<p>^^LOL. Good one. </p>
<p>Yeah, John McCain can say that to Hillary too if she becomes the nominee.</p>
<p>rumnastl- I am constantly surprised that people compare Obama’s experience to Clinton’s and find it wanting. He has spent 8 years in his state legislature and 4 in the US Senate. Hilary has spent 8 years in the US Senate. If you look at total years in legislature and elected political life, he beats her by 4 years.
Obama will be 47 years old at inauguration- Bill Clinton was 46 or 47.
John Kennedy was 43.</p>
<p>Hilary is basing much of her experience as the wife of a president. I’m not saying she’s not qualified, but so is Obama. I think if people want to use Clinton’s years as first lady as experience, fine, but they should also take into account Obama’s years as a community organizer. If unelected years in public service count , let’s count them all.</p>
<p>McCain. Clinton. Obama. You could cover the political positions of all three of them with a quarter. I don’t think there has been a presidential race in my lifetime where the choice made less of a difference.</p>
<p>There are plenty of women I would be pleased to vote for. Can’t bring myself to vote for THAT particular woman in any circumstance, however. My children have never known anyone in the White House but Bushes and Clintons. I voted for Senator Obama in the primary in part to say “no” to a continuation of the politics of personal destruction that has characterized both sides in this ongoing national melodrama. In both Barack Obama and John McCain I believe we have a chance to step back from the hate-filled partisan politics of the past 16 years.</p>
<p>That said, I don’t understand why the Obama people aren’t pushing Clinton harder on her refusal to open the Clintons tax returns to public scrutiny. Talk about getting a pass.</p>
<p>Washdad, what you say is true, and I’m thankful for it.</p>
<p>A.S.A.P. – Hillary is also basing her so-called “experience” on the time she served as the First Lady of the State of Arkansas. That experience included, I believe, the Whitewater years and her miraculous foray into commodities trading. It is also interesting how Hillary cherry picks and claims credit for the successes of her husbands terms as Governor and President, but denies any involvement in issues and events that have been judged failures. And what is this about her turnabout on the NAFTA agreement, which was once viewed as a success of the Clinton years?? To hear Hillary tell it now she counseled against NAFTA. Hillary’s revisionist view of the Clinton Administration is simply this: The female half of the co-Presidency did everything right. It was Bill who screwed everything up.</p>
<p>What Obama needs to do is draw the distinction between himself and McCain on issues that matter to women, like abortion (McCain wants to abolish Roe vs Wade) and health care, as well as the Iraq war and the poor treatment of our service personnel and veterans under this administration. He needs to press McCain to explain exactly how he intends to continue this war and others without further exploiting our military men and women. Just how do we increase our military in order to send more troops to the Middle East, as McCain wants to do? He must have ideas- he’s a military guy. Let’s hear them.
I’m assuming Obama will be the nominee. I think he needs to keep the dialog about McCain.</p>
<p>I agree with you, hudsonvalley, about the tax returns. Since the Clintons just put in 5 million to keep her campaign going, it would be nice to see where the millions came from. Better to know now than to find out before the GE.</p>
<p>I know it has been favorite of Obama people about Iraq war, but come on he was outside - when you are outside you can shout all you want without any consequences.</p>
<p>I was against the war (including the first Iraq war) - that does not qualify me as having the best foreign policy judgement.</p>
<p>During the run up to war, most reporters, TV outlets (including PBS) were pro war. About 75-80% people wanted war. It has a nice sound bite. Also his proposal to post war Iraq is too naive - excludes reality.</p>
<p>Oh, simba, I completely disagree.</p>
<p>I wrote to my senators and my congresswoman seveal times to PLEASE not let Bush take us to war in Iraq and pull us away from our fight in Afghanastan. Many, many people did, including many prominent politicians. They were all ignored. </p>
<p>And exactly what is it about his proposal to post Iraq that is naive? Seems to me that he and Hilary are proposing identical solutions, at this point.</p>
<p>What bothers me the most about Hilary and the war is that she didn’t oppose during Kerry’s electoral bid. Neither of the Clintons spoke out against it, even after it had been going on for three years and was a proven disaster. She’s changed her mind now, thankfully.</p>
<p>Can we get the facts right before we post. Whoever said McCain wants to abolish Roe -v- Wade is WRONG! </p>
<p>In my opinion Obama is NOT going to get the indies in November. Clinton isn’t able to say “Obama is the most liberal senator in the US senate according to the national review report” because she’s in the democratic primary, that will work against her. In the general McCain can say just that and it will work in his favor. The truth of the matter is Obama is NOT a moderate, in fact Clinton is much more moderate than he, and McCain much more moderate than both of them. </p>
