The Liberal Thread #2 - No Debate Please

[Laura]

Do you think that part of this feeling about Hillary could be due to the fact that she's a woman?

Perhaps a few have that feeling because she's a woman, but overall--no.

I really have disliked seeing some women supporters of Hillary blame the fact that she isn't clinching the nom on sexism.

 

[Planogirl]

The economy should be a big focus IMO. Did anyone see the articles this morning with headlines such as this: Economy Sputters With 0.6 Percent Growth I don't see how anyone can vote for a Republican either.

The war worries me more and I think that it plus the bad economy will do in the Republican no matter what the Democrats finally decide.

 

[Planogirl]

Perhaps a few have that feeling because she's a woman, but overall--no.

I really have disliked seeing some women supporters of Hillary blame the fact that she isn't clinching the nom on sexism.

I don't blame her situation on sexism at all. I just feel that SOME might find her more abrasive because of it. I don't know - just a theory someone I respect mentioned. I really believe that a lot of things factor into what's happening right now.

 

[wvrevy]

I don't blame her situation on sexism at all. I just feel that SOME might find her more abrasive because of it. I don't know - just a theory someone I respect mentioned. I really believe that a lot of things factor into what's happening right now.

I couldn't disagree more. If you filed the names off of all of the campaign tactics that have come out, I would still feel just as disgusted by "Candidate 'B's" actions.

And I'm not sure which implication (not from you...but from plenty of other Clinton supporters both here and elsewhere as well as from her campaign) bothers me more: that I'm somehow being "duped" by Obama - implying that I'm an idiot - or that I'm against Hillary because she's a woman - implying that I'm a misogynist. As another poster can relate, I'm also the father of a daughter that I'm hoping will grow up to be President some day, and I'm married to a very strong woman that would crack up laughing if she knew someone had implied that about me.

 

[KikiFan]

The "Unified Ticket" will not happen. Hillary brings nothing to the table in the general election. Whether as a presidential candidate or a vp candidate. Her negatives are so high, she is unelectable.

LuvDuke She brings nearly 50% of the voters, and most of the hardcore Democrats at that. Without Hillary's voters Obama couldn't win the presidency. We're not talking about a small group of diehard kooks supporting Ron Paul. We're talking about nearly half of the party. That's a lot to bring to the table.

Since I was one of (I think) the first to make the comparison between Bush and Obama - I think I should clarify.

The comparison was more about the feel of the campaign and *some* of the Obama supporters. Particularly in the early stages when Obama was not talking about his policy consistently. It refered to *some* of the Obama supporters who passionately supported him yet knew little about his beliefs. They supported him for reasons like "He's nice" "He's a good speaker" That's the similarity I see/ saw to the Bush campaigns. I watched Bush get elected 4xs (I'm in Tx) and I saw a lot of that. For my part that's where the comparison came from. The experience of a lotta love without a lotta knowledge to back it up.

Most of the people on this board are more involved and knowledgable about politics then the average voter. So while I may disagree on their choice of candidates, I don't think they fall into that catagory.

For the record, even though I don't like Obama, I believe:

Obama is at least 97% smarter then Bush and he's actually read the constitution, so that is a huge plus in a presidential candidate.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

LuvDuke She brings nearly 50% of the voters, and most of the hardcore Democrats at that. Without Hillary's voters Obama couldn't win the presidency. We're not talking about a small group of diehard kooks supporting Ron Paul. We're talking about nearly half of the party. That's a lot to bring to the table.

Since I was one of (I think) the first to make the comparison between Bush and Obama - I think I should clarify.

The comparison was more about the feel of the campaign and *some* of the Obama supporters. Particularly in the early stages when Obama was not talking about his policy consistently. It refered to *some* of the Obama supporters who passionately supported him yet knew little about his beliefs. They supported him for reasons like "He's nice" "He's a good speaker" That's the similarity I see/ saw to the Bush campaigns. I watched Bush get elected 4xs (I'm in Tx) and I saw a lot of that. For my part that's where the comparison came from. The experience of a lotta love without a lotta knowledge to back it up.

Most of the people on this board are more involved and knowledgable about politics then the average voter. So while I may disagree on their choice of candidates, I don't think they fall into that catagory.

For the record, even though I don't like Obama, I believe:

Obama is at least 97% smarter then Bush and he's actually read the constitution, so that is a huge plus in a presidential candidate.

His support has moved beyond "He's a good speaker" now though, don't you agree?

