|
Post by dripsey3 on Aug 27, 2008 1:26:38 GMT -8
Hilary gave her full backing to Obama last night. If you get a chance, have a listen to her speech. One of the best I have heard in a long time. Personally, I hope Obama beats McCain. America and the world does not need another 4 years of a Bush clone.
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 27, 2008 2:00:27 GMT -8
Its bad day when people think the Dems are the opposite of the Reps and will turn things around. Just shows you how bad Bush and co are and how bad the American system is.
|
|
|
Post by drizzletown on Aug 27, 2008 5:48:47 GMT -8
Well, you can bit*h about the DEMS all you want. But here in the United States, under Clinton, we had a much better life. And being an American wasn't (as much of) an embarrassment. Just ask Natalie.
|
|
|
Post by duncan175 on Aug 27, 2008 6:01:33 GMT -8
is better enough?
|
|
|
Post by drizzletown on Aug 27, 2008 6:23:37 GMT -8
No Ross, I want worse.
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 27, 2008 6:44:10 GMT -8
Well, you can bit*h about the DEMS all you want. But here in the United States, under Clinton, we had a much better life. And being an American wasn't (as much of) an embarrassment. Just ask Natalie. No health care,millions still homeless. Yes Republicans are worse,but Democrats are not the shinning light and never have been.
|
|
|
Post by drizzletown on Aug 27, 2008 6:48:49 GMT -8
No health care, because the senate/house shot down Hillary's proposal. Yes, it lacked, but it was an attempt.
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on Aug 27, 2008 8:11:31 GMT -8
Surely, if you think candidate "A" will be a bit better than candidate "B", and they are what's realistically on offer, it would be rather pointless not to vote for "A" just because he isn't perfect.
Politics isn't a charismatic religious extasy in which we glimpse perfection - and it's downright dangerous to act as if it could be.
Politics is about the art of the possible, and realistic change comes in increments here and there.
If you think "A"'s policies will give the society you want to see more worthwhile increments, that's probably more useful than focusing on what he's not.
|
|
|
Post by b@@b on Aug 27, 2008 9:38:04 GMT -8
just curious:: Could McCain select a former prez as his vice? like say Bush Sr.? ...legally, constitutionally, etc. I forget the pesky rules.
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 27, 2008 9:54:24 GMT -8
No health care, because the senate/house shot down Hillary's proposal. Yes, it lacked, but it was an attempt. Thats my point too. Not one of the two in all the years iv known have every done it.
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on Aug 27, 2008 10:02:45 GMT -8
A President can only serve two terms (even if they are some years apart). There was nothing in the original constitution to prevent more - but Washington only served two, and that was taken to set a precedent. F.D.Roosevelt was the first and only President to go beyond the two terms - and a Constitutional amendment was later passed, limiting it by law.
Theoretically, there's nothing to stop a former President being VP (and Bush Snr. was only a one term President anyway). However, a two-term former President (such as Bill Clinton), while theroetically eligible to be VP and President of the Senate, would not be able to succeed if anything happened to the President. Again, theoretically, that need not matter, because Congress could choose someone else to succeed - the next in line would be the Speaker of the House.
|
|
|
Post by peppermintpatti on Aug 27, 2008 13:46:03 GMT -8
Actually, a Governor would probably stand a better chance - a Governor already has executive experience; many voters dislike "Washington politics"; a Senator usually has a burden of a voting record which can be portrayed by the other side as flip-flopping, linked to lobbying, partisan, "extreme" or otherwise unpopular. In the last forty years, the Democrats have had a fairly good record of winning with Governors - and have tended to lose with Presidential candidates from the Senate. (However, this time it's a moot point, since both main candidates are Senators!) This is exactly my point Bingo. A gov. is essintially the president of the state. They have the exact same task except at the state level and that's as good experience as any. W is the exception however due to the strings his daddy pulled. Also even though you ,mbchicks, may not worship Obama, many people do, especially in the media.
|
|
|
Post by slovog on Aug 27, 2008 14:03:44 GMT -8
I need my huh smiley here. W was governor of the biggest republic in the U.S. Same strings as the Kennedy's pulled and Algore's Dad here in Tennessee and so on.
Governors have zero experience in foreign policy. I might agree that they are somewhat prepared from a domestic level. I've always thought of the president as just the front man that is more or less the face of the country. The cabinet appointees are the ones doing all the heavy lifting.
|
|
|
Post by SandraC on Aug 27, 2008 14:15:22 GMT -8
Ya know, if we lived in an anarchist country, we wouldn't have to worry about this whole voting thing. Yeah, we'd have all the riots and chaos to worry about instead. I too was naive enough to think anarchy works, but in reality its just like communism and socialism. Man is inherently greedy and we need a system that keeps human vice in check or else all out violence would ensue for power. Yup, but all government turns corrupt sooner or later. The government here is too big, JMO, back to the states instead of everything being federal.
|
|
|
Post by dc4life on Aug 27, 2008 14:19:24 GMT -8
I liked the twin cities phrase regarding Bush and McCain. That was funny. This is off topic sort of, but I heard that Rudy Guiliani's kids are supporting Obama today, and I suddenly remembered my brother-in-law who is from Brooklyn told me last year when he was running for the nomination that Guiliani's own kids won't support him, and they hated him...I thought he was just mumbling on about nothing, but I heard it mentioned today on Air America...?
|
|
|
Post by slovog on Aug 27, 2008 14:20:23 GMT -8
Now you're talking Sandra!
