Obama starting a cult?

[zephyr013]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/23/wUS123.xml


what do you guys think? Is it unfounded? or is it eerily true?

I heard FoxNews today as Hillary Clinton was poking fun of Obama. I hesitate to call it a cult. But his campaign is scary in some ways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

Above is the link to youtube for the video mentioned in the article.

[Daniel]

But what I do know (Mr. Know-it-all-here) is that the business of running a government is not the kind of activity that Mr. Obama is engaged in now. It's about making deals, dealing with details, doing the hard boring work of governing. That means making sure roads and infrastructure and Medicare and Social Security etc etc are taken care of. And baby....slogans may get the man there, but they aren't going to help him do business. And government is a business.

If he wins, he's going to have to not only take it down a notch, but shift gears totally.

So Oprah said he is 'the One'. Big deal. George Bush said he was chosen by God when the Supreme Court decided in his favor. How is that any different?

Do a google search on Bush and you will find some amazing stuff about how he thinks he's been chosen my the Almightly.

Dangerous stuff if you ask me.

And for a democratic candidate to play into the same kind of stuff?

Makes ya wonder- that for sure.

Oh....the article...I usually don't like David Brooks, but he made some salient points.

Here's my bottom line: anyone can say anything. But what is the person going to do, and be able to get done, in the White House? That's what is important, not all this media frenzy.

[andrewlittle]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/23/wUS123.xml


what do you guys think? Is it unfounded? or is it eerily true?

I heard FoxNews today as Hillary Clinton was poking fun of Obama. I hesitate to call it a cult. But his campaign is scary in some ways.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjXyqcx-mYY

Above is the link to youtube for the video mentioned in the article.

I find it interesting that this is an article from the Telegraph. Being English, and still something of a British political watcher, it dawns on me that folks may not be aware that the Telegraph is a Tory newspaper - it is the voice of England's conservatives. And what would conservatives have to gain by spreading this tripe. Obama is appealing to younger voters, especially first time voters, and we're going to get all worked up that they bring more passion and youthful enthusiasm to the table? Shit, perhaps we should go back to just having old white men run so we don't have to deal with a new and different political climate.

[Daniel]

I'm just pissed off that Hillary is going down in flames!

Tory paper? Interesting.....

And speaking of old white men: If you were running you'd get my vote. ;)

[Daniel]

Has anyone noticed that Obama is left-handed? And that Clinton is right-handed?

Means nothing, right?

Not exactly.

Those who are left-handed use their right brains in a way that right-hander's do not. This also involves the ears too. A person who is left-handed and left eared accesses language on the right side of their brain. The person who is right-handed and right eared accesses language on the left side of their brain- where the language center of the brain is located. And of course, one can be left-handed and right-eared. This latter case, I believe, describes Obama.

And let's think about the brain for a minute. To put the matter in simple, but perhaps overly general terms, the left side of the brain is the analytical-linear & dealing-with-detail side while the right side is the global- gestalt & dealing-with-the-big-picture side. Language on the left, vision on the right.

As I see it, Obama's left-handedness is a clue as regards his style of language. It is called visionary and inspired. He is accessing the right side of his brain: he's giving everyone the big picture. It is also why some find his rhetoric hollow. He's not filling in the detail that come with accessing the left side of the brain. He may be someone who goes for the big picture first and then has to fill in the details. And this was my earlier point: if he becomes President, he is going to have to be savvy enough to surround himself with those who are detailed oriented- ie left-brained. If not, he is going to find himself in trouble.

Why do I know all this stuff? Because I am left-handed and have made it my business to know these things.

[andrewlittle]

I'm just pissed off that Hillary is going down in flames!

Me too! I actually prefer Hillary as a presidential choice, although I'm not against Obama. I don't think we should count her out, yet - unless she keeps up this nasty attack shit - I don't have much time for that and it makes her look desperate. That's not a good look for a candidate.

And speaking of old white men: If you were running you'd get my vote. ;)

Thank you - I think - but I gave up being a corrupt, self-interested, money-grubbing, ruthless assbag years ago, so I wouldn't be a good choice.

[BruceChris]

You guys too? When I first encountered Hillary back in the 90's, I said to my self that this is one special woman. I've been waiting 15 years to vote for her, and I'm not about to stop now. Of course I think that either Hillary or Barak is every bit as good as their predecessor is bad, but that will soon be history.

Say, has anyone noticed the creeping sexism here? Hillary, female, first name almost always used. Obama, male, last name almost always used.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[keltic63]

You guys too? When I first encountered Hillary back in the 90's, I said to my self that this is one special woman. I've been waiting 15 years to vote for her, and I'm not about to stop now. Of course I think that either Hillary or Barak is every bit as good as their predecessor is bad, but that will soon be history.

Say, has anyone noticed the creeping sexism here? Hillary, female, first name almost always used. Obama, male, last name almost always used.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

is it sexism, or is it easier to distinguish Ms. Clinton from her husband by using her first name? I think it may be similar to calling our current President by "W" to make the distinction between him and his father.


and I admit it, I like Hillary too. I'm hoping she can pull this off!

[Vanessa White]

The handedness that Daniel spoke about I believe is valid. I had not known that Barack was left handed, or Hillary being right handed either. It does explain, to a degree, what the speeches/platforms are made of and what they sound like to be. The visionary speech always rings very deeply with me, but then I always need to challenge myself to look hard at where the candidate is on the issues. My conflict is who to choose? I don't like not being able to decide. I guess my conflict is feeling like as a country, we need the passion of a candidate, to get people enthusiastic about the process again, yet Hillary's experience is fantastic, and along gender lines, I would like her to have my vote.

In mapping out the big picture, then filling in the details, makes me wonder: Does Barack trace the lines and then fill them in when he colors?

The other part that interested me about what BruceChris said was about how we refer to each of them, by first or last name. I almost always refer to him by his last name, and she by first. I am not sure why I do that, but am trying to be more aware of it......

[Steven E. Webster]

You guys too? When I first encountered Hillary back in the 90's, I said to my self that this is one special woman. I've been waiting 15 years to vote for her, and I'm not about to stop now. Of course I think that either Hillary or Barak is every bit as good as their predecessor is bad, but that will soon be history.

Say, has anyone noticed the creeping sexism here? Hillary, female, first name almost always used. Obama, male, last name almost always used.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

Nope, I don't think it's sexism. I just noticed a "Hillary" yard sign. Figured that if it said "Clinton" that would make folks think too much of Bill. Obama's problem is getting people familiar with a surname that is relatively unusal in the U.S. Going by his first name would not help out any more.

Steven

[zephyr013]

I just noticed a "Hillary" yard sign.

Steven

Yeah Hillary's campaign uses her first name... so if it's sexist, then she started it.

[Daniel]

The handedness that Daniel spoke about I believe is valid. I had not known that Barack was left handed, or Hillary being right handed either. It does explain, to a degree, what the speeches/platforms are made of and what they sound like to be. The visionary speech always rings very deeply with me, but then I always need to challenge myself to look hard at where the candidate is on the issues.

One thing I wasn't trying to say was that visionary language is somehow lacking- that being left-handed is somehow bad. I think it's great. Heck! I'm left-handed (and I have learned to be more right-eared, but that a whole other discussion: if anyone wants to have that conversation- PM me). That said, ideally, visionary language has to be balanced with detail. Otherwise one experiences something akin to hanging in space....which is exactly how the right brain 'sees' things- divorced from time and space- which is- properly speaking - what the left side of the brain looks after.

Hence, the charge against Obama that his rhetoric is hollow.

The truth is this: our society promotes those who are right-handed and right-eared. They express themselves in ways society affirms. And the whole thing about straight men being left-brained (most of the information from the right ear goes to the left brain- when it 'leads' that is....) and rather inarticulate in the emotional realm (right brain!) is true- women- in fact- have more connective tissue conntecting the hemisphere's of the brain together. In other words: the sides of the brain in women communicate more efficiently. And anyone who teaches school observes this: boys have to catch up to girls in the elementary'junior high school years. And not to put too much of a fine point on the matter, there have been studies about the expression of left-handedness among those who are gay. It's above the norm.

Does that mean we may be prone to the artistic, visionary, global kind of thinking and expression?

I think so.

[andrewlittle]

One thing I wasn't trying to say was that visionary language is somehow lacking- that being left-handed is somehow bad. I think it's great. Heck! I'm left-handed (and I have learned to be more right-eared, but that a whole other discussion: if anyone wants to have that conversation- PM me). That said, ideally, visionary language has to be balanced with detail. Otherwise one experiences something akin to hanging in space....which is exactly how the right brain 'sees' things- divorced from time and space- which is- properly speaking - what the left side of the brain looks after.

There's a model in social art movements, and also ministry, that includes the prophet, the teacher/exhorter (t/e), the leader/activist (l/a) and the encourager/evangelist (e/e).

The prophet sees and communicates a view of reality that most don't see or acknowledge. Since it is troubling generally, and sometimes stark, the t/e translates the vision of the prophet into more tangible and accessible terms. The l/a takes off from there and works with the people to develop a wider vision for creating change and implementing actions. The e/e makes the action plan contagious to a larger audience. It isn't unusual for the prophet to also be the e/e, but very unusual for that person to play either of the other two roles.

Prophetic leadership is essential to developing change, but requires surrounding oneself with the other key personnel. In my mind, one of Obama's differences that creates the potential public opinion difficulties is that he tends to be more prophetic, while we are used to the non-prophetic leadership. Let's face it, George W has hardly been the prophet behind the conservative vision (he's just not bright enough), and the real prophet(s) is/are veiled and hidden from sight. I think the public kind of likes that.

Hence, the charge against Obama that his rhetoric is hollow.
Hence, the charge.

The truth is this: our society promotes those who are right-handed and right-eared. They express themselves in ways society affirms.

I would venture a slightly different view - the right-handed non-prophetic puppets AFFIRM SOCIETY, thereby comforting and glossing over society's flaws. they appeal to a lower common denominator - self-interest, which is generally not so self-enlightened.

And the whole thing about straight men being left-brained (most of the information from the right ear goes to the left brain- when it 'leads' that is....) and rather inarticulate in the emotional realm (right brain!) is true- women- in fact- have more connective tissue conntecting the hemisphere's of the brain together. In other words: the sides of the brain in women communicate more efficiently. And anyone who teaches school observes this: boys have to catch up to girls in the elementary'junior high school years. And not to put too much of a fine point on the matter, there have been studies about the expression of left-handedness among those who are gay. It's above the norm.

Does that mean we may be prone to the artistic, visionary, global kind of thinking and expression? I think so.

Seems to be the case. How many socially prophetic artists, of all different mediums, have been gay? I would venture that it certainly a higher percentage than that indicated by the ratio of gay to straight.

[Gregory_de_Bois]

I think people in America (especially and primarily the youth) are sick and tired of "white, old man" politics (no offence). We want something new, and well, to us (speaking as a young person) Obama has that. I am an idealist, big picture type, so I really connect there as well, plus looking at the record and the positions of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I find Mr. Obama to be more liberal and more appealing to myself, although either would be better than an Elephant.

Daniel, I think that Obama would do just that: surround himself with experienced, detail oriented (and some big-picturists) individuals. I think he would sit down and listen to what each had to say, then bring in the big picture and move forward. That's my two cents.

[Daniel]

I think people in America (especially and primarily the youth) are sick and tired of "white, old man" politics (no offence). We want something new, and well, to us (speaking as a young person) Obama has that. I am an idealist, big picture type, so I really connect there as well, plus looking at the record and the positions of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I find Mr. Obama to be more liberal and more appealing to myself, although either would be better than an Elephant.

Daniel, I think that Obama would do just that: surround himself with experienced, detail oriented (and some big-picturists) individuals. I think he would sit down and listen to what each had to say, then bring in the big picture and move forward. That's my two cents.

I hear your point, but as someone who is about to be 50, change for the sake of change- call it what you will- is not enough for this voter. Besides, the candidate I have been rooting for is not an old white man, but a 60 year old woman. I don't see that as politics as usual.

You mentioned that you find Obama to be more 'liberal'. Could you be more specific about that, because, from what I have seen (and I watched the debate last night), the canditates positions are cut from the same cloth- as it were.

