Do you have trouble maintaining an election?

[MattZ]

And again, why does his pre-Senate record not count? People keep mentioning that we don't know anything about him because he's only been in the Senate for a short time. But why can't we get any insight into him from his record as a state legislator, community organizer, attorney, law professor, etc.?

 

Because the decisions/votes/campaign tactics of a politician in Washington are different -- they are done with the bright lights of the possible repercussions on you. Let's take the Iraq vote for instance -- let's assume that (as I think most people think) HRC was opposed to Iraq war from the outset but felt pressure to authorize the president to use force because of any number of reasons. Those reasons could be (1) answering to her constituents that were hungry for Saddam's head, (2) fear of being perceived as "weak" because she's a woman, or because she would be a future presidential candidate (again, as a woman), etc. You just don't know how someone reacts until they are in Congress and the buck stops with them.

 

Obama has been against the war from the beginning, but it was much easier for him to be against the war from where he was sitting at the time. Would he have been so strongly opposed as a Senator? We will never know. And that is part of my concern. We just don't know because we don't have any slate to look to. What we do know is that after the war began and before things started going sour, he was quoted as being completely supportive of the troops and our president. Business as usual, no?

 

It's not that his record as a law professor or community organizer isn't relevant at all. It's that it's not nearly as relevant as Obama makes it out to be. I have no doubt that his head and his heart are in the right place. I know he's a great American and stood for the right things as a professor, attorney, community organizer, etc. What I want to know, and I don't know, is if he has the cahones to actually take the positions in Washington as Senator or President that he claims he will take.

[MrRain422]

Because the decisions/votes/campaign tactics of a politician in Washington are different -- they are done with the bright lights of the possible repercussions on you. Let's take the Iraq vote for instance -- let's assume that (as I think most people think) HRC was opposed to Iraq war from the outset but felt pressure to authorize the president to use force because of any number of reasons. Those reasons could be (1) answering to her constituents that were hungry for Saddam's head, (2) fear of being perceived as "weak" because she's a woman, or because she would be a future presidential candidate (again, as a woman), etc. You just don't know how someone reacts until they are in Congress and the buck stops with them.

 

Obama has been against the war from the beginning, but it was much easier for him to be against the war from where he was sitting at the time. Would he have been so strongly opposed as a Senator? We will never know. And that is part of my concern. We just don't know because we don't have any slate to look to. What we do know is that after the war began and before things started going sour, he was quoted as being completely supportive of the troops and our president. Business as usual, no?

 

I'd love to see that quote about being completely supportive of the president.

 

Sure, we don't know for sure that Obama wouldn't have voted for the war if he were in the Senate. But we do know that Hillary Clinton did vote for it. And we do know that, despite it being an incredibly unpopular position at the time, Obama spoke out strongly against the war. Being against the war from the start is not an empty claim -- he was very visible in speaking out about it at the time. He might of voted for the war if he was in the Senate. But he wasn't. I'd rather look at what he actually did rather than speculate on what he might have done. After all, we're all just guessing about that -- we can learn more by looking at the actual record.

 

It's not that his record as a law professor or community organizer isn't relevant at all. It's that it's not nearly as relevant as Obama makes it out to be. I have no doubt that his head and his heart are in the right place. I know he's a great American and stood for the right things as a professor, attorney, community organizer, etc. What I want to know, and I don't know, is if he has the cahones to actually take the positions in Washington as Senator or President that he claims he will take.

 

He's been one of the stronger progressive voices in the Senate for 4 years. HRC has been in the Senate for longer and hasn't accomplished any more there than he has. I'm sure she has cohones, but I don't think she has the values that I want, and I don't think she has the ability to stand on principle unless she thinks it will get her elected, which isn't really on principle at all.

[bobbob1313]

I think it's an awfully lame tactic for people to say Obama didn't vote for the war. Sure, he didn't, but that's not really an indicator of anything.

[MrRain422]

It wouldn't be an indicator of anything if he hadn't given speeches against the war and appeared at anti-war rallies at the time and the reasons he gave in 2002 for opposing the impending invasion proved precient. It's not as though the fact that he didn't vote for the war is his only anti-war credential, and to suggest that it is is completely disingenuous if not dishonest.

