Jump to content

Election '08: Primaries

JDC

By JDC
in The Coffee House

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 1.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
JerseyBoy Burg

JerseyBoy

Posted
Posted
based on the evidence, the entire rest of the world was saying to allow the UN inspections to run their course. clinton voted on emotion, not on "evidence". NCLB was not well thought out. again, a vote on emotion and not on reality. the reality was that actual educators were saying that NCLB would not work and would do exactly what it did. no teacher i have ever met agrees at all with standardized testing as the sole or main measuring stick. however, the government seems to like it because it's quick and easy. test scores have been proven to mean absolutely nothing. her record shows that she votes on the emotion and what's popular. sure she may stand up for energy, families, and health care, but shes going on the emotion. her energy idea of a gas tax holiday which will put the country in debt while saving people less than $100 is brilliant, especially when that holiday ends and gas prices are even more than they were when the holiday started. her plan for universal health care requiring people who don't want or need it to get it is poorly thought out. in that case, we need affordable health care for those who can't afford it, not required health care for everyone.

while i am not saying she should be able to foresee the future, none of those things that monsoon mentioned were well thought out and they were all votes on emotion, and pretty important votes if you ask me. why could she not vote against these bills until they were written in such a way that chance of failure could be reduced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
monsoon Gigalopolis

monsoon

Posted
Posted
...On the other hand, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Hillary Clinton all voted for the war. Yet, we blame Hillary Clinton solely, even though she has publicly stated that she is sorry for her supporting it and has been a stong critic ever since?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
monsoon Gigalopolis

monsoon

Posted
Posted

Bill Clinton today blames Americans for not voting for Hillary saying they are not ready to vote for a woman. At the same time they rolled Geradine Ferraro out of the mothballs again and put her on morning TV so that she could say that Obama was sexist. Give me a break. People are not voting for Hillary because they don't like her, Bill and their record of late. It's an insult to the people.

Along with this, it has come out that one of Clinton's biggest doners has been caught offering up substantial amounts of money to some super delegates if they would declare for Hillary. I can't image why people continue to want to support these people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charlotteman Burg

Charlotteman

Posted
Posted
Along with this, it has come out that one of Clinton's biggest doners has been caught offering up substantial amounts of money to some super delegates if they would declare for Hillary. I can't image why people continue to want to support these people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krazeeboi Gigalopolis

krazeeboi

Posted
Posted

Even though it's been true in some places, you don't see Obama whining because some neanderthals aren't voting for him because he's Black. And Ferrarro just needs to come out and explicitly say that she doesn't like Obama because he's Black. She makes me sick as hell.

I hope Obama gets 30 superdelegate endorsements this week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
monsoon Gigalopolis

monsoon

Posted
Posted

Obama has now won the majority of pledged delegates. This means that under the rules established and agreed to at the beginning of this process Obama should be awarded the nomination. The Clinton campaign is showing every sign however that they plan to push to change the rules so that Obama's win is not so clear cut. I can't imagine what their motivations might be because if by some back room deal, Hillary gets the nomination, it will completely blow apart the democratic party.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Neo City

Neo

Posted
Posted
Obama, as expected, won Oregon, by about 14 percentage points.

Unfortunately Clinton still keeps winning states with larger "Wal-Mart class" Democrats. What is depressing is the exit polls in Kentucky. Roughly 65% individuals in Kentucky would rather vote for McCain or simply stay home in November rather than vote for Obama. It is sad considering they share a similar stance on the issues with exceptions being that he didn't back the ongoing war and a couple of other points such as No Child Left Behind. I would say it is likely due to Obama simply being black, an issue that keeps coming up and I hate that it does. Can we Americans not get past this issue and move on by sticking up for the best candidate to do the job? Why must we continue to put this country further down the toilet.

I can't believe that Democrats who so willingly voted for Clinton would rather switch parties rather than vote for Obama on this one. This is just becoming unreal. Is this what America has come to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
monsoon Gigalopolis

monsoon

Posted
Posted
This same problem exists with Obama supporters as well. The best of both worlds for these types of voters would be a joint ticket. He takes upper-class whites and she picks up the blue-collar voters. Though, we've already seen an attempt at this (Kerry Edwards '04).
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gard Burg

Gard

Posted
Posted

Interesting article from the Washington Post today on speculation that Obama could possibly give one of the supreme court vacancies to Clinton. IMO, I think she would make a great justice and IIRC, would make the second woman on the supreme court. Promising such a powerful position to her could very well help unify the party for the GE and entice Clinton supporters to vote for him, as they would want to see her on the supreme court:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
runawayjim Metropolis

runawayjim

Posted
Posted
Interesting article from the Washington Post today on speculation that Obama could possibly give one of the supreme court vacancies to Clinton. IMO, I think she would make a great justice and IIRC, would make the second woman on the supreme court. Promising such a powerful position to her could very well help unify the party for the GE and entice Clinton supporters to vote for him, as they would want to see her on the supreme court:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
erdogs Burg

erdogs

Posted
Posted
Interesting article from the Washington Post today on speculation that Obama could possibly give one of the supreme court vacancies to Clinton. IMO, I think she would make a great justice and IIRC, would make the second woman on the supreme court. Promising such a powerful position to her could very well help unify the party for the GE and entice Clinton supporters to vote for him, as they would want to see her on the supreme court:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...id=opinionsbox1

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lowerdeck Burg

Lowerdeck

Posted
Posted
Interesting article from the Washington Post today on speculation that Obama could possibly give one of the supreme court vacancies to Clinton. IMO, I think she would make a great justice and IIRC, would make the second woman on the supreme court. Promising such a powerful position to her could very well help unify the party for the GE and entice Clinton supporters to vote for him, as they would want to see her on the supreme court:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Justadude Burg

Justadude

Posted
Posted
The way I see it is that Obama will have to make her his running mate. Sure, he could pick someone else just like her, but I know too many ignorant people, who are steadfast on her being president, that will not vote for him. If he goes with someone else he's going to piss off a lot of Appalachia, older-women, and blue-collar voters and give them one more reason not to vote for him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
erdogs Burg

erdogs

Posted
Posted
The US Constitution does not require this standard for that office. In fact it does not set any qualifications for this office except that the President nominates the party, and the Senate decides if the person is suitable for the job in an confirmation process.

I will point out that GW Bush's first appointment to the Supreme Court, Harriet Myers, his personal and campaign lawyer (a political person) has never served in the role of judge. She was also a politician that ran and won a seat on the Dallas city council. Bush was prepared to fight for her in the senate but he said that "she asked not to serve". While Obama has not said anything about seating judges, Bush did try to do what you consider to be "a serious lack of judgement". I certainly agree this president has made endless decisions that would fall in this category and it's nice to see that you acknowledge it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.