Open Letter to Barack Obama

[DroppinScience]

This is a good letter "The Nation" wrote from progressives urging Obama to actually commit to the idealistic rhetoric he's been running on. Unlike the anonymous "DNC insider" letter, this one has many authors listed.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/31/10734/


Published on Thursday, July 31, 2008 by The Nation
Change We Can Believe In
An Open Letter to Barack Obama

July 30, 2008

Dear Senator Obama,

We write to congratulate you on the tremendous achievements of your campaign for the presidency of the United States.

Your candidacy has inspired a wave of political enthusiasm like nothing seen in this country for decades. In your speeches, you have sketched out a vision of a better future–in which the United States sheds its warlike stance around the globe and focuses on diplomacy abroad and greater equality and freedom for its citizens at home–that has thrilled voters across the political spectrum. Hundreds of thousands of young people have entered the political process for the first time, African-American voters have rallied behind you, and many of those alienated from politics-as-usual have been re-engaged.

You stand today at the head of a movement that believes deeply in the change you have claimed as the mantle of your campaign. The millions who attend your rallies, donate to your campaign and visit your website are a powerful testament to this new movement’s energy and passion.

This movement is vital for two reasons: First, it will help assure your victory against John McCain in November. The long night of greed and military adventurism under the Bush Administration, which a McCain administration would continue, cannot be brought to an end a day too soon. An enthusiastic corps of volunteers and organizers will ensure that voters turn out to close the book on the Bush era on election day. Second, having helped bring you the White House, the support of this movement will make possible the changes that have been the platform of your campaign. Only a grassroots base as broad and as energized as the one that is behind you can counteract the forces of money and established power that are a dead weight on those seeking real change in American politics.

We urge you, then, to listen to the voices of the people who can lift you to the presidency and beyond.

Since your historic victory in the primary, there have been troubling signs that you are moving away from the core commitments shared by many who have supported your campaign, toward a more cautious and centrist stance–including, most notably, your vote for the FISA legislation granting telecom companies immunity from prosecution for illegal wiretapping, which angered and dismayed so many of your supporters.

We recognize that compromise is necessary in any democracy. We understand that the pressures brought to bear on those seeking the highest office are intense. But retreating from the stands that have been the signature of your campaign will weaken the movement whose vigorous backing you need in order to win and then deliver the change you have promised.

Here are key positions you have embraced that we believe are essential to sustaining this movement:

* Withdrawal from Iraq on a fixed timetable.
* A response to the current economic crisis that reduces the gap between the rich and the rest of us through a more progressive financial and welfare system; public investment to create jobs and repair the country’s collapsing infrastructure; fair trade policies; restoration of the freedom to organize unions; and meaningful government enforcement of labor laws and regulation of industry.
* Universal healthcare.
* An environmental policy that transforms the economy by shifting billions of dollars from the consumption of fossil fuels to alternative energy sources, creating millions of green jobs.
* An end to the regime of torture, abuse of civil liberties and unchecked executive power that has flourished in the Bush era.
* A commitment to the rights of women, including the right to choose abortion and improved access to abortion and reproductive health services.
* A commitment to improving conditions in urban communities and ending racial inequality, including disparities in education through reform of the No Child Left Behind Act and other measures.
* An immigration system that treats humanely those attempting to enter the country and provides a path to citizenship for those already here.
* Reform of the drug laws that incarcerate hundreds of thousands who need help, not jail.
* Reform of the political process that reduces the influence of money and corporate lobbyists and amplifies the voices of ordinary people.

These are the changes we can believe in. In other areas–such as the use of residual forces and mercenary troops in Iraq, the escalation of the US military presence in Afghanistan, the resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, and the death penalty–your stated positions have consistently varied from the positions held by many of us, the “friends on the left” you addressed in recent remarks. If you win in November, we will work to support your stands when we agree with you and to challenge them when we don’t. We look forward to an ongoing and constructive dialogue with you when you are elected President.

Stand firm on the principles you have so compellingly articulated, and you may succeed in bringing this country the change you’ve encouraged us to believe is possible.

Here is a list of early signatories to this open letter:

Rocky Anderson

Moustafa Bayoumi

Norman Birnbaum Professor Emeritus
Georgetown University Law Center

Tim Carpenter
Progressive Democrats of America

John Cavanaugh, director
Institute for Policy Studies

Juan Cole

Chuck Collins

Phil Donahue

Barbara Ehrenreich

Tom Engelhardt
Tomdispatch.com

Jodie Evans, co-f0under
CODEPINK: Women for Peace

Thomas Ferguson

Bill Fletcher Jr., executive editor,
BlackCommentator.com

Eric Foner

Milton Glaser

Robert Greenwald

William Greider

Jane Hamsher

Tom Hayden

Christopher Hayes

Richard Kim

Stuart Klawans

Bill McKibben

Walter Mosley

Richard Parker, president
Americans for Democratic Action

Gary Phillips
Writer and activist

Jon Pincus
achangeiscoming.net and member of Get FISA Right

Chip Pitts

Frances Piven

Elizabeth Pochoda

Katha Pollitt

Marcus Raskin

Betsy Reed

Bob Scheer

Herman Schwartz

Jonathan Schell

Gene Seymour

David Sirota

Norman Solomon
Author and Obama delegate to Democratic National Convention

Mike Stark

Jean Stein

Matt Stoller

Jonathan Tasini

Zephyr Teachout

Studs Terkel

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Gore Vidal

David Weir

Howard Zinn

Affiliations have been added when requested by the signatory.

Add your name to the Open Letter calling on Barack Obama to stand firm on the principles he so compellingly articulated in the primary campaign.

Copyright © 2008 The Nation

[RobMoney$]

In summation Mr. Obama, you've been flipping and flopping lately and at this point we're not really sure what you stand for. Either stand behind the policies that attracted us to you in the first place or we're out.


His lack of experience is an issue. Not that he's ill-prepared for the job, but because people don't how he'll react when faced with adversity.

It's like starting the rookie shooting guard in the NBA finals when you have an experienced older veteran like Ray Allen on your team. It's not that the rookie can't shoot, you're just nervous because you don't know until he does it and wins...At least that's how I feel about Obama.




P.S. Your man-crush for Howard Zinn is disturbing.

[DroppinScience]

P.S. Your man-crush for Howard Zinn is disturbing.

Then you should read some of his books to understand why.

