Obama, Clinton and What Has Been Achieved

posted by John Nichols on 06/04/2008 @ 12:37am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (104)

Subscribe Now

The longest, most demographically-difficult and highest-turnout campaign ever for the presidential nomination of an American political party was settled Tuesday night when Barack Obama -- the son of an African immigrant and a daughter of rural Kansas -- secured sufficient delegate support to assure that he will be selected as the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.

It was a historic moment for Obama, for the Democratic party and for the American experiment.

For the first time since the founding of the republic, a major party has nominated an African-American man for the presidency.

There is drama in that – as there will be drama in Obama's acceptance of that nomination on the 45th anniversary to the day of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr's "I Have a Dream" speech.

But there is drama, as well, in the fact that this African-American man has prevailed in a close contest with -- not against, but with -- a woman. Hillary Clinton.

Much has been made of the race and gender divisions that were highlighted during a robust if sometimes unsettling primary fight. But who really expected that the first campaign in which America would seriously consider the prospect of making a person of color or a woman president would be easy?

Instead of focusing merely on these divisions, it is important, also, to consider the most remarkable fact of this race: That in a country where women and most African Americans were denied the right to vote in 1908, a woman and an African-American man split the highest-ever turnout in a presidential nomination contest in 2008.

Hillary Clinton's mother was born before women had the right to vote.

Barack Obama's father came to the United States as a foreign student at a moment in history where many American states still denied the franchise to those whose skin was not white.

Their children have competed, seriously, for the most powerful position in the country.

Obama and Clinton each secured something in the range of 18 million votes over the course of the five-month process that began in Iowa and finished Tuesday night in South Dakota and Montana.

The two candidates and their supporters will argue for a little longer about who won the most popular votes and where and how to count them.

But the reality is that more than 36 million Americans participated in the caucuses and primaries of a major political party and that has, since January, been in the process of breaking down barriers that were erected more than 200 years ago by inspired but imperfect founders. For most of its history, America has been an incomplete democracy. But, for the past five months, it has struggled to deliver on the promise of a more perfect union.

That struggle is not finished.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton still must reconcile their ambitions and their options. Obama is right when he says, "I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States." But Clinton must help her fellow senator dot the "i" and cross the "t" in the word candidate.

Along the way, the talk of a "dream ticket" will spike.

Clinton fed it, not only with a primary-day suggestion that she would be "open" to a vice-presidential offer, but with a "concession" speech that contained no "concession."

So, too, did Obama, with a victory speech that sometimes sounded as if he was placing his rival's name in nomination.

"Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight," Obama told his cheering supporters in St. Paul, one of the Twin Cities that gave the Democratic party and the American nation some of its greatest civil rights and social justice champions: Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy, Walter Mondale and Paul Wellstone.

"We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months," he continued. "But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning -- even in the face of tough odds -- is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as First Lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency -- an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Obama finished his speech Tuesday night by talking about "the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause."

History will record that the Democratic party, which in the middle passage of the 20th century committed more freely and more fully than the Republican party to freedom's cause and the struggle to shatter those glass ceilings, began to harvest the fruits of it past commitments in the first months of 2008. It has not always been easy. It has not always been pretty. But something remarkable has begun to happen. And, on Tuesday night, as he pronounced himself to be the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party, Barack Obama was able to say, "America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love."

Comments (104)

Please rednecks --- step-up or stand down.

Posted by winyahn at 06/04/2008 @ 12:45am
Please, Clintons, stand down.

Even in this historic moment, you Clintons have failed yourselves.

If you can't go with dignity, and it seems you're unable to, then please leave quietly. Spare us your blame.

Posted by sloper at 06/04/2008 @ 02:04am
It is indeed a shining moment for the US. Both candidates should be exceptionally proud of their accomplishments, and those who voted for them should feel pretty good about doing that.

Now hillary should step aside and assume the honorary title of "elder statesman" in the Senate (even if she is only a two termer). No way would the "dream ticket" be a dream. I think she would be a distraction for Obama were she his VP candidate. He needs to pick someone that has little baggage and much experience. Of course, in mine eyes that means Bill Richardson.

But, till then, let us celebrate the fact that finally we have a non-white candidate for president!!!! I wish him all the luck in the world, he is going to need it, in the campaign and in the WH. Some of Americas true feelings are going to come out of the woodwork, and it may not be so pretty.

HIP HIP HOORAY!!

HIP HIP HOORAY!!

HIP HIP HOORAY!!

Well done Barak!!

Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2008 @ 07:21am
Bonus feature: It seems a certain real conservative owes a certain loony a tall pint of ale.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2008 @ 07:23am
Let us also celebrate the death knell of neoconservatism and the fall of the loony right wing in American politics!!

Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2008 @ 07:36am
I'm happy that Obama won, too. I only wish that the victory were clearer, which means that I wish our primary system were more democratic.

"Obama and Clinton each secured something in the range of 18 million votes over the course of the five-month process that began in Iowa and finished Tuesday night in South Dakota and Montana," Nichols wrote.

"Something in the range of…?" Is that ALL we can say?

"The two candidates and their supporters will argue for a little longer about who won the most popular votes and where and how to count them."

Yup, I guess that is to be expected, isn't it?

This is what comes of an electoral system that still hasn't jettisoned the slave-era notion that every state, but not necessarily every person, must have a vote.

The solution that I favor is Instant Runoff Voting (IRV). Never let the outcome of an election like this be this confusing again! Never let primaries drag on for months just so that every "state" can vote, while millions of PEOPLE for whom voting should be an inalienable RIGHT (this time in Florida and Michigan) don't get a chance to choose their candidate! Never again let superdelegates make the important decisions while millions of voters feel, sometimes rightly, that their votes don't matter because they were either thrown away or cast "too late in the game."

I am very happy that such a bad electoral system has bestowed victory upon such a decent candidate, but we should all understand that this was luck -- luck of the dumbest kind.

My warmest congratulations to Senator Barack Obama -- but my coldest scorn to the primary system as we know it!

Posted by JakobFabian at 06/04/2008 @ 07:41am
Most hopeful I've been since the murders of 1968. I intend to stay that way as Obama edges closer to the center during the campaign. And I intend to vote as often as possible in November.

Crush the Republicans into compost.

Posted by JFHill at 06/04/2008 @ 08:12am
All I can say is wow. The dreams and aspirations of people long gone has been realized. They are indeed smiling in the heavens. Boy, the KKK and the Aryan nation must be having fits right now.

