<p>Mini: I’ll be a crossover Democrat voting for McCain! I agree with you.</p>
<p>Patient: Me, too.</p>
<p>OTOH, I just read McCain’s attack on Hillary and his continued support of the Iraq war. Mini, who’s the Libertarian candidate? (Come on, Barack–hang in there!! you’re our only hope!)</p>
<p>Well, this is probably not going to happen because the pollsters have been so wrong but it is possible that Edwards will beat Hillary in S.C. and gain some momentum by coming in second (I know it’s pretty much a pipe dream). If we can’t have Obama, it would be clearly be better to have Edwards than McCain…</p>
<p>It seems many are showing behaviors typical of children. If I can’t bat first, I will take my ball and go home.</p>
<p>Folks come November you have to decide, who can best run the country. No one has to personally like a candidate. You don’t have to invite them for a dinner. Running a country is a business, my vote will go to whoever could best run that business. Although, I call Obama empty suite, I will vote for him if gets nominated. Other side has suites that are in coffins. Given time, you could fill up an empty suite, but can’t do anything with a suite on a dead man. If you think McCain is great, fine go vote for him even in primaries. Voting for him just because Obama did not get nomination in overall of scheme of things is just childish. Let us face it he has only one one primary and lost three (NH, MI and NV).</p>
<p>Simba, you’re right it sounded childish. It WAS childish of me!</p>
<p>But the sentiment behind it was this: I believe that the primary tasks ahead of the United States are global–a resuscitation of our relationships with other countries, because that is key to our economic health and our security in the world–and “spiritual” if you will, doing the best a leader can to bring our fractured people together for common goals.</p>
<p>As well expressed in the December Atlantic article by Andrew Sullivan (<a href=“http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama[/url]”>http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama</a>) I believe that only Barack Obama of the major candidates is going to be able to restore our image in the world. I also believe that he first, and John McCain second, can help to reunite all the warring factions in our country. </p>
<p>Two weeks ago, I was supporting Obama but not violently opposed to Hillary–in fact I was originally supporting her and finally decided Obama was a more visionary leader, the kind of person who comes along rarely who can inspire people to work for the common good, and I decided to support him.</p>
<p>Now that I have spent a good deal of time talking to her supporters as well as Obama’s as I have been involved in the Reno campaign and now the California campaign, there is such a huge difference in tone and priorities between the two that I can no longer believe that she is a legitimate alternative. I think that she and her husband are incredibly divisive and frankly almost scary in their tactics. </p>
<p>She has good policy ideas, she is incredibly hard-working, she is brilliant (as is Obama) and she is very well-spoken. But it does not appear to me that she knows how to work together with others–you are either with her, or you are against her, and if the latter, she and her husband will do her best to destroy you, not convince you or attempt to compromise with you. I have read enough articles about this over the last year and heard enough that I am pretty convinced of it.</p>
<p>I believe that John McCain in fact is more able to reach out to different points of view than Hillary is and will in fact be a less divisive leader than Hillary would be. I may of course change my mind over time but that is the reason I am considering such an unusual position, as I do prefer Hillary’s policies over McCain’s.</p>
<p>Sorry, it was the end of a long day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You know its this kind of ******** Clintonian talk that makes me as a liberal Democrat adamantly oppose her nomination. The idea that you would get a 1-3 tally by counting Michigan, although it was not contested and had no delegates is just dishonest.</p>
<p>Also, wasn’t it that the others withdrew from MI at the request of the Democratic Party and Hillary didn’t?</p>
<p>…but now they are getting along better today. Do you think some top Democratic officials sat them both down and gave them a good talking-to about what they were doing to the party faithful?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012403017.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/24/AR2008012403017.html</a></p>
<p>GLU: everyone in Michigan knew that if you supported Obama or Edwards, you voted for Uncommitted. Obama’s campaign orchestrating a last-second removal of their names from the ballot in an attempt to embarrass Clinton was a chicken**** maneuver and I’m glad it blew up in Obama’s face. </p>
