<p>“If Bill weren’t along for the ride, I might have been one of her supporters during this race—though with some reservations. I have real reservations over both Obama and McCain, too.”</p>
<p>I could have written that very thing. My feeling could have been, as it is in New York, that if one is going to be stuck with a democrat, might as well be a hardworking and tenacious one. Sally Bedell Smith tore into her about Bill today and I must say that I agree. He is just loathsome.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I agree. I also agree that McCain’s 100 year war statement is being twisted for political gain. His position is simple- we must stay as long as we need to win. My position is slightly different- we must stay as long as we need to avoid defeat. We cannot ever be “victorious” in the war. But if I was running for commander-in-chief, I would probably talk in terms of ‘victory’, just to keep the troop morale high.</p>
<p>zoosermom, mini is not baiting. Mini is addressing the point. Our presence in South Korea and our presence in ANY Arab country are two very different things. There are enormous cultural differences at play.</p>
<p>By the way, there is a very interesting piece by Maureen Dowd on the Obama vs Hillary thing today that addresses the apparent differences in style.</p>
<p>“zoosermom, mini is not baiting. Mini is addressing the point”</p>
<p>Mini was baiting. Thus the smiley. Please refer back to the point I was making. You are entitled to your own, but so am I. Of course their are cultural differences, but this conversation was specifically about a time frame.</p>
<p>"I’m not a fan of Senator McCain, so I’m not going to defend him. But I do know that the Saudis are fond of playing both sides of the fence.</p>
<p>No baiting here. The Saudis do NOT play both sides of the fence when it comes to U.S. military presence in their country. They kicked the U.S. out. Period. There aren’t two sides to it. (Of course, now that they own us, they can do anything they want.)</p>
<p>“Address the point of the “100 years” quote and stop playing games.”</p>
<p>The point of the 100 years quote is that McCain really, sincerely believes that permanent military bases can and should be established on Arab soil, and can be maintained without any American soldiers losing life and limb. That is about the most bizarre formulation I’ve heard from any major party candidate in a very long time. Had he said that we could “fight” for 100 years might actually make more sense (because no one in the Arab world is about to surrender their sovereignty to the United States for very long.) But what he actually said is much, much more absurd than that.</p>
<p>It is hard to believe that a major political party could nominate a candidate with such ignorance of the larger world.</p>
<p>Oh, here’s a smiley face. 
I didn’t use a smiley face in post #107 (where I asked you a direct, non-baiting question that you still haven’t answered.) I used a wink-eye. 
:rolleyes:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I’m not a supporter of Sen. McCain and most of his policies, but I must say that it is certainly possible to keep a US military base on “Arab soil” for a long time in safety. It all depends on the Arabs in question and their view of the US. I know because I lived four years of my childhood on Arab soil - where my dad was stationed in the US Air Force, namely at Wheelus Air Force Base in Libya. </p>
<p>Wheelus was an important US air base for 25 years - until 1970 when Khadafy came to power and kicked the US out. Prior to that Wheelus and the surrounding community (we actually lived off the the base - renting from an Arab landlord) was for decades a peaceful and stable place to live.</p>
<p>[Wheelus</a> AB 1945-1970](<a href=“News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com”>News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com)</p>
<p>“The Saudis do NOT play both sides of the fence when it comes to U.S. military presence in their country. They kicked the U.S. out. Period.”
