<p>Why would you care who says what in South Carolina - you have a stake there? </p>
<p>It is the Supreme Court who has to offer protection from the beliefs of the likes of McClurkin. I don’t think there is much chance of Obama appointing him to the Supreme Court. If he were white, he might make McCain’s list.</p>
<p>“This would be the same Clinton family that raised billions of dollars for Katrina relief through their family charity headquartered on 125th Street in Harlem.”</p>
<p>“Still, there is a repellent grandiosity about Clintons post-presidential style. Before he settled on more modest space in Harlem, Clinton had intended to rent the entire 56th floor of Carnegie Hall Tower, in Midtown, for roughly $738,000 a year. He changed course after a rash of sharp congressional and public criticism.”</p>
<p>[The</a> Comeback Id: Politics & Power: vanityfair.com](<a href=“The Comeback Id | Vanity Fair”>The Comeback Id | Vanity Fair)</p>
<p>Back to the original question:</p>
<p>Seek out and support a female candidate who is actually qualified to be President, without a long and continuing record of misjudgment in both foreign and domestic matters.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interestingly, while Planned Parenthood gives Mr. Obama a 100% rating, Illinois NOW does not. The “present” votes were, per Planned Parenthood and Mr. Obama, a carefully planned political strategy. “Present” votes essentially were “no” votes for this specific anti-choice legislature. However, since there was no recorded “No” vote, anti-choice campaigns could not say that Obama voted “no” against the legislation. Illinois NOW doesn’t see things quite that way. Neither does my cousin in Chicago, for that matter. </p>
<p>For those who are one-issue voters on abortion, I’d think that the endorsements for the November election are going to be pretty clear-cut in either direction.</p>
<p>After being branded a racist by the New Democratic Party candidate’s campaign chair, Bill Clinton should move his offices to those midtown digs.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why would I be surprised by an endorsement of the Chicago candidate by the Illinois NARAL chapter? Trinity United Church and Tony Rezko support the New Democratic Party candidate, too.</p>
<p>It’s funny how in stumbling to excuse their candidate’s spinelessness on abortion votes, they failed to mention that on many of those votes, he was the ONLY legislator voting “present”.</p>
<p>Guys, it’s pointless to argue with Interesteddad. Once he sets his mind on a position nothing will ever change him. Nothing. Ever. Some of you may recall that back in the days of the Duke rape case he decided that the college students falsely accused of gang rape were bad people and must be guilty, and nothing - and I mean nothing - would move him off that position even months after it was painfully obvious that they were innocent. He kept posting offensive comments referring to exculpatory evidence as “defense lawyers’ spin” and insisting that the Lax players had conspired to mount a “Nobody talks, everybody walks” wall of silence, even after nobody with an IQ above room temperature would believe that. In short, we’ve got a “don’t confuse me with facts, my mind’s made up” situation here. </p>
<p>I only hope that most of Hillary’s supporters are more rational.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is a lie. I never said that the Duke players were guilty of rape. I said that we had to wait for the evidence.</p>
<p>You are correct, however. You are wasting your breath trying to convince me to vote for the New Democratic Party in 2008. That’s ain’t happening. There are three givens for me:</p>
<p>a) I will not vote for the New Democratic Party’s nominee.</p>
<p>b) I will vote against John Kerry every time he is opposed in a primary or general election.</p>
<p>c) I will vote against Rep. John Tierney every time he is opposed in a primary or general election.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think I am very rational. For this coming election, I have decided to vote my economic interests, and forget about the social issues. I am voting for low taxes, fiscal conservativeness, getting rid of pork barrel, reduction of government wastes and bipartisanship. </p>
<p>I am very sure that all the social issues that I deeply care about wont be affected in the next four years under either Obama or MacCain. The right-wingers even hate MacCain (he once called them axis of intolerance), that shows he is probably doing something right.</p>
<p>I am very heartened by what Hillary did at AIPAC this morning. It was very gracious.</p>
<p>
[Clinton</a> Tag Teams With Obama At Israel Conference - Politics on The Huffington Post](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Clinton Tag Teams With Obama At Israel Conference | HuffPost Latest News)</p>
