Positive Obama thread

NoH8

Beesie, why such a kill joy on the POSITIVE Obama thread? you have two negative obama threads to complain on. Your sarcasm and acceptance of the status quo are some of the reasons people embrace Obama. Just because things have always been one way doesn't mean they have to stay that way. If that were the case, blacks would still be enslaved and women wouldn't have the right to vote. I think it's disrespectful of you to come here and rag on Obama and his supporters in what's supposed to be a positive Obama thread.

Shirley did you really believe that Obama chose the gym over the troups???? If so that's frightening and why Faux news is so dangerous. Don't believe everything you hear in commercials. The Pentagon asked Obama not go visit the wounded troups in Germany because he was not with a congressional delegation as he was when he visited the troups in the middle east. There was some confusion because he was originally told that he could visit and then 24 hrs before hand he was told if he went he had to go by himself w/o cameras. The republicans jumped on this and said that he didn't go because it wasn't a photo op. What's interesting is that Obama never intended to bring cameras and the shots of him playing basketball were from the MILITARY's press, not his own. Obama did not bring cameras when he and the delegation visited in the middle east. Obama did play basketball with the troups in that snippet that was released by Military TV, which makes the false attack ad ridiculous. If they wanted to lie about him not visiting the troups, McCain and company shouldn't have used footage of him visiting the troups. FYI, the middle east part of the trip was, as I said, part of a bipartisan congressional delegation, where as the european part of the trip was Obama on his own, meeting some of the world leaders he hopes to be working with in January.

I heard all about O'Reilly's radio show and McClellan's seeming to change his story. McClellan is a worm without a spine and I don't take his first accounting as necessarily factual, although it does fit into Faux's reputation, any more than I do his backing down when confronted. After all, McClellan is the one who didn't speak out about the crimes and misdemeanors in the white house until years after he left the administration and 8 months before Bush is (finally) out of office.

IMHO McCain's ads over the past week are an attempt, in part, to appeal to people who don't fact check and use commercials as a way to glean "knowledge" about the candidates. Negative attacks unfortunately sometimes work, although they didn't help Hillary much and I think she might have won the nomination if she stayed positive.

Beesie

"The Pentagon asked Obama not go visit the wounded troups in Germany because he was not with a congressional delegation as he was when he visited the troups in the middle east."  HUH?  Gee, Amy, don't believe everything you read.  That's not even the story line from the Obama campaign.  The Pentagon did not ask Obama not to go.  It was Obama's decision.  Here's how the Obama campaign explained it, including direct quotes from his spokespeople:

....The Obama camp said they canceled the event after the Pentagon ruled it was a campaign event, and needed to be funded from the senator's election kitty.

"Senator Obama did not want to have a trip to see our wounded warriors perceived as a campaign event when his visit was to show his appreciation for our troops and decided instead not to go," Obama advisor, retired Gen. Scott Gration, said in a statement.

The Obama campaign's chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said: "The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign."  http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/25/obama-campaign-says-cancelled-visit-followed-pentagon-ruling/

As for why I'm here, as I've said before, I won't post here simply to criticize Obama  - I know that's against your rules - but I also won't stand by quietly while all sorts of inaccuracies / slander / absurd hypotheses / criticisms / etc. are passed around about anyone who doesn't support Obama and about McCain and his campaign.  If the discussion here is strictly a "POSITIVE Obama thread", I'll gladly stay away.  But if the conversation continues to be a "NEGATIVE anything/anyone that isn't pro-Obama thread", then continue to expect to see my posts. 

By the way, what's so wrong with having to defend your positions anyway?  bygrace posted some pretty inflammatory comments about voting based on skin color (her words, not mine) and I'm glad that my comment and others led her to explain that it was all in fact just written in fun.  Isn't it a good thing that this was cleared up?

Last comment, why in the world would you think that I "accept the status quo"?  What have I ever said that makes you say that?  Or is it just another attempt at an explanation for why someone, anyone, might not support Obama?  Some explanation other than the qualities of the candidate himself.  For the record, I do not support the status quo. I think the Bush regime has been a disaster for the U.S. and for the world and I think change is necessary.  I just don't think Obama is the right person for the job.  There are lots of sound, rational, well-supported reasons why I feel this way, but I won't go into them here since that would appear to be criticism of Obama and well, that's not allowed.  

LAphoenix

I am sure that there are many of you, who like me, would like to be able to have a political discussion without constantly being lambasted for our opinions by those who think differently. So this thread is for those of us who would like to discuss current events, learn from each other, and share insights without feeling that we have to justify our opinions. This thread is not an attempt to create controversy, debate Democratics or change the opinion of those whose beliefs are at the opposite end of the political spectrum. Some people may enjoy political sparring, but I would prefer a discussion from a conservative/independent point of view. Hopefully, our opinions will be respected and we will be allowed to express them without fear that our comments might offend others.  I encourage fellow Republicans and Independents to bring up topics that are of personal interest to those of us who have never felt welcome on the other forums.  

