The Next President of the USA will be?

[Hermit]

How can you be so sold on a man of so little experience? This world is in bad shape. This is not a job for a rookie. the two saddest days of my life (well two of) were when I had to wake up and find out Gore and Kerry had the fucking elections stolen from them from Bush. Said Id never vote again. But my record with elections is about as good as with Super bowls. Dont be so hard on Hillary. She has been through much and is a tough cookie. Why do you people hate her so much??

You think I "hate" Hillary?

I suggest you "read" back on this thread and "learn".

Go ahead neophyte,.. start at the beginning of the thread and check it out. What you'll find is that I've consistently defended Hillary against those who hate.. nay, loathe.. her. I've consistently said I'd support Hillary if she got the nomination. I've consistently said I think she'd make a fine POTUS. I've consistently said she wasn't my first, second, third, fourth, or even fifth choice for the nomination. My position hasn't changed on any of those points.

At this point in the campaign I'm convinced that Barack Obama would be a better POTUS.

Make no mistake about it though, although I've defended Hillary in the past and have had great respect for her, I have lost respect for her (and Bill) due to the way they've been running her campaign the last several weeks, and I am getting a better sense for why it is that some people hate her and see her as being entirely self-serving and manipulative. In her quest for the nomination she has clearly placed her personal ambitions above the greater good of democratic party and the country. She has taken cheap shots at Obama that are completely false and misleading and that accomplish nothing but to divide the party at a time when we need party strength and unity if we are going to reclaim the WH and put an end to the tyranny and disgrace of Bush era politics and policies.

"How can you be sold on a man of so little experience?", you ask?

Just because Hillary claims she has experience, that doesn't make it so. Just because she makes up terms like "the Commander-in-Chief test" and claims she's passed that fictional test and Obama hasn't,.. that doesn't make it so. Just because she claims she's ready to answer that "3AM call" and claims Obama isn't.. that doesn't make it so. Except to fools who gobble up her campaign rhetoric and assume it to be true.

You wanna make experience the issue? Fine. Then you should have supported (as I did) the candidacies of Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and John Edwards; all of whom have FAR more experience than Hillary and Obama. I supported those candidates until they fell out of the race. When the race was reduced to Hillary vs Obama, I chose to support Obama. Between these two candidates, neither of whom can claim vast foreign policy experience, I went with Obama because he's shown superior judgment and because I've become quite impressed by his ability to inspire people; I think America desperately needs someone who can inspire us. I've also become more and more convinced that he can win the general election and that he will be an excellent POTUS. I was first impressed by him when he gave that speech at the DNC in 2004. Wow! That was a jaw-dropper! But when this campaign started I thought he needed more time to ripen as a candidate; I thought he needed more time to gain experience. But I've become convinced that his good judgment far outweighs and compensates for his lack of experience. Experience doesn't guarantee competence. You need look no further than Cheney and Rumsfeld for proof of that. Richard Nixon had boatloads of experience too, ya know? Conversely, Bill Clinton had very little experience when he took office. Get the point?

Barack Obama showed the judgment, foresight, insight, intelligence, critical thinking skills, discernment skills, assessment skills, personal courage, and political courage to oppose the invasion of Iraq from the very beginning. He's shown that he possesses the temperament, wisdom, people skills, and balance of self-confidence and humility that will enable him to face, and deal with, whatever crises may arise during his presidency. You claim you've "always supported Hillary".. apparently even though she exhibited poor judgment and a lack of political courage when she voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. You claim she has experience and yet you've cited no basis upon which you've staked that claim. You, friend, seem to be a blind supporter of Hillary Clinton. With all due respect, so far I've not been too impressed by your arguments, your political savvy, nor your discernment skills.

So please don't expect to me gobble up.. or be swayed by.. this nonsense about Hillary having experience and Obama lacking experience. The truth is that they both lack experience; but that doesn't mean either is unqualified to be POTUS. It simply means they need to make up for their lack of experience by having a surplus of wisdom and good judgment. I believe Obama has the wisdom and good judgment.. and the humility.. to surround himself with experienced advisors instead of yes-men. I believe he has the intelligence to quickly absorb information and make quick, insightful judgments and decisions. His personal biography leaves no doubt as to his extraordinary mental/intellectual prowess. His thoughtfulness and insight leaves no doubt as to the depth of his wisdom. His speeches and writings leave no doubt as to his abillity to motivate and inspire people. And his legislative track record (albeit limited) leaves no doubt as to his ability to bring people together.. despite their differing points of view.. to come up with solutions for the greater good. That, my friend, more than qualifies him to be POTUS. Imho.