[yeahwho]

OK, now I'm trying to figure out exactly what McCain's campaign is about. First he started ads claiming Obama was a flip flopper, that didn't work. Now he is running ads that Obama is a celebrity whore and gaining celebrity overseas (didn't McCain sort of dare him to go overseas?). And of course there's this Obama's running the race card from the bottom of the deck thing.

So does McCain actually have a campaign or some sort of platform hidden in these attacks?

What the fuck is McCain's vision? This is obviously a joke or a very immature strategy. It's boring hyperbole with obvious missed opportunities at every turn. I thought for sure he would nail him on political issues by now but he would rather attack his style. Odd. McCain needs to fire his campaign manager yesterday.

[yeahwho]

Oh yeah, back on topic. That letter is being universally ignored. No one really cares. I know in a perfect more nuanced political world it would be considered an interesting letter, but all it's asking is, don't become Bush.

Whiny right wingers are a much larger problem than those signatories. Nothing happens until your in, nothing. This is all window dressing.

[DroppinScience]

Oh yeah, back on topic. That letter is being universally ignored. No one really cares. I know in a perfect more nuanced political world it would be considered an interesting letter, but all it's asking is, don't become Bush.

Whiny right wingers are a much larger problem than those signatories. Nothing happens until your in, nothing. This is all window dressing.

It's a letter saying Obama needs to be as progressive as he claims to be. Because even if he does win and ends up not doing anything remotely close to what he campaigns on (e.g. Bill Clinton's candidacy), then what's the point?

[yeahwho]

It's a letter saying Obama needs to be as progressive as he claims to be. Because even if he does win and ends up not doing anything remotely close to what he campaigns on (e.g. Bill Clinton's candidacy), then what's the point?

I understand, if he loses and somebody else wins who actually embraces this current administrations ideals, we're royally fucked forever. Faith is probably not adhered to much around here, but in this scenario (that letter isn't damning, just suggestive) you have to have faith that Barack will be much more receptive to positive change than his opposition.

[yeahwho]

OK, now I'm trying to figure out exactly what McCain's campaign is about. First he started ads claiming Obama was a flip flopper, that didn't work. Now he is running ads that Obama is a celebrity whore and gaining celebrity overseas (didn't McCain sort of dare him to go overseas?). And of course there's this Obama's running the race card from the bottom of the deck thing.

So does McCain actually have a campaign or some sort of platform hidden in these attacks?

What the fuck is McCain's vision? This is obviously a joke or a very immature strategy. It's boring hyperbole with obvious missed opportunities at every turn. I thought for sure he would nail him on political issues by now but he would rather attack his style. Odd. McCain needs to fire his campaign manager yesterday.

Of course I could be totally wrong,

Intensified attacks by Republican John McCain on the character of his Democratic opponent have coincided with Barack Obama losing a nine percentage point advantage in a national poll, which showed the candidates running dead even over the weekend.

Todays AP story; Poll: McCain's attack strategy paying dividends (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iX2arGasws02Vc4yiVCrGG8AHP0gD92B2N400)

[RobMoney$]

There's a lot of people who don't vote in primaries, and a lot of those people will be supporting McCain if you catch my drift.

When this process started I thought Hillary was the best candidate, and I still do. Once she was out I was left thinking I would support Obama because I've been a Democrat my whole life and there was no way I would ever support a Republican.

Maybe my political views are changing with age and I'm a lot less liberal than I used to be, maybe it's just that Obama rubs me the wrong way, maybe it's his lack of experience and him never really gaining my trust. Whatever it is, I find myself agreeing more with McCain than Obama. At this point I think I'm going to support him.

I like the fact that he's not afraid to go against the party line and show a backbone on things like campaign finance reform, stem-cell research, and a constitutional ammendment to outlaw gay marriage. Obama seems willing to do and say whatever is necessary for his own political expedience, which shows me he lacks a backbone. McCain has shown the opposite.
I'm identifying more with him at this point.

[DIGI]

There's a lot of people who don't vote in primaries, and a lot of those people will be supporting McCain if you catch my drift.

When this process started I thought Hillary was the best candidate, and I still do. Once she was out I was left thinking I would support Obama because I've been a Democrat my whole life and there was no way I would ever support a Republican.

Maybe my political views are changing with age and I'm a lot less liberal than I used to be, maybe it's just that Obama rubs me the wrong way, maybe it's his lack of experience and him never really gaining my trust. Whatever it is, I find myself agreeing more with McCain than Obama. At this point I think I'm going to support him.

I like the fact that he's not afraid to go against the party line and show a backbone on things like campaign finance reform, stem-cell research, and a constitutional ammendment to outlaw gay marriage. Obama seems willing to do and say whatever is necessary for his own political expedience, which shows me he lacks a backbone. McCain has shown the opposite.
I'm identifying more with him at this point.


All well and good, but how about when McCain brings on some ball-buster as VP to gain favor and shake off some negative stigma from his own Party? He'll name some fascist asswipe, keel over 4 months in, and then we're fucked. (n)

[saz]

There's a lot of people who don't vote in primaries, and a lot of those people will be supporting McCain if you catch my drift.

When this process started I thought Hillary was the best candidate, and I still do. Once she was out I was left thinking I would support Obama because I've been a Democrat my whole life and there was no way I would ever support a Republican.

Maybe my political views are changing with age and I'm a lot less liberal than I used to be, maybe it's just that Obama rubs me the wrong way, maybe it's his lack of experience and him never really gaining my trust. Whatever it is, I find myself agreeing more with McCain than Obama. At this point I think I'm going to support him.

I like the fact that he's not afraid to go against the party line and show a backbone on things like campaign finance reform, stem-cell research, and a constitutional ammendment to outlaw gay marriage. Obama seems willing to do and say whatever is necessary for his own political expedience, which shows me he lacks a backbone. McCain has shown the opposite.
I'm identifying more with him at this point.

yeah, and mccain hasn't flip-flopped on torture, talking to hamas, bush's tax cuts, campaign finance reform, nor has he coddled up to the religious right freaks and kissed their asses. :rolleyes:

a mccain administration would be a continuation of the bush administration, and would attack iran. not only would the us military be completely overstretched and broken, which it nearly is, but by attacking iran, not only would the muslim world be pissed, but so would the rest of the world.

joe scarborough and pat buchanan ridicule mccain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bndmOt1cm34)

mccain is a warmonger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee4XoVSMsJo&feature=related)

[RobMoney$]

a mccain administration would be a continuation of the bush administration, and would attack iran. not only would the us military be completely overstretched and broken, which it nearly is, but by attacking iran, not only would the muslim world be pissed, but so would the rest of the world.

joe scarborough and pat buchanan ridicule mccain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bndmOt1cm34)

mccain is a warmonger (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee4XoVSMsJo&feature=related)


Since you can clearly predict the future, think you can tell me who's going to win tonights Yanks game?

