My Seven Reasons for Turning Away From Obama

[LadyVT]

I am now a Hillary supporter, although I was an initial supporter of Obama late last year. Since then, I've done about 200 hours worth of research on all the candidates and their positions, including the Republicans'. For what it's worth, here is why I won't vote for Obama in the general election:

(1) his decision to have Donnie McClurkin campaign for him amongst religious constituents in South Carolina, and then defense of that decision in the interests of "unity," because "many voters hold his views." When challenged, he said McClurkin "isn't against gays who are happy being gay!!" This makes me question his commitment to civil rights. I am a straight woman, with lots of gay students and clients, and this is not a fuzzy issue to me. You either defend everyone's civil rights, or you don't.

(2) His commitment to increase the military by 100,000 soldiers, and to raise the military budget well beyond where it is now (which is IMHO too high, given the $78,000 which is each citizen's share tonight of the national debt).

(3) His decision to make a business deal with someone he's described as "a friend for 12 years," to allow that person (Rezko) to hold fundraisers for him, and to accept personal cash contributions to his campaign (of which he has returned 75% under pressure), and then to defend himself by saying he didn't do anything wrong. That isn't the point. Of course he didn't do anything illegal. The point is, I know no one who could befriend a man, have lunch with him for 12 years, whose spouse hung out with his spouse, who read the newspapers who were already investigating Rezko at the time, and somehow miss that he is an extortionist who is going to go to the big house for good reason. Who is Obama therefore likely to appoint to advise him in the White House?

(4) His nonverbal behavior during the debates toward Clinton (he does not look at her when she is speaking--and he's the only one not to, and she's the only one he doesn't look at...this does not unity make). How is he going to nonverbally interact with world leaders, or members of Congress, etc. with whom he does not agree? This is not conciliatory, and certainly "world leaders" are going to present much more of a challenge than Clinton does.

(5) His continual victim stance regarding ads against him...does he not realize this is a campaign? Does he not read factcheck dot org about what the lies his own campaign is spewing out? And is what he is saying about any of this going to inspire "unity"? Given that Clinton is his "enemy" at the moment, shouldn't he be treating this situation in a conciliatory way, given that that is his entire platform? Showing us he is capable of bringing together vastly opposing points of view? But that is not what is happening. Instead, he is splitting the world into good and bad.

(6) His determination (expressed clearly in the 2nd to last debate, and again yesterday) to pre-emptive invasion of Pakistan (a nuclear nation) if "intelligence" tells us that Bin Laden is somewhere in Pakistan.

(7) His answer to the Columbus, OH Dispatch reporter about why he is the best candidate for President when it comes to foreign policy (part of a longer interview, with all candidates, just this week). McCain & Clinton gave detailed answers about their foreign policy experience, Senate Armed Services Committee service, Clinton's already established and positive personal relationships with dozens of world leaders, etc. Obama said he is the ONLY person who could bring world leaders together because he grew up in Indonesia (and therefore the Muslims will like and understand him), and because he has a grandmother in Kenya who has no running water (and therefore, people in poverty will like and understand him). In psychological terms, this demonstrates grandiosity and naivete (which tend to go together).

All of this is beyond inexperience. It certainly doesn't give me any hope at all, and it's not the kind of change I want.

Notice that we don't hear much about any of this in the media. It's all out there, verifiable, fact. I am really disappointed in Obama, but glad I discovered all this before voting. (And for God's sake, man, send your grandmother some money!)

I believe the question we would all be wise to ask ourselves is why were we so willing to be lied to before the Iraq war? Why didn't we act, if we all KNEW how bad an idea the war would be? Why didn't we DO anything? And is that tendency, to line up behind the media's point of view of the moment, operating now as well? Are we just a lazy country, unwilling to do the work to check out what's being fed to us? Doesn't that make us vulnerable?

[southlandshari]

1. Excellent post

I draw very different conclusions than you, and I remain an enthusiastic Obama supporter, but I just wanted to say that I really appreciated the thought and tone of your OP. I hope it will generate intelligent discussion across the board, whether folks agree with you or not.

[LadyVT]

2. Thank you! Me, too! And good luck out there...

[Eurobabe]

9. For every reason she has given

I can think of four times as many re: Clinton, and why I wouldn't support her in the primaries. But I appreciate the fact that the OP has chosen not to attack, just stated her reasons clearly.

May the best candidate win. :hi:

[southlandshari]

10. My point exactly

:thumbsup:

[George II]

95. But you don't rant in public about why you don't support Clinton

The OP hasn't chosen to attack, but HAS posted negative reasons for her choice of candidate. It would be much more productive and informative if she could conjure up seven reasons to turn TOWARD Clinton. But that's much more difficult than just posting a laundry list of negatives about another candidate.

Sad, truly sad.

[LadyVT]

213. Actually...

I have posted quite a lot about my thoughts. The reason I am supporting Clinton is not because I'm not supporting Obama.

It continues to surprise me how angry many of these responses to my post are. What's underneath anger is always (always!) fear or hurt. I can't see how I could be frightening or how I have been hurtful in stating my reasons for not choosing your candidate.

Again, a poster is characterizing my views as "rant." I reserve that word, myself, for people who are frothing at the mouth, spewing rage. I'm really just sitting here, eating a cookie and having some tea, petting the cat. :)

[George II]

266. "It continues to surprise me how angry many of these responses to my post are."

Perhaps because, other than the first part of the first sentence (about now being a Hillary supporter) you found negative things to say. I'm sure your post would have received much better if you'd titled it:

"Why I'm turning TOWARD Hillary Clinton" and then listed seven reasons why. Unfortunately you didn't see the need to say good things about Clinton, just negative things about Obama, including your subject line.

The negative subject line immediately turns people off, and the lack of anything positive in your post confirms people's initial bad reaction.

[question everything]

221. Yes, you and the media can make the same points about Clinton

and have done so in great details.

But Obama is getting a clear ride in the media. No one is raising these issues partly because they are afraid to be labeled racist, but sooner or later he will have to answer those points.

[cd3dem]

298. not sure what the media gets from promoting Obama, ratings, more viewers?

maybe they figure if Obama is elected... there will be greater number of stories with the country in chaos... and they will not have to depend so much on Britney...

[LadyVT]

343. It's a great story... they get money, of course...

Just think if it was a wrap-up contest from last summer... boring... no one would be watching... now, CNN got those huge ratings (and advertiser dollars) for the last debate, and can charge even more for the ones coming up.

[guruoo]

257. Give him time. Hillary's been on the political scene a lot longer then Obama.

Thus, Hillary has had more time to collect negatives, both real and imagined.

[respublicus]

340. An Obama Win will Gerrymander USA into 2 rightwing blocs, Dixiecrat & Rethug

Obama is winning red states and black cities.
I don't think that will win him the GE, but if it does,
then his right-wing advisers are ready to apply Rethug policies under the vapid veneer supplied by Obama,
and the corporate 1-party system carries on its solidarity march to fascism.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarOnFreedom/message/4187

If Hillary wins, you get a new, progressive bloc of urban and southwest states that can reverse the fascist slide of the last 40 years of the Southern Strategy, and the Rethugs are out in the cold where they belong, because they can't represent the majority of people, they can only fool most of the people most of the time with tricks, gerrymandering, wedge issues, lies, scarecrows etc.

See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/WarOnFreedom/message/4235

[guruoo]

355. Outside of campaign rhetoric, experience is the only major differance I see

[Iceburg]

3. Vote for me, I am not wise but I hope I can surround myself with wise counselors; K&R

[respublicus]

4. Like Brzezinski, Mercado, Liebman, Goolsbee

Brzezinski for World War 3 with Russia (or is it WW 4 or 5 by now)
Mercado, for the greasiest palms in Lobbyland
Liebman to privatize social security
Goolsbee for Wall Street, Skull & Bones, Freeze people not foreclosures

[Iceburg]

17. ... like Cheney, Brzezinski has some scores to settle /nt

[tripitaka]

94. if folks knew who goolsbee is, they'd wonder

Let's see, hot new econ genius tapped by the Clinton DLC to promote transactional economies in the emerging new Eastern/Central Europe.

Teaches at Chicago, and not exactly in opposition.

The guy is a WASP Richard Epstein.

I really hope he's only there to play squash with Obama and isn't actually offering economic advice. Because that guy could just as easily work for Mitt Romney or John McCain or George Bush, he'd have more in common with those guys than Obama.

[respublicus]

282. Yeah, he's Skull & BOnes, Pinochet School of Business, & BO's top economist

Wikipedia: "Austan D. Goolsbee is an economist and is currently the Robert P. Gwinn Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business. He is also a Research Fellow at the American Bar Foundation<1>, Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and a member of the Panel of Economic Advisors to the Congressional Budget Office. He has been Barack Obama's economic advisor since Obama's successful U.S. Senate campaign in Illinois. He is the lead economic advisor to the 2008 Obama presidential campaign."

[Bluerthanblue]

20. or possibly...

"I don't pretend to be an expert on everything- I am committed to making the best decisions possible using the best advice, information and knowledge that is available to me." ???

What is really all that bad about this? Do we honestly want someone to lead us who feels they know it all about everything???

I don't- but maybe I'm just weird.

shrug:
peace~

[femrap]

25. Look at who is advising him...

some pretty scary people.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

33. exactly what bush* said he would do "I'm gonna surround myself with a bunch of really smart people"

[George II]

96. I think he meant to say "smarter than me", which of course is the easiest thing in the world to do!

[Raejeanowl]

204. He Needs To Continue With Good People

The White House staff, like the campaign team, must compensate for his weaknesses.

I disagree slightly with the OP's #4. Obama does in fact look at Clinton under some circumstances. I've seen a number of photos where he has been caught with an expression that I can only describe as naked loathing. So perhaps that is why he tries to avoid looking at her.

LOL about sending Grandma some cash.

[cd3dem]

317. but Obama makes people hopeful!

[readmoreoften]

5. I went through the exact same process. It's Pakistan and his military ideas that scare me most.

The disingenuousness is so completely astounding. To say that you are an anti-war candidate simply because you disagree with ONE invasion and prefer that we take our wars elsewhere for "mission accomplished." I find Clinton to be unbearably triangulating--so if you triangulate more than Clinton what on earth do you stand for? Good feelings? Slightly emphatic positive abstractions?

I'm sure that many of the people who thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs are the very same people who think Pakistan is needing a healthy dose of corrective invasion. These are people who talk rationally but don't connect to the reality that there is no military solution to terrorism. Repeat. There. Is. No. Military. Solution. To. Terrorism. It's very possible that there is no solution to terrorism. But one thing we know for certain: war exacerbates the problem. You can't tell people: don't despise us or we'll bomb you. You must trust us or we'll invade you. It's impossible.

If Obama was planning on sending a tactical team of specialized anti-terrorist units to Pakistan, then he wouldn't be increasing the general military population by 100,000 for the specific purpose of fighting terrorism. (And on that note: how is he going to do that? No one wants to sign up as it is.) If he was merely going to send some CIA operatives in to hunt for Bin Laden, he wouldn't said he's going to pull out troops from Iraq to put them on the "right" battlefield.

This is insanity. Total insanity.

I think Clinton is a bad idea. I think Obama is a nightmare. And I think the American people need to learn to recognize PR, corporate branding, and marketing techniques. Our lives may depend on it. And most certainly the lives of others depend on it.

I feel so much bleaker than I did in 2004. To see all these 'hope'-goggled Democrats has been a real eye-opener.

[femrap]

29. I can't believe that after these horrid

seven years, we end up with this choice...HRC or BO. I'm going with HRC only because I think she will be good for women and children..and that is the majority of people here and in the world.

BO doesn't even help his grandmother...don't think he cares much for women and their issues...ie his 'present' votes on Choice.

I felt so much more enthused in '04.

You said it all right here:

"I think Clinton is a bad idea. I think Obama is a nightmare. And I think the American people need to learn to recognize PR, corporate branding, and marketing techniques. Our lives may depend on it. And most certainly the lives of others depend on it."

[trthnd4jstc]

57. I agree, we would not be taking over Pakistan

A President Obama would not be overthrowing Pakistan.

[sendero]

89. Well..

.... just to play devil's advocate, I claim that invading Pakistan or Saudi Arabia would have made, and still would make, infinite more sense than invading Iraq.

[DemBones DemBones]

119. Amen. Go into Pakistan? No way. NObama.

I'm voting for Hillary to keep Barack out of the White House because he doesn't have the experience and apparently doesn't have common sense about the war. "Anti-war" candidate wants to send troops into another country?

This is so true:

"I think Clinton is a bad idea. I think Obama is a nightmare. And I think the American people need to learn to recognize PR, corporate branding, and marketing techniques. Our lives may depend on it. And most certainly the lives of others depend on it.:

[stickernation]

182. i am so astounded and stoked to hear your post.

seriously, you put it exactly the way i would have put it. i am astonished at how politically simple even many close friends have turned out to be. like, you don't know who zbigniew is, and you really don't care to find out a little bit by googling, you're so in love with Obama. well god bless you, but ZB belongs pretty much in the evil hall of fame.

[Lorien]

241. Brilliant post

What do you stand for? Slightly emphatic positive abstractions? Very well put.

That's been one of my big issues with Obama's supporters from the get go (well, that, and that they accuse HRC's supporters of only voting for a vagina). I was very enthusiastic about Gore in 2000, much less enthusiastic about Kerry in 2004 (even though I worked for his campaign, went to many of his rallies, and met him personally several times), and I feel completely left out in the cold now. I've been a Democrat since my earliest memories, and now I find myself questioning if my party shares my values any longer. My father called me the other day to tell me that he was sending money to Obama's campaign. He asked me if I had made a choice between the two. I stated simply that "I have no horse in this race", then asked why he had embraced Obama "well, he's cool, and I just hate those Clintons" he answered. I guess that he chose Pepsi over Coke, but neither has any health benefits. I told him that he needed a better reason then Clinton hating and charisma, so he said "it's kind of like playing the stock market. Clinton is a safe bet but there might not be much of a payoff, while Obama is a high risk, but the payoffs could be huge". Gotta disagree with dad on both, I'm sad to say. I still couldn't get him to tell me what policies of Obama's attracted him. He couldn't name one. And my father is no hick; he has a Ph.D in psychology, had a successful practice for many years and taught at a major university. But he does watch a lot of TV these days, which means that he ingests a lot of marketing.

On top of both of their military ideas, both candidates are EXTREMELY weak on the environment and alternative energy. We need big ideas on both of those issues right NOW, not forty years in the future. It's just the planet that we live on that's at stake, after all.

[LadyVT]

399. Yes, and there's a link about it today...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080225/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc_64;_ylt=ApMdBKeK.b_.aw_15dUfL.hg.3QA

[anamandujano]

6. Why were we so willing to be lied to and why ARE some still so

willing to be lied to?

You have set out a great argument. I knew from reading some of your other posts that this thread would not be like the silly "45 reasons why Obama blah blah" threads.

I especially like #4 & #5 as they completely torpedo the false premise that his whole campaign is based upon, "I'm a uniter, not a divider." (Wait a minute, that wasn't him, but hmmm.)

Two highlights for me were:

"Does he not read factcheck dot org about what the lies his own campaign is spewing out?"

"And for God's sake, man, send your grandmother some money!"

Keep up the good work!

[BlackVelvet04]

39. OMG....

how funny..."And for God's sake, man, send your grandmother some money!"


Bravo!

[gerrilea]

7. Finally A Voice of Reason Here At DU!!!

I've been a member here over 4 years, I don't post that much...I really don't have much time with work, but I used to enjoy reading what others were saying and thinking...but the last year or so it seems that this Forum has been taken over my the MSM...all I've see and read is everyone jumping on the current bandwagon of opinion given us by the MSM...no one with real independent thought(s) or reasoning..

This post is a welcome surprise here...good job!

[Levgreee]

8. Your post is chock full of misinformation

I sincerely doubt you did 200 hours of research, and if you did, you severely lack reading comprehension. I will point out your poor assumptions/flat-out incorrect statements tomorrow if this thread is still up, i need to go to bed right now.

[southlandshari]

11. I agree with you

You need to go to bed right now.

[greyghost]

13. His supporters do, win confronted with facts.

[ClericJohnPreston]

41. Take clear notice of the remark

"if your post is still up".

As the author of a successful post recommended 68 times in 12 hours, it was unsuccessfully refuted, and thus, the echo chamber had it taken down. This poster is part of the Obama thread police.

[southlandshari]

51. The Obama thread police?

:shrug:

[Hoof Hearted]

158. I guess that poster is still sleeping it off?

Or perhaps he did a bit of research and found himself without a leg to stand on.

[Iris]

329. hmmm. Yes. It is tomorrow today.

[Levgreee]

334. I replied at the bottom, to 3 of the 7 points so far. It takes time to find all the articles, as

I use sources

[desertflamingo]

63. don't go to bed...

GO AWAY.

snarky. that's all that was and TYPICAL of any negatives presented on barry. i've gotten to the point that i pretty much despise the barry people. sad, isn't?

[shaniqua6392]

168. I completely agree with you on that!!

Now get your ass in bed and when/if you find time tomorrow you can just straighten this out. We will be waiting with baited breath for you to hurl more insults as to the integrity and honesty of the op. Let me guess...You are one of the infamous Obama supporters who likes to call anyone who disagrees with you stupid and wrong. How Democratic of you.

[LadyVT]

217. Thank you. :)

[izzie]

12. I believe that their were millions on the street world wide to stop

Bush going to war before he went. I do not think Bush was reading the papers at the time or people in Congress. I think these people, Bush and Congress, felt that the people of Iraq would just love us over in their country with all our toys fixing every thing. Putting my self in their place I did not want the Iraq army in my home town but that is my own way of thinking.

[Bluerthanblue]

22. You are right Izzie- there were millions out there saying NO--!!!

There were many of us here on DU who took to the streets saying NO-!!!

Maybe the OP wasn't one of them- but we did say no to this war, in loud voices, in large numbers- regardless of how poorly our media covered it. But the bush machine was in motion.

peace~

[izzie]

267. It is hard to give up to fix things with a gun is an easy way.

Some times I think we should look at the WW1 and see how that little mess turned out. You still hear people say WE won WW2 and these people never seem to count USSR and the millions lost in that one country for another mess that guns were going to fix. One would think we could find a better way to fix a problem but I wonder if we ever learn?

[Perry Logan]

14. Also: many of his fans damage the party every time they open their little mouths.

[Tennessee Gal]

15. All excellent points.

My thoughts are very much in line with yours.

[flordehinojos]

16. obama's grandiosity and naivete = GWB in a suit of a different color.

thank you for not allowing obama to pull the wool over your eyes.

[GarbagemanLB]

31. Hillary refusing to admit a mistake and take responsibility = GWB in a pantsuit.

IWR anyone?

[Bluerthanblue]

310. the ability to admit being wrong says more about a persons character

than any of the other foolishness listed in the OP-

It shows humility, self-confidence, and honesty among other things.

You make a very good point.

peace~

[DemBones DemBones]

108. You nailed it. I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid.

NObama.

[Maribelle]

18. Excellent post from your heart.

Thank you for your insightfulness.

[LiberalFighter]

19. Sort of reminds me of when Bush was campaigning in 2000

And all the research about Bush that showed he was not the best candidate staring the American people in the face.

[Cameron27]

21. Good post

McClurkin was the deal breaker for me, but I began to dislike him because of the way handled Kyl-Lieberman. You're so right about his non-verbal behavior, to me he comes off as smug, arrogant and condescending.

K&R

[desertflamingo]

64. yup...

me too.

[Triana]

23. Lining up behind the lamestream media's POV...

...seems to be the norm, I'm afraid to say - on Iraq and on elections.

[Skittles]

177. dup

[femrap]

24. Big K and R

"(And for God's sake, man, send your grandmother some money!)"

That just made me howl!!! I'm still laughing. I don't think BO cares much for women and their issues. I don't like his commercial about his dead mother...not one bit. I do not trust this man one iota.

I just can't understand why 'progressives' are buying the MSM marketing of him. We are a stupid and lazy citizenry.