So put that in your "Hillary '08" pipe and smoke it, bud. And when you're no longer stoned on Hillary divisive campaign rhetoric, come back and put forth a thoughtful, substantive argument for why Hillary would be a better POTUS than Obama. Your "Hillary is more experienced than Obama" claim is as bogus as Bill's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" claim; as bogus as GWB's "mission accomplished" claim; as bogus as George Tenet's "Iraq WMD is a slam dunk" claim; as bogus as GWB's "America does not torture" claim. You're gonna have to come up something better than "Hillary is more experienced than Obama", friend. That dog don't hunt.

And don't give me that "Obama is unknown; at least with Hillary you know what you're gonna get" drivel. Here's what we know about Obama and Hillary. Barack Obama had the wisdom and sound judgment to oppose the invasion of Iraq; Hillary lacked the wisdom and judgment and she voted to support the invasion. And even if you s--t--r--e--t--c--h Hillary's war authorization vote rationale and give her the benefit of the doubt that she "didn't really support the invasion", then you gotta look at the fact that she voted for it anyway, and you gotta conclude that she did so out of political expediency.. as a way of trying to convince moderate republicans that she's hawkish enough to be POTUS. You'd then have to face the grisly truth that she was willing to send American troops into harm's way for her own personal political gain.. even though she "didn't really support the invasion". How fucked up is that? That sounds frighteningly like something Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and.. McCain would do, doesn't it?

Game. Set. Match.

Check mate, mate.

Yes, Obama is clearly the superior candidate. Not just compared to Hillary Clinton, but also compared to John McCain. I say that as someone who has always.. previously.. stood up for Hillary Clinton, and as someone who has always (prior to 2000 anyway) had a fair amount of respect for John McCain. You cannot claim I have a pre-existing anti-Hillary bias. My goal is to see an end of the Bush-Cheney-Rove era of American government. John McCain is more of the same. John McCain is Bush III. Hillary has become an ego-manical sellout. Obama is the superior candidate. He's the best person for the job. He's the most qualified to be the next POTUS. Imho.

[Hermit]

Someone needs to tell Hermit that both sides have been nasty. Not just Hillary. I mean, bringing up the Monica thing? Like that was her fault. Get real.

Notwithstanding the fact that in touting Hillary as strong candidate you

yourself have inferred that "the Monica thing" has toughened her up..

["She has been through much and is a tough cookie."]..

Tell me,..

In the course of this campaign, what demographic bloc of voters has Obama's campaign alienated or marginalized? [Men? Women? Whites? Latinos? Blacks? Democrats? Independents? Moderate Republicans? Christians? Muslims? Jews? Young people? Old people? People from big states? People from small states? People from red states? People from blue states? Northerners? Southerners? Easterners? Westerners?...]

How have his campaign tactics undermined the democratic party's chances of winning the WH in November?

Right.

None. And they haven't.

You can't say the same for Hillary's campaign tactics, can you?

[Hermit]

Wheres my popcorn smiley?

I'm looking forward to a response of your nature Hermit, don't let me down

Here ya go, wanna be bud:

Hope my response lived up to your expectations.

[wanna be drummer]

Wheres my popcorn smiley?

I'm looking forward to a response of your nature Hermit, don't let me down

Here ya go, wanna be bud:

Hope my response lived up to your expectations.

Made my day Hermit

Anywho, he ignored me on my last post...even though I specifically asked him to not do that. Maybe it's because I didn't type a lot.