 

[Chicago526]

LuvDuke She brings nearly 50% of the voters, and most of the hardcore Democrats at that. Without Hillary's voters Obama couldn't win the presidency. We're not talking about a small group of diehard kooks supporting Ron Paul. We're talking about nearly half of the party. That's a lot to bring to the table.

But that's assuming that her half wouldn't vote for BO if he gets the nod. I think the vast majority will, especially once the general campaign gets going and they see BO go head-to-head w/McCain. I actually feel sorry for McCain, he's going to look like an idiot and he really doesn't deserve that, considering his service to the nation.

Once the primary is over, the Dems will calm down and back the nominee. The only people I'm worried about are the independents. THEY are getting turned off by this and it could be enough to put them into MCain's camp so deeply that there is no hope of winning them back. I think that's going to be the Dems problem come fall, not trouble in our own ranks.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

But that's assuming that her half wouldn't vote for BO if he gets the nod. I think the vast majority will, especially once the general campaign gets going and they see BO go head-to-head w/McCain. I actually feel sorry for McCain, he's going to look like an idiot and he really doesn't deserve that, considering his service to the nation.

Once the primary is over, the Dems will calm down and back the nominee. The only people I'm worried about are the independents. THEY are getting turned off by this and it could be enough to put them into MCain's camp so deeply that there is no hope of winning them back. I think that's going to be the Dems problem come fall, not trouble in our own ranks.

I saw a national WSJ poll this morning on the Today Show where, I believe, Obama lead McCain by 3% and McCain lead Clinton by 2%. I think once the primary contest is over and we can all narrow our sights on McCain, we'll see the Democratic candidate pull way out in front.

 

[LuvDuke]

LuvDuke She brings nearly 50% of the voters, and most of the hardcore Democrats at that. Without Hillary's voters Obama couldn't win the presidency. We're not talking about a small group of diehard kooks supporting Ron Paul. We're talking about nearly half of the party. That's a lot to bring to the table.

Since I was one of (I think) the first to make the comparison between Bush and Obama - I think I should clarify.

The comparison was more about the feel of the campaign and *some* of the Obama supporters. Particularly in the early stages when Obama was not talking about his policy consistently. It refered to *some* of the Obama supporters who passionately supported him yet knew little about his beliefs. They supported him for reasons like "He's nice" "He's a good speaker" That's the similarity I see/ saw to the Bush campaigns. I watched Bush get elected 4xs (I'm in Tx) and I saw a lot of that. For my part that's where the comparison came from. The experience of a lotta love without a lotta knowledge to back it up.

Most of the people on this board are more involved and knowledgable about politics then the average voter. So while I may disagree on their choice of candidates, I don't think they fall into that catagory.

For the record, even though I don't like Obama, I believe:

Obama is at least 97% smarter then Bush and he's actually read the constitution, so that is a huge plus in a presidential candidate.

Like you, I think I also have the distinction of voting against Bush 4X and I too lived in Texas.

With what has been happening, Hillary may be a liability whether she's in the top spot or #2.

If she's in the top spot, she'll bring out the rightwing "Hillary haters" in droves.

If she's in the #2 spot, she leaves the campaign wide open to the charge that if Hillary didn't think Obama met the "CIC threshold" or has the experience to be president in the Spring, what changed her mind? When did that campaign conversion take place? Why should a voter believe her now? That's what she has set up. I will never understand that move as long as I live.

With Hillary in the #2 spot, the campaign would be all about Hillary. You do not win a presidential campaign based on your #2 answering questions about #1's competence to be president.

Hillary set up that scenario with her "threshold test", her "3AM phonecalls", etc. Why would any presidential candidate set themselves up for that. All the Republicans would have to do to beat Obama is replay the Hillary/Bill statements about Obama and Hillary's campaign ads. Hillary/Bill have done the Republican's work for them.

I don't understand how people can completely ignore all that while calling for a dream team. It would be a nightmare.

IMO, the DNC will have to take the calculated risk of losing the Hillary supporters just to move the campaign forward. IMO, bringing in a fresh face like Richardson would be the smarter move.

 

[Laura]

Obama is at least 97% smarter then Bush and he's actually read the constitution, so that is a huge plus in a presidential candidate.

I just wanted to say I liked your comment. It would be refreshing to have a POTUS who swears to preserve, protect and defend a document he has actually read.