What makes Obama more liberal- except- that is- his appearance of youth?

He's certainly not liberal as far as Gay Rights is concerned. Both candidates eshew gay marriage for instance.

I will conceed this point: there was an interesting article by Frank Rich in the NYTImes about the difference in the candidates campaigns. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=frank+rich&st=nyt&oref=slogin Obama used grass roots organizing a lot sooner and got into states days, if not weeks sooner than Clinton. Her manager is running her campaign while also still involved with another 'job'. I think that's dumb on her part. I would want someone giving me their full attention.

So- would Obama surround himself with smart brainy people? God I hope so. That is- if he wins. We already know that Clintion is a policy wonk.

[Gregory_de_Bois]

I hear your point, but as someone who is about to be 50, change for the sake of change- call it what you will- is not enough for this voter. Besides, the candidate I have been rooting for is not an old white man, but a 60 year old woman. I don't see that as politics as usual.

You mentioned that you find Obama to be more 'liberal'. Could you be more specific about that, because, from what I have seen (and I watched the debate last night), the canditates positions are cut from the same cloth- as it were.

What makes Obama more liberal- except- that is- his appearance of youth?

He's certainly not liberal as far as Gay Rights is concerned. Both candidates eshew gay marriage for instance.

I will conceed this point: there was an interesting article by Frank Rich in the NYTImes about the difference in the candidates campaigns. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=frank+rich&st=nyt&oref=slogin Obama used grass roots organizing a lot sooner and got into states days, if not weeks sooner than Clinton. Her manager is running her campaign while also still involved with another 'job'. I think that's dumb on her part. I would want someone giving me their full attention.

So- would Obama surround himself with smart brainy people? God I hope so. That is- if he wins. We already know that Clintion is a policy wonk.

I totally agree. I think Hillary Clinton would definitely not follow the old white man politics, but I just don't connect to her. I don't know what it is. I really just don't want another 'W' (or Cheney/Rumsfield for that matter). I want a president who will really turn this country around for the better, whether black or white, old or young, male or female. I'm good. As long as I'm not criminalized, demonized, spited, or harmed; if promises are kept and the Constitution is truly upheld: I will be much, much happier.:pray:

[Daniel]

I totally agree. I think Hillary Clinton would definitely not follow the old white man politics, but I just don't connect to her. I don't know what it is. I really just don't want another 'W' (or Cheney/Rumsfield for that matter). I want a president who will really turn this country around for the better, whether black or white, old or young, male or female. I'm good. As long as I'm not criminalized, demonized, spited, or harmed; if promises are kept and the Constitution is truly upheld: I will be much, much happier.:pray:

And I'd be happy to have either one of them in office. But conversely, I don't connect with Obama. And the reason is this: I've been present at many presentations that were similar in oratorical style to Obama's, and....how do I say this....find this kind of presentation wanting. It all sounds great. But I want more that the sound of things sounding great. I want more than hope. I want A to connnect to B to connect to C- and that is what I hear when Senator Clinton speaks.

Could he, would he, be a capable President? I don't doubt that. I just know that I respond to the whole idea of Clinton's experience and learning curve. That doesn't seem to resonate with voters however- if what polls tell us is true.

Change can be great. Change can do good. But change for change's sake? This I don't understand. And the public seems to just want change- as if it could change the channel on the TV.

Is politics now just like entertainment? I wonder about that.

[andrewlittle]

Change can be great. Change can do good. But change for change's sake? This I don't understand. And the public seems to just want change- as if it could change the channel on the TV.

Is politics now just like entertainment? I wonder about that.

As you know, Daniel, we live in a culture that likes easy change. If things are not going well, we tend to opt for geographic change - we leave looking for greener pastures. Be it relationship, job or other troubles, the assumption is usually that a different "venue" will solve the problem.

I think the reason for that is that it saves us the congnitive dissonance that we are intimately wrapped up in the issues that we have problems with. We operate on the assumption that the problem is caused by others. We don't have to do the hard work of seeing our complicity and wrestling with our own need to change our hearts and our habits.

Between stasis (read:stagnation) and change for the sake of change (read:chaos) lies a plethora of change possibilities. Unlike the extreme ends, which take nothing more than casting a vote and bitching about the results (usually), the other possibilities for change involve us actively participating in bringing about change.

Is politics like entertainment? When you consider that most entertainment is passive - we are just the audience - I would say "yes". Politics is the work of the polis (town, people, society), and that's just too damn much work for most people. Cast a vote (hit the remote) and hope the show is different and entertaining - okay - but don't expect us to go to the studio and do some work on creating a new show or recreating the old one. Heaven forbid - you want me to participate? That means - OMG - I'd also be responsible for the outcome.

[Daniel]

Is politics like entertainment? When you consider that most entertainment is passive - we are just the audience - I would say "yes". Politics is the work of the polis (town, people, society), and that's just too damn much work for most people. Cast a vote (hit the remote) and hope the show is different and entertaining - okay - but don't expect us to go to the studio and do some work on creating a new show or recreating the old one. Heaven forbid - you want me to participate? That means - OMG - I'd also be responsible for the outcome.

We live in a world where we can get credit- at a price of course- which can lead us to think that there we don't really have to pay at all: we can live above our means, take actions that others will pay for, and perhaps we'll get lucky and become millionaires. It that what the American Dream has become?

I believe we are truly living in dark days. The recession that is - I believe- already upon is just the tip of the iceberg. And all this talk about hope is going to look very different when the check book has to be balanced- if it gets balanced.

What politician is going to tell the public what the actual state of our country is in? Who is going to tell us that our greed and dependance on oil has been our ruin, and that our contintual need to mess in the affairs of others to score points repeatedly leads to bad ends?

I'm no isolationist. But the good things we tell ourselves about ourselves are simply not true if one does an objective assessment. And what politician who wants to get elected is going to offer that bad news?

No one.

I'm also not a pessimist. But pragmatically speaking, I wonder about the kids growing up today and the world that they will have to face. Young poeple are idealists, which is entirely appropriate. But the issues facing them need more than a 'can do' approach.

The icecaps are melting, the seas are rising, and the world is choking on it's own exhaust. These are huge problems. And God Bless the soul who takes them on. If the current projections (based on science) are correct, a lot of people are going to starve in the next 20 years and the earth as we know it is going to be changed dramatically. And this election cycle will have been a blip on the screen.

Maybe we do need a leader who can get us all fired up. But that's just the beginning. It's going to take a lot more than that. People are going to have to get out of their chairs and SUV's and actually do something for someone else besides themselves. Are we up to that? I'm not so sure. I think American's are too damn comfortable at the moment.

It's not like we're liviing in London during the Blitz and have to all pull together to survive. We are separated from each other by the same technology that is supposed to bring us together. Hey! Why do anything when you can get a new video game and zone out on the latest movie?

Exceptions? Forums like this. I'd like to think we can make some - even if small - difference. Pebble by pebble.

[andrewlittle]

Daniel,

I wonder if we're both sounding like a couple of old cynics. I agree with everything you've said - unfortunately, I think.

Like you, I want change - but meaningful change. Change that starts us all thinking about how our appetites and attitudes are helping maintain the destructive status quo.

I the long run, I don't know if either Democratic candidate will facilitate that kind of change - it takes quite the prophetic voice, and we both know that we're not going to hear that in the election cycle.

I just hope and pray that, whoever is elected, we all begin to realize that we're inextricably involved in correcting the problems that plague us - and that begins with naming them. You last post was a nice start. Now, will people listen?

[Daniel]

Daniel,

I wonder if we're both sounding like a couple of old cynics. I agree with everything you've said - unfortunately, I think.

Like you, I want change - but meaningful change. Change that starts us all thinking about how our appetites and attitudes are helping maintain the destructive status quo.

I the long run, I don't know if either Democratic candidate will facilitate that kind of change - it takes quite the prophetic voice, and we both know that we're not going to hear that in the election cycle.

I just hope and pray that, whoever is elected, we all begin to realize that we're inextricably involved in correcting the problems that plague us - and that begins with naming them. You last post was a nice start. Now, will people listen?

No. I don't think people will listen until the shit starts hitting the fan. And that is usually the point where the little that can be done is too late.

But let's look on the bright side for a minute.

At least we party and laugh as the ship goes down. Isn't that what happened on the Titanic? :lol:

Barring that. Maybe, just maybe....we'll get our act together at the 11nth hour and really pull this thing off. I can envision that. And if I can do that, I know others can too.

Obama is right about one thing: you have to see that things are possible before they become realities. Hillary has said much the same thing. Either way, God Help the person who inherits the mess we are in.

[tdogg]

And I'd be happy to have either one of them in office. But conversely, I don't connect with Obama. And the reason is this: I've been present at many presentations that were similar in oratorical style to Obama's, and....how do I say this....find this kind of presentation wanting. It all sounds great. But I want more that the sound of things sounding great. I want more than hope. I want A to connnect to B to connect to C- and that is what I hear when Senator Clinton speaks.

Could he, would he, be a capable President? I don't doubt that. I just know that I respond to the whole idea of Clinton's experience and learning curve. That doesn't seem to resonate with voters however- if what polls tell us is true.

Change can be great. Change can do good. But change for change's sake? This I don't understand. And the public seems to just want change- as if it could change the channel on the TV.


Yes, yes, exactly. Totally agree. As a person who is, ahem, 'older' than many of this forum, I don't embrace change just for the sake of change. Some promising me change better tell me how they expect to make that change, or it's just empty promises. I get that from Barack too, which is the main reason why I'm not on his bandwagon, yet. Hillary has ideas for change too, but she knows the ropes and the obstacles and is a bit more realistic in her promises. She knows the powers of the president are limited (W got so much crap done because he had a lot of criminal cronies with the power backing him up in DC) and the president will have to work WITH congress to get anything done, especially the way congress is set up right now. When I hear Hillary speak, I feel she is speaking sincerely. I don't get the same feeling from Barak. I also believe her campaign people really let her down, but she will have to take the ultimate responsibility for that.

Come November, I will vote for whichever Democrat makes it on the ballot. If it is Barak, I sincerely hope he gathers some experienced sages around him to help him forge a path the change he is promising. Otherwise, all he will be able to deliver is great speeches and those empty promises... He would be wise to embrace all the his competitor would have to offer.

[Daniel]

Yes, yes, exactly. Totally agree. As a person who is, ahem, 'older' than many of this forum, I don't embrace change just for the sake of change. Some promising me change better tell me how they expect to make that change, or it's just empty promises. I get that from Barack too, which is the main reason why I'm not on his bandwagon, yet. Hillary has ideas for change too, but she knows the ropes and the obstacles and is a bit more realistic in her promises. She knows the powers of the president are limited (W got so much crap done because he had a lot of criminal cronies with the power backing him up in DC) and the president will have to work WITH congress to get anything done, especially the way congress is set up right now. When I hear Hillary speak, I feel she is speaking sincerely. I don't get the same feeling from Barak. I also believe her campaign people really let her down, but she will have to take the ultimate responsibility for that.

Come November, I will vote for whichever Democrat makes it on the ballot. If it is Barak, I sincerely hope he gathers some experienced sages around him to help him forge a path the change he is promising. Otherwise, all he will be able to deliver is great speeches and those empty promises... He would be wise to embrace all the his competitor would have to offer.

Why not steal from the best? :D

Your words about knowing the ropes and something Hillary said the other day about our troops in Iraq and Afganistan and the idea that there is the desire for change brought this to mind:

I was sitting on the couch last night talking to hubby and he told me some interesting stuff- which he has learned as part of his MSW program at Hunter (he's in his last semester).

Did you know that guys/women who come back from the 'War on Terror', if they have mental health issues, have to prove that they didn't have a mental health issue before they went into service? In other words, the military health system is acting like an HMO- seeking any way to deny service. Doesn't matter that they saw their buddies hacked to bits and perhaps killed a dozen others and are out of their miinds.

Are our men and women coming back in pieces getting the services they need? No! And the horrible irony is that the medical people are able to now save people with horrible injuries. Can you imagine coming back to a system which 'saves' you an then cuts you loose?

Unimaginable. But that is what is happening. And does anyone care? And is Congress doing anythiing about it? I don't see the evidence.