$20 says he either skips half your post (which I didn't surprisingly) or he mircaulously misses it

(no I will not pay up if I'm wrong )

[wanna be drummer]

Based on the info that Bush had at the time, and assuming the info was right, he did the right thing by getting rid of Sadaam. Are you going to deny that? He had to be stopped. The more important issue is once realizing that Iraq and El Quida were two seperate entities do we stay or pull out and how do we pull out? How fast? How soon? Even your Obama doesnt have the magical answers to this. None of them do. 911 changed everything. If you think there is a remonte chance Sadaam is involved you must stop him. And expecially with all the other things he did. Getting Bin Laden is another story. Do any of these 3 have the magic solution for this? I think not. But I think Hillary can do a better job here. On health care for instance. The Republican regime shot her down years ago. Health care is on the top of my list. We will pull out of Iraq no matter which of these 3 gets in. You know it.

Quit saying "you know it" when you're clearly wrong. That is not the case with these three candidates. McCain is probably going to send more troops over and stay there much longer than 3 years.

Get a clue.

Oh, and I liked how you skipped most of Hermit's points, such as her experience and how somehow she has more than Obama.

Stick to the main points

And Sadaam should've been stopped, but he didn't have to be. The same argument could be applied in China or North Korea or Darfur, and yet we aren't going anywhere else that has horrible leaders

[wanna be drummer]

Well I answered Hermit. Let him answer for himself. If he even sees my reply now.

You answered a tiny portion of his post. You missed 95% of his psot.

In my book, not only is that a failing grade, but you didn't even really "answer him" in the first place

[Hermit]

Based on the info that Bush had at the time, and assuming the info was right, he did the right thing by getting rid of Sadaam.

The info put forth by the Bush admin was bogus. Not just wrong, but bogus. Colin Powell has admitted this; Joe Wilson proved this with regard to Bush's "yellow cake" claim; and despite George tenet's "WMD is a slam dunk" claim, the UN Weapons inspectors on the ground in Iraq at the time were saying they had not found any evidence of WMD in Iraq. So,.. basing your argument on "assuming the info was right" makes no sense at all. We know the info was bogus.

And while Hillary Clinton went along with Bush and his bogus intell, Barack Obama saw through the BushShit, he had a good sense of the history of Iraq, and he opposed the invasion. At a time when those who opposed the invasion were chastised as being "unpatriotic", Obama stood tall and firm and resolute in opposing the invasion of Iraq.. because it was the right position to take even though it wasn't the politically popular or politically safe position. That, my friend, is a display of leadership.

Rather than make excuses for Hillary's lack of judgment and lack of leadership, why can't you acknowledge the simple, obvious facts that Obama was right and that Obama showed superior judgment and that Obama showed superior leadership?

Are you going to deny that? He had to be stopped.

Yes, I am going to deny that.

Fact: Saddam was more than sufficiently contained.

Fact: Saddam was no threat to America.

You say "he had to be stopped". From what? From being a bad guy? There's any number of dangerous "bad guys" (ruthless dictators) in the world, and we haven't gone invading and occupying their countries. Hell, the US is actually friendly toward some of them, most notably King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Pervez Musharref of Pakistan.

Read.. and learn: *20 most dangerous dictators*.

The more important issue is once realizing that Iraq and El Quida were two seperate entities do we stay or pull out and how do we pull out? How fast? How soon? Even your Obama doesnt have the magical answers to this. None of them do.

Al Qaeda and Iraq have ALWAYS been two separate entities.

You're right though, none of the three candidates have the magical answers for getting out of Iraq quickly and cleanly. John McCain doesn't even want to get out. John McCain wants to stay in Iraq, and wants to possibly expand the war to Iran.

In evaluating the candidates who do want to get out of Iraq (Hillary and Barack), we're left looking at who had the good judgment to oppose going into Iraq in the first place. Only one candidate can stake claim to that position: Barack Obama.

911 changed everything. If you think there is a remonte chance Sadaam is involved you must stop him. And expecially with all the other things he did. Getting Bin Laden is another story. Do any of these 3 have the magic solution for this? I think not.

No, 9/11 didn't change everything. That's just a Bush slogan. And there was no remote chance Saddam was involved in 9/11. Bush made that up. And getting bin Laden is only "another" story because Bush (with Hillary Clinton's support) took his eye off bin Laden and diverted military resources from Afghanistan to iraq. Getting bin Laden should be "the" story. He's the one responsible for 9/11. It's time you get with the program face reality, son.