 

[LuvDuke]

Here's how you answer a question about a controversial supporter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQquSOnlxJ8

There's a lesson here that was never learned by some.

 

[JARNJ3]

Changing the subject - I think we liberals maybe can agree on something until this race is settled?

John McCain is no JFK?

Lieberman likens McCain to JFK
Posted: 11:15 AM ET

(CNN) — Sen. Joseph Lieberman, I-Connecticut, compared presumptive Republican nominee John McCain to a surprising figure on Sunday — Democratic icon John F. Kennedy.

“I'm a Democrat who came to the party in the era of President John F. Kennedy,” Lieberman told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week. ”It's a strange turn of the road when I find among the candidates running this year that the one, in my opinion, closest to the Kennedy legacy, the John F. Kennedy legacy, is John S. McCain.”

The Democrat-turned Independent endorsed McCain in early February, surprising many in the Democratic party. Lieberman, who ran with Al Gore on the Democratic presidential ticket eight years ago, insisted that his views have remained consistent while the Democratic Party changed.

“The Democratic Party today was not the party it was in 2000. It's been effectively taken over by a small group on the left of the party that is protectionist, isolationist and basically… very, very hyperpartisan. So it pains me,” he said.

A staunch supporter of the Iraq war, Lieberman recently traveled to Baghdad with McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina. Though he commended Hillary Clinton for her vote on declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist group, he slammed both Democratic presidential candidates on their foreign policy positions.

“The Democratic candidates have spent most of their time attacking the war in Iraq… they've honestly not done anything substantial to advance our cause in Afghanistan or against Al Qaeda.”

 

[Planogirl]

Like you, I think I also have the distinction of voting against Bush 4X and I too lived in Texas.

With what has been happening, Hillary may be a liability whether she's in the top spot or #2.

If she's in the top spot, she'll bring out the rightwing "Hillary haters" in droves.

If she's in the #2 spot, she leaves the campaign wide open to the charge that if Hillary didn't think Obama met the "CIC threshold" or has the experience to be president in the Spring, what changed her mind? When did that campaign conversion take place? Why should a voter believe her now? That's what she has set up. I will never understand that move as long as I live.

With Hillary in the #2 spot, the campaign would be all about Hillary. You do not win a presidential campaign based on your #2 answering questions about #1's competence to be president.

Hillary set up that scenario with her "threshold test", her "3AM phonecalls", etc. Why would any presidential candidate set themselves up for that. All the Republicans would have to do to beat Obama is replay the Hillary/Bill statements about Obama and Hillary's campaign ads. Hillary/Bill have done the Republican's work for them.

I don't understand how people can completely ignore all that while calling for a dream team. It would be a nightmare.

IMO, the DNC will have to take the calculated risk of losing the Hillary supporters just to move the campaign forward. IMO, bringing in a fresh face like Richardson would be the smarter move.

I think that the Democratic machine working properly could easily put that stuff to rest. Just look at how well Obama eased his way past all of that and how Hillary refused to back down (if nothing else she did that!). I see lots of strengths here on both sides and I believe that all of the spin in the world won't change that. McCain would be toast.

 

[chris1gill]

Changing the subject - I think we liberals maybe can agree on something until this race is settled?

John McCain is no JFK?

JFK is rolling in his grave

 

[JARNJ3]

I think that the Democratic machine working properly could easily put that stuff to rest. Just look at how well Obama eased his way past all of that and how Hillary refused to back down (if nothing else she did that!). I see lots of strengths here on both sides and I believe that all of the spin in the world won't change that. McCain would be toast.

Yeah - I think a lot the Obama supports took the Hillary criticism personally.

I see it just as politics......

Reagan hated Bush for his "voodoo" economics comment - and still chose him for VP.

 

[LuvDuke]

JFK is rolling in his grave

In the past, when someone has used her father's name to make an outlandish claim, eg: JFK would be a Republican today", Caroline Kennedy sometimes steps in.

I always find it amazing when Republican and DINO's like Lieberman want to make a point, they reach for a dead Democrat. They never reach for Herbert Hoover or Richard Nixon. They try to reach for "Saint Ronnie", but then the rightwing gets their panties in a wad. No one can compare to "Saint Ronnie".

 

[LuvDuke]

Yeah - I think a lot the Obama supports took the Hillary criticism personally.

I see it just as politics......

Reagan hated Bush for his "voodoo" economics comment - and still chose him for VP.