[saz]

yes, ignore the facts (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1589533&postcount=13) regarding mccain (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=85476) and reply with some off hand, throw away sarcastic smart ass remark.

[yeahwho]

yes, ignore the facts (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1589533&postcount=13) regarding mccain (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=85476) and reply with some off hand, throw away sarcastic smart ass remark.

You've done some pretty good homework. I'm amazed that McCain became the republican candidate, he is actually sort of questionable amongst his own party. I've tried to understand all this right wing lingo, I've exposed myself to the radio shows and propaganda, it just leaves me feeling like a complete asshole.

Fuck and people talk about "Obamatron" or "Obama Kool Aid" and I think have you ever listened to Rush Limbaugh for 2 minutes? That is some fucking insanity there. These Obama slammers can go sing on a mountain with this Obama Kool Aid shit.

[RobMoney$]

Unfortunately my candidate was beaten out by the cult of personality that formed around Obama. I'm now left with the lesser of two evils.
I can vote for the guy who wants to pull a Robin Hood on America or I can go with my Grandfather who'll be far from perfect, but can't help but be better than the current administration.
I'm going with Grandpa, you can mock me all you want.


P.S. Just wondering Sazi, ...and I'm not trying to be sarcastic when I ask this, are you an American citizen or are you just a concerned party commenting from another country?

[Documad]

Maybe my political views are changing with age and I'm a lot less liberal than I used to be, maybe it's just that Obama rubs me the wrong way, maybe it's his lack of experience and him never really gaining my trust. Whatever it is, I find myself agreeing more with McCain than Obama. At this point I think I'm going to support him.

I like the fact that he's not afraid to go against the party line and show a backbone on things like campaign finance reform, stem-cell research, and a constitutional ammendment to outlaw gay marriage. Obama seems willing to do and say whatever is necessary for his own political expedience, which shows me he lacks a backbone. McCain has shown the opposite.
I'm identifying more with him at this point.
You should have campaigned for McCain eight years ago, because that's the last time he resembled the guy you're describing. He sure learned his lesson! He bucked Rove et al and they cleaned his clock. So he went to them with hat in hand four years ago and he did everything they wanted him to do. McCain whole-heartedly embraced Bush AND the religious crackpots that dominate republican grassroots politics. He further sold his soul over the past year by reversing his positions on things that matter to his party. He has made a clear promise to the party faithful that he will stack the courts with judges who will vote in favor of homosexual bigotry, against campaign reform laws, and that will outlaw abortion. I can't even understand his environmental/energy policies at this point. He says warm fuzzy stuff about state's rights to regulate environmental laws when he's in California but it's pretty clear that he's going to continue the bad policies and inaction of the Bush administration. You might agree with McCain on some of his new positions and if so that's fine, but take a look at the guy circa 2008 rather than the romantic figure of years past. And even the McCain of years past wasn't that great. His maverick persona was invented to try and wipe out the memory of his dirty Keating past.

I have been willing to cut McCain major slack regarding his uglier personality traits because of his service to his country and the POW stuff, but that doesn't mean that I want him running the country. He's an elderly guy with a really bad temper. Not a statesman; not by a mile. He scares the shit out of me. I'd love to have a drink with him though.

I'm nervous about Obama because he's a big unknown to me, but I do know a lot about his background. He has the kind of background that looks familiar to me. He seems to be emotionally stable and really smart. I adore his wife and there's a bit of me that thinks that if she is married to him he has to be a pretty good guy. I like that he's starting to surround himself with more experienced people. While I didn't care for his middle east media blitz, he carried it off without a hitch. We never know the candidates for real, so we pick up clues in the media. Some of my reasons are silly but my gut strongly says Obama.

[saz]

i'm a concerned party commenting from another country. i hope that in your estimation that doesn't disqualify my input. regardless, barack obama is ideologically the exact same kind of democrat that hillary and bill clinton are. ideologically they are not for me, however i have no doubt that both hillary and obama would make fine presidents, that they'd be able to handle the job and govern well. i just find it perplexing that after eight years of complete and utter disastrous republican rule, that anyone would want to vote for yet another republican candidate who would continue bush's disastrous policies.
john mccain isn't a stable guy, ie anger and rage, and he wants to start another war.

[Bob]

at least obama doesn't plaster on the make-up like a trollop, you cunt

[RobMoney$]

i'm a concerned party commenting from another country. i hope that in your estimation that doesn't disqualify my input. regardless, barack obama is ideologically the exact same kind of democrat that hillary and bill clinton are. ideologically they are not for me, however i have no doubt that both hillary and obama would make fine presidents, that they'd be able to handle the job and govern well. i just find it perplexing that after eight years of complete and utter disastrous republican rule, that anyone would want to vote for yet another republican candidate who would continue bush's disastrous policies.
john mccain isn't a stable guy, ie anger and rage, and he wants to start another war.


I refuse to believe the line that just because Bush was a dope that somehow equates to McCain having to be a dope because they're both Republican.

[DroppinScience]

Unfortunately my candidate was beaten out by the cult of personality that formed around Obama. I'm now left with the lesser of two evils.
I can vote for the guy who wants to pull a Robin Hood on America or I can go with my Grandfather who'll be far from perfect, but can't help but be better than the current administration.
I'm going with Grandpa, you can mock me all you want.

So Grandpa is McCain, I take it. Finally, some honesty and perhaps the only one on the board who is voting GOP in November (besides NoFenders, I guess). You switching to Obama never would have suited you.

[RobMoney$]

and perhaps the only one on the board who is voting GOP in November (besides NoFenders, I guess).


Hey DS, I hear Bob is jumping off a bridge tommorrow...

[DroppinScience]

Hey DS, I hear Bob is jumping off a bridge tommorrow...

Bob should finish law school first! (!)

[saz]

I refuse to believe the line that just because Bush was a dope that somehow equates to McCain having to be a dope because they're both Republican.

well then, you obviously haven't been following or reading up on mccain over the last few years and his current campaign, nor have you bothered to check out the information (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1589533&postcount=13) and media reports (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=85476) i've posted. if you had, then a lifelong democrat such as yourself would be disgusted with him.

hillary is now supporting and campaigning for obama. so are the vast majority of her original supporters.

