The Next President of the USA will be?

[Uncle Bill]

Heres' what conservative republican Andrew Sullivan

yeah he's a typical conservative republican all right, lol, from wiki:

"Sullivan is known for his unusual personal-political identity (HIV-positive, gay, self-described conservative often at odds with other conservatives"

Looks like this another of those cases. Everyone I've seen are following the format predicted, yourself included, thanks for making my point for me hermit, I thought you might come up with something to disagree with about the speech to prove me wrong or prove you still have some objectivity left, I guess not.

*edited to add*

Edited March 19, 2008 by Uncle Bill

[Uncle Bill]

his relationship with a man whom once declare war on the U.S. and has supposedly set bombs to blow up govt buildings.

I missed this earlier.Who are you talking about? I"m unfamiliar with this. How about spelling out what it's about, if you will. Thanks

[Hermit]

yeah he's a typical conservative republican all right, lol, from wiki:

"Sullivan is known for his unusual personal-political identity (HIV-positive, gay, self-described conservative often at odds with other conservatives"

Looks like this another of those cases. Everyone I've seen are following the format predicted, yourself included, thanks for making my point for me hermit, I thought you might come up with something to disagree with about the speech to prove me wrong or prove you still have some objectivity left, I guess not.

you're right,.. an open-minded republican is hardly typical, huh?

[btw.. he's not just gay.. he's gay married. ]

If you read Andrew Sullivan.. rather than basing your judgment solely on what wikip says about him.. you'd find that he's extremely intelligent, thoughtful, reasonable, and.. well.. by and large.. quite conservative. But hey, he's a gay republican,.. so his pov doesn't amount to anything as far as you're concerned, right?

It's easy to take no position at all, as you keep doing,.. so tell me,..

what about Obama's speech did you object to or find inadequate?

what about it.. if anything.. did you find to be laudible?

address specifically the Reverend Wright issue..

..or any other aspect of the speech you want.

come on.. wow me with your analysis.

[edited to add..]

btw.. did you ever get beyond "Here's what conservative republican Andrew Sullivan" and read what he actually said.. or not? If so, do you agree or disagree with his brief assessment of Obama's speech? I mean,.. yeah, he's gay and all,.. but surely that didn't stop you from reading what he said about the speech, did it?

Edited March 19, 2008 by Hermit

[Hermit]

.

Btw, Uncle Fence-Sitter,..

consider this..

Obama chooses reconciliation over rancor

Experts say 'nonpartisan' speech on race is almost without precedent

In a speech whose frankness about race many historians said could be likened only to speeches by Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln, Senator Barack Obama, speaking across the street from where the Constitution was written, traced the country’s race problem back to not simply the country’s "original sin of slavery" but the protections for it embedded in the Constitution.

Yet the speech was also hopeful, patriotic, quintessentially American — delivered against a blue backdrop and a phalanx of stars and stripes. Obama invoked the fundamental values of equality of opportunity, fairness, social justice. He confronted race head-on, then reached beyond it to talk sympathetically about the experiences of the white working class and the plight of workers stripped of jobs and pensions.

"As far as I know, he’s the first politician since the Civil War to recognize how deeply embedded slavery and race have been in our Constitution," said Paul Finkelman, a professor at Albany Law School who has written extensively about slavery, race and the Constitution. "That's a profoundly important thing to say. But what's important about the way he said it is he doesn't use this as a springboard for anger or for frustration. He doesn't say, 'O.K., slavery was bad, therefore people are owed something.' This is not a reparations speech. This is a speech about saying it's time for the nation to do better, to form a more perfect union."

*source*

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

That's pretty lofty company Obama is being placed with, eh?

But I suppose you'll claim that all these history academians are "biased Obama supporters" who only serve to further support your cynicism-drenched prediction about the possible responses to the speech, eh?

A good speech is a good speech, muh-man. You claim I'm not able to be objective, but I can assure you if a repub had given that same speech.. or if Hillary had given it.. I would have still said it was a great speech. However, its all the greater coming from Obama.. under the specific circumstances in which it was written and delivered.