Thx for posting...I appreciate all of your research.

[jhrobbins]

59. I was a big Edwards supporter, but my partner, who is not particularly

political, but it very astute at human behaviors and foibles has said the same thing about BO as you - that he doesn't trust this man - he says there is some agenda that has yet to be revealed. So, it's HRC for me.

[flyarm]

105. funny but my husband says the same thing..he does not trust Obama..

and he says if it comes between Obama and McCain..he is voting McCain..( hubby is lifelong dem but not very political) he says he knows McCain and Obama has revealed nothing to him but hope and he even stole change from Edwards..hubby said only idiots vote for hope and change without the facts and Obama gives no facts!..no policy..

Me if it is Obama i will write in Edwards.

fly

[emilyg]

116. My daughter said the same thing.

[DemBones DemBones]

133. I was a Kucinich supporter and am not

in love with Clinton but she looks really good compared to Obama.

This is the 11th presidential election I'll be voting in, plus I watched politics before I could vote, and I don't trust Obama.

I don't trust politicians in general, but some really set off my alarm bells. Obama is one of those.

[Asia Expat]

237. I have only nine elections under my belt...

But my alarm bells are doing the same.

I am really trying to like him since it looks as if he will win the nomination. But I find the more I dig, the less I find to like.

[BlackVelvet04]

175. I don't claim to be a

psychic or an expert, but I'm usually a really good judge of character. I spotted Nixon for what he was before everyone knew what he was, and I spotted bush for a fake before everybody knew he was a fake. Obama is, IMO, as fake as george bush. There is DEFINITELY an agenda although I'm not sure what it is.

The fact that so many people have flocked to him because he gives a good speech is truly a sad commentary on Americans. The brainwashing is so complete that women on television have declared him handsome. In what alternate universe is a skinny beanpole of a guy with huge ears handsome? A candidates looks aren't really important to me but when people are talking about Barack Obama being handsome I have to seriously wonder what they are smoking.

[femrap]

233. You have an astute partner....it's a shame that we

are faced with not such a good choice for Prez. We need a miracle...or at least a change of events!

I don't trust BO as far as I could throw him.

Take care!

[rodeodance]

243. i can't trust him either.

[Beausoir]

26. K&R.

No more empty suits in the White House.

[NastyRiffraff]

27. Excellent! Thanks for this

Finally a reasoned post about "Why I don't support Candidate X." AKA "48,000 reasons why I hate candidate X."

I've never supported Obama; he always made me uneasy because of the almost evangelical nature of his campaign and speeches. However, after Edwards dropped out, I looked at him again, as well as Hillary. I came to much he same conclusions as the OP, as well as my original objections to him.

I don't agree with Hillary on every issue; however, I know she will fight the GOP as necessary (and it will be necessary, very often) with every fiber of her being. I know that she will stand up against anything thrown at her...she already has. I don't know that about Obama; already he has shown he reacts badly and defensively against ANY attack on him. He ain't seen nothin' yet.

And I've always wondered why he isn't helping his own grandmother. Good one!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

28. I totally agree with your every point

[calmblueocean]

30. I guess I can see about two of those.

Basically, your post boils down to, "I think Obama is naive and arrogant."

Fair enough, that's a personal call on your part. Sometimes I feel like that about Hillary.

But I don't see what you see, and in policy terms, I think you're either deluding yourself or being dishonest. Hillary is a hawk, and even the right wing acknowledges this. It's like pulling teeth to get her to make commitments to end wars or not to start more. When she does, they're always couched in very careful language, like, "I'll start to withdraw troops within the first 6 months." Hell, send home 100 soldiers, and you've fulfilled that promise. BFD.

Comparing Rezko with Hillary's history of corrupt donor scandals, and Bill's, I just don't see how you can say with a straight face that you're supporting her because you think she's the cleaner candidate.

You're free to make your choice, though, however you wish. Thanks for sharing your point of view with us.

[LadyVT]

32. I believe you have misread my post...

I won't split these candidates into good and evil, or King and Bitch, or whatever. They both have their downsides. They are both politicians. I am saying that these seven points are simply too disturbing to me to vote for this man.

And, yes, I did speak out loudly against the war, as many of us did; that is one point I am making. The whole world spoke out, and still we went to war. I see nothing in this campaign that tells me that the same thing won't happen again. On to Pakistan?

[pacalo]

149. You're a welcome addition to DU.

I'm not happy about the two choices we've been given, but either would be a breath of fresh air after the last 7 years.

And may God help us whether the Democratic nominee wins or not.

[boston bean]

34. Excellent post K and R! nt

[in_cog_ni_to]

35. Add # 8 & #9....his lack of character when it comes to protecting his state's citizens who drank

Tritium Water for YEARS that was leaked from a nearby Exelon Nuclear Plant (they covered it up). He wrote legislation to make the Nuclear Plants notify residence when there is a leak of Tritium water. The Exelon head honchos didn't LIKE the legislation, so Obama let them rewrite it. The Legislation FAILED and he went to Iowa for the caucus and LIED to the Iowa voters saying that one of the first pieces of legislation he PASSED was that legislation. LIE. It dod NOT pass. Obama has accepted over $200,000 from Exelon for his campaign coffers.

#9....He was FOR dumping Nuclear Waste at Yucca Mountain, before he was against it...in October 2007 after he decided to run for prez.

[Barack_America]

37. Lol!

You do know,don't you, that Hillary was on that committee and did NOTHING to support the bill until it was already gutted!

:rofl:

[in_cog_ni_to]

40. What's so fucking funny? My brother, 2 nieces, nephew and S-I-L lived in the village

where that Tritium Water was leaked.

They drank it. They bathed in it. They cooked with it. My nephew, as a BABY, drank that fucking water in his baby bottle. The village has a high rate of cancer. Dogs and cats just dropped DEAD...alive one day, dead the next. Children were born with no enamel on their teeth. Animals were born with no limbs and no eyes.

The fact remains...your candidate couldn't care LESS about the people in Godley, Illinois! He does care about lining his fucking pockets with Exelon's BIG BICKS though.

And this is NO LAUGHING MATTER. You should be ashamed of yourself. I hope your family never has such a thing happen to them.

If anyone has a good enough reason to DETEST Obama, it's me and my family. Screw you.

[Barack_America]

68. The rage is a bit over the top.

And the truth remains that Hillary is also on that committee. What did she do?

Don't bother replying to this. I've no longer any interest in conversing with you.

[flyarm]

132. didn't happen to anyone you love so that is why you have no rage!

if the shoe was on your foot you would have rage as well..aren't you lucky..today you have no one who was effected...but tommorrow??? will you be so lucky?

fly

[Barack_America]

141. The normal reaction for a person is to say...

...that they've been personally affected before flying off on someone because they didn't know.

I WAS not belittling the experiences of those people in IL. I was simply pointing out the poster had overlooked (conveniently?) that Hillary too was on that committee...and where was her leadership on that issue? At least Obama made an effort.

[flyarm]

142. a fake effort while linning ones pockets..and innocent lives are exposed to toxic water

is no effort at all to me..it is fraud.

fly

[BlackVelvet04]

178. He made an effort? He stood up and fucking lied about passing

the bill.

[flyarm]

185. yes in Iowa he lied to the voters..

it seems a pattern for him..he lied about how much dirty money he got and then had to a couple of times give money back..each time only after he was caught.

fly

[BlackVelvet04]

194. Wasn't this the bill he told his constituents he

got passed when in fact it didn't pass?

[flyarm]

200. yes and he told the Iowa voters the same bullshit lies! eom

[flyarm]

203. here: from NBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqhISssMxnY&eurl=http://noquarterusa.net/blog/

[BlackVelvet04]

211. Thanks.....

I just wanted to make sure I had the right bill.

[Hoof Hearted]

291. Oh please! Stow it. When you LOL at other peoples suffering and post one of these

:rofl:

You might get called on it.

The normal reaction might be to get defensive, as you did, but the MATURE reaction would be to admit you were wrong and apologize.

[flyarm]

131. absolutely in_cog_ni_to !! thank you for pointing that out ..and he was also for seating the Fla

delegates before anyone else was ..in fact he could hardly wait for the ink to dry on the sancitons placed on fla..like one day later he was in my neck of the woods saying he would seat the delegates should he be the nominee...now he doesn't like that since Hillary won Fla by a huge margin..now he says what he said foirst ..is unfair..well what was unfair was Edwards was the only one to follow the damn rules..that they all signed.

oh and now when he wants us all to cry him a river over the Fla delegates...he sent commericals into Florida..the only candidate to do that prior to the election and on election day..and he still lost florida..now he wants to cheat the system..

i say no more cheating by Obama!

http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/sep/30/obama-vows-do-whats-right/?news-breaking

By WILLIAM MARCH and ELAINE SILVESTRINI The Tampa Tribune

Published: September 30, 2007

Fundraising Totals | Primary States | Where They Stand

TAMPA - Barack Obama hinted during a Tampa fundraiser Sunday that if he's the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, he'll seat a Florida delegation at the party's national convention, despite national party sanctions prohibiting it.

Obama also appeared to violate a pledge he and the other leading candidates took by holding a brief news conference outside the fundraiser. That was less than a day after the pledge took effect Saturday, and Obama is the first Democratic presidential candidate to visit Florida since then.

Obama and others have pledged not to campaign in Florida until the Jan. 29 primary except for fundraising, which is what he was doing in Tampa.

But after the fundraiser at the Hyde Park home of Tom and Linda Scarritt, Obama crossed the street to take half a dozen questions from reporters waiting there.

The pledge covers anything referred to in Democratic National Committee rules as "campaigning," and those include "holding news conferences."

Obama seemed unaware the pledge he signed prohibits news conferences. Asked whether he was violating it, he said, "I was just doing you guys a favor. … If that's the case, then we won't do it again."




fly

[BlackVelvet04]

179. "I was just doing you guys a favor"...........

Isn't that nice of him?

:eyes:

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Straight Shooter]

54. It is unkind for a long-time DU'er to be denigrating posts of newbies.

Attacking the messenger. Where have we seen that tactic before, eh? I've seen some seriously ridiculous posts by long-time members of DU, and conversely there have been extremely thoughtful posts from newbies. In fact, they have some of the best posts, because they haven't learned to play the go-along-to-get-along game which is so common on Internet forums.

Then there's the poster upthread, attacking Hillary when the subject is Obama, or, IOW, the tactic of distraction.

FWIW, I agree with the IP on most points, but on a couple others, it's a draw. However, as I've stated before, I'd rather have the devil I know than the silver-tongued devil I don't.

[desertflamingo]

65. you're rude.

so you've been posting longer. BFD. personally, i've been coming to this site FOREVER, but i just recently began posting. so... y'know what? stuff your holier than thou b.s.

this is NOT your private little club. and FURTHERMORE, what you just did is SO typical of the bush regime.

SHAME ON YOU.

[LadyVT]

70. Sweetheart, I am a psychologist and University lecturer since 1989...

I have nothing to do with "focus groups." I wrote a lot of letters in 2004 to try to get Kerry elected. I had a DU account then, but was so turned off and disillusioned after that "election," I've stayed away until now.

How odd, to discredit someone's genuine beliefs in this way.

[dailykoff]

97. Well I'm the king of France and so is my wife.

Just so you know. :hi:

[flyarm]

134. France does not have kings any longer..i know, i go there many times a year..

but i do know of a king who was beheaded in France! his wife as well!
It was an ugly scene.
fly

[DemBones DemBones]

136. Then you can't vote in the US so au revoir!

:patriot:

[Sam Ervin jret]

206. As a professional psychologist you surely know what you just did calling a peer "sweetheart"

it degrades you comments, negates the points you made and shows a lack of manners.

All your posted comments and your listed reasoning about Obama must now be seen in this new light.

You call into question the candidates personal qualities, his body language etc., These are not facts but rather personal interpretations. You are entitled to these as we all are. As some find Hillary "cold" or "robotic" some will find Obama "arrogant" or some other adjective.

I ask of all of Du's experienced posters that they might try to keep the personalities of our candidates out of the debate. The Republican Machine will most certainly use and develop any preconceptions about our candidates, valid or not, in the MSM during the general election.

[LadyVT]

222. Nonverbal behavior is not personality.

Nonverbal behavior is unconscious communication, and it's very reliable. It's also a field of study about which I am familiar, and therefore not "personal interpretations."

I'm sure many could find Hillary lots of things, and you are welcome to start a thread where you discuss them. Again, this post is about Obama, not HIllary.

And "sweetheart" is a term of endearment where I am from. I feel badly for all the upset on this board, and the rage some posters seem to have been feeling in response to a stranger sitting at a computer, posting her reasons for rejecting their candidate. I'll be happy to delete the word if the poster to whom I responded would like me to. :)

[saltpoint]

393. Dr. Jung believed nonverbal behavior informed and possibly defined

personality.

Behavioral disorders, as indexed by the DSM, are beholden to behavior evidenced, behavior observed, and behavior renderable into hospital clinical and nurses' progress notes.

Attending physicians attempt to get release forms signed to enhance the clinical generally and prior meds and family history especially, but absent this in patients who are nonberbal, the clinical assessment must determine if the communication is willful silence as a psychosocial response to circumstances, or if it is manifest evidence of underlying psychiatric malady. In the case of the latter, it is less easily treated, obviously, and linked to personality, definitely.

Jung believed the latter (which would likely not have endeared him to health insurance interests in our modern age). He also believed that such behavior was in many cases archetypal rather than socially inspired, with a potential genetic component, but in any case, that it occurred in personality unbidden rather than constructed as an id-related conflict, as Freud believed.

Nonverbal behavior is concomitant with personality in that either are defined from multiple origins, or potentially by multiple origins. Peer-to-peer reviews of board-certified psychiatrists do not make assessments in writing to insurance cooperatives without distinct phrases such as "It appears to this physician advisor" as opposed to "The clinical is absolutely clear."

[George II]

372. By interpreting and commenting on snippets of video...

is roughly equivalent to Bill Frist diagnosing Terry Schaivo from a videotape. Body language indeed, during the debates 90% of what we saw was either of the two candidates by themselves and from the shoulders (or mid-torso) up. I am continually amazed at some posters here who go to great lengths to create negatives about a candidate but can't say anything good about their own.

Now, we'll probably be told to "start a new thread about Clinton", but the whole premise of the original post was set in the very first sentence - "I am now a Hillary supporter". From there the post goes through a litany of things about Obama, NOT Clinton. Very poor job of disguising her negativity about Obama.

[rodeodance]

244. fact is--it is done all the time on this board. Be brave

[BlackVelvet04]

38. Great post....

thank you.

[ctaylors6]

42. Thanks. I'm deciding who to vote for Tues here in TX and appreciate posts like this.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[babylonsister]

43. (2) Can you provide links?

His own website says he intends to bring troops home, not increase them.


http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

* In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.
* In September 2007, he laid out a detailed plan for how he will end the war as president.

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.

[ClericJohnPreston]

46. Links

They always rely on links......

[George II]

277. Links.

Relying on links to FACTS sure beats relying on unsubstantiated opinion or innuendo, wouldn't you think?

[Straight Shooter]

84. Focus on the words "combat troops."

As an occupying force, we will remain in Iraq, under Barack's "plan." There is a DU'er who is very good at explaining what Barack really means, I think it's Orwellian Ghost, I'm not sure I've got the name right.

[babylonsister]

85. I find it interesting the OP doesn't seem to want to provide a link.

Could that be because there isn't one? :think:

[LadyVT]

344. Links are below.

[George II]

357. There is nothing "below"! Or do you expect us to begin searching all over the place again?

[Coexist]

45. what are the reasons you will vote for McCain in the GE?

I thought this was about the primary, but I noticed the GE.

[LadyVT]

71. I didn't say I would vote for McCain.

[George II]

278. Then if Obama is the Democratic nominee you won't be voting?

Here is what you said:

"For what it's worth, here is why I won't vote for Obama in the general election"

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[earth mom]

49. 911 was an inside job. EVERYONE in Congress knows it. Obama knows it.

Going after the "evil doers" is just more * bullshit that Obama is taking up to get rethuglican voters to vote for him!

Osama bin Laden is a made up evil doer!!!

Educate yourself and you will see the ominous & frightening parallels between * & Obama and the rest of the rethuglicans.

:puke:

[jenmito]

55. I thought you were being sarcastic, but you clearly weren't. Got a link to show everyone in

Congress knew 9/11 was an inside job?

[earth mom]

58. You know something? Freepers LOVE that "got a link" tactic.

I used to post on a mixed board and that was their M.O. It was always: "Got a Link?" :eyes:

No thanks, I'm not playing your "got a link?" game.


Do your own research, use your brain and your critical thinking skills-if you possess any-and then get back to me with YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS.

That's how EDUCATING YOURSELF works.

Maybe you need to go back to school to learn that simple fact.


That being said, I seriously doubt you will do anything other than find ways to either:

a) ridicule my post

or

b) back up the prepackaged 911 bullshit that was fed to you the corporate media whores-info that means absolutely diddly squat in regards to what really happened on 911.

[desertflamingo]

66. wow...

RIGHT ON!!

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooked911]

151. because it is obvious 9/11 was an inside job, and they have to know this

Almost all politics is smoke and mirrors to distort the deep, ugly ultimate truths.

[jenmito]

153. So you DON'T have any proof that the entire Congress knows 9/11 was an inside job?

Thanks. :eyes:

[spooked911]

155. only the proof of common sense

which I'm sure won't be good enough for you.

NO-- I don't have an article that shows that they all know that.

Obviously they would never admit it.

Nonetheless, they have to know.

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jenmito]

160. Correct-your version of "common sense" is NOT good enough for me.

The poster who made that claim (and now you, too) sound ridiculous.

[FedUp_Queer]

214. Oh, I see how it is....

the fact that there is no proof is proof that there was an inside job because there WOULDN'T be proof. Utter silliness. Do I think the 9/11 Commission was right? No. Do I think there's something else going on there? No. Do I have a hunch that there may have been an inside job? Maybe. The thing that really mitigates that belief for me is that for this to be an inside job (ie conspiracy) is that an awful lot of people would have to be quiet about it, and, I don't see that many people shutting up about something like that and not leaking anything out about it. But really...the argument seems to be "If you don't see 'it,' you are just dumb because it's SO OBVIOUS that this was an inside job. Just use your common sense." Skepticism? Yes. Inside job without proof? Don't think so.

[earth mom]

249. "Politics is smoke & mirrors"-Exactly and Thank You for saying it!

:hi:

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jenmito]

201. No I'm not. You have NO idea what research I've done. And YOU have no idea

that everyone in Congress thinks 9/11 was an inside job, which includes Hillary. I can't stand her yet I don't think she thought it was an inside job. Get real.

[Hoof Hearted]

289. I find it amusingly telling that the tinfoil conspiracy nutters always resort to such childish

arguments.

:tinfoilhat: It's TRUE and if you don't know that you're an IDIOT!

:shrug: O.K. fine, but do you have any reputable sources to back up this claim?

:tinfoilhat: Everybody knows it, but they won't admit it because they're all in on it TOO!

:shrug: That's an extraordinary statement, do you have any proof that "everybody" knows it?

:tinfoilhat: They HAVE to know it's true because I know it's true and if they don't believe the same nutty conspiracies I do they're IDIOTS just like YOU.

:shrug: So your proof that everybody knows it is that you "know" it? Don't you have any links to credible sources at all?

:tinfoilhat: Yes, and if you don't believe me you're an IDIOT. I don't need no stinkin' links.

[jenmito]

303. THANK YOU!

:)

[jenmito]

112. YOUR WORDS: "EVERYONE in Congress knows" 9/11 was an "inside job."

You're either a NUT or a LIAR. If you don't have any proof of your claim, YOU'RE the one who needs to do some research, then get back to me and APOLOGIZE for your outrageous baseless insults! :eyes:

[earth mom]

251. Who's doing the name calling here?

You called me a nut and a liar.

While all I did was tell you to educate yourself.