Why is this important? It represents a sea change in how we treat our veterans. After WWI there was the GI bil and comprehensive medical care- and I believe (I may be mistaken about this) this extended into the the Korean War era- my parents benefited from this- they were able to get a real education and buy houses. It brought a great many people into what we now call the middle class. Guess what? Those who came back from Vietnam and now the Gulf War and Afganistan and Iraq are pretty much left to fend for themselves.

As a country- we pay lipservice to our verterans. What price have we had to pay? Nothing. After 9/11 we were told to go out and shop and then Bush gave the upper 1 percent of the population a huge tax break.

And now the public acts like it wants to change the channel? I find this kind of thinking reprehensible. It's like ordering another video game. And the lives of these men and women is far from some kind of game, the very kind of game kids order up and think is so cool- war as entertainment.

Nearly 4 thousand lives will have been lost because of the hubris of Bush and Cheney. And they want to stay in Iraq for the next 100 years. Even a fool knows that we can't sustain that price, which is now in the multiple of trillions of dollars.

Forgrive me....I am ranting here.

But my sense is that the public does not want to know these things.

Know what? In the end, we will get the President we deserve. For the last 8 years we've had exactly what we wanted. I just hope the public doesn't- in it''s chain being yanked- say in Septemeber with a 'terror scare'- opt for the more of the same.

McCain as President? God forbid!

[tdogg]

The numbers of dead Americans and Iraqis in this stupid war is shocking. What the surviving Iraqi solders and citizens, and American soldiers have to deal with is even worse, and more shocking. I don't think people in this country really want to know. They prefer to keep their heads in the sand, waiting for their tax rebate checks so they can buy more stuff. They prefer not to know how many orphans there are, with no hope for adoption. How many children don't get to attend a decent school, have basic medical or dental care, have adequate clothing not to even mention toys. They don't want to know how our elderly and infirmed are being neglected and even abused, and how those unfortunate enough not to have a decent retirement can barely eke out a living on SS. They don't want to know, because if they did really truly know, the might have to do something about it.

Many of us here in the US are spoiled and lazy, we have it way too good and take it all for granted. I don't see a wake up, no matter who is elected president. Even 9/11 didn't keep us awake. I don't mean the terrorist aspect, but just seeing that something horrible can and did happen here in paradise.

[Steven E. Webster]

The numbers of dead Americans and Iraqis in this stupid war is shocking. What the surviving Iraqi solders and citizens, and American soldiers have to deal with is even worse, and more shocking. I don't think people in this country really want to know. They prefer to keep their heads in the sand, waiting for their tax rebate checks so they can buy more stuff. They prefer not to know how many orphans there are, with no hope for adoption. How many children don't get to attend a decent school, have basic medical or dental care, have adequate clothing not to even mention toys. They don't want to know how our elderly and infirmed are being neglected and even abused, and how those unfortunate enough not to have a decent retirement can barely eke out a living on SS. They don't want to know, because if they did really truly know, the might have to do something about it.

Many of us here in the US are spoiled and lazy, we have it way too good and take it all for granted. I don't see a wake up, no matter who is elected president. Even 9/11 didn't keep us awake. I don't mean the terrorist aspect, but just seeing that something horrible can and did happen here in paradise.

Wow, this is way too pessimistic. I'm an old fart too (you referred to your age in another post), but I've not given up. One reason Obama is so impressive is that he is moving real live people at the grass roots. And he's moving young folks. I'm for him 'cuz the young folks are for him--it is about the future, and not the past 16 years of Clinton/Bush Culture War Red State Blue State Meltdown. He's raised tons of money, and he's not raised it from big money donors---he's raised it from the grassroots in lots of small donations. He's giving Clinton such a run, because he's done such an excellent job of grass roots organizing. Give the man credit--he's done a lot more than just talk pretty to get where he's gotten!

If Obama can move young folks that so many folks have characterized as apathetic for so long, than maybe he can wake this country up to some real positive changes.

If Obama is a cult, then sign me up!

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Wow, this is way too pessimistic. I'm an old fart too (you referred to your age in another post), but I've not given up. One reason Obama is so impressive is that he is moving real live people at the grass roots. And he's moving young folks. I'm for him 'cuz the young folks are for him--it is about the future, and not the past 16 years of Clinton/Bush Culture War Red State Blue State Meltdown. He's raised tons of money, and he's not raised it from big money donors---he's raised it from the grassroots in lots of small donations. He's giving Clinton such a run, because he's done such an excellent job of grass roots organizing. Give the man credit--he's done a lot more than just talk pretty to get where he's gotten!

If Obama can move young folks that so many folks have characterized as apathetic for so long, than maybe he can wake this country up to some real positive changes.

If Obama is a cult, then sign me up!


I don't hear T-dogg being pessimistic, but realitistic.

It will be great if Obama, should he win the nomination, bring young people to the voting booth. And he had better be really good at doing so, because the reality is that the young- as a group- are the least likely to vote.


http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=292

Voting and Demographic Factors

Not only do the rich seem to get richer, on Election Day next month they will probably get a disproportionately large say about who gets elected to Congress. So will older people, whites, college graduates and those who frequently go to church, they survey finds. Among those likely to once again stand on the sidelines on Nov.7: relatively large numbers of young people, Hispanics, and those with less education and lower incomes.

Granted, the Pew research I've quoted is from 2006- two years ago. And in that election, the nation tipped towards the left.

And there's another matter to consider: does anyone actually think that the lobbyist's in Washingtion are going to see the light and simply go home in the interest of 'bringing us all together'?

No. This is politics. Where money is made and lost in deal making.

That's not pessimism. That's reality.

And not to put too fine a point on the matter. Buddhist's have a term called Samsara.

Saṃsāra, the Sanskrit and Pāli term for "continuous movement" or "continuous flowing" refers in Buddhism to the concept of a cycle of birth (jāti) and consequent decay and death (jarāmaraṇa), in which all beings in the universe participate and which can only be escaped through enlightenment.

What is the 'stuff' of samsara? Anything that keeps us unconscious and asleep- the TV- our feel-good lifestyle, our ability as Americans to have just about anything we want when we want it - and we can get it on credit (that is- for those who aren't left out in being able to get get get more stuff). And as Tdogg points out, our nation is very much asleep. We are victims of our own success. Have a TV? A car? A job? A relationship? Healthcare? Hey! You are going better than most people around the world. You can float from one thing to another and change the channel if you don't like what you see or hear. There is no reason for anyone to be confronted with the cruel realities of life, that is, until they smack one in the face.

Reality? The world out there? The suffering in the world? That's someone else's problem for the most part. I agree with Tdogg: most of us don't know how good we actually have it- and we want more 'stuff'. And as Kara has pointed out elsewhere on the forum, if you are posting here, chances are you are living- economically speaking- in the upper 1 % of the world.

Can Obama get the nation awake? And is that even his 'job'? Good question. His job, as I see it, is to get elected. What he will inherit is going to be hell: a war on two fronts, a collapsing economy, a recession if not a depression, corporate interests that have no desire or incentive to change, growing power in Asia, Global Warming, and a Congress that is divided.

And I will support him should he win the nomination.

And this is only my opinion, but I think our country has a tough choice to make in the coming weeks, months and years.

Are we going to continue to act as if we are an Empire? Or are we going to return to our roots as a Democracy?

[Steven E. Webster]

I don't hear T-dogg being pessimistic, but realitistic.


Daniel,

Still sounds like pessimism to me--no matter how you dress it up with theological concepts of whatever source.

I am calling for something that isn't mindless optimism. I'm looking for hope, and I mean hope which is not pollyannish optimism.

Why should young people vote, if the future is hopeless? I'm afraid it's us old farts in the baby boom generation who were taught to duck and cover and saw so many promising leaders assassinated who've grown cynical and lacking in hope.

In Buddhism, isn't there a hope that the world's suffering can be eased? Having read the Dalai Lama's book on ethics in a graduate course, I have to believe that the man has a deep hope for human kind (if not all sentient beings).

The impression I've gotten is that Obama is in fact succeeding in motivating the young despite the young's reputation for electoral apathy.

As a matter of fact, isn't it hopeful that the Democrats--Clinton, Obama and all the rest are turning out so many voters in the primaries? People are getting motivated---and it's not just Obama (though he helps).

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Daniel,

Still sounds like pessimism to me--no matter how you dress it up with theological concepts of whatever source.

I am calling for something that isn't mindless optimism. I'm looking for hope, and I mean hope which is not pollyannish optimism.

Why should young people vote, if the future is hopeless? I'm afraid it's us old farts in the baby boom generation who were taught to duck and cover and saw so many promising leaders assassinated who've grown cynical and lacking in hope.

In Buddhism, isn't there a hope that the world's suffering can be eased? Having read the Dalai Lama's book on ethics in a graduate course, I have to believe that the man has a deep hope for human kind (if not all sentient beings).

The impression I've gotten is that Obama is in fact succeeding in motivating the young despite the young's reputation for electoral apathy.

As a matter of fact, isn't it hopeful that the Democrats--Clinton, Obama and all the rest are turning out so many voters in the primaries? People are getting motivated---and it's not just Obama (though he helps).

Steven Webster

Yes- there is in Buddhism the 'hope' that suffering, pain and unhappiness can be changed, that is, if one first sees things as they are. And that is the difference between the old and the young. Youth has it's idealism (which it should- and this may be why youth- if the research is accurate- doesn't frequent the polling booth- thinking it has all the time in the world and is immortal) that is future oriented, while those of us who are older know that we only have so many days ahead of us- and they better count for something. Our hope is of a very different sort, is it not?

I did not, as you intimate, say that the future was hopeless. What I did was point out the challenges that the person elected will face. That's something else entirely.

Sure. I think it's great that the Democrats are getting out the vote. And what will propel them into office? Will it be hope? That may be part of the equation. But the other big part, I think, is the failed policies of the last 8 years: we should not forget that our country, both politically and religiously speaking, is still decidedly conservative in nature. And they messed up badly- on both sides of the aisle. And it's going to take, in my estimation (and who cares what I think anyway?) more than hope to get us out of the mess we are in.

Call that pessimisim if you want. I call it the world we live in.

One last thing: hope is an emotion. And hope, like all emotions, comes and goes. That's one thing I've learned from Buddhism. Hope can motivate us, but in the end, sometimes we just need to get down on our hands and knees and do the dirty work that needs doing. And that doesn't require hope, just a bit of determination. I hope (Ha!) Obama, or whoever is elected, has that quality.

Some might call it grit.

[tdogg]

I'm a fairly optimistic person. I'm also somewhat of a realist, but at least 1/2 idealist. Just so you know where I'm coming from...

Perhaps my post sounds pessimistic to you, but I believe it's real. The facts support it, and at least for the most part, people I know are busy with their individual lives, unless something hits them and makes it personal, these things are not on the forefront of most concerns.

Do I think it's never going to get better and eventually the US is doomed? No, and I don't think that was insinuated in my post. But sometimes, when I think of how little I see most people care about social issues, it breaks my heart. And I do believe we are extremely spoiled in this country. Take 911 for instance. It was a complete and utter shock to us. But in many if not most countries it's a common occurrence.

Ideals are great, but if they aren't mingled with some realism, change will not come about. I've heard that luck is when opportunity meets preparedness. Realism prepare us, idealism urges us to take the opportunities that present. Idealism without some realism is nothing more than empty dreams and empty promises.

I don't think Obama is terrible. He just isn't showing me that he is complete ready to do what he is promising. Maybe you are seeing things I'm not. Do I think he'll be a failure? Absolutely not. Do I think he'll be able to get everything done he is promising. Absolutely not. Getting a democrat (either one) in office will be a huge improvement. We'll see change, but it will take much longer than one election and more than one new president. Motivating people is a good first step. But he's going to have to have the knowledge and experience to not only know what it takes to get things done but he will have to learn to work the system. That's the part I'm questioning. If he ends up as the Democratic nominee, I WILL vote for him without hesitation.

[Jennifer5]

I don't believe in the least bit Obama means any harm in anything he's doing and I personally really believe in him. I think that he really does speak to the younger crowd, I don't know if that's good or bad. Maybe we're all just dreamers, but for me... when he speaks, you her all your hopes and dreams for the world come true. I want so badly for him to be for real.