Edited March 19, 2008 by Hermit

[Pb Derigable]

I missed this earlier.Who are you talking about? I"m unfamiliar with this. How about spelling out what it's about, if you will. Thanks

William Ayers

Ayers was a 1960s-era political activist and Weather Underground member. He grew up in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, a suburb of Chicago in a highly privileged family (his father, Thomas Ayers, was Chairman and CEO of Commonwealth Edison) and attended Lake Forest Academy. According to Ayers' memoir Fugitive Days, he became radicalized at the University of Michigan. During his years there, he became involved in the New Left and the SDS.

Ayers went underground with several comrades including Brandy Diekman, after their co-conspirators' bomb accidentally exploded on March 6, 1970, destroying a Greenwich Village townhouse and killing three members of the Weather Underground (Ted Gold, Terry Robbins, and Diana Oughton, who was Ayers' girlfriend at the time). He and his colleagues invented identities and traveled continuously. They avoided the police and FBI, while bombing high-profile government buildings including the United States Capitol[citation needed], The Pentagon[citation needed], and the Harry S Truman Building housing the State Department[citation needed]. Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn raised two children, Zayd and Malik, underground before turning themselves in in 1981, when most charges were dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct during the long search for the fugitives.[1] They also adopted a son, Chesa Boudin, who is the biological son of former Weathermen David Gilbert and Kathy Boudin.

Ayers published his memoirs in 2001 with the book Fugitive Days. His interview with the New York Times to promote his book was published on September 11, 2001, and includes his reaction to Emile De Antonio's 1976 documentary film about the Weathermen: "He was 'embarrassed by the arrogance, the solipsism, the absolute certainty that we and we alone knew the way,' he writes. 'The rigidity and the narcissism.'" In this interview, he also was quoted as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."[1] The book has been criticized for numerous important factual inaccuracies, among other things.[2]

Ayers has also edited and written nearly a dozen books on education theory, policy and practice.

In the fall of 2006, Ayers was disinvited to a conference for progressive educators on the grounds that his position supporting political terrorism would tarnish the reputation and standing of the progressive education movement.[3]

This was the guy who got Obama elected to the Illnois Congress. They both won't comment on the friendship.

[Uncle Bill]

I wasn't bashing Sullivan, I was pointing out that your example of a typical conservative republican to prove my predictions wrong was in fact nothing of the sort. He's a self described "libertarian conservative". I couldn't care less what his sexual orientation is, to each his own.

"It's easy to take no position at all, as you keep doing,"

I've clearly stated my position, I don't like any of these politicians, none of them speak to me. I'm here to collect people's thought's about the current crop of candidates to help me decide which is the least corrupt of the 3. It's that simple, please quit trying to read more into it than that.

"what about Obama's speech did you object to or find inadequate?

what about it.. if anything.. did you find to be laudible?

address specifically the Reverend Wright issue..

..or any other aspect of the speech you want."

how about 3 of each?

pro's>

1. good speaker, was overall well delivered and pretty much laid it to rest for me except for the things noted below.

2.stated clearly that he heard Wright make the statements in question and disagrees completely with them,

3.no "CHANGE" sign anywhere to be seen, woohoo

cons>

1. didn't explain why prior to yesterday he repeatedly stated he had not heard Wright say these things,

2.didn't adress the "A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA" issue.

3. Seemed to be lecturing us on race relations when he never said/did anything about the racial bashing going on at his church.

"You claim I'm not able to be objective,"

No, actually I said/ meant you missed a chance to prove you were, sorry if you misunderstood this, my fault, I'm not that good with words.

"so his pov doesn't amount to anything as far as you're concerned," "come on.. wow me with your analysis" "uncle fence sitter"

No need to try to make this personal, Lets just discuss the candidates, fair enough? Unless you are planning on running for pres, I know I'm not ,it is off topic anyhow It may seem to you like I'm bashing "your guy" but I'm not, I'm just digging for info. Right now I'm trying to get to the bottom of the "Keating 5" scandal.