So seriously dude :wtf:



Ok, So let me put it to you this way:

There is NO justification for the War in Iraq. * & Co LIED, remember?!

There is NO justification for a War with Pakistan.

There is NO justification for a War with Iran.

There is NO justification for a War ANYWHERE on the planet.

Obama is going with the * & Co program. The program of Terra Terra Terra, let's find the bogey man Osama bin Laden. The program of Endless God Damn Wars!!!


Obama said so himself here in this nice linky poo for you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4598201


I am thoroughly disgusted with Obama! Not only that but he used the Nazi-esque word "Homeland" too. :puke:

[jenmito]

284. You accused me of "FREEPER" tactics, doubted that I had the ability to think

for myself, and other insults. You're the one who made the claim that everyone in Congress knows 9/11 was an inside job. Put up or shut up!

[dysfunctional press]

125. what a horseshit response...

:rofl:

YOU made the grandiose claim that "EVERYONE in congress knows it was an inside job"...
so when asked for something to back-up such nonsensical horseshit ramblings- it's YOUR responsibility to show something that backs up the possibility that you didn't just pull it out of your backside.

[jenmito]

130. THANK YOU!

:hi:

[JohnLocke]

215. So you don't have any evidence.

[earth mom]

255. Can you tell me WHY Congress has not Impeached * & Co?

The majority of DUers see * & Cos crimes quite clearly. Most of us know that the Iraq war was based on a LIE.

Meanwhile Congress does NOTHING. NOT ONE GOD DAMN THING ABOUT IT!!!

Could it be because of all that blood on ALL THEIR HANDS from 911 AND the Iraq War?!!!

You know what they say about lying, once you tell one lie, it leads to another and another and another and another and another and another and another.....!!!

[respublicus]

260. Big 0 says NO to impeachment

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-06-28-obama-impeachment_N.htm

http://toshuo.com/2007/obama-impeachment-is-not-acceptable/

"I’m wondering what Bush or Cheney would have to do in order for Obama to consider their actions a “grave breach” or “intentional breach of the president’s authority”. I guess lying to Congress, lying to the UN, breaking the Geneva Conventions, illegally firing federal prosecutors, claiming the authority to declare martial law, revoking habeas corpus and torturing people who haven’t even had a chance to see a lawyer doesn’t cut it. Would Obama draw the line at gas chambers?

Or, is he hoping to inherit those authoritarian powers rather than abolish them?

Thomas Jefferson was already onto this problem nearly 200 years ago. In 1819, he said: “Experience has already shown that the impeachment the Constitution has provided is not even a scarecrow.” "

[earth mom]

308. Scary isn't it?

:yoiks:

[LadyVT]

72. Check the definition of "pre-emptive"--Obama's comment meets it

[jenmito]

117. I did. Bin Laden already attacked us and declared war on us. Killing him would NOT be preemptive.

You really should learn what words mean before commenting on them.

[LadyVT]

223. Bin Laden is not Pakistan.

[jenmito]

286. Obama did not say he would invade Pakistan. He said he'd STRIKE WITHIN Pakistan to kill BIN LADEN.

Get it straight. Bush invaded Iraq. He claimed it was a preemptive war because he lied about Saddam being a threat.

[LadyVT]

292. Yes, he did say he would invade Pakistan. Here is the link.

from mediamatters.org (a nonpartisan fact checking site):

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801080001

[jenmito]

302. No he didn't. Your link proves me right.

Unless you can find a quote in your link that backs up your claim...

[LadyVT]

345. How does one strike militarily without invading?

[George II]

369. "1. an act or instance of invading or entering as an enemy, esp. by an army"

An air strike, in educated circles, is not considered an invasion.

[George II]

370. That link and article is more concerned with Chas. Gibson's interpretation of what Obama said

And yes, you're right, nowhere in it does Obama say he would invade Pakistan.

It's amazing the lengths some people here would go to try to discredit an opposing candidate.

[George II]

358. A strike on al Qaeda in Pakistan is not an "invasion" of Pakistan

Did Israel "invade" Iraq in 1981 when they destroyed a nuclear reactor?

Did Reagan "invade" Libya in 1986?

Did Clinton "invade" Sudan in 1998?

None of these are considered invasions by historians, nor would any "strike against al Qaeda" be considered an "invasion" of Pakistan!

Let's face it, you're now appearing to go to any lengths to criticize Obama, even to the point of redefining words.

PS - that link spends more time on Gibson's interpretation of the Bush doctrine than on Obama's concept of a military strike against AL QAEDA in Pakistan.

[George II]

371. Very good point - so attacking Bin Laden is not "invading" Pakistan

[ProSense]

48. Seven strikes against Hillary:

1. Show Us the Money:

As the presidential campaign narrows and its costs skyrocket, detailed disclosure of financial resources becomes ever more important. Of the leading contenders, so far, only Senator Barack Obama has released his full income-tax returns — a level of disclosure once routine for candidates after the political corruption of Watergate

<...>

The reluctance of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain to reveal more about their finances ill-serves voters and the nominating process of both parties. It also sets a terrible precedent for future campaigns for important posts at the national and state level.

2. Hillary's disingenuous attacks on Obama over Exelon (she even claims to have helped him, although she didn't sign on as a co-sponsor until 12 days later):

September 13, 2006

Clinton Announces Committee Approval of Legislation to Require Disclosure of Leaks from Nuclear Plants

Bill Would Require Indian Point and Other Nuclear Plants to Notify Local Governments in the Event of Future Leaks to Groundwater]

Washington, DC – Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) applauded the approval today by a key Senate committee of legislation to require nuclear plant operators to quickly notify the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the state and county in which the plant is located, of any leak of radioactive substances, such as the releases from the spent fuel pools at Indian Point that occurred last August. Senator Clinton joined Senator Obama in bringing the legislation to the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, where it was unanimously approved today.

“Local officials need to know when radioactive materials are leaked from any of New York's nuclear power plants, including Indian Point,” said Senator Clinton. “This important legislation will ensure prompt notification of any future leaks, and I will be working hard to move it through the full Senate.”

Last fall, the NRC and Entergy discovered leaks of radiation-contaminated water from the spent fuel pools at the Indian Point power plant. However, local officials were not notified of the leaks until weeks after they were discovered. The legislation approved by the EPW Committee today would ensure that local governments would receive much faster notice of any such leaks in the future. The bill will next go to the full Senate for consideration.

The legislation directs the NRC to develop regulations to require plant owners to notify the NRC, state and county officials of radiation leaks. For leaks that threaten drinking water, the bill recommends reporting to the NRC, the state and the county within 24 hours, unless they are already subject to more stringent reporting requirements.

3. Her mismanagement of her campaign

4. The ongoing effort to portray Hillary as the victim and trying to create the impression that this has anything to do with Obama.

5. She underestimated the Obama campaign

6. Mark Penn

7. Hillary's nasty campaign

[LadyVT]

73. You are welcome to your views; you could start another thread

[Jamastiene]

50. This is what happens when someone investigates and researches

all of the facts about our candidates. Job well done on sussing out that information. :thumbsup:

[Matteon]

52. What this post shows...

...to me, is that there are legitimate reasons to be skeptical of Obama, and concernes about what he would do if elected. However, I don't think it's possible for any person to run for president and not have question marks or raise legitimate concerns.

If you look at any candidate in a vacuum and emphasize the negatives then any candidate looks bad. However, if you line them up and look at each candidate relative to the others then the results change. I don't think Obama is a dream candidate by any means, but I think he is better than the alternatives.

[Iris]

331. well, it appears the op thinks differently.

I'm not sure what good parts of Obama you are lining up next to the points the poster made, but if it works for you...

[George II]

359. Sadly the OP couldn't summon up any good parts of Clinton to justify her first sentence!

[George II]

352. Correct, but the poster chose only to dwell on the perceived negatives about Obama

[trthnd4jstc]

53. Sen. Clinton, and Sen. Obama both have Negatives.

No matter who wins our parties nomination, both candidates will have negatives. I think that the threads criticism about,
"(6) His determination (expressed clearly in the 2nd to last debate, and again yesterday) to pre-emptive invasion of Pakistan (a nuclear nation) if "intelligence" tells us that Bin Laden is somewhere in Pakistan." is an oversimplification. Honestly, where is the heart of the Al Qaida stronghold in our world? It is Pakistan. And if we are to do anything militarily against Al Qaida where would we have to go? Pakistan. Will this be easy? No. But, can we allow Al Qaida a safe haven? Once again, NO.

I am not a Hawk. I hate war. I have lost 3 of my friends to war over the last 20 years, as well as I was in the Navy, with reserve time, for 5 years.

Also, "(3) His decision to make a business deal with someone he's described as "a friend for 12 years," to allow that person (Rezko) to hold fundraisers for him, and to accept personal cash contributions to his campaign (of which he has returned 75% under pressure), and then to defend himself by saying he didn't do anything wrong. That isn't the point. Of course he didn't do anything illegal. The point is, I know no one who could befriend a man, have lunch with him for 12 years, whose spouse hung out with his spouse, who read the newspapers who were already investigating Rezko at the time, and somehow miss that he is an extortionist who is going to go to the big house for good reason. Who is Obama therefore likely to appoint to advise him in the White House?" this is a complete exageration. Sen. Obama has done nothing illegal, nor unethical concerning his relationship with Rezco. We may not like Mr. Rezco, but you prove to me that Sen. Obama has done 1 thing illegal, I will be moved to your position.

Further, politics is dirty. Even the best amongst us who are serving, cannot please all of the people all of the time, nor can one in an attempt to get legislation passed be able to look at the legislation that has passed and feel good 100% of the time about the legislation. Comprimise is necessary to get legislation passed.

Finally, "(2) His commitment to increase the military by 100,000 soldiers, and to raise the military budget well beyond where it is now (which is IMHO too high, given the $78,000 which is each citizen's share tonight of the national debt)." yes the debt is excessive, yes we are in fiscal trouble, but because of Monkey Boy, and Lord Vaders Policies, our military is weak, especially the Army, and Marine Corps. I would like to see a draft. If everyone had to suffer more equally about military service maybe Hillary Clinton would not have so easily voted for authorization giving Monkey Boy a right to invade Iraq. If Chelsea could be drafted, do you think Sen. Clinton would have rushed into voting Yea, on that resolution?

[skepticscott]

100. So why is it

that none of the posters on this thread, either those supporting Obama, those supporting Clinton or those just expressing a general disgust with the Democratic choices left, bothered to compare these points to what John McCain has done or would do as president? Has McCain not lied and flip-flopped on issues to a far greater degree than either Clinton or Obama? Has McCain not promised to keep us in Iraq for another hundred years if necessary, and is he not COMPLETELY up the ass of the neocons and torturers who can't wait to invade Iran? Will McCain not toe the line on EVERY religious right issue all through the campaign and beyond? Is he not as soiled by contact with corporate lobbyists as every other Republican in Congress?

Fight all you want over Democrats in the primaries, but to contemplate doing anything that might remotely assist the Republican candidate on election day (like staying home or voting third party) is to welcome with open arms 8 more years of what we've been living through with Bush .

[Johnny__Motown]

56. #2) the military budget needs to be increased to replace the equipment wasted in Iraq,

This needs to be done no matter who wins.

Not a valid point

#3) He didn't do anything wrong, go look into Clintons Chinese contributers.

#4) I wouldn't look at her either, she is Uuuuggg Lyyyyy

#5) Yes he knows it is a campaign but the Clinton attacks are repulsive.

#6) pre-emptive invasion is not accurate. He says he will go in to try and capture Bin Laden. this is not an invasion

#7) Clearly Clinton and McCain will continue to build on what has already been done by previous administrations. Obama promises change, well here it is.

[From The Left]

60. TOP TEN REASONS NOT TO VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON

1. Hillary Clinton voted for Bush’s Iraq war

2. Hillary Clinton for Bush’s USA Patriot Act

3. Hillary Clinton voted to reauthorize Bush’s USA Patriot Act

4. Hillary Clinton opposed the international treaty to ban land mines

5. Hillary Clinton is one of the Senate’s most outspoken critics of the United Nations

6. Hillary Clinton voted against the Feinstein-Leahy amendment restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries that use them against civilian-populated areas

7. Hillary Clinton is one of the most prominent critics of the International Court of Justice for its landmark 2004 advisory ruling that the Fourth Geneva Conventions on the Laws of War is legally binding on all signatory nations

8. Hillary Clinton supported Israel’s massive military assault on the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon and the Gaza Strip which took the lives of over 1,000 civilians, half of whom were children

9. Hillary Clinton opposes the complete repeal of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act)

10. Hillary Clinton couldn’t be bothered to read the NIE before casting her pro-Iraq war vote

[LadyVT]

74. You are welcome to start a thread on that topic.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[flyarm]

139. please take your rudeness elsewhere..go start your own thread..

you are disruptive.

[desertflamingo]

61. FABULOUS OP!!

couldn't agree with you more. i'm not that crazy about hillary as i've stated before on DU, and i may even write edwards' name on the GE ballot, but i cannot in ANY way vote for barry - precisely because of your 7 reasons. i have more of my own, but those 7 are enough.

oh, and i'm sure the obama fans will haul out the lengthy list of hillary's but y'know what? who cares? we've had how many years of smearing and vetting and the woman is STILL standing. let barry have that much scrutiny and i promise we wouldn't be able to hear ourselves over the wailing from both barry and his gracious wife.

[pjt7]

62. You have some legit points & some bogus one's (imo)

But Barack has my vote.

[kentj44]

67. personally

i like him,i'm not going to nipick everything a candidate does surely ms. clinton has some problems as well.i like obama because simply he's a break from the past and he he loses the nomination i just hope its not done by thievery for if that were to happen i would encourage obama to run as a 3rd party progressive,he would toast clinton in terms of being prez. so she better watch her p's and q's i have heard talk of this very movement with rethugs and rats supporting such a move.

[Faygo Kid]

69. Your last paragraph is bizarre and an outrage.

"I believe the question we would all be wise to ask ourselves is why were we so willing to be lied to before the Iraq war? Why didn't we act, if we all KNEW how bad an idea the war would be? Why didn't we DO anything?"

Many of us DID try to stop this insane war before it began, and for you to dismiss those efforts - including mass marches - is wrong and frankly offensive. We did indeed DO something. We did indeed speak out. We virtually pleaded with our leaders - including Hillary - to listen to our voices and stand against Bush. They didn't listen.

Count me and most DUers out of your "we," please. If YOU were "so willing to be lied to," fine, but if you had been on DU then - instead of joining in the past two weeks just to post anti-Obama stuff like this - you would have known about the passion with which DUers opposed the war, and how terribly disappointed we were when people like Hillary and John Edwards gave Bush the authority to attack Iraq - an authority all here then knew damn well he would use.

At least John Edwards and others admit to their terrible mistake.

I don't agree at all with the rest of your post, but fine, if that's what you joined DU for, go for it.

But that last paragraph is a load of crap, and you should withdraw it.

[LadyVT]

76. My point was (as stated in another reply, above)

that of course many (most?) of us--myself included-- at DU did speak out about the war, marched about it perhaps, and were solidly against it. But the COUNTRY as a whole was unable to stop the war from taking place. If there was nothing to be done, then what does that say about the situation we are in?

[Faygo Kid]

79. That's not how it reads. Go back and edit it, then.

If you are telling the truth, go back and edit it, because it sure as hell doesn't acknowledge that so many of us were opposed to it before it began. And that's just plain wrong.

[Bluerthanblue]

312. word- ! eom

[shimmergal]

259. Excuse me, but it was obvious

to some of us -- even at that time -- that Bush & Cheney were hell-bent to go to war in Iraq, with or without Congressional "authorization". Richard Clarke and many others have since confirmed this: from their first week in office the Deadly Duo and supporters were set on invading Iraq.

It's regrettable that so many of the Democratic Senators voted for the IWR, but their negative votes wouldn't have had any more impact at the time than did our marching and protesting.

[George II]

279. Very good point, faygokid

Hillary Clinton was in the Senate when the terrorists attacked, Obama was not.

Hillary Clinton did not oppose the war when it started, Obama did.

All that rage about how bad Obama is and how we were duped into the war, but the candidate she's "turning toward" (I presume, since she's now a Hillary supporter and turned away from Obama) did just about everything she rails about in that paragraph.

I'd say "bizarre" is an understatement.

[OzarkDem]

75. One more: trash talking health care reform

He's been using GOP talking points about health care reform, saying we'll never get universal health coverage. He's giving the GOP and insurance industry plenty of ammunition to kill any real health care reform plan, including his own.

He also developed a health care reform plan that is inherently flawed, doomed to fail. That says he's either incredibly ignorant or dishonest. Take your pick.

[no name no slogan]

106. To be fair, NEITHER of our candidates' health care plans are very good

They both suck wind, IMHO. Neither provide universal coverage without putting more $$$ in the pockets of big insurance companies. And unfortunately, neither candidate has the guts to take a stand for a REAL single-payer, universal coverage plan, like HR 676.

[Hoof Hearted]

290. Yes, I'm afraid that nothing at all will change under Obama with healthcare.

When I went to his rally it barely got a mention, and he said he wanted to get it done by the end of his first term. In other words, not much of a priority.

[Spryboy]

77. Vote for the Dem in the general... period.

I encourage everyone to do their own research and vote for your preferred candidate in the primaries. That's what primaries are for.

But dammit, after the last seven years, you simply MUST pull together behind the eventual Democratic nominee, no matter what, and vote for them in the general. Because no matter what 'bad things' you pull up about your least-preferred Democratic candidate, they pale in comparisson to the 'bad things' of the Republican nominee, and the potential disaster of four more years of Republican misrule.

Please, don't fall into the trap of petulance and threatening to take your toys and go home if you don't get your way in the Primary. Seriously. This is too important for that. We have Federal judicial appointments, Supreme court nominations, and nominations and appointments for the entire vast array of government offices and levers of power in this country.

This is not the time to get even more divisive. We need, as Americans and Democrats, as Liberals and Independents, to pull together after the convention, and concentrate on ending 8 years of Republican mismanagement and disasterous rule.

Never lose sight of that.

[LadyVT]

78. As I wrote in my original post, i cannot vote for this man.

You are, of course, welcome to do so. I'd vote for Gore. I'd vote for Edwards. I'd vote for a lot of people. But not Obama.

[LadyVT]

81. One thing posting this post has shown me is

...there is a lot of contempt and rage out there against people who disagree with Obama's platform, and what I miss most of all is a sense of curiousity... what makes you believe that about him? Have you considered this? Hmm...yes, maybe you have a point there, I will have to think about it (which some people have written). Some have written, "yes, thank you, I am still an Obama supporter, but thank you for writing a rational post." Some have just flown right off the handle, as if I had said something obscene about their spouse. This leads me to believe that at least some people have stopped thinking, and are now just reacting.

And that's the danger I alluded to regarding why we are so willing to be lied to in the first place. We want so badly to believe in something that we lose our curiosity and start cheering and screaming at each other.

Edited to add: Now, I'm sure some Obama supporter will post about how HIllary supporters scream, too. But that's beside the point. That's not the point I am making at all. I'm talking about the state of the electorate, in general.

[Iris]

333. Reaction, yes.

Because I haven't seen many posts at all that counter your observations with anything about Obama that even hints at his platform or what he will do for this country. His answer to foreign policy experience is laughable, at best, and frightening at worst, yet I haven't seen anyone suggest he has something else to offer in that area that is just being overlooked somehow.

Sorry if this post seems to go all over the place, but, quite frankly, I still find it hard to have a valid discussion about Obama brings to the table besides "hope" and "change."

