Ladyinblack
(127 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-25-07 09:41 AM
Original message |
|
I will not support clinton or obama. I think they were cowards to sit back and vote only after they knew how the votes were going. At least Biden made an honest vote.
I continue to hope that Gore will decide to run. Edwards seems a good choice but does not for me create a great deal of energy. At this point what are the chances of bringing in new candidates for the dem party such as Gore or even Kerry. I like Kucinich but some how at this point he does not seem electable.
|
Skinner
ADMIN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-25-07 09:44 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I don't understand this argument. |
|
I can certainly understand Obama and Clinton waiting to see how the other voted before they vote.
But I don't understand why anyone thinks they would wait to see how all the other votes were going. After all, didn't they both vote *against* the direction all the other votes were going? What's the point of waiting if you're going to go against the prevailing wind?
|
LBJDemocrat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-25-07 10:03 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
|
It's possible that Clinton and Obama wanted to make sure the thing passed before voting against it. Maybe they told lobbyists or important people that they'd only vote against it as a political show if the thing passed anyway.
It just doesn't seem very plausible.
|
Skinner
ADMIN
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-25-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
9. While that is certainly possible, I agree that it is not plausible. |
|
In fact, I think it's absurd. Neither Obama nor Clinton would ever go for it. And Iif you're a lobbyist trying to get a vote through, you don't put your fate in the hands of two frontrunners for president -- Instead, you deal with the other 98 senators whose votes would not be overly influenced by a presidential run.
|
ginnyinWI
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-25-07 09:45 AM
Response to Original message |
2. I have a lot of respect for Biden |
|
but he seems to have about the lowest percentage of anybody. :(
|
JFen
(26 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-25-07 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
|
to the Credit Card companies.
Do not trust him.
|
Jackpine Radical
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-25-07 09:46 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Sounds like you're running about in the middle of the DU pack. |
|
I would add, however, that after the primary I'll support the nominee. The difference between the worst Dem and the best Repug is profound. Nevertheless, my level of enthusiasm may vary depending on the nominee.
|
durrrty libby
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-25-07 09:48 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Maybe you can vote for a real stand-up, brave guy like McCain |
IA_Seth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-25-07 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
10. Because you are either with us or against us, right? |
|
WTF?
I am not thrilled with any of the announced candidates either, does that mean I should vote for McCain?
|
Clark2008
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-25-07 10:05 AM
Response to Original message |
7. I don't understand all the "Vote Edwards" crap on this board. |
|
Edited on Fri May-25-07 10:07 AM by Clark2008
Yeah - he changed his mind AFTER the war became miserably unpopular, but he certainly voted for it and cheerleaded it so much at the time of its passage that his op-ed was used on the White House's website. Hardly "anti-war." In fact, his entire record as a senator seems suspect (PATRIOT Act, NCLB, the ruination of Yucca Mountain, predatory lending laws for big banking).
At least Clinton and Obama voted against this supplemental - whether they waited to see if it would pass or not. And, at least Obama was never for the war.
(I have no primary candidate, btw, so my opinion isn't tainted by whom I support)
|
IA_Seth
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-25-07 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #7 |
|
To me saying the Edwards is the "anti-war" candidate is delusional at best, dishonest at worst. His record clearly shows him to be something else.
Only in desperation would it be possible to say that the guy that co-sponsored the resolution that started this war, wrote an article preaching it's validity, and was a anti-Iraq cheerleader...is now our anti-war hero.
I actually believe that maybe Edwards wasn't gung-ho for the war...but he went along with it because it was politically expedient at the time. Just like the Patriot Act. Just like No Child Left Behind. Just like now he is so darn "anti-war".
Edwards to me is the consummate politician, who does what it takes to keep himself in with the fluctuating majority.
Apologies aside, what else is he doing that will honestly bring change to the region? Is he meeting with Middle Eastern leaders? Or is it just more political grandstanding, aiming for votes?
|
CTLawGuy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-25-07 10:07 AM
Response to Original message |
8. so let me get this straight |
|
you are mad at Clinton and Obama for not being fast enough, but you might consider Edwards who co-sponsored the war resolution that made the vote that Clinton and Obama were late on even necessary??????
|
Nedsdag
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-25-07 10:22 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Have fun putting the Nader '08 bumper sticker on your car Madame Self-Righteousness.
|
FrenchieCat
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-25-07 01:15 PM
Response to Original message |
13. John Edwards is and has been an extremists when it comes to this war on both ends.... |
|
he was not only "for" it when it was political expedient back in 2002.....he was "for it" so much to the extreme that he co-sponsored the blank check and wrote op-ed (making Bush proud) in support all the while sitting on the intelligence committee (meaning he had access to intelligence that contradicted itself). Even after the WMD had not been found, an entire year after his vote, he still supported the war, and articulated that he had NOT been misled on television both on MTP and Hardball.
than, in late in 2005 (three full years after his initial strong and vocal support), once the country turned against this war in the majority, and he had been part of a losing team in an election, he flipped.....and issued a Mea Culpa stating that he had been misled......
So now that it is politically expedient and popular to be against the same war 5 years later, so he is.....again to the extreme but totally diametrically opposite to where he once was....preaching from the sidelines(as he has nothing to lose) as though he was never was complicit in how we got to were we are to begin with.
It is transparent to me....based on timing that this wasn't anything more than a politically expedient change of heart. To see it for other than this would be for reasons unknown barring common sense and intellectual honesty.
|
Ladyinblack
(127 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri May-25-07 03:10 PM
Response to Original message |
|
I was not clear. I will not support Clinton nor Obama in the primaries. With time or money. I will however support the democratic nominee in the election, whoever that is.
Perhaps I am wrong but, it seemed that they waited for political reasons. It would be helpful to have a different opinion and hear other opinions without the anger.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 31st 2024, 10:59 PM
Response to Original message |