<p>Patient, no, the others didn’t withdraw at the request of the Democratic party. The party simply said a) no delegates awarded because they jumped the queue and b) no candidate could campaign there. Obama orchestrated a withdrawal because he wanted to avoid an early loss there. The one who really got screwed by going along was Edwards…given Michigan’s economy, he would have done reasonably well there with his populist message. </p>
<p>Anyway, the exit polling showed that Clinton would have won anyway with 45 percent if all three names had been on the ballot.</p>
<p>Oh, and by the way, I’ll bet $100 that the Michigan delegates are seated in proportion to the election results when the dust settles at the convention.</p>
<p>“And the notion that we can have a vague “unity” is a pie-in-the-sky fairytale. What a naif.”</p>
<p>Yes, TheDad. We’ve been listening to you pounding the lectern, demanding retribution for a couple of years now. Will retribution accomplish anything more than simply scratching some democrats’ itch for revenge? Or will the all out war you gleefully anticipate simply divide the nation further, bringing partisan politics to the boiling point, and (surprise!) leaving us ordinary Americans ***** out of luck—STILL?:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Personally, I’m beyond tired of the way the members of the two parties come to Washington year after year with an agenda that’s anything other than being about the peoples’ business. I want them to make consensus a priority, based on the needs and desires of the American people—and no, I don’t much care who is to blame for XYZ egregious mistakes of the past. There’s plenty of blame to go around. Nobody plays on the team of the angels. Nobody! It’s pretty clear that party loyalty comes first to the detriment of all else, and I’m sick to death of it! And I’m not the only one.</p>
<p>The realist in me knows it’s too much to ask that the parties dial back the rabid partisanship, and honestly (and in good faith) attempt to move America forward (even if they have to partially credit the other side sometimes). More’s the pity, because Abraham Lincoln was entirely right: “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”</p>
<p>“Mini, who’s the Libertarian candidate?”</p>
<p>I’ll likely vote for David McReynolds if he runs. McCain could win my vote. (I voted for him in 2000.) Hillary is beyond the pale. “Incredibly hard worker”? Such a hard worker that, as a member of the Armed Services Committee she can’t even find time to read the intelligence report in her own possession before voting for war and occupation? I voted for a Clinton once - never again (and the implied reference to the holocaust is intentional).</p>
<p>I wasn’t an Obama supporter. In fact, I preferred Edwards, and, in my local caucus would likely have voted for the candidate who would have received a majority - Kucinich. But I do like the Obama symbolism, and it would be nice to have a Pres. with a nice voice. Likely, however, it will all be over before they get to me anyway, and in the November elections, my vote won’t count.</p>
<p>Whoever wins, though, I hope to see rabid partisanship. Bipartisanship is a disaster for America.</p>
<p>PH: you’re right. We can all work together.</p>
<p>Let’s just change the mindless swaggering unilateralist foreign policy, reverse the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, appoint liberal and moderate judges, depoliticize the Justice department, reverse the attacks on environmental and labor safeguards and move in a positive direction, junk the No Child Left Behind policy, implement universal health care, and in general repudiate the actions and repair the damage from all of the Bush so-called administration’s policies from the past seven years and we can all stand up, cheer, and give our whole-hearted support together.</p>
<p>Deal?</p>
<p>No, I didn’t think so.</p>
<p>Many of the people suddenly clamoring for “unity” or “civility” are just scrambling because they’re horrified at the prospect that much of the past seven years may be undone and want to lock in as much as possible of what they have. </p>
<p>Not on my watch.</p>
<p>I’ve just skimmed this thread, but let me say I didn’t find anything racist about Hillary’s remark about “it takes a president” to get it done (versus marching in the streets for civil rights). It seemed obvious she meant that a community organizer can get people riled up on an issue but they can’t push legislation through Congress. It also seemed obvious (after the initial shock wore off) that Obama seized on this comment as the oppty to start (yes, I think he started it) the “racist” thing going. I blame Obama; I think he played the race card and is still playing it and it has turned me off him big time. </p>