Well, said, Republican Linda!  Know exactly how you feel.  In fact, I think if you look at Amy's original post on this thread, you'd find very similar sentiments and polite requests.  You know, there just isn't enough time in the day to be justifying and debating every comment that rubs the other side the wrong way.  I'm happy to supply the daily guffaws though (I got some big chuckles out of the Republican thread too).

Amy G.           

sccruiser

Your Whiteness is Showing:
An Open Letter to Certain White Women 
Since many of you who enjoy the Republican thread for your "solidarity," and come to the Positive Obama Thread to continue the attempt at making this a negative thread, I leave you with the following:

Who are Threatening to Withhold Support From Barack Obama in November

By Tim Wise

June 5, 2008

This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are.

I know that it's probably a bad time for this. Your disappointment at the electoral defeat of Senator Hillary Clinton is fresh, the sting is new, and the anger that animates many of you--who rightly point out that the media was often sexist in its treatment of the Senator--is raw, pure and justified.

That said, and despite the awkward timing, I need to ask you a few questions, and I hope you will take them in the spirit of solidarity with which they are genuinely intended. But before the questions, a statement if you don't mind, or indeed, even if (as I suspect), you will mind it quite a bit.

First, for those of you threatening to actually vote for John McCain and to oppose Senator Obama, or to stay home in November and thereby increase the likelihood of McCain winning and Obama losing (despite the fact that the latter's policy platform is virtually identical to Clinton's while the former's clearly is not), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...

For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and increase the odds of his winning (despite the fact that he once called his wife the c-word in public and is a staunch opponent of reproductive freedom and gender equity initiatives, such as comparable worth legislation), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...

For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what you call Obama's sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...

Your whiteness is showing.

When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity, in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press. On this latter point--the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny--you couldn't be more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist voting against Obama is about gender solidarity--you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that at some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding, and it is grotesque.

If it were gender solidarity you sought, you would by definition join with your black and brown sisters come November, and do what you know good and well they are going to do, in overwhelming numbers, which is vote for Barack Obama. But no. You are threatening to vote not like other women--you know, the ones who aren't white like you and most of your friends--but rather, like white men! Needless to say it is high irony, bordering on the outright farcical, to believe that electorally bonding with white men, so as to elect McCain, is a rational strategy for promoting feminism and challenging patriarchy. You are not thinking and acting as women, but as white people. So here's the first question: What the hell is that about?

And you wonder why women of color have, for so long, thought (by and large) that white so-called feminists were phony as hell? Sister please...

Your threats are not about standing up for women. They are only about standing up for the feelings of white women, and more to the point, the aspirations of one white woman. So don't kid yourself. If you wanted to make a statement about the importance of supporting a woman, you wouldn't need to vote for John McCain, or stay home, thereby producing the same likely result--a defeat for Obama. You could always have said you were going to go out and vote for Cynthia McKinney. After all, she is a woman, running with the Green Party, and she's progressive, and she's a feminist. But that isn't your threat is it? No. You're not threatening to vote for the woman, or even the feminist woman. Rather, you are threatening to vote for the white man, and to reject not only the black man who you feel stole Clinton's birthright, but even the black woman in the race. And I wonder why? Could it be...?

See, I told you your whiteness was showing.

And now for a third question, and this is the biggie, so please take your time with it: How is it that you have managed to hold your nose all these years, just like a lot of us on the left, and vote for Democrats who we knew were horribly inadequate--Kerry, Gore, Clinton, Dukakis, right on down the uninspiring line--and yet, apparently can't bring yourself to vote for Barack Obama? A man who, for all of his shortcomings (and there are several, as with all candidates put up by either of the two major corporate parties) is surely more progressive than any of those just mentioned. And how are we to understand that refusal--this sudden line in the proverbial sand--other than as a racist slap at a black man? You will vote for white men year after year after year--and are threatening to vote for another one just to make a point--but can't bring yourself to vote for a black man, whose political views come much closer to your own, in all likelihood, than do the views of any of the white men you've supported before. How, other than as an act of racism, or perhaps as evidence of political insanity, is one to interpret such a thing?

See, black folks would have sucked it up, like they've had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they were on board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to win and hoping for change, any change, from the reactionary agenda that has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have supported the white woman--hell, for many black folks, before Obama showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so--but you won't support the black man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be kissed?

Your whiteness is showing.