Saddam Hussein (Iraq) had no connection to 9/11. NONE.

Saddam had no WMD; no WMD stockpiles; no WMD program.

-----------

Pentagon cancels release of controversial Iraq report

March 12, 2008 WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Wednesday canceled plans for broad public release of a study that found no pre-Iraq war link between late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the al Qaida terrorist network.

Rather than posting the report online and making officials available to discuss it, as had been planned, the U.S. Joint Forces Command said it would mail copies of the document to reporters — if they asked for it. The report won't be posted on the Internet. The reversal highlighted the politically sensitive nature of its conclusions, which were first reported Monday by McClatchy.

In making their case for invading Iraq in 2002 and 2003, President Bush and his top national security aides claimed that Saddam's regime had ties to Osama bin Laden's al Qaida terrorist network.

But the study, based on more than 600,000 captured documents, including audio and video files, found that while Saddam sponsored terrorism, particularly against opponents of his regime and against Israel, there was no evidence of an al Qaida link.

*source*

---------------

But I think Hillary can do a better job here. On health care for instance. The Republican regime shot her down years ago. Health care is on the top of my list. We will pull out of Iraq no matter which of these 3 gets in. You know it.

John McCain will NOT pull out of Iraq. McCain wants to stay in Iraq. Thats at the crux of his candidacy, for crying out loud! (well,.. that and making permanent Bush's tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans). If you don't realize this, and if you can't acknowledge this fact, then I see no reason to continue discussing the election with you as you apparently have no interest or desire in facing the most obvious of facts.

[i will finish out this response, but if you don't acknowledge that John McCain will not end

the war in Iraq, I will not respond to your future posts about this campaign. Fair enough?]

Sure, Obama and Hillary have slightly different plans for universal healthcare, and thats a fair debate to have. You prefer Hillary's plan over Obama's; I don't begrudge you that one bit. But that doesn't speak to the issue of experience. You claimed Hillary has more experience than Obama, but you have yet to cite any basis upon which you can stake that claim and make it stick. You haven't, and you can't.. because there is none.

And if healthcare is on the top of your list, why on earth would you consider voting for John McCain instead of Barack Obama? Barack's healthcare plan is different than Hillary's, but at least he supports universal healthcare. John McCain opposes universal healthcare. Outright.

Look friend,.. I can understood you preferring Hillary over Obama for the dem nomination (even though you have yet to present a substantive case for why she'd be the better candidate). She's your personal preference, and its your prerogative to vote for who you want. But if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, your claim that you'd sit out (ie, not support Obama; ie, not support the democratic candidate in the general election) or vote for John McCain (ie, support the republican candidate, ie, vote for 4 more years of Bush policies, ie, vote against universal healthcare, ie, vote to continue to war in Iraq and possibly expand it into Iran) makes absolutely no sense at all. None.

I hope you'll reconsider.

I hope you'll support Obama if.. *cough*when*cough*.. he gets the nomination.

cheers.

[Pb Derigable]

Hermit, do you belive any of them are going to pull us out of Iraq? They may make a speech and do some things, but i still see us having a presence in iraq for atleast the next 5 years?

[Hermit]

Hermit, do you belive any of them are going to pull us out of Iraq? They may make a speech and do some things, but i still see us having a presence in iraq for atleast the next 5 years?

I take Barack Obama at his word that he will bring US troops home.

I take John McCain at his word that he wont bring US troops home.

Hillary's word loses credibility day-by-day. Who knows what she'll do?

I think Obama will end US combat operations in Iraq and will bring (most, if not all, of) our troops home. I don't think there will be absolutely no US military presence in Iraq, but I do think our offensive combat role will be all but done. Its clear there is no military solution and its clear the Iraqi politicians and factions-leaders have not done their part to get that country moving forward. The Iraqi factions are gonna have to fight it out and resolve it amongst themselves. It's tragic because that means more Iraqi civilians are gonna die in the process (George Bush bears responsibility for opening this pandora's box), but there's no sense that I can see in more US (and allied) troops dying for a cause (Iraqi unity) the Iraqi's (politicians and factions leaders) apparently don't support.

