Took me a while but I think I have a preference for one of the candidates - what do you think?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

On the one hand, I have Hillary Clinton, who isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but she also isn't all bad either. She's a woman, which I love because I'm a woman. It would be great having a woman finally as president. I trust that she will do whatever she can for women, children, the old and the poor (tho to be honest, I'm still pissed off her refusing to vote on the bankruptcy bill that so hurt women). However, the years of abuse the GOP meted out on her has branded her forever with a scarlet letter. Attacking her during the GE primaries would be too easy for the GOP. They wouldn't even have to spend money on it to design some swiftboating club. The lies are already "out there" from years ago: Vince Foster, lesbian this and that, extramarital affairs with men, big ankles like Laura Bush, and all the rest of the demonic crap the bottomfeeding GOP made up about her.

On the other hand, we have Barack Obama, who isn't perfect at all and pissed me off with his Reagan comment (Reagan is truly burning in hell today I'm convinced for all the evil he did). However, he's not bad at all either. And he's black, and we know there's racism everywhere in this country. But I'd love to see a black man in office. However, we know the GOP is out there waiting to attack him. In fact, they already have attacks: "Obama bin laden," he's gay, he's a strung-out drug addict, he's beholden to Muslims, and the rest of the evil lies the GOP pull out of their @#$.

Somehow, tho, I think that Hillary Clinton "feels" to the country like rewinding and replaying a very painful past. The wrongful impeachment of President Clinton, the neverending insults, attacks, the inability of President Clinton to get anything passed that Democrats wanted because of a right wing Congress, a right wing media, right wing advisors, and a right-wing-leaning Democratic Party. It's like last night's chili and alcohol still in your stomach and making you feel nauseous. It's knowing we're going to be forced to watch the skewering of Hillary Clinton by the GOP and the media ALL OVER AGAIN like last time, only this time with more fervor. It's like an old boyfriend things didn't go well with, and having to go back with him. It's demoralizing.

On the other hand, Obama is fresh and new. Just the fact that the young want him is wonderful because the young WILL BE THE MAJORITY VOTERS. This will guarantee us a 2nd term and a future without too many Repukes in office. Sure, the wingnuts will attack him in every way, but I somehow think that we're more ready to attack them back because we're now awake, alive and ready to destroy Repukes, which we were not during the Clinton years. Also, somehow (I may be wrong) but I think he will do the right thing for women, children, the old and the poor. He's a black man, but he's no Clarence Thomas who sold himself out in exchange for acceptance. And he's no dummy. I think we'd be far more ready to go to bat for something brand new, than for the same thing all over again. Also, in case no one has thought of this, and it may seem shallow as hell, the fact that he's a black man and his name is Barack Obama, and he's at least familiar with Islam, would help give a new face to the U.S. and the Muslims would see us differently. He could help bring the Middle East to peace.

What do you all think?

[rodeodance]

1. "painful past"--I see the 1990s as peace and prosperity.

[Kittycat]

2. And riddled with scandal and embarrassment

You cant' deny that.

[WCGreen]

5. MAnufactured scandal and emarrassment...

Don't think for a moment that the GOP is going to morph into the care bears or the get along gang...

[TwilightGardener]

6. Yeah, it was genius, how the RW made up that whole Lewinsky thing.

[Kittycat]

7. Can't forget the pardons

Nothing shady going on there, or the subsequent donations to follow.

[TwilightGardener]

8. Yeah, the RW made that up too. They are truly talented--Bill and Hillary didn't

give them ANY ammo at all. :sarcasm:

[WCGreen]

14. And the pardons came after the second term...

I am talking about the crap that started before they even took office...

[WCGreen]

11. You do know it was all the other crap that made the Lewinski affair

into an impeachable offense...

Remember Travelgate...

How about the supposed people Clinton had killed...

Vince Foster...

The Cocaine smuggling...

All that and more was put up first...

Lewinski was well into the second term...

[TwilightGardener]

15. Well, Bill Clinton sort of made it into an impeachable offense because

he perjured himself--he lied. Could have told the truth, but he didn't.

[WCGreen]

20. But the point was the Right wing would be on the attack from day one...

and I don't believe they would have ever gotten to the oath part of the process if all that other stuff didn't proceed the Blue Dress...

