<p>Name names, The Dad.</p>
<p>I think it might be too impolitic.</p>
<p>Aw, come on, don’t be a spoilsport. You’re entitled to your opinions.</p>
<p>I like and respect both Obama and Edwards very much, and I haven’t firmly decided where to throw my support. Whichever one it goes to, there’s going to be a lot of it. I’m about ready to chain myself to the wheels of the Hillary bus if that’s what it takes to keep her from getting the nomination.</p>
<p>Giuliani has many qualities I like, but he has no chance in hell of getting the nomination.</p>
<p>Although not a Dem., I too like Obama and Edwards - neither has had enough time to disqualify himself, to support child murder, and at least one didn’t desert a sick wife for a new squeeze, and the other one didn’t carry on a year-long extramarital affair on public property at public expense, with his 8-year-old daughter in the house.</p>
<p>
I would support any candidate from any party who I thought would actually do this.</p>
<p>As far as Edwards–as a North Carolinian, I view him as…I edited my view out as it would be inflammatory;).</p>
<p>ZM, I know that I’m entitled to my opinions…it’s just that everyone else isn’t always. Besides, you can drive people nuts when you unexpectedly show restraint. And that’s a good thing. 
</p>
<p>Hanna, as a for the moment observer on the sidelines, I don’t think Edwards can beat Hillary. Obama <em>might</em>. I can live with any of the three. One of the more attractive aspects about a Hillary presidency is the notion of just how far up the wall she would drive Republicans. And she has a quality that gives me considerable pause: she’s taken a lot of shots from both Right and Left for 15 years…and is still ticking. There’s a toughness there that I admire, a quality for which Obama & Edwards the jury is still out. I’ve heard Edwards speak a couple of times and have shaken his hand but I don’t think I have an adequate measure of the man.</p>
<p>If you held a gun to my head at this moment, I might opt for a Hillary/Obama ticket. But the crystal ball is still way too cloudy and there are many slips 'twixt cup and lip.</p>
<p>Ah yes, Edwards, one of the two politicians who claimed the threat from Iraq was “imminent” - the other being Senator Rockefeller. Gee, its fun to see the Dems jump to the other side of the fence when the political wind changes.</p>
<p>I think they call 'em “bombs”, not “wind”.</p>
<p>“One of the more attractive aspects about a Hillary presidency is the notion of just how far up the wall she would drive Republicans.”</p>
<p>This is her very worst quality, IMHO. Not only does it mean that it would be incredibly hard for her to win, it also means that it would be incredibly hard for her to govern if she did win. The last thing we need is another four years with all this vitriol flying back and forth.</p>
<p>“Gee, its fun to see the Dems jump to the other side of the fence when the political wind changes.”</p>
<p>So you believe that the fact that we never found any WMD’s, and the fact that Iraq has turned into a colossal disaster, shouldn’t impact which side of the fence we stand on?</p>
<p>If you accidentally drive into a ditch, is it neither principled nor wise to keep hitting the accelerator when you could, instead, acknowledge your mistake and try to dig the car out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Looks to me like it’s flying one way–here anyway (post 40 - phew).</p>
<p>I’m thinking Giuliani/Rice against any of the weak-kneed, spineless dem ticket choices. In the end I think the American people are smarter than you think. The memory of 9/11 still looms large out here in the real world.</p>
<p>Funding father: You’re forgetting how justification for the Iraq War went. It was pushed very aggressively by the Administration. Now clearly unjustified claims of possession of WMD, selling of Yellowcake Uranium, tubes sold to Iraq to be used for missiles, etc. were used as part of a picture to mislead both the Senate and the American people on the imminency of threat to us. So now you’re blaming Edwards and Rockefeller for believing them, saying their flip-floppers. A pretty low form of partisanship is what you are demonstrating. Oh, by the way, what about Hagel, Snowe, Warner, etc. Republican Senators too? What do you call them: turncoats? traitors? Democrats in disguise? It’s disgusting. Wake up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can’t get beyond his profession: ambulance chasing liability lawyer, especially since he made his fortune with cases where there is significant doubt that medical liability even exists.</p>
<p>The last thing this country needs is a president representing the trial lawyers as a major constituency.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>When I talked about vitriol flying back and forth, I was actually talking about the nation, not CC. I’m sure you don’t believe that what happens on CC is a more important measure of the civility of political discourse than what happens in, say, Congress – but do you really believe that the vitriol’s only been flying one way around the nation for the last six years?</p>
<p>Also, can you please explain what led you to the belief that Obama is weak-kneed and spineless?</p>
<p>“Also, can you please explain what led you to the belief that Obama is weak-kneed and spineless?”</p>
<p>He doesn’t wear a tie. ;)</p>
<p>“The last thing this country needs is a president representing the trial lawyers as a major constituency.”</p>
<p>That’s actually why I like him - the nation’s and the individual’s last defense against the corporate socialist combine of industry and government.</p>
<p>Yeah, except that Edwards’ claim to fame was suing doctors and hospitals, claiming that cerebral palsy was caused by failure to perform C-section deliveries even sooner. The vast weight of the scientific evidence suggests that this is a false claim and that delivery has nothing to do with it. But, Edwards was able to convice juries by “channelling” the voices of the deceased children in the courtroom. He pocketed $152 million from these cases.</p>
<p>I have real problems with suing physicians over reasonable judgement calls. These lawsuits are a major contributor to the health care problems facing our country. Edwards cases were not cases of negligence…they were judgement calls in an area where the scientific evidence supported the doctors.</p>
<p>To me, it’s just personal injury attornies using a flawed legal system as a get rich quick scheme at the expense of the consumer.</p>
<p>interesteddad, thank you, you said it all for me!</p>
<p>“But, Edwards was able to convince juries by “channelling” the voices of the deceased children in the courtroom. He pocketed $152 million from these cases.”</p>
<p>A jury of citizens, peers of the defendants, after hearing the absolute best medical evidence money could buy, adjudged them at fault, conservative North Carolina judges (including my first Williams roommate - a very staunch Republican) saw no fault in the trials, appeals courts refused to lay aside the verdicts, and Supreme Courts, seeing merit in the decisions, refused to set aside the verdicts or the awards. </p>
<p>He must have been doing something right! 
(perhaps we can trust him to lie WELL! which would be a truly refreshing change…Hey, he could be working FOR US!)</p>
<p>Stay the course.</p>
<p>Just what I always enjoy – a reasonable, objective debate of the merits of the various candidates. OR NOT!</p>
<p>
Apparently, TheDad has taken on the role of “Agent Provocateur.”</p>
<p>hanna: You’re right, I have nothing to base that on, since I haven’t read his book–something to do with hope? Hope is a nice quality (hence my name), but does not qualify one to be President of the USA, imo. Call me crazy, but I wouldn’t vote for a person based on what he has written of his views in a book. Therefore, in my mind, I exclude him as anything other than a vp candidate, as I think most people will in the end. I think people will do the same for Edwards…which leaves…?</p>
<p>I knew what you meant about the vitriol–I was just trying to point out #40, which I actually found kind of shocking!</p>
<p>But I’ll exit now and leave this discussion to the big leaguers! :)</p>