What do you think, Pb?

Even if there are US troops in Iraq for the next 5 years,

how is that going to lead to Iraqi resolution/reconciliation?

Do you think Barack Obama and John McCain would approach Iraq

the same way, or would there be differences in their approaches?

[edited to add]

fwiw..

Although I do take Obama at his word that he'll end US involvement in the war in Iraq asap, I would expect him (as I would expect any POTUS) to be flexible, to exercise his judgment, and to adjust his plans as he and his civilian and military advisors (and Congress in some circumstances) deem necessary and appropriate. But speaking to the point I think you're getting at: yes, I think Barack Obama is being sincere and genuine when he says he'll end US involvement in the war in Iraq asap.

[Hermit]

Obama criticizes McCain on taxes

Says GOP presidential candidate switched views to win Republican votes

March 13, 2008 CHICAGO - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said Thursday that Sen. John McCain reversed his position on President Bush's deep tax cuts in order to win the Republican presidential nomination, one of his sharpest criticisms yet of the Arizona senator he hopes to face this fall.

Criticizing GOP efforts to extend major tax cuts from Bush's first term and to eliminate the estate tax, Obama said: "These are all steps that John McCain rightly said were irresponsible when they first came up."

"He made a decision to reverse himself on that," Obama told reporters as he flew from Chicago to Washington for a series of Senate votes on budget issues.

"That was how, I guess, you got your ticket punched to be the Republican nominee," he said of McCain. "But he was right then, and he's wrong now."

*source*

-------------

Atta boy, Barack!

Don't waste any more time bickering with Hillary,.. start challenging McCain's policies.

That's what primary frontrunners do;.. start challenging their general election opponent.

[Uncle Bill]

This may have been posted previously:

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released its 2007 list of Washington’s “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in alphabetical order, includes:

1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A “Dishonorable Mention” last year, Senator Obama moves onto the “ten most wanted” list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watc...oliticians-2007

[Pb Derigable]

Although I do take Obama at his word that he'll end US involvement in the war in Iraq asap, I would expect him (as I would expect any POTUS) to be flexible, to exercise his judgment, and to adjust his plans as he and his civilian and military advisor's (and Congress in some circumstances) deem necessary and appropriate. But speaking to the point I think you're getting at: yes, I think Barack Obama is being sincere and genuine when he says he'll end US involvement in the war in Iraq asap.

Thats the point i was stating. Even John McCain wants to get out of there. but he wants to get the job done first. which they all want to do (whatever it is) but McCain has to cater to the right side, as Obama wants to for the left. But they emphasize different points. Obama wants to end the war, McCain wants to finish the war. I am a supporter of the war and i want to get out. I don't really care for those people in the middle east, but i do care about American interests. which I'm sure you do too, we just have different opinions on how to protect them. I think obama is sincere about ending the war too, i just don't see it happening. If they pull out quickly and the middle east gets even worse and oil goes through the roof again, whoever it is, they wont last for more than 4 years.

[Suz]

I've really enjoyed reading everyone's posts.

I have to say that I'm just a regular voter, an average citizen who reads the paper and watches the news.....and I NEVER bought the arguments for going to Iraq- never! I kept hoping against hope that someone could convince me that we were not going totally insane by invading Iraq.....but no one did. I never saw the connection, and I didn't believe Bush or Powell when they made it. When we went to Afganistan- that I understood.

[Bonham]

I'm sure if Barack was President they'd make an excuse to keep them in Iraq somehow.

[Suz]

Ah Suz. Just peeked at your profile. you must be a vikings fan? Anyway, politics and abortion are two no win arguments.

Hey I answered you back the other night, but you must have gone to another thread. Anyway, I'm not trying to win an argument- I enjoy reading other people's opinions and expressing my own. I want to say that I've never, ever been a Hilary hater- I am the same as hermit...shit, I've been defending her for 15 years! But she's not my choice for president. If you wanna know why, that old Obama speech from '02 that somebody posted in here pretty much nails it.

[Dzldoc]

Senate Endorses Some of President Bush's Tax Cuts but Rejects Renewing Others

03-13-2008 11:15 AM

By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer

The chamber voted 52-47 to reject a move by Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., to extend Bush's tax cuts for middle- and higher-income taxpayers, investors and people inheriting businesses and big estates.