[TwilightGardener]

27. Here's the thing: when you know the hounds are after you, you don't

keep dangling fresh meat. He was stupid. He KNEW they were trying to bring him down, but he just couldn't help himself, could he? And that's not the only stupid thing the Clintons did. So, unless Obama has a record of stupidity to match, somewhere in his past, I'll take my chances on what the Repubs might try to pull on him. Seems he was generally a little smarter, a little more careful in his political career.

[WCGreen]

30. Obama will be on the defensive from day one...

Just like Edwards or Richardson or Bidden or any democrat taking the oath of office...

It's how they operate...

That's my point...

[TwilightGardener]

34. OK...So? Maybe Obama will give them less ammo. Everything Hillary has

tried against him backfired, anyway. That might happen with the Pubbies too. Going vicious on him seems to not work very well for those who try it.

[WCGreen]

60. The size of the ammo doesn't matter...

As long as they keep shooting...

All I mean is that no matter which one wins, the attacks will come and come fast...

[Hippo_Tron]

70. He didn't legally commit perjury

He did lie to the American people about something we had no business knowing about.

Sorry but Monica Lewinsky was a manufactured scandal by Ken Starr who had no business investigating it.

[Sapphocrat]

56. You need to read David Brock's "Blinded by the Right." n/t

[TwilightGardener]

4. We're not going back to the 90's. And Bill Clinton isn't on the ballot.

You can't go home again, as they say. The forces that led to good things in the 90's don't exist anymore--every era is unique.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

16. Our president was impeached. We were attacked by GOPers for our views....

.... the media was right wing to the max, the Congress denied Clinton almost everything unless it was right wing, we had to daily hear the abuse of Hillary Clinton, and it was the beginning of NAFTA taking our jobs away to other countries. Things were better than under Bush. I grant you that. But everything is better when there's not a a Repuke president.

[chascarrillo]

22. So you want a GOP-controlled Congress, too?

[Pirate Smile]

3. I think you're smart, maybe because we think alike in a lot of ways.

:)

[neutron]

9. Yup You don't look at your candidate too closely

because you might not like what you see.

Like screwing his district after taking money from nuclear interests.

[Pirate Smile]

10. You don't know anything about me but don't let that get in the way of your

vitriol.

[stillcool]

33. and then there's this...

but maybe this is from too long ago?

Illinois Times website: illinois.gyrosite.com

POSTED ON MARCH 11, 2004:
Head of the class

Barack Obama banks on his progressive legislative record to win a seat in the U.S. Senate. Is that enough for Illinois voters?
By Todd Spivak

Despite his weary voice, Obama began the day with an extra bounce in his step. Just weeks before the election, he suddenly became the front-runner in most statewide polls for the first time since announcing his candidacy in January 2003. The Chicago Tribune had endorsed him in that day's paper, calling him "one of the strongest Democratic candidates Illinois has seen in some time."
------------------------------------------------------
Obama, 42, graduated from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he became the first African-American president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He journeyed to Chicago as a civil-rights attorney and community activist. In 1992, during Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign, Obama was director of Illinois Project VOTE!, a massive voter-registration and education drive credited with helping elect Carol Moseley Braun to the U.S. Senate.

In 1996 Obama was elected to the state Senate, representing Chicago's 13th District. He teaches constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, and lives with his wife, Michelle, and two daughters in a high-rise building overlooking Lake Michigan just outside the U. of C. campus in Hyde Park.

Although Obama has achieved much during his tenure in Springfield, he is counting on his stellar performance in the legislative session last spring to catapult him ahead of the pack in the March 16 primary.

Obama rode a publicity wave by sponsoring such legislation as a bill banning the use of the diet supplement ephedra, which killed a Northwestern University football player, and another one preventing the use of pepper spray or pyrotechnics in nightclubs in the wake of the tragic deaths of 21 people during a stampede at the now-notorious E2 nightclub in Chicago.

Other legislation sponsored by Obama was monumental for the state and the entire country, according to one political ally, House Majority Leader Barbara Flynn Currie, D-Chicago. "Barack passed some particularly outstanding legislation last year that reflects his progressive values and progressive ideals," Currie says.

Obama's bill requiring police to record interrogations of homicide suspects was the first of its kind in the country. It has been hailed as the most far-reaching reform the Illinois legislature has passed in its efforts to repair a crippled criminal-justice system.