[RobMoney$]

well then, you obviously haven't been following or reading up on mccain over the last few years and his current campaign, nor have you bothered to check out the information (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showpost.php?p=1589533&postcount=13) and media reports (http://beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=85476) i've posted. if you had, then a lifelong democrat such as yourself would be disgusted with him.

hillary is now supporting and campaigning for obama. so are the vast majority of her original supporters.


...and the other people who supported her aren't supporting Obama.
I'm one of those. Count me in as one of the people not in the vast majority.

Hillary supporting Obama is simple partisan politics. Anyone who chooses a candidate based on something like that is an idiot.



also, we can sit here and play "your guy's the bigger flip-flopper" all day. Both Obama & McCain have said things for political expedience. I don't really have a problem with it, to a point. I've got news for you Sazi, they're all lying scumbags. Obama's no different. Therefore you sort of have to remove the duplicity of candidates in a political race because it becomes pointless after a while.
I try not to listen to what they're saying, (because it's all BS). You kind of have to read between the lines and judge who the better person for the job is.

[saz]

oh, okay.

so, do you consider hillary an "idiot" for supporting obama, because of simple partisan politics?

sure they all lie, however mccain is very open about the fact that he wants to attack iran. the american military cannot handle another war. even with the current occupations of afghanistan and iraq, the us army has been stretched so thin that it's breaking. plus there's been all of the army suicides and thousands and thousands of cases of post-traumatic stress. the military needs a break, and iran ceased its uranium enrichment program years ago, according to the last national intelligence estimate report.

anyways, the justification you cited is essentially the justification millions used in their preference to vote for bush, as opposed to gore or kerry. the bottom line is that on almost every major policy issue and initiative, hillary and obama are exactly the same. mccain also represents everything that hillary has fought against and opposes.

[QueenAdrock]

Unfortunately my candidate was beaten out by the cult of personality that formed around Obama. I'm now left with the lesser of two evils.
I can vote for the guy who wants to pull a Robin Hood on America or I can go with my Grandfather who'll be far from perfect, but can't help but be better than the current administration.
I'm going with Grandpa, you can mock me all you want.

You believe "grandpa" to be less evil than Obama? Just a few weeks ago you said you'd vote for Brett Lambert over a Republican. I don't know what happened between then and now to have you reverse your position on such a strong (and somewhat shocking) statement. Seeing as how McCain is anti-choice, pro-War, anti-Union, completely out of touch and supporting offshore drilling, can't answer whether condoms help prevent HIV/AIDS, can't explain whether or not he supports birth control being covered by health insurance, and so many more ridiculous things, I don't think he's less evil in any way shape or form. The core things that he stands for goes against everything the Democrats believe in.

I understand that you don't like Obama. But if you supported Hillary, Obama is closer ideologically to her than McCain is. There's more than two candidates too; if I absolutely hated Obama, I'd look at other possibilities. McCain would NEVER be a possibility for me, because he goes against my core beliefs and what I stand for. Maybe look into someone that you'd agree with, rather than someone you'd "settle" for.

[yeahwho]

Hillary was actually helping the Republicans by staying in the race, Bill is still holding back open support for Barack and the democratic party is currently even stupider than they were in the past two presidential races.

Honest to God, WTF is wrong with these people in the democratic party? I am a full on supporter of Barack Obama with no reservations because as an average joe I understand the damage in-fighting can create in life.

Apparently the Clinton's are morons. Did they not get the memo?

McCains new Ad using Hillary's attack on Obama (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/08/barackobama.hillaryclinton).

[yeahwho]

Everything I read today points to the Clinton's basically fucking taking over the media while Obama try's to take a break in Hawaii, talk about some poor political losers, nothing like this has reared it's head in a political campaign I can remember ever.

Read what Hillary has to say today,

“If you look at recent history, I have moved more quickly and done more on behalf of my opponent than comparable candidates have. Most of them didn’t endorse until the convention, Teddy Kennedy, or Gary Hart, Jerry Brown, just a lot of people held out until the convention, kept their delegates, often waged platform or rules or credentials fights.”

But then she seems to give a green light to her supporters to go ahead and make whatever mischief they might:

“I’ve made it very clear that I’m supporting Senator Obama and we’re working cooperatively on a lot of different matters,” she says. “But delegates can decide to do this on their own, they don’t need permission.”

Still, she concludes, “it would be better if we had a plan and we put it in place and executed it.”

August 7, 2008, 2:37 pm
What Does Hillary Want? (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/what-does-hillary-want/index.html?hp)

In most winning campaigns the focus is on the actual candidate, support is unanimous and winning is the goal. The "Open Letter to Barack" is divisve, the Clinton's are now in my book "HACKS" and most of the democratic party currently has shoppers remorse and an inability to compromise for the overall good of the United States. What a bunch of babies.

[RobMoney$]

The slighest hint of the Supers throwing their support to Hillary and you're right back to bash her once again?

Predictable, and frankly kind of disturbing of you bro.

[Documad]

Honest to God, WTF is wrong with these people in the democratic party? I am a full on supporter of Barack Obama with no reservations because as an average joe I understand the damage in-fighting can create in life.
I ask myself that question every two years. It's just as bad at the local level.

Republicans keep their shit together even when they disagree, because they put the good of the party above personal issues. Democrats are babies who take their toys and go home when they don't come out on top during the primaries. Democrats can't keep their shit together even when the future of the country is on the line.

This is an extremely important race and there is a very clear difference between the two major candidates. I'm sick of hearing bullshit from people who call themselves democrats. I can't decide whether this is mostly a racial issue (let's face it, there are some americans who can't bring themselves to vote for a black person yet) or whether this is about people who used to feel like they were in charge who can't stand the fact that someone came out of nowhere to take the nomination away from the old guard. Jesse Jackson and the Clintons are in the second group.

[RobMoney$]

Seeing as how McCain is anti-choice, pro-War, anti-Union,

So is Bush, even more so than McCain considering his ties with the religious right, and yet Roe v. Wade still stands and has gone the entire 8 years of his term unchallenged. And the Labor Unions of this country have managed to survive unscathed as well.

completely out of touch and supporting offshore drilling,

Obama now supports offshore drilling? (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/01/AR2008080103199.html?tid=informbox) I guess this means Obama is becoming more "out of touch" as the race progresses.

can't answer whether condoms help prevent HIV/AIDS, can't explain whether or not he supports birth control being covered by health insurance, and so many more ridiculous things, I don't think he's less evil in any way shape or form. The core things that he stands for goes against everything the Democrats believe in.