Posted by k330k at 06/04/2008 @ 08:34am
Posted by JakobFabian -- Instant Runoff Voting

As long as ignorant bigoted unAmerican rednecks get three fifths of a vote.

Posted by winyahn at 06/04/2008 @ 08:44am
Sen. Clinton, even in the face of the will of The People you have failed to do the right thing and concede at a time in which would have meant something. It would have meant unity for the DNC, which would have gone a long toward insuring a bright and prosperous future for the hard working American families you said you support.

But, to say something repeatedly and not following up concurrently with actions, in-line with such statements, is not only disingenuous but it stands firmly and inexplicably against the very process you, Senator have counted on to run for the presidency.

So, is the process supposed to work on two separate realities? One in which everyone plays by the rules and accepts the outcome and the other in which everyone, EXCEPT you plays by the rules and accepts the outcome.

Yes, you have ran a hard campaign and people have voted for you in large numbers. But, what is the legacy of such campaign? That, unless you get what YOU want Senator, the country might as well have another 4 years of a Bush clone? Is that the message? Or, more aptly put, is that the threat?

It's all about you, Senator, it's alway been and it will always be...in your mind.

Posted by digit at 06/04/2008 @ 08:54am
Let us also celebrate the death knell of neoconservatism and the fall of the loony right wing in American politics!!

Posted by crabwalk

don't count your blessings till the dealing's done.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2008 @ 09:02am
Btw, Sen. Clinton doesn't need an exit 'strategy',

She needs the courage and dignity to do it. That's all.

She's not entitled to anything and nothing was taken away from her.

She is not going to get the back the respect she has lost by behaving the way she did, repeatedly. And with impunity.

Posted by digit at 06/04/2008 @ 09:02am
McSame? a few dozen in the audience

Hillary? a few thousand in the audience

Obama? 30,000 in the audience.

you may connect the dots.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2008 @ 09:09am
jakofabian, could not agree more about IRV. But, with the duopoly of power in the hands of our glorious 2 party system I don't see it happaning soon. Those of us in the know must keep plugging for IRV till we are out of breath.

the primary system has been set up by the parties to reflect our electoral system. For Hillary to gripe about "most votes" while ignoring the rules she helps keep in place, delegates vs total votes, states vs national, is a deep hypocrisy. That could be her first legislation as an "elder" in the Senate, a call for IRV!!

EMILE, well stated. Obama is going to turn out new voters in such numbers that I predict precincts will be over run with new voters. That can only be good. Lets see if we as a nation can clear the 50% level of voter participation. That would be a good step for "the greatest nation on Earth". (tee hee)

Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2008 @ 09:45am
All parents can recognize what HRC is doing,you know that look of a spoiled child,when they can't get their way,or taking their ball home because they are losing the game.The numbers don't lie,she just can't except the fact.

I will never forget her interview with Katie Couric,when she was asked "what if you lose"and her answer was"I don't intend to"

Posted by eniobob at 06/04/2008 @ 09:57am
c'mon, nichols, find a new school marm to bring your shiny apple to.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Side note to the Clintons: There is the exit.

Posted by Lil at 06/04/2008 @ 10:14am
Congratulations to Barack and Michelle Obama! Now, perhaps, America can get to the business of building a better future. Again, congratulations!

Hillary Clinton ran an "ALL-OR-NOTHING" campaign. Well..."ALL" is currently taken! ;-)

"If Hillary Clinton is so great, she'll do what's right and her followers will back the Democratic nominee. If not...we'll all know exactly why she lost and the immeasurable damage inflicted on the Democratic party. In case Hillary doesn't know, we often learn more from defeat than victory. Bitter battles lost should never be allowed to outweigh the entire war. Some times putting others before self becomes the precise difference between victory and defeat." -- Steve Ford

Obama has done more than his share in the bridge building equation and he's the winner! Mrs. Clinton, nobody likes sore a loser. NOBODY.

*** ABC = Anybody But Clinton ***

ABC for VP!

ABC for VP!

ABC for VP!

Posted by CrushInfamy at 06/04/2008 @ 10:14am
Before Obama started running, I felt that neocons like mcbush/bush would ruin our collective future. Now I have hope, and we donate as much as possible to the Obama campaign. I have met a lot of other supporters in my city, went to parties, gotten involved in ways I never ever did before in politics....I strongly feel that we all have to change and be the change we wish to see in the world....Obama will lead the way....it doesn't matter your race, gender, religion, or other label the media would put on you (we are uncomfortable with change and we can't put a label on the current paradigm shift happening in this country). We all want and need a better future, a change from the past eight years cannot happen soon enough....

Mcbush walks like a neocon, talks like a neocon, yet he says he isn't one...his own party detests him almost as much as hillary....both are about as "uniter" as dubya...

We must be able to see past the short-sightedness and myopia of the past eight years and think long-term again in terms of how the rest of the world will view us and the next generation. I live in NY and I am and have always been an Obama supporter.

Barack Obama, thank you for making our (x, y, z, aa, millenium...whatever) generation feel we have a say in our future and that our country has a brighter future. The pendulum is swinging the other way.....Obama '08

Posted by jrs112 at 06/04/2008 @ 10:20am
Those of you with families, like an earlier post alluded to, should be very familiar with what hillary is doing, angling for vp spot, refusing to concede...it is very selfish even to the end of her campaign....like a spoiled brat...now her own campaign put their collective feet in their mouth taking back all their disparaging comments from before....acting like they care about the party....it is very shameful....and a very bad role model for someone who, like it or not, is being looked to by younger children as a role model...for female power, hillary is a bad role model....and every woman I know in my neighborhood agrees (secretly they may have supported her earlier on, but her recent antics have angered a lot).....instead of gracefully exiting earlier and almost guaranteeing a united party and VP spot...she instead has given the otherwise totally vacuous, insipid mccain something to grasp onto..."see the dems cannot even unite themselves....." Hillary trying to undermine her own party is no laughing matter and we need to get back on track fast, with our without her!!!!!!

I personally feel richardson or hagel would be good for strategic and demographic reasons and for being independent thinking individuals themselves.....right now, after eight years of lies, being able to think for oneself cannot be underestimated.....

Posted by jrs112 at 06/04/2008 @ 10:28am
And the other "historic" notion is that Hillary lost in a RUB Goldberg process..