UB

[Pb Derigable]

Obama did say this.

"And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.''

The Discussion was about his relationship to his pastor who has anti-American feelings. Not that he is black and belong to a black church. He's officially a black man running for president, which will cause alot of people to think if he's going to be unfairly pro-black if he gets in. I also think him naming ever body by their race like his White Grandmother. or that White Ashley girl. It was a well written speech, but he couldn't just answer the question he has to bring up the whole race issue, in which, as he said "two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change". alot of white Americans could care less what we did as a country as recently as 30 years ago. There is no law in the books that prevents a black man from achieving anything he wants and that want most Americans belier. Only people are racists, only a generation can change that.

[Uncle Bill]

yeah, I think he's now the "black candidate" in peoples minds and he was trying to avoid that, trying to be the "post racial candidate" instead.

[*I*LOVE*JIMMY!!]

Where is my main man Jimmy. Why not Leave it to a Foreigner Like Jimmy to whip this country into shape. We cant seem to do it. He's smart enough and real easy on the eyes drool drool. I could handle watching the news then.

[Uncle Bill]

Where is my main man Jimmy. Why not Leave it to a Foreigner Like Jimmy to whip this country into shape. We cant seem to do it. He's smart enough and real easy on the eyes drool drool. I could handle watching the news then.

I may end up writing him in. What's his full name again?

never mind, you have to be born here, wait what about McCain?

Edited March 19, 2008 by Uncle Bill

[Uncle Bill]

Pb> what's the connection between this William Ayers guy and Obama? The thing you posted says "This was the guy who got Obama elected to the Illnois Congress" How did he do that? I'll research it later, right now I'm on the keating thing. Any input that will save me time is appreciated.

[Pb Derigable]

I may end up writing him in. What's his full name again?

never mind, you have to be born here, wait what about McCain?

Technically McCain wasn't born in America. he was born in panama, but his parents were American solders on an American military installation, so i will give him a pass.

Pb> what's the connection between this William Ayers guy and Obama? The thing you posted says "This was the guy who got Obama elected to the Illinois Congress" How did he do that? I'll research it later, right now I'm on the keating thing. Any input that will save me time is appreciated.

As i wrote before, you have to suck up to alot of people to get ahead in Chicago. the seat obama took in the Illinois congress. The people who decided who will take over the incumbent spot when he ran for senator, was William Ayers, who announced that Obama will be getting the incumbents blessing, With obama at Ayers house hold. Back when this happen, the big deal was not that obama was running, but he got the blessing of Ayers, who was a somewhat powerfull figure in Chicago. And it was assumed back then the only reason he chose the trinity united church, because it was the most powerful black church in Chicago and he had a "not black enough" problem that he wanted to fix.

Obama lives within two blocks of ayers in chicago, and both had their daughters over to each other house to play.

[Hermit]

I wasn't bashing Sullivan, I was pointing out that your example of a typical conservative republican to prove my predictions wrong was in fact nothing of the sort. He's a self described "libertarian conservative". I couldn't care less what his sexual orientation is, to each his own.

When did I ever say he was a "typical" conservative republican, brother.. I mean, Uncle? (). I merely identified him as a "conservative republican", which he certainly is. He's a Ronald Reagan admiring conservative republican. Having a libertarian bent doesn't mean he's not conservative nor does it mean he's not a republican. Granted, he may not be "typical" among conservative republicans right now [the fact that he's (openly) gay pretty much rules out his being a "typical" conservative republican, doesn't it?], but that doesn't mean he's not a conservative republican; which is how I correctly identified him. Ask our friend Ron Paul, another conservative republican who also identifies himself as a libertarian. Ron Paul and Andrew Sullivan might even tell you that they.. the libertarian conservative republicans.. are the true blue (or red, as it may be) conservative republicans, much moreso than those who are considered to be "typical" conservative republicans nowadays.