You're acting as if the sky will fall if we elect McCain, QA. You sound like a typical twenty-something liberal who votes emotionally. Maybe that'll change when you grow up and join the workforce for a few years. It did for me.


I understand that you don't like Obama. But if you supported Hillary, Obama is closer ideologically to her than McCain is. There's more than two candidates too; if I absolutely hated Obama, I'd look at other possibilities. McCain would NEVER be a possibility for me, because he goes against my core beliefs and what I stand for. Maybe look into someone that you'd agree with, rather than someone you'd "settle" for.

LOL Third Party Candidates LOL.
All Nader ever did was screw up the election for Kerry in '04 which is part of the reason we're where we are today with Bush.
I value my vote and don't wish to waste it, thank you.

[Documad]

So is Bush, even more so than McCain considering his ties with the religious right, and yet Roe v. Wade still stands and has gone the entire 8 years of his term unchallenged. And the Labor Unions of this country have managed to survive unscathed as well.

I disagree with you. You don't have to care about the same issues that QA and I care about, but both of those issues are in worse shape today than 8 years ago, and more importantly, Justice Stevens is the most likely Justice to go next. He's ancient.

Roe v. Wade does not really stand. It's been hacked away at for a long time. And we're only one vote away from outright reversal.

More important the US Supreme Court are all of our federal courts at the local and appellate level. And the people running the justice department, the EPA, the US Department of Labor, etc. are all appointed by the president. These are the people who actually run this country. There is a huge difference between McCain and Obama in terms of who they would likely appoint to all of those important jobs. Many of the old Clinton team are working for Obama, which means that many of the old Clinton team will likely hold positions in an Obama administration. I happen to think that's a good thing.

I believe that if McCain was elected, he would pander MORE to the religious right than Bush, because Bush had the better credentials in the first place. Bush didn't need to prove that he was religious. McCain has to made conservative appointments to satisfy his base. Even though he's old, he's going to be trying for a second term. This isn't conjecture either. McCain has clearly stated his current positions.

I'm not trying to talk you out of voting for McCain. It's clear that you really really really really really hate Obama for reasons that I will not be able to understand. I'll admit that I cannot understand someone who is a strong Clinton supporter but who hates Obama with such fervor, because the two candidates are almost identical on the issues. I can understand if you simply like McCain's personality or the way he dresses or how young and good looking he is, but you can't pretend that your position has anything to do with issues or you were voting for Clinton without any good reason.

[Bob]

And the Labor Unions of this country have managed to survive unscathed as well.



More important the US Supreme Court are all of our federal courts at the local and appellate level. And the people running the justice department, the EPA, the US Department of Labor, etc. are all appointed by the president.

the NLRB...

[RobMoney$]

you can't pretend that your position has anything to do with issues or you were voting for Clinton without any good reason.


I take offense at this, Doc.

I was voting for Clinton because I felt like I knew who she was, politically. I was familiar with her policies and what she stood for, and more importantly how she would handle adversity. She was a fighter and was determined, and I thought that would be great for America. That's the type of person you need to be when you're the first woman, or black, ect. to do something, ala Jackie Robinson or Arthur Ashe.

I couldn't be more skeptical of Obama, and the more America learns about him the more ground he seems to lose. Let's face it, Americans want something done about the price of oil and Obama's telling us to properly inflate our tires? He's begining to lose this race on the issues, fair and square.

Suggesting my political opinions have nothing to do with the issues is suggesting that perhaps my motivation is something else, i.e. racial, which is cheap if that's where you were leading the jury, Counselor. If Obama and Hillary are as similar on the issues as you claim then I contest that his race was worked proactively for him, and not negatively.

So I guess I'm choosing not to support Obama because I think the emperor has no clothes.

[Bob]

I take offense at this, Doc.

I was voting for Clinton because I felt like I knew who she was, politically. I was familiar with her policies and what she stood for, and more importantly how she would handle adversity. She was a fighter and was determined, and I thought that would be great for America. That's the type of person you need to be when you're the first woman, or black, ect. to do something, ala Jackie Robinson or Arthur Ashe.

I couldn't be more skeptical of Obama, and the more America learns about him the more ground he seems to lose. Let's face it, Americans want something done about the price of oil and Obama's telling us to properly inflate our tires? He's begining to lose this race on the issues, fair and square.

Suggesting my political opinions have nothing to do with the issues is suggesting that perhaps my motivation is something else, i.e. racial, which is cheap if that's where you were leading the jury, Counselor. If Obama and Hillary are as similar on the issues as you claim then I contest that his race was worked proactively for him, and not negatively.

So I guess I'm choosing not to support Obama because I think the emperor has no clothes.

what do you like about mccain, issue-wise?

[DroppinScience]

LOL Third Party Candidates LOL.
All Nader ever did was screw up the election for Kerry in '04 which is part of the reason we're where we are today with Bush.
I value my vote and don't wish to waste it, thank you.

Nader got 0.3% of the vote in 2004. Bush got 51% and Kerry got 48%. That's not even close to vote splitting by any stretch of the imagination.

[saz]

LOL Third Party Candidates LOL.
All Nader ever did was screw up the election for Kerry in '04 which is part of the reason we're where we are today with Bush.
I value my vote and don't wish to waste it, thank you.

not only what droppin stated, but also it seems that you're one of those people who seem to think that people who vote for nader or the green party would actually vote democrat. you're wrong, dead wrong. those voters can't stand the dems and want serious change, an end to the stranglehold that corporations have on the government. those voters also vote with their conscious, they vote for what they believe in, they vote for who they want to be president, and not to put the block on the republican from getting in. strategic voting is lame and never works. voting for someone, just because they have a chance at winning, and not voting for who you truly want to be president, is a wasted vote.

anyways, you could also vote libertarian. they are actually true conservatives: small government, fiscally responsible, humble foreign policy, strong constitutionalists, individual choice and freedom; very much in the vein of traditional conservatives like dwight eisenhower, barry goldwater et al. unlike the republicans who have increased the size of the government ten-fold, ie department of homeland security, blown the treasury, borrowed billions from china, an imperial foreign policy, committed high crimes etc.

[Documad]

I take offense at this, Doc.

I was voting for Clinton because I felt like I knew who she was, politically. I was familiar with her policies and what she stood for, and more importantly how she would handle adversity. She was a fighter and was determined, and I thought that would be great for America. That's the type of person you need to be when you're the first woman, or black, ect. to do something, ala Jackie Robinson or Arthur Ashe.