Look, I couldn't care less about the Party personally. I left the Democrats twenty years ago when they told me that my activism in the Central America solidarity and South African anti-apartheid movements made me a security risk, and that I wouldn't be able to get clearance to be in some parade with Governor Dukakis. Yeah, seriously. But for you to act as though you are the indispensible voters, the most important, the ones whose views should be pandered to, whose every whim should be the basis for Party policy, is not only absurd, it is also racist in that it, a) ignores and treats as irrelevant the much more loyal constituency of black folks, without whom no Democrat would have won anything in the past twenty years (and indeed the racial gap favoring the Democrats among blacks is about six times larger than the gender gap favoring them among white women, relative to white men); and b) demonstrates the mentality of entitlement and superiority that has been long ingrained in us as white folks--so that we believe we have the right to dictate the terms of political engagement, and to determine the outcome, and to get our way, simply because for so long we have done just that.

But that day is done, whether you like it or not, and you are now left with two, and only two choices, so consider them carefully: the first is to stand now in solidarity with your black brothers and sisters and welcome the new day, and help to push it in a truly progressive and feminist and antiracist direction, while the second is to team up with white men to try and block the new day from dawning. Feel free to choose the latter. But if you do, please don't insult your own intelligence, or ours, by insisting that you've done so as a radical political act. 

And lastly, I hope this will give you something or many things to think about. Interesting that this comes from a white male! He often provides great insight into why race continues to be the elephant sitting on this nation that no one wants to talk about, or even admit to really and truly behaving like a nicely socialized racist, and all the while professing to be accepting of everyone. I believe that there are women on this thread who operate from a covert racism and in reading the negative comments here, I can see that racism is alive and well on this board, as well as in this "great" nation.

Hopefully, those of you that cannot resist making your nasty comments and wanting to debate whatever you think Barack is lacking, with us, will do as I do, and confine your responses to what is written here on your Republican thread, where it can be enjoyed by the others who think like you do.

I do not post on the Republican thread, although I do read it, and shake my head in horror at what is believed and written; but I decided when it was started not to participate there, so you could have your own thread to fill with what you want to discuss and believe. Remember, we have no intention of trying to convince you to vote for Obama. And furthermore, Beesie, you suggest in your words that you only respond here because you want to clear up the "lies" or "untruths" about Obama or force us to defend our positions. Well, I for one, have no intention of responding in that manner. As Amy G. suggests: "Hopefully, our opinions will be respected and we will be allowed to express them without fear that our comments might offend others.  I encourage fellow Republicans and Independents to bring up topics that are of personal interest to those of us who have never felt welcome on the other forums." 

We clearly, have not behaved as nastily as you and others have by coming to this thread and creating a lot of commotion. We have not denounced your candidate or operated as you have on the Repubican thread. AND WE HAVE VERY CLEARLY AND OPENLY READ THE REPUBLICAN THREAD, AND NOT POSTED ANY RESPONSES TO YOUR DENIGRATING BEHAVIOR TOWARDS BARACK OBAMA ON THAT THREAD!!Perhaps you could consider respecting us. LAUGH ALL YOU WANT--IT SLIDES RIGHT OFF OUR BACKS.

Here's hoping Tim Wise's piece will redirect your negativity and scurilous remarks in another direction! As well as, sharing the laughs of the Republican thread for our daily dose of the "what are they thinking?"

NoH8

Beesie, this  thread is for people who are supporting Obama's candidacy. That's been mentioned a few times, yet you continue to disrespect that. This is not a debate topic- I wouldn't go onto the so called respectful republican thread and be disrespectful of that, in fact, I don't even read it because I don't really care what you're saying.

Let's not let the negativity distract us from the campaign. I'm appalled at McCain's behavior. I expected more from him and his campaign. I believed that McCain would run a respectful campaign as he had said. Maybe that was naive, but it was possible. I don't know whether or not obama likes McCain, but he certainly seems to respect McCain. McCain seems to neither like nor respect Obama, which I think makes McCain look petty. One of the pundits said that McCain always acts as if he despises his opponent and and referenced how he treated Romney during the campaigns. After what McCain went through at Bush/Roves' hands, McCain said he's rather lose an election than lose a war, but I guess he'd rather lose his integrity rather than losing the election. I love how Obama is taking the high road, although some of the pundits say that makes him seem elitist-- lol.

Beesie

My, my, it seems that I've upset some people.  That truly was not my intent - my intent was to offer a counterpoint to some outrageous comments and hypotheses about McCain and particularly, those who don't support Obama. I wasn't asking for debate - you can choose to read my replies and respond to them or not.  If you don't, they'll just die on the vine.  But if you respond and specifically comment about me, then I will reply.  It seems to me that a direct reference to me is an invitation to reply. 

grace say the following about me: "you suggest in your words that you only respond here because you want to clear up the "lies" or "untruths" about Obama or force us to defend our positions. Well, I for one, have no intention of responding in that manner." 