That’s not what I said. They are not unhappy that we are in the region. Period. And I did answer your question. Here’s the thing: you don’t get to dictate how others answer questions.</p>
<p>Smiley-faces and wink-winks drive me straight out of my mind.</p>
<p>I think last night showed us, that the time for cutting each other down is over.</p>
<p>It’s time to unite as democrats and to remember that ANY democrat in the white house is better than McCain George Bush the II. All that we’re doing now is only hurting ourselves. </p>
<p>Over the past month McCain has gotten away with not knowing where al queda is, being oblivious to shiites and sunnis, completely botching economic issues, all the while we toiled over flag pins and Bosnia stories.</p>
<p>The time for that is over. The time for playing to tear the other candidate down instead of picking a candidate up is done. Every Clinton or Obama supporter that keeps proclaiming that the other is unelectable is only doing themselves a disservice. In addition to our boys in Iraq, our economy, our health, our environment, and our stature in the world. </p>
<p>The next president could have the opportunity to appoint up to 4 judges to the supreme court. McCain has pledged to follow Bush neo-conservative opinions including elimination of abortion rights and separation of church and state. </p>
<p>Dont vote against your interests!</p>
<p>Instead of loaning herself $11 Million dollars, I think she should GIVE me about $100,000 to pay college bills.</p>
<p>" think last night showed us, that the time for cutting each other down is over.</p>
<p>It’s time to unite as democrats and to remember that ANY democrat in the white house is better than McCain George Bush the II. All that we’re doing now is only hurting ourselves."</p>
<p>Completely true and I’m fine with that. Shame for your party that Senator Clinton is too.</p>
<p>Poetsheart, for what it’s worth, I passed out “Nixon for President” bumper stickers for the 1960 election. I guess I just a big old flip-flopper, eh?</p>
<p>
Imagine that, twisting a candidate’s words for political gain! Why, I’d be bitter if someone did that to me, or my pastor, or my wife…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And the thanks they receive for 35 years of being allies of the AfAm community is being called racists, accused of not shedding a tear for black victims of Katrina (despite the fact that Bill’s foundation raised millions), and being compared to Lee Atwater.</p>
<p>kluge: two wrongs don’t make a right. not in my book.</p>
<p>“Poetsheart, for what it’s worth, I passed out “Nixon for President” bumper stickers for the 1960 election”</p>
<p>Really?</p>
<p>^^Why not? Hillary herself campaigned for Goldwater back in the day.</p>
<p>Supporting Republicans for president is a serious condition, but in a few cases it’s curable.</p>
<p>"Why not? Hillary herself campaigned for Goldwater back in the day.</p>
<p>Supporting Republicans for president is a serious condition, but in a few cases it’s curable."</p>
<p>I was expressing surprise about Kluge’s (how can I put this delicately?) age. Because in 1960 I was years from even being born. I’ve got to be more respectful of Kluge at his age.</p>
<p>I do not believe the pastor’s views were at all misrepresented. He is stuck in a 1950’s mindset with a large dose of conspiracy theory for spice.</p>
<p>Even though Jindal is an Indian. He has no white or AA base based on race. He still won with the support and became governor in a southern state. In addition, Rush Limbaugh is supporting his name for the Republican Party VP candidate. Even Republican Party nominated an AA candidate for the Maryland Governorship Candidacy. How can you call Republican party racist when a 90% AA people can vote for thier own race candidate overlooking the equally qualifiied candidate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately, a lot of AfAms have been too quick to accuse the Clintons of racism in this election, and yes—have forgotten everything they have done and said on behalf of the AfAm community. I have never believed them to be racist, but I did believe Bill was trying to marginalize Obama by intimating that he was “just another black candidate in the vein of Jesse and Al”. Not racist. Just insulting. Of course, I realize that you agree wholeheartedly with that assessment of Obama (btw, I’m not willing to argue over that issue). Some blacks felt it was race baiting, others just felt it was insulting and sly. In any case, I still believe Hillary would have maintained much of her black support, had Iowa not been such a staggering surprise, and had blacks not fallen under the same Obama spell that many other Americans were swept up in. It’s pride and excitement, and the allure of possible history in the making. </p>
<p>A lot of everyday black people still feel very positively toward the Clintons (My father certainly is one of those people). But, Obama seems to have everything Hillary has, plus he represents a singular hope and inspiration within the black community. Hillary represents those same things for white women of a certain age.</p>
<p>I realize that you are very angry and bitter about the way blacks have abandoned the Clintons in favor of Obama. I understand your need to vent your spleen. But I’ll not be arguing with you. I’m moving on.</p>
<p>Oh, come on, African Americans don’t vote for somebody just because he’s the same sort of skin shade as they are. Michael Steele was a hack politician when he became lt. gov. He had no job after he lost to Ben Cardin for Senate until the Republicans dredged up a job as a fundraiser and I guess he eventually joined some law firm or other. He tried to bamboozle people into thinking he was a Democrat, lying that he was endorsed by prominent Democrats, and bused in homeless people to electioneer for him. He ran a rotten campaign based on foolishness and deservedly lost to a man who had been working for Maryland in the House for years. I wouldn’t use Steele as an example of anything except how the Republicans think the voters are stupid. He lost and he deserved to lose.</p>