[Steven E. Webster]

One last thing: hope is an emotion. And hope, like all emotions, comes and goes. That's one thing I've learned from Buddhism. Hope can motivate us, but in the end, sometimes we just need to get down on our hands and knees and do the dirty work that needs doing. And that doesn't require hope, just a bit of determination. I hope (Ha!) Obama, or whoever is elected, has that quality.

Some might call it grit.

Daniel,
It's too late at nite for me to get into deep thoughts. However, I don't quite agree that hope is (merely) an emotion--that doesn't seem quite right to me. I think we need to work on defining just what "hope" is--what is it we mean by hope. And what is it we mean by emotion. You seem to suggest that emotion and hope are things that "come and go"--that they are insubstantial or illusory.

Depression is an emotion. I guess, also, it can be a mental disorder. One of the symptoms of depression is hopelessness--is it not? Depression is a demotivating force--as is hopelessness.

Does one accomplish a hard task requiring a long-term commitment on the basis of "grit and deterimination" alone---or doesn't even "grit and determination" need to be sustained by hope is some form.

Didn't Martin Luther King address the matter of hope? Wasn't it King who said something like "hope is not mere optimism."

From my religious background I think of things like Paul's description of the enduring nature of "faith, hope and love" (I Corinthians 13) and the passage in Hebrews that speaks of faith as "the evidence of things hoped for."

Now, I have to agree, to things like faith and hope and love, it would be good to add some things like expertise and technical skill and know how in order to "get things done." But depressed, hopeless and unmotivated people don't manage to collectively pull together the expertise and know how to accomplish much of anything.

Back to Clinton and Obama (and I will support which ever gets the nomination) I heard a discussion of their differing approaches to campaigning (and governance in general.) Clinton was described as "top down" and Obama as "bottom up." I'm very much attracted to the "bottom up" approach to governance and "getting things done."

Steven Webster [Oops! I wrote this late last nite and then did not hit "submit"--now here it is!]

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Now that it is morning--here's what I found on "Hope" in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope

The article suggests that even Buddhists have hope, Daniel!

Steven Webster

[Steven E. Webster]

I don't think Obama is terrible. He just isn't showing me that he is complete ready to do what he is promising. Maybe you are seeing things I'm not. Do I think he'll be a failure? Absolutely not. Do I think he'll be able to get everything done he is promising. Absolutely not. Getting a democrat (either one) in office will be a huge improvement. We'll see change, but it will take much longer than one election and more than one new president. Motivating people is a good first step. But he's going to have to have the knowledge and experience to not only know what it takes to get things done but he will have to learn to work the system. That's the part I'm questioning. If he ends up as the Democratic nominee, I WILL vote for him without hesitation.

O.K., I think I'm hearing you now. I can see why you think Clinton might be a good choice. But I don't see Clinton as a good choice, because in my view EXPERIENCE has proven to be disappointing. The Clintons raised tremendous hopes that quickly turned to disappointment. When Bill was elected I hoped for universal Health Care, for and end to LGBT discrimination in the military and for progress in LGBT equality--instead we got Don't Ask, Don't Tell and DOMA. I hoped the progressive movement would advance--instead after two short years we got a Republican Congress and divided government. I had hoped 8 years of Clinton would be followed by 8 years of Gore, but Gore had the Clinton legacy weighing him down.

We hear that the GOP really would rather be running against Clinton than running against Obama. They think they have a chance to beat her. I'm afraid they might be right.

I hear the argument that the Clintons really know "how the system works" and "how to get things done" and I really start to wonder if that isn't a problem. Maybe we need a totally fresh approach from someone who won't do it the way it's always been done before. I was in a work place where a very mediorcre co-worker was defending herself by citing her 20 years of experience. An outside consultant we were working with told me confidentially, "She hasn't had 20 years of experience, she's had one year of experience 20 times over."

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

It's too late at nite for me to get into deep thoughts. However, I don't quite agree that hope is (merely) an emotion--that doesn't seem quite right to me. I think we need to work on defining just what "hope" is--what is it we mean by hope. And what is it we mean by emotion. You seem to suggest that emotion and hope are things that "come and go"--that they are insubstantial or illusory.

Perhaps I tend to take something of a practical outlook on matters such as this.

Sitting on a cushion and meditating, working at dealing with the mind (and I could be doing more if it), one learns pretty quickly that both negative and positive emotions are not exactly under our conscious control. In fact, our emotions, such as they are, come in waves, they come and go- the mind goes up and down. Does that mean that hope is meaningless or illusory? No. It just means that, upon observation, the mind has a way of its own. That's why Buddhist's and Christian's alike (the one's in the monastery anyway) have methods and teachings re the centering the mind, the alleviation of suffering, and the experience of happiness and joy.

Practically speaking, Buddhist's sit on the cushion and generate- consciously- compassion for themselves and others in the face of one's own - and another's suffering. Why? Because, there is the understanding that everything that we see is passing, and therefore precious. Everyone, in fact, is precious.

In doing so, one learns that intention is very important, which interestingly enough, is often referred as being diamond edged- the mind cutting through ignorance. And this intention, for it to be effective, must be something more than hope. Hope is just the beginning- what one feels before one sits down and 'gets to work'. And there are other times when one has to 'get to work' in the absence of 'hope'.

Yogananda (not a Buddhist) said something that is relevant here. He insisted that it is better to keep trying and trying at whatever one is doing even if, in the end, one fails.

That may sound like fatalism to some, but as one who is getting older by the minute, I think I have a better understanding of what he meant.

Growing old is not for sissies. Let the young take note.

[Steven E. Webster]

Growing old is not for sissies. Let the young take note.

So how many decades ago did you take that picture of the young Daniel I see on your profile?

I remember aging a lot in a hurry 25 years ago when so many of my contemporaries were passing away in the AIDS epidemic.

I felt old again last nite when I called up my hubby on the cell (he's on a business trip in another part of the country) and discovered he was in a hospital emergency room. Thank goodness he's alright now, but we've both had our close calls with heart trouble and we know that our time here is limited. (The diagnosis, by the way, was a virus and after a couple of hours of tests and IV fluids, they sent him on his way.)

I'm working kind a hard right now on the United Methodist General Conference with Soulforce. My age tells me that I cannot expect to benefit from any changes I will see in that denomination in this life. But still, I hope for change, and I work for it even though I know I may not live to see it.

And, being an old fart, I can look back and see that the LGBT movement has come along way, and I was part of that, and that feels good. When I first started working on change in the United Methodist Church thirty years ago, I thought I'd see more change, I was young and optimistic. With age comes loss, and there is sadness and discouragement in that. One loss is giving up on the dreams of what might have been. But still there is hope that sustains me day to day. And there is hope that when I am gone, things can and will be better for the young folk that carry on.

It is extremely hopeful to me that Obama is motivating young people, and that maybe it is time to turn the page on the "baby-boom" generation and the old conflicts and grudges and weariness and cynicism that accompany that generation.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

So how many decades ago did you take that picture of the young Daniel I see on your profile?
is way.

You see in my profile was 49 years old- last summer- when the picture was taken. He will be 50 in July.

I'm glad your husband is well and that you feel like the work you are doing with the Conference will result in good things, even though, as you assert, you may not be able to enter that Promised Land.

Equally, I am involved in the struggle for legal Gay Marriage in my home state of NY. I may not reap the benefits of that either, but of course, the effort is worth it.

Perhaps Senator Obama will be able to bring about the changes he envisions with a certain degree of hope. That said, it is not lost on me that the 'baby boom' generation that you wrote of also includes those who were young and full of hope in the 1960's. What happened to them is, I suppose, a discussion best left for another thread.

[Jennifer5]

Daniel:


NO ONE THINKS THAT 50 IS OLD ANYMORE!!!


You have to stop saying that!!!

:love:

[Daniel]

Daniel:


NO ONE THINKS THAT 50 IS OLD ANYMORE!!!


You have to stop saying that!!!

:love:

And rest assured, I don't think of myself as 'old'. Besides, the word used now is 'mature'. ;)

[Jennifer5]

And rest assured, I don't think of myself as 'old'. Besides, the word used now is 'mature'. ;)

...Or of appropriate age to be a very good roll-model.:)

[Daniel]

From HuffintonPost by none other and Joseph Wilson, who's wife was trashed by the Bush White House.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html

[ladyinred]

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/1/14/14299/4903
David Corn's False Smear of Hillary Clinton
By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 01:29:09 PM EST
Tags: (all tags) Share This:
(speaking for me only)
This is the type of stuff that makes me want to defend Hillary Clinton. Matt Yglesias approvingly cites David Corn's smear of Hillary Clinton:

Clinton insisted that her support for the war resolution had been merely a vote to pressure the Iraqi dictator to allow weapons inspectors into Iraq. She quickly moved on to attack Obama: . . . "His judgment was that, at the time in 2002, we didn't need to make any efforts. My belief was we did need to pin Saddam down, put inspectors in." . . . That was one helluva charge. Obama was willing to sit back and let a WMD-toting dictator go along on his merry own way (while Clinton was doing what she could to pin down that snake). Could this be true? . . . Was favoring the continuing containment of Saddam Hussein in October 2002 the equivalent of doing nothing?
Now I reject Hillary's argument that the IWR vote was about getting the inspectors in for President Bush, but Bush DID say that. And indeed, the inspectors WERE NOT in Iraq prior to the IWR. This is worthy of a debate. But Corn does not just decide to agree with Obama's position. He decides to falsely accuse Clinton of lying. And that is a lie by Corn. It is very wrong of Corn to do that and very wrong of Yglesias to approvingly cite Corn for this proposition. Would Corn call it a lie that Obama says Clinton voted for the Iraq War when she says she did not and she can point to her speech saying exactly that? These are opinions about judgments. Obama is expressing his, one I share, and Clinton is expressing hers, one I do not share. [More...]

This is truly ugly work by Corn. If you want to find a lie to condemn, and do not hold your breath waiting for David Corn or Matthew Yglesias to call this one - Michelle Obama lied about what Bill Clinton was talking about when he said there was a fairytale about Obama's supposed consistent opposition to the Iraq War. Do Corn or Yglesias [NOTE - reference to Josh Marshall deleted. It was unfair of me to include him in this reference] care about that? Of course not. Beating up on the Clintons is just much more fun than telling the truth.:eek::eek::eek:

[ladyinred]

I remember seeing Hillary on some news channel, can't remember which, that pre-dated the war, she said she supported a UN resolution. So that adds an aura to her credibility. Also she does not come across as Miss know it all, she will gather the intelligence and information, use her experience, have her advisors as she has said... She is not likely to make rash decisions that I can see... But is likely to think the issue through.. While no candidate delivers on all their promises, we need to look at each candidate individually.. She has worked for years on the political scene and has backround and knowledge and has the ability to work with people. She's probably doggedly determined,lol. Those concerned about the environment.Here is an article on her on the environment:
http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/08/09/clinton_factsheet/ Article below:

During her years representing New York state in the U.S. Senate (2001 to the present), Hillary Clinton has earned an 87 percent lifetime voting score from the League of Conservation Voters (lower than it might have been because she's missed some votes while campaigning for president). She has tended to run with the Democratic pack on environmental policy, but in November 2007 she unveiled a comprehensive and ambitious climate and energy plan.

Read an interview with Hillary Clinton by Grist and Outside.


Key Points


Proposes a Strategic Energy Fund that would raise $50 billion over 10 years by taxing the "excess profits" of oil companies and cutting their tax breaks. The money would be invested in "clean energy technologies," including renewable energy, energy efficiency, "clean coal," plug-in hybrids, cellulosic ethanol and other biofuels, and more. Clinton describes it as "an Apollo Project-like program dedicated to achieving energy independence."


Calls for cutting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Would accomplish this through a cap-and-trade system that would auction off 100 percent of emissions permits, making polluters pay for the CO2 they emit.


Emphasizes the creation of "green-collar jobs" in the fields of clean energy and energy efficiency. Aims to create up to 5 million clean-energy jobs over the next decade.


Made her campaign carbon-neutral in April 2007, one month after John Edwards did.