No, those were not my words.   I just wrote my comments a few posts above yours and yet you manage to misquote and misinterpret my comments.  What I actually said is that I respond to "inaccuracies / slander / absurd hypotheses / criticisms / etc. ...about anyone who doesn't support Obama and about McCain and his campaign."   That's quite different.  I don't care what you say about Obama.  I care what you say about those like me who don't support Obama. 

I also never suggested that I was replying in order to get the Obama supporters to defend their positions.  I understand that you don't want to do what.  What I did say is that "I'm glad that my comment and others led (grace) to explain that it was all in fact just written in fun", i.e. I'm glad that you decided to respond and clarify your earlier comments, but I never wrote my post expecting you to respond.  I was actually surprised that you did respond.   I also asked "what's so wrong with having to defend your positions anyway?", which is simply a question.  I honestly don't understand the point in having a political discussion when it's mandated that everyone who participates in the discussion must agree. How do you further your understanding of the candidates and the issues in that type of situation?  If you aren't called upon to defend your positions, how do you know that your positions are valid?  Wouldn't a more balanced debate increase your knowledge?  Again, I'm not suggesting that this forum should be a debate or that you should be required to defend your positions in this thread, but I'm just wondering why that would be such a bad thing. 

A couple of final comments.  And yes, these will be my final comments, unless someone "invites" me to respond by directly commenting about me or to me. Or unless I see something so outrageous that it warrants a counterposition.  And if you look back over this whole thread, you'll see that I've only done that 3 times.  Each time, I tried to make my response factual, polite and respectful.  It's been in the back and forth after my initial response, when comments were made by people here about my response or about me, that things have gotten a bit more heated (but never nasty, as you seem to suggest, grace).

First:  No, grace, the article you posted did not give me anything to think about.  There are some valid points, but there's nothing new there, nothing that I haven't already considered (because I do try to educate myself on both sides of the argument).  The author discounts the myriad of reasons why people (and women in particular, to his argument) dislike Obama and assumes that all women should fall in line behind Obama because he is closer to their beliefs on the issues.  He seems to be one more person who believes that anyone doesn't support Obama is a hidden racist.  Just for the record, the biggest issue for me in not supporting or trusting Obama is naivete, particularly as related to foreign affairs and even more specifically, related to his position (and his advisors' positions) on Israel.  I fear that he may mess up the world even more than George W. Bush did.  For me, that overrides everything else. (My apologizes for the negative comment on Obama.) 

Second:  If you really want to associate only with those who think like you, might it not be better to participate in some discussion board associated with the Obama campaign, rather than on a public discussion board where your comments inevitably will offend other people?

Anonymous

Beesie, I will get attacked for saying this, but I am anyway.

There was a poster on this very thread that left for quite some time.  Why?  Because of her very own negative comments that some were "removed by the community."  And, later when she returned to the boards she started this "POSITIVE Obama thread."  Look back on the old thread and you'll see where people were asking where this poster was.  I was "attacked," or "ridiculed" (or whatever verb you want to use) by this person.  I didn't vote to remove any of her posts because I felt I could defend myself, and words didn't hurt or bother me. 

Now, I will make no more comments on this thread.  I don't get anything from it.  All I see is no matter what Obama says, does he's not going to lose these peoples votes.

And, BTW posters, to stop this energy crises you should do what Obama suggests...inflate your tires and keep the motor tuned.  That's the newest advice Obama has given.  I had to snicker.

Bye bye.

Shirley

NoH8

Grace and LA, it's interesting how some people feel the need to have the last word and the need to "win". Let's follow Obama's lead and take the high road.

Shirley, what was your intent posting what you did? Was it to be hurtful, because  I refuse to allow you to do that to me. For your information, I left for a while because I was busy with the Obama campaign in PA and then phone work for the campaign after that, until we secured the nomination. After that my house caught fire and I haven't been able to volunteer since that time and I didn't have internet access for the first week, At first I was too traumatized to volunteer,and then I had too much to do to get back home, I would appreciate if you want to attack me, to do so through PM as not to poison the thread with your negativity and dislike for me.

AnnNYC

LA Phoenix -- Tim Wise is an old fave of mine -- thanks for posting his essay.

LAphoenix

Speaking of high roads . . . So now that the negative character ads and sound bites have been launched against Obama, what do you think he should do?  That seems to be the debate right now.  I don't think the Hilton-Spears ad needs to be answered (funny that both of their families are Republicans--oops!), but the he's-playing-the-race-card accusation probably should be addressed.  It feels like another no-win scenario, though.  If he lets them score that point now, he won't be able to say anything when they start the scare tactics in earnest later.  If he insists that they are, in fact, trying to make people uncomfortable with his race, then he risks coming across as overly sensitive.  And should he start wearing jeans and drinking beer to prove he's not "elitist?"  Or should his campaign stick with an electoral strategy of simply trying to win a key red state or two by putting Kaine or Bayh on the ticket and not spending a lot of time and money answering the character smears?  The electoral/delegate strategy worked brilliantly for him in the primaries.  Can it work in the general election?          

