Albinonewt

Gee, maybe that's why I said President Clinton was overstating the case and that Obama's impending victory in SC based on the black vote didn't mean that he couldn't win white states or white voters.

Maybe, possibly...

Big Brother

What is wrong with a political candidate attacking another ? This is politics 101. It will always be apart of politics the world over. Is Mrs. Clinton to refrain from attacking a candidate because of his race ? If he was green and from the moon, she would attack him. No politician is above criticism. Certainly not Mr. Obama.


If Obama doesn't like it, why doesn't he fight back ? Didn't he start the ball rolling saying Hillary was on the board of Wall Mart ? If Obama wants to look like he's above it all, then that's his problem.



Bro

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

You miss the point.

• I take exception to the Clintons turning Obama into the black candidate, when he is an American candidate
  
  
• It's dishonest how Clinton uses surrogates to play the race card, use dirty politics in general and then claim that Obama came to the debate with a bunch of attacks to use against Hillary
  
  
• It's bullshit that when NO ONE attacked Hillary but she made herself cry she got the female sympathy vote, now the Cintons get to trash Obama and there's no Democratic backlash against them
  
  
• It's dishonest how the Clinton's misrepresent Obama's comments about Reagan, as well Hillary's extreme hypocrisy in saying that she doesn't know where Obama stands on the issues. This from a person who supported the Iraq war and then changed her mind when public opinion turned against it.

If you consider dirty politics and hypocrisy to be acceptable, then those are your standards. They're not mine.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Big Brother

W.E.B.


Like I say, If Obama wants to act like he's above the fray, that's his decision. I hope has has more substance than he shows on television. If his strategy works, then more power to him.


Bro

presluc

Well, I watched the Democratic debates on T.V. in S.C..
The one situation that got my attention is when John Edwards pointed out the fact that Obama on more than one occasion has critisised Clinton's,and Edwards votes that was fine, but when ask why he voted present 103 times instead of actually voting yes or no, well that was differant and Obama made another speach.
To me voting present is another way of not being responsible for your vote it's being careful if not parinoid.
If everybody just voted present and didn't take responsibilty nothing would get done.
Besides in my opinion the American people are tired of political leaders that do not take responsibility for their actions.

Troianii

Provided that the Republicans put up moderate candidates, though, am I right? I personally beleive as a Republican that we do need to put up some more moderate conservatives. For a few decades now America has become more and more conservative, and I don't think that this should in and of itself mean victory for Republicans. The Democrats largely won 2006 on the Iraq War and Bush, but they also were able to win because they gave up on alot of their core issues. A large number of their new seats were taken by people who support gun rights, the right to life, and oppose gay marriage. The Democrats are becoming a bit more conservative, and I think that the Republicans need to be a little bit more centrist.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Whatever, man. The Clintons and the establishment can do what they want to. I think Obama said something very interesting yesterday. It went something like this:

Hillary's negatives are very high. I can get Hillary's supporters to vote for me, but Hillary cannot get my supporters to vote for her.

Any victory Hillary wins over Obama may be a Pyrrhic one. We shall see.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

If Hillary wins, I will vote for any Republican except for Romney and Ron Paul. As far as character is concerned, Romney is no different from Clinton. You know how I feel about Ron Paul.

Recently I've looked up which "superdelegate" (i.e. Democratic congressman, governors and former presidents) are supporting Clinton or Obama. I found both my local representative and Senator Schumer both supporting Hillary. If Hillary wins, I'm considering voting against them for as long as they remain in office almost regardless of who they're running against.

I would agree that the Democrats who won in 2006 were more conservative (i.e. John Tester in Montana, Jim Webb in Virginia and others). However, I believe that a lot of it was also the conservative getting wiped out in the Northeast and in some areas in the Midwest. This was due to the Iraq War.

I think that the real weakness for the Democrats is the candidate: Hillary Clinton. That's actually the real crux of the issue. If we were running with Edwards or Obama, I would vote for either one including Edwards, even though he's a hypocrite. He's just far less vile than Clinton. I don't know if the Republicans should change or not. That's really up to you guys. My main issue is with Hillary's character, not for the most part with policy where I'm pretty much in agreement with Democrats.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Jayne

I didn’t understand why Obama voted present instead of yes or no, but after he explained it, it made perfect sense to me. I don’t see what the big deal is though when you’re talking about a hundred times out of thousands. Whether you are supporting or opposing something, if you have unresolved issues with the proposal, they need to be addressed before you sign on the dotted line so to speak. Is this unusual in government processes? Isn’t it the same concept as any type of legal agreement, where all changes and fine tuning are done before you submit something to be made a final order of court?

As for the Clintons turning Obama into the “black candidate” when he began as the “American candidate” honestly, it confuses the hell out of me. I mean I understand their strategy, but I don’t understand why in reality white people are less likely to vote for him because black people vote for him. I feel like I’m missing something here. The only thing that is clear to me is that the Clintons are the same dirty politicians, playing the same dirty games as they’ve always done. They're scandalous hypocrits, and I think they’re doing a great job reminding people what scum they are.

presluc

Well, the Republicans can't run on just morals and ethics anymore thats for sure.
And they can't tell the American voter "vote for me and it will be business as usual."
And if they can only count on their "religous base" WELL?
So to get any support from the majority of the American voter they're gonna have to be some changes.