Maasch, what is a Rub Goldberg process? a massage technique for jews?

Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2008 @ 11:24am
"Maasch, what is a Rub Goldberg process? a massage technique for jews?"

Good joke.

Posted by sloper at 06/04/2008 @ 11:29am
The only historic reality is the two candidates divided the Dem(and America) party along racial and "feminist" lines and unless they join the ticket together..will return to the Senate together..

Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/4/2008

Well I mean come on Jom. It is the first election where we had a viable African American and Female running for a ticket. Whether they win or not it is pretty Historic to have a black person or a woman as the presidential nominee. No matter how skeptical you are you can at least admit that.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 11:37am
lvliberty-McCain is an adulterer who dumped his handicapped wife for a rich young bimbo.That shows lack of character as so many of you pointed out when Bill Clinton committed adultery.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/04/2008 @ 11:41am
Hillary is acting like a spoiled child; a real sore loser. I cannot believe that she continues to make the dubious claim of the popular vote lead. Only if Michigan is counted for her and nothing for Obama does this hold true. And that is a patently unfair way to handle this. Its a small point, but it is important. There are a lot of passions out there and HRC keeps stoking the flames by insinuating that she has really won and had it stolen from her. Obama won fair and square and we as Democrats dont need her creating further divisions.

I predict a summer campaign season of more division from Hillary, more outrageous comments from Ferraro and more crazy Hillary supports going berzerk all summer long.

Posted by rasalula at 06/04/2008 @ 11:42am
The post by JakobFabian was to the point, the process is flawed. We have seen about fifteen months of non-stop campaigning, polling and debating. Not to mention lies and smears. This is no way to conduct the selection process for such an important position.

We have heard about the gender card and the race card. I had the mistaken notion that a candidate was selected based upon their proposed policies and their legislative or executive record. The longer the campaign season the greater the opportunity for politics of personal destruction.

We would be better served with a series of national debates and a one day national primary process.

Posted by Nhoj_John at 06/04/2008 @ 11:44am
The post by JakobFabian was to the point, the process is flawed. We have seen about fifteen months of non-stop campaigning, polling and debating. Not to mention lies and smears. This is no way to conduct the selection process for such an important position.

We have heard about the gender card and the race card. I had the mistaken notion that a candidate was selected based upon their proposed policies and their legislative or executive record. The longer the campaign season the greater the opportunity for politics of personal destruction.

We would be better served with a series of national debates and a one day national primary process.

nhojjohn

Posted by Nhoj_John at 06/04/2008 @ 11:45am
"I repeat that Obama is a charismatic and stirring speaker who has no substance behind the words. Furthermore, for approximately half of Americans, his vision and proposals stand in diametric opposition to the beliefs and ideals of those many 10's of millions of Americans like myself.

...given his political beliefs and goals.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008

Hmm. Ok I don't know about you but these statements appear contradictory. Nevermind Hillary cultists but Republicans will say he has no policies and then say in the same breath that they are afraid of his goals. If you are in fact an empty suit then you have no goals because you have no plans. If you have goals then you have policies. Call me and idiot but that's how I understand it to be. Goals ARE policies. This is precisely why the empty suit argument falls flat on it's face because everyone who claims he is an empty suit when then in the same breath speak of his policies and how they are bad for America.

You guys need to get together and choose one cohesive argument and stick to it.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/4/2008

I responded to your response as such LV.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 11:45am
That shows lack of character as so many of you pointed out when Bill Clinton committed adultery.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/4/2008

No no no. You don't understand nobody. It's FINE when a Republican does it because it can be excused away. But when a Democrat does it they should be strung up.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 11:46am
lvliberty-McCain is an adulterer who dumped his handicapped wife for a rich young bimbo.That shows lack of character as so many of you pointed out when Bill Clinton committed adultery.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/4/2008

Yes, but only rethugs can do these things. The trick is to do your bad stuff like leave your wife, do drugs, invest in illegal offshore business or accounts, commit graft in lower office and then get reborn and claim yourself a person of God. That gets you 28% of the vote. Then, say you will cut taxes for the wealthy and do away with the inheritence tax, and you get another 22.1% of the vote and you win. Kind of sounds like Karl Rove doesn't it. The same guy who leaked the lie about McCains illegitimate child from...oh my God, a black woman!!!!

Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/04/2008 @ 11:54am
nostalgia.

it seems like only yesterday that the Whigs including Liverty were ready to get behind the candidacy of Rudy Giuliani, who was juggling three mistresses, instead of protecting our city.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2008 @ 11:55am
lvliberty1 and JOMAMMA - it's okay, come out of the closet. You two fellow travelers can drop your right-winger facade. In this country where we love liberty, Communists are protected by the Constitution. So it's okay to show your true colors. Stalin would be proud of both of you. Be yourselves boys; don't wear your "conservative" costumes any more. It's time for you both to proudly show us Democrats that hammer and sickle tattooed on your respective gluteus maximi.

Posted by guanabana at 06/04/2008 @ 12:01pm
"Boring, predictable, fallacious in that he falsely calls for unity while proposing that which is factious (simply showing that he is just like most politicians from either left or right); frightening, given what his proposals would bring to the US.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008

Like "I'm a uniter, not a divider"---Dubya?

Posted by Mask at 06/04/2008 @ 12:11pm
lvliberty1 and JOMAMMA - it's okay, come out of the closet. You two fellow travelers can drop your right-winger facade. In this country where we love liberty, Communists are protected by the Constitution. So it's okay to show your true colors. Stalin would be proud of both of you. Be yourselves boys; don't wear your "conservative" costumes any more. It's time for you both to proudly show us Democrats that hammer and sickle tattooed on your respective gluteus maximi.

Posted by guanabana at 06/4/2008

Actually it's funny because non-true conservatives, basically neocons, who advocate giving money to the wealthy and buisness are more true to Communist Russia than the true Communists here. This SOUNDS crazy but let me explain. When Russia went all Commy they were funneling most of their money to wealthy and the the military. Neo-Cons propose funneling most of the nations money to the wealthy and the military. Crazy right?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 12:15pm
Like "I'm a uniter, not a divider"---Dubya?

Posted by Mask at 06/4/2008

I forgot all about that. Nice pull on that one Mask.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 12:16pm
Worthy words spoken by MLK. I will use that standard for this election. Therefore, McCain stands head and shoulders over Obama.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008 |

Let's see, how can we judge the content of McCain's character...