With another bill, Obama sought to combat racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of stopped motorists. In accordance with the new law, the collected data will be forwarded to the state Department of Transportation, which will analyze the information to determine whether motorists are being pulled over on the basis of race.

Other significant Obama-sponsored legislation expanded the Kid Care program to take in an additional 20,000 children who lacked health insurance, provided an estimated $26 million in tax relief to low-income families by making the state Earned Income Tax Credit refundable, and protected the state Open Meetings Act by requiring public bodies to tape closed-door meetings.
-----------
URL for this story: http://www.illinoistimes.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A2984
http://www.illinoistimes.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3a2984

[QC]

12. "On the other hand, Obama is fresh and new."

You make him sound like a fabric softener.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

18. lol Sorry :-) He is new compared with people who have been around long in some capacity nt

[Cha]

32. No, you make Obama sound

as bad you want..Sarah is speaking from the heart.

[noamnety]

13. I see a lot of fluff

and very little discussion of their actual votes in this post.

I think that echoes the decision making process of the general public, which is probably a reflection of the media, to some degree. It reads like corporate media "analysis" where we avoid asking the hard questions, we gloss over them in favor of reporting on what the average Joe or Joanna on the street thinks about their marketing campaigns.

Investigative journalism is basically dead. Instead we just have one big clusterfuck of a "focus group."

I think that's a big problem with American politics.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

23. There was a discussion in Air America the other day on how people vote on emotions.....

... and people are not going to change simply because someone says they should. People will vote on emotions. People will vote for whoever can give them a good feeling. It's the same way we pick the person we love. If someone makes us feel good, we want to be with them.

[noamnety]

39. While I believe that's true for the general public

I don't believe it's something to aspire to. Emotions are manipulated primarily by the campaign directors - and it's done exactly by using focus groups.

Hae you ever watched "Our Brand Is Crisis"? Your local library system might have it. Ours did. I cannot recommend it strongly enough, if you want to understand how campaigns very deliberately manipulate the emotions of the public - to get them to the "he makes me feel good, I want to be with him" mentality.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

44. Oh I agree. One ought to look at all the issues....

... However, it is true that while we have a brain, we are emotional creatures and we are affected by emotions all day long. We are unable to push a button and divorce ourselves from our emotions. They're written into our DNA. It's also true that we tend to want to be with whoever gives us hope, rather than with whoever brings up memories of frustration and/or difficulties. That's the reason for motivational speakers. They motivate us to do what we need to do, give us energy, and give us a push. The ideal is to have someone who is a hope-filled, motivating leader, coupled with many of the qualities and ideas we Democrats want.

[noamnety]

45. I've written this elsewhere, but

I don't think all that feel-good hope crap is going to be any consolation to the Iraqis who died because he continued to fund this occupation, or those in Iran who will die because he wants to do another round of clinton-style sanctions against them now.

That's swell that his focus groups latched onto a slogan that appeals to the masses, but for the people who are victims of his actual policies, and the US actions he decided to fund, it really doesn't matter how many starry-eyed supporters he has over here.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

49. If you remove the terms, "hope" and "feel" and "good" you're still left with the fact that....

... if a person motivates, and makes people feel good, they're more likely to be able to get things done. You can take any person who is not a good motivator and cannot convince, and have them use the words, "hope" and "feel" and "good" and it will still not motivate. Motivation is a whole package, it doesn't just consist of throwing a few words like, "hope" and "good" and "feel" at people, like crumbs. For example, JFK was a GREAT motivator. As a result, people didn't feel hopeless, a feeling of empathy and altruism took over, and things began to improve because the ones who "had," were okay with the ones who "had not" doing okay.

[noamnety]

51. JFK was a great motivator.

I'm sure the people in Vietnam took great comfort in that.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

53. Name one American president or any leader in Europe that was anti-war.....

And I'm assuming you're anti-war. Also, is that your only issue in this campaign. And if so, whom are you voting for?

And while you're at it, read this:


President Kennedy came into office with a belief that America could and should shape the destiny of the world's developing countries. Vietnam, however, was not primarily what he had in mind. Vietnam was not on the president's list of priorities nor was it discussed as key issues at the transition meeting between Kennedy and President Eisenhower. Indeed, Kennedy remarked in the middle of his administration, after Vietnam had become a more urgent issue, "You know, Eisenhower never mentioned it, never uttered the word Vietnam."