I guess it was inevitable that the election would sink quickly to the bumper-sticker mentality.  Karl Rove was right when he said that politics is TV with the sound turned down.  At least we have the hilarious ongoing Daily Show spoof of cable news election coverage.  All of those guys need to be made fun of on a regular basis, IMO. 

Amy G.

       

NoH8

Obama will be attacked by the republicans no matter what he does. Someone said that the McCain camp decided that they can't win, but they can make Obama lose. Did you know they had two commercials ready after his trip to germany, one that said he didn't care enough to visit the troups, another that said he visited the troups for a photo op. I was upset when McCain said Obama would rather lose the war than lose the election, because Obama has an 80% favorable voting record from US vets and McCain has a lowly 20%.

I also get frustrated with the whole "win the war" mentality. Nobody wins in a war if people die. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead due to the war.  They have lost more lives than the Americans, but we rarely see the number of dead Iraqis counted or mentioned by the Bush administration or even the USA media.

I honestly don't know how I'd advise the campaign to respond to all the negativity. Kerry took the high road and people ended up believing all the swift vote garbage. Unfortunately, those who thought Kerry and Gore were intellectual elitists vote and are willing to believe the garbage that's out there. I don't know how to appeal to those folks without talking down to them. I guess he does need to show himself the everyday man, which is ironic because Obama is not a wealthy man by washington standards. McCain is the elitist with his numberous houses (is it 7?) and his heiress wife charging 250,000 in one month. Struggling families can't relate to that kind of opulence and hubris. She can't help being a heiress, but jeez, is she trying to stimulate a sluggish economy all on her own. I don't understand how people that wealthy can really appreciate things. But I digress.

I like the commericals that quote sources calling out McCain's lies about Obama. The one that starts off with that and then gives the right message is powerful, but it also comes off as Obama is chasing McCain. Obama needs to take the lead and talk about how much he respects the work McCain has done and that part of the "change" environment is a respect for those who disagree in principle, a willingness to compromise. There may still be strife, but I believe that the president is the role model for that respect.

LAphoenix

AnnNYC: Actually it was Grace who posted the Wise article.  He makes a lot of good points.  I have a friend whose middle-aged former college friend emailed her a glowing article about McCain, as well as one of those reactionary "his middle name is Hussein!" screeds against Obama.  My friend and I naturally assumed the woman was supporting McCain, although my friend was puzzled because the woman had always been a Democrat.  We were shocked when she said she was a Clinton supporter.  Sadly, my friend's friend hasn't spoken to her since they got into an argument about it.  

Amy: I guess elitism is different things to different people.  We may define it in terms of money, privilege and exclusion (the country club thing), but others see it as an attribute of education and culture.  I think part of the McCain strategy, like Bush before him, is to demean and attack Obama's strengths, to make what should be good qualities, like intelligence, being educated and thoughtful, into negatives.  It worked for Bush, maybe it will work for McCain.  I heard some McCain surrogate going on about Obama the arrugula eater.  Ugh.

But I agree with you about Obama taking the lead and getting his message of compromise out.  I think he also needs to get more specific with his policy statements (which I gather from today's news, he's doing).  There's always a lot of b.s. that goes with campaign pledges, but he's going to need to do it more.  And maybe while he's at it, he can get McCain to reveal how he's going to catch Osama bin Laden.  At least we don't have to worry about the anthrax killer anymore (whom McCain said would turn out to be an Iraqi, for sure). 

Amy G.    

       

            

AnnNYC

Amy G, thanks for point out that I should thank bygrace1 for posting the Tim Wise article!

NoH8

Did you guys hear that hillary has decided not to put her name in for the roll call? I was so pleased to hear this and have a lot of respect for her to do that. I believe that when she got some time away from the campaign and perspective, she remembered that her priority was putting a democrat in the white house.

What did you think when obama said he would consider researching off shore drilling as part of a bipartisan compromise that also funded alternate energy sources? My initial thoughts were that this is what will make him a good president, although I disagree with off shore drilling when we have so much area that's designated for drilling that hasn't been tapped yet. I see this time as a golden opportunity to jump forward in terms of conservation and alternative energies, just like in the mid 70s when carter was in office. The difference is that this time the planet is more in danger than ever and most people have realized that. I don't know if that realization is enough to make the majority of people figure out that we all have to do our part and make sacrifices in comfort levels. People can carpool, take public transportation, have their cars properly maintained, get rid of the SUVS and minivans, buy locally etc but no one is out there speaking to the public at large on a regular basis. obama will be a president who takes the lead on this, not like Bush and some of his republican buddies who said, "we aren't going to do anything unless china does."  If we want to be the leader of the free world, we have to set the example.