*McNasty - Naval Academy nickname *894 of 899 - class rank at said institution *Keating Five *Obscenities hurled on floor of Senate *Own party members question if his temperament is fit for the Presidency *Shameless pandering in the form of Hagee's endorsement after (correctly) labeling such as 'agents of intolerance *100 years in Iraq *Dumping first wife for wealthier, younger model *Flip flopping on Boosh entitlement program for top 1% of wage earners (you call them tax cuts)

Yeah, quite some content to his character there.

Oh, and he doesn't always wear a flag lapel pin, either.

Posted by skeletonman at 06/04/2008 @ 12:38pm
Thanks for the words, Keep the change!

For a moment I was stupid to believe in this so-called change frenzy. Then I listened your new Goe in AIPAC trying to break himself into pieces to make believe Israeli paratroopers that he is not out of the herd. wow. change. 6 million jews vs. 294 million nons. change of what? Multinationals, media corps, petroleum companies, banks, CEOs, insurance companies, weapon barons almost all of them are in AIPEC. Is there a change possible in accepting their priorities. How do you say: I love this game!

Posted by albouquerque at 06/04/2008 @ 12:51pm
so Kerry spit on his country, and Lts Calley and Medina didn't?

this is known as shooting the messenger.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2008 @ 12:52pm
The substance I referred to was not his proposals, but Obama himself. My argument has not changed. Yes, it should be acknowledged that anyone of color that rises to the level of achievement that Obama has obtained obviously has grit, determination, and drive. However, the presidency of the US requires more than that in my view. I need to see proof that they can handle the most difficult decisions that any one person can be called upon to make.

In that regard, Obama has so far shown his character substance to be unproven at best, and deficient at worst (see the progression of changes regarding his church).

Secondly, I have little respect when any politician engages in the fallacious "unity" pledge. That includes GW Bush. It has never truly existed in this country and never will as long as we retain the freedom of political expression.

We are and will remain a divided country and that is a good thing. It prevents totalitarianism of any kind, left or right.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008

Haha, prevents totalitarianism. It would, if we were truly a divided nation. But sadly, were not. It just seems that way, because those of us who do vote (less then half of us) are so divided. More then half us don't really give a damn, and a good percentage of those us who do give a damn have been brainwashed by the 4th branch of the government (the media), and the vast majority of the media you will ever see/hear is controlled by 7 corporations.

So what's that mean? From nearly all of our media, we get 7 official stances. Only seven. Sure, some of the national media isn't under the power of these corporations (New York Times, Christian Science Monitor, Washington Post, USA Today), and some of the corporate stuff is given some leeway. But even these national newspapers reflect similar view points as the corporately controlled ones. The Christian Science Monitor seems to be the only one of the four that tries to look at a situation from multiple angels, and that's also the least read of the four.

Basically, what this has served to do is to lower the maximum number of possible perspectives that the average American has easy access to. As it's pretty damn rare for someone to form an opinion that is radically different from the perspectives reflected in all of their possible sources of information, this has basically made the playing field for ideas of all kinds smaller. Hence, despite the appearance of division in our country, it's not nearly as divided as it could be. The other problem with our division is also that it's bitter, bitter people don't make much progress. This county should be divided on the issues, without this division dialogs would be impossible. The divisions should be friendly/competitive; in friendly competition people are willing to compromise. not my way or the highway style divisions, which breed nothing but bitter animosity.

Posted by shadow master at 06/04/2008 @ 1:29pm
Thanks for the words, Keep the change!

For a moment I was stupid to believe in this so-called change frenzy. Then I listened your new Goe in AIPAC trying to break himself into pieces to make believe Israeli paratroopers that he is not out of the herd. wow. change. 6 million jews vs. 294 million nons. change of what? Multinationals, media corps, petroleum companies, banks, CEOs, insurance companies, weapon barons almost all of them are in AIPEC. Is there a change possible in accepting their priorities. How do you say: I love this game!

Posted by albouquerque at 06/4/2008 ----------------------------------------- Would you care to try again? I get that you are disillusioned with Obama, but beyond that, this post sounds like a conspiracy theorist filled out a Madlibs sheet.

As for the internicene Democratic debate over which candidate's behavior was more disgusting, I think John's right. We'll argue about it some more, and some Clinton supporters will actually follow through on threats to stay home or vote Republican on election day, but most of us will get our sense of perspective back after a couple months of hearing what Obama and McCain have to say.

I hope lvliberty1 is wrong about the impossibility of unity. I mean, I'm glad that the two parties disagree on a lot of things, but I would rather have compromises that go some way toward solving longstanding problems than continuing stagnation enforced by partisanship. But I'd bet that it won't take long before Obama is pushing policies that Republicans find unacceptable (most of which I will like, but that's not the point). People will dig in their heels, and the politicians will continue to put the interests of their parties over the interests of the country.

Still, Obama has some history of working out differences among groups, and he's speaking the right language now, so I'll be backing him and hoping for the best.

Posted by Haldane at 06/04/2008 @ 1:42pm
lvliberty1

you're not addressing my point.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2008 @ 1:48pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008

Well you need to be more clear about what you say then. When you first stated you were worried about something you said it was his GOALS not his character which implies his policy goals. Now you are changing tact and saying it's his character and my argument was not only leveled at you but Happy and Jom and others as well. How can you say he has no policies and is only an empty suit but then say he is going to lead this country to socialism. I think socialism is a policy choice.

Now to your argument that he doesn't have the personality. You would rather have a pandering, ill tempered, materialistic, intelligent person. Rather than a at least appears to be genuine, well intentioned, level headed intelligent person? If McCain got half the fire Obama was getting he would erupt and say something ill advised. Obama approaches all situations with tact. Like I have said before, if I had gotten even have the fire he is receiving now I would have said something I shouldn't have said. So you are arguing that his personality is wrong for the Whitehouse because he isn't baited easily and can approach a situation with a calm and level head? I think that is EXACTLY what the Whitehouse needs. We don't need this BS shoot from the hip crap. We need a President who can think clearly under pressure.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 1:49pm
"Furthermore, for approximately half of Americans, his vision and proposals stand in diametric opposition..."

"The substance I referred to was not his proposals..."