Calls for the U.S. to cut its consumption of foreign oil by two-thirds of projected levels by 2030.

for more facts!


Supports a goal to get 25 percent of the U.S. electricity supply from renewable sources by 2030.


Supports raising fleet-wide fuel-economy standards to 40 miles per gallon by 2020 and 55 mpg by 2030.


Supports coal-to-liquid fuels if they emit 20 percent less carbon over their lifecycle than conventional fuels. On June 19, 2007, voted in favor of an amendment that would provide loans for coal projects, including liquefied coal; the amendment did not pass.


Video & Audio

Watch Clinton explain her positions on climate change and energy issues at a Nov. 17, 2007, Grist-sponsored forum:(on website)


Watch a "Hillcast" from March 1, 2007, in which Clinton explains her energy vision: (on website)


Watch Clinton discuss her energy plans on May 30, 2007, at a rally in Las Vegas:(on website)


Story continues below

Quotable Quotes


"The risks of inaction [on climate change], for those who still cling to the outmoded and disgraced view that there is no need for action, are abundantly clear. The consequences are so dire that this election has to focus on this issue. We cannot afford to fiddle while the world warms because we've already seen and we know conclusively what that will do to us."
-- Nov. 17, 2007, speaking in Los Angeles at the Global Warming and America's Energy Future forum sponsored by Grist



"[O]ur values demand that we be good stewards of the planet for our children and our children's children. We are failing that simple moral test if we continue to stand by as the Earth warms faster than at any time in the past 200,000 years. ... We can fix these problems together by changing to a clean energy future fueled by innovation and efficiency."

-- May 23, 2006, in a speech on energy policy delivered at the National Press Club


Supports reducing electricity consumption 20 percent from projected levels by 2020 through phaseout of incandescent light bulbs and other efficiency standards.


Advocates for 60 billion gallons of homegrown biofuels to be available for use in vehicles by 2030.


Says she is "agnostic" on nuclear power, having "real concerns" about the power source in general and the Indian Point nuclear plant in New York state in particular. She has pointed out that nuclear plants could be a target for terrorist attacks.


Opposes the storage of nuclear waste at the Yucca Mountain repository being built in southern Nevada.


Opposes oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.


Supports requiring publicly traded companies to disclose to the Securities and Exchange Commission the risks climate change poses to their business.


A cosponsor of the Boxer-Sanders Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, the most stringent climate bill in the Senate.


Wants to create an energy-research agency modeled on the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.


Has suggested that the federal government could help cover health-care costs for retired U.S. autoworkers in exchange for automakers producing more fuel-efficient cars, an idea Barack Obama has been pushing.


Took a tour of Alaska in 2005 to see the on-the-ground impacts of climate change.


Has been an active member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee during her whole tenure in the Senate.


Calls for a Green Building Fund through which the federal government would allocate $1 billion annually to states to make grants or low-interest loans to improve energy efficiency in public buildings, such as schools, police stations, firehouses, and offices.


Sponsor of the Zero-Emissions Building Act, which would require new federal buildings and major renovations to be carbon-neutral by 2030, and to have gradually reduced emissions in the years before then.


Voted against the final version of the 2005 Energy Policy Act, a sweeping, oil-friendly energy bill opposed by enviros, because she said it "ignores our biggest energy challenges, subsidizes mature energy industries like oil and nuclear, and rolls back our environmental laws." The act passed and Bush signed it into law in August 2005.


Introduced the Coordinated Environmental Health Network Act in 2004 and again in 2005, which would have helped orchestrate federal health-agency cooperation and provide public access to an electronic database of chronic diseases and relevant environmental factors. The bill went nowhere both times, but Clinton said she has plans to reintroduce it.


In 2005, cosponsored the Child, Worker, and Consumer-Safe Chemicals Act, which would have mandated greater scrutiny of new and existing chemicals, offered market incentives for developing safer alternatives to toxics, and created a publicly accessible database with info on the toxicity of chemicals on the market.


Successfully lobbied [PDF] the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to let International Paper conduct a two-week test burn of tires at a mill in upstate New York in 2005. The burn was so polluting that the company had to suspend it after a few days.


When asked what she would do as president to address water and land issues in the U.S. West, Clinton said she would emphasize renewable energy, protect national parks and wilderness areas, reform the Mining Law of 1872, and employ a more balanced approach than the Bush administration to traditional energy development on public lands.


Cosponsored the Clean Power Act in 2001, which proposed requiring power plants to significantly reduce harmful emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, and carbon dioxide. The bill did not move forward nor pass.


In 2003, voted in favor of an amendment to the 2003 energy bill to increase fuel-economy standards for passenger cars to 40 mpg by 2014.

Also:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300022

Part of her resume:Summary Speeches Bill Sponsorship Voting Record

for more facts!



Clinton is a radical Democrat according to GovTrack's own analysis of bill sponsorship. (Where do these labels come from?)
SurveyUSA reports Clinton's job approval rating at 60% as of 2007-11-20. The average approval rating among senators in states surveyed is 53%. See their survey details for more information.
Hillary Clinton missed 175 of 2429 votes (7%) since Jan 23, 2001. The graph to the left shows the number of missed votes over time. Click for a larger chart.

Committee Membership
Hillary Clinton sits on the following committees:

Member, Senate Committee on Armed Services
Member, Subcommittee on Airland
Member, Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities
Member, Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support
Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health
Member, Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
Member, Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Member, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions
Member, Subcommittee on Children and Families
Member, Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety
Member, Senate Special Committee
also:SurveyUSA reports Clinton's job approval rating at 60% as of 2007-11-20. The average approval rating among senators in states surveyed is 53%. See their survey details for more information.

[ladyinred]

But I'm comparing her record with Obama's...Her stand on gay rights(Off the ontheissues.org)Gay Rights
Telling kids about gay couples is parental discretion. (Sep 2007)
Positive about civil unions, with full equality of benefits. (Aug 2007)
Let states decide gay marriage; they're ahead of feds. (Aug 2007)
GLBT progress since 2000, when I marched in gay pride parade. (Aug 2007)
Don't ask don't tell was an important transition step. (Jun 2007)
2004:defended traditional marriage; 2006:voted for same-sex. (May 2007)
Federal Marriage Amendment would be terrible step backwards. (Oct 2006)
Gay soldiers need to shoot straight, not be straight. (Nov 2003)
End hate crimes and other intolerance. (Sep 2000)
Gays deserve domestic partnership benefits. (Feb 2000)
Military service based on conduct, not sexual orientation. (Dec 1999)
Voting Record
Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. (Jun 2002)
Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (Dec 2002)
Rated 89% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)

[ladyinred]

Call me over enthusiastic.lol But what about Obama,Mama?
On gay rights????http://obama.senate.gov/press/060607-obama_statement_26/
Obama Statement on Vote Against Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage
Wednesday, June 7, 2006
Printable FormatFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Washington Contact: Tommy Vietor or Robert Gibbs, (202) 228-5511
Illinois Contact: Julian Green, (312) 886-3506
Date: June 7, 2006

Obama Statement on Vote Against Constitutional Amendment to Ban Gay Marriage

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today released the following statement outlining the reasons for his vote against a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage:

"This debate is a thinly-veiled attempt to break a consensus that is quietly being forged in this country. A consensus between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, Red States and Blue States, that it's time for new leadership in this country - leadership that will stop dividing us, stop disappointing us, and start addressing the problems facing most Americans.

"I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But I also agree with most Americans, including Vice President Cheney and over 2,000 religious leaders of all different beliefs, that decisions about marriage should be left to the states as they always have been."

Not too bad:Being gay or lesbian is not a choice. (Nov 2007)
Decisions about marriage should be left to the states. (Oct 2007)
Homosexuality no more immoral than heterosexuality. (Oct 2007)
Ok to expose 6-year-olds to gay couples; they know already. (Sep 2007)
Has any marriage broken up because two gays hold hands? (Aug 2007)
We need strong civil unions, not just weak civil unions. (Aug 2007)
Legal rights for gays are conferred by state, not by church. (Aug 2007)
Disentangle gay rights from the word "marriage". (Aug 2007)
Gay marriage is less important that equal gay rights. (Aug 2007)
Gay rights movement is somewhat like civil rights movement. (Aug 2007)
Let each denominations decide on recognizing gay marriage. (Jul 2007)
Supports health benefits for gay civil partners. (Oct 2006)
Opposes gay marriage; supports civil union & gay equality. (Oct 2006)
Marriage not a human right; non-discrimination is. (Oct 2004)
Include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. (Jul 1998)
:

[ladyinred]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/did-hillary-clinton-reall_n_86674.html ""Did Hillary really support Nafta? Aids and biographers say no."
I'm beginning to wonder about Obama's credibility here..... Smoke and mirrors, Misinformed???

[ladyinred]

Obama:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/missed/

Hillary:http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/o000167/votes/missed/
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/c001041/

[ladyinred]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-iscol/actions-speak-louder-than_b_84888.html
Actions speak louder than words

[Jennifer5]

WOW! You wrote a lot!




On topic... what exactly makes you think that he's possibly starting a 'cult'?

[ladyinred]

I personally don't see him as a cult leader, someone else started the thread. I'm going to list Obama's credentials in further postings as he has his strengths as well as his weaknesses. The problem I had with him though is discrediting Hillary on NAFTA and her position making her look pretty bad when the true account is otherwise. I find that a little disturbing. As I think that the mudslinging gets an aura of credibility when the facts or information prove other wise.. which is often obscured by the mainsteam media .. Actually I got the info when I read Daniels' posts and found it off the Huffington post which he initially posted from.( So I got my news source from him, thanx Daniel). Obama has alot of charisma, and he does have some pretty impressive credentials himself but I guess we need to get some factual info from other sources of news because in my mind the media has been biased in their reporting Obama is pretty much a media darling.

I often find independent news sources, like others here and don't just rely on the news on tv and what you read in Newspapers. I will say I do support Hilllary, that's just my personal choice. I do see her more as a seasoned veteran who is worked on the political scene for a long time with alot going for her .Also I found out that Hillary did release information previously from her tax returns from 2006 and back and this also gives her an aura of credibility... meanig she hasn't concealed this from the public. I tend to use the search engine to find many resources on the net.

So as far as mainstream media goes in fairness and truthfulness of reporting I give them a thumbs down

As far as making Obama a cult leader , I think that comes more from the projections of others... people can be pretty weird, like trying to make the man out to be the next messiah, which is what they did with George Bush making him out to be on a messianic mission and speaking for God... Like I said weird stuff. But I never got that impression of him though he does seem to come across alot like MLK.. (I don't say that in a detrimental way)

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

A long protracted fight worries me. We don't need alot of Obama supporters staying home if Hillary gets the nomination, and we don't need the same from Clinton supporters if the opposite happens.

Obama has brought out alot of young voters who need to be encouraged to stay with the process, and not get totally disillusioned and turned off with the process.

Both of them, Hillary and Obama, if they must "fight" (and I don't like that analogy), need to fight clean and fair. And then they both have to have a plan to kiss and make up in the end and both bring their followers along for the election that really matters in November.

I doubt Hillary can win in November by turning off everybody but her hard-core base. This playing to a hardcore base and to heck with everybody else is the kind of Rovian politics that people are rejecting.

Steven

[Jennifer5]

Friends,

A long protracted fight worries me. We don't need alot of Obama supporters staying home if Hillary gets the nomination, and we don't need the same from Clinton supporters if the opposite happens.

Obama has brought out alot of young voters who need to be encouraged to stay with the process, and not get totally disillusioned and turned off with the process.

Both of them, Hillary and Obama, if they must "fight" (and I don't like that analogy), need to fight clean and fair. And then they both have to have a plan to kiss and make up in the end and both bring their followers along for the election that really matters in November.

I doubt Hillary can win in November by turning off everybody but her hard-core base. This playing to a hardcore base and to heck with everybody else is the kind of Rovian politics that people are rejecting.

Steven

I couldn't have said it better. The last thing we need is to divide our party. Liking one more then the other is fine, but when it comes down to it, it's only going to be one of them... support your party. :)

[ladyinred]

I said I would vote for Obama if Hillary doesn't get the nomination. ,and like Steve said, he is encouraging to the younger generation to get out the vote. I definitely do not think we need more of the same as we have in the last 8 years: more war, more deficit, more reductions in domestic programs ,like spending on education , veterans affairs and others. Everyone has their preference.. But yes we could do without more mud-slinging from either side of the aisle in the democratic party...