I couldn't be more skeptical of Obama, and the more America learns about him the more ground he seems to lose. Let's face it, Americans want something done about the price of oil and Obama's telling us to properly inflate our tires? He's begining to lose this race on the issues, fair and square.

Suggesting my political opinions have nothing to do with the issues is suggesting that perhaps my motivation is something else, i.e. racial, which is cheap if that's where you were leading the jury, Counselor. If Obama and Hillary are as similar on the issues as you claim then I contest that his race was worked proactively for him, and not negatively.

So I guess I'm choosing not to support Obama because I think the emperor has no clothes.
I don't mean to offend you. What I said is that you can't differentiate Obama and Clinton on the issues, and I still think that's true. You haven't identified an issue that is important to you where they differed. You don't have to. I think what you said is that you like McCain's personality better than Obama's personality. Or you like his personal attributes. That's fine. It was also okay if you supported Clinton because you liked her personality better than Obama's, or because you knew her and you didn't know him. But you can't claim to like Clinton better on the issues when Obama and Clinton agreed on all planks of the democratic platform during the year of primaries. And during the time when they were both in the Senate, did they ever vote against each other?


As for the gas crisis, did you see the Daily Show where they explained that EVERYONE who knows anything about gas consumption said that doing things like tire maintenance increase your gas mileage? What do you want the next president to do about oil prices? I think it's out of our hands and it's probably time we started paying the true cost of our energy. I just got back from Alaska's glacier bay so I vote no on drilling up there.

[RobMoney$]

Nader got 0.3% of the vote in 2004. Bush got 51% and Kerry got 48%. That's not even close to vote splitting by any stretch of the imagination.

This is a good example of skewing the "facts" to make them say what you want them to say.
By those numbers the best Kerry could have possibly done is 48.3%, correct?

WRONG. Kerry lost Fla. by something in the neighborhood of 300 votes.
Do you think Nader recieved 301 votes in Fla.?

[DroppinScience]

This is a good example of skewing the "facts" to make them say what you want them to say.
By those numbers the best Kerry could have possibly done is 48.3%, correct?

WRONG. Kerry lost Fla. by something in the neighborhood of 300 votes.
Do you think Nader recieved 301 votes in Fla.?

No, this is not even close to skewing the facts. Look up the results of election night here if you don`t believe me.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

That one reveals 51%, 48% and 1% for Bush, Kerry, and Nader respectively, but those are rounded off numbers.

This link has the more precise percentage points of 50.73%, 48.27%, and 0.38%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2004#Electi on_results

You must have taken a different math class than me because last I checked 48% + 1% = 49%, so that means that even if Nader wasn`t in the race and all his votes would have went Democratic, Bush was still the victor of the race.

And Kerry narrowly lost Ohio, not Florida.

The more likely explanation is you`re mixing up your election years and candidates. It`s Gore who narrowly lost Florida in 2000.

Once again, I`m still a fan of the facts.

[Bob]

This is a good example of skewing the "facts" to make them say what you want them to say.
By those numbers the best Kerry could have possibly done is 48.3%, correct?

WRONG. Kerry lost Fla. by something in the neighborhood of 300 votes.
Do you think Nader recieved 301 votes in Fla.?

No, this is not even close to skewing the facts. Look up the results of election night here if you don`t believe me.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

That one reveals 51%, 48% and 1% for Bush, Kerry, and Nader respectively, but those are rounded off numbers.

This link has the more precise percentage points of 50.73%, 48.27%, and 0.38%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2004#Electi on_results

You must have taken a different math class than me because last I checked 48% + 1% = 49%, so that means that even if Nader wasn`t in the race and all his votes would have went Democratic, Bush was still the victor of the race.

And Kerry narrowly lost Ohio, not Florida.

The more likely explanation is you`re mixing up your election years and candidates. It`s Gore who narrowly lost Florida in 2000.

Once again, I`m still a fan of the facts.

i think rob's point was that the election is decided by the electoral college, and that the 300+ votes that nader sapped from kerry in flordia tipped the electoral college vote in favor of bush.

it doesn't matter though rob, you're still apparently wrong. if wikipedia's right (i know you hate "facts" and "links" but if you've got different numbers then by all means, share them), bush didn't win in florida by 300 votes, he won by nearly 400,000. nader only got 32,000. now i'm no mathematician...

and as sazi pointed out, you can't say for certain that the people that voted for nader would have voted for kerry if nader weren't in the race (but i'd bet my balls that at least some of them would have, sorry sazi)

[The Notorious LOL]

Im pretty sure hes thinking of the 2000 election.

[The Notorious LOL]

furthermore, lol@this cornball for warming up to McCain as the better choice.

[alien autopsy]

id like to chime in and say this open letter to obama is a fucking joke. does anyone really think this poster child black man for president is going to read this letter? and if he does read it, does anyone really think he is going to listen to it and change his ways?

NO. fact of the matter is that he is a sellout. just like every other politician who has ever gotten this close to the whitehouse. these candidates are invested in, and nothing can change that. the minute they turn their backs on their investors, or challenge their authority, they will be smeared, or worse off, dead.

[alien autopsy]

the quicker we lose hope and give up on this system, the better off we all are. we need to build a better future from the ground up. not the top down.

[saz]

Let's face it, Americans want something done about the price of oil and Obama's telling us to properly inflate our tires? He's begining to lose this race on the issues, fair and square.

from time (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes) magazine:

But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

In fact, Obama's actual energy plan is much more than a tire gauge (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf). But that's not what's so pernicious about the tire-gauge attacks. Politics ain't beanbag, and Obama has defended himself against worse smears. The real problem with the attacks on his tire-gauge plan is that efforts to improve conservation and efficiency happen to be the best approaches to dealing with the energy crisis — the cheapest, cleanest, quickest and easiest ways to ease our addiction to oil, reduce our pain at the pump and address global warming. It's a pretty simple concept: if our use of fossil fuels is increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern dictators while destroying the planet, maybe we ought to use less.


Alaska Gov. And Longshot McCain VP Praises Obama's Energy Plan (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/05/alaska-gov-and-longshot-m_n_116974.html)

The governor praised Obama for, among other things, calling for the completion of the Alaska natural gas pipeline and proposing $1,000 rebates for families struggling with energy costs.

