INDY500
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I Googled it. It's "Robinette"
Sounds vaguely French. I think it should be "off limits."
I Googled it. It's "Robinette"
I didn't ask if you would have supported Hillary if she had been the nominee.
I asked if you would find it appropriate to call a group of hypothetical black supporters of Obama (angry at a substantial pro Clinton media who used racial epithets against Obama) who chose to walk away from the election pathetic.
i just find the whole fractured party thing mind boggling. To not vote for a candidate simply because you wanted another one running, but you still support the same ideas, is ludicrious. If McCain wins the election, the USA has something seriously rotten going on with its people.
If one would like to see a woman President they should vote for McCain
In 2012 Hillary will be the odds on favorite.
That will not be the case if Obama is elected.
I rarely if ever post in FYM but I feel I need to defend these people.
Politics is so black and white in that as a voter you are given limited chooses. Many Clinton voters have strong problems with Obama. If they don't think he is going to help the country or turn it around then how can you blame them for not wanting to vote for him? Why support someone or something that won't help the country [/b]
I rarely if ever post in FYM but I feel I need to defend these people.
Politics is so black and white in that as a voter you are given limited chooses. Many Clinton voters have strong problems with Obama. If they don't think he is going to help the country or turn it around then how can you blame them for not wanting to vote for him? Why support someone or something that won't help the country
If you had two options that don't help the country in your mind then not voting seems the most logical course. Personally if Clinton was the nominee I would have voted for her. I'm a democrat but I'm also an American. So I want what is best for the country above all else. If I and other democrats don't think Obama will be good for the country then he isn't getting my vote. Caring more about the country than the political party isn't ludicrious.
Obama and Clinton are simply not that different when it comes to a vast majority of their stances. McCain holds vastly different beliefs on a number of issues that are core to Hillary's platform - beliefs that may threaten or infringe upon rights or beliefs that Hillary supporters may hold dear. One would think that protecting ones' interests would be more important than sticking it to the person who beat your candidate.
There is a lot more to being a president than your stance on issues. It is those other things that concern Clinton supporters.
It's a two-party system, one of these two guys is going to be the next president. You look at both and if one of them is the candidate that has your heart, you vote for him/her, and if not, then you vote for the one you dislike the least. That's the deal.
There is minimal policy difference between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, and that is why the idea that someone who supported Senator Clinton thinks that Senator Obama isn't what's best for the country while Senator McCain - whose policy is essentially the opposite - is, is illogical, irrational, and an irreconcilable contradiction.
I would've been disappointed if Senator Clinton had won the nomination over Senator Obama, but I still would've voted for her, no questions asked. Not for one second would I ever, ever, ever, ever, ever think about voting for McCain or not voting, because I'm not interested in doing anything to help McCain's chances.
What other things?
That he's black(unlikely since they support a woman)?
That he's 'too inexperienced'(unadulterated bullshit)?
That he's a far-left liberal(on the US political scale anyway) instead of a moderate-liberal like Senator Clinton is?
What?
What other things?
1. That he's black(unlikely since they support a woman)?
2. That he's 'too inexperienced'(unadulterated bullshit)?
3. That he's a far-left liberal(on the US political scale anyway) instead of a moderate-liberal like Senator Clinton is?
What?
This post and your longer one a page back or two is full of a lot of misconceptions and wrong statements.
Of course most people that wanted Obama could have lived with Clinton. Some African Americans may have been too turned off and not have voted after having their one chance of having an African American President lost, I can understand that, too.
I want to see the best, most qualified, candidate in each party nominated.
The GOP did that. Most of the Dems in here have said McCain is the best of the GOP lot.
Obama is not the best of the Dem, lot.
In 2000 I supported McCain in the GOP primaries.
When Bush got the nomination, and McCain asked his supporters to vote for Bush. Guess what I did. I voted for Gore. In 2004 when McCain asked his supporters to vote for Bush. I voted for Kerry.
If Cheney were the GOP nominee. I would vote for Obama.
Experience matters. But, no experience (a huge gamble) is better than the experience of someone that makes wrong choices for the wrong reasons.
The 2004 Bush and a Cheney with experience
is worse than a gamble on an unknown, like Obama.
McCain is no where close to a Bush 3. Anyone that says that is uninformed or just plain misrepresenting.
The Bush people pulled this crap in 2000 with Al Gore. Trying too taint Gore with the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
I did not buy that then, and I don't buy the Obama tainting of McCain. either.
I can't speak for them but personally these things bother me about him:
He seems to be all flash and no substance.
People say he is all about change but all I see is another politician.
I think he'll be a lame duck president because he won't get much done.
I don't think he can make the critical nation or global implication decisions.
I don't think he'll get the right people around him.
Lack of experience.
I don't think he can make the 3 AM decision.
Most importantly, I don't feel comfortable or safe knowing that he is the leader of the free world at such a critical time in human history.
I can't speak for them but personally these things bother me about him:
1. He seems to be all flash and no substance.
2. People say he is all about change but all I see is another politician.
3. I think he'll be a lame duck president because he won't get much done.
4. I don't think he can make the critical nation or global implication decisions.
5. I don't think he'll get the right people around him.
6. Lack of experience.
7. I don't think he can make the 3 AM decision.
8. Most importantly, I don't feel comfortable or safe knowing that he is the leader of the free world at such a critical time in human history.
Those who do will be, in my view, traitors to the Democratic Party.
I don't think he can make the 3 AM decision.
1. This carried him through the Primaries and his young supporters like this style. But, there is no substance.
2. The pledge of new politics had me watching early on.
And seemed like it could be legit. But, as time went on. He displayed the Chicago machine politics, and if anyone really looked at how he came into office, more of the same.