But again, I do think the media tends to be alot harder on Hillary than Barrack, and haven't always been objective in their reporting... It's almost surreal , a love affair with mainstream media and Barrack... I also do not take lightly the perception that seems to prevail that Hillary is some how less credible because just because so and so says such and such.... Too many people watch the ol' tv and believe everything they are told. I have found another website and hope this may help anyone to look at the issues and help them make a more informed choice about voting... Whoever they vote for..http://www.govtrack.us/about.xpd

I also tend to be a registered democrat because I feel they are a more broad based party, which reflect my values and concerns like the environment,economy, healthcare ,civil rights,a more equitable tax system, education, vets, hopefully resolve to end this war, the deficit among others..
What I read about McCain to me is disturbing , it seems he supports "winning" the war and promises even more wars to come and doesn't say much about our economy....That doesn't say much for resolution does it... More than just the economy is on the line in this election , the very lives of our troops and vets are now on the line this election, as well as the future direction with this country and it's affairs in the Middle East so it is very important to get the facts straight....

[ladyinred]

http://cliffpotter.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/23/1248506-clinton-v-obama-can-one-person-on-newsvine-influence-a-national-election-

Excerpted from article:For two months until the Iowa caucuses, I wrote extensively about my views on Clinton, and on why I opposed Obama. I also wrote extensively about two other points that ended up being far more important to me: (1) Obama was receiving the completely unfettered and uncritical support of the press; and (2) Senator Clinton was being unfairly and inaccurately excoriated by most on Newsvine and by NBC, particularly Chris Matthews, for claims that were without factual basis and in many ways sexist and terribly biased.

A subplot of these views was that very outspoken Republicans on Newsvine were overtly supporting Barack Obama, including various claims that they might vote for him.

As I began to publish, I faced vociferous opposition. Many Republicans and Obama supporters were writing negative articles about Clinton. These included many statements seemingly drawn verbatim from the 1990s. Claims about Whitewater. Claims about what Republicans dubbed "Travelgate." And many other contentions that had been asserted by Republicans as they sought to regain their power and influence over our country when Clinton was up for reelection in 1994.

As I began to take on Newsvine's almost exclusively pro-Obama support, I received a note or two from Clinton supporters asking me to please keep writing. These came from others who had spoken out before but had been intimidated into silence by the opposition who would attack any Clinton supporter with a ferocity rarely seen in polite company.

I also received many comments from those who objected to my speaking out at all, including one from a Republican who told me that I should stop publishing or all readers would stop reading my articles.

I persevered.

Three major points eventually took center stage for me. I felt that Senator Clinton needed to at least have a shot at each one if she were to have any chance at securing the Democratic Party nomination.

1. National MSM (Main Stream Media) reporting had to be changed from being so anti-Clinton, including particularly the way the polls were discussed and reported.

2. Biased, false and inaccurate statements about Senator Clinton had to be answered with the truth.

3. Obama had to be taken down from the protective pedestal on which he sat into the real world.

[Daniel]

Obama has brought out alot of young voters who need to be encouraged to stay with the process, and not get totally disillusioned and turned off with the process.


Yes.....Obama has reached out via the web and gotten a lot of money and support from young folks. But this voter heard the voter breakdown from Texas last night, and what group voted the least? Those under 30. Seems that they are willing to 'give' their support via dollars to a website, but aren't voting with their feet. What's that's about?

I don't know, but I don't think worrying about young people being disillusioned is a problem Senator Clinton has to answer to- as though throwing in the towel would be the 'right' thing to do- which is what I hear you intimating. I dislike saying this, but you also seem to be intimating that young people won't vote for a 60 year old women. And because she is 60, she should step aside.

Now......that smacks of ageism.

Yes....I know. You never said that. Point noted. But the tone of your post certainly did to this reader. You're worried- and you think I'm pessimistic? Hello! The last thing I'm thinking about here is offending a 20 year old, who- to be blunt- has more idealism than experience.

Me?

I love democracy.

Let the best man win. ;)

[ladyinred]

Hey Daniel, I was doing a independent news search and got fed up with google so I found this which is a pretty cool websearch engine ,Check this out!! It is actually a visual search engine... go to www.hotbot.com, type in your query and select lyGo and you get the visual results of pages to support your find. Then run your mouse over the square you are interested in and see what pops up..

[Daniel]

Hey Daniel, I was doing a independent news search and got fed up with google so I found this which is a pretty cool websearch engine ,Check this out!! It is actually a visual search engine... go to www.hotbot.com, type in your query and select lyGo and you get the visual results of pages to support your find. Then run your mouse over the square you are interested in and see what pops up..

And interesting site.

While I 'heard' the fact I quoted, but could not find a source for it, I did find this at the NYTimes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/us/politics/08web-nagourney.html


Will Obama Rock the Youth Vote?

The truth of the matter is that every four years – as sure as a sunset – stories appear about a surge of interest among younger voters in presidential politics, typically predicting a jump in turn-out that will benefit one campaign or another. It rarely turns out to be true: the percentage of voters under 30 in the total electorate was basically unchanged between 2000 and 2004-- 17 percent, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls. Polls taken by The Times and CBS News last month suggest that there is no difference in the level of support between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton among younger Democratic voters, though they view Mr. Obama slightly more favorably.

Yes. This article is from last October.

I will keep looking for the fact I heard stated last night on MSNBC, which, it should be noted, has had something (to these ears anyway) of a 'gottcha' attitude towards Senator Clinton.

The fact is- only those over 30 (and the highest number is those in their 40's- 60's) actually vote with their feet.

Was able to find this interesting bit of news from one of the Times blogs about the Texas and Ohio vote.


Exit polls show that in both Ohio and Texas, Mrs. Clinton retrieved the voters she lost in Wisconsin. She’s got the less affluent, less educated voters back. And she has won a younger age group — those over 45, as opposed to only getting those over 65.

[ladyinred]

Here is what I found on Hillary , and the tax returns.:Friday, February 29, 2008
Misrepresentation by the Media http://hillaryrodhamclinton2008.blogspot.com/

AP, Cafferty noted Clinton has yet to release tax returns, but did not mention McCain's failure to do so.
In reports on the fact that Sen. Hillary Clinton has yet to release her tax returns and White House records, the Associated Press and CNN's Jack Cafferty did not mention that Sen. John McCain has yet to release his filings and has reportedly made no pledge to do so.

MSNBC's Joe Scarborough again defended Chris Matthews' controversial comments about Sen. Hillary Clinton, saying, "[W]hat Chris Matthews said is the same thing Maureen Dowd has been saying since 1998. ... Maybe he said it more bluntly, but to say, that's sexism?" Additionally, co-host Mika Brzezinski called criticism of MSNBC as sexist "unfair."

Russert continues pattern of misrepresenting facts in debate questions for Clinton
During the February 26 Democratic presidential debate, Tim Russert continued a pattern of asking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton questions that include false assertions of fact while suggesting that she is being inconsistent or not being forthcoming

posted by Randy...Rcalypso @ Friday, February

[Steven E. Webster]

Yes.....Obama has reached out via the web and gotten a lot of money and support from young folks. But this voter heard the voter breakdown from Texas last night, and what group voted the least? Those under 30. Seems that they are willing to 'give' their support via dollars to a website, but aren't voting with their feet. What's that's about?

I don't know, but I don't think worrying about young people being disillusioned is a problem Senator Clinton has to answer to- as though throwing in the towel would be the 'right' thing to do- which is what I hear you intimating. I dislike saying this, but you also seem to be intimating that young people won't vote for a 60 year old women. And because she is 60, she should step aside.

Now......that smacks of ageism.

Yes....I know. You never said that. Point noted. But the tone of your post certainly did to this reader. And you think I'm pessimistic? Hello! The last thing I'm thinking about here is offending a 20 year old, who- to be blunt- has more idealism than experience.

Me?

I love democracy.

Let the best man win. ;)

Daniel,

I'm surprised at you--putting words in my mouth. Attributing attitudes to me you have no evidence that I hold (other than a "tone" you somehow impute to my written words). I take this as an unfair attack on my character, and I object.

Is this how we build a unified movement for social justice?

I said nothing about anyone "throwing in the towel"--there's another "fight" metaphor by the way. What I believe I said is that if there must be a "fight" let's keep it respectful, clean, fair and honest. No "hitting below the belt." How are going to build any kind of unity for any cause if we're going to constantly attack one another's motives and character?

By the way, the very title of this thread is insulting and unfair. "Obama Starting a cult" makes Obama out to be some kind of Jim Jones---let's get real here folks. That's a slander that's too ridiculous to answer.

Steven Webster

[ladyinred]

I mentioned in my previous posts Steve I thought that was pretty over the top ,I didn't think that Obama had a cult-like personality, but this stuff goes on with politics, songs, videos , appearances on Saturday night live... I really don't think that Obama is all that unusual.. but I question the "superior judgment thing", that smacks a little too much of ego if you ask me..

[Steven E. Webster]

I mentioned in my previous posts Steve I thought that was pretty over the top ,I didn't think that Obama had a cult-like personality, but this stuff goes on with politics, songs, videos , appearances on Saturday night live... I really don't think that Obama is all that unusual.. but I question the "superior judgment thing", that smacks a little too much of ego if you ask me..

I think that the "judgment thing" had to do with the vote to authorize Bush to go to war in Iraq. I thought she was exercising poor judgment at the time that she did it. It's not like no one at the time had any idea that the push to go to war in Iraq was a "fishy" proposition. Frankly, I suspect Hillary (and a lot of other democrats) didn't want to appear "weak" so they voted for the war that we're stuck with now.

Obama would have a better case on this issue if he'd actually been a U.S. Senator at the time. Edwards apologized for his vote to authorize the war--I don't think that made him look weak. And I really can't buy the claim that Hillary acted on the best information available at the time. There was too much real information out there to excuse being led down a "primrose path" by Bush-Cheney. (But in Hillary's defense alot of other smart people got suckered--Colin Powell for one.)

Hillary says some things that don't put her in the best light either--the claim today that both she and John McCain have "a lifetime experience" while Obama "has only one speech" is not the smartest thing I ever heard a politician say.

It really is getting hard to sort things out with so much mud slinging going on. How do we get beyond this? Is it actually the case that there is no real policy difference between Obama & Clinton, and so they have to resort to "character issues?"

And, by the way, I'm not cynical about voting. I started taking an interest in politics when Eugene McCarthy ran against Johnson in the primaries. I started voting as soon as I was of legal age to vote for George McGovern and I have missed precious few elections since then. I've been plenty disappointed in alot of politicians (Bill C. was one of them), but I don't let that discourage me. If Bill had done a better job, Gore would be President now. They all have their flaws. It's inevitable we're going to elect a human being.

Steven Webster

[ladyinred]

Just hope we don't vote for a president who is so ineffective and flawed in his policy making and decisions that we end up in a bigger mess we are in. I'd say yes all have their weaknesses and strengths , but I think today's media is pretty hollow as it is touching on the issues surface wise and getting into all the hype and hoopla. Smoke and mirrors? I don't trust mainstream media all that much... Corporate owned...
Let's get a candidate in ,who will roll up their sleeves and do the work.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/28/12410/6014

[Jennifer5]

Yes.....Obama has reached out via the web and gotten a lot of money and support from young folks. But this voter heard the voter breakdown from Texas last night, and what group voted the least? Those under 30. Seems that they are willing to 'give' their support via dollars to a website, but aren't voting with their feet. What's that's about?

I don't know, but I don't think worrying about young people being disillusioned is a problem Senator Clinton has to answer to- as though throwing in the towel would be the 'right' thing to do- which is what I hear you intimating. I dislike saying this, but you also seem to be intimating that young people won't vote for a 60 year old women. And because she is 60, she should step aside.

Now......that smacks of ageism.

Yes....I know. You never said that. Point noted. But the tone of your post certainly did to this reader. You're worried- and you think I'm pessimistic? Hello! The last thing I'm thinking about here is offending a 20 year old, who- to be blunt- has more idealism than experience.