Republican Alaska Governor Sarah Palin: (http://www.gov.state.ak.us/news.php?id=1384)

"We in Alaska feel that crunch and are taking steps to address it right here at home," Palin's press release read. "This is a tool that must be on the table to buy us time until our long-term energy plans can be put into place. We have already enjoyed the support of Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, and it is gratifying to see Senator Obama get on board."



another lame gop rush limbaugh talking point shot down.

[yeahwho]

The slighest hint of the Supers throwing their support to Hillary and you're right back to bash her once again?

Predictable, and frankly kind of disturbing of you bro.

Logic and rational thinking aren't your strong points, are they? The Super imaginary delegates? The Super dumb asses of the United States? The Super Duper Pooper Scoopers?

Tell me which cabal of Supers am I so afraid of?

Dollars to donuts Bill and Hillary will be kissing Obama's ass within one week or else they'll find themselves on the outs. This is the big leagues and vacation time is coming to an end very soon.

[QueenAdrock]

You're acting as if the sky will fall if we elect McCain, QA. You sound like a typical twenty-something liberal who votes emotionally. Maybe that'll change when you grow up and join the workforce for a few years. It did for me.


People said the same thing to me in 2000. "You're acting as if the sky will fall if we elect Bush." I'd say I was pretty right about that. And seeing as how McCain votes with Bush a very large majority of the time, supports his policies, stands for the same things he does, I don't think it's that far out there to say that the two are very similar. I vote based on my core beliefs and my ideals, and neither Bush nor McCain come close to believing the same stuff I do. Not to mention both are way off on other issues such as the economy and taxing. Will McCain be as bad as Bush? No, that's quite a feat. Will he veto bills that I want to see passed and fuck up the economy further? Absolutely.

Nothing will change, regardless of where I work. I worked for a more conservative branch of the government for a year and a half, still held my fiscal and social values that I always have. Seeing as how I made MUCH less than the people who complain about "being taxed too much" and was still fine with the large portion of my paycheck that went to pay for public services, I don't see my fiscal ideals changing anytime soon. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats tax and spend, Republicans spend and spend. I know you can't do one without the other; therefore, I'm Democrat. As for my social values, I've held them for as long as I can remember and those won't be going away anytime soon, either.

I know you'd like to peg people as being "fairy tale" liberals just because they're young, but believe it or not, there's some things I don't agree with that the Democratic party stands for. Not everyone who's young agrees lock-step with what the Democrats do. There's some things they're too conservative about, and some things they're too liberal about. However, I'm able to see that regardless of the small things I don't like about my party and its candidates pale immensely in comparison to what I don't like about the Republican party and who they nominate.

[DroppinScience]

and as sazi pointed out, you can't say for certain that the people that voted for nader would have voted for kerry if nader weren't in the race (but i'd bet my balls that at least some of them would have, sorry sazi)

For both 2000 and 2004, the majority of unabashed Nader supporters would not have voted Democrat OR Republican had Nader not been in the race. They would have stayed home or picked another 3rd party candidate. Having said that, there probably would have been a few people who would have voted Democrat if there was no Nader factor. Whether or not that would have changed the outcome for the 2000 election (we already know in 2004, Nader's vote count wasn't enough to tip the scales one way or the other) is virtually impossible to know for certain. But there's about a billion other reasons why Gore lost an election that he actually won (i.e. the Supreme Court ruling, the stalling efforts by the GOP in actually completing said Florida recount... it's all in the HBO movie "Recount," which was a really good dramatization of those days) before you'd even think of Nader's impact.

[QueenAdrock]

Just curious Rob, same question as Bob. What do you agree with McCain about, issue-wise?

[DroppinScience]

id like to chime in and say this open letter to obama is a fucking joke. does anyone really think this poster child black man for president is going to read this letter? and if he does read it, does anyone really think he is going to listen to it and change his ways?

NO. fact of the matter is that he is a sellout. just like every other politician who has ever gotten this close to the whitehouse. these candidates are invested in, and nothing can change that. the minute they turn their backs on their investors, or challenge their authority, they will be smeared, or worse off, dead.

I know where your cynicism is coming from on this, but it's a tad too cliched and fatalist.

I think you are misunderstanding the efforts of grassroots organizing to make an impact (even if it's only a small one) on what politicians do. Sure, politicians can be corrupt/beholden to special interests, etc. But that never stopped abolitionists, womens' suffrage, civil rights advocates, labor union activists, etc. etc. from making their voices heard and (eventually) making lives better. Yeah, politicians or the Supreme Court ultimately change the laws or enact legislation that will benefit the people, but they're not going to do it without pressure from the people.

What the people who are behind the open letter are doing is no different. It's the same as people like Norman Thomas in the '30s holding FDR to account and making sure that his New Deal programs became a reality.

I know it's much easier for you to immaturely shout "fuck the man!" and say "they're all bought, corrupt, etc." but that defeatist thinking will only make sure the bad guys win.

[Bob]

For both 2000 and 2004, the majority of unabashed Nader supporters would not have voted Democrat OR Republican had Nader not been in the race. They would have stayed home or picked another 3rd party candidate. Having said that, there probably would have been a few people who would have voted Democrat if there was no Nader factor. Whether or not that would have changed the outcome for the 2000 election (we already know in 2004, Nader's vote count wasn't enough to tip the scales one way or the other) is virtually impossible to know for certain. But there's about a billion other reasons why Gore lost an election that he actually won (i.e. the Supreme Court ruling, the stalling efforts by the GOP in actually completing said Florida recount... it's all in the HBO movie "Recount," which was a really good dramatization of those days) before you'd even think of Nader's impact.

gore "lost" florida by something like 500 votes in 2000, nader pulled 97,000. i honestly think that at least 500 of those 97,000 people would have voted for gore if nader hadn't been in the race.

you're absolutely right though, there were a billion other things going on in the 2000 election, it's really not at all fair to single out nader and say "YOU'RE TO BLAME FOR BUSH" and i promise that's not what i'm doing

[saz]

or better yet bob, what if at least 500+ of the 250,000 registered florida democrats who voted for bush, actually voted for gore instead.

[Bob]

or better yet bob, what if at least 500+ of the 250,000 registered florida democrats who voted for bush, actually voted for gore instead.

like i said, i'm not blaming nader for costing gore florida, there were a million other things going on in that state that fucked it up. all i'm saying is that it's not too much of a stretch to think that at least a small chunk of nader's voters would have voted for a democrat if nader hadn't been there. i don't think american third party voters have quite as much solidarity as i think you think they do

[DroppinScience]

gore "lost" florida by something like 500 votes in 2000, nader pulled 97,000. i honestly think that at least 500 of those 97,000 people would have voted for gore if nader hadn't been in the race.


or better yet bob, what if at least 500+ of the 250,000 registered florida democrats who voted for bush, actually voted for gore instead.

