Why was that an endorsement of Obama? Because you criticizing one candidate for something wrong doesn't mean you aer endorsing the other candidate. If that was the case it would be impossible to criticize the candidates.
I hear you on Hillary, but I could never vote for Ralph. He is not a grass roots voice of change. And Gonzalez is even worse -- I know first hand. You should write in yourself before voting Nader; it would have more integrity and would be better for the country. We should keep an eye on the actual green party to see if they field someone.
I don't understand why some people believe Hilary has so much more "experience". She has one more term as senator, so what? The ways of the senate are primarily procedural, and if that is a measure, Barack has an even longer period of expeience as a legislator. Otherwise she lived in the white house for 8 years which is great, but that doesn't mean Laura Bush should e president.
Are you prepared then for the consequences? Don't get me wrong I agree with McCain on a lot of things but consider this. In the next 4 years at least one USSC justice on the liberal side will retire. Now would you rather have another Sam Alito filling John Paul Stevens' seat or another Ruth Bader Ginsburg? I'm supporting Clinton but even I will say she is a cast iron b*tch. That said I'm not about to vote against issues that I feel are important just because I don't like the candidates personality. As I said I think Obama is inexpeirienced have some disagreements with him on things like trade but if it is him in the nomination vs. McCain I would rather have him nominating the next USSC Justice. For someone like you, batman, who has expressed even more liberal views than myself I'm surprised that you would be willing to vote against your issues for what appears to be personal dislike.
True Obama has more experience as a legislator but I wouldn't consider the IL Senate the same as the US Senate. As I say often if you are denying Hillary Clinton's role as being unlike any other First Lady's then don't criticize her taking leadership on issues like things like health care. Again Obama supporters try to have it both ways by claiming that Hillary's first lady experience is no different than Laura Bush's and then condemning her for heading a major policy effort. Leaving aside Hillary Clinton's first lady experience she still has more experience at the national level as a US Senator, worked on the Children's Defense Fund, and for the Watergate Committee.
She failed miserably at it, totalling mishandling it. So great, she's experienced at failing. She's also got way more experience at lying; you may be right.... maybe she is more prepared to be President. When Barrack speaks it's him, his thoughts, his ideas, his ethics. You know what he stands for, who he is. When she speaks, it's her advisors who only care about getting elected. They're just not even remotely close. Only one is Presidential, and in a way we haven't seen for many many years. The other is just full of the same old lying, spinning, self-serving political cr*p.
And that is a perfectly valid critique as long as you don't then say her experience as first lady meant nothing. No offense but I doubt either you or me know how much what either candidate says is their own words versus their advisors. Frankly the rest of your post just sounds like personal spite rather than a rational critique.
To you, it seems that the only rational critique is one focused on policy issues. For other people, integrity, ethics, honesty, character, etc matter. Why is this so difficult to see?
Sisher, I've already given the same argument. Batman doesn't give a damn. He'd rather waste his vote on Nadir than see Hillary Clinton in the White House as President. He'd rather see another Clarence Thomas or Sam Alito on the Supreme Court, than Hillary Clinton in the Oval Office. He'd rather had decades of even more conservative decisions on the Supreme Court and decades more in Iraq, along with a very probable invasion of Iran, and be able to delightedly vote against the Democratic nominee, should Senator Obama not be that person. To you and I, that may seem an idiotic decision, but it is his to make, as well as others who would cut off their nose to spite their face. What can you do? It's like talking to a brick wall. Major, see the above post. The "integrity, ethics, honesty, character" of Hillary Clinton, or the lack of, in your view, would be worth decades of war? A very probable invasion of Iran? Even more conservative lifetime Federal judges, including the Supreme Court? A continuation of the decline of America in the eyes of the world as a beacon of freedom and liberty, when they see McCain continue the policies of George W. Bush? Whatever floats your boat. Me? I think Barack will win the nomination and then win the election, but I don't think Hillary Clinton would be anything other than a fine President. I just think Barack Obama would be, this year, the better choice. I don't equate Hillary Clinton to George Bush and Karl Rove. Some here do. They are welcome to their opinion. They should be willing, if things play out that way, to suffer the consequences. Impeach Bush.