President Kennedy believed that the instability of developing countries demanded new approaches. Kennedy was especially taken by the analysis of MIT economist Walt W. Rostow, who believed that all nations followed the same general path of economic and social development. He argued that nations became unstable as the reached the phase he called "modernization."

The Kennedy administration was guided in part by this modernization model as it considered a way to protect South Vietnam while help it throughout the stages of economic growth. Most of Kennedy's advisers believed that South Vietnam was not in danger. As Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense said once, "North Vietnam will never beat us. They can't even make ice cubes."

Only one of Kennedy's key advisers spoke against the war. Secretary of State for Economic Affairs George Ball, warned the president that Vietnam would not easily bent to America's will. To maintain the independent South Vietnam, Ball insisted, would mean that in "five years there will be 300,000 American soldiers fighting in Vietnam." To this prophecy, Kennedy replied, "George you're crazier than hell."

In May 1961, President Kennedy sent 500 more American advisers to Vietnam, bringing American forces to 1,400 men. The military wanted more men saying that with 13,000 troops they could wipe out the Vietcong. Kennedy didn't know what to do; as men he trusted argued both sides of the issue.

http://www.vietnamwar.com/johnkennedyrole.htm

[noamnety]

58. I've read the link previously.

That first line is a problem, no?

And the end: "Kennedy, however, left no doubt that he will see the war through until he won reelection in 1964." Damn. That's a hell of a reason to schedule a war.

He, like our mainstream candidates today, also had that unfortunate problem of saying one thing with his mouth, and another with his wallet.

"I don't want to escalate hostilities there" as he increased the military "advisors" in Vietnam to 12,000.

Gee, how could he have possibly known that would lead to war? :eyes:

What do you chalk that up to? Ignorance? Inexperience? Dishonesty?

Do you think in the long run the Vietnam war, with its 5 million deaths was a reasonable tradeoff for us having a nice president that made us feel all warm and fuzzy about ourselves and full of hope?

My somewhat more pragmatic approach is: Fuck the fancy speeches. Stop killing people.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

59. You want no war at all. So do I. How likely is that to happen on this planet? nt

[noamnety]

62. If I'm catching your drift right

I think what you're saying with posts like that or lines like this: "Name one American president or any leader in Europe that was anti-war" is that we're always going to have a war mongering president, and I need to get with the program.

And I should do it with enthusiasm, and withhold critique when we kill 5 million people - if the person who led us into the war, or kept us in the war, or continued to fund the war "inspires" us.

This is who we are - a nation that commits genocide for profits, so shut up and support it.

No. I'm not going to support that. I think a democrat who funds the war contractors while thousands or millions are killed as a result of US foreign policy is likely to be more inspiring and give the illusion of supporting human rights better than a republican who does the same. I'll give you that.

But I'm not going to clasp my hands adoringly over my heart when I hear him speak, and rave about how he's the new hope of humanity. That sort of "motivation" - the kind that motivates us to shut up and accept a government that commits crimes against humanity while inspiring us to feel good about ourselves because we volunteered at a soup kitchen for the first time ever ... I think that might be, in the end, every bit as dangerous for the rest of the world as a president who inspires us to overturn the system completely.

One is like the opiate of the masses, and I am disgusted with the American psyche that refers to the administration that escalated Vietnam into the hell hole it was, as "Camelot." The other choice we're "allowed" to make is more like a hive of angry wasps.

As for stopping all wars on the planet, if you want to know how we're going to keep one country from attacking another, we can't do that. We can, however, refuse to vote for people who fund those wars, or people who are already talking about how to start the next war. If that means we have to tip over the apple cart to make that happen, upset the system a little, so be it. That's better than us loading up the apple cart and helping them push it toward the next Vietnam as we sing their praises.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

63. I agree 100% with you -

that this nation is an empire trying to control the planet for the purpose of creating a world-wide oligarchy whose control is here. One would think, from reading the textbooks we are taught from, that this is a country strictly existing to do good, take in refugees and the downtrodden and we even have verses saying that:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Yet behind that beautiful poem fragment is a technologically advanced country that to this day attacks other countries and kills them without provocation, fought a war to keep human beings enslaved, and systematically starved, shot, and stole from First Nation peoples, among other things.

