<p>If you lived in a border town with a lot of violent drug-related crimes, you might consider that a high priority. One of my residences is in a city that’s poor and has a lot of bank robberies and shootings. The priorities in that city might be a little different.</p>
<p>That is true in one sense, but I try to look for the candidate who would be best for the country as a whole. (Guess I am lucky to live in an area without particularly bad local problems.)</p>
<p>I was on the fence for a long time, but I see Obama as having clarity of vision for the country’s future, while Hilary has…baggage. And now we see she’s also a sore loser.</p>
<p>For sure. But sometimes local problems need to be stopped before them become more pervasive. I think the gang issue is actually a matter of national security simply because it has become pervasive.</p>
<p>This is what is scary about some Obama followers, most of them have not done any research on Obama. I was against the war, but I did not have to vote for the resolution in the senate. I would probably have voted present. </p>
<p>Even Oprah (who now claims to be an anti war activist) promoted the when a lot of people were against it.</p>
<p>But Interesteddad, since Obama is part of the Ultra-Left New Democratic Party, surely even you must think he would have voted against the war, right?</p>
<p>“That is true in one sense, but I try to look for the candidate who would be best for the country as a whole. (Guess I am lucky to live in an area without particularly bad local problems.)”</p>
<p>I read an article about gang problems in Durham, NC yesterday where a teenager was shot to death outside his house (the incident took place some time ago). The suspects were asked why they shot him and they said that they mistook him for someone else wearing the wrong colored clothes. This wasn’t an immigration issue but a gang issue. For those in big cities, gang violence may be their most important issue. I read about the killings of students Eve Carson and Abhijit Mahato and the level of brutal violence in parts of the US is just stunning.</p>
<p>“I was on the fence for a long time, but I see Obama as having clarity of vision for the country’s future, while Hilary has…baggage. And now we see she’s also a sore loser.”</p>
<p>What is his position on the horrendous gang violence in Chicago and what has he done about it?</p>
<p>From what I’ve read in the press, Obama hardly ever voted on anything when he was in the state legislature. Voting “aye” or “nay” leaves an unpleasant record of past behavior, don’t you know? Obama spent his time in Illinois dodging his responsibility to vote on key issues.</p>
<p>Apparently if Hillary “suspends” her campaign and doesn’t concede, she can still try to continue to raise funds to pay off her personal debt. </p>
<p>Why would anyone donate to a lost campaign now? Because they feel sorry for a very wealthy person who made a decision to spend their own money on a personal quest for power? Not a very good investment in my opinion!</p>
<p>(I agree with you CelticClan07. It really isn’t all about her. She just hasn’t admitted it yet. :o)</p>
<p>“I don’t care about his race, but I do care that he’s gutless.”</p>
<p>WashDad, did you read the article that you linked to? It indicates that out of 4000 votes he cast in the Illinois legislature, he voted “present” (essentially abstaining) 130 times, many of them as part of an overall Democratic strategy. The article points to a couple of the votes as suggesting that Obama caved to pressure. So is that more “gutless” than McCain helping out his lobbyist pals? Or McCain changing his positions to appeal to the Republican base and the Christian right?</p>
<p>Actually, Hunt, I think the article supported my comment. From the NY Times:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Rather than do his job and take a position, he lined up himself up for his next political campaign. I know this is what politicians do, and it’s just a sign that Obama is like all the others. </p>
<p>How many votes on major controversial issues can you dodge before you lose your character? Apparently, the Obama spin-doctors have their answer: it’s because he was the only lawyer serving in the Illinois legislature who discerned the Constitutional issues involved, and thought that voting “present” was a way to register disagreement without paying the price of actually trying to stop the legislation from being passed by voting no.</p>
<p>Political season is fun – the spinners are twirling gaily.</p>
<p>That’s one vote. You said: “From what I’ve read in the press, Obama hardly ever voted on anything when he was in the state legislature.” This would be like me saying that McCain’s involvement with the Keating Five shows that he is a corrupt politician on the take.</p>
<p>This is worse than hyperbole, it is grossly false. Obama voted present about 150 times. Sounds like a lot, but he sponsored over 800 bills. Overall, he voted present rather than aye or nay merely 3% of the time.</p>
<p>But how many of those 150 votes were on major, contentious and controversial bills? And what percentage of his votes on such bills were “present”? Given how mundane much of the business of a state legislature is, this is far more important than his raw number of votes.</p>