Obama and Clinton both promise to reverse Bush's tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they'll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.

Under both Democratic plans, tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent brackets. At present, the 25 percent bracket begins at $31,850 for individuals and $63,700 for married couples. The 35 percent bracket on incomes over $349,700 would jump to 39.6 percent.

These Bastards just can't keep their F@#%*#G hands out of our pockets

[redrum]

Obama is the superior candidate. He's the best person for the job. He's the most qualified to be the next POTUS. Imho.

NObama.

[zosodude13]

Hey I answered you back the other night, but you must have gone to another thread. Anyway, I'm not trying to win an argument- I enjoy reading other people's opinions and expressing my own. I want to say that I've never, ever been a Hilary hater- I am the same as hermit...shit, I've been defending her for 15 years! But she's not my choice for president. If you wanna know why, that old Obama speech from '02 that somebody posted in here pretty much nails it.

glad we see the same reason why Obama is the right man for the job!

and redrum, if "NObama"... then who?

[redrum]

and redrum, if "NObama"... then who?

Tiger Woods.

[wanna be drummer]

Why should Hillary have to apologize for Ferraro?? She was telling the truth. 91 percent of the black vote in Mississippi? Give me a break. Im so sick of them crying racism when they are the real racists. Its bullshit.

Perhaps, but she's played the gender card before.

Go figure

[Hermit]

Well Hermit, Ive just read your response. I assume you were away like I was. Much as I cant stand Bush, it is probably wrong to simply blame him for the info he was given shortly after 9/11. He got bad info and we cant totally blame him for that.

Oh puh-lease! Have you not been paying attention for the last 7 years? Do you not see the pervasiveness of the corruption, the lies, and the deceit of the Bush administration? You think they actually believed the intell they put forth to sell the war on Iraq? Come on now, icantquityou,.. you can't be that naive, friend. Make no mistake about it, they put forth intell they knew full well was bogus and was misleading. It was intentional. It was a sell job. They misled this nation into war. Of course Bush is to blame. But not just Bush,.. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Feith, Wolfowitz, Powell, Tenet, etc.. the entire cabal.

And Hillary had the same info. They didnt know at the time it was bad info. I always suspected it was because can you see Bin ladin or Sadaam listening to anyone or playing second fiddle to either? No. But that is water over the damn now. And hindsight as they always say is 20/20.

Sure, hindsight is 20/20,.. but Barack Obama had 20/20 foresight, didn't he?

How do you otherwise explain Barack Obama being right about it?

Why do you ignore the fact that Barack Obama was right about it?

Why do you not wonder why it is that Barack got it right and Hillary got it wrong?

Looking ahead I believe that Hillary can do a better job on health care. I know it.

Looking ahead (from Hillary's wrongness about Iraq and Barack's rightness about Iraq) you jump subjects to healthcare, eh? Without so much as acknowledging that Barack was right about Iraq and Hillary was dead wrong, eh? How convenient for you.

Anyway.. about healthcare, I've already said thats a fair debate to have and I don't begrudge you your preference for Hillary's plan over Barack's. Personally I favor Barack's healthcare plan, but I think Hillary's would be good too. Both their plans move this nation in the direction of universal healthcare. They're both good plans.

But as far as McCain pulling out, I will admit Im not a big fan of the old fogie but he did publically take on Bush in the past. So to just say he is another Bush is not fair.

Again, you're not being very discerning. In his campaign McCain has gone out of his way to show republicans that he will continue Bush's policies.. with regard to Iraq,.. with regard to tax cuts for the wealthy,.. with regard to opposing universal healthcare,.. with regard to endorsing waterboarding (torture),.. with regard to saber rattling over Iran,.. with regard to the kind of judges he would nominate to the Supreme Court,.. on and on.. pretty much across the board. The only issue on which McCain's position differs from Bush's is that McCain has acknowledged global warming for some time now, and he some sense for environmental awareness. Otherwise, John McCain is Bush III. If you think otherwise, you're deluding yourself.