I UNDERSTAND YOU.

However, I'm not saying that you need to get with the program, shut up, and just learn to live with it. No, I'm saying stop accusing selective presidents and candidates to blame, when all of them are guilty to some degree.

What you're asking for will NOT happen overnight. And it sure won't happen if we sit on our rears and ask others to do it. And it DEFINITELY won't happen, EVER, with Republicans in the White House.

That's all I'm saying. Work with what there is and shape it to what you want. Don't take what there is, and scream, "THROW IT ALL OUT THE WINDOW AND START OVER THIS VERY SECOND!" because that is just not going to happen. It will not happen. If YOU had a military, maybe it would happen, and not without major bloodshed. But you don't. All you can do is work with what there is, and try and shape it. That's all I'm saying.

[noamnety]

64. We probably have more similarities than differences

based on that post.

This is where we disagree: "Work with what there is and shape it to what you want."

I have zero faith that the most effective way to discourage neoliberalism is to enthusiastically support neoliberal candidates.

I have a good friend, an Obama supporter, who said that maybe once Obama is in office, she thinks he will listen to us and we can get him to change. Elsewhere in this thread I see the analogy of relationships being used, and I think it works here as well. I'm not a big believer in the theory that you should enter into a relationship with a man with the belief that once you snag him, you can make him change. My experience has been that the guy you marry is the same exact same guy you end up divorcing. :D

[Sarah Ibarruri]

65. My friend, I never thought I'd meet a bigger pessimist than me

I'm pessimistic enough to believe I'll never get to see fairness and justice unless there's a mass-scale revolution. But I'm optimistic enough to believe there will be one, and that it started as a tiny snowball of outrage getting larger and larger all the time, spreading and picking up speed. Everyone here, and all libs all over the nation are that once-tiny, now growing snowball. Never have we known such a huge amount of truth about things until now. Before the Internet we knew nothing. We had an inkling that all wasn't right, but never did we have the wealth of information now at our fingertips about everything going on. We now even know the secrets that were concealed from us when we had no Internet. People are outraged. This is a good thing. Outrage is important. :toast:

Oh and don't go totally overboard pessimistic or then you'll go catatonic and be useless to this country.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. We don't have a choice but to aspire to it if we're going to beat the Republicans in November

Bush played on peoples' emotions in 2004 just as Clinton did in 1992. That is how they won. If we are going to beat John McCain in November we are going to have to play on peoples' emotions.

[peoli]

17. I think Basques and Lisa Bonet are always right.

[TexasObserver]

19. I think you're right. Some relationships are better avoided.

We've had a 16 year relationship with the Clintons, and it's always about us taking care of them, us carrying their water, explaining away their moral and political failings. We can't expect the country to vote Democratic if we send them Hillary to represent our party. Find any evidence that is what the great middle in America want.

I sincerely believe she can never get 50% of the vote, and since I believe it matters that Democrats prevail, how can I watch her take it down to sure defeat and disaster? It she's the nominee in November, we might as well forget having any significant role in the country until at least 2011.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

24. I plan on voting for whoever is the nominee because the alternative (GOP) is monstrous....

but you're right, I think we need a new face to move us forward.

[Armstead]

21. Good choice

I disagree with your interpretation of Obama's Reagan comments -- he wasn't endorsing them -- but overall I've agreed with many of your posts.

Between the two of them, Obama at least represents a fresh start, and I believe he would be more open to progressive change.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

26. Believe me, I'm not 100% in either camp, and it really upset me about the Reagan comment.....

.... but I've come to the decision that we need someone to move us forward who can motivate us. Someone from the past might cause us to give up.

[AGirl]

25. "like the woman going back with the old boyfriend" - demoralizing.

Obama - male, fresh, new - yay








sexist bs.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

29. Oh I know! I married and divorced the same guy 3 times (this is God's honest truth)....

it never worked. I know, I know, I'm crazy for having done it. I kept going back to him because we shared a past, I was familiar with him, my parents knew him well and liked him, I knew he wasn't a serial killer (lol), I hate change so I detest dating, and so on.