Contradict much? Those who claim Obama does not have policies and plans are purposely ignorant. It takes very little research to find exactly what his policies are. I suppose that is much harder for fools to find, especially when finding McCain's plans and policies consists of looking no farther than the current White House.

Posted by davefoley0 at 06/04/2008 @ 1:53pm
"We are and will remain a divided country and that is a good thing. It prevents totalitarianism of any kind, left or right."---Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008

Is there ANYBODY here who believes...

that LVLIBERTY believed that back when it was Dubya at the 60%-70% approvals and Republicans controlling both Houses of Congress?!?!?

Posted by Mask at 06/04/2008 @ 1:57pm
"lvliberty-McCain is an adulterer who dumped his handicapped wife for a rich young bimbo.That shows lack of character as so many of you pointed out when Bill Clinton committed adultery."

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/4/2008

Some perspective here, IM. McCain wasn't in public office at the time of his divorce in 1980. Unlike slick Willy during his times as governor of AR and President.

Posted by ACook at 06/04/2008 @ 2:28pm
ACook

it's a character issue. whether he was in office is irrelevant

Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2008 @ 2:30pm
Some perspective here, IM. McCain wasn't in public office at the time of his divorce in 1980. Unlike slick Willy during his times as governor of AR and President.

Posted by ACook at 06/4/2008

Yeah but it is still an inditement of his character to leave a woman for a younger richer character. There is this weird phenomenon where if you get into public office it somehow makes any mistake you make much worse than a normal every day person doing it. What McCain did is still just as underhanded as what Clinton did whether he was in public office or not in my mind doesn't make a difference it all still makes for a pretty crappy personality trait.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 2:33pm
ACook

it's a character issue. whether he was in office is irrelevant

Posted by emile duBois at 06/4/2008

Beat me to the punch and in a much more concise fashion.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 2:34pm
acook***McCain wasn't in public office at the time of his divorce in 1980.

Clinton wasn't in office when he didn't inhale, either, yet much was made of THAT.

Posted by Balrog at 06/04/2008 @ 2:36pm
Clinton wasn't in office when he didn't inhale, either, yet much was made of THAT.

Posted by Balrog at 06/4/2008

And Obama wasn't in office whenever he did whatever he did yet people keep bringing it up.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 2:39pm
ACook-It is quite irrelevant as to when McCain or Clinton did their adultery since it still goes to character.Of course,we don't know what McCain has gotten away with with.We only know that he is willing to commit adultery.The fact that he dumped a handicapped wife for the younger rich one does not say much for him.Usually you women don't like men who dump their wives for a younger version.I,also,find it interesting that so many evangelicals are endorsing the adulterer while they point the "sin" finger at gay people.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/04/2008 @ 2:48pm
lvliberty1

McSame will not be president of the Us. he is a Siamese twin to Bush and the American people have had it with Bush.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2008 @ 4:17pm
However, as I've stated before, he is light years ahead of Obama as a candidate for president.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008

How so?

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 4:22pm
However, as I've stated before, he is light years ahead of Obama as a candidate for president.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008

How so? and I mean on the personality level I don't need the schpeel about experience I mean strictly on life mistakes.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 4:22pm
However, as I've stated before, he is light years ahead of Obama as a candidate for president.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008

How so? and I mean on the personality level I don't need the schpeel about experience I mean strictly on life mistakes.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/4/2008

Time warped.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 4:23pm
However, as I've stated before, he is light years ahead of Obama as a candidate for president.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008

How so? and I mean on the personality level I don't need the schpeel about experience I mean strictly on life mistakes.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/4/2008

Time warped.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/4/2008

Time warped again.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 4:24pm
libzRfreaks,

CAN WE SAY "TURN OFF THE CAPS LOCK KEY ONCE IN A WHILE

You're right about at least one thing. I expect a landslide victory. For Obama. I watched McCain, Clinton, and Obama on CNN last night. Their speeches were presented in that order, with each more inspiring and charismatic than the one before. People want an adult in the White House, and they want someone who can accurately and coherently describe the problems facing this country and say with infectious certainty that we can overcome them. People want to believe in the strength and goodness of their country, and Obama helps them do that.

Not that Obama has made it very clear how he plans to solve problems, and, honestly, any presidential candidate who gets explicit about policy is making promises Congress might not let him keep. But people vote for the candidate who is saying the right things in the right way, and that's definitely Obama. People want a strong leader who will get us back on the right track, and McCain can't even admit to how far off track we are without alienating his base.

Posted by Haldane at 06/04/2008 @ 4:24pm
However, as I've stated before, he is light years ahead of Obama as a candidate for president.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008

How so? and I mean on the personality level I don't need the schpeel about experience I mean strictly on life mistakes.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/4/2008

Time warped.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/4/2008

Time warped again.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/4/2008

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 4:24pm
Hmm I keep getting time warped

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 4:25pm
LvLiberty-That was a bunch of pathetic crap in the form of excuses for McCain.After everyone knows about his adultery he then writes a book where he pretends to be sorrowful about dumping the disabled wife for the young rich one,but he is still with the younger rich one.You're great at quoting the Bible when it suits your purposes,but quick to forget about it when it doesn't.Did you notice that McCains book came out in 1999?What else was he doing in 1999?He uses his POW status to get away with things and to get political advantage.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/04/2008 @ 4:29pm
LvLiberty-You sure came up with some pathetic excuses for McCain and his actions and are quick to excuse them because he claimed that he was sorry in a book that came out in order to advance his political career.The book came out in 1999?What was McCain doing in 1999?Who is McCain living with?The first wife or the younger rich one?You quote the Bible when it suits your purposes,but forget about it when it doesn't.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/04/2008 @ 4:33pm
LvLiberty-McCain wrote the book in order to get money and advance his political career.What was he doing in 1999 when the book came out?Only the most gullible of people would believe that he was sorry that he screwed around on his disabled wife with the hot young rich one and that he is sorry that he is a senator because of it and is sorry that he is the nominee because of it because he still uses the adultery to advance himself and is still with the rich much younger one.You quote the Bible when it suits your purposes,but forget about it when it doesn't..

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/04/2008 @ 4:44pm
libzRfreaks,

CAN WE SAY "TURN OFF THE CAPS LOCK KEY ONCE IN A WHILE

As for your prediction of a landslide victory, don't count your chickens just yet. I saw McCain, Clinton, and Obama speak on CNN last night, in that order, and each was more inspiring than the one before. After two terms of Bush, people want an adult in the White House who can speak coherently, and they want someone who can identify a problem and get to work on a solution. Most of all, they want someone who can help them believe in the goodness and strength of America.

