Why I continue to run

Parent Cafe
21

<br>

<br>

<p>Of course. And others are allowed to have their opinions of the opinions reported herein.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Again, I don’t get in. Practically every woman cited by Calmom has “done her time” for a lot longer than HRC. Although I’m not a CA voter and thus have no reason to follow the career of its elected officials, I’ve known about Nancy Pelosi since 1989 (and I was not impressed by her then). “Having done her time” is not a good enough reason to vote for a woman. </p>

<p>Working as a team: I think that HRC has made that more difficult, even perhaps impossible after her accumulated gaffes. There’s also the matter of Bill who won’t shut up.</p>

22

<p>Anyway-- I don’t think they should both be on the ticket because even though their policies are close, I think they represent very different schemas when it comes to their overall approach. I think that Hillary would undermine the Obama message, which is one of transition and unification for the future. </p>

<p>I was not an early Obama supporter – I’m an “Edwards Democrat” – but I’ve got the ability to see beyond my own perspective in understanding why Obama trounced Edwards. The “fighter” thing isn’t working – not for JRE, not for HRC. People are sick and tired of the divisiveness & partisanship that has characterized Washington for the past 2 decades, and the Clintons are very much a part of that. Obama needs a VP candidate who will have broad appeal and seem to be a part of his vision of change for the future. Clinton’s “experience” is the thing that is dragging her down – I think that she and her supporters forget that even very strong and loyal Dems still have some not-so-pleasant memories of the Clinton administration, and that is why many really do want a fresh face. (Sorry: one thing I remember from the Clinton presidency is having to explain to my 9-year-old daughter the meaning of the phrase “blow job” – there is a lot of Clinton baggage that I wouldn’t want to see tied to the Obama ticket) As an Edwards supporter, I personally would love an Obama-Edwards ticket, but I don’t think that’s right for the country or the election either. I give John Edwards a lot of credit for quitting at the point when he realized that his candidacy was doing more harm than good for the party, even though it was a huge disappointment for me.</p>

23

<p>I can’t imagine what it would be like to be president and have Hillary (and Bill in the wings) as VP. I think it would be a bit of a nightmare.</p>

24

<p>There are alot of women (and others) who think Clinton is better qualified than Obama. </p>

<p>I don’t think any of the women Calmom mentioned have campaigned for President. Clinton is. Women may be living vicariously thru her, in that they admire her guts for trying. </p>

<p>The success of any president is dependent on who they surround themselves with, cabinet members, advisers, etc. </p>

<p>It can only get better, I hope.</p>

25

<p>I wonder how much of a Freudian slip Hillary’s comment on the race going into June was? She must be thinking on some level that Obama might be physically eliminated from the race. It makes me sick to even think about it, but apparently she has been (thinking about it.)</p>

26

<p>^^^
Neither Obama nor Clinton are qualified to be president in the traditional sense. (Unless you are counting Clinton’s days as first lady as actual experience.) Technically, McCain is the most qualified to be president since he has had the most experience. I would also like to point out, that Romney and Richardson were, by far, the two most experienced and qualified candidates in this race, but where are they now?</p>

27

<p>women will vote democrat in the fall, even if they say they won’t now.</p>

<p>Women with children won’t want to watch their sons get sent out to die in the Iraq war. </p>

<p>Women with families will want to end the economic morass we’re in. </p>

<p>Heck, shallow women will vote for Obama because he’s a lot better looking than John McCain.</p>

28

<br>

<br>

<p>And that is a perfectly fine reason to want to vote for Clinton. Her gender as the sole reason, or her having “done her time,” or it’s being “her turn” are not.</p>

29

<p>“Heck, shallow women will vote for Obama because he’s a lot better looking than John McCain.”</p>

<p>hahahahhaahahahhahah</p>

<p>Like a true Ya!!e my child. I hope to see you running for office one day too.</p>

30

<p>I think Hillary has a long and continuous track record of poor judgment dating back at least as far as 1993 (in her strong support for NAFTA) and stretching at least as far as 2005 in her praise for the aggressive, hostile occupation that should disqualify her from being taken seriously as a candidate. She might be a very nice person - I wouldn’t know. </p>