LAphoenix

When I first heard about the offshore drilling compromise, my reaction was, what?!  I was a little less freaked out when I read the details of the compromise, but it's still troubling.  I understand the need to move things forward, especially as Congress' approval rating is down to about 8%, but I wish it didn't have to be on that particular issue.  The Dems' suggested compromise of only allowing drilling on existing leases and far enough offshore that it won't affect beaches, as well as the windfall tax on the oil companies, makes it more bearable, I suppose.  No matter what people say now, when it comes time to do the actual drilling, no one's gonna volunteer to have black goo washing up on their beaches.  It'll be, I demand more offshore drilling, just so long as it's on the other guy's shore.  Living in California, I can tell you the goo is not nice. 

But looking at the "big picture," I agree that the U.S. needs to set positive examples and return to its role as the good leader, not just the self-serving bully on the block.   

           

NoH8

LA, I don't think Obama said or insinuated that he would definitely drill, but to explore the possibility that drilling has improved. I agree with everything you've said- it's a bad idea. Drill everywhere that oil is legal to drill for first before screwing with the beaches. I hate to think of what that drilling does to the environment. the pacific ocean is where the el nino and la nina systems originate, isn't it? I have to believe that would have an impact on the ocean's temperature.

I think Obama has to show he's open to at least examining the option, I think any president should be sure they know the whole issue inside and out before saying yes or no to a major plan like that. when McCain talks about "climate change" I get the feeling that he doesn't really understand what all that means, just that it's bad for the planet. I would love to see someone pin him down and get real specific.

sccruiser

bygrace posted some pretty inflammatory comments about voting based on skin color (her words, not mine) and I'm glad that my comment and others led her to explain that it was all in fact just written in fun.  Isn't it a good thing that this was cleared up? If you want to believe that I was having fun, then do so, but remember Beesie, don't believe everything you read! As far as voting by skin color, they were "words" that have been bandied about for quite some time by the media pundits (which is often true of the postings on other threads so I don't attribute them TO the person who wrote them). Who made you the Positive Obama Thread police? It's really not necessary for you to come here and "clear everything up" by attacking comments on this thread. Perhaps you should spend the time clearing everything up on the other threads! Finally, I don't think you "upset" anyone on this thread. It is what it is--like flicking a fly off the picnic table. 

I'm saddened for you that the Wise article didn't give you anything to think about--no, perhaps more like pity you. LOL

 Beesie, I will get attacked for saying this, but I am anyway. Oh, Shirley, since O4P answered you so politely, I will not respond except to say that was very small minded and mean spirited of you. Oh, also, why Amy was away from the other thread is her business and I would not continue to post comments like you did on this thread anymore. It's not nice and certainly demeans any comments you might make as credible.

Well, ladies, I'm glad you enjoyed the Wise article. Certainly a breath of fresh air. Can you smell how clean it is now--take a deep breath--ah. LOL

Amazing how some words from a white man send whatever slithered out of the woodwork to slither back in! Even when his essay didn't give them anything to think about. Mmm!

Obama needs to attack McCain on his lack and knowledge of the economy. Barack needs to explain his platform more clearly, and put McCain on the defensive. With Rove and that weasel from Bushy's campaign assisting the McCain campaign, I think McC is in for a backward slide towards the white house. The American public is smart (as McC says) and they will not tolerate another negative campaign for the WH. 

I'm not pleased about Obama's compromise on drilling. As a Californian living a few miles from one of the most beautiful marine sanctuaries in the world, it would sadden me deeply to have off shore drilling here. I know there has been talk of giving the states the right to decide about off shore drilling, and I know that we Central Coasters would fight tooth and nail to stop it from happening here. I don't trust these WH "oilmen" with their promises of how "safe" drilling is now, and how quickly it will "fix" our energy crisis. Just don't believe it, and anyone who does, there's a bridge in Alaska to nowhere they would love to sell you!

The ocean is the last place we want to continue to hemmorhage. If we "poop" in our lifeline, there will be no need to worry about gas for cars, as there will be no life on earth. There is so much cleaning up of the ocean that needs to be done, it is disgusting. For years, the world has treated the ocean as its sewer, and drilling only increases the chances of another Valdez disaster. But I'll vote for Obama even if I don't agree with where he stands on some issues, as he is the Democratic candidate. I would have done the same if it had been Edwards or Clinton.