Obama meets those needs. He has a strong, confident presence, a rich, baritone voice, and an eloquence that we haven't seen in decades. He clearly and accurately articulates the problems this country faces, and he assures us that we can overcome them. He is calm and level-headed at almost all times. If he says something funny, he doesn't snicker at it to let us know it was a joke.

McCain, like Bush, tends to whine, snicker at his own jokes, and smile obsequeously when he speaks. His policy prescriptions sound exactly like those Bush has offered in each of his campaigns (e.g., "free-market solutions" to the health care crisis), and he shares the belief that every problem is a PR problem ("free-market solutions" sounds better than "following the status quo). He gets irritated easily. He hunches over the lecturn when he speaks, and his teeth look small in his face. Some of this is really trivial, obviously, but people want maturity and confidence, and that's not what McCain presents.

Posted by Haldane at 06/04/2008 @ 4:46pm
Wrong JR. I have shared how I personally heard him speak against this country when we were both in VVAW. His attitude towards this country then was despicable.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008

Lots of people agreed with Kerry that the actions of their guvt were despicable. In the words of Muhammad Ali "No viet cong ever called me a nigger". At the time the US guvt was fire hosing it's citizens, spying on them and waging an unnecessary and ill fought war in Asia (ding! a bell rings). Speaking a little truth to power is not despicable, keeping quiet while these events transpired is. Should Kerry have done what the Bush propagandist military "analysts" did and take their talking points with the check?

But, this is old news, you continue to fight the battles that were over 30 years ago. The new news is that the neo-con era has seen it's end. It lasted all of 8 whole years, maybe even only 6, till the "mainstream" caught on to the boondoggle. There are too many sheep in this country, but the wool can only be pulled over their eyes so many times.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2008 @ 4:47pm
But I bet you voted for Kerry who came home a legitimate hero and proceeded to spit on his country.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008

I think that you failed to address my observations about your man and instead tried to divert my attention with a non-issue.

Won't work, Chumly.

Speak to my point or shut your pie hole ... er ... filler.

Posted by skeletonman at 06/04/2008 @ 4:57pm
Some perspective here, IM. McCain wasn't in public office at the time of his divorce in 1980. Unlike slick Willy during his times as governor of AR and President.

Posted by ACook at 06/4/2008

Shrub wasn't in office when he passed off burning fraternity pledges with cigarettes as good clean fun, nor was he in office when AWOL from the Air Guard, when he was arrested from DWI in Kennebunkport, ME, or lied about finding Jesus on a personal stroll with Billy Graham; what do you suppose these things reveal about his character?

Posted by skeletonman at 06/04/2008 @ 5:07pm
albouquerque,

Apologies for my mean post earlier. However, I would recommend filling in some blanks for those of us who might not have read every news story you have. Your list of topics from Obama's speech to the AIPAC, followed by a list of the kinds of people you associate with AIPAC, sounded like a series of random words and phrases with no clear connection to each other. When someone lists apparently unconnected words and phrases and does not explain the connections, it often means that the connections are illusory and the writer is completely off his nut.

(By the way, what's up with the random order of posted messages? I just posted two responses to libzRfreaks' rant because the first one ended up near the top of the discussion, where I did not look for it, and I assumed it had been lost.)

Posted by Haldane at 06/04/2008 @ 5:07pm
emile duBois, Cccomfo1 and IM at 06/4/2008

I'm not excusing the behavior, not at all.

Posted by ACook at 06/04/2008 @ 5:08pm
Shrub wasn't in office when he . . . lied about finding Jesus on a personal stroll with Billy Graham; what do you suppose these things reveal about his character?

-----------------------------------------

Skeletonman, how do you know he lied about finding Jesus? If you're saying he's missed a lot of the point of what Jesus said, I agree, but that could be an innocent mistake. Remember, communication is not really Bush's strong suit.

Posted by Haldane at 06/04/2008 @ 5:11pm
Skeletonman, how do you know he lied about finding Jesus? If you're saying he's missed a lot of the point of what Jesus said, I agree, but that could be an innocent mistake. Remember, communication is not really Bush's strong suit.

Posted by Haldane at 06/4/2008

Not what I am saying, just that Shrub goes around saying that it was BG who was turned his life to JC, a claim that Graham disputes.

According to Shrub's own writings, also, it was a man named Arthur Blessitt that he credits with his conversion.

Whether Bush had a born again experience is known only to himself, God and Jesus. I'm just saying that he is not always truthful about how it happened.

Posted by skeletonman at 06/04/2008 @ 5:22pm
1)have an extreme distaste for the Christian teaching of forgiveness and moving forward.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008

I don't think this is the case necessarily. How often do liberals have to hear from conservatives about the sins they committed even after they apologized. Don't think it's just us. Conservatives are just as unlikely to use the forgive and forget tactic as liberals so please don't even try that partisan play.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 6:56pm
Liver, you still are not answering my point. My Lai. there were by all reports many my Lais. was Kerry telling the truth? who was really spitting on our country? the murderers in uniform?

Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2008 @ 7:16pm
liverty, you are missing the point. was he telling the truth about atrocities committed by US troops. until you address this point, there is no discussion.

what is worse, atrocities committed or rhetoric you disapprove of? just answer the goddamn questions, Elmer.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2008 @ 8:33pm
Lets see if we as a nation can clear the 50% level of voter participation.

Posted by crabwalk

i think you just may break 60% this time.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2008 @ 9:47pm
30,000 in the audience.

you may connect the dots.

Posted by emile duBois

uh,

those are points of light, thank you very much.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2008 @ 9:49pm
Posted by lvliberty1

please don't elect mccain.

the world is fed up.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2008 @ 9:51pm
Frankly, for someone who it is clearly apparent is well versed in the finer arts of mankind, you display a disgraceful attitude towards those who serve our country and you so you can enjoy those arts you love so much. That just serves to diminish you and not our heroic members of the armed forces.

Posted by lvliberty1

how does attacking vietnam keep an artist free?

no one can be a hero in a criminal action.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2008 @ 10:46pm
I really don't care FZ. The world has no business in who I elect. We are a sovereign nation and not subject to the whims, emotions and opinions of other nations when it comes to selecting our leaders and representatives.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008

Yeah only America gets to do that.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 10:59pm
I can vouch- Frosty's constantly bugging me for really good leftist rhetoric and revisionist history.