And certainly the man did go through hell for his country. Far more hell than either Hillary or Obama went through.

Yes he did go through hell for his country, and for that he deserves our respect and our gratitude. And he gets both from me.. for that. He was a POW and was tortured as a POW, but that doesn't necessarily mean he has better judgment or that he'd be a better POTUS than either Hillary or Barack. Case in point: he supported the invasion of Iraq. Case in point: he condones waterboarding. Case in point: he supports making permanent Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy. Case in point: he opposes universal healthcare. Obviously his having gone through hell hasn't left him with judgment that is better than Barack Obama's, has it?

I have been watching this damn Spitzer thing. Another black eye for us Dems.

Spitzer is a black eye on Spitzer. Nationally he's a political nobody.

Who outside of NY ever even heard of him before this scandal?

It is interesting that Hillary's been mum about him though, huh?

I will have to look into McCain more. Im guilty of not doing so before.

Uhh.. yeah, you will,.. and quite obviously you are guilty of that.

Im shocked he got the Nom. And the right wing Republicans are too. They simply threw him to the wolves and are eyeing 2112. I have no doubt. But they will still try and win this thing. And After Kerry and Gore being robbed of the office-I am not betting on anything.

So,.. you think the repubs don't really stand behind McCain.. and you're sure they just "threw him to the wolves". You're saying you think that republicans don't take him seriously as a presidential candidate and that they don't really think he can win.. even though they'll still try hard to get him elected. And yet you've also said you might vote for him instead of Obama if Obama gets the dem nomination. You'd help a second-rate republican candidate get elected rather than help a top-notch democratic candidate get elected?

If you're willing to vote for McCain instead of Obama, then obviously healthcare

isn't really very important to you afterall,.. so you might as well stop saying it is.

Your logic is deeply, deeply flawed, my friend.

I thank you for this little back and forth we've had, icantquityou,.. I've enjoyed it but I think it's gone as far as it can go. I'm not gonna continue putting in time and energy in this discussion when you obviously haven't thoughtfully considered the candidates, the issues, your positions, or the ramifications of how you vote in this election. I'm glad you're involved in the political process, but being involved doesn't do our nation any good if you're making uninformed and ill-advised choices. I hope you do take the time to make a more thorough examination of the candidates, the issues, your positions on the issues, and the possible ramifications of your vote,.. and that you ultimately realize that if healthcare is really "at the top of your list" of issues, then its in your best interest to vote for Obama (if Hillary doesn't get the nomination), and that you'll be voting against your best interest if you vote for McCain.

cheers, friend.

Well I answered Hermit. But he must be off to the Misty Mountains.

..I've been off to a place called "work".

[Hermit]

NObama.

yeah, well,..

you're voting in King County, WA.. aka Democrat

Central.. so ultimately your vote won't matter.

The democratic candidate will win in King County and in Washington state.

WA's 11 electoral college votes will be going to Barack Obama, buddyboy.

Oh YES they will!

[wanna be drummer]

Which of us right-wingers are you referring to? I'm assuming you mean redrum, because I haven't argued against Hermit in this thread in quite some time (how long has it been anyways Hermit?)

Anywho, I still say Obama wins the presidency. Not that I want him to, I just think it's inevitable

[wanna be drummer]

Id have to go back and look up the name. The one that criticizes both Hillary and Obama. Dont count Hillary out yet. She will rack up the Florida votes, win Pennsylvania and can still win the popular vote giving the Supers the legitimate reason to pick her over Obama. He is not a lock. How can you ever be sure after what happened to Gore and Kerry? Read my previous post Hermit if you come back on.

You keep saying don't count her out...I already have. Whether I'm wrong or right, only time will decide.

Again, there is a possibility she will get the nomination. However, in the numbers game, she is significantly behind.

It's all about the odds friend, and she's not looking too good

[wanna be drummer]

She is behind yes. But he CANNNOT get the magic number either. This has not happened before. If she wins Pennsylvania like she is expected to and gets her due votes in Florida, where she kicked his ass, then the math changes. Mr Hermit. Read my post two back-my response to you from earlier.

One of them gets the magic number. Obama is the frontrunner. He will win. Penns. and Florida will not save her. She is doomed