LAphoenix, I agree with you--not in California! And O4P, you are right, there is much more we can do to help the energy crisis--we don't have to wait for Congress to try to do it for us! There have been editorials in the paper on slowing down mph on freeways--to 55-60 mph. Lots of positive responses as people increase the miles driven on a tank of gas by 1/3. I think all those huge SUVs and Hummers, luxury cars, etc. that use high-octane fuel should pay a surcharge for the "privilege." I see cars on the freeway going 80-90 mph and I don't feel sorry for them at all when they complain about the price of gas. We knew this day was coming, as did the oil companies (with record profits I might add--supposedly going to research energy saving vehicles--how long will we believe them?), the car companies (where is Henry Ford when we need him--he made an inexpensive car for less wealthy people--can't be done again--pleez!) who state " they make what the American public wants to buy" (when they could easily sell us advertising that would get us to buy what is best for the planet--we need a reasonably priced car for the lower incomes who are affected the most by the rise in gas prices)--they have done it before--isn't that how the Am public decided they needed the biggest, shiniest, got to have it now cuz I want it now" dino-mobiles?

What happened to "leading by example" as a positive virtue rather than the bully example (as LA states). Why should Americans wait for Congress, the oil companies, car companies, big business, the rich to lead us? Why can't we take back our country and make it the democracy it was meant to be, instead of this racist, sexist meritocracy we live in today?

I certainly am not naive enough to think that Obama can change this country or how the world thinks about us (as terrorists and warmongerers) now, but we can start to change who we are, and how we want to live in this world. Voting for off shore oil drilling because we selfishly want the price of gas to go down, is ridiculous, when our voting and actions affect the world. We are on the planet together, we are human beings together, we must think of each other and all those who do not reside in our vicinity. We are one. We as one want change. We want a government that holds the golden rule as a standard, not as something we expect parents to teach in the home.

If we want a place for our grandchildren to live, and those generations ongoing, we better think very seriously about what we think we must have now, and what we can give up now, to have a future on this planet!

Okay, I am stepping down from my soapbox! Who wants the floor?

Have a great weekend all. I am looking forward to today. My husband and I are giving away the bride and the bride at my sil & so's wedding. It is a historic moment in time. And even though there is a proposition on the ballot in Nov. to make same sex marriage "illegal" in our CA constitution, those who marry before November will NOT have their marriages rescinded !!

At least Jerry Brown (our Atty Gen) is doing the right thing, and changing the title of the Prop, so people see what it's really about, and will most likely vote it down. Evidently, this may change whether the constitution will change--as in won't--if the measure passes--which I will campaign in support of a resounding NO!!

Beesie

Ah, grace, you couldn't leave it alone, could you?  I said I wouldn't respond unless someone commented directly about me, and you had to do it. 

"I'm saddened for you that the Wise article didn't give you anything to think about--no, perhaps more like pity you. LOL".  Hmmm... did you actually read what I wrote?  What I said was that I was already aware of the points being made in that article - and yes, some are valid - but there was nothing new for me to think about because I've already given consideration to all those points.  Been there, done that.  Already thought about it.  Reached a different conclusion for different reasons that override the arguments made in that article. 

You do make a fair point that I shouldn't believe everything that I read.  I try to be honest so I suppose I expect that most other people are too; I know that's naive on my part.  So if I understand correctly, you are implying that you lied in your earlier posts.  Okay.  And if you lied, that implies that you actually believe some of what you wrote.  Well, on those issues, there's really nothing more that I want to say.  I trust the readers of these posts - your posts and mine - to judge for themselves. 

sccruiser

That's not what I said Beesie, at all. I just said don't believe everything you read. I keep that in mind every time I read a post here. We all get our information from different sources, all of which manipulate the information to put the right spin on it. I see that in your attempted analysis of whether or not I lied, or "that implies that you actually believe some of what you wrote." Huh?

Yes, I read what you wrote, and I guess we handle our reaching a "standpoint" differently. So, again we disagree. I often read op-ed articles more than one time. I also do that with what I read here on the internet or what I see on TV. It is amazing how much can be gleaned out of an article if you really study it--learned that when I went to college. It's a matter of deconstructing the main issues of the article and studying the arguments. I don't expect many of the more conservative women on the board to spend very much time doing that.

What I don't like about the negative harangues regarding Obama, is that you don't find us going to the Republican or Hillary thread to challenge the information posted there. It certainly won't change anybody's mind about how they feel in this election. AND more specifically, we aren't going there to challenge what is written about McCain--at least we leave them alone with their negative obama comments and respect their right to do so. I certainly don't expect them to expect me to challenge their comments about Obama. Perhaps O4P needs to change our thread title to the Respectful Positive Obama thread?

 Beesie wrote: Ah, grace, you couldn't leave it alone, could you?  I said I wouldn't respond unless someone commented directly about me, and you had to do it. What can I say, I just had to reel you in one more time!! LOL

NoH8

Beesie, is it really that important to have the last word?