States Rahyts! (in my best southern middle TN accent)
|
|
|
Post by SandraC on Aug 27, 2008 14:21:26 GMT -8
Now you're talking Sandra! States Rahyts! (in my best southern middle TN accent) State's Rights, yes, that. ;D
|
|
|
Post by peppermintpatti on Aug 27, 2008 16:54:10 GMT -8
I need my huh smiley here. W was governor of the biggest republic in the U.S. Same strings as the Kennedy's pulled and Algore's Dad here in Tennessee and so on. Governors have zero experience in foreign policy. I might agree that they are somewhat prepared from a domestic level. I've always thought of the president as just the front man that is more or less the face of the country. The cabinet appointees are the ones doing all the heavy lifting. Duh KFC. Cronyism is cronyism on both sides of the isle. I picked W because he was the only governor of the bunch you named. The other two were just Senators. As for federalizing everything, HA!!! Things would be far more worse than they are now. The country would have to be re-named States of America with every state fending for itself. I guess you two didn't like the way the Civil War turned out. I wonder why?
|
|
|
Post by mbcchicks on Aug 27, 2008 18:36:38 GMT -8
I need my huh smiley here. W was governor of the biggest republic in the U.S. Same strings as the Kennedy's pulled and Algore's Dad here in Tennessee and so on. Governors have zero experience in foreign policy. I might agree that they are somewhat prepared from a domestic level. I've always thought of the president as just the front man that is more or less the face of the country. The cabinet appointees are the ones doing all the heavy lifting. Thank you! Senators have the e-x-p-e-r-i-e-n-c-e of Washington D.C., something that almost everyone is bashing Obama of NOT having. I think if a porn star and a porn entrepreneur can run for Govenor (and almost succeed), then what credibility does that bring to the title "Governor." The terminator is our Governor and sucking tremendously, do we want him running for president? Why bash Obama for no experience, then give credibility to Governors who have less experience than him as far as Washington D.C. is concerned? They are not part of Congress. Obama is. You are contradicting yourselves.
|
|
|
Post by slovog on Aug 27, 2008 18:55:55 GMT -8
oh, sorry. Obama has something like 143 days of experience as a senator before he started his presidential campaign.
|
|
|
Post by slovog on Aug 27, 2008 19:00:56 GMT -8
I need my huh smiley here. W was governor of the biggest republic in the U.S. Same strings as the Kennedy's pulled and Algore's Dad here in Tennessee and so on. Governors have zero experience in foreign policy. I might agree that they are somewhat prepared from a domestic level. I've always thought of the president as just the front man that is more or less the face of the country. The cabinet appointees are the ones doing all the heavy lifting. Duh KFC. Cronyism is cronyism on both sides of the isle. I picked W because he was the only governor of the bunch you named. The other two were just Senators. As for federalizing everything, HA!!! Things would be far more worse than they are now. The country would have to be re-named States of America with every state fending for itself. I guess you two didn't like the way the Civil War turned out. I wonder why? Duh! Cuz I still don't like a bunch of Yankees in Washington telling me how to conduct my business in Tennessee. There are some federal rules that do need to apply across the board. The 'thou shalts' if you will. There are others that are more state specific. If I had 50 children, I would have a set of house rules that every one would have to obey, but each child is different and deserves their own set of punishment and incentives depending on how they are best motivated. Russia is having that discussion with Georgia these days.
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on Aug 27, 2008 19:37:11 GMT -8
I can't speak for the other posters, but I'm not attacking Obama for lack of experience.
As to the point about Governors, I'm not saying either that I would prefer a Governor (which wouldn't be very relevant) - what I'm saying is that the Democratic Party vote seems to hold up better with candidates who are former Governors.
I think the reasons for that are, firstly, that suspicion and dislike of Washington politics are often quite strong in the Mid Western swing states (where the DP needs some victories to win overall), and, secondly, that it's usually easier to paint a Senator's voting record in a light that makes them seem too radical to appeal to the conservative-leaning floating voters that the DP needs to win over to carry marginal states.
In recent decades the DP's electoral successes (Carter, Clinton) have been former Governors - and some of their Senate nominees have failed to deliver. I don't think they've won with a Senator since Kennedy in the '60s.
The prime reason for DP defeats seems to be that their candidates (however much they appeal to their own Party loyalists) sometimes appear to be out of touch with the swing voters they need in order to win. And that image does seem to cling to Washington Senators more than it does to people whose political track-record has been mainly at State level.
That analysis may or may not be relevant this time - but in any case it's not intended as an attack on Obama, who may prove to have the charisma to overcome it.
|
|
|
Post by mbcchicks on Aug 27, 2008 20:10:36 GMT -8
oh, sorry. Obama has something like 143 days of experience as a senator before he started his presidential campaign. Yep! ;D
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 28, 2008 2:10:53 GMT -8
oh, sorry. Obama has something like 143 days of experience as a senator before he started his presidential campaign. I dont like any as you know,but i suppose its better than having a dummy like Bush and co who have not only ruined your country,but made it the most hated in the world.
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 28, 2008 2:16:12 GMT -8
I need my huh smiley here. W was governor of the biggest republic in the U.S. Same strings as the Kennedy's pulled and Algore's Dad here in Tennessee and so on. Governors have zero experience in foreign policy. I might agree that they are somewhat prepared from a domestic level. I've always thought of the president as just the front man that is more or less the face of the country. The cabinet appointees are the ones doing all the heavy lifting. Have yous every had some govenors who have been Ambassadors for the US,working in Embassy's etc etc. I agree that the president can be just the front man,but this can also be an excuse for **** ups,they did it with Reagan,he didnt know what he was doing,same with Bush. Of course they knew what they were doing,you dont become the most powerful man in the world,if you dont. But yes,they have so many advisors,they cannot be immune to a bit of advice to go here,instead of there.
|
|