<p>^^Combination of both.</p>
<p>3bm103: Yes, it is most important that Obama is running for President out of love for the country, not his ego. I think McCain is too. For Hillary I think it is a matter of personal ambition. </p>
<p>Having said that, I think Hitler also loved his country, so that alone is not a sufficient reason to vote for Obama. </p>
<p>What I like about Obama is that his love of country is not the narrow militaristic view of most patriots (including McCain) but one which includes a love of the entire planet. That is why he doesn’t embarass us overseas. Obama could truly become a world leader, respected for his leadership of the world and not just for the military he commands.</p>
<p>Hey, Amom2: I think there’s a problem with your keyboard. Try pushing that button on the bottom row - you know, where it goes n m , and then that next one. Yeah - that one. If you use that one you don’t have to end every sentence with ! which makes it look like you’ve had a little too much caffeine, if you know what I mean.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you serious with this statement? ^</p>
<p>While there are plenty of candidates I wouldn’t walk across the street to hear, I think we all ought to be thankful that we have people up there-- whether we agree with them on the issues or not-- who have spent years in public service. That’s really pretty amazing-- especially given the backgrounds, qualifications, and smarts these people have. </p>
<p>That said, there’s not one person who has ever run for President of the U.S. who is not doing it, in part, based on personal ambition. All of these candidates are ambitious, and I honestly believe that they all care about the country, too. We may not agree with their approaches on how to run the country, but I do think that each cares. </p>
<p>And since when did ambition become a dirty word? Oh, wait. I forgot. It’s always been a dirty word when attributed to women.</p>
<p>I think everyone believes that you have to be ambitious to run for President. The question is not about ambition, it is more about motivation. If self gratification and the quest for power is your motivator, then that becomes personal ambition in a negative sense. I think with the Clintons, it is this “personal ambition” that turns a lot of people off. Many people see the Clintons as stopping at nothing to obtain personal ambition(s), while not really considering what may be in the best interest of the Democratic party or of the country.</p>
<p>Bethievt, thank you for such nice words; I do wish there were some way I could translate and serve up a more tolerable Bush and a more acceptable situation in Iraq but there is not. </p>
<p>Regarding Obama and the issues, even though I am on the opposite side of most of his issues, it doesn’t matter. I see his potential as far larger than just “issues”, and, if he becomes president and we end up with a few things I don’t like or agree with, I think an Obama presidency has the potential that the overall net of it will be very, very worthwhile. It’s sort of like giving up some small stuff to get some really terrific big stuff in exchange. I expressed that rather poorly but…</p>
<p>Well, anybody who seriously runs for a presidential election is personally ambitious. I just think, for a woman, “ambitious” has negative connotations. It always has-- even here in the 21st Century. </p>
<p>They’re ALL personally ambitious. They don’t get to this point by not possessing an overload of personal ambition. I just don’t see that as a bad trait to have. Obama is just as personally ambitious as the rest of them; he just happens to be the youngest and the least tested on the “personal ambition” front. Let’s face it, they all love the power, and that includes the power of drawing 20,000+ crowds just to hear your voice. To believe otherwise is naive. My 2 cents.</p>
<p>janie: you are injecting gender into this topic where none exists. </p>
<p>There is nothing wrong with personal ambition in a man or woman and I agree that to a certain extent everyone needs personal ambition to do things. I need personal ambition to cross the street! </p>
<p>I also agree that <em>most</em> people who run for President are doing it out of personal ambition. Hillary, Giuliani, Romney, Edwards, Huckabee are probably all in that category. </p>
<p>But some do it primarily out of a sense of duty or mission. For example Ron Paul is clearly just trying to influence the debate and give voice to his point of view. He does not strike me as being personally ambitious. Similarly Obama and McCain seem to me to be driven by their sense of mission or duty. </p>
<p>You may think otherwise about Hillary or the others and that is your opinion. But please don’t start with the gender stuff.</p>
<p>“if he becomes president and we end up with a few things I don’t like or agree with, I think an Obama presidency has the potential that the overall net of it will be very, very worthwhile.”</p>
<p>I think many people agree with you. This is a huge difference between the kind of president W has been and the kind that I hope McCain would be if he ends up winning. Even if Bush and McCain are putting forth the same policy on a given issue, it’s extremely important to me that the president is listening to me, thinking about what I have to say, and coming up with actual reasons why he’s not doing what I think is best. Those who have tried to voice disagreement with this administration have been told “Screw you” at best and “If you disagree, you’re a traitor” at worst. Enough of that!</p>