Grace, the reason the trolls on this thread bother me is because it's hard to believe some folks in this country and in this world are that closed to thinking openly about race. I know folks like that are out there, McCain for instance whining that Obama was playing the race card. If Hillary mentioned she wouldn't look like the others on the dollar bills, would that be playing the gender card? If Hillary mentioned that she was a woman would that be playing the gender card? I think not. If Obama said, vote for me because I'm black, that would be, in my opinion. When Hillary said, it's time for women to run the country, that was playing the gender card because it marginalized her to a woman rather than the best candidate. Others may disagree.

In terms of race, there are people who want to close their eyes to the issue and to only look at the direct dialogue and not the subtext. There was a man who, on friday, shot up a book warehouse. The guy was a nut who had been fired from there a few months ago, in part because he wasn't took off to watch a hockey playoff game after not being given the day off. He was disciplined at work because he called a black coworker "boy" and thought that was unfair and he said this was part of his anger at the company. I bet there are people, maybe even here on this board, who agree that he was treated unfairly for calling the black man "boy". Some might even see that as reverse discrimination. Others like us will see using the term "boy" for what it is, a racial slur and an attempt to  assert racial superiority. There may even be a few ignorant to the fact that "boy" is a racial slur, who apologize and don't use the term again,

This is a conservative board and some of the folks on here aren't even eligible to vote. I try to remember that if not for breast cancer I'd probably never encounter most of the women on here in any circle and that many vote and protest against issues that I hold very dear to me.  Some seem to be looking for words from Obama and his supporters to use against us.

We are the change we've been waiting for means that each and every person in the world has the ability to promote positive change, no matter how the detractors try to spin it. Remember this image from the 2000/04 relections http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map . I say that the blue states secede from Jesusland and form our more perfect union if the republicans succeed in scaring the american people against Obama the way they did Kerry and Gore.

Beesie

Gee, Amy, here I had no intention of responding to grace - her post did reference me and she did wrongly imply that I'm not thorough in the research that I do to reach my conclusions, but I didn't find her post to be particularly inflammatory.  To keep my word about the situations under which I said I would post here, and to abide by your request that I not participate in this thread, I was going to just let it be.  And then you go and insult me.  I'm a troll now? 

Why do you continue to believe that anyone who doesn't support Obama is simply a closet racist?  This is insulting to the intelligence of everyone who doesn't support Obama.  And that includes me.  But this doesn't mean that I believe that racist doesn't exist and isn't a factor in this election - of course it is.  There are some people who will not vote for Obama for reasons that are racist.  And there are some people who will vote for Obama for reasons that are racist.  But to suggest or imply that all non-Obama supporters are racist is outrageous and slanderous.

If Hillary mentioned she wouldn't look like the others on the dollar bills, would that be playing the gender card?  YES!

If Hillary mentioned that she was a woman would that be playing the gender card?  YES!

Others like us will see using the term "boy" for what it is, a racial slur and an attempt to assert racial superiority. Others "like us"?? It's only Obama supporters who see racism for what it is?  Excuse me?  Of course use of the term "boy" in the context in which it was used was racist.  I don't support Obama but I see that.  It's pretty fricking clear.

Amy, it's a shame that you have stooped to the level of insulting the non-Obama supporters. As the person who started the "Positive Obama thread", I would think that you would want to keep the discussion positive.  I thought the most recent posts on this thread were highly informative and well thought out, discussing interesting issues that Obama faces as he campaigns.  What was the point in bringing this all up again, if not to provoke the non-Obama supporters, and particularly, me?  

I am happy to walk away and not have the last word - I would be delighted, in fact - but I also won't allow you or anyone here to insult me without response.  

Your friendly neighborhood Troll. 

Anonymous

I peak in from time to time and don't post here because I have nothing positive to say about Obama, but Amy has violated the rules of the board and done the name calling thing again ..

So, Amy, do you want to edit your post? Do you think it's nice or polite to call people who disagree with you a TROLL???  

And I reported the post to the mods.  The gyst of your post may get by them but I would hope they would once again chat with you. 

AnnNYC

I'd like to be as noninflammatory as possible in saying what I'm about to say.

This is not a politics board.  I can get into political arguments on politics boards if I want (my preference would be DailyKos).

The stated purpose of this thread, started by Amy, was to have a place for supporters of Obama to discuss Obama peacefully -- much along the same lines as Linda Memm's respectful Republican conversation.

Rocktobermom, on politics boards and many other internet sites, the word "troll" has a different, older meaning than "spammer" or "utterly malicious" -- it means someone who keeps harping on something in order to stir up an emotional reaction.

If I were to go to Linda Memm's Republican thread and say "you're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" -- I would be a troll on that thread.  But I'm not doing that.

I really think this shouldn