<p>What Obama has to do at this point is either 1) convince enough SD’s to go with him so he can win this thing or 2) win the popular vote so Clinton has no argument. If Clinton wins the popular vote, including all the battleground states (Ohio, Penn, Michigan/Florida when they revote) she has the strongest argument to date for being the nominee.</p>
<p>“The fact remains that Obama has not won a single large diverse state (except IL) in regular prmiary voting (not circuses).”</p>
<p>If IL doesn’t count for Obama, then NY doesn’t count for Hillary. And since when is Virginia small and homogeneous?</p>
<p>“Whoever said McCain wants to abolish Roe -v- Wade is WRONG!”</p>
<p>He wants to appoint justices similar to Justices Roberts and Alito, who will overturn it*. I’d say that’s the same thing.</p>
<p>[McCain:</a> My Supreme Court Nominees Won’t “Legislate From the Bench” - From The Road](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/02/11/politics/fromtheroad/entry3819847.shtml]McCain:”>http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/02/11/politics/fromtheroad/entry3819847.shtml)</p>
<p>*Strictly speaking, these justices would be overturning Casey, not Roe.</p>
<p>LaxAttack09: Just a quick Google search gives me this McCain statement from Feb 2007:</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>“I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned,” the Arizona senator told about 800 people in South Carolina, one of the early voting states.</p>
<p>McCain also vowed that if elected, he would appoint judges who “strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench.”</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>[McCain</a> says Roe should be overturned - John McCain News - MSNBC.com](<a href=“http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/]McCain”>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17222147/)</p>
<p>EDIT: Better yet, just go to the candidate’s own website (under issues, human dignity and sanctity of life):</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench. Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat. >>></p>
<p>McCain’s abortion stance is one of my BIGGEST objections to him. I understand that it is probably just pandering to the right wing, but even so he is a man of his word and so I have to believe him more than I would believe some other candidate.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? Then why haven’t they done so already? Conservative majority. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>His newfound wish to overturn roe -v- wade is pandering to the right, nothing more.</p>
<p>“Really? Then why haven’t they done so already? Conservative majority.”</p>
<p>Because the last time it came up, Justice Kennedy held the line and made it 5-4 to keep the spirit of Roe going. Now Justice O’Connor, who was one of the 5, is gone. The court can’t just reverse its established opinions sua sponte when the balance changes; it has to wait until a justiciable case or controversy comes before it. Anti-choice groups are working hard as we speak to bring the new court a fresh chance to kill Roe.</p>
<p>“pandering to the right, nothing more.”</p>
<p>And if they put him in the White House on the basis of his pandering, do you think he’s going to turn around and say, “Screw you, voters at the heart of the base, I’m appointing Larry Tribe to the Supreme Court”? I don’t think so. He may have made an issue out of it for pandering reasons, but that doesn’t mean he won’t do what he says he’s going to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Wrong. Anti-choice groups could get a case before the supreme court no problem but they know that justices, including conservative ones, will do exactly what Kennedy did. Supreme Court justices aren’t going to legislate from the bench…they aren’t stupid, they know the implications of overturning RvW. What I COULD see happening is abortion being left up to the states, a good “comprimise” if you will. Abortion will never be banned throughout the US.</p>
<p>Alito could have used the Constitution as his basis for upholding the NJ partial-birth abortion ban, or protecting the rights of unborn victims in the womb. But Alito did the opposite in both cases, even voluntarily adding that “the Constitution does not afford protection to the unborn” in his 1997 ruling.</p>
<p>“What I COULD see happening is abortion being left up to the states”</p>
<p>That’s exactly what overturning Roe would do. What do you think Roe says? Banning abortion throughout the US is not on the table.</p>
<p>IMHO RvW explicity allows for abortions, and leaving it up to the states wouldn’t change this…the power would just be shifted to the states. All of this is beside the point because the SC won’t overturn it anytime soon. You really think McCain will push conservative judges through a congress that has a democratic majority?</p>
<p>“IMHO RvW explicity allows for abortions, and leaving it up to the states wouldn’t change this…”</p>
<p>This isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of constitutional law. Roe invalidated state laws against abortion. Before Roe, abortion regulation WAS left up to the states. There was no federal ban. That’s what we would go back to if Roe were overturned.</p>
<p>LaxAttack09 - your assertion of who is “liberal” and who is “moderate”, etc. simply demonstrates you own personal world view, nothing else. Your “center” isn’t my “center.” With his stated positions of “100 years in Iraq”, “overturn Roe v. Wade”, etc. McCain is far to the right of the view of most Americans, whether his positions are just “pandering” or he really believes them.</p>