Posted by winyahn at 06/04/2008 @ 10:59pm
LvLiberty-I have no distaste for forgiveness,but you do and it is you,and not me,that judges others and condemns them to hell.I noticed that,as always,you ignored my Bible reference because it disagrees with you.McCain is still living in his sin and is benefiting from his sin,but you forgive this unrepentant sinner because he is a republican.By the way,I'm not expressing my views on the subject of sin and adultery,but I am pointing out the hypocrisy of your views and how you pick and choose "sins" and pick and choose who to forgive based on politics..You are a raging hypocrite who points the "sin" finger at anyone whose politics you disagree with and send them to hell,but forgive McCain even though he did not change his ways and benefits from his adultery.That's like a thief that benefits from his theft by keeping the money,but says he's sorry.His book expressing remorse came out while he is running for POTUS and you claim it's sincere.Get a grip on reality.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/04/2008 @ 11:31pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/200

No but our country decides who Iraq elects. Or do you not remember us telling them that we didn't like their choice and to elect someone else? I also think we have some say in elections in portions of Africa and possibly South America to keep the states we need in a state where we can use them.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 01:07am
His book expressing remorse came out while he is running for POTUS and you claim it's sincere.Get a grip on reality.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/4/2008

That's because Republicans are always sincere.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 01:09am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/5/2008

Hmm. But don't you have to truly want forgiveness in order to get it? Admitting your sins but not saying you are sorry does not gain forgiveness. I have to admit it is a little suspicious that he released a book atoning for his sins as he is running for office. I am not saying he is not sorry but for a politician it is definitely believable that he only did it in order to gain credibility. I don't know if he is sincere or not and I try not to judge peoples personal lives too quickly but I also wouldn't be so quick to accept every word that comes out of a politicians mouth even if he does seem repentant.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 01:57am
I'm really hard pressed to think of a single contribution the Clinton campaign has made to our politics, other than to show us all what it is like to be bratty, self-righteous, annoying, and narcissistic.

Posted by KSP556 at 06/05/2008 @ 02:24am
Countries in which the US has meddled with the elected officials (short list):

Chile

Ecuador

Panama

Nicaragua

Iran

Saudi Arabia

Iraq

Guatemala

Much of Europe following WWII

Haiti

So, gimme a frickin' break LUVVY!

Jeez, talk about revisionism. Get over yourself.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2008 @ 07:50am
I'm 60-years old and have lived through a fair amount of Presidencies. In that time, my appreciation of a leader who can govern with style and words has increased dramatically. A president's image helps sell the pragmatic and often difficult to swallow policy changes. John Kennedy maintained a 70% approval average, the highest in recorded history. While Johnson was a deft arm-wrencher, the Kennedy mantle played no small part in Johnson's domestic successes. Men like the Roosevelts, Kennedy and Reagan had "it." The great intellects of John Quincy Adams and Adlai Stevenson were trumped by men with dynamic images. Lincoln had "it." He was a near-unknown outside of Illinois, elected with under 40% of the National vote... and saved the country. If Barack Obama is a rock star, Washington was the first. Without argument, each notable accomplishment in Washington's public life was born from his dynamic personality and not from a record of success. As Jefferson noted, sometimes, we need that internal revolt, however undefined or unknown, in order to reinvent ourselves and evolve as a society.

Posted by wbramh at 06/05/2008 @ 09:49am
LvLiberty-Actually,when it comes to matters of faith it is you that is,typically,wrong because you are selective in what parts of the Bible to go by and which parts to ignore and you go by the persons political beliefs in order to decide if they should be forgiven.I don't believe in the literal truth of the Bible,but you do,but your views,as they pertain to McCain, are not Biblical,but mine are.McCain is not a repentant "sinner".He is still living in the adulterous relationship and benefits from his "sin" by being quite wealthy and by gaining political power and a repentant "sinner"does not benefit from their sin and does not use their "sin" for personal gain,as McCain has and does..He is no different than a thief who keeps the money they stole,makes more money off of the money they stole,keeps all the money,but says they are sorry just before running for POTUS,like McCain did and the fact that McCain said he was sorry about it at that particular point in time makes his "sorry" suspect to all,but the most gullible. I did not buy Clintons "I'm sorry" and I don't buy McCains,either so my view has nothing to do with politics..One more time,a repentant sinner does not continue to benefit from their "sin",like McCain does.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/05/2008 @ 10:05am
Frankly, for someone who it is clearly apparent is well versed in the finer arts of mankind, you display a disgraceful attitude towards those who serve our country and you so you can enjoy those arts you love so much. That just serves to diminish you and not our heroic members of the armed forces.

this is the trope that Jack Nicholson delivered in " a few good men"

it goes, I'm protecting you, so don't you dare question my methods.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2008 @ 11:29am
crabwalk

in the case of Panama, the US created a country, in order to build the canal without interference of the country in which it was built. then we snatched the canal zone.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2008 @ 12:01pm
If someone "comes home a hero", do you not grant them their opinions, or do they remain heroes only if they keep to the government line that you happen to agree with? Take Scott Ritter for example; when he was rightly criticizing Clinton for his interference with UNSCOM he was a darling of the "right". Powell described him as a "True American hero, willing to speak truth to power". When he rightly spoke against the policies of the Bush admin, suddenly he was a traitor.

Oh, and I left Vietnam out of my list of places the US has interfered in internal politics. But, I am sure you feel it was justified, along with all the other places we have done these kinds of activities. After all, the Contras were just like Adams and Washington, with death squads.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2008 @ 12:04pm
crabwalk

in the case of Panama, the US created a country, in order to build the canal without interference of the country in which it was built. then we snatched the canal zone.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/5/2008

then we snatched Noriega, after he stopped playing ball by our rules. Till then his dictatorship was to our benefit and "we" propped him up.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2008 @ 12:09pm
but, again, this is old, old old news.

the New News is that an African American/mixed race man has a good shot at the WH. Will he do a good job? Unkown. He has 2 wars, rising energy costs, falling dollar and a hard road to clean up in the international scene.

All Bill clintons fault, of course.