[FedUp_Queer]

236. You have given me some food to chew on...

I was an Edwards guy...still at heart am. I have to admit I have never been a fan of the Clintons, either one. As a gay person, I do NOT understand the apparent love many GLBT people have of Bill and Hill. He signed DOMA (then he ran ads during the 1996 campaign bragging about preserving "traditional marriage"). He instituted DADT. Now...Hillary is not for full repealing DOMA (big minus for me). Hillary is for repealing DADT. Hillary is for the Uniting American Families Act. So, there are reasons for me to vote for Hillary. Obama is for fully repealing DOMA. Obama is for repealing DADT. Obama is for the Uniting American Families Act. Obama shared the stage with Donnie McClurkin (big minus for me.) Based upon these things, I slightly favor Obama. Now...Much of what LadyVT says gives me pause. The Pakistan issue troubles me. I know I'm nearly alone on this, but I don't think al Qaeda is that big a threat, but I would like to see bin Laden brought to justice and the fact is that he is in Pakistan (Waziristan).

I like Hillary's health care plan in that it covers more people...everyone apparently. There appears to be a long-standing commitment to health care on her part. However, if I recall Michael Moore's movie SICKO, she is now a great beneficiary of health care lobbyist dollars. I see this as a segue into her continuing to take lobbyist money. I don't mind that. The comment by her that lobbyists don't influence her vote was just plain silly. Obama does not, at least any more, take lobbyist money. Obama's plan does not cover everyone, from what I've read. Advantage Hillary on health care. Advantage Obama on lobbyists.

Before I start rambling too much, I thank LadyVT for her thought-provoking thread. It illuminates some interesting rifts within the party. I think the Obama and Clinton people need to come down from the ramparts and stop belittling each other for their support of their respective candidates. The Clinton people implying that the Obama people are just dumb and gullible and are just impressed by great rhetoric. The Obama people implying that the Clinton supporters are neocons in disguise and saying a number of silly things about the Clinton supporters. There seems to be a lack of respect by either side of the passions that each hold. I think that should stop. Ok...soapbox pushed back under the bed.

The bottom line...time to come down from the ramparts, folks.

[BlackVelvet04]

180. No, I will not vote for Obama if he is the nominee....

I will NOT be party to voting for someone who I think is another george bush. I'll write in Hillary's name.

[For PaisAn]

212. You're right

"and the potential disaster of four more years of Republican misrule"
Or maybe 8!

[shenmue]

80. Excellent. Very well said.

An actual argument based on sound facts... wow. :applause: :loveya:

[aein]

82. Before I even opened this post, I thought to myself, probably a post full of BS, first thing will...

...be McClurkin. I clicked it. 1) McClurkin.

[LadyVT]

86. With hope your mind is still open

[George II]

304. .....and it went downhill from there.

...but then I looked for the poster to eventually get to the part where she could give us the reasons why she is now supporting Clinton, but sadly they were never there.

It's another one of those "I'm a Clinton supporter because":

"1) Obama's bad, 2) Obama's bad, 3) Obama's bad, 4) Obama's bad, 5) Obama's bad, 6) Obama's bad, 7) Obama's bad"

[LadyVT]

346. Again, the reason I'm voting for Clinton isn't b/c I'm not voting for Obama....

And I've discussed my reasons for voting for Clinton elsewhere. This is not that thread.

[George II]

351. That is COMPLETELY opposite of what you've been saying in this discussion

And now you expect people to search through the thousands of discussions on DU just to find your reasons for voting for Clinton?

How stubbornly and pompously conceited of you!

Read your original post again and see how you've now contradicted yourself. I'll help you:

"I am now a Hillary supporter, although I was an initial supporter of Obama late last year. Since then, I've done about 200 hours worth of research on all the candidates and their positions, including the Republicans'. For what it's worth, here is why I won't vote for Obama in the general election"

These are YOUR words, now. You were initially an Obama supporter. After 200 hours of research you are now a Clinton supporter. Other than the NEGATIVE reasons for not supporting Obama you give nothing! So, after a couple of days and dozens of post, you now ceremoniously announce to the world "look elsewhere" for your reasons for voting for Clinton. Unbelievable!!

Once again, your post STARTS with the definitive statement "I am now a Hillary suppporter", then you go off on a 180 degree OPPOSITE direction and never get back to the initial premise of your FIRST statement! No, now you want everyone to search all over God's creation to find those few nuggets of yours telling us why you support Clinton. Totally ludicrous!

As I've said several times before, and now you may have just confirmed it in this post, perhaps you don't have any POSITIVE reasons for supporting Clinton?

Until you follow up on your FIRST sentence in your post, I will consider you to be a 100% PHONY!!!

[joeybee12]

83. K&R

[Fredda Weinberg]

87. send your grandmother some money ... says it all. Judge by what

he does ... not what he says.

[emilyg]

126. Amen.

[Bluerthanblue]

305. and you have personal knowledge of "what he does"?

or are you judging by what YOU think he has/should do?

Who the hell are YOU to judge?

Perhaps you should look to your own house.

[Clinton Crusader]

90. K&R!!

[tripitaka]

91. i just have no clue what he's about. at all. but...

I don't care about the stuff like college tuition credits. We don't need President Obama for that, just a Dem Congress and a president who isn't a wingnut.

My problem with Obama is that whenever he speaks on a core issue, it sounds like he's embracing what's wanted by the audience, but the next day, when you check the text, he said no such thing. Reagan, gun control, gays, his pledge on public financing, etc. I don't see how anyone could NOT form the opinion that Obama really doesn't want to be specific on what he supports and what he doesn't. That's smart I guess, but I don't like it. W did the same thing imho.

I also don't like his penchant for beginning every exchange with "what's really going on here..." "what the real issue here is...". For a guy who's all about cooperation and compromise and consensus, I always get the impression that to Obama, he's the only person in the world who understands anything.

Having said all that, I don't discount the power of perception. He's getting people involved, he's convinced them they can make a difference simply by voting. In my lifetime no one in this country has managed to do that.

[Auntie Bush]

92. Bravo! You are a real intellect!.

Nice to see someone with some real analytical ability around here. someone who really thinks things out and does some actual research...rather than someone with a herd mentality.

[George II]

93. WHY DON'T YOU JUST GIVE YOUR REASONS FOR SUPPORTING CLINTON...

Instead of the vile, negative "REASONS FOR TURNING AWAY FROM OBAMA"??

Do you take the negative angle on everything in life?

By the way, similar reasons can be found for just about every candidate for every office in the country! If you SEARCH for them, you'll "find reasons for turning away" from ANYONE OR ANYTHING!

Now, back to reality and positive thinking...

[dailykoff]

98. Let's see, she'll bomb Iran, and...

what reasons? :shrug:

[George II]

101. My guess is there are none, so reasons to NOT support Obama have to be imagined

[dailykoff]

104. My guess too.

And the mud has to be promoted to get it to stick, hence this thread.

[LadyVT]

102. This is a great example of what I wrote in a response, above...

My comments are called "vile," and "negative." I am then asked if I "take the negative angle on everything in life," which is a gross over-exaggeration and assumption to be making about a perfect stranger whom the poster has never met.

I, personally, reserve the word "vile" for murderers and pedophiles, not people who post on a political forum...

As for "negative," there are times when it is appropriate to be negative. When, for instance, one notices one's own views and values differ from that of the person or people with whom one is conversing. One then offers a negative argument. That's the nature (and definition) of discourse. Otherwise, we're all just cheerleading. Cheerleading is great, but belongs at a football game, IMHO!

Naturally, one can always find one's own reasons for supporting or turning away from anyone or anything, and I encourage every single person to go out and seek those. Think for yourselves about every single issue. That's democracy in action.

[George II]

114. There are time when it is appopriate to be positive, too

In my opinion, one of those times would be when discussing the credentials and qualifications of the candidate I intend to support. You, however, have found it necessary to evade those (if they exist) and dwell on what you deem shortcomings of your candidate's opponent. I say that is the EASY way out, avoids the need for in depth comparison of the two candidates.

[LadyVT]

224. Sure...

I've done that, too. But a post can only be so long... :)

[desertflamingo]

103. vile?

oh come on now. get a grip georgie. the thoughtful, researched points made are far from vile. if you think THOSE are vile, can't wait to see what you consider what the repubs do to barry should he get the nomination. furthermore, the writer was simply sharing why SHE cannot vote for barry.

you illustrate so beautifully why obama disciples annoy the shit out of me. GROW UP!!

[George II]

115. Why are there no "thoughtful, researched points" made about why she IS supporting Clinton?

No, that would be too difficult, let's just post negatives about the other candidate, huh?

[desertflamingo]

163. oy...

because OBVIOUSLY that was not the point of her post. good grief.

[George II]

172. From Brighton Beach, I thank you....

You are correct, that is not the point of her post, and you confirm the reason for my dismay.

Sadly, "the point of her post" was to go negative on a Democratic Presidential Candidate. The energy could have been better spent going positive on her candidate of choice, but that might have taken the majority of those "200 hours of research"! Now, if I were to spend that much time poring over documents, articles, speeches, etc., I certainly would have come out of it with something POSITIVE to say, about anything or anyone. It's too bad that didn't happen in OP's case.

Good grief indeed!

[BlackVelvet04]

181. Why don't you just throw yourself to the floor and

kick your feet?

Grow up.

[George II]

186. What does that mean? Is that your way of "throwing in the towel"?

[BlackVelvet04]

190. It's my way of telling you you're acting like a petulant child. n/t

[George II]

193. How so?

I've been coherent and made some rational comments here without making obnoxious statements, you've just been insulting and avoided the real point of the discussion. So, who here is "petulant"? HAHAHA!!!

[Ravy]

99. "Send your grandmother some money!" Funny. Sad. True. nt

[Jack_Dawson]

107. Huh?

:shrug:

[George II]

109. She's living HAPPILY in her native village in Africa...

Money would do her no good in that lifestyle, most likely they don't use currency in her native village. Maybe you'd prefer that we go over there, kidnap her, chain her in the lower bowels of a slave ship and bring her to America for her own good?

Obama isn't running for mayor of is grandmother's native village, he's running for President of the United States. Dragging his grandmother's milieu into this discussion lowers it to Sean Hannity/Rush Limbaugh/Chris Wallace levels. Good job.

[LadyVT]

120. The point is, he USED his grandmother as the reason he's the best candidate,

therefore, we have an obligation to determine for ourselves whether or not we agree with his logic. Will world leaders be so touched that he has a grandmother living in poverty, without running water, in Kenya (his words) that they simply agree to his proposals? Or will they wonder why he hasn't lifted her out of poverty, or lifted her friends, or the village, or anyone in America out of poverty? Or will that issue matter to them as much as foreign policy experience?

Again, I am "dragging his grandmother's milieu into this discussion' and "lowering it to" Republican right-wing insane commentator level. All because I am repeating what Obama, himself, has given as the reason he is most fit to run the country on foreign policy, and entreating him to, instead of using her for his platform, do something to help.

[George II]

127. Obviously you didn't read or hear what Obama said about his grandmother, so here it is...

"It's that experience, that understanding, not just of what world leaders I went and talked to in the ambassadors house I had tea with, but understanding the lives of the people like my grandmother who lives in a tiny hut in Africa," Obama, D-Ill., told a crowd of would-be voters in Coralville, Iowa, on Friday.

Got that? UNDERSTANDING THE LIVES of the people LIKE his grandmother.

He NEVER mentioned his grandmother "as the reason he is MOST fit to run the country" (your words and characterization). He never used her "for his platform". Carry on, Rush.

[LadyVT]

226. This is not the quote of which I was speaking...I will find it...

it was from an interview in the Columbus (OH) Dispatch newspaper this week.

[George II]

271. Thanks, I'd like to see it (maybe I'm wrong on this?)

[Bluerthanblue]

280. you are incredibly ignorant and rude when you

speak of Obama's relationship with his Grandmother, and what he 'should' or 'shouldn't' do.

And your ignorance, and GROSS manipulation of the FACTS- (saying that he USES his GRANDMOTHER as THE reason why he is most fit to run the country on foreign policy) AND stating that he has done nothing to help her, makes your credibility on any of your other 'statements' about why you don't support him, completely suspect.


What genuine knowledge do you have about the specific help Obama has given his Grandmother? Are you basing your opinion on your bigoted view of her living conditions and claiming that she is living in abject poverty?-

Who the hell are you to make statements like you have? Have you ever lived in Africa? Have you ever BEEN to Africa? Do you have anything other than your opinion to back up your ugly words?

I have family who are refugees from Central Africa- I am aware of some of the the issues, customs and difficulties that make supporting loved ones much more complex than they may look from the outside. You are using this as an opportunity to try and make Obama look bad- and you will fail. I find your words and your inferences to be extremely offensive and unfair.


How many Americans farm their elders out to nursing homes? How much do we - the richest nation in the world- look after our elders, and what kind of respect and caring do we offer them??? Perhaps you may want to question your real motives in making this post. Are you coming from a place of genuine questioning, or are you looking for ways to slime a candidate you do not like?


peace~

[LadyVT]

294. Peace?

Holy moly. I've supervised dozens of students who have worked in Africa for months and years at a time. One of my closest friends is Kenyan, and his mother was out here for three months. She spent almost the entire time laughing at how crazy our culture is. I'm looking for the link to the newspaper article from the Columbus OH Dispatch in which Barack himself gave her poverty as one of the reasons he is fit to be President, and when I find it, I will post it.

Simmer down.

[Bluerthanblue]

309. yes, indeed I wish us all peace- which

is more than I can say for your posting here.

"Some of my best friends are".... is a tired and overused talking point. You have NO personal knowledge of what exactly Obama has done or offered to Sarah Obama-
You claim to be trained in psychology, and you offer this up as some kind of legitimization of your opinions, yet you do not demonstrate much proficiency through your posts.

I saw you state that you had read a "quote" in a Ohio paper above, which you have not been able to link to so far. Is this the sum total of your "research" into the facts behind the material support that Barrack has or has not provided for his Grandmother as well?

As a psychologist, you must know that relying on little more than your own assumptions is not a smart idea. Your desire to find reasons NOT to support Obama factor greatly into your "research" and your "conclusions". You state in your OP that you became a 'supporter' of him because friends of yours were.- :shrug: What kind of responsible choice is that?

I submit that you may want to withhold putting your support behind someone until you have actually educated yourself about them, rather than following the 'crowd'- no matter how much you may think of your 'crowd'.

Sarah Obama has traveled to the US to visit on more than one occasion. I have no doubt, or reason to doubt that if she were in need of anything that Obama would see that she had it. He is her 'Grandson'- NOT her parent. He cannot dictate to her how she should live her life. Do some actual research into her, and her situation- And perhaps you may want to have the decency- or at least the "professional courtesy" to not fall into judging a situation by outside appearances.

I have every reason and right to be furious at your rude and BIGOTED statements about Sarah Obama's living situation, and your sarcastic and unfounded implication that Barrack is neglecting her, while "using" her- for his own benefit- (in YOUR judgment).
You, as a 'psychologist' should know you have no right to tell me what to feel-

peace~

[LadyVT]

347. The link is below.

You are of course free to believe and feel any way you wish, and to vote for whomever you feel is most qualified for the job. All the best to you.

Peace.

[Hoof Hearted]

332. Attack, spit, bite. Could you please explain why Obama feels the need to point out his grandmas

living conditions?

[Bluerthanblue]

339. I'd be happy to give my perspective if LadyVT would

post the quotes she says back up her statement:

"he USED his grandmother as the reason he's the best candidate,
therefore, we have an obligation to determine for ourselves whether or not we agree with his logic. Will world leaders be so touched that he has a grandmother living in poverty, without running water, in Kenya (his words) that they simply agree to his proposals? Or will they wonder why he hasn't lifted her out of poverty, or lifted her friends, or the village, or anyone in America out of poverty? Or will that issue matter to them as much as foreign policy experience?".

I've neither heard or read any such thing-

LadyVT says she read it in a Cleveland newspaper-
She says she'll link it.

I'm wating- when she does, I'll be happy to respond to you, based on his actual words, not someone elses paraphrase.

peace~

[LadyVT]

348. the links are posted in a response below

[Hoof Hearted]

356. How utterly juvenile. I asked you a direct question. Why does Obama point out his grandmothers

living conditions?

I suspect you don't want to go there, which is why you've employed the decidedly middle-school level tactic of tying any prospect of a meaningful response to my direct question to the actions of a third party.

[Bluerthanblue]

363. feel free to make all the assumptions you like Hoof Hearted-

I don't operate on assumptions. LadyVT claimed to have 200hrs of research involved in her conclusions which she used to make her OP- She claims that there is a newspaper report to back up her assertions, she has yet to supply a link to the article.

My opinion on 'why Obama would mention his Grandmother's living conditions" doesn't really matter- unless you are anointing me as some kind of 'grand poobah'- But you seem desperate for me to answer, so I will-

I would think that the fact that Obama has a Grandmother who lives in a small village in Kenya, Africa, is something quite note-worthy. If she were my Grandmother, I would not find anything 'questionable' about calling attention to her. The same way that Hillary called attention to her own mother's life as a child- having lived in foster care, and saying that she (Hillary) had an understanding or connection with those who have also experienced this in their life (like me) as a result. Is there something wrong with knowing the facts about the people connected to our candidates, should they all be held suspect for doing so?

I don't accuse Hillary of 'using' her mothers experience for her own 'gain'- She is only telling people about her family- as Obama is, when he speaks of his Grandmother Sarah. His mother and father and both Grandfathers are dead- He has not had the 'easiest' of lives, and yet, rather than whine about it, and be morose, he is able to be hopeful. He speaks of his Grandmother with pride and admiration.

Do you resent the fact that he has family in Kenya? Do you think he should refrain from telling the truth about them, or try to hide their humble living situation? If so Why?-

I don't need to attack Hillary in order to know that my choice of Obama for President is the 'correct one'. Obama is not perfect, and I don't expect him to be. However, when he is being slandered and maligned by others, I will not hesitate to call those who are doing it OUT- which is what I have done in LadyVT claim that he uses his grandmother, and neglects her.

I think Hillary's supporters would serve her far better if they pointed out her strengths and the reasons why they feel she is the best candidate, rather than trying to destroy her opponents with rude, petty and unsubstantiated claims.

Actually we all would benefit if everyone did that more and left the negative campaigning for those who have little positive to offer as to why Candidate _______ is the best choice.

peace~

[George II]

377. Au contrare....read on....

It was a Columbus news article and she did provide the link in post #338 below.

Oh wait!!!!! That's not a Columbus news article, it's a Cleveland article. And woe is me, that article didn't say his grandmother didn't have running water at all!

In fact, none of what the poster has said about this particular of the "seven deadly sins of Obama" is truly what happened, just an exaggerated projection of the OP's preference for Clinton veiled as a slam at Obama.

Oh, and by the way, he did NOT ever say he was going to conduct a "pre-emptive invasion" of Pakistan.

One thing I have to agree with her on, however - "deadly sin #4" - he should have stared Clinton down continuously throughout the debate. :rofl: That's what I look for in a President!

[George II]

375. If he didn't somewhere along the line he'd be criticized for ignoring his grandmother

What do you care about what he says about his family? Read his comment (his REAL comment, not the excerpted one or one in a link still to come) in the context in which it has been made. At least he didn't break down and whimper a couple of times to give the fake illusion that he had emotions.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[George II]

128. See above, he did NOT even mention his grandmother "living in poverty"

Chances are, in her native village "poverty" isn't even a viable concept. "Poverty" is your negative projection on his words. Race baiting? HAH! As I prefaced my sarcastic remark about dragging her over here (did you read that at all??), most likely in her native village she's perfectly happy and content. That wasn't the point of Obama's remark, in fact it wasn't even close to what he meant. Ignoring his grandmother "in poverty" is what you would LIKE for him to have done, makes smearing him even easier.

And, notice how all these negative comments about Obama have left Ms. VT's preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, completely out of the discussion? Very effective evasion.

[Name removed]

135. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[George II]

140. That's not all I "prefaced my remarks" with

(and I mention myself that it was sarcastic)...there was more, but you conveniently choose to ignore it to prove your ill-conceived point.

You projected your own opinion and wishes on what Obama said, and now with "people living in poverty are happy and content because they know no better" is projecting your own opinion and wished on what I said. WHEN did the issue of "poverty" come into play here and WHO brought it into play? Certainly neither Barack Obama or myself. It was Ms. VT who mentioned "poverty and no running water" (did she get that from what Obama said? Probably not, since he never said it!) and you jumped right on for the ride.