I'll match your Andrew Sullivan wikipedioa citation with this libertarian wikipedia citation:

"In the United States, libertarianism is claimed to be the philosophy advocated by Thomas Jefferson and several of the Founding Fathers. Libertarianism is often being bundled with American conservatism, due to many conservatives wishing to retain the ideas of the Founders of the United States. On the other hand, many conservatives are uncomfortable with libertarianism, while a few conservative Republicans, such as United States congressman Ron Paul, maintain viewpoints sympathetic to libertarian philosophy, as did Ronald Reagan who said he believed that "the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism." "

I cite Andrew Sullivan's points of view from time time because I find him to be reasonable, intelligent, thoughtful, and open-minded. I find his povs to be quite refreshing.. as far as republican povs go. I don't always agree with him, but I do respect him and I do appreciate his perspective on issues.. .. even if he is.. you know.. a conservative republican.

I'm way late for bed,.. I'll get to the "3 of each" part of your post tomorrow.

In the mean time.. I hope your Keating 5 investigation goes well, bud.

~H

Edited March 19, 2008 by Hermit

[The Rover]

OBAMA IS A MAC DADDY PIMP SAYS PASTOR JAMES D. MANNING OF NY

Edited March 20, 2008 by The Rover

[Uncle Bill]

hermit please explain your criteria for choosing what to post in this thread, I can't follow your thinking.

First I post that everywhere I look there are stories about Obama and Rezko. You respond by cutting and pasting from one of said stories and seem to think it supports your argument that I'm wrong.

Second I post my prediction about BO's speech saying, the usual people will say the expected things. You respond by cutting and pasting an example of what I predicted, a left wing professor supporting a left wing candidate. And you seem to think that supports your argument I'm wrong.

Third I say that I read Sullivan is a self described libertarian conservative not a republican and you cut and paste stuff saying some repubs have libertarian values. So what? Where does he say he's a republican? How does this support your argument?

Honestly, you need to quit trying to figure out how to bash me or prove me wrong and proof read your cut and pastes for content. It's sort of annoying trying to figure out what you think applies. How about you just stick to your own thoughts? I'm not interested in crossing verbal swords with you. If you have something pertinent about the candidates to add please feel free to do so.

(still don't know what this smilie signifies but I like it, when in Rome eh?)

UB

[bigstickbonzo]

Sullivan is a moron. Some of the most biased bullshit out there.

Almost as moronic as Coulter.

[Hermit]

Sullivan is a moron. Some of the most biased bullshit out there.

Almost as moronic as Coulter.

Fool.

Andrew Sullivan is a crossover voter, which in itself goes long way to undermine your "biased" claim. He's a long time conservative republican, and a Christian, who recognizes something special in Obama.. who recognizes that McCain represents nothing but more of the same failed Bush policies.. and who intends to vote for Obama in the general election.

Andrew Sullivan exhibits insight, thoughtfulness, intelligence, and good judgment.

You sir, know not of such things.

[Hermit]

hermit please explain your criteria for choosing what to post in this thread, I can't follow your thinking.

First I post that everywhere I look there are stories about Obama and Rezko. You respond by cutting and pasting from one of said stories and seem to think it supports your argument that I'm wrong.

Second I post my prediction about BO's speech saying, the usual people will say the expected things. You respond by cutting and pasting an example of what I predicted, a left wing professor supporting a left wing candidate. And you seem to think that supports your argument I'm wrong.

Third I say that I read Sullivan is a self described libertarian conservative not a republican and you cut and paste stuff saying some repubs have libertarian values. So what? Where does he say he's a republican? How does this support your argument?

Honestly, you need to quit trying to figure out how to bash me or prove me wrong and proof read your cut and pastes for content. It's sort of annoying trying to figure out what you think applies. How about you just stick to your own thoughts? I'm not interested in crossing verbal swords with you. If you have something pertinent about the candidates to add please feel free to do so.

(still don't know what this smilie signifies but I like it, when in Rome eh?)