:banghead:

[AGirl]

35. there are some men that are always fresh, young, new and inspiring!

ahhh...what a great feeling to have a great man to be the leader , who is so good with words!

women..so tedious with all their talks of policies! so outdated! so boring! so old!!!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

36. Well, the same one I married and divorced 3 times was never fresh and new LOL! nt

[AGirl]

37. LoL. let's rally behind the new man! hes the leader of the new world order!

protecting , enriching the women and children of America!1

[Sarah Ibarruri]

43. Now you're really going out on a limb there - New World Order and all? nt

[newmajority]

42. Neither are the Bush-Clintons

From your own history, it sounds like you know this already, but Albert Einstein said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. We have seen the results of 28 years of Bush-Clinton, and the results have been far more bad than good.

We can get off this train before it wrecks completely, and the opportunity is now.

[Vinca]

28. Until the trade agreements had their full impact, I thought the Clinton

years were pretty good, too. There was a boom, which I suppose was the first wave of globalization taking hold and stocks going up and everyone happy they could buy a toaster at Walmart for $7.00. Then the toast got cold. Factories boarded up. $25 an hour jobs were replaced by $7 an hour jobs. Main Streets were decimated because Walmart was importing cheap crap from dubious sources and setting up shop outside every small town. And it has continued - getting worse under King George - until this day. It kind of takes the bloom off the rose.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

31. Globalization killed our country. :( I don't know why Clinton agreed to it. nt

[Armstead]

47. He didn;t just agree to it -- He bought it hook, line and sinker and pushed it

Clinton "knew better" than the traditional Democrats, labor and progressives who tried to warn him of the folly of these policies.

But Clinton chose to listen to his corporate/Wall St. buddies and went along with the Washington Concensus and left us with a set of economic policies that have been a disaster -- and will continue to erode our economy unless we have a significant course coreection.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

50. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, Clinton put the finishing touches on G Bush Sr.'s..

.. NAFTA project. It's has killed the U.S. No, actually it hasn't "killed the U.S.", it has killed the majority of Americans, while the small minority of already mega-rich Americans got richer and richer and richer and richer. It's REVOLTING and NAUSEATING what NAFTA has done.

[Armstead]

73. He pushed it aggressively

[Tatiana]

38. I have no doubt you will make a good decision.

Somehow, tho, I think that Hillary Clinton "feels" to the country like rewinding and replaying a very painful past. The wrongful impeachment of President Clinton, the neverending insults, attacks, the inability of President Clinton to get anything passed that Democrats wanted because of a right wing Congress, a right wing media, right wing advisors, and a right-wing-leaning Democratic Party. It's like last night's chili and alcohol still in your stomach and making you feel nauseous. It's knowing we're going to be forced to watch the skewering of Hillary Clinton by the GOP and the media ALL OVER AGAIN like last time, only this time with more fervor. It's like an old boyfriend things didn't go well with, and having to go back with him. It's demoralizing.

I don't think I've ever seen a more accurate and concise summary EVER about the conflict surrounding a Clinton nomination.

To me, now that I don't have a dog in this fight, it's about the pros and cons. And Clinton simply has too many cons to be viable.

[Colobo]

40. Great assesment of their positive qualities.

I'm with you; Obama is the fresh face America needs.

[flpoljunkie]

41. Intriguing post, Sarah, and I like your conclusions.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. I See A Bunch Of Really Poor Lines Of Logic Being Used To Determine Your Choice. No Substance.

But to each their own as it relates to why the have the choice of candidate they do.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

52. Here's my line of logic: we need the YOUNG to vote....

... the YOUNG are the future voters. The YOUNG are all excited about Obama.

When Obama's ideas are weighed against H. Clinton's ideas, they're not that far apart.

But Obama motivates the YOUNG, and that's important for the future of this country and to guarantee that in the near future, Repukes won't be finishing off what's left of this country.

[hfojvt]

55. seems like a logical enough way to make a close call

Myself, I still think Hillary is significantly to the right of Obama on economic issues
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/70

[Sarah Ibarruri]

57. I found two of your points very interesting....

One, that both Clintons are fiscally conservative. That they are. He went finished off what G Bush Sr. started (NAFTA), and now we've got a destroyed, jobless country to prove it.

