My political motivation is nearly purely economic. I’d like to see the US not waste money, pay down the debt, and not go into recession. Thus, Clinton > Obama > McCain.
Please stop citing that as a point in his favor. At this stage in history we need a Dem POTUS who will fight to marginalize the Pubs, not conciliate them. A divider, not a uniter.
Right, so you can do everything you can to screw half the country, so that the next time the momentum swings, the other half will do what they can to screw you. That’s worked so well for us.
Obama is your chance, as a party, to not be the other side of the same coin as the republicans.
You are missing the point. Once Republicans are marginalized, they will be able to open their eyes and see the error of their ways. They will become Democrats, and the Democrats will become European-style socialists, and American will turn into France. Oh, and we’ll switch over to a parliamentary system of government, too! It’s all part of the plan, dude!!
BrainGlutton, explain your words. At length.
Honestly? I totally disagree.
We need far more initiatives like the Obama-Coburn bill, not fewer.
The best part of living in this country is being able to talk about exactly what we are talking about. I can stand on my aide of the street and yell that we should nominate Obama, you can stand on your side and yell for someone else, and we don’t have to worry about the state police coming and shooting both of us…
Why? I’m not questioning your motives for saying that, but I’d like to know why you feel that way “at this stage in history”?
Lovely. So nice to see you guys working so hard to raise the level of discourse in this forum.
If the fit fits…
Three reasons:
-
At this stage in history, we need a Dem POTUS who will thoroughly and vigorously investigate, and if need be prosecute, everything iffy that has been done by W’s Admin. (See this thread.) And who will not balk just because the Pubs in Congress protest, as they will, at ninety decibels. This is necessary to restore the integrity of the government itself, and to put down the idea of the imperial presidency once and for all.
-
At this stage in history, we are not fighting on a level playing field. The Pubs have spent the past eight years (and more) building up institutional advantages in the courts, the bureaucracy, the elections offices, legislative districting, everything. That needs to be fought down hard on all fronts at once; and that cannot be done in a spirit of bipartisan accommodation.
-
At this stage in history, the Pubs are not just wrong but tainted. They will never again be fit to govern until they have spent some time in the wilderness and purged their party of all neocon influence and of every little thing smelling of Bush-Cheney. But, more than that, at this stage in history, what needs to be marginalized, permanently, is not the Republican Party as an institution, but the whole post-Goldwater ideological conservative movement which has dominated the party since 1980. Let the “Rockefeller Republicans” regain control of the party, and we’ll talk. Until then, they are not worth talking to.
Now, there are signs of cracks appearing in the coalition of different conservative factions (discussed here), and we need to encourage that; create conditions where ideological conservatives of all stripes clearly can get nothing done within the Republican Party, and thereby are encouraged to go the third-party route; and then they will become irrelevant except, perhaps, as advocates for pro-multipartisan systemic electoral reforms, in which I for one would strongly encourage them. I have often argued on this Board that a multiparty system is better than a two-party system. (That is IMO an ideologically neutral assertion.)
It doesn’t - I haven’t seen anyone saying something frothing. I’ve seen valid points and disagreements but then it depends what side of the street your on.
Thanks BrainGlutton - I gotcha. I think we’ll see many of those things happen in the coming years.
I’m with Elv1slives–I’ll vote for Obama contentedly but with a sigh, knowing I’ll have to listen to that earnest monotone for four years and hoping that he doesn’t listen to those who want to take time going after various Repub miscreants. Plenty of time for that when the important things are on their way to getting straightened out.
I admire McCain greatly but his conversation with Tim Russert this Sunday really rang my alarm bells–when a politican promises that he’ll be able to wring billions of $ by cutting waste and useless earmarks (each of which has a vocal “Won’t you please think of the _______?!” constituency) out of the budget so that we don’t need to raise anybody’s taxes, I feel like I’m listening to Bill Weld back in MA in 1990. He made me work without pay for a week because I worked for the state. :mad:
Color me mystified how anyone could conclude that Clinton’s policy positions are closer to McCain’s than Obama’s. Can you give us a favorite example or two?
As for this “working both sides of the tracks” stuff, how well has accommodating the GOP in Congress worked for the Dem leadership there over the last 16 months? What “compromises” have the Reps shown themselves capable of considering? Obama seems like he would just continue the Reid-Pelosi approach that even they are now starting to discard.
PS: Thanks for the snap, mehitabel.
I voted for Hillary in the primary in Feb, and I want her to be the nominee even if it means multiple ballots at the convention.
But if she doesn’t get the nomination, I’ll be voting for Obama.
Now, I mean this with all sincerity. If experience is important to you, why are you supporting Hillary Clinton in the first place?
I voted for Clinton in the primary and if Obama gets the nomination I will vote for him in the election. I like her health plan better. I think he is a smart ass. 
They both want to remove the wealthy tax breaks and end the war. McCain wants to keep the breaks and continue the war.
TWEEEEET!
Given the large number of posters who are passionately in favor of one candidate or another, there will be no more generalized insults hurled at any candidate’s supporters. It looks far too much like veiled attempts to insult other posters and we still have many months to go. (Posting insulting comments about Joe Pundit of the Podunk News for expressing himself as a raving lunatic will still be permitted, but making overbroad insulting generalizations about any candidate’s supporters is prohibited.)
Similarly, none of these discussions are carried forward by comments about the manner in which other posters are expressing themselves. If you need to knock another poster, take it to the Pit.
[ /Moderating ]
I’m a Clinton supporter who still has reservations about Obama. But if it’s a choice between him and McCain, I’ll most likely vote for Obama and hope my doubts are unfounded.
McCain can not win. He has the Keating 5 and he is …a waffler. That is supposed to be very bad as in Kerry. But McCain voted and spoke out against the tax cuts for the wealthy. Then he voted for it.
He was against torture . Then he voted for it. I can see him saying I voted against it before I voted for it.
So I go for Dems no matter what. I am anti-war and the economy is being flushed down the toilet.
Whoa. The guy who spent five years in a North Vietnamese prison camp voted to allow the torture of anyone? What was the bill?