<p>This thread and another with a similar topic reminds me why I try to stay out of political discussions on CC but also why Democrats are so often at war with themselves. It is fine to discuss why one candidate, especially of one’s own party, is better than another candidate, and to disagree over their respective qualifications. But the name-calling that some posters have been engaging in is directed at those with whom they disagree and is truly dismaying.
For the record, I don’t drink, so no martinis for me. My husband of more than 30 years still thinks I am pretty; I had the smarts to get a Ph.D. and have had a fulfilling career and a happy life. Oh, and I don’t bake cookies. Never have, except for making brownies for S’s fund-raising. They were a disaster, not to be repeated.</p>
<p>I think this thread precisely illustrates the weaknesses in Hilary’s candidacy. Few people can point to her successes; her life is overshadowed by her husband’s; she has aroused visceral rancour among many.</p>
<p>I am supporting Obama and hoping for an Obama/Richardson ticket. I applaud his goal of compromise. It’s better than promising civil war.</p>
<p>Quote: “It is very narrow thinking to only consider things and people that you agree with when measuring their worth. This narrow thinking is very common among those whose thinking is common.”</p>
<p>I’m lost. Is this referring to the die hard Clinton supporters?</p>
<p>Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens, according to his top immigration surrogate a radical step no other major presidential candidate has embraced.</p>
<p>“Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prevent children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens from automatically becoming American citizens, according to his top immigration surrogate — a radical step no other major presidential candidate has embraced.”</p>
<p>I support that idea, so call me what you will.</p>
<p>Most countries of the world do not extend citizenship automatically to all those born within their borders. It was considered an especially radical addition to the Constitution at the time–and of course our country was far more isolated and far more in need of colonists then.</p>
<p>I don’t think you can call Huckabee a lunatic for suggesting that it would be one partial solution to the questions of illegal immigration.</p>
<p>I think it is important to ask those who want to shut down illegal immigration what sort of changes to legal immigration that support. I’d like to see us open our front doors a good bit wider, frankly–while shutting the backdoors.</p>
<p>I am amazed that anyone finds this to be “lunatic”. As much as I admire the founding fathers, this provision in the constitution of automatic citizenhood leads to the most head scratching. The only explanation for this provision is that those were very different times. Fortunately, they were wise enough to build in an amendment process to allow the constitution to remain a “living, breathing” document.</p>
<p>I strongly disagree with him, but as is often the case with Huckabee, I like his honesty about his own position, even when it makes him sound radical. He’s not pretending that the 14th Amendment doesn’t mandate the current system. It does, so he thinks we should amend it. The politically expedient thing to do is complain about the problem without acknowledging that a “nuclear option” is necessary in order to bring about drastic change.</p>
<p>“I still have not figured out what specific “experience” Hillary has that will make her a good President.”</p>
<p>Yup. 35 years of “experience” - doing what, exactly? Counseling her hubby to go ahead with killing half a million kids? (This from a person who claims credit for “defending children”?) Advising him on the Big Lie of 1998 that eventually would get us into Iraq? Cheering him on during the Christmas bombing of 1998? Voting for the war in 2002 as an extension of the 1998 Big Lie without even reading the intelligence? </p>
<p>Great experience - in a better world, she would escape life imprisonment by an international court of justice because, after all, she was only “his” wife.</p>
<p>“I support that idea, so call me what you will.”</p>
<p>Isn’t the hope of this election that we can learn to play nice for the sake of our country? Even though I am firm in my support of one candidate, I am happy to see so many Dems with brains and commitment showing up to lead. Whichever one wins the primary I will throw down with.</p>
<p>Funny how quickly the forceful in-your-face President Hillary Clinton supporters change their rethoric at the first sight of a faulty armor. Will the talks of “revenge” dissipate this quickly?</p>
<p>Rejection is indeed a bitter pill to swallow. As bitter as the realization of the dems recurrent inability to find an electable candidate.</p>
<p>One aspect of Obama that reminds me of Reagan (whom I did not support) and Kennedy (whom I was not in a position to support): there is a “morning in America” tone to his rhetoric, an appeal to the better angels of our nature.</p>
<p>"Here is another example of the Demosthenes vs. Cicero quality of Obama. "</p>
<p>Marite, your posts are a gift. My daughter aspires to majoring in classics someday and I hope that she is able to achieve some of your grace and wisdom. How wonderful to be able to write that sentence above.</p>
<p>Well, I posted on the other Hillary thread, but that has evolved into the “swiftboating” of John Kerry, so maybe this thread is more relevant. I’ll post the same here. Perhaps this post will be ignored, too. </p>
<p>Someone commented that Hillary has no experience, either (in relation to Obama’s lack of experience). </p>
<p>I will just say that Clinton has certainly spent more time in the Senate. My problem with Obama is that while he is definitely charismatic and can sure bring in a crowd, he is-- sadly-- full of fluff. Someone on another thread mentioned that he would make a great motivational speaker. I agree. Another person on that same thread added a link to Obama’s website, so I suited up and went in. Has anybody actually read it? Similar to his speeches, his “plans” are simply vague ideas, phrases people like to hear, and full of cliches. There is absolutely no substance. </p>
<p>Let’s take his health care-- uh-- plan. His ideas for “change” are vague, exactly what everyone wants to hear, and he does not outline how he would go about instituting any of these ideas. He says the money for his “changes” will come from cutting out the current tax breaks for those who make over $250K a year, but let’s face it-- he can’t do that by himself. He can’t just say he’ll stop those breaks, and that will make it so-- far from it.</p>
<p>In addition, Obama has taken so much money from the health care industry during his campaign. In fact, he’s #2 (after Hillary) on the financial support he’s received from them-- more than any of the other candidates, in both parties. Do you really think he’ll be able to make substantial changes in our health care system, given the financial support he’s received from them? </p>
<p>As ever, Americans are voting on who is the most charismatic. He has zero experience, so I guess we’ll have to trust that he will hire the right people. Well, we did that with Bush, and frankly, I didn’t think Cheney did a great job as President.</p>
<p>An interesting article is in the NY Times today by Gloria Steinem, entitled “Women are Never Front Runners,” and is well worth a read. Here’s an excerpt:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Steinem continues, but this is really an illuminating and worthwhile read.</p>
<p>At any rate, in my opinon, people really need to listen to what Obama is saying (or, more accurately, not saying). He’s charismatic, though, I’ll give him that. </p>
<p>A disclaimer: I’m an Edwards supporter. For starters, check out Edwards’ website and his detailed plans-- on health care alone. Edwards has a viable plan; it’s detailed, and it makes sense. Then go read what Obama has to say about his healthcare “plans.”</p>
<p>~~~</p>
<p>I haven’t read all the posts here, so I apologize if Steinem’s article, in particular, has already been posted on this thread.</p>
<p>My problem with Hillary is her experience, which should disqualify her from ANY public office.</p>
<p>(In another state, I would have been an Edwards supporter, though frankly his stances on the issues are not all that different from Obama’s in the global scheme of things. I don’t like ANY of their stances on health care, all of which basically feed the corporate trough, and are far inferior to Kucinich’s.)</p>