Second, about Republicans not voting for H. Clinton. I agree. No Republican will ever vote for H. Clinton. Republicans that are sick of the GOP, are all flocking to Obama because to them there is no alternative in the Dem camp. They despise H. Clinton. I understand that part of the reason for that is the war the GOP itself waged against H. Clinton, the epithets, insults, attacks, and the rampant sexism. However, it's done, it's a fact, GOPers believe all that sh*t, and it's too late to change it. I'm not going to wait around to have to defend her every step of the way. Can you imagine that? Part II of Defend H. Clinton against the GOP. Nope. I don't want to go there again!

[JimGinPA]

48. "It's like last night's chili and alcohol still in your stomach and making you feel nauseous."

Best analogy I've read in days.

:rofl:

[cooolandrew]

54. May I be one of the first to welcom you to Team Obama destination the future plase wear seat belts..

... The millenium begins 2008.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

66. :-) Why thanks! nt

[blues90]

61. these are your reasons ?

Lets drag Obama's wife out and put her under the microscope and see what we can find .

Why is that Hillary is blamed for everything Bill has done ? I am not supporting either because I can't hold my nose one more time , but this crap abot the old and the new fresh thing , what are we talking about some armpit stench product with the fresh crap .

First Obama has all this experience yet he is fresh , I what sense ? Choose one .

[Sarah Ibarruri]

67. I'm not blaming her but they're married.....

However, I'm much more concerned by the fact that she was dragged through the mud by GOPers and the attacks against her which lasted longer than a decade, will merely be used again. For godssakes, no Repuke would vote for H. Clinton. I know that. You know that. I don't think she's a bad person. She isn't. I just think Obama has a better chance of getting in the WH, and will cause the entire population to rise up and live up to the task of bringing this country back from the ashes.

[jenmito]

68. I agree with you and you are NOT shallow with your last point in your OP

about him being a Black man (with experience living in Indonesia, etc.). It's a BIG plus IMO that our president's middle name is Hussein and he says he'll talk to our enemies. Of course the Repubs. and his enemies try to use his name to smear him and call him a secret Muslim who wants to change our govt. to Sharia law, :eyes: but the truth is it's a GOOD thing to be represented with an American with such a fresh face and open mind as Obama!

[madmom]

72. Do you honestly think the right will not drag Obama thru the mud? It doesn't

matter if what they say is true or not (remember Kerry?) they are not ready to play nice, they don't know how to play nice and they will sling mud. It's the old meme "say it often enough and it will be believed" That's how they did it before and that's how they'll do it this time, guaranteed.

[blues90]

74. Just what is it about Obama that makes you feel

Obama will cause the entire population to rise up and live up to the task of bringing this country back from the ashes.

I don't think that anything will cause the entire population to suddenly rise up in unison all being for the same thing , they may rise up but for many different reasons and most of these will be opposition .

No matter who becomes president you do realize by the time we see any change you may be 25 years older and this depends soley who the next president is if this country stays on the course of recovery .

On top of this bush still has almost a year left to make things even worse plus many things are already on their way to becoming much worse right now and you have to stop that first .

I can't see Bush facing penalties for the crimes he has committed , people will want to move on instead of trying to fix the wrongs .

I doubt any repub will vote for Obama either , these are primaries where repubs can vote for Dems but this may not reflect the outcome of the general election . You may end up with the religious right repubs voting for Obama and then what happens if this becomes the case . People say the religious right will not vote but this is not a certainty .

Obama as well as Hillary have things they have both voted for that are not liberal in nature .

My intent is not to convert anyone , It's not like I have my future ahead of me . The Iraq occupation has to end in order to fix the economy and these tax cuts for the rich have to end and these high rates of credit interest have to end . I have not heard any real plans from either candidate how this will happen or if it will .

What candidates do in primaires is address and say what they know the people want to hear , then comes the debates for the general election when more talk of larger issues may come out and then people will see if Obama can handle the heat or Hillary can , who ever does not win the Dem majority vote we will never know who would have been best .

Both are now trying to gather as many votes and delegates as possible and this is their sole goal .

[jenmito]

69. Those are good, valid reasons...

Sorry, but Bill is no regular spouse. He's an ex-president and Hillary is running on his record when convenient! And he WILL motivate the Repubs. Bill mentions what he did in office as if Hillary helped make it all happen (except for the bad stuff, of course, which he says she had nothing to do with), and it's ALL going to be fair game.

Obama has nearly 20 years of experience and he IS fresh because the vast majority of that experience is not in Washington, D.C.