Both of these are quite possible scenarios. And if it played out that way they would have canceled each other out.

Regardless, when it comes to 2000 and you look at all the people being DENIED the right to vote (i.e. the voter purging list of felons and people whose names resemble a felon) in the first place, then you should get angry.

[RobMoney$]

from time (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1829354,00.html?cnn=yes) magazine:

But who's really out of touch? The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.

I'm going to offer to direct McCain's next campaign commercial, free of charge.

Camera pans in:
We see McCain in his driveway kneeling down, checking the tire pressure of his car.

He turns and looks at the camera an says:
"My tire pressure's perfect but Gas is still $4 bucks a gallon.
Got a plan 'B' Mr. Obama?"


Tire pressure can improve gas mileage as much as 3%, but wouldn't that mean your tire pressure would have to be extremely low to begin with?
What if my tire pressure is already correct?

In fact, Obama's actual energy plan is much more than a tire gauge (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf). But that's not what's so pernicious about the tire-gauge attacks. Politics ain't beanbag, and Obama has defended himself against worse smears. The real problem with the attacks on his tire-gauge plan is that efforts to improve conservation and efficiency happen to be the best approaches to dealing with the energy crisis — the cheapest, cleanest, quickest and easiest ways to ease our addiction to oil, reduce our pain at the pump and address global warming. It's a pretty simple concept: if our use of fossil fuels is increasing our reliance on Middle Eastern dictators while destroying the planet, maybe we ought to use less.

Just wondering, what happened to his "Windfall Profits Tax"? Did he decide to abandon that and go with "Conservation" instead?

Alaska Gov. And Longshot McCain VP Praises Obama's Energy Plan (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/05/alaska-gov-and-longshot-m_n_116974.html)

The governor praised Obama for, among other things, calling for the completion of the Alaska natural gas pipeline and proposing $1,000 rebates for families struggling with energy costs.

Yes. That's just what America needs, another Government entitlement program.
How long before this guy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/derby/content/images/2005/03/03/monopoly_man_lead_203x152.jpg) is on the US Dollar?

[yeahwho]

A patriots guide to gauges. (http://www.latimes.com/classified/automotive/highway1/la-hy-neil8aug8-pg,0,4769573.photogallery)

[RobMoney$]

Just curious Rob, same question as Bob. What do you agree with McCain about, issue-wise?

What difference does it make really, no matter what I say the political geniuses will just tell me why I'm wrong and why they're right.

It's an excersize in futility.

[Bob]

What difference does it make really, no matter what I say the political geniuses will just tell me why I'm wrong and why they're right.

It's an excersize in futility.

hasn't stopped you from saying anything else. what do you like about mccain's stance on the issues that makes you want to vote for him and see them become public policy?

i'm not asking because i want to tell you why you're wrong and why i'm right, i'm asking because unless I missed it somewhere you haven't ever really said what you like about mccain in terms of his policies, you seem to be voting for him purely because you don't like obama. i just want to know what is it about a mccain presidency that you're looking forward to?

[QueenAdrock]

What difference does it make really, no matter what I say the political geniuses will just tell me why I'm wrong and why they're right.

It's an excersize in futility.

Well, I'm honestly interested in how a Clinton supporter and self-proclaimed "lifelong Democrat" can vote for McCain. If you vote based on the issues, I don't know how it's a possibility to do such a 180 from Hillary and support McCain instead; Obama would be a smaller step to take. It's kind of a head scratcher, so I'd just like to see the justification behind such a change in opinions.

[Documad]

You're acting as if the sky will fall if we elect McCain, QA. You sound like a typical twenty-something liberal who votes emotionally. Maybe that'll change when you grow up and join the workforce for a few years. It did for me.

You seem to be the one who is going to vote based upon emotions. It seems like you're focusing on your hurt over Clinton not getting the nomination. It's your right as a citizen to vote for McCain as a big "fuck you" to the democrats. I disagree with you because I believe the ramifications are too serious, but it's your vote.

[yeahwho]

Must be John McCain's vision thing. (http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/why-am-i-here-moment-john-mccain) His campaigning actions (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/national/stories/DN-mccain_08pol.ART.State.Edition1.4deab6f.html) make him actually look like a worse copy of Bush.

Paris Hilton one upped him. That's cute. So yeah he's a real charmer this John McCain.

[yeahwho]

I believe Barack Obama will be a closer of incredible strength. While he's currently taking a well deserved rest, the media is wandering in all directions. Once he's back on the campaign trail that will stop and focus on the presidency and who will do the very best job is going to become intense.

The same machine that literally rolled Hillary off the tracks is going to be focused, primed and working at full speed. The democratic convention is August 25th and on the way to this affair there will be momentum unlike the past decade, perhaps unlike the past 4 decades. The money is in the bank baby!

It's a great time to be alive. This 2008 presidential election is going to get really good. Of that I am confident.

[Space]

i remember when they supported Nader...

[RobMoney$]

You seem to be the one who is going to vote based upon emotions. It seems like you're focusing on your hurt over Clinton not getting the nomination. It's your right as a citizen to vote for McCain as a big "fuck you" to the democrats. I disagree with you because I believe the ramifications are too serious, but it's your vote.


I'm sure at some point I'll take the time to list my reasons for those that are interested when I have more time to type them out, but it's 1am and I have a Wedding in NYC tommorrow.

Briefly some of the reasons are Iraq, energy, and the economy. But like you said, mostly it's that I just don't buy into the Obama hype which caused me to give a lot more consideration to McCain's points then I normally would have. And when I removed the negative associations that Obama-nation would have me believe about him and I thought about what he was saying to me as an American, I found that I didn't really disagree with him on things all that much.
I realized I was a conservative Dem. before, but maybe I'm realizing that I'm a closet Republican.

I'm here,
I'm not queer,
but I'm voting Republican, Get use to it!!

[yeahwho]

The republicans have a great support network, you'll be welcomed with open arms. The democrats have some problems truly supporting each other and their candidates.

I'm over that phase in my life and fully support Barack Obama, because he is the better man to lead this country and to deal with the Worlds problems. He has a semblance of balance, diplomacy and smarts.

Let's get it on and start the debates, the attacks and then lets see who comes out on top. Both are very good candidates, one is actually head and shoulders above the other as far as being presidential stock.