<p>There are many things I hope Obama will do in the White House, but one thing I KNOW he will do is take the opposition seriously and let them have their say before he decides whether they are wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I was responding to the post that attributed love for the country to Obama and McCain (their reasons for running), and merely personal ambition to Hillary. She’s the only woman running in this race, so it’s hard to miss her gender. </p>
<p>I honestly do not believe anyone who gets to the level of presidential candidate does so “primarily out of a sense of duty or mission.” I certainly think that’s part of what motivates them, but personal ambition and love of power is in there, too-- among each and every one of them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please don’t try to steer the thread in only one direction (the one you want). If I see something posted that I want to comment on, whether it brings in gender or race, I will do so. Thanks.</p>
<p>I think that some candidates would do ANYTHING to get power. I don’t get that feeling with Obama. I didn’t get it with Edwards. I do get the feeling that Hillary wants to win at all cost. It has nothing to do with gender. I think Bill Clinton would do anything or say anything to gain power too. I also thought Rudy Giuliani was power hungry just for the sake of power. Again, we can only speculate as to what motivates the candidates. However, our speculation is based on observations and behavior exhibited by the candidates over a period of time. This is not a gender issue in my opinion either.</p>
<p>sokkermom, I agree with your assessment.</p>
<p>No intention to steer the thread. Take it where you want. </p>
<p>I used to have tremendous admiration for Hillary the person and truly thought that she was driven by a sense of mission and lofty goals. But that was when she first became senator. Her subsequent actions made me suspect that she was carefully parsing her words and positions so as to maximally advantage herself in a Presidential race. She didn’t stick her neck out on principles. She went along with Bush when it was popular to do so and criticized him when he was unpopular. In other words, she started looking like just another cynical ambitious politician. I still like her and think that deep down she is good, but she has allowed her lust for the Presidency to overtake her sense of mission. That is just my opinion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you like Socialism (i.e. more government intervention, larger bureaucracies, higher taxes & redistribution of wealth), as well as a weaker military.</p>
<p>If not, vote REPUBLICAN!</p>
<p>Remember, in order for the government to give a dollar away, it must first TAKE it from one of its citizens!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not exactly. There’s something called the deficit. Run up by GWB and a Republican-dominated Congress like drunken sailors on a spree.</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>This one is for you: Obama is not a conservative!!! He was voted the MOST LIBERAL SENATOR IN 2007!!!</p>
<p>I repeat: Obama is not a conservative!!!</p>
<p>I could call Rush Limbaugh a liberal if I get to define what constitutes a liberal. Obama is far more conservative in his values, ethics and behavior than most Republicans. </p>
<p>What is more important is not what his personal ideology is but whether he is willing to listen with an open mind to the other point of view. The STRONG point of Obama is that he does not come to the table with a closed mind. And he doesn’t just want to thrust something down your throat, he wants to convince you- if you have an open mind yourself.</p>
<p>Funny how the extremist ideologues get so upset when candidates talk about national reconciliation. The ideologues thrive on extremism. The ideologues always want their candidates to be “pure” (i.e, extreme). The country has come to realize that extremes on both sides are bad. McCain and Obama are not extremists.</p>
<p>The times of “my way or the highway” are so over. Get with the program.</p>
<p>Vicariousparent, I’m with you. Let’s you and me vote AMom2 as “Most liberal CC poster of 2008!!!” - what’ya think? ;)</p>
<p>vicarious-I wholeheartedly agree with everything you said-except this statement about Obama:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not so sure how “open” his mind is, given that he is known to be the MOST liberal senator. Gotta be pretty much of an idealogue to get that classification & pretty consistent in voting record too. I would say it qualifies him as an extremist.</p>
<p>marite-you’re right about the deficit! The idea is that you’re supposed to “get it” BEFORE you “give it away”! Please note here that McCain’s vote against the Bush Tax Cuts was a PROTEST against the lack of spending restraint!</p>
<p>How many times does McCain need to be proven right before everyone realizes that he is BY FAR the best candidate for POTUS?!</p>
<p>I’ve only ever voted Republican, but if Obama wins the ticket, I’ll vote for him over McCain (but never Hillary). Obama seems conservative to me in the sense that his ideas are logical and reasoned versus “bleeding heart” compassionate. He also has a traditional family and family values, which comports with the conservative ideal.</p>
<p>If Hillary wins the Democratic ticket, can Obama still run as another party candidate, ala Ross Perot?</p>