Me?

I love democracy.
Will Obama Rock the Youth Vote?

The truth of the matter is that every four years – as sure as a sunset – stories appear about a surge of interest among younger voters in presidential politics, typically predicting a jump in turn-out that will benefit one campaign or another. It rarely turns out to be true: the percentage of voters under 30 in the total electorate was basically unchanged between 2000 and 2004-- 17 percent, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls. Polls taken by The Times and CBS News last month suggest that there is no difference in the level of support between Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton among younger Democratic voters, though they view Mr. Obama slightly more favorably.
That actually shocks me. I saw Obama in Seattle... and our polls said that people were infact "voting with their feet". But on the other hand you have to consider this detail... many us supporting this election, will not be 18 by November, so we have to support how ever we are able.

Let the best man win. ;)
I agree with that! I feel like this year, the truth is, there are two good options... I think in the end, the people will tell us who they want, these races have all been pretty darn close, we'll see what happens!

Daniel,

I'm surprised at you--putting words in my mouth. Attributing attitudes to me you have no evidence that I hold (other than a "tone" you somehow impute to my written words). I take this as an unfair attack on my character, and I object.

Is this how we build a unified movement for social justice?

I said nothing about anyone "throwing in the towel"--there's another "fight" metaphor by the way. What I believe I said is that if there must be a "fight" let's keep it respectful, clean, fair and honest. No "hitting below the belt." How are going to build any kind of unity for any cause if we're going to constantly attack one another's motives and character?

By the way, the very title of this thread is insulting and unfair. "Obama Starting a cult" makes Obama out to be some kind of Jim Jones---let's get real here folks. That's a slander that's too ridiculous to answer.
Remember... play nice! I agree though, I'm not happy with this title! :(

I think that the "judgment thing" had to do with the vote to authorize Bush to go to war in Iraq. I thought she was exercising poor judgment at the time that she did it. It's not like no one at the time had any idea that the push to go to war in Iraq was a "fishy" proposition. Frankly, I suspect Hillary (and a lot of other democrats) didn't want to appear "weak" so they voted for the war that we're stuck with now.

Obama would have a better case on this issue if he'd actually been a U.S. Senator at the time. Edwards apologized for his vote to authorize the war--I don't think that made him look weak. And I really can't buy the claim that Hillary acted on the best information available at the time. There was too much real information out there to excuse being led down a "primrose path" by Bush-Cheney. (But in Hillary's defense alot of other smart people got suckered--Colin Powell for one.)

Hillary says some things that don't put her in the best light either--the claim today that both she and John McCain have "a lifetime experience" while Obama "has only one speech" is not the smartest thing I ever heard a politician say.

It really is getting hard to sort things out with so much mud slinging going on. How do we get beyond this? Is it actually the case that there is no real policy difference between Obama & Clinton, and so they have to resort to "character issues?"

And, by the way, I'm not cynical about voting. I started taking an interest in politics when Eugene McCarthy ran against Johnson in the primaries. I started voting as soon as I was of legal age to vote for George McGovern and I have missed precious few elections since then. I've been plenty disappointed in alot of politicians (Bill C. was one of them), but I don't let that discourage me. If Bill had done a better job, Gore would be President now. They all have their flaws. It's inevitable we're going to elect a human being.
I don't blame Clinton for voting for the war, there have been many points made that lead many to believe that she wasn't given very good information and that she could've easily been lead to believe that she was supporting it for the right reasons.

How ever, the point has also been made that she didn't read certain information about what she was voting on, to be able to make a good decision.

But in the end, when asked in an interview if there was one thing she'd like to take back in her voting or political history, she said that if she got a re-do, she would have voted against the war, rather than for it. So, at least in my mind... while it's still important, it's not something that would stand in my way of supporting her, she made a mistake and we don't know all the reasons behind what she did. :)

Just hope we don't vote for a president who is so ineffective and flawed in his policy making and decisions that we end up in a bigger mess we are in. I'd say yes all have their weaknesses and strengths , but I think today's media is pretty hollow as it is touching on the issues surface wise and getting into all the hype and hoopla. Smoke and mirrors? I don't trust mainstream media all that much... Corporate owned...
Let's get a candidate in ,who will roll up their sleeves and do the work.

I agree with that! I think when it does come down to it, either one of them will be a very good president! :weee:

[Daniel]

Daniel,

I'm surprised at you--putting words in my mouth. Attributing attitudes to me you have no evidence that I hold (other than a "tone" you somehow impute to my written words). I take this as an unfair attack on my character, and I object.

Is this how we build a unified movement for social justice?

I said nothing about anyone "throwing in the towel"--there's another "fight" metaphor by the way. What I believe I said is that if there must be a "fight" let's keep it respectful, clean, fair and honest. No "hitting below the belt." How are going to build any kind of unity for any cause if we're going to constantly attack one another's motives and character?

By the way, the very title of this thread is insulting and unfair. "Obama Starting a cult" makes Obama out to be some kind of Jim Jones---let's get real here folks. That's a slander that's too ridiculous to answer.

Steven Webster

I remember you asserting that I was 'pessimistic' a few pages ago. Big deal. How's that for projection? And isn't that an attack on my character? ie 'Daniel' as pessimist. And you said it twice if I recall correctly. I didn't whine about it however.

How about we stick to the facts in the future.

[ladyinred]

I will say this , all the members on this particular thread are concerned with our country and the direction it is going in. I don't think anyone here wants shallow promises and more of the same.. If people here didn't care they wouldn't discuss what is on their mind or look into things... I don't think anyone here is shallow or superficial where they would just go with the sensationalism of mainstream media . I think we want the real answers on the issues. Perhaps all of us dig deeper because we want to make sure we don't vote for some boob who will really get us further into crapola...:lol:

[Steven E. Webster]

I remember you asserting that I was 'pessimistic' a few pages ago. Big deal. How's that for projection? And isn't that an attack on my character? ie 'Daniel' as pessimist. And you said it twice if I recall correctly. I didn't whine about it however.

How about we stick to the facts in the future.

I fail to see, Daniel, how an accusation of "whining" furthers a discussion of the facts. Please explain.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

I fail to see, Daniel, how an accusation of "whining" furthers a discussion of the facts. Please explain.


You haven't deal with facts at all.

A few posts ago, I endeavored to get to the bottom of just how the young vote, which was, in point of fact, a response to your post - which came off like a whine btw- about how the young were going to be adversely affected if there was a battle between candidates.

I think that is utter projection on your part.

If you have some facts to back up your assertion, I'd be happy to hear them.

[Steven E. Webster]

You haven't deal with facts at all.

A few posts ago, I endeavored to get to the bottom of just how the young vote, which was, in point of fact, a response to your post - which came off like a whine btw- about how the young were going to be adversely affected if there was a battle between candidates.

I think that is utter projection on your part.

If you have some facts to back up your assertion, I'd be happy to hear them.

Daniel,

The insults keep coming, don't they?

Are you asserting that it is a fact that the young won't vote no matter what anyone might do? Or that there are only a minimal number who will vote that can't be increased or decreased no matter what anyone does? What facts prove these assertions? Maybe you aren't asserting these things--I'm just wondering.

Steven Webster

[Daniel]

Daniel,

The insults keep coming, don't they?

Are you asserting that it is a fact that the young won't vote no matter what anyone might do? Or that there are only a minimal number who will vote that can't be increased or decreased no matter what anyone does? What facts prove these assertions? Maybe you aren't asserting these things--I'm just wondering.

Steven Webster


Excuse me? What's so insulting about asking you to prove your case? Here's what you wrote:



A long protracted fight worries me. We don't need alot of Obama supporters staying home if Hillary gets the nomination, and we don't need the same from Clinton supporters if the opposite happens.

Obama has brought out alot of young voters who need to be encouraged to stay with the process, and not get totally disillusioned and turned off with the process.

Both of them, Hillary and Obama, if they must "fight" (and I don't like that analogy), need to fight clean and fair. And then they both have to have a plan to kiss and make up in the end and both bring their followers along for the election that really matters in November.

I doubt Hillary can win in November by turning off everybody but her hard-core base. This playing to a hardcore base and to heck with everybody else is the kind of Rovian politics that people are rejecting.

As I see it you make two assumptions.

1) The youth vote will crumple and stay home if Hillary gets the nomination. In fact, you are assuming that the youth vote is mostly in favor of Obama.

Ok. Maybe so. How about some numbers ie facts to back that up? Conversely how about proving that only old folks vote for Hillary? (My point was that the youth vote- as research has shown- really doesn't go up or down very much. If you have some knowledge to the contrary- as especially as this election is concerned- please offer it).

2) You think Hillary is the one who is playing negative.

How about Obama? Hasn't he gone negative? I've seen some ads that could be described as such. From what I've seen, they are both in it to win and will play ball to win. Usually that means going negative at some point.

Here's what I expect. I expect you to root for your candidate.

What I don't appreciate is for you to make assertions and come to conclusions (without any facts to support them) based on one thing: your fear.

[ladyinred]

Ok I promised I would post on Obama's strengths and credentials to be fair to those here who support Obama: So here it is:http://www.obamapedia.org/page/Does+Barack+Obama+have+enough+experience+to+be+pre sident%3F?t=anon

Now I'm only going to post an excerpt to this article since it is pretty long:
Foreign Relations Committee

Obama service on the Foreign Relations committee has placed him in an unique position in that he is the Chair of the Subcommittee on European Relations and serves on the Subcommittees on African Affairs; East Asia and Pacific Affairs; and International Development and Foreign Assistance, Economic Affairs, and International Environmental Protection. This cross-section of subcommittees places Obama in a unique position of having knowledge about Asian, African and European issues. The only other member of the Foreign Relations committee who is running for President is Democrat Joseph Biden who is Chairman of the full Foreign Relations Committee yet unlike Obama he does not serve on any of the other foreign policy committees and his experience is limited to foreign policy issues covered by the Foreign Relations Committee.

Obama has also traveled extensively in his capacity as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee and has visited Russia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan in Asia; Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, and the Palestinian Territories in the Middle East; and Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, and South Africa in Africa. Obama has also co-sponsored the "Lugar-Obama Act" with Republican Senator Richard Lugar who was Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations at the time. This act was a bi-partisan effort to increase U.S. security in terms of the elimination of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. This legislation came out of Obama's trip with Senator Richard Lugar to Russia, the Ukraine and Azerbaijan.

Obama has also sponsored legislation such as the "Democratic Republic of Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act" which was signed into law by President Bush on December 22, 2006. Obama has co-sponsored immigration related bills related to his service on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee including the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act. His extensive foreign policy experience exceeds that of every other Presidential candidate including his trips abroad in the performance of his official duties as a member of committees dealing with foreign relation issues.

While some have criticized Obama's foreign travel claiming that he is the most traveled freshman Senator in doing so they often fail to mention that as a result of his extensive trips abroad is legislation such as the Lugar-Obama Act instead preferring to make the political connection between his travels abroad to his run for President yet others will recognize the experience he has gained as a result of his foreign trips and recognize that as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he is expected to travel extensively and that his travels often were with the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

His views on the iraq war(pre-war):His ability to understand and earn respect from political opponents while being a genuine progressive; his success in the classroom and on the street; and his unparalleled background have helped him become the intelligent, fair, and courageous leader he is today.
Before the war in Iraq in 2002, he exclaimed: "Now let me be clear: I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.... The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president."

[ladyinred]

Now what would happen if we had one of these as vice president and the other as president, do you think we would have a winning combination?They both have brains and aren't ninnies, both, I think would work hard for the country.....both appeal to different voters.

[Steven E. Webster]

Excuse me? What's so insulting about asking you to prove your case? Here's what you wrote:



As I see it you make two assumptions.

1) The youth vote will crumple and stay home if Hillary gets the nomination. In fact, you are assuming that the youth vote is mostly in favor of Obama.

Ok. Maybe so. How about some numbers ie facts to back that up? Conversely how about proving that only old folks vote for Hillary? (My point was that the youth vote- as research has shown- really doesn't go up or down very much. If you have some knowledge to the contrary- as especially as this election is concerned- please offer it).

2) You think Hillary is the one who is playing negative.