Posted by crabwalk at 06/05/2008 @ 12:12pm
Also as a pastor, it is my experience that many (but unfortunately not all) Christians as they mature in Christ are less likely to yield to divorce as an answer to problems, even unfaithfulness. It really is highly dependent on their spiritual progress in Christ and their ability to forgive, to receive forgiveness, and often times, to forgive themselves.

Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/5/2008

I have to disagree with this part. There is a 50% divorce rate in this country. So not even many Christians can fit in. Granted these are not all or even neccesarily most of the people.

"Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Maybe in YOUR experience. But in the full aspect of the United States as a whole Christians have a higher divorce rate than most anyone else except Jews. Atheists and Agnostics have the lowest divorce rate. Also divorce is higher in number in the midwest and the south.

This is a very interesting study in fact.

Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 12:38pm
LvLiberty-I understand the Christian concept of forgiveness,but you don't.You judge people quite harshly unless you are planning on voting for them at which time you forgive them.If you read the Bible you will discover that McCain does not have a second wife.It's quite sad that you don't extend your Christian forgiveness to gays and Ghandi,but only to those you want to vote for. Evangelicals tend to judge everyone harshly except for when it comes to adultery and then you become quite forgiving of one another.You,obviously,do not know what repentance is.Repentance is when you stop doing it and stop benefiting from it and start over again with a clean slate.If you are still doing it and you are still benefiting from it then you have not repented.McCain still spends the money and lives the lifestyle and uses his "sin" for personal benefit and gain.That is not repentance.It is you that has no idea what it is to be a Christian because you are judgmental and condemning unless you're going to vote for the person or if it's one of you and then, and only then, do you become a forgiving Christian.Other than that you spew hate and division.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/05/2008 @ 12:49pm
"Gandhi didn't repent and accept Christ so how can he receive the benefit of Christ's forgiveness."

gandhi had plenty of forgiveness to go around.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2008 @ 3:12pm
How about my Canuck buddies who served? Are they criminals also in your mind?

Posted by lvliberty1

the criminals yield pens, not arms.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2008 @ 3:14pm
I really don't care FZ.

Posted by lvliberty1

that's too bad.

i try to be a nice neighbour.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2008 @ 3:15pm
Now Frosty has not said that I misunderstood his intent. If he does, then I would amend my argument.

Posted by lvliberty1

i meant that you've picked some less than friendly representatives.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2008 @ 3:16pm
LvLiberty-Christian forgiveness extends to all people because Christians aren't supposed to judge homosexuals or Ghandi.That job belongs to God and God only.I don't judge McCain.I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy in this matter,but you'll never see it because of your right equals good and left equals bad nonsense so you give McCain a beak that you would not extend to someone on the left.You have,repeatedly,failed to address the issue of McCain continuing to benefit from his "sin" in a huge way and using it to advance himself which he,obviously,has done.Without the sin he has no wealth and power and has not given up what he gained from his "sin".How can one reap the rewards of their sin and enjoy all that their sin gave them and then claim to be sorry and expect forgiveness?"Repenting" by not dumping the much younger and very rich wife that you need to achieve your goals sounds like empty repentance.I'd keep her,too.I would not want power,though.Just the cash and sex.Please explain how repentance includes reaping the rewards of your sin and using these rewards to advance yourself.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/05/2008 @ 3:16pm
It wasn't criminal. From what I can gather, you either weren't even born during that war or you are extremely hardcore anti-American.

•••••••••••••••

i watch the helicopters on the roof on tv.

america's cool. gumbo. jazz. bluegrass. fender.

the french kinda messed up that one, too.

but the vietnamese sorta had their own plan.

maybe not the best plan, but it was theirs.

i'd rather teach by example than by imposition.

Posted by frosty zoom at 06/05/2008 @ 3:20pm
I will never forget her interview with Katie Couric,when she was asked "what if you lose"and her answer was"I don't intend to"

Posted by eniobob at 06/4/2008 | warn this person

Actually, I have no problem with her saying this. If you're running for office, especially if you're trying to be the first female president, you've got to be a little cocky and sure of your abilities to try and influence others to come around to your way of thinking.

But that said, and I'm going to go a little 'hood here, If you're going to talk shit, you'd best be ready to back it up.

Hillary Clinton wasn't. In fact, if she were in the 'hood, she'd have gotten smacked up for her lack of preparedness.

If she were ready to back it up, Mark Penn would have been as fired as Patti Solis Doyle. If she had been ready to back it up, she'd have campaigned in all 50 states. If she had been ready to back it up, she wouldn't have had to resort to racism to win Pennsylvania, and I can attest to that because I covered the campaign.

If she was ready to back her shit up, she would have won.

That she didn't, despite having higher name recognitition, more money initially, the the entire Democratic party heirarchy's blessing, tells the tale.

It also proves something else.

Inevitability isn't destiny.

Posted by edwriter at 06/05/2008 @ 3:48pm
LvLiberty-I'm not saying that McCain should dump the wife,but he should dump the lifestyle that the wife brought him because he is gaining financially and in power and that is how he is profiting from his "sin".His "sin" brings him wealth and power which makes things a bit different because without the "sin" there is no wealth and power making that ill gotten gain and he uses what he got from the "sin" into order to get more power.He enjoys the wealth and power that his "sin" brought him as is rather obvious when you see him.How can one enjoy what the "sin" gets you and how can one use what the "sin" gets you in order to get more feel bad about it at the same time?He sure doesn't look like he feels bad about the fact that his "sin" got him the nomination for POTUS.

Posted by i'm nobody at 06/05/2008 @ 4:41pm
On the anniversary of the day he was shot...

.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

Robert Kennedy

.

Two things that never were...

A black President or Vice President of the United States of America.

A woman President or Vice President of the United States of America.

Why not?

Posted by Lillian at 06/05/2008 @ 4:44pm
frosty zoom

that vietnam thing was colonialism through and through, with America firmly on the side of the oppressors. Ho was an anti colonialist, who insisted on freedom for his country. he fought the Japanese and could have been an ally against China. or at least neutral. like Laos.

Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2008 @ 7:24pm
Once again, Nichols' post has veered so off course suggested by the headline. It also offers weak and wrong analysis of why the Democrats are at the cusp of taking the White House. Nichols argues that Democrats began to harvest the fruits of [their] past commitments to the cause of individual freedom. Is he serious or he just felt like saying that? The simple fact is that Democrats this chance of electoral success to missteps and criminality of George Bush, nothing else.

Posted by kevin99999 at 06/06/2008 @ 12:25am