3. I believe for sure McCain will be a one termer. Obama will probably be creamed in office, much like Carter. I am actually concerned for him. I believe he has the ability to be a good president with some more experience. The best thing for him might be to lose, as Nixon did in 1960. He can earn the respect so many of his supporters have gladly given him by doing some good work in the Senate.
He can easliy run in 2016 or 2020 if he is the real deal.
4. 5. He has terrible advisers around him now. So the judgment thing that his adoring fans all give him, is actually quite poor.
7. Yes, the 3 a. m. call. Well, I don't think is was an accident that he texted the V P nomination announcement at 3 A M..
Just to give the finger to Hillary one more time. Petty and immature. Certainly not Presidential.
That, and the fake Presidential Seal. The putting the Obama banner up at the wailing wall in Israel at 5 a. m. for a photo op, all show very poor judgments.
We have had a frat boy in the Whitehouse for 8 years. We don't need anymore of it.
8. True, why gamble.
anyone who votes strictly along party lines is a traitor to the country....
2.I will admit that in the past two or three months, he has seemed a little more like 'a politician'. I will admit to being disappointed when he put the damn lapel pin back on.
Not to mention McCain clearly has some anger issues. Too often we see that sickly-looking forced grin that makes him look like he's just a few seconds away from blowing a gasket. He's unstable.
Obama is fully capable of losing on his own.
1.Bullshit.
Dispatch poll
Voters in Ohio like McCain a bit more -- at least so far
Sunday, August 24, 2008 3:31 AM
By Darrel Rowland
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Forget about swing voters. As Barack Obama heads to his party's national convention this week, he needs to convince his fellow Democrats that he should be president.
Republican John McCain holds a 1-point edge, 42 to 41 percent, in the first Dispatch Poll of the general election campaign. The Arizona senator's lead is well within the poll's margin of sampling error, plus or minus 2.2 percentage points. That means McCain could be ahead by as much as 5 points or Obama could be up by 3.
Regardless of the exact numbers, McCain is being bolstered by Ohio voters who supported Hillary Clinton in the state's March 4 Democratic primary and those who backed Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland in 2006. McCain also is doing better among party loyalists: 86 percent of Republicans back McCain, while 74 percent of Democrats support Obama.
The McCain crossovers more than offset Obama's 4-point lead among independent voters, typically the key voting bloc in any election.
The GOP senator is winning over Democratic voters like poll respondent Ted General Jr., a 40-year-old ironworker from Cleveland who voted for Democrat John Kerry in 2004.
"I'm supporting the candidate I am, John McCain, because of his positive views on 'in-house' drilling and exploration of oil, also his take on the Iraq war. We should finish what we start," General said. He called Obama's stance on Iraq "quite disturbing."
Only half of the voters who say they backed Clinton in Ohio's primary are now supporting Obama. Just 55 percent of those who said they voted for Strickland two years ago are behind Obama now.
Barbara Paxton, 59, a homemaker from Findlay, said she still wishes Clinton were the nominee.
"If her name was on the ballot I would vote for her right now, no questions asked," said Paxton, a Democratic-leaning independent. "Since I only have two choices, really (in November), I am not going to put another Bush in there for 12 years, no way. You take the lesser of two evils."
Paxton said she doesn't dislike Obama; she just very much supported Clinton.
"It's like anything, when you really got your mind set on something and can't get it, you take the next best thing, not the worst thing," Paxton said.
Obama is attempting to placate Clinton backers by giving her (and former President Clinton) a prime-time speech at the convention and allowing her name to be placed into nomination. Whether that will be enough to bring her supporters into Obama's camp is one of the key questions for the remaining 10 weeks of the presidential campaign.
Not surprisingly, key to Obama's support are young voters and African-American voters. If they turn out in numbers higher than indicated in the poll, the Illinois senator likely will win Ohio.
"This country faces several challenges in the coming years and needs a fresh outlook on how to address those problems," said survey participant Jason Stewart, a 28-year-old accountant from the Cleveland suburb of Lakewood. "I feel Barack Obama is that person. Mr. McCain represents more of the same 'old' Washington politics."
But it's not just young voters seeking a fresh start.
Judith Hecht, 70, a retired research librarian/information specialist from Dayton, is voting for Obama because, "We need a change of administration. I am angry at the way that Republicans have handled the following issues: the Iraqi war, the environment, energy usage, the economy and finally their position on a woman's right of choice."
Not all McCain supporters are rock-solid.
"McCain's age is a concern," said Michael Stevens, 48, of Columbus, who is seeking employment because his data communications job moved out of state.
"His vice president pick is very important. He needs someone who can walk right into the job in case something happened to John McCain. With the stress of the job and his age, it's a big concern."
Should McCain's age (72 this week) and Obama's race play a role in the election?
" Should is irrelevant; age, race, gender, class and health are all issues," said Obama supporter Susan Williams, 56, a part-time receptionist and file clerk who lives in Riverlea.
"This is a competition, a contest, and both candidates will spin their age as an advantage, wisdom and experience versus energy and innovation. Race is a much more volatile issue, and as a person of color, Obama has the greater challenge.
Perhaps some of you should stop trying to blame her. Obama is fully capable of losing on his own.
I shudder to think of what McCain's 3 AM decision would be.
Coming from a place where men, women and children died in the name of country, sometimes in the most horrible ways you can imagine
I think you people (on this thread) have thrown around the "traitor to the country" line far too easily.
bomb, bomb, bomb ... bomb, bomb Iran ...