How about Obama? Hasn't he gone negative? I've seen some ads that could be described as such. From what I've seen, they are both in it to win and will play ball to win. Usually that means going negative at some point.

Here's what I expect. I expect you to root for your candidate.

What I don't appreciate is for you to make assertions and come to conclusions (without any facts to support them) based on one thing: your fear.

Daniel,
You go too far in trying to read between the lines of what I wrote. I never said the youth vote will crumple and stay home if Hillary wins. The concern that I expressed is that if Hillary (or Obama for that matter) wins by "fighting" in any way that is not viewed as clean and fair, it is going to damage the party. And it probably won't just be damaging to the youth vote.

If Hillary is going to be the nominee of the party, I'd at least like her to be someone I can feel good about. You can say the same about Obama--fine by me. The mud-slinging just drags everyone down.

Some have suggested that Hillary went too far today when she declared that she and John McCain are qualified to be Commander & Chief and Obama just doesn't cut it. So, it sounds like if she isn't the nominee of the party maybe she'll vote for John McCain.

O.K. maybe you'll come up with an example of what terrible, underhanded, unethical and evil things Obama has done (and who knows, maybe he has), so then we have two damaged candidates and alot of folks will stay home.

That's how this negativity thing works. It's why a lot of folks refuse to get involved in politics or voting.

If Obama and Clinton work at it like this for a few months, we might just start thinking that McCain looks like a heck of a nice guy!

Steven Webster

[ladyinred]

I have to admit the mud slinging does dull things and gets old and blah.. And we talk about the republican party doing that.... I think it would be better if the candidates emphasized where they stood on the issues and why they think they would qualify for office of president.. without going for the jugular of the other.. it might be a better tactic. I certainly wouldn't want McCain to win......Yikes and double yikes!!!!(My view on Mc Cain is more of a concern about what he stands for as a candidate and can't say it appeals to me as a voter when he says more war and focuses less on the issues here at home that concern many people, his views as a candidate are pretty dismal to me)

[Steven E. Webster]

Excuse me? What's so insulting about asking you to prove your case?

Daniel,

Sorry, maybe I was being too sensitive. I was reacting to your use of the words "whining" and "projection."

We are all better off if we can make our points without trying to characterize our opponents in negative terms.

Maybe I "pushed your buttons" by describing something you said as "pessimistic." I should be more careful too.

Steven Webster

[Jennifer5]

Daniel and Steven, please... bring this to an end! :love:

[Steven E. Webster]

I have to admit the mud slinging does dull things and gets old and blah.. And we talk about the republican party doing that.... I think it would be better if the candidates emphasized where they stood on the issues and why they think they would qualify for office of president.. without going for the jugular of the other.. it might be a better tactic. I certainly wouldn't want McCain to win......Yikes and double yikes!!!!(My view on Mc Cain is more of a concern about what he stands for as a candidate and can't say it appeals to me as a voter when he says more war and focuses less on the issues here at home that concern many people, his views as a candidate are pretty dismal to me)

This reminds me of another reason why it bothers me that Hillary speaks so favorably of John McCain as "Commander and Chief"---is she suggesting she's going to be the same kind of "Commander and Chief" that McCain would be? Heaven forbid! I think she would be far better than McCain in that role, but she ought to be drawing a contrast between herself and McCain on that issue, not suggesting that they'd approach the job the same way.

Here's a link to an opinion piece on the Commander & Chief issue: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/181960.php

Steven Webster

[ladyinred]

Yeah I can understand why you might have reservations about that,Mc Cain to me is more depressing than anything... really grim....I would vote for Obama over Mc Cain any day.

[ladyinred]

Here is something I found on this website:http://lessjobsmorewars.com/

Watch the videos.

[Daniel]

Daniel,

Sorry, maybe I was being too sensitive. I was reacting to your use of the words "whining" and "projection."

We are all better off if we can make our points without trying to characterize our opponents in negative terms.

Maybe I "pushed your buttons" by describing something you said as "pessimistic." I should be more careful too.

Steven Webster

I agree that 'going negative' helps no one in the end. That said, I find one thing fascinating about politics.

Within politics- like religion- there is the thought that someone 'out there', some leader, is going to lead us to salvation.

My understanding is this: if we sincerely adhere to the message of nonviolence, we face the fact that no one 'out there' can be the change we seek. We have to do it ourselves. This means that we have to participate in our own liberation- it doesn't get handed to us on a platter. This is why I do not have 'faith' in either candidate to hand us equal rights. Sure- they will say all the right things to get our vote, but in the end, the business of our rights is going to be up to us.

Is this pessimistic of me? Perhaps. But I choose to think of this as wisdom learned from being burned too many times- by those who promise much but deliver little.

Youth- as they participate- will learn this in their own way.

[ladyinred]

Daniel ,I think alot of both you and Steve and I know disagreements come up, but I hope in spite of disagreements you both can still be friends. You both have valid points to make.

[Jennifer5]

Daniel ,I think alot of both you and Steve and I know disagreements come up, but I hope in spite of disagreements you both can still be friends. You both have valid points to make.

Don't worry... the people around here always 'kiss and make up', I'm sure they'll be fine. :love:




However, for our sake... please, be kind.

[Steven E. Webster]

I agree that 'going negative' helps no one in the end. That said, I find one thing fascinating about politics.

Within politics- like religion- there is the thought that someone 'out there', some leader, is going to lead us to salvation.

My understanding is this: if we sincerely adhere to the message of nonviolence, we face the fact that no one 'out there' can be the change we seek. We have to do it ourselves. This means that we have to participate in our own liberation- it doesn't get handed to us on a platter. This is why I do not have 'faith' in either candidate to hand us equal rights. Sure- they will say all the right things to get our vote, but in the end, the business of our rights is going to be up to us.

Is this pessimistic of me? Perhaps. But I choose to think of this as wisdom learned from being burned too many times- by those who promise much but deliver little.


Daniel,
No, I don't think this is pessimistic at all. It's realistic. Politicians, whoever they are, are only going to promote LGBT equality to the extent that we build a movement that creates political support for LGBT equality amongst the voters. That is happening, I see reason to be optimistic about that--there is polling data, as I'm sure you know, that suggests that public opinion, especially among younger folks, is moving that way.

Bill Clinton really disappointed me--"Don't Ask Don't Tell" and DOMA being just a couple of items. Would I be shocked and surprised if a President Obama disappointed me in some way? I hope not. You're right, we ain't ever going to elect a Messiah. Change is about alot more than who we put in the Oval Office. Kennedy & Johnson would not have done much for Civil Rights had M.L. King and others not been building a mass movement.

How do we build a mass movement to end militarism and imperialism too? Those are dangers we face whether we elect Dems or GOP until we build a solid constituency for peace and global cooperation. One could get very pessimistic about human survival--I don't recommend that kind of pessimism, it wouldn't be productive.

Steven

[ladyinred]

Pretty thought provoking. I think alot of it has to do with the American people too ,if they would quit buying into the crap that the media breeds, and start thinking with their heads and stop supporting war as the solution to every difficulty we face with other countries , we might get somewhere. that is just my opinion...

[Daniel]

How do we build a mass movement to end militarism and imperialism too? Those are dangers we face whether we elect Dems or GOP until we build a solid constituency for peace and global cooperation.


Presient Eisenhower warned, in his last speech before departing the White House, against the Military Industrial Compex. His words have largely gone unheeded to this day.

I don't know how we go about addressing that. But oddly, I do think that the failure of the last administration will go along way towards bring about change in this area.

We can't be everywhere, doing the thing's we've been doing like overthrowing dicators ( and Iraq was just the last in a long list) and trying to manage the rest of the world as if America has moral authority....which....more than anything....has actually meant economic authority.

Perhaps we will be able to reorganize our priorities- which- I hope (now there's a word!) has less to do with making the stockholders of Halliburton, Exon and Blackwater happy. We are going to heve to become energy independent. That, in itself, will go a long way in solving some of our problems.

And not to digress too much: DOMA, as I understand it, was the Democrat's 'solution' to the Republican plan to amend the Constitution- which was subsequently tried anyway. It stank.. it stinks....and will go down as a huge slap in the face to all gay citizens. And Don't Ask Don't Tell? I think- if Clinton had been a war veteran- he would have been able to pull it off. But at that point he was a dove trying to be the hawk. And he bit off way more than he could chew. Still. I give him points for trying. Not that it did us any good.

President Clinton later said something rather telling, when he said that he didn't realize - when he came into office - how nasty and mean the opposition would be.

And Kenneth Star and all that business with Whitewater? And all the 73 million spent on that witchhunt? And they found nothing?

You gotta be made out of something tough to withstand all that. And truth to tell, I admire that about Hillary. And there's something else too. I remember the charge being leveled against Hillary- when she first ran for the Senate in NY: she was a carpetbagger. And I was skeptical myself. Who was this gal who lived through Monica and all that?

But to her credit, she went to every county and every town in my State and did the hard work of campaigning. And then she did it again and got re-elected. And you know what? I saw her march in the Gay Parade and get booed. And she took the heat. I was mad as anyone about the stuff that went down. It hurt. It still hurts.

That said- she's my choice at the moment. She's my gal. I like what she's made of. And it doesn't bother me for a second that Bill had his Monica Moment. I know there are many that are still stuck on that.

To which I answer: what gay man hasn't had his moment? :lol:

We're all been fools sexually speaking. And some of us are the better for it! :lol:

But I digress.......

It's late and time for bed.

Steven......I respect you. Please know that. I'm just as passionate about my candidate as you are about yours. And that is as it should be.

[ladyinred]

The problem with our so-called interests over-seas is they are often self centered and one-sided... And Daniel is right , our interests mean economic interests, unfortunately all too often at the expense of other people living in these foreign nations, that we are interested in.What we call liberation for their "sakes", they see as oppression by a foreign intruder into their homeland. Aggressors out to steal their resources. Too many people unfortunately want to see the US as doing no wrong and capable of doing no wrong because perhaps it makes them feel morally superior and better about themselves. But we do have to question the legitimacy of this war and where it has led us and the long term consequences down the line .

I am amazed at some of the hostility and animosity I see on other forums when it comes to the war and people discussing candidates and politics, but I think this forum is alot more civil and respectful than most. I feel pretty safe here . Not everyone is as open-minded and engaging in the type of conversations we have here, on other forums, I mean they get down-right nasty and mean.. that I could do without... well one thing I know we may have disagreements but I have never seen it deteriorate into what I've seen on other forums. Thank God.

[Steven E. Webster]

And not to digress too much: DOMA, as I understand it, was the Democrat's 'solution' to the Republican plan to amend the Constitution- which was subsequently tried anyway. It stank.. it stinks....and will go down as a huge slap in the face to all gay citizens. And Don't Ask Don't Tell? I think- if Clinton had been a war veteran- he would have been able to pull it off. But at that point he was a dove trying to be the hawk. And he bit off way more than he could chew. Still. I give him points for trying. Not that it did us any good.

I don't know if that's true. I thought the Republican dominated Congress sent this to Bill Clinton in an election year at a time when they were making every candidate declare their "support of marriage." I don't know how much resistence the Dems put up in Congress, but they were not the majority. Bill gave in under the pressure, and the Republicans have used this attack on gays to their political advantage ever since. In a way, they stirred up the issue of same-gender marriage before the LGBT movement really was pushing it--maybe they did us a favor?

This happened in the 1996 election cycle--the same year the United Methodist General Conference made conducting same-gender unions a "chargeable offense" for U.M. Pastors. It has all been part of the same ugly anti-gay for political advantage movement (yes, even in church politics).

While DOMA did tarnish the Clinton name in my eyes to some extent, I don't bear them a grudge on that issue. He did seem to almost get overwhelmed by an incredibly viscious GOP attack on many fronts, in my opinion. I was amazed he held up as well as he did under the pressure.

Steven

[ladyinred]

S trangely enough Ann Coulter endorses Clinton over McCain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erMa0F_DCJE&feature=related

Hillary's response:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoLzwQKpKBo&feature=related

Even hard core republicans it seems who would never vote democrat must be disgruntled with their candidate. But Ann Coulter? She is still pretty insulting:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9hODPxnbuU