[flyarm]

245. how many posts did you have removed? is that how you kick your feet?

censoring others?

just wondering..as i read the other posters messages and they were not offensive..

fly

[George II]

270. Zero...none, bupka....

Mine aren't offensive either, they're just trying to steer the discussion into a positive direction instead of spiralling down in negativity.

[Ravy]

272. Positive direction?

Insinuating that I would like to have his grandmother thrown in the bowels of a slave ship and brought over?

I won't type what I said about that again out of respect for the moderators, but you know what I am thinking.

[George II]

276. Actually I don't know what you're thinking...

But making derrogatory assumptions about Obama and his grandmother and their relationship is irrelevant. And that is not what I was "insinuating" - you're projecting.

You singled out a single sentence from my post, my response to the comment that he should send money to her. She's 86 years old and looks happy and content with her life and is proud of her grandson.

Curiously, I see that several posts to which I responded have been removed, but mine remain. I'd say that speaks volumes for what was posted vs. what I have to say here.

Does this look like an unhappy woman in poverty?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/5/142122/2117/130/450395

Read this article, please:

http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/national_world/stories/2008/01/09/Obama_Kenya_0109.ART_ART_01-09-08_A4_T290O5P.html?sid=101

[DemBones DemBones]

166. They don't use currency in Kenya? What are you talking about?

Of course they use currency. And how do you know she's living happily? You don't know her personally, do you?

If he thinks it's worth mentioning that she doesn't have running water, why doesn't he pay to have a well dug and a pump installed so she can? I'm sure she's used to doing without it but she might be happier having it. It's hard to carry buckets of water when you're old and I'd think she's over 80, given that she has one grandson who's 46.

[George II]

192. I didn't say they don't use currency in Kenya!

Did I???? If she's living in a hut in a small village, they probably don't use currency - they barter, trade, and work for life's essentials.

And when did Obama say she didn't have running water? It was the OP who made up that little fact (a la Sean/Rush/Chris) You really have a vivid imagination, don't you?!

[Bluerthanblue]

285. she has a hand pump outside her house, -

she also has many family members to help her, and 'look after' her- She is the 'Matriarch' of the Obama family, and is fit and sound of mind. She is known for her generosity and kindness- a woman who is rich in many non- material ways.

It is very insulting and ignorant for people to put their own kind of "demands" on Sarah Obama. I do not doubt that Obama would help her in any way she asked, and she would have no problems verbalizing her needs- it is well within 'customary' to state your needs in her culture. I also feel very confident that he has extended his offer of help to her and continues to do so.

Not everyone needs a 2car garage, washer/dryer, central air, mini-van, big screen tv, etc to live a full and contented life. It is not only very possible- but also likely that Sarah Obama would not choose a life like many here on DU have, if given the choice- as hard as that may be for some to accept or comprehend.


peace~

[George II]

307. You did a much better job of saying what I tried to say earlier here, thanks!

Money, glitz, material things sometimes mean nothing to someone who is already very happy (as she appears to be in several articles about her) If Obama did, now that she's 86 years old, build her a bigger house, give her a car, jewelry, etc. etc. etc, those people here who throw out that he has done nothing for her will chime in "he did that only because he's running for President".

[Bluerthanblue]

311. thank you- for being

willing to stand up for the truth. I find the inference of the OP and others to be incredibly offensive, ugly and rude. Not to mention it is nothing more than ugly assumption- based on some pretty messed up visions about what really matters in life.

I hope that Sarah Obama will be able to continue to live freely, as she chooses despite the un-intended 'fame' that has come her way. The deluge of reporters has been overwhelming from what I understand- But it is also good to see that her family in Kogelo is taking control, and requiring anyone wanting to interview her to do so only by "appointment".

I admire her strength, compassion, and optimism. While she may not have had too much of a role in raising Barrack, it is clear they share some very positive character traits- and the admiration and respect they have for one another is a positive thing, not an opportunity to slime him or ridicule her.

I thank you again, for speaking up- and doing it well.

:hi:

peace~

[Jack_Dawson]

110. Ted Kennedy Loves Him

He must be doing something right...

[emilyg]

111. Thank you!!!!!

Excellent post.

[ronnykmarshall]

118. How DARE you???? !!!!!!!!!!

:sarcasm:

Thank you.

You're brave to stand up!

You of course know that now you are "an enemy of The People"!!!

[LadyVT]

122. hahaha... thanks

;)

Hugs for all.

[hfojvt]

123. some of us HHHers do our own research too

it's not a media fad.

To look at your points

1. GLBT issues (mainly McClurkin)
2. military budget and deficit
3. Rezko
4. nonverbal behaviour
5. victim stance during campaign
6. Pakistan
7. foreign policy

From my perspective those are all kind of a big yawn since they say nothing about policies that affect the poor and working classes.

In that sense, they are much like Clinton's campaign. She talks like she's a populist and can talk about the problems of the working class and poor, but mostly she offers nothing, next to nothing, to solve those problems. I guess a balanced budget will cause prosperity to trickle down onto working people. That seems to be what she thinks. She does offer more than a few specific proposals which will benefit people who are above the median income in the same way she was adamant about opposing a FICA tax increase on people making more than $110,000 a year.

Just as I and Obama were not duped before the Iraq war, I am not duped about the Clinton candidacy on working class issues.

[flyarm]

124. Thank you for your post!! I thought i was going to lean to Obama when Edwards suspended his camp.

so after mourning Edwards leaving the field..i started looking to Obama , and at his policies..but i could not find much on his policies...other than gobbly gook..there is no there there.

His national security is empty.

these are important things to me as i spent my life as a flight crew for one of the airlines involved in 9/11..it is very important to me.

as i see nothing but bullshit and a paper tiger as far as national security under this administration.

Well i will not vote for an empty suit..i can not vote for Obama..he is an empty suit..he has not answered anything with regard to the policies he will institute..other than he will negotiate with the repigs ..i see nothing but empty rhetoric..how can we as a people fall for this shit again?

how many have to die for empty rhetoric again? when will we grow up as a nation and be responsible?..how can we let another empty suit run our government?

well how is this man going to negotiate with repigs when he couldn't convince Senator Claire McCaskill to vote against giving immunity to the telecoms?..where was his leadership within the senate to convince any of the others to not give immunity to the telecoms?..Hell no one is a bigger cheerleader for Obama than McCaskill and yet she voted to give immunity to the Telecoms..she didn't think they did anything wrong..

so she wiped her ass on our constitution and Obama?? where was his leadership in the Senate?..where was his fight for our constitutional rights?

this says alot to me..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/15/AR2008021502962.html

The Obama Mystery

By David Ignatius
Sunday, February 17, 2008; B07



"Why is the press going so easy on Barack Obama?" asks a prominent Democratic Party strategist, echoing a criticism frequently made by the Clinton campaign. It's a fair question, and now that Obama appears to be the front-runner in terms of his delegate count, he deserves a closer look, especially from people like me who have written positively about him.

The reason to look closely now, quite simply, is to avoid buyer's remorse later.

Obama is a phenomenon in American politics -- a candidate who has ignited an enthusiasm among young people that I haven't seen in decades. He promises a nation in which, as his supporters chant, "race doesn't matter." And for a world that is dangerously alienated from American leadership, he offers a new face that could dispel negative assumptions about America -- and in that sense boost the nation's standing and security.

But these are symbolic qualities. What Obama would actually do as president remains a mystery in too many areas. Before he completes what increasingly looks like a march to the Democratic nomination, Obama needs to clarify more clearly what lies behind the beguiling banner marked "change."




fly

[Ravy]

274. Exactly where I was, flyarm

I have always been lukewarm on Senator Clinton. I think she would do a fine job, but I also think we could do a lot better given the candidates that were out there. Obama was number 2 on my list when I decided to support Edwards (from Gore) and I thought I was going to get to know Obama's policies better and maybe even catch the fever- but I wanted a last chance to really evaluate Clinton and Obama, one on one.

So I started looking at a lot of Clinton/Obama posts that I had just not looked at before, and started commenting in threads where I thought there were distortions about what one candidate or the other said/stood for. After a few days, I realized I was only responding to anti-Clinton threads, except for maybe one or two (I Ignored some from both camps that seem to make crap up out of nowhere, so I never responded to those at all).

So, of the threads that I thought were "thoughtful" and not just a dirty smear, I judged almost all of the mischaracterizations to be coming from Obama supporters. Many of these traced right back to the Obama campaign, or the candidate themselves.

I still think Obama *could* make a wonderful president. Far, far better than Clinton could. But the reverse is also true. Obama is just as likely to be a horrible president for our causes, because of his willingness to distort, dismiss, and generally scorch the earth for people like me (baby boomer, long time Democrat, partisan because I have had my eyes open for years).

Right now, I don't really care which of them wins. The known Clinton who I think can win in Nov, and would do an good yet not exceptional job, vs Obama, who may or may not win in Nov, who is likely to be either exceptional or total garbage if elected. Toss up politically, really. Depends on your tolerance for gambling, I suppose.

[DemBones DemBones]

129. "And for God's sake, man, send your grandmother some money!"

:rofl:

Of course, at the 2004 convention, he said his daddy was a goat herder in Kenya. There might have been some goats on the farm that his grandfather owned but Barack Obama, Sr., was able to go to the University of Hawaii, where he married his second wife, mother of Barack, Jr., and then to Harvard on a scholarship.

So who knows if his grandma is living without running water or not? :shrug:

But if she is, he could pay for her to have a well dug and have an electric pump. We live in the country and that's what we have. If the power goes off, the pump won't work so we have a generator for back-up, so he ought to get her a generator, too, if he wants to be really helpful.

[hayu_lol]

143. Lady VT, Many thanks for such a rational OP and followup...

Here is another Obama misstatement:

There will be no US bases in Iraq.

Unfortunately, we have 14 operational bases already built and staffed. He failed completely to mention them. Does he then, have some sort of magic wand that he will wave to make them all disappear?

He mentions troops, but consistantly fails to address the Blackwater type of mercenaries which currently about equal the number of US troops in country.

Perhaps he has a crystal ball that we don't have...but from his words as recorded I don't think he does.

Change for the sake of change does nothing.

[George II]

145. When did he say "there will be no bases in Iraq"?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

197. This is wrong

Obama said there would not be any bases in Iraq in ten years.

Go here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4623826&mesg_id=4623826

[Ravy]

275. Won't she pretty much have to come over here if he is elected?

I can't see her getting Secret Service protection over there.

God forbid, I think she would be high on a kidnapper's target list.

[Bluerthanblue]

314. you may want to find out the facts for yourself, instead of just

taking your own personal assumptions as factual.

You may find out some interesting things along the way.

For example Sarah Obama has a solar panel on her 'hut' which provides some electricity-
And she does have access to a pump- better access than many other people in the village of Kogelo-

I encourage you to educate yourself, before joining others in slandering and mocking someone, simply because there are others who are quick to do that already.

We are in Iraq, because people were afraid to split from the 'herd' and stand up for the truth, even when it was not 'popular'.


peace~

[TomClash]

137. Rebuttal of the Seven Reasons"

1) On McClurkin - he's not exactly in the Obama inner circle. He participated in an event. Plus, Barack has a longstanding record of support for LGBT rights dating back to his days in the Illinois Senate. Other than his failure to support same-sex marriage - Hillary also takes this position - I find little objectionable on this issue. I don't know too many community organizers who don't support civil rights - but your corporate lawyer candidate (15 years) sat on the Board of the nonunion WalMart. What about your LGBT brothers and sisters in the labor movement? Don't they count?

Your new candidate was feted by a far more powerful figure, Rupert Murdoch, the dominant media personality of our time and an unabashed right-winger. Thank you no.

(2) More soldiers - do you know anyone serving in the military? Do you understand the strain on active duty forces? Do you want National Guard personnel serving instead? Here's a public service announcement: if we reduced our soldiers in Iraq by two divisions today and a war broke out with China, we'd lose - badly. If you want to rely on NG personnel or Blackwater private armies to fight in future wars, please explain how that works well because I don't see it.

(3) Rezko - Besides the fact that the Clintons have more sleazy friends than almost anyone not named Tony Soprano or George Bush, what exactly has Rezko been convicted of? Oh wait, he's of Lebanese descent and we all know the dirty arab must be guilty. Even assuming Rezko is guilty of some crime, can you tell me you are absolutely certain none of your friends has committed a serious crime? Even Al Gore has some questionable "friends." Guilt by association is not a reason to vote against someone.

(4) Actually, many world leaders are dolts. And this is the most ridiculous "reason" you give because it is not based on reason at all. You don't like the way he looks at her? I don't see it and I don't get it. Hillary has all the fashion sense of a dead squirrel but that's not a reason to vote against her.

(5) Hardly. He defends himself against attacks - it's the voters he wants to convince, not Hillary. That's what a campaign is all about - getting the most votes. You don't do that by reconciling with Hillary, but rather attracting voters, especially new ones.

(6) The problem in Iraq was NOT intel but how the WH "interpreted it." Presumably, Barack would do better than Bush because he would not be hot to go to war to increase money for defense cronies. I was under the buildings on 9/11 and I have alot of questions about how that happened and this Administration's contribution, but it seems pretty clear that Al Qaeda and ISI had some involvement and Pakistan is harboring Al Qaeda and ISI has some participation in the Government. If Hillary is not willing to attack targets in Pakistan to defend the US (and actually I'm sure she is willing to do so) then she has no business being President of the United States.

(7) You must have wanted George H.W. Bush in 1992 because he had far more foreign policy experience than Bill Clinton, A lot of foreign policy gurus supported the War - including McCain and Clinton - and how's that working out? Sometimes a fresh approach is better and maybe this is one of those times. And you might consider the reaction in much of the world if the US elects a person of color to lead it.

Note that not one of your reasons supports why Hillary should be President - all attack Barack. This looks and reads a lot like campaign talking points, not aperson who actually changed her mind about Barack and genuinely moved to Hillary.

[ClericJohnPreston]

144. I don't know whether to laugh or cry

at the partisanship and absurdity of what is supposed to be a refutation of the OP.

First, lets let all those young, first-time voting men out there, racing to Obama without understanding his manner to RAISE the numbers, chew on the idea of a DRAFT.

Since you are all so caught up in the history a candidate would make as President, then understand the burdens of War should not be left to the POOR. Thus, a DRAFT would increase the numbers of soldiers to fight these righteous wars and I'm SURE these brave young men would flock to the military when called by Obama....right???

Please note the REFLEXIVE Obamite mentioning of Hillary whenever called on to answer for something...anything! What if Hillary is not there and Obama actually gets elected. Are you going to blame Hillary under Obama's watch??? Hmm? Or, are you going to be like Bushco and always play blame the Clintons??

Good grief, I could go on and on, but this is the most telling of Obamite traits...the absolute lack of self-awareness. In other words, POT,KETTLE,BLACK. From our intrepid poster above, TomClash:



Note that not one of your reasons supports why Hillary should be President - all attack Barack.

All said with a straight face and no recognition of irony, while he attacks Hillary.

You can't make this Obamite stuff up.

[TomClash]

264. Funny how very little of the rebuttal is addressed

But let's spare a few seconds for substance. As for increasing the number of soldiers, maybe a little recent history will help you. In 1990, the Army had at least 10 more active duty divisions and the recruiting numbers were high right through the mid-90s; in fact, the Army was turning people away - all without a draft. To get 4 more divisions you don't need a draft.

Well, there's no more substance in your post to address.

If you could actually comprehend what you read, you would recognize that I only attacked Hillary's lack of fashion sense and then promptly stated that was no reason not to vote for her. I said she should not be President if she was not willing to use force when absolutely necessary and then said that's not a problem because she probably is willing to use force. Those are the only "attacks" on her - pretty tame stuff.

By the way, I was an Edwards supporter before he withdrew. Chew on that, Johnny.

[George II]

147. I mentioned that too..she provides NO reasons to support Clinton, just reasons to NOT support Obama!

[flyarm]

148. the op says seven reasons for turning away from obama..it didn't say

andddddddddd seven reasons to support hillary..

it just said seven reasons to turn away from obama

do you have a comprehension problem..seriously..maybe you do, and you could not understand what the op was saying?

this thread was not about Hillary..it was why the op could not support Obama..

that, to me is easily understandable.

fly

[George II]

150. I comprehend just fine, thanks....you? See:

Here is the first paragraph of her post for your "comprehension":

"I am now a Hillary supporter, although I was an initial supporter of Obama late last year. Since then, I've done about 200 hours worth of research on all the candidates and their positions"

With all of those 200 hours of "research", and "now a Hillary supporter", could she not put forth a SINGLE reason to support Clinton? Nah, if you read one of my posts earlier, it is far easier to post reasons to NOT support a candidate than to actually think and come up with reasons to support the candidate of choice.

It was very clear who the OP was supporting; indeed, and please comprehend this - IT IS THE VERY FIRST SENTENCE IN THE POST!!

So, before you incorrectly criticize my lack of comprehension, please try to do yourself what you say I can't do, please.

Thanks!

[LadyVT]

227. Again, to clarify for you...

The reasons I support Clinton are not because I do not support Obama. The two are independent in my mind.

I stated whom I was supporting so that it would be clear, from the start, that if I have bias (which I do, and we all do) it would be toward Clinton. So that, when readers read it, they would know that going in.

[George II]

268. But then you proceeded to list a number of negative things about Obama.

So, help us out here, are there any reasons why you support Clinton (independent of any perceived Obama shortcomings)?

[LadyVT]

295. Yes, as I've posted elsewhere many times...

The topic of this thread is posted in its title.

[George II]

301. I know you've posted that. many time

I know what the topic of this thread is, and my participation in this discussion has been to plead for something positive you the throw us about your new candidate of choice. That's not an unreasonable question, that's not an irrational thing to expect, is it?

My mother used to tell us when we were children that "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all" - I'm not telling you not to say anything, just give us a few postive Clinton crumbs, whatever they may be. The fact that after a couple of days and a dozen or more posts you still have been unable to do that tells me that you don't have anything good to say about Clinto.

Give us this, just tell us she looks great in pants suits, ok? THAT would be positive and change your trend in this discussion.

Thanks.

[11 Bravo]

273. See response #48 on this thread.

It is also posted as its own thread elsewhere. I waded through it and was struck by the absence of any whining from you about the need for positive comments about Obama as opposed to relentless negativity about Hillary. Got hypocrisy, or is merely being a sanctimonious clown enough for you?

[Raejeanowl]

398. Irrelevant And Pointlessly Argumentative

She stated her position. She's not required to structure it according to your agenda. Perhaps she gave her reasons to support Clinton in a previous post. Perhaps she'll do so later. What is your problem understanding that?

Sometimes you do just have to hone in on one thing at a time so opposing DUers don't try to hijack the thread and drag you around like a ragdoll.

[DemBones DemBones]

138. K & R

:kick:

[MsMagnificent]

146. A few of my reasons

As much as I do not like Ms. DLC Hillary for pres, Obama fans --quite close to cultists (don't blame me for what term your own actions elicit)-- turn me off of Obama, almost as much as do his 'positions'. There is nothing sadder than a persons own deliberate blindness ...it's an amazing effect for in-the-know DU'ers to subscribe to -- adds greatly to the feel & appearance of a 'cult'.


Anyhow, what bothers me about Obama:

1) 'some(? -- I hope not all!) people who go to Emergency who haven't purchased Health Insurance are "gaming the system" and '(he'll) get them'. --Do I even need to begin to comment upon those remarks? OK, the one that angers me the most: He's going to prosecute people who have had to go to Emergency?! God help us.

2) 'Bush and Cheney have done nothing illegal' --Just what we need, another fucking Pelosi only worse! HOW are we going to bring those war criminals to justice with Obama as president?

3) campaigning for Lieberman --LIEberman for God's sake! More speechlessness. WTF is up with THAT?! Unbelievable.