<p>As for some rumor he’s a muslim, we had a column in our paper (here in the middle of nowhere - thank god for NPR) by Richard Cohen outlining that Obama’s pastor at his church in Chicago is a big fan of Louis Farrakhan, with all that implies. Perhaps this is how the muslim rumor got started (nation of islam and all that). I don’t think Cohen is a nut case, so his column sealed the deal for me. Now I hope Hillary beats the you-know-what out of Obama.</p>
<p>And duh, Hillary won Michigan. Obama got the undecided vote, or whatever they called it. He’s an empty suit. Maybe someone can fill it up, but looked what the last 8 years of that got us. A pretty boy lead around by the wrong people. Who’s leading Obama? Maybe the preacher in love with Farrakhan.</p>
<p>“Mini: I’ll be a crossover Democrat voting for McCain! I agree with you.”</p>
<p>Oy. I opened this thread and saw this post and would have sworn it said “I’ll be a crossdressing Democrat voting for McCain!” The mind can sure play tricks.</p>
<p>ZM, you know, I think “Cross Dressing Democrats for McCain” is a wonderful group that should be started should McCain get the nomination. I’m sure some folks would even kick in a little seedy money to get it started.</p>
<p>Hey! There’s nothing seedy about being a cross dresser.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You honestly think most Obama and Edwards supporters bothered to show up?</p>
<p>“It also seemed obvious (after the initial shock wore off) that Obama seized on this comment as the oppty to start (yes, I think he started it) the “racist” thing going. I blame Obama; I think he played the race card and is still playing it and it has turned me off him big time.”</p>
<p>Are you sure it was Obama himself who “seized” upon Sen. Clinton’s comments about LBJ, MLK, and the Civil Rights Amendment? I had to go back and do a bit of web research about this controversy, because, while it was occurring, I was dealing with a small but time consuming personal emergency. During this time, the only thing I managed to hear is that some African Americans were offended by remarks Senator Clinton made concerning MLK and the Civil Rights Act. It took a long time before I caught wind of what she actually said. </p>
<p>First let me say that I do not believe for one minute that Senator Clinton’s statement was racially motivated. Instead, I believe she was trying to downplay Senator Obama’s much lauded motivational and oratorical charisma (which had been compared to that of MLK, among others), by pointing out that it was LBJ’s use of his position as President, a position of highest institutional power, that enabled him bring that historical legislation to fruition. She was trying to say that she has been and would continue to be a “doer” and not just a “talker”. Some people might heartily disagree with her self-assessment, but it was certainly her right as a political candidate to claim it. For the record, although I am not among Hillary Clinton’s supporters for the Democratic Presidential nomination, I agree that she is a savvy politician who has been able to amass a respectable record during her one term career as US Senator. As it happens, I do not support Senator Obama for the Democratic nod either. I am clearly on record on these forums as an Edwards supporter. (Feel free to look back at statements I’ve made to this effect for months.) However, if it came down to it, I would certainly support Obama over Clinton for for the nomination for many reasons, chief among them being that I find the “Billary” package sorely lacking in scruples, and I don’t trust that she would always put the nation’s interests before her own naked ambitions.</p>
<p>SOME of Senator Obama’s African American supporters were offended by what they saw as her dismissal of Dr. King’s work as mere “inspirational rhetoric”. They charged that she had dismissed the realities of AfAms’ struggle for civil rights, and that of MLK in particular. Dogs and fire hoses, false imprisonment, beating, and finally, the sacrifice of his very life had been glossed over. Dr. King’s ability to organize and galvanize were dismissed as “talk”. They believed it was the height of arrogance for Ms. Clinton to imply that Johnson had been the only “doer”, that he accomplished the Civil Rights act singlehandedly, and in the absence of the very real, very hard strife endured by Dr. King and other AfAms (and I would personally add that of no small number of passionate and committed whites, who placed themselves in unnecessary personal jeopardy) to advance the cause of equality, that it “only took a white man” to free AfAms from the oppression of Jim Crow. </p>
<p>Again, I do not believe that was Mrs. Clinton’s intention. I believe the media enjoyed the controversy and very readily fanned the flames of misunderstanding for the perverse pleasure of keeping the pot boiling. I believe some AfAms were too quick to be outraged over what was at the most, a poorly thought out attempt at self promotion. But as far as I can see, Senator Obama himself never made the charge that Hillary Clinton’s statement was racist.</p>