 

HRC, meanwhile, did vote for it and to this day refuses to take responsibility for it.

[Tweedling]

Why are there "super delegates"?

[OOO]

fwiw, i think it's spelled cojones

[bobbob1313]

I spoke out against the war when it began and I didn't vote for it and I've never talked to a lobbyist. Shouldn't I be president?

[tugmoose]

So you wanna be a political reporter?

[Panther]

Clinton does not make mistakes she voted for the war because she knew what she was doing at the time.

Obama voted for contiued funding of the war and so did Clinton. They both support the war in Afghanistan as if it

[Panther]

And yea I am Canadian but for those of you who aren

[MrRain422]

I spoke out against the war when it began and I didn't vote for it and I've never talked to a lobbyist. Shouldn't I be president?

 

You aren't qualified because you aren't old enough. Either way, red herring. Are you suggesting that Obama's and Clinton's credentials on the war are identical?

[bobbob1313]

You aren't qualified because you aren't old enough. Either way, red herring. Are you suggesting that Obama's and Clinton's credentials on the war are identical?

 

I'm suggesting that they won't go about their handling of the war all that differently (I also generally don't think the way they are talking about going about the war is the right way to handle it.)

[Panther]

They are clearly in campaign mode and while Hillary for me will forever be guilty by association I understand why Obama has been talking the way he has. he wants to win. But it kills me every time he and Hillary talk about Bush

[bobbob1313]

They are clearly in campaign mode and while Hillary for me will forever be guilty by association I understand why Obama has been talking the way he has. he wants to win. But it kills me every time he and Hillary talk about Bush

[Panther]

what? lol I dont know what you mean, you want a link to a site thats not a crazy conspiracy

 

www.cnn.com

[Panther]

how can you acuse what I said as a conspiracy theory, I simple dont follow the michale moore bush is an idiot theory.

Well he might be an idiot but the intelligence around him certainly is not.

[mountain bed]

Why are there "super delegates"?

Well, they must really be super because neither HRC or Barack will get enough pledged delegates to win outright. The thing about them is that they can vote anyway they choose - based upon thier own criteria, popular vote be damned.

[Panther]

Super delegates only exist in the democratic election and they can vote at any time notwithstanding their state, their votes combined would overrule the popular vote or the existing delegates. Talk about democracy. Super delegates for the most part are elite members of society.

[bobbob1313]

what? lol I dont know what you mean, you want a link to a site thats not a crazy conspiracy

 

www.cnn.com

 

That's not really anything.

[Panther]

www.coasttocoastam.com ok Im being an ass thats clearly a total conspiracy site

but I dont get what ur asking me for , are you trying to imply that I get my opinions form consiracy theorist cause I dont.

I form my own opinions threw thought and reading....yea reading

 

if you want a good book i'd suggest reading The New Rulers Of The World its a british bestseller and not a conspiracy book, at all.

[bobbob1313]

"even the pentagon files describe the objection to be civil war. And that

[Panther]

Ohhhhh yea that

[bjorn_skurj]

www.coasttocoastam.com ok Im being an ass thats clearly a total conspiracy site

but I dont get what ur asking me for , are you trying to imply that I get my opinions form consiracy theorist cause I dont.

I form my own opinions threw thought and reading....yea reading

 

if you want a good book i'd suggest reading The New Rulers Of The World its a british bestseller and not a conspiracy book, at all.

Arthur Jensen: You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it. Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal? That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity. It is ecological balance. You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations; there are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems; one vast, interwoven, interacting, multivaried, multinational dominion of dollars.

[Panther]

"Arthur Jensen: You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it. Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal? That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity. It is ecological balance. You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations; there are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems; one vast, interwoven, interacting, multivaried, multinational dominion of dollars. "

 

I dont no if your being sarcastic but the way were going...this might be true

[bjorn_skurj]

"Arthur Jensen: You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it. Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal? That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity. It is ecological balance. You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations; there are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems; one vast, interwoven, interacting, multivaried, multinational dominion of dollars. "

 

I dont no if your being sarcastic but the way were going...this might be true

Never seen Network? You should.