4) US "reaching across the aisle"?? --That is ALL the Democrats have done, instead of fighting for what's right and Constitutional!
The only way Republicans have 'reached across the aisle' to us has been for us to totally and completely agree with them; there has been NO 'bipartisanship' unless it's been the Dem's giving up and adopting the Repuke views. That statement alone makes me think he's either insane or he's kissing so much up to 'Pukes that the next 4 years, if under him, would be no different than what we and the world have had to endure the past 8.
And I can absolutely guarantee something: to undo the incredible amounts of damage * & Co. have foisted upon the U.S. these past years, 'compromising' with those Repigs who only care about their party, not the Constitution, will NOT succeed. One doesn't have to be psychic to make that prediction!

5) Anybody can mouth the words 'hope' and 'change'. --As for it being 'audacious' (I wonder how many writers and focus groups they needed before someone narrowed the slogan down) well, it's about as audacious as McCain is a 'maverick'.
One needs concrete plans to work on strategies to effect Hope and Change, and with Obama neither are defined -- they're deliberately utilized feel-good words, nothing more. We need much more to succeed in this political climate... 'reach across the aisle' my sweet azz!


With all this, y'all think Hillary would be bad?? She's at least is a known quantity, as for Obama who the Fuck can tell? I don't believe he knows or has any plans, or he'd iterate them, his proclamations consist of merely whatever pleases the most amount of people at any one time.
We need that like we need another fucking war! (TY LadyVT for mentioning Pakistan, too!)

I can tell you one thing -- if ANY other candidate came out with some of those statements there would be DU/Universal criticism... but nooooo, not if it's Obama, who is a saint and can do no wrong! Good job people. :sarcasm:


And good luck with that! I trust him as far as I can throw him.
I can throw Hillary a shorter distance.

Isn't that a sad thing to have to say about my and others choice for president, especially after these long, long years of El Retardo in office?


Still and all, I still haven't taken a position yet although plainly it's *very* close. I wanted Kucinich, then Edwards... the two that are left hardly measure up to either of them. But it's clear, after reading months of these nasty threads (which show absolutely no respect to fellow DU'ers!) who I'm leaning towards. And yes, I realize that the insults have been a 2-way street, but at least I've seen many more Hillary supporters who are realistic about their candidate while Obama supporters think he is a virtual God, can do no wrong and refuse to even consider, much less discuss, some of these amazingly discordant things that pop out of this guys mouth!


One last thing I'd like to say: If Obama does indeed get elected to the highest office in the land and he becomes overwhelmed (which is a highly likely possibility) the Pukes will do everything in their power to set back 'not-white' presidents. You know it is not beyond them, they are racist to the core and I'm sure they're salivating at the prospect. Obama should have taken at least 4 years to learn D.C. politicking, to mature more, and to network with fellow politicians (at the minimum to find who he can trust) along with solidifying his platform -- but he just could not wait.
Say what you want about Ms. Rodham Clinton, she worked hard to learn the ways of D.C. politics upon her election; even Republicans give her that.

We know what usually happens to those who cut corners, and we know what happens to those who try to please everyone -- they end up pleasing nobody, and become despised for the effort.


I hope I'm wrong on everything, especially if he's elected; but I cannot shake all these bad feelings...
Nope, no Warm & Fuzzies here; no matter how many times I hear about that chestnut 'Change' and the maverick audacity of Hoping.

[CaliforniaDreaming]

152. Um, there's no such thing as a pre-emptive strike...

on someone who has ALREADY ATTACKED US!

And on the gay thing, ask John Aravosis on AmericaBlog.com what Barack wrote to him on the subject.

His commitment to increase the military by 100,000 soldiers is because THIS ADMINISTRATION HAS FAILED on its recruitment commitments. Raising the military budget is very bad I agree. But can you imagine what Hillary will do to the military budget? She'll explode it because she'll have to PROVE to everyone that she's a tough commander in chief.

The reason he's playing the victim is that the Clinton campaign is continually lying about him and also lying about all the great things that Hillary supposedly stands for when her campaign is being run by a UNION BUSTER (Mark Penn). Hillary is another DLC person. Barack stands for real change, even if he's not perfect.

[LadyVT]

228. Um... Pakistan has not attacked us.

[CaliforniaDreaming]

248. Yeah, but you are using the word "pre-emptive" incorrectly.

He said if diplomacy failed he would go after Bin Laden. Gee, kind of sounds like... I dunno Afghanistan. You know, that effective popular war that 94% of America was in support of. Of course, now the incompetent Bush administration has turned its back on Afghanistan so the Taliban is back running the country again.

[LadyVT]

296. Look up the definition of "pre-emptive" and then decide

Afghanistan did not attack us.
Iraq did not attack us.
Pakistan has not attacked us.

And these have been the only times in our history that we have invaded another country pre-emptively. You may argue these pre-emptive strikes were justified. But they were pre-emptive.

[George II]

379. Here it is....

"2. taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; preventive; deterrent: a preemptive tactic against a ruthless business rival. "

Now, the truth of the matter is that Obama never used that word, you did. What he talked about is a "strike" (they used to call it a surgical strike, but that's out of vogue since Cheney, et. al. abused that one) against BIN LADEN. Now, is it true that Bin Laden and his crew attacked the US? In that case, the strike is no longer against something "possible" or "anticipated", it's no longer "preventive" because it already happened.

Obama would judiciously direct an attack against Bin Laden, where ever he might be. It would be an attack against Bin Laden and his people, and ONLY Bin Laden and his people. That is far from an "invasion of Pakistan".

From your post above:

"these have been the only times in our history that we have invaded another country pre-emptively"

How did you feel when Reagan went into Panama to get Noriega or into Granada? How about Reagan's bombing of Libya and Lebanon or Clinton's missile attacks on Afghanistan and Sudan?

:shrug:

[spooked911]

154. as far as I am concerned, neither Clinton nor Obama represent real change

I tend to think, somewhat contrarily, that Hillary would be better and represents somewhat more of a shift. Obama is too much of a wild card-- he is so inexperienced and will have to rely on many behind-the-scenes advisors-- and I don't care for some of his positions and language.

Of course Obama is better then any Rethug, but frankly neither Clinton nor Obama is going to go far enough to undo the massive bullshit that has been thrust upon us over the past several years.

[AX10]

156. BOOKMARKED!

:kick:

[LadyVT]

373. wrong spot

[acmavm]

157. Yeah, he's a lying opportunist. This is finally dawning on people? Wait a

while. The guy is a guarantee of at least 4 more years of republican rule if he gets the nomination.

[Matteon]

176. Come on.

That's just plain silly.

[Rydz777]

161. Well done. An eighth reason: I can't reference these comments

but I've seen them on TV and on the net. Edwards during a break during one of the debates told Obama to show some courage. More recently, (it is said) that Edwards has resisted endorsing Obama because he thinks he lacks the strength to face either a campaign against the Repubs or hostile world leaders.

I write this as someone who supported Edwards before he withdrew and voted for Hillary on Super Tuesday. So take it as coming from that point of view. However, I do think the next President is going to be in for terrible challenges. Bush is leaving a Pandora's box full of poison pills behind, a wrecked foreign policy is just one of them - and thinking that the world will like him because he grew up in Indonesia and has a grandmother in chaotic Kenya is simply naive.

[zulchzulu]

162. Clearly, you have not done the research you say you have

Your judgment is skewed. Your research is naught.

For the record, McClurkin performed at ONE event ONE night in ONE small town in South Carolina with three other bands. Obama clearly made a point that he disagreed with McClurkin's statements. If you did any research, you'd know the quote. You would also (if you did research) that Obama has a solid record supporting LGBT rights.

As for Obama wanting more troops, so does Hillary Clinton. In 2005, she said that 80,000 troops were needed. Add that those troops would be fighting in needless wars that she was willing to send into harm's way for her career and to look tough. Does she care that they die? Show me a warmonger who does.

As for the Rezko case, if you did ANY research, you of course know that Patrick Fitzgerald has stated several times that Obama has done no wrongdoing. Add that Obama bought a home for $1.65 million (from book sales) from the asking price of $2 million. If you've ever done research on real estate transactions, you'd know the asking price for homes is ALWAYS inflated. So for Obama to buy a property at nearly the asking price is an absolute non-issue. The plot of land was, as you would know if you did research, 10 feet by about 20 yards and sold for $100k.

The non-verbal stuff you mention is so subjective that it's not even worth commenting on. The same goes with him playing the "victim" on ads that Hillary has stated don't exist. Obama can certainly defend himself and has solidly done so.

Of course, you are incorrect that Obama would invade Pakistan. NOWHERE has Obama said that. He, like Clinton and others have stated, would try to take out Osama if there was actionable intelligence.

As for the foreign policy experience, Obama is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Homeland Security, the Veterans committee and others and has been to the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Africa, eastern Europe and elsewhere. Of course, if you REALLY did research, you would know these things.

I would ask you the question you surmised: "Are we just a lazy country, unwilling to do the work to check out what's being fed to us?" I would suggest you do some more homework before you trash Obama's record with Clintonian lies.

[Maat]

210. It's ironic the OP mentions preemptive war ...

and implies that Obama is a warmonger when Sen. Clinton is the Queen of Preemptive War. She voted for both the IWR and the Kyl-Lieberman resolutions which authorized preemptive action (which is illegal), and I watched her bless Israel's illegal invasion of Lebannon (regardless of the NeoCon's international law expert stated that Israel's action was legal - most international law experts have stated that it is illegal).

Obama, on the other hand, has repeatedly acknowledged the fact that one must be in imminent danger of attack from deadly force from a sovereign nation before one can attack a sovereign nation, so he is at least aware of the law (which others do not seem to be aware of).

I have just come to the conclusion that Obama is a much better option, as opposed to the OP.

Thank you, Zulchzulu for reponding point by point.

[SoxFan]

164. I call bullshit

If you were an Obama supporter, I'm Mark Penn's long-lost cross dressing evil twin.

[WYObama]

167. Oh no!

Not a Vermont liberal! After all, they gave us Howard "Screamin'" Dean and the first Socialist in Congress, Bernie Sanders!

[LadyVT]

229. I'm not from Vermont

[shaniqua6392]

169. I am proud to give you rec.# 81.

You deserve every one for that thoughtful post. Thanks for sharing with us! I apologize for any harsh words you will receive from Obama supporters. But remember that there are many of us out here who are willing to be understanding and compassionate DU'er's :hi:

[Gloria]

170. Good post, and you've barely touched the surface on some of his

dealings...

[LadyVT]

230. Yeah, they weren't all my reasons, just the top seven

[George II]

383. But still no reasons why you'll vote for Clinton?

[TreasonousBastard]

171. OK, so Jesus isn't running this year...

and Hillary is close enough?


Fine, since who you or I "support" doesn't mean jackshit at this point as long as in November you vote for whoever can beat McCain.

[spooky3]

173. Thank you for a very thought-provoking post.

I am sorry so many DUers found it necessary to engage in ad hominem attacks and distractions rather than address the merits of what you said.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Barack_America]

198. Blah blah blah. Reposting this over and over will not give it credibility. Sorry.

[cooolandrew]

183. That don't sound like 200 hours of research to me, I'll just have to take your word. Btw. Barack08=)

[Name removed]

184. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[George II]

187. Most likely a winning "cult"

[Name removed]

189. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[George II]

195. Perhaps not...but...

Who IS the answer, and what are the reasons why that person is the answer? My whole point in this discussion is that people here continue to take the easy way out and talk negatively about one candidate and dodge any thought of POSITIVE things about their own candidate. THAT is the problem!

Ok, let's admit that Obama is the answer - why and who is better (and why) - I'm sure this will be met with deafening silence or a Rovian dodge.

[LadyVT]

231. I think that is a great idea for another thread

[George II]

269. I'm not surprised...

No doubt you don't want your discussion poisoned with positive, constructive thoughts.

[LadyVT]

297. You keep saying the same thing.

[George II]

300. OK, fine - answer one question for me please...

Other than saying that you're a Clinton supporter in your first sentence of the post, what positive thing did you say in the rest of that long post with seven Obama negatives?

[stickernation]

188. don't you all miss JOHN EDWARDS !??!

i know i sure as hell do !!!


how can i possibly feel motivated with the two remaining candidates.


it's like, bleah.


i'm just praying for an aversion of armageddon through individual actions now. neither of these candidates is going to save the world unless they have Edwards as their VP and give him the power Cheney has over *.

[flyarm]

191. yes i feel sick every day now...i can't stand either of these two! eom

[RBInMaine]

196. Hillary is a HUGE risk in the GENERAL election.

Hillary has the HIGHEST negatives a prez candidate perhaps EVER. The R's are praying we will be foolish enough to nominate her.

[flyarm]

199. so is Obama..eom

[Iceburg]

299. Obama will enter the Dem convention with 2 pending law suits on his back/nt

[RestoreGore]

202. Does his upping the military budget mean more war?

Afterall, I believe he did vote for the Syria Accountbility Act and his website states he is a "great friend of Israel." I think we will get the same old under a new face, and I don't exactly like being deceived for another four years after what we just went through. If he truly intends to up the military budget, then one can only conclude he anticipates more war elsewhere in the Middle East, Pakistan, etc. And with our military stretched so thin already, I don't even want to hear the word DRAFT. How the hell would any of this be 'change?' Good post. Recommended.

[lxlxlxl]

235. 201 hours of research

As a progressive, it is amazing to hear people on DU talk about "experience" and "known values," etc...etc...when the very core of progressive values is a radical belief in democracy and disbelief in privilege by birth or association. If there are any similarities to be made between Democratic Nominees and George Bush, it is that we should not elect presidents by virtue of their last name.

Re-electing another Clinton to fly a flag of progessive values in this country is not going to do anything for coalition building or even building a base of progressive values in the national dialogue. In an era when progressive values are weak, and most of our fellow citizens are painfully non-ideological, the effect that another eight Clinton years will have will be significant and negative.

See Susan Jacoby on Bill Moyers this week, or see the Democracy Now interview from 2000, if you want to hear how progressives thought about the Clinton years. To my knowledge, no Clinton supporters have even brought themselves to acknowledge that these questions about their record are "worthy" of their attention.

What also has become the "web critique du jour" is that a lot of people on here are using media conceptions of campaign supporters as reasons to critique a candidate, without subjecting their own nominee preference to the same type of scrutiny. There have been pages and pages of references about Obama rallies and the people that go to their rallies, but very little into Hillary or McCains supporters...or their lack of enthusiasm.

I don't think Cornel West or Michael Eric Dyson would agree with the characterization of Barack as being post-racial. That is a blatant simplification and blatant ignorance.

The counterpart to this argument is the attack on Barack's stump speech, which seems is something no one on this board has ever heard of before. Of course reading specific positions, or reading his books is also not worthy of your time, so I guess then it is fair to throw out fake critiques of how empty Barack is.

There also seems to be a tendency to blame Obama for exposing non-ideological majority in this country. This was something difficult for me to grasp, but it is a little clearer now, after talking to older people I work with, and just seeing trends in political "disbelief" in this country. People are not ideological here. People have to work to hard to make a living and raise a family. They do not have time to memorize the difference between Trotsky and Kautsky, or even to read a newspaper. This is sick and unfortunate, but it is the reality.

There is a huge "middle" ground of people that want to believe in something (preferably liberal and progressive values) but they have to be leaned in that direction softly. IT TAKES MORE THAN EIGHT YEARS to do this effectively. I will support this line of thinking one last time in my lifetime, but I think Barack is doing a good job so far. The only people that I am worried about breaking that momentum are left-leaning but noncommitted message board academics, and the occasional outlier.

Second, MONICA, PAULA, JENNIFER -- It is amazing that so many DUers are repeating the "What will Barack do when the Republicans get nasty" when the most glaring negative attack against Hillary as a strong feminist candidate has recieved very little attention here. Are you really prepared for this again?

Does anyone here think that those personal shortcomings did not have an effect on progressive values in this country? How many people wish Clinton had resigned, and Gore had become president? Is it worth it to ask these questions, no. It is not worth it to have arguments about something we can avoid.

Why is Ned Lamont supporting Barack?
http://nedlamont.com/news/2256/why-im-supporting-barack-obama

[RestoreGore]

281. And this has what to do with my post?

More double talk.

[krkaufman]

205. It is not all "out there, verifiable, fact" ...

... as many of your points relate to your interpretation of body language, supposedly hidden agendas, etc.

As for why "we" didn't do anything prior to the Iraq war, weren't some of the largest demonstrations EVER held in opposition to the war? I think *some* effort *was* made to express opposition to the war, but too many in positions of power opted to ignore the anti-war voices.

Can't argue with your opinions and impressions, but I can object to the implications that the opinions are facts.

[LadyVT]

232. Yes, you are correct

My comments on his body language are opinion--informed opinion, I think, given that this is one of my areas--but still, opinion (e.g., the most effective way to tell if a feminine person is attracted to you is if she looks at you, looks away, and looks back within 45 seconds after you initially make eye contact; one way to tell if a masculine person is attracted to you is if turns his body toward you, leans back, hands behind head, and stretches --just a little Valentines week tip for the singles out there :)

As for the Iraq war demonstrations, I replied to someone earlier about this--yes, yes, of course there were huge demonstrations, and I and probably many here participated in them. But, even so, the electorate was unable to stop the war. That was my point. And your point "too many in positions of power opted to ignore the anti-war voices" was what concerned and still concerns me. I don't see that anything has changed; I believe that we must become fiercely unwilling to be lied to, no matter who is in office, no matter how much we "like" him or her. And that means having curiosity, exploring, researching for ourselves, thinking for ourselves, and all that.

[Hoof Hearted]

318. It's hard to misinterpret Obama's body language. He can be something of a bastard

on occasion towards her, body language wise. Not always of course, but often enough to be obvious to any reasonable person.

[mojowork_n]

207. Good post, but Hillary wants to add "at least 80,000" troops -- Link

Thoughtful analysis, but I'm not going to the polls for three more days, in the Wisconsin primary.

I was looking for sources for your reason #2, and found this at The Progressive Magazine.

http://personel.obec.go.th/News/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cucHJvZ3Jlc3NpdmUub3JnL21wX2ZvcmQwMTE1MDgjY29tbWVudHM%3D

Excerpt:

...“I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines,” Obama told the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last April.

That’s precisely the number favored by President Bush’s Defense Secretary Robert Gates over a five-year period at a cost of $108 billion, as estimated by the Congressional Budget Office. Sen. Hillary Clinton would add at least 80,000 troops,...

I was originally wavering back and forth between Edwards and Obama, with many reservations of my own about Hillary's generally centrist (and slightly more hawkish) statements on the occupation of Iraq.

I appreciate your attention to detail, and specific statements, with some of this post, but the generalizations at the end of #5, and #7 seemed like they were reaching a little too far. I haven't had time to read through all the replies, here, but I will.

[mojowork_n]

216. PS -- At least Obama doesn't have Richard Holbrooke as his principal...

adviser on foreign policy.

One of Obama's top consultants, Samantha Power, learned from Holbrooke, but at least she didn't get her start pulling strings, behind the scenes, to further the military take-over of East Timor:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us

Excerpt:

Richard Holbrooke, in the Carter administration he was the one who oversaw the shipment of weapons to the Indonesian military as they were invading—illegally invading East Timor and killing a third of the population there, and he was the one who kept the UN Security Council from enforcing its resolution against that invasion.

Because so much of that overseas, hush-hush stuff gets buried under a "national security -- need to know -- defending America" shield, the questions about who's really responsible for American complicity in military take-overs have no good answer.

Is it the President, him (or her) self, or is it the work of agencies and influences so entrenched at all the key leverage points, they get their work done by remote control?

HBO showed Oliver Stone's film, "JFK", this afternoon, and I caught the second half. I still haven't seen it, all the way through. Just bits and pieces, here and there.