<p>Very Interesting…</p>
<p>NEWS FLASH: Blacks Learning
‘Goldwater Girl’ Hillary Was AGAINST
the Civil Rights Act of 1964…Feel Deceived !</p>
<p>A March 12, 2007 article written by acclaimed Washington columnist Robert Novak sheds a very revealing light on the true sentiment of Hillary Clinton during the peak of the Civil Rights Movement. Clinton recently was found to have minimized the great and monumental strides taken by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. by stating that it was Lyndon B. Johnson, then president, who should receive the credit for civil rights progress including the Civil Rights Act of 1964.</p>
<p>In an attempt to attract black support Hillary Clinton regularly shares her ‘civil rights experience’ during every speech given to blacks audiences. Novak writes of one such speech at Selma’s First Baptist Church on the 42nd anniversary of the “bloody Sunday” freedom march there, where Sen. Clinton declared: “As a young woman, I had the great privilege of hearing Dr. King speak in Chicago. The year was 1963. My youth minister from our church took a few of us down on a cold January night to hear [King]. . . . And he called on us, he challenged us that evening to stay awake during the great revolution that the civil rights pioneers were waging on behalf of a more perfect union.” But Novak’s article states that there’s a big problem with her statement.</p>
<p>The fact is, in 1963, the same period of time she speeks of at all black church appearances, not only was Hillary Clinton a republican, but she was also a staunch supporter of republican Senator Barry Goldwater, well known as a segregationist and one of the most vocal senators adamently against the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is why he lost in his presidential bid to Lyndon B. Johnson. Novak writes “…how then could she be a ‘Goldwater Girl’ in the next year’s presidential election?” He continues, "…she described herself in her memoirs as ‘an active Young Republican’ and ‘a Goldwater girl, right down to my cowgirl outfit.’ (Hillary worked on Golwater’s presidential campaign)
Novak adds, "As a politically attuned honor student, she must have known that Goldwater was one of only six Republican senators who joined Southern Democratic segregationists opposing the historic voting rights act of 1964 inspired by King. Hillary headed the Young Republicans at Wellesley College.</p>
<p>The incompatibility of those two positions of 40 years ago was noted to me (Novak) by Democratic old-timers who were shocked by Sen. Clinton’s temerity in pursuing her presidential candidacy." Novak adds, "What Hillary Clinton said at Selma is significant because it betrays her campaign’s panicky reaction to the unexpected rise of Sen. Obama as a serious competitor for the Democratic nomination.
Clinton’s plans were transformed by the advent of Obama, an African-American threatening the hard allegiance of black voters forged by Bill Clinton. On one hand, the Clinton campaign has attacked Obama and his supporters. On the other hand, she has sought to solidify her civil rights credentials.</p>
<p>While Clinton was re-inventing her past, her road to the White House is not going as planned. Instead of a steady procession to coronation at the Denver convention, she is involved in a real struggle against credible opponents led by Obama. No wonder she and her handlers were tempted to imply the existence long ago of a young lady in Chicago’s suburbs who never really existed."</p>
<p>Blacks are stating their feeling of betrayment now that these truths are being exposed as they come to the conclusion that the fact is, Hillary was AGAINST the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that Dr. King died for and as a ‘Goldwater Girl’ she was even against Lyndon B. Johnson, the very person she now gives the credit to for Dr. King getting to the mountaintop!..</p>
<p>This from a site called “Riehl World View”, a political blog, apparently. This particular commentary was posted by someone named, Greg Jones. Can’t find anything else on this commentator. I do recall that Mrs. Clinton was a staunch Goldwater supporter during some point in her youth, but this man alleges that she enthusiastically supported Barry Goldwater doing the time when he was a vocal opponent of The Civil Rights Act. Is Hillary attempting to revise her history when she campaigns in black churches?</p>
<p>I realize that a person can drastically change her political ideology at any point in life. It would not be unusual in the least. But I don’t particularly appreciate when a person claims, for political gain, to have believed (and fought) for one cause, when in fact, the opposite is true.</p>