizens, and besides, what does experience really mean for the occupation of president anyway? George Washington never had a political office before becoming president, but most would argue he was a fine president and perhaps one of the best. Nixon, on the other hand, how long was he in political office before he finally managed to weasel his way into the white house?

So as far as presidents go, it seems the ones without experience ended up being the best. Do we want another Washington, or do we want another Nixon?

banondraig
March 27th, 2008, 03:03 PM
I 've always been curious as to what exactly the "thirty-five years of experience" Hillary touts in her commercials are supposed to be. Is she counting her law practice in Little Rock?

banondraig
March 27th, 2008, 03:04 PM
There's that old saying that power corrupts, so in Obama's case having not been in power probably makes him less corrupted than someone like Ted Kennedy or yes, Hillary Clinton. Someone who has been in the system for a long time forgets what it is like for ordinary citizens, and besides, what does experience really mean for the occupation of president anyway? George Washington never had a political office before becoming president, but most would argue he was a fine president and perhaps one of the best. Nixon, on the other hand, how long was he in political office before he finally managed to weasel his way into the white house?

So as far as presidents go, it seems the ones without experience ended up being the best. Do we want another Washington, or do we want another Nixon?

Being a general is political experience.

Laisrean
March 27th, 2008, 03:08 PM
I 've always been curious as to what exactly the "thirty-five years of experience" Hillary touts in her commercials are supposed to be. Is she counting her law practice in Little Rock?

Hillary's alleged political experience isn't very impressive. She was the wife of a president and she's been in the senate for a few years. I suppose she's been in the senate a couple years longer than Obama, but big deal. She's not very experienced politically either.

Laisrean
March 27th, 2008, 03:10 PM
Being a general is political experience.

I suppose you're right.

What about JFK? He probably didn't have anymore experience than Obama does now (and was about the same age). Don't people think JFK was a decent president despite being young and inexperienced?

Phoenix Blue
March 27th, 2008, 04:54 PM
All I've been saying is that from a party stand-point, if the Dems don't want a Rep president, than they should nominate Hillary, because the experience does matter in the end.
Do you seriously think Hillary Clinton would be able to claim more experience than John McCain?


Being a general is political experience.
It is today. I'm not sure the same thing was true 225 years ago.

David19
March 27th, 2008, 05:07 PM
You can be pagan and conservative because to me, they both support personal responsibility over waiting around for a handout.

While I agree with you about Pagans being conservative, you can't generalise Paganism (e.g. saying Paganism advocates personal responsiblity, etc).


Not to mention, it'll be great when McCain doesn't have to say anything, he'll be able to take Clinton's sound bites for use against Obama, or Obama's against Clinton. Either way, it keeps him above the fray.

I'm not sure having another right-wing President would be so great, at least from the perspective of LGBT people.

Apparantly, although he's stated he doesn't believe it's a "sin", he doesn't believe we should have marriage rights, the U.S. doesn't need laws banning discrimination against us, and also, said LGBT shouldn't be in the military and called it an "intolerable risk", etc.

See these:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/200/McCain_Homosexuality_not_defect_or_sin_1120.html

http://www.sldn.org/binary-data/SLDN_ARTICLES/pdf_file/3877.pdf - letter by McCain where he talks about gays in the military

McCain thoughts on homosexualityhttp://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:6E0E3VEsQTIJ:lots-o-thoughts.blogspot.com/2007/05/mccain-on-homosexuality.html+McCain+and+homosexuality&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=uk

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/bios/view.bg?articleid=1063099

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080128203031AAG37jr

He does seem a lot cooler than other Republicans and the most liberal one I've seen, but I'm still not sure about him.

Are there any other liberal candidates running?.

IvyWitch
March 27th, 2008, 06:41 PM
My impression of McCain is that he's being rather slick. I don't think he actually believes in most of the socially conservative policies that the religious conservatives want passed, but right now he's appeasing them by apparently flip-flopping from previous statements and supporting the socially conservative ideas. If he gets elected, I think there's a small chance he'll be supporting a federal marriage ban.

Yeah, it's a pretty dick thing to do (saying something just to get votes), but these days that's how you play the game.

I think that if McCain were to take power away from the religious conservatives it will bring some respect and dignity back to the Republican party.

pawnman
March 27th, 2008, 06:57 PM
No but I imagine being on the Senate Armed Services Commitee probably counts for something, or did you conveniently forget?

Isn't being on the Foreign Relations Committee experience? Guess who's on that one...go on, guess.

pawnman
March 27th, 2008, 07:02 PM
I suppose you're right.

What about JFK? He probably didn't have anymore experience than Obama does now (and was about the same age). Don't people think JFK was a decent president despite being young and inexperienced?

JFK was a fantastic president.

Experience isn't the end-all be-all, but JFK certainly had LIFE and LEADERSHIP experience coming out of WWII, even if he didn't have POLITICAL experience. Sometimes, one can substitute for the other.

In any case, Obama seems pretty naive about foreign policy to me. Like sending a campaign staffer to Canada to tell them "I didn't really mean what I said about NAFTA".

Philosophia
March 27th, 2008, 08:04 PM
Hillary's alleged political experience isn't very impressive. She was the wife of a president and she's been in the senate for a few years. I suppose she's been in the senate a couple years longer than Obama, but big deal. She's not very experienced politically either.

Exactly. She's only been a senator for two years longer than Obama. I honestly don't believe her years as "wife" to the president should count.

Laisrean
March 27th, 2008, 08:33 PM
Exactly. She's only been a senator for two years longer than Obama. I honestly don't believe her years as "wife" to the president should count.

They didn't count. "First lady" is not a political office - though I think she probably thought it was.

Philosophia
March 27th, 2008, 08:43 PM
They didn't count. "First lady" is not a political office - though I think she probably thought it was.

I agree. But, unfortunately, many people do assume that it should count.

Jeremy Westenn
March 27th, 2008, 11:44 PM
Are there any other liberal candidates running?.

Yes, Hillary Clinton. I believe she has a much better track record on LGBT equal rights issues.

IvyWitch
March 27th, 2008, 11:51 PM
Yes, Hillary Clinton. I believe she has a much better track record on LGBT equal rights issues.

The only democratic candidate who supported equal marriage rights for homosexuals was Kucinich.

From on the issues (http://www.ontheissues.org), just for comparison sake
Obama


Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)
Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality. (Oct 2007)
Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)
Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007)
Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)
Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)

Hillary


Telling kids about gay couples is parental discretion. (Sep 2007)
Positive about civil unions, with full equality of benefits. (Aug 2007)
Let states decide gay marriage; they're ahead of feds. (Aug 2007)
GLBT progress since 2000, when I marched in gay pride parade. (Aug 2007)
Supports DOMA, which Bill Clinton signed. (Jul 2007)
Don't ask don't tell was an important transition step. (Jun 2007)
2004:defended traditional marriage; 2006:voted for same-sex. (May 2007)
Federal Marriage Amendment would be terrible step backwards. (Oct 2006)
Gay soldiers need to shoot straight, not be straight. (Nov 2003)
End hate crimes and other intolerance. (Sep 2000)
Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits. (Feb 2000)
Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation. (Dec 1999)

Not much info on voting records on the subject on the site though.