<p>There are LOTS of better qualified female potential VEEPS, starting with our current governor.</p>

31

<p>It’s not her turn. I am sick to death of that argument. She would NEVER in a million light years even be running for president if she weren’t Mrs. Bill Clinton. She didn’t slug out local city and county elections for years to then run on statewide level, to then run for a US senate seat, to then run for president. There are many other women in elected offices, who have undoubtedly earned their positions due to their accomplishments, not the ride they took from someone else. </p>

<p>And I completely disagree that an Obama/Clinton ticket would work. 1/2 the country dislikes HRC and the republican base will come out in droves against her. I would be terribly disappointed if Sen. Obama put her on with him. She <old dc=“” politics,=“” anti-change=“” candidate=“”> is patently diametric to his entire campaign.</old></p>

32

<p>^^ totally agree.</p>

33

<p>I thought this thread was about my sport and I got excited! So- I won’t share why I pound the pavement every day.! :)</p>

34

<p>"old DC politics, anti-change candidate:</p>

<p>define for me NEW DC politics and Change, and how those things will happen.</p>

35

<p>Look at the people HRC relied on to raise money and those Obama relied on for his money.</p>

<p>HRC’s campaign now seems to be blaming Obama for her newest gaffe. Bill has also been complaining about her victimization. Bring back the vast, er,…" --wing conspiracy? Do we want a Commander-in-chief with a persecution complex?</p>

36

<p>

</p>

<p>How very insulting to women. Makes me glad I am NOT a democrat. I will not vote according to which candidate will take better care of me. That is NOT the job of the US government. That is my job.
I will vote according to who will develop stronger economic policies and who will foster and encourage a strong foreign policy.</p>

37

<br>

<br>

<p>Same here!</p>

38

<p>aapride</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Please speak for yourself. I will be voting for Hillary if she is the nominee. I wont vote for Obama for anything in this Millennia.</p>

39

<p>“Look at the people HRC relied on to raise money and those Obama relied on for his money.”</p>

<p>Like these?</p>

<pre><code>Obama: I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore.
</code></pre>

<p>It’s true that Obama doesn’t take money directly from oil companies, but then, no presidential, House or Senate candidate does. They can’t: Corporations have been prohibited from contributing directly to federal candidates since the Tillman Act became law in 1907.</p>

<p>Obama has, however, accepted more than $213,000 in contributions from individuals who work for, or whose spouses work for, companies in the oil and gas industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
[FactCheck.org:</a> Obama’s Oil Spill](<a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html]FactCheck.org:”>http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html)</p>

<p>and now the NEW Politics</p>

<p>Obama pushed back with a misleading ad of his own accusing Clinton of launching “the most misleading and negative ad of the campaign.” It says Obama takes “not one dime” from Washington lobbyists and says newspapers called Clinton’s attacks “the old politics.”</p>

<p>It is true that one newspaper did call Clinton’s attacks “the old politics.” But it’s also true that Obama has taken $115,163 from former federal lobbyists, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That’s a lot of dimes.</p>

<p>More misleading, though, is Obama’s charge that Clinton’s ads are being paid for with lobbyist money. While it is true, as we’ve said before, that Clinton has collected more money from PACs and lobbyists than any other candidate, the numbers aren’t really all that big in relation to her overall fundraising. Clinton’s donations from both individual lobbyists (past and present) and from PACs account for just 1.1 percent of all the funds she has raised. That makes Obama’s claim that lobbyists are funding Clinton’s attacks about 98.9 percent false.</p>

<p>We agree that there’s some “eleventh-hour” smearing going on. But the mud is flying in both directions.</p>

<p>[FactCheck.org:</a> PAC-ing Heat](<a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/pac-ing_heat.html]FactCheck.org:”>http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/pac-ing_heat.html)</p>

40

<p>“Do we want a Commander-in-chief with a persecution complex?”</p>

<p>do we want an inexperienced bozo clinging to elitist ideology as a commander in chief?</p>