I was curious enough to google up the complete text of the screenplay, to re-read something the Donald Sutherland character says. He's a composite of several Black Ops types, and tells the Kevin Costner character:

In 1961...
...right after the Bay of Pigs, very few people know this...
...I participated in drawing up National Security Action Memos 55, 56, 57.
These are documents classified top secret.
In them, Kennedy told Gen. Lemnitzer, chairman of the Joint Chiefs...
...that from here on, the Joint Chiefs would be wholly responsible...
...for all covert paramilitary action in peacetime.
This ended the reign of the CIA.
Splintered it into 1,000 pieces, as JFK promised he would.
And now he was ordering the military...
...to help him do it. Unprecedented!
I can't tell you the shock waves this sent along the corridors of power.
This and the firing of Allen Dulles...
...Richard Bissell and Gen. Charles Cabell.
All were sacred cows in Intell since World War II.
They got some very upset people.
Kennedy's directives weren't implemented because of...
...bureaucratic resistance.
But one of the results was...
...the Cuban operation was turned over to my department...
...as Operation Mongoose.
Mongoose was pure Black Ops.
It was secretly based at Miami University...
...which has the largest domestic CIA station...
...budgeted annually for hundreds of millions of dollars.
Three hundred agents, 7,000 select Cubans.
Fifty fake business fronts to launder money.
They waged a non-stop war against Castro.
Industrial sabotage, crop burning, etc.
All under the control of General Y.
He took the rules of covert warfare he'd used abroad...
...and brought them to this country.
Now he had the people, the equipment, the bases...
...and the motivation.
Don't underestimate the budget cuts that Kennedy called for in March of 1963.
Nearly 52 military installations in 25 states.
Twenty-one overseas bases.
Big money.
You know how many helicopters have been lost in Vietnam?
Nearly 3,000 so far.
Who makes them? Bell Helicopter. Who owns Bell?
Bell was nearly bankrupt when First National Bank of Boston asked the CIA...
...to use the helicopter in Indochina. How about the F-111 fighter?
General Dynamics of Fort Worth, Texas. Who owns that?
Find out the defense budget since the war began. $75 going on $100 billion.
Nearly $200 billion will be spent before it's over.
In 1949, it was $10 billion.
No war...no money.
The organizing principle of any society, Mr. Garrison...
...is for war.
The authority of the state over its people resides in its war powers.
Kennedy wanted to end the Cold War in his second term.
He wanted to call off the moon race and cooperate with the Soviets.
He signed a treaty to ban nuclear testing.
He refused to invade Cuba in 1962.
He set out to withdraw from Vietnam.
But all that ended on the 22nd of November, 1963.

Troubling questions. What are the numbers, and how much has the influence been multiplied, today?

A final, gratuitous quote from a book I'm halfway through, "Futureland", Walter Mosley (p. 47):

"...nobody knows history--"
"--because history doesn't really exist except in the leaky jars of our heads, Fera said, finishing the words that she had heard from childhood."

[LadyVT]

234. Yes, that's right...

and it's great you are doing your own research!

[HopeforChange]

208. Good Try HillBots... You Flunked. . . n/t

[BlueStater]

218. Yeah, because eveyone knows Obama is a fucking saint that can do no wrong.

I've had it with this place. It's lost all appeal since the supporters of Mr. "Hope" started coming in massive droves.

[NoodleyAppendage]

209. Goodluck clearing your conscience when Hillary LOSES the general election.

Make no mistake about it. SHE WILL LOSE. Millions of democrats will not vote for her and MANY millions more Repukes will show up at the polls just to vote against her. So, take your planted outrage and pro-Hillary grassroots propaganda and choke on it each time you have to see President McCain on the T.V. Because that's EXACTLY what will happen.

J

[LadyVT]

238. I'm not sure how this relates to the original post

And, again, I don't feel any "outrage," and I'm certainly not a plant. Not sure how people verify their identities here, but I'm happy to do that.

Not sure why all the rage in your post.

[question everything]

219. Yes, if anyone in the media will try to question him, that person will be labeled racist

and his advisers are not doing him any favor by silencing any criticism because Rove et al will go after him with both barrels.

This is why I found it so strange that the LA Times endorsed him, praising his "foreign policy experience." If there is some instability in, say, North Korea, or Venezuela, Liberia or Pakistan a few weeks before the elections, and Obama will stammer, "calling on all sides to exercise restraint," we will see McCain sailing into the White House.

[balantz]

220. Thank you for posting this.

K&R

[maximusveritas]

225. Is this a joke?

There can't be 97 people stupid enough to recommend this POS post.

97 people who presumably believe and agree with the OP's suggestion that he/she was a former Obama supporter who now won't vote for Obama in the general election?
Are there really this many trolls here?

None of those reasons are remotely strong enough to justify not voting for Obama in a general election and possibly handing the Presidency to McCain.

I just can't believe this is true. This has to be the work of trolls.

[LadyVT]

239. I'm not a troll... nor are the people here "stupid"...

I supported Obama near the end of last year, based on a recollection of his 2004 speech, having looked at his website, and from the tributes of a couple of friends I respect who had heard him since. I didn't start researching the election in earnest until just before the beginning of this year, when the primaries began. I wasn't campaigning for Obama, and I'm not campaigning for Clinton. Are you saying once you are for Obama you can never change your mind, or else you are a troll or stupid?

Why diminish my point of view?

You are welcome to vote for Obama, or anyone you choose. I'm sure you have your own good reasons.

[George II]

354. You're telling us that you just started your "research" at the beginning of the year?

Hmmm, your post showed up on Feb. 15 (Feb. 16 GMT), so that means there were 46 days from the time you began your "research" until this epiphany. You're telling us you spent an average of FOUR HOURS - TWENTY MINUTES PER DAY for FOURTY SIX STRAIGHT DAYS (!!!!) doing this so-called "research"????? If you were awake roughly 16 hours a day, you're telling us you literally spent more than 25% of your waking time for forty six days.

How stupid do you think people here really are?

This, and the fact that you repeatedly refuse to post a single positive reason why you're now a Clinton supporter adds more credence to my conclusion that you're a phony.

And please, don't insult us by telling us to look elsewhere for your positive comments about Clinton.

[rodeodance]

240. Welcome and thanks for the post. Be brave.

[Bluestar]

242. Thank you for laying it all out

I don't trust the man--plain and simple. I don't believe he will change a thing, except maybe put himself in place to receive more corporate largess. There is no evidence that he will do anything that he says, and no detail to back up any of his so-called programs.

[aein]

246. so I read the entire post this time, this is complete JUNK

[flyarm]

247. as is proved in garage sales..one persons junk is another's treasure!

this thread is a treasure to me!

fly

[ErnestoG]

252. That's all the Hillars are down to now.

[Riley133]

250. A link for # 6 - and information for # 2 is on his website

It looks like a repositioning of the troops is what he's thinking of.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3434573&page=1

[LadyVT]

253. I referred to what he said in the debate in January...

and here is what mediamatters dot org says about it (and I don't personally care about the Bush doctrine part, I don't think Obama is a Bushie, I am really just concerned about his willingness to invade and the international outcry after he made his comments):

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801080001

And here is another take on the same story the previous poster referred to, from last August, from the London Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2182955.ece

[George II]

382. Links...

The first link is a presentation of Charles Gibson's take on Obama's statement, no mention of an "invasion" whatsoever. Useless link.

The second link states:

"..If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

That would most certainly NOT be an "invasion".

Please try again.

[Riley133]

254. Mother Jones & McClurkin

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/10/5889_is_obamas_campa.html

[avrdream]

256. I only got to read this thread in transit at an airport earlier.

But now that I am home, I am kicking and recommending it. I thank you for pointing your very reasonable reasons not to vote for Barry.

[Alamom]

258. kick

[Perry Logan]

261. Also, his campaign has alienated millions of Democrats. He can't count on them.

If I know Repubs, they'll trot out a series of white women to say they had sex with Obama, and it'll all be over.

[Political Heretic]

262. My 7 reasons for turning away from Obama:

1) It has come to my attention from several very reliable (but anonymous) sources that Obama has close connections with Chthulu. How can we possibly think he will stand any chance as our candidate once the republican hate machine gets hold of this stunning revelation??

2) Obama impregnated my cat. Seriously. I don't care how you want to live your life, but keep it behind closed doors for god's sake - and preferably not MY closed doors.

3) Obama is on the record expressing his distaste for Air Supply. Now, I don't know about you, but how anyone can seriously continue to support a candidate who demonstrates such inexcusable lack of taste is just beyond me. Let's just come out and face the facts shall we? This rejection of artistry isn't merely a slap in the face to music lovers everywhere - it is flat out a total rejection of America itself.

4) Obama once looked at me funny while I was watching him on C-Span. Yes, me! He was giving his speech and he looked up and locked eyes with me - sitting right in my living room masturbating in my own feces to pictures of captain kangaroo while fashioning anti-alien mind control ray helmets out of extra terrestrial repellent material (i.e. tin foil) - and furrowed his brow. Furrowed, I tell you! This blatant disdain for ordinary Americans is unacceptable.

5) We all know that Obama's middle name - Hussein - is obviously in reference to my neighbor, Bill Hussein, who is categorically a dick.

6) When you rearrange the letters from his name, you get "ma Abo" - ma being slang for "my" and Abo clearly referencing the Simpson's character Abu and thus implying ownership, most likely because Obama is a racist bastard who believes that all foreigners should be slaves.

7) Last night, the pan-dimensional, hyper-intelligent, superbeing and Creator and Sustainer of the Multi-verse named Joe (that is a rough translation of Xychorlopholiparazickflumbloo) came to me in a dream and told me that Hope is stupid.

I trust that you will, after being exposed to this critical truths, realize the error of your ways and immediately turn away from this candidate!

[AtomicKitten]

283. Bravo!

The support for Air Supply is simply intolerable when everyone knows Hall and Oates rule!

[George II]

376. Good job! I never knew all that, that clinches it for me - RON PAUL!!!

:toast:

[michaz]

263. You are doing a pretty good job of "feeding" to us yourself.

It is a free country, vote for whom you want. But your not "feeding" me into changing my vote to Clinton from Obama. For every one of your 7 reasons to not vote for Obama, I can give you more than 7 reasons why I won't vote for Clinton. Those reasons have been posted all over this site so I won't bore you with them again.

[ncteechur]

265. Well then, not much of a researcher are you?

I mean, after 200 hours of researh you could only find 2 wonky things to report? The other items are the same thing all non-Obama folks have been saying. I'm not sure who I am going to vote for. Your argument didn't help.

[Thepricebreaker]

287. Awsome .. Ill bring a friend to make up your vote... n/t

[Iris]

335. Did you know only 1 person can enter the voting booth at a time?

[LadyVT]

288. And, again, everyone is welcome to vote for whom they want...

and, again, I am surprised by the insulted and insulting rage of many posters to my reasons for not voting for their candidate. Reading some of these responses--comparing the importance of Obama's views on invading Pakistan to not liking the old group Air Supply?--bring up for me again the concern about how easy we are to lie to. Where is the curiosity and critical thinking?

Research shows that, when we have strong belief (no matter how it was arrived at), it's not that we ignore information that runs contrary to that view. It's actually that we don't PERCEIVE it--we don't physically see it or physically hear it. It's screened out at the level of perception. This is why it's so very hard to change people's attitudes once they believe they are right.

All the more reason all of us need to pay close attention to the "opposing" side's arguments, research findings, and informed opinions....lest we end up as we did in 2000, 2004, and with the Iraq war.

[Bluerthanblue]

313. psychologist- heal thyself-

"All the more reason all of us need to pay close attention to the "opposing" side's arguments, research findings, and informed opinions....lest we end up as we did in 2000, 2004, and with the Iraq war."

Where do you offer anything other than your 'opinion' on most of your 'seven reasons'-? You claim you have '200hrs' of research, yet offer little if any factual evidence.

What is your rude comment thrown in at the end other than your bigoted opinion, and how does that jibe with your cautionary instructions as to how we should come to our conclusions? (not everyone was fooled by its positioning or its tenor)

You seem pretty thin skinned for a psychologist. But I will take you at your word-


peace~

[LadyVT]

342. Thin skinned? Rude? Bigoted? Not everyone was fooled? Huh??

Links (citations) are scattered throughout this thread.

Thin-skinned people do not post in this forum. ;)

[George II]

381. Good points, all

Of course the response to you message was the usual evasive stuff we've been getting in this discussion from the OP ("links are elsewhere", "my reasons are elsewhere", etc., ete, etc.)

[Levgreee]

322. --

[Skip Intro]

293. Too late for me to rec, but here's a kick to a GREAT post.

:kick:

[jbm]

306. this is a wonderful thread..

Thank you LadyVT, for both your initial post, and your thoughtful follow ups. I especially appreciate your insights about where the anger and rage comes from.

[Hoof Hearted]

315. kicking again. Great post.

[totally4hillary]

316. Obama's secret backers...he will be worse than Bush

Please read Rense.com's wonderful article about Soros running
Obama's campaign and then tell me that he is only full of hope
and his dream is change for our country.  How will he get it
done?  He is already another puppet just like Bush.  It is so
sad that we as a nation have fallen for such a horrible sales
campaign.  Have you ever seen the media so in love?  
Why?  What has he accomplished that deserves so much
attention?  The answer is nothing.  He is a great
speaker...however, if he cannot receive papers from his staff
until 1 minute before he needs them because he can't handle
it...what is going to do when he is charge of everything.  It
will be a disaster.  Just like this war... the media was all
for it...just like they are pushing Obama down our
throats...now the media is against the war...so in 4 years
they will all be talking about how they made a mistake by
believing Obama will change anything.  By that time, it will
be too late.  It is like the public has turned into a bunch of
love sick teenagers.  The President isn't a rock star.... 
Obama cannot even handle an ounce of negativity from
Clinton...how is he going to handle John McCain?  Soros is
propping Obama up.  The public is too naive.  Obama is
arrogant and  way over confident.  He is not gracious.  He
acts like he is better than everyone...just like Oprah.  Wait
and see if he becomes the President how he treats the American
people.  We might say "you never know good until you get
bad"  Imagine thinking Bush could some how be good?  That
could happen with an Obama presidency!  He has no substance. 
Why doesn't the moderator of the next debate ask him to speak
to the issue that he was not in the Senate to cast a vote on
the war.  He doesn't cast hard votes now...why does everyone
believe his lies.  I was against the war in 2002 as well.  I
was not in the Senate to cast a vote either.  It is a
fairytale.....I wish people would wake up from this insane
media driven push to create another bubble with infrastructure
to take the place of the housing bubble.  It all makes sense
if you give it some thought.  You cannot just listen to MSNBC
or CNN.  Do some research and make your own decisions.  Anyone
who flat out disagrees with me just because they hate Hillary,
are the ones with the problem.  There is nothing to hate about
either candidate.  Obama just doesn't have the experience to
run our country...plain and simple.  BUT, there is a dangerous
sales pitch occurring for Obama.  He is backed by Wall St.  He
does owe people for his campaign. I hope people realize this
before it is too late! 

[saltpoint]

392. Pardon me. I hate to interrupt, but you have a phone call.

It's from your 7th grade English teacher.

Something about paragraphs.

[Levgreee]

319. for now, replies to point one and 2

point 1. his decision to have Donnie McClurkin campaign for him amongst religious constituents in South Carolina, and then defense of that decision in the interests of "unity," because "many voters hold his views." When challenged, he said McClurkin "isn't against gays who are happy being gay!!" This makes me question his commitment to civil rights. I am a straight woman, with lots of gay students and clients, and this is not a fuzzy issue to me. You either defend everyone's civil rights, or you don't.

fallacy 1: No quote is given for Obama saying "isn't against gays who are happy being gay!!". Vague paraphrases, in place of actual quotes, is very unacademic, and shows that this is just personal opinion rather than justified facts.

fallacy 2: You either defend everyone's civil rights, or you don't.
Obama does defend everyone's civil rights.
1. at the same event as McClurkin, Obama has added an openly gay minister <5>
2. He had been very outspoken, speaking DIRECTLY to the church, that their views are wrong, and they should change, and embrace gays.<4> Allowing someone to attend an event, doesn't mean you agree with them. LadyVT simply has an opinion, that, "if you accept someones support, let them go to your event, you agree with them, or support their view somewhat."
3.Obama DOES take a strong stance on gay rights.

Barack Obama in the United States Senate: Every two years the Human Rights Campaign, the largest national gay and lesbian organization, issues a scorecard for members of the Senate based on their sponsorship and voting on key issues of importance to gay and lesbian citizens. Barack Obama scored 89 out of 100% in the 2006 scorecard.

Employment Non-Discrimination: Barack Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes it should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Gays in the Military: Barack Obama believes we need to repeal the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy and allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. His campaign literature says, "The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve."

Barack Obama on Hate Crimes: Barack Obama co-sponsored legislation to expand federal hate crimes laws to include crimes perpetrated because of sexual orientation and gender identity.

Barack Obama and Gay Marriage/ Civil Unions: Although Barack Obama has said that he supports civil unions, he is against gay marriage. In an interview with the Chicago Daily Tribune, Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama did vote against a Federal Marriage Amendment and opposed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.

He said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized. <1>






There seems to be one possible issue here, that he only believes in Civil unions, not marriage. But Hillary is the same in this regards.

"During her husband's administration, she supported the Defense of Marriage Act, a law preventing the federal recognition of same-sex marriage.
"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." - Hillary Clinton, opposing same-sex marriages, quoted in The New York Daily News."<2>



She also has not come out saying she strongly supports gay marriage. Her opinion is the same as Obama's, that the states should decide.


Hillary's position: "Let states decide gay marriage; they're ahead of feds. (Aug 2007)"<3>


<1>http://www.propeller.com/viewstory/2008/02/11/barack-ob...
<2>http://outfordemocracy.org/arch/000583.html
<3>http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton.htm
<4>http://religion.gaynewsblog.net/2008/01/obama-speaks-ou...
<5>http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/10...
<6>http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/darby1.html







Topic 2: His commitment to increase the military by 100,000 soldiers, and to raise the military budget well beyond where it is now (which is IMHO too high, given the $78,000 which is each citizen's share tonight of the national debt).


fallacy 1: Each person's share is about 30 thousand<7>, not 78k., and Obama also has blasted this level of debt. How could someone who does 200 hours of research be off by 48k, for this figure? This is why sources are nice.

fallacy 2: Wants to raise the military budget "well beyond". Here is his plan when it comes to increasing the military.

Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.


New Capabilities: Obama will give our troops new equipment, armor, training, and skills like language training. He will also strengthen our civilian capacity, so that our civilian agencies have the critical skills and equipment they need to integrate their efforts with our military.

Strengthen Guard and Reserve: Obama will restore the readiness of the National Guard and Reserves. He will permit them adequate time to train and rest between deployments, and provide the National Guard with the equipment they need for foreign and domestic emergencies. He will also give the Guard a seat at the table by making the Chief of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#21st-c...

These are moderate expansions of the military, so I do not see how it would increase the military budget "well beyond". But, if you bash Obama for this, you also have to bash Clinton.

"She has also gotten behind the idea of increasing the size of U.S. forces: "I have joined other Democrats and Republicans in proposing that we expand the Army by 80,000 troops, that we move faster to expand the Special Forces, and do a better job of training and equipping the National Guard and Reserves."

None of these front-running candidates has identified the short- or long-term costs of adding troops, where the money would come from, or -- perhaps most importantly -- the missions these troops would be engaged in once the Democratic leadership succeeds in "bringing them home."" <7>


<6>http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock /
<7>http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4465

[LadyVT]

320. Regarding your post,

My point one means, to me, that this issue (his decision to have Donnie McClurkin speak) is big enough to throw the rest into question. It may not mean that to you, but it does to me. The quote I listed were the very words spoken by Barack, himself, and quoted on CNN. I will go through all of the videos on CNN and see if I can find it. I wrote them down as he spoke them. I'm not making them up.

Each person's share of the national debt is listed on a clock at Times Square, updated second by second. Take a look at it.

As far as point two goes, again, this issue is big enough to me to call into question his position as the supposed anti-war candidate. It may not be big enough for you to conclude that, but it is for me.

You are, of course, free to hold your own beliefs and to come to your own conclusions.

I would hardly call anything I've said "bashing." This is discourse. These are my opinions. Just because I do not agree with Obama does not mean I am "bashing" him.