UB

I've posting at this board for a long time and have engaged in many a hard-waged socio-political debate. While people have vociferously disagreed with me on many an occasion, no one has ever accused me of being illogical, of posting material that is not relevant to the point I'm making (unless that's my obvious intent), or of having a difficult time executing a bash.

So I do believe that any problems you're having,.. are problems on your end, friend.

Gotta get ready for work.. Catch ya later, Unc.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Hermit

[Pb Derigable]

Andrew Sullivan exhibits insight, thoughtfulness, intelligence, and good judgment.

He could be voting for obama just for the fact obama wants stem cell research. and not because of good judgment. I voted for Obama for senator because I thought he best served me an Union member, but the rest of his ideas i didn't like at all, it doesn't make me smart, unless smarts is picking the winner. Now since i don't have to be a union pawn, i could make other choices.

[donkey]

I nominate Snoopy run for President since he's about as qualified as any of the rest of these gits and nits running currently. Wont 50 USD and 1000 votes get him running?

donkey

PS Steve A Jones would know, whaddya say Jonesy?

[Hermit]

He could be voting for obama just for the fact obama wants stem cell research. and not because of good judgment. I voted for Obama for senator because I thought he best served me an Union member, but the rest of his ideas i didn't like at all, it doesn't make me smart, unless smarts is picking the winner. Now since i don't have to be a union pawn, i could make other choices.

He's written, and spoken, extensively about why he's voting for Obama. So there's really no

reason to speculate or guess about it. Go read what he has to say and find out for yourself.

You may discover, as I have, that you think his pov is indicative of his having.. and exhibiting.. thoughtfulness, insightfulness, and good judgment. And you may discover that you think otherwise. But at least you'll be basing your judgments on his actual reasons for supporting Obama rather than on your speculations about what his reasons might be.

..eh?

[Pb Derigable]

He's written, and spoken, extensively about why he's voting for Obama. So there's really no

reason to speculate or guess about it. Go read what he has to say and find out for yourself.

Fair enough.

[Hermit]

"what about Obama's speech did you object to or find inadequate?

what about it.. if anything.. did you find to be laudible?

address specifically the Reverend Wright issue..

..or any other aspect of the speech you want."

how about 3 of each?

pro's>

1. good speaker, was overall well delivered and pretty much laid it to rest for me except for the things noted below.

2.stated clearly that he heard Wright make the statements in question and disagrees completely with them,

3.no "CHANGE" sign anywhere to be seen, woohoo

cons>

1. didn't explain why prior to yesterday he repeatedly stated he had not heard Wright say these things,

2.didn't adress the "A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA" issue.

3. Seemed to be lecturing us on race relations when he never said/did anything about the racial bashing going on at his church.

Ok,.. Unc,.. here's what I think about your 3 pro's and 3 cons: I think that you failed to grasp that Obama fairly scathingly dressed-down Reverend Wright, and yet he did so while also painting a historically-rooted context for the reverend's pov; he did so sternly, and yet compassionately and respectfully. He disavowed the reverend's words, but did not cast out the man whom he considers to be part of his family, socially and religiously. That was an extremely courageous (politically risky), and mature, and enlightened approach to take. I also think that your small-picture focus indicates that you missed the big-picture point of Obama's speech, which was not to resolve the issues over which candidates (and/or their surrogates) and pundits are squabbling, but to rise above those squabbles (and/or look deeper than those squabbles, as it may be) and to recognize that both Whites and Blacks have legitimate reasons for feeling the race-based resentments that they feel. Obama urged us to recognize the legitimacy of the other race's pov, and to recognize that those disputes arise out of things that have happened in our past (slavery.. "America's original sin", he called it) and that carry over into today. He challenged us to come together to move beyond our past, to acknowledge our present, and to seek out a future in which we come together in unity.. beyond race divisions. He called upon Americans to recall that which we hold in common.. our American spirit.. and our American purpose: to form a more perfect union.

So,.. while you focus on the smaller.. dare I say (yes, I do).. petty issues, Obama

looked much deeper, reached much higher, and spoke of much broader issues.