Honestly, I think all of this is a bunch of nonsense. McCain is not going to give us "decades of war". He'll only be President for 4 years. He's not going to invade Iran unless he has the support of the country (remember, even Bush had the support of the country when initially invading Iraq - it was the planning itself that was a disaster). He's going to have a fairly Democratic Congress - so he's not going to be able to put extremists on the bench. McCain is running to the right to shore up his base, but over the long haul of his career, he has been a perfectly reasonable politician, though certainly with a conservative bias. I have no doubt he's more likely to work with a Dem Congress to come up with reasonable centrist ideas than Bush ever was. And I suspect Hillary, while she might get some things done in the short term, will be far worse in the long-run for the country. Remember - the Clintons, while they did lots of good things in the 1990's, also cost the Democrats many state houses and Congress through their ultra-partisan nonsense. And that's what enabled Bush to have a GOP Congress that signed off on all his policies. Having an ultra-partisan Democratic administration who things the right wing is evil, combined with a Dem Congress, is the 2nd worst thing that the country could have in it's leadership - the only thing worse is an ultra-partisan GOP administration with a GOP Congress. We saw what happened with that. I have no interest in repeating that on the other side.
On a lighter note... this is from a campaign event in San Antonio (presumably before she showed up while people were waiting) <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/knBNX_evIOo&rel=1&border=0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/knBNX_evIOo&rel=1&border=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent"width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Sishir: The fact that you could chalk up my problems with Hillary to personal dislike means that you either don't read my posts or choose to ignore them. At this point, for her to get the nomination she would need a perfect storm involving seating delegates from contests she'd agreed wouldn't count (including MI in which Obama took his name off the ballot as did everyone but Hillary), a LOT of superdelegates flipping and ignoring the will of actual voters AND enormous victories in the remaining contests. The only way to make all of that happen is through extremely negative campaigning and so that's what she's decided to do -- to the extreme detriment to the party and all the policy positions we hold dear. The commander in chief threshold bull***** was the last straw. I will not reward that with my vote. She's made it clear she cares way more about her personal success than any of the issues she pretends to care about. And she's made it clear she'd rather destroy Obama if she can't have the nom than do everything to get a Democrat elected in November. Hillary created this hard split in the party, long after the math became virtually impossible for her, through extreme slash and burn politics. I will not reward that. And not only will I not vote for her, but as I've said before I think her C-in-C stuff is grounds to strip her of her credentials to the convention. You might find that extreme, but I happen to be a Democrat. And I don't think anyone that believes McCain is more qualified to be president than the frontrunning Democrat should be a delegate to the convention, let alone speak there or (Heaven forbid) be the nominee. As for Deckard, I'm through arguing with him on this. He has had more than twenty opportunities to reply to the substance of my arguments and has chosen not to. Ironic he would characterize me as a brick wall when he has refused to answer any of my questions on this for more than a month. I get a better return on my challenging questions from Jorge than Deckard when it comes to this and that's a damn shame.
So she failed at the one thing as First Lady she was in charge of, in a way that has always been a knock on her. As for the rest of her 'First Lady' experience, her big claims have already been denunked by those who were part of it: Northern Ireland and Bosnia In my nearly 50 years and business life, I've gotten fairly good at it. I admit that I absolutely have spite for lying, dishonest, self-serving politicians. I don't assume they are all like that, but once they've proven it, sure, spite. Am I supposed to still consider them suitable for the Presidency?
Funny you should say that... via TPM -- Penn: Pennsylvania Will Show That Obama "Really Can't Win The General Election" On the Clinton campaign conference call today, chief strategist Mark Penn discussed Pennsylvania, and made a rather strong statement about the significance of the state. He said the following about Hillary's expected win there... This stops about a milllionth of an inch short of an out-and-out declaration that Obama can't win a general. He seems to be saying that Obama's expected loss in Pennsylvania, and the scale of it, will show that he can't win a general election. This is in keeping with earlier remarks by Hillary and her surrogates to the effect that he has not passed the "commander in chief test" sufficiently to win a general. Ben Smith is right to observer that this is a pretty strong thing to say. And later on the call, the Hillary people backtracked from the remark. What this really reflects, I think, is the difficult (or perhaps impossible) balancing act the Hillary camp is trying to strike between portraying Obama as unfit for the general election to sow doubts among super-delegates while maintaining a posture of loyalty to the larger Democratic cause.
I have an opposite view from you. You can call me cynical but for me I think I am being realistic. The problem with a view like yours is that you reward the newcomers to politics while you punish the political geezers. It is natural that you support Obama instead of Clinton.
ding ding ding. By Cohen's logic, anyone not in politics is inherently better than anyone in politics. Incumbents should never be re-elected in any race.