As for what Hillary Clinton will or will not do, I, again, am not addressing that in this post. I posted about why further up in the thread. I am not voting for Obama for these reasons. They do not translate into reasons I am voting for Hillary Clinton.

[Levgreee]

321. please do find those quotes

Furthermore, no one says he is an "anti-war" candidate. He is not opposed to all wars, just dumb wars.
It would be more accurate to call him the "anti-Iraq war candidate".


He was against Iraq from the start. That is what people applaud. Not that he is a pacifist. Therefore, you are trying to show a flaw, from a stance that Obama never claimed to have.

Um, I can't exactly visit time square as I am several thousand miles away. Could you give one source supporting your 78k statistic?

[LadyVT]

330. This is from 2006, when the family share was $60,000

http://english.pravda.ru/world/americas/30-03-2006/78085-nationaldebt-0 (this is what the clock looks like--and you are right, looking very closely, I believe it says it is the FAMILY SHARE of the debt to which it refers, not the individual share--not sure how many people are considered a "family" now). I am unable to edit the original post now ('editing period has expired') to reflect that.

The discussion was on Bill Moyers' Journal segment on "Where Does the Money Go?"--we are $9 trillion in debt. Oh, wait... the interest is accruing every second, and goes up $1.56 billion per day: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/02152008/transcript1.html

Amazing, they shut the clock down in 2000 because, of course, we had no debt then...

And my bias is that my family's share of the debt should be $0. I don't believe in debt. I don't want our country owned by China, or any other country. Others may disagree. $1,000 is too much. $30,000 is obscene. $75,000 is completely insane.

[LadyVT]

337. Citation for point 7 below

[Iceburg]

324. Obama's church supports gay marriage, but Obama doesn't "for religious reasons" --??????

Obama has always used religous reasoning for his non-support of gay marriage, yet Obama's church, the United Church of Christ supports same sex marriage ...apparently Obama has been trapped in another "nuance".

He's a hypocrit plain and simple.

[Bluerthanblue]

336. let's look at facts and actual quotes here ok?

You say Obama has "always used religious reasoning for his non-support of gay-marriage"-
when that isn't true.-
In voting against DOMA he said: "I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman." He didn't say "because the bible tells me so" - he said it was his own personal belief. And he hasn't tried to force others to live by his own belief system.

From The Audacity Of Hope he says:
“I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided,”

Here he is clearly saying that it is his Christian faith that 'obligates' him to be consider that just because his 'personal' belief is 'man &woman'- that doesn't mean his 'belief' is CORRECT- or that it should be used to bind other people.

You say "his church supports gay marriage"- which is correct- please read John Thomas's press statement given after the vote and you will see the reason why Obama is able to have his personal belief and not be a 'hypocrite'-

John Thomas: Press statement after marriage equality vote


July 13, 2005


On this July fourth, the General Synod of the United Church of Christ has acted courageously to declare freedom, affirming marriage equality, affirming the civil right of same gender couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages by the state, and encouraging our local churches to celebrate and bless those marriages. I believe the General Synod has acted both out of a concern for justice, demanding that the present discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons be ended, as well as out of a theological conviction that same gender couples are as capable of fulfilling the vocation of marriage as heterosexual couples, a vocation described in our marriage rite as one in which couples offer each other mutual care and companionship, bear witness to God's great gift of joy for them and for others exemplified in the story of Jesus at the wedding at Cana in Galilee, and in the intimacy of their relationship, represent the intimacy of Christ's love for the Church. This action continues the long trajectory of resolutions by the General Synod which have affirmed the full human dignity of all persons and the welcoming affirmation of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons as members and ministers in the church.


The issue of marriage equality is the source of great conflict in our society today, as well as in the churches. The United Church of Christ is no exception; there are clearly great differences among our own members over this issue. The General Synod's action does not presume a consensus of opinion among our members or our local churches which are free and responsible to come to their own mind on this issue as on any other. The General Synod speaks to and not for our local churches. It speaks a word of teaching, of encouragement, and of challenge. Today's word is not the last word in the United Church of Christ, but a crucial and groundbreaking first word in a difficult but important church-wide discussion. The resolution itself calls for a church wide discussion of marriage as part of what now becomes the critical process of receiving this General Synod's action in the life of our congregations.


I want to express my deep appreciation to the delegates for the thoughtful, prayerful, and respectful way they have sought to discern God's will on this matter during our time in Atlanta. I pray that the gracious spirit of our discussions here will set the tone for the conversations that will continue back home in our conferences and local churches. In a world that is deeply divided, the witness of a church that can express differences without division, that can be unified without demanding uniformity, can be a great gift.

Above all, I give thanks to God that this General Synod, like many before it, has been led by the Spirit to reaffirm God's extravagant welcome to all, and to act with evangelical courage on behalf of the vulnerable and the excluded in our midst. The days ahead will not be easy as we bear the cost of this decision. But the hope this action brings to so many in our world who have known harsh and bitter rejection surely is and will be a source of joy to us as well.

Obama is responding very appropriately- He has more than once admitted that his own personal understanding of what 'marriage' represents could indeed be wrong- AND he has consistantly voted to ensure equal rights for GLBT people.

Please don't manipulate the truth to slander him.

thank you

peace~

[Levgreee]

323. response to point 6

(6) His determination (expressed clearly in the 2nd to last debate, and again yesterday) to pre-emptive invasion of Pakistan (a nuclear nation) if "intelligence" tells us that Bin Laden is somewhere in Pakistan.

Once again, you provide no quotes, no source.


He has never claimed that he would have a pre-emptive invasion of Pakistan. He said they would go in to take out Al-Qaeda or terrorist targets, not the Pakistani government... IF Pakistan wouldn't let us in, or personally go after Osama, IF diplomacy failed.

And by your quotes around "intelligence", I assume you mean bunk intelligence. Intelligence is a very important aspect of warfare, and just because someone says they will use intelligence, does not mean they will act like Bush did. It is a naive point of view to just disregard intelligence. What should we have to rely on, a US agent standing in the camp and seeing Obama? We HAVE to rely on intelligence, in the fight against terrorism.

I am sorry, but if you believe... that if we knew Osama was in Pakistan, and if we asked Pakistan to go in and take Osama out, but they refused, that is an unrealistic and unsafe point of view.
The United nations and many countries would be completely behind us, if we went into Pakistan to strike at the terrorists, NOT going in to invade Pakistan.



“There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.” Barack Obama





Furthermore, once again, Hillary echoes the same or similar view.

"Clinton, in an interview with the American Urban Radio Network, stressed the importance of the Pakistanis "taking the actions that only they can take within their own country."

But she did not rule out U.S. attacks inside Pakistan, citing the missile attacks her husband, then-President Bill Clinton, ordered against Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1998.

"If we had actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value targets were in Pakistan I would ensure that they were targeted and killed or captured," she said.<1>"



<1>http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN0132206420070801?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0

[LadyVT]

326. The citation for point 6 is further up the thread.

The comment came in the New Hampshire debate. And, yes, I do believe it is irresponsible to speak about going into a foreign country (which has nuclear weapons) with our military to "strike at the terrorists." Imagine two buildings in Britain had been attacked, and thousands of people killed, and British intelligence believes that terrorists who authorized the attack are living in the U.S. A British Prime Minister candidate states that, should he win office, if President Obama won't act, he will, by militarily striking--bombing!-- those "targets" within the U.S. with or without Obama's approval.

Do you really want to set that precedent?

In my opinion, Obama's comment was irresponsible and certainly doesn't say much for unity or seeking world leaders' cooperation. To me, it sounds like, do what I am asking you to do, or I'll bomb you. We've had enough of that already. I've had enough "military action" abroad. But that's just me.

[Levgreee]

328. That's a moot point, because we WOULD act to take out those terrorists

but yes, if we refused to take out those enemies for the United Kingdom, WE would be the ones setting the bad precedent, not them. There would be an uproar of outrage against the U.S. The British have the right to defend themselves.

[LadyVT]

341. How about if the country in question was Iran?

We do kinda' like the Brits. And Pakistan doesn't like us... See my point?

[ddeclue]

325. Oh Please...Hillary wants war with Iran and has never apologized for her Iraq vote.

What a load of nonsense.

[LadyVT]

327. We disagree, but that doesn't make my post "nonsense"

[LadyVT]

338. citation for point 7

I can't yet find the Columbus OH article, but this is so close, it might have been the original the Columbus paper quoted (I've been through dozens of articles in Ohio, looking for it again---whew, a lot is going on in Ohio):

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/02/plain_dealer_endorses_obama_mc.html

These are the recordings of the interviews with each candidate by reporters from the Cleveland Plain Dealer, from cleveland.com. They are all great to listen to, because they are the candidates themselves responding. The relevant passage is about 11 minutes in on the second interview with Obama. All candidates are asked to give a closing statement on why they'd be the best candidate, and Obama says he has "a set of skills" that make him superior to the other candidates for President. First, his "ability to bring people together..."; second his "ability to push back on special interests..."; and third:

"Given the amount of repair work that's going to have to be done internationally in the wake of the Bush-Cheney administration, I don't think that there's anybody else who would signal a clear break from Bush and would receive a more open attitude from the world than me. If, uh, not only because of my biography, and, so that, you know, If I go to a poor country, I do so with the credibility of somebody who has a grandmother who lives in a small village in Africa without running water, if I go to a Muslim country, I go to that country with the credibility of having lived in a Muslim country for 4 years when I was a child and having relatives in such countries..."

Therein lies the grandiosity. Childhood experiences in foreign countries don't qualify one to be President of the United States, IMHO. That is the only evidence he gives of "skills" in foreign relations that make him qualified, save for his next comment about his early position on the Iraq war--which is not a skill. (As far as that goes: "So it’s not clear to me what differences we’ve had since I’ve been in the Senate. I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test." "Not only was the idea of an invasion increasingly popular, but on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." <"Audacity of Hope," 2006, p. 294>)

[George II]

364. Not even close!!!

Here's what you said in point 7:

"Obama said he is the ONLY person who could bring world leaders together because he grew up in Indonesia (and therefore the Muslims will like and understand him), and because he has a grandmother in Kenya who has no running water (and therefore, people in poverty will like and understand him)"

[LadyVT]

349. This is a link for Obama's comments on point 1

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/29/post_159.html

He was asked about it on CNN, and said the same thing I wrote in my initial post. Note the comments at the end of the article, and that this was at the end of October, 2007. Obviously some people were quite hurt by McClurkin's comments, and McClurkin's having been there.

Okay, links for #1, #2, #6, and #7 have all been posted.

Good night, everyone.

[Andromeda]

350. It's common sense, which a lot of

Obama supporters don't have because they only see what they want to see.

That's why I'm supporting Hillary.

Hillary will win the nomination and she will be our next president.

Obama will go back to being a senator and hopefully, in time, he will grow up.

[Maribelle]

353. Perhaps in time.

Perhaps not.

[Dawgs]

360. You were never an Obama supporter.

But nice try.

[LadyVT]

362. I addressed this earlier.

Because I have turned from your candidate, I must be lying? Are you saying no one who supports Obama changes their mind? If so, that's kind of scary, right? That must not be what you meant.

[robbedvoter]

361. Welcome! I also had considered both before deciding

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4231971

[LadyVT]

365. Thanks for the link-- yes, the supporters...

I have to limit my exposure to this forum, because I start to lose hope in the electorate, the quality of discourse in America, and the disturbing tendency of some posters (not all, there are some very thoughtful people who support each of the candidates on here) to split the world into good/bad, right/wrong, love/hate. The world IS the grey area, and this sense of unreality I feel when reading some of the personal attacks to what are often very thoughtful, well-considered and balanced posters (you're vile! a cynic! hopeless! negative!) just grows and grows.

How distressing it must be to feel that your candidate has to be 100% correct all the time, to be unwilling to look for or see or acknowledge any faults whatsoever lest that candidate fall from "perfect" to "horrible," and to therefore feel the need to defend your own point of view by diminishing the other posters. All the candidates have flaws (big ones, really). They are imperfect. Some of them will be great Presidents, despite this imperfection.

Continually striving for perfection is actually an indicator of narcissism, not greatness--you don't have to be perfect to be loved, or admired, or cared for. You really just have to be yourself, with all your blemishes.

[George II]

367. How distressing it must be...

...to support a candidate yet you can't say a single positive thing about her. Distressing, sad, and disingenuous.

[George II]

386. Look inward, then

If you lose hope in the electorate because of the reaction to your post, I suggest you look at your post again. It is a long post dwelling entirely on negatives. Not a single positive, hopeful statement whatsoever.

Yes, all candidates have flaws. But your post, from the very subject line itself, dwells ONLY on flaws, and now you say you're losing hope in the "electorate" because of the responses to it?

From the very beginning, you have dodged every question about anything positive you could say about your candidate (repeatedly saying "look elsewhere" without ever giving a clue as to "where" that was), you have refused to address factual errors in your post, again saying "I'll find the links", but never producing them. Some of your points were sheer exaggerations, others blatantly false.

So, I say again, if you are losing hope in the electorate, I suggest you begin with yourself as a member of that electorate who has been less than honest with us and probably yourself.

PS - still waiting for that Columbus Dispatch article you were going to find! Thanks.

[LadyVT]

366. Kickin it--just 'cause I'm so stunned it's been viewed so many times!

:)

[George II]

368. Amazing, you kick your own post.

[LadyVT]

374. George II, I've addressed this point before.

I've posted my reasons for supporting HIllary on many, many other threads. This one says what it's about in the title. You seem extremely interested in this post, considering how many times you've responded to it.

Verbal abuse is not something I'm willing to be receptive to, I'm afraid, so I won't be responding to it in the future. In my opinion, it reflects badly on your candidate, as well.

All the best to you all.

[George II]

378. But you haven't followed up on your very FIRST SENTENCE of this post with reasons FOR Clinton

Direct me to some of these "many many other threads", I haven't been able to find any. If you said them, and IF you really have reasons for supporting Clinton, why are you so afraid to mention even one or two here? Why is that?

Listen, you start a long post about the Democratic candidates with the words "I am now a Hillary supporter", then proceed to spew seven reasons why you don't like OBAMA (barely a mention of Clinton ever again in your post), some of which are exaggerated, some of which are downright incorrect.

And, any time someone here tries to present an objective comparison of the two candidates YOU posted about you tell them to start another thread elsewhere.

All of this is disingenuous and an insult to people on DU.

"Verbal abuse"? How so? You're perpetrating intellectual abuse on readers of DU.

[JonTheSavage]

380. Ron Paul

http://youtube.com/watch?v=OWe_ViPlUHI

I despise war.
I despise communists.
I despise Gun Free victim zones.
I despise the Federal government.
I despise the U.N. which I will go to my grave fighting.
I despise NAFTA & CAFTA, and illegal cock roaches running freely over our borders.

From my cold dead hands will you, and your commie friends take my guns.
Our constitution provides everything that government should be. READ IT.
Hillary is a crook, a fraud, a murder, thug, robber baron, and utter TRASHY FILTH.

If you want more war, vote for Hillary, Obama, McCain, or Suckabee they are all the same.

[LadyVT]

384. My goodness.

[citizen snips]

385. Obama is bad influence on college students.

He should have not plagiarized.

[saltpoint]

387. You know, I respect your choice for Senator Clinton but don't respect

your choice against Senator Obama.

Lincoln could not have been considered to have had extensive foreign policy experience but appeared to have done pretty well in the job.

That story plays out with many world leaders, and it's likely that any U.S. president will have a bunch of folks at the nearby to assist in the broad range of concerns.

Sometimes they choose badly, unless you or I feel that Condileezza Rice is a good Sec. of State, and sometime they choose very wisely, which is the case with more Democrats generally than with Republicans generally, and both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama are Democrats.

If you used those basic notions as your starting point, your conclusion would have to change.

[LadyVT]

388. I respect anyone's choice against my candidate -- that's what makes us

a democracy, the freedom to weigh in on the evidence with our own values and experience.

Lincoln was President during a very, very different period of this nation's history. Long before nuclear weapons, terrorist strikes welfare, raging poverty, the internet, and on and on. Why would Lincoln have needed foreign policy experience? Was he having to deal with the Saudis, Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Iran, China? Much of the world is quite unstable now.

To quote one pollster regarding a "paradigm shifting" candidate from another election: "when you need to change government, you 'clean house' when government is not functioning properly and the need is, therefore, to make government function better--in a new, more
effective way. Perhaps Obama is that candidate.

"However, when your government has been destroyed along with your international reputation, and your 'house is burning down' the last thing you need is to 'clean house' with a paradigm shifting candidate. We need to 'put out the fire' and fix what has been and is being destroyed, and then go about 'cleaning house' later." The only candidate that has the gravitas to stem the damage done is Hillary.

I love your quote from Seamus, by the way!

[saltpoint]

389. We strongly disagree. You are kidding about Lincoln and foreign

policy experience, I hope.

It's one of the chief duties in the job descrption. Swear to god.

The threat to the Union in the two or so decades preceding the absolutely disastrous elections of Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan all but assured that the 16th president would face a Constitutional crisis of unprecedented severity. One shot on Ft. Sumpter and Antietam Creek ran red. The Union was less than a century old. All kinds of foreign interests would have loved to see it splinter and fall to pieces so they could set up real estate offices in the "New World."

No president is unaware of the potential of assault by foreign entities. It is not an era-specific awareness or responsibility.

You are mistaken to believe -- and I am sure you know this -- that there is but one candidate -- Hillary Clinton in your case -- who has sufficient "gravitas" to lead the nation or repair existing wrongs. That's utter horseshit and you know it, and so does everyone else, in part because it is intrapartisan jibber-jabber and in the main because it presumes, quite wrongly, that a nation's ills are remediable exclusively by one voter's personal preference instead of by collective mandate, which we are enjoined by the Constitution Lincoln defended to read, respect, and retain upon the opposing factions of government.

Senator Clinton is far more qualified (past the residual Constitutional requirements) than her detractors claim or suppose, but if she and Sen. Obama were sucked up into a space ship and carried off never to be heard from again this evening, and Chris Dodd, for example, or Bill Richardson, for example, or Kathleen Sebelius, for example were to step into the Oval Office, we'd all be just fine.

Seamus rocks. Thank you.

[LadyVT]

390. Please do not call my views "horses*@t"

It's really difficult for me to give credence to your views when you address me in this way!

[saltpoint]

391. Well, on the points you have no claim so you can object to the Saturday

night vocab if you want.

Your claim of exclusivity for Sen. Clinton is horseshit.

[George II]

394. The problem is she has gone on and on about her choice AGAINST Senator Obama, but..

refuses to express ANY thoughts about her choice FOR Senator Clinton. From all the posts in this discussion one can only conclude that her ONLY reason for supporting Clinton is that she does not support Obama!

Fact is, the post was constructed to be AGAINST a candidate with no substance for any other candidate.

[saltpoint]

395. Hi, George II. I'm all for people voting their hearts and minds, and I

hope more voters HAVE hearts and minds than did in the red districts that went overwhelmingly for Dubya in 00 and 04.

Even with the cheating by the Pukes, way too many people voted for Bush/Cheney for comfort.

So I support the OP's choice but the claims logged against her choice's primary opponent are a bit of a mess and she has not persuasively responded to objections throughout the thread.

[George II]

396. I feel the same way you do - everyone has their right to choice of candidate, but...

...if one wants to go public with a laundry list of negatives against a candidate, that person should:

1. Be factual and accurate in those negatives. This poster has failed on both counts.
2. Be prepared with a justification for one's candidate of choice. This poster has failed again.

Unfortunately, her argument has been rife with flaws, inaccuracies, and outright lies. She's been loathe to give a single positive reason for supporting Clinton (instead relying on Obama negatives and "go find it yourself" smokescreens)

To me and most others, that smacks of insincerity and phoniness.

[saltpoint]

397. And there were other starting places for her to advance the pro-Clinton

points, of which any sentient Democrat should be able to list several.

I agree -- the factual component was lacking from the git-go.