His speech was inspiring, and poignant, and deep.

Too deep for some, perhaps.

..eh?

And Unc,.. fwiw, Andrew Sullivan's brief analysis of Obama's speech wow'd

me much more (understatement) than your 3 pro's and 3 con's analysis.

I think Sullivan's comments are worth re-posting.

[if for no other reason than to highlight the idiocy of Bigstick's claim that Sullivan is "biased and moronic". Bigstick might take note of the fact that nowhere in Sullivan's comments does he refer to democrats or republicans.. liberals or conservatives.. lefties or righties. He writes about the speech from the pov of a Christian American who by hearing Obama's speech was made to feel proud to be an American, and who by hearing Obama's speech felt a deep love for this country, and who by hearing Obama's speech was made to feel hopeful about America's prospects. What, pray tell, is "biased and moronic" about that? And Sullivan even prefaces/qualifies his comments by saying "I cannot give a more considered response right now" (due to time constraints). Imagine what he'll have to say when he does give a more considered response!]

Heres' what conservative republican Andrew Sullivan had

to say about Obama's "More Perfect Union" speech today:

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

The Speech

18 Mar 2008

"Alas, I cannot give a more considered response right now as I have to get on the road. But I do want to say that this searing, nuanced, gut-wrenching, loyal, and deeply, deeply Christian speech is the most honest speech on race in America in my adult lifetime. It is a speech we have all been waiting for for a generation. Its ability to embrace both the legitimate fears and resentments of whites and the understandable anger and dashed hopes of many blacks was, in my view, unique in recent American history.

And it was a reflection of faith - deep, hopeful, transcending faith in the promises of the Gospels. And it was about America - its unique promise, its historic purpose, and our duty to take up the burden to perfect this union - today, in our time, in our way.

I have never felt more convinced that this man's candidacy - not this man, his candidacy - and what he can bring us to achieve - is an historic opportunity. This was a testing; and he did not merely pass it by uttering safe bromides. He addressed the intimate, painful love he has for an imperfect and sometimes embittered man. And how that love enables him to see that man's faults and pain as well as his promise. This is what my faith is about. It is what the Gospels are about. This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian.

Bill Clinton once said that everything bad in America can be rectified by what is good in America. He was right - and Obama takes that to a new level. And does it with the deepest darkest wound in this country's history.

I love this country. I don't remember loving it or hoping more from it than today."

*source*

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

Well said, Andrew!

[especially for a conservative republican! ]

ok.. I'm off to contribute to society.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Hermit

[Uncle Bill]

I've posting at this board for a long time and have engaged in many a hard-waged socio-political debate.

apparently this fact keeps you from having a normal discussion, too bad. I wonder how many uncommitted voters such as myself have run into Obama supports such as you and been turned off by their penchant for "hard-waged socio-political debate" over just stating the "facts" as you interpret them about your chosen candidate. <shrugs> I won't bother you any more with direct questions/comments. You win, yea

Any other Obama people still following along? Any McCain supporters? What happened to that Clinton guy that was on this thread earlier?

fwiw> the Keating 5 thing seems to be a dead deal as far McCain goes, he obviously benefited from his relationship w/ Keating ( campaign donations, use of plane etc) but they didn't find any laws broken. So I guess the Keating thing and Resko thing are a wash as they stand now imo. Politicians doing what they do, using their position to get all they can for themselves.

UB

[Hermit]

apparently this fact keeps you from having a normal discussion, too bad. I wonder how many uncommitted voters such as myself have run into Obama supports such as you and been turned off by their penchant for "hard-waged socio-political debate" over just stating the "facts" as you interpret them about your chosen candidate. <shrugs> I won't bother you any more with direct questions/comments. You win, yea

Why rely on me to help you make up your mind about a candidate, Unc? Do some friggin research, dude. It's not like there's a shortage of informnation out there, for cryin out loud. I'd think you'd already know all you need to know about Clinton and McCain; as you may have noticed, they've been high profile pols for quite some time now. As far as Obama goes, how many millions of dollars and how many thousands of man-hours do you think the Clintons and the repubs have invested in trying to dig up dirt on the guy?.. and how much have they come up with? Not much, eh?