There's a world of difference between calling one of your opponent's policies "voodoo economics" and claiming your opponent hasn't passed the CIC "threshold" or questioning their competency to be president.

Hillary threw one turd too many in her punchbowl to be considered a viable VP candidate.

And if Obama picks Hillary to be his VP, it would take 3 people to revive me.

 

[Chloe'sMom]

Yeah - I think a lot the Obama supports took the Hillary criticism personally.

I see it just as politics......

Reagan hated Bush for his "voodoo" economics comment - and still chose him for VP.

the only thing I ever took personally was when Hillary supporters made comments that Obama supporters were "drinking the kool-aid" in other words we're just to stupid to know better. Crap like that pissed me off.

~Amanda

 

[WildernessBride]

the only thing I ever took personally was when Hillary supporters made comments that Obama supporters were "drinking the kool-aid" in other words we're just to stupid to know better. Crap like that pissed me off.
~Amanda

I agree with that one!!!! The Kool Aid stuff was a bit much...I mean we're all democrats here!! (Well most of us are)

 

[chris1gill]

Since nobody is bringing this over... I think this guy is still living in 1980


McCain says he doesn't know enough about HIV/Aids to say if any contraception methods would stop it's transmission... He's sure he's taken a position in the past, he'll have to look that position up I just report the facts, course he's relying on the doctor that said without examining her, that Terry Schiavo was in fact not in a vegetative state:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...iv-prevention/

SOMEWHERE in NORTHERN IOWA — The unthinkable has happened. Senator John McCain met a question, while sitting with reporters on his bus as it rumbled through Iowa today, that he couldn’t – or perhaps wouldn’t – answer.

Did he support the distribution of taxpayer-subsidized condoms in Africa to fight the transmission of H.I.V.?

What followed was a long series of awkward pauses, glances up to the ceiling and the image of one of Mr. McCain’s aides, standing off to the back, urgently motioning his press secretary to come to Mr. McCain’s side.

The upshot was that Mr. McCain said he did not know this subject well, did not know his position on it, and relied on the advice of Senator Tom Coburn, a physician and Republican from Oklahoma.

His press secretary, Brian Jones, later reported that Mr. McCain had a record of voting against using government money to finance the distribution of condoms.

All this took place on the second day of the reprise of the “Straight Talk Express” bus trips that Mr. McCain made a central part of his campaign in 2000. It also comes as Mr. McCain has eagerly been trying to ease strains with social conservatives in the party who, for the most part, do not support using government money to pay for condoms.

A transcript of the encounter follows. (Weaver is John Weaver, his senior adviser, and Brian is Mr. Jones, his press secretary):

Reporter: “Should U.S. taxpayer money go to places like Africa to fund contraception to prevent AIDS?”

Mr. McCain: “Well I think it’s a combination. The guy I really respect on this is Dr. Coburn. He believes – and I was just reading the thing he wrote– that you should do what you can to encourage abstinence where there is going to be sexual activity. Where that doesn’t succeed, than he thinks that we should employ contraceptives as well. But I agree with him that the first priority is on abstinence. I look to people like Dr. Coburn. I’m not very wise on it.”

(Mr. McCain turns to take a question on Iraq, but a moment later looks back to the reporter who asked him about AIDS.)

Mr. McCain: “I haven’t thought about it. Before I give you an answer, let me think about. Let me think about it a little bit because I never got a question about it before. I don’t know if I would use taxpayers’ money for it.”

Q: “What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush’s policy, which is just abstinence?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “Ahhh. I think I support the president’s policy.”

Q: “So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?”

Mr. McCain: (Long pause) “You’ve stumped me.”

Q: “I mean, I think you’d probably agree it probably does help stop it?”

Mr. McCain: (Laughs) “Are we on the Straight Talk express? I’m not informed enough on it. Let me find out. You know, I’m sure I’ve taken a position on it on the past. I have to find out what my position was. Brian, would you find out what my position is on contraception – I’m sure I’m opposed to government spending on it, I’m sure I support the president’s policies on it.”

Q: “But you would agree that condoms do stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Would you say: ‘No, we’re not going to distribute them,’ knowing that?”

Mr. McCain: (Twelve-second pause) “Get me Coburn’s thing, ask Weaver to get me Coburn’s paper that he just gave me in the last couple of days. I’ve never gotten into these issues before.”

This went on for a few more moments until a reporter from the Chicago Tribune broke in and asked Mr. McCain about the weight of a pig that he saw at the Iowa State Fair last year.