<p>yellowdog, I was too young to vote for Bill. This is not about Bill, this is about Hillary and her plans for the country, and I strongly believe that, most of her plans are better than Obama (read the opinion section of the WSJ the last couple of months, and also, read about the experts take on universal health care). I don’t agree with all her policies, but she has enough of what I care about. </p>
<p>Where did I say that Clinton and McCain where closer ideologically? I like a lot of things about both McCain and Hillary. </p>
<p>As an independent, I can support a person without supporting the party. For this election, I have decided that those things I stated above will be the next set of issues for me if I can’t get my first set of issues.</p>
<p>“I am voting for low taxes, fiscal conservativeness, getting rid of pork barrel, reduction of government wastes and bipartisanship.”</p>
<p>Well, then you certainly won’t vote for a Republican! ;)</p>
<p>McCain is not George Bush kind of Republican (Bush is not a fiscal conservative). </p>
<p>Bush a right-winger who deserted all the Republican economic conservertive values in favor of god knows what. He has led the Republican party astray, and it will probably take someone like McCain to bring them back. </p>
<p>I sound so much like a Republican now, it is scary. I just had an epiphany a couple of weeks ago about the Republican party. I realized that, I totally agree with a lot of their economic policies, and I have been blinded so much by the social issues. I still don’t agree with the party on a lot of social issues, but I can be Bloomberg (he was a democrat, he just changed party affiliation to run as a Republican) kind of Republican, where I buy the economic policies, but sell the social policies. </p>
<p>Some of my Republican friends will probaly faint about my sudden shift in political ideology. I have accused them of being close minded for being part of the Republican party, not knowing all along, I was the one who was close minded. I have decided that the social issues alone is not enough foe me to be part of the Democratic Party. </p>
<p>I wish there was a party that is economically conservative, but socially progressive. This party will have a lot of supporters. The two party system does not work for me.</p>
<p>MCain voted for virtually every Bush-barrelled spending bill, every appropriation, tax cuts for rich, deficit spending initiative that the current Pres. ever concocted. He voted with the Pres. 95% of the time.</p>
<p>He voted against Cheney’s energy bill, he Voted against Nancy Pelosi’s farm bill, he was against the tax cut for the rich before he was for it (to borrow from kerry). I understand he had to change his position on the tax cut, he is a politician after all. I wont hold it against him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tega: There are a lot more of those people around. I think the Christian right kind of became very powerful in the RP for the last while, but even they are changing - from “moral values” to “social justice”. </p>
<p>BC brought the DP around to more centrist economic policies, I think thanks to BC, the tax & spend label don’t stick to Dems like some taint anymore.</p>
<p>I’m without a party, too. Fiscal responsibilty. Progressive on social issues. In favor of diplomacy, but understand that a Commander-in-Chief has to be tough.</p>
<p>The Republicans are not stupid. With the New Democratic Party turning hard left with the moveon crowd, they will bury some of the more right wing social issues rhetoric and move quickly to seize the all-important middle ground (i.e. Reagan Democrats).</p>
<p>The Dems are basically defenseless against that kind of move.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Libertarian Party claims to have that combination of policy positions, but tends to nominate light-weight flakes in its presidential nominating convention.</p>
<p>“Passionate supporters for a female President”</p>
<p>I’d like to see a female president someday, but I’d never vote for someone simply because they were a woman (or black, brown, young, old…). I think the title of this thread sort of sums it up… there are plenty of people that would like to see a female president that did not support Hillary. There is no rational reason why these two issues (would you like a woman in the white house and who you vote for) should be related. </p>
<p>If there is a woman running for office and I feel they’re the best qualified candidate for the job then of course I’ll vote for them… but in this case me and enough other democrats felt that someone else was better qualified for the job and hence Hillary is not getting the nomination. </p>
<p>Simply throwing your arms down and shouting “That’s it I’m just going to go vote for McCain” just sounds like sour grapes. After the up-coming campaign and when the time comes in November, I really don’t see droves of former Hillary supporters suddenly turning into Republicans.</p>
<p>I’m a pro Hillary dem and will likely vote for Mc Cain</p>