You already know that politicians are, by the nature of what they do as politicians, not above reproach. No big mystery there, right? So what exactly is it you're looking for in these candidates? Are you looking to rule one out (as being too corrupt), or rule one in (as being barely good enough)? Are you waiting for the next scandalous bombshell to go off, or what?

Personaly, I've seen plenty about these 3 candidates.. enough to form an informed opinion about them. I've already reached a conclusion about who I wanna see in the WH next year. While I'll wholeheartedly support Hillary if she gets the nomination, Obama is the guy I'm hoping gets the nomination and the presidency. I think he's the best candidate for the job right now. Hillary would be fine by me too though... as my second choice. There's no way I'd even consider voting for Bush III.

Anyway,.. I wish you luck in your ongoing endeavor

to figure out which of the three is the.. least impure.

[edited to add]..

Your claim that I don't talk about the facts is unfounded, Unc. Throughout this thread I've talked about the facts pertaining the candidates' positions on the key the issues of this campaign: health care.. Iraq/foreign policy.. waterboarding/torture.. civil liberties.. taxes/the economy.. experience.. etc, etc. The issues have been rather thoroughly covered and discussed, haven't they? The candidates' positions should be very well known to you by now. There have been 19 debates on the dem side alone. If you've watched a few of em, by now you ought to have a really good idea of where the candidates similarities and differences are. It amazes that at this stage in the campaign there would still be people who don't know who they're voting for. What are people waiting for to make up your minds? It's like some people have tuned into the game late in the fourth quarter and are just now trying to figure out who the players are when they should already be rooting for one team to win the game. I think I'm well enough versed on the players and on the issues to have chosen my team: the dems. No question about that. [the prospect of another repub POTUS being the one to nominate judges for the next couple of openings on the Supreme Court is one issue in and of itself that would make me vote dem in this election]. On the dem team, I want Obama to win the nomination. I'm done weighing the choices; I've chosen. I feel like I'm in a good position cuz ultimately I'll be happy with either dem candidate getting the nomination. But I do prefer Obama. And I am entirely comfortable with that choice.

So I'm sorry if my being in Obama cheerleading mode isn't satisfying your desire to debate and discuss the nuances of the issues, Unc. I'm just not in the same space as you right now. I'm not in the choosing phase anymore. Ive already eliminated McCain as a candidate who would ever get my vote. I don't give a hoot about the Keating 5 at this point. McCain is never going to held accountable. That's a dead issue, bro. You know he was one of the 5; what more do you need to know about it? The issues you're focused on about Obama (his relationship to Reverend Wright for example, or the commitment to Africa) don't cause me to question my support for him. I think those are petty issues and I think he's a candidate who needs to be seen in wide angle and appreciated for what he can do for America in the big picture of things. Afaic, he's already crossed my threshold. He's won my support.. even though he's not a perfect human being. Hillary would be fine too, afaic. She's a bulldog, and she'd fight hard for issues that dems tend to support. Both she and Obama are generally aligned with my values and my priorities on the various issues. Certainly moreso than John McCain. For me the choice of who I'm backing is clear and easy. So I'm in the rooting and cheering phase now, bud. I've picked my horse and I'm cheering him on as he's running the race (no pun intended). But for you to suggest that that means I don't discuss facts is unfair and untrue, I think. All you need do is read back on this thread and you'll see that I've engaged in fact-based discussion.. and not all of it "hard-waged socio-political debate" either, but certainly of degree of that too. This is politics afterall, and thats kinda the nature of the beast, ya know?

I hope you get the info you need to help you decide who you wanna support in this election. If you keep sitting on the fence though, the election may be over by the time you finally get around to picking a candidate, ya know?

anyway..

cheers, bud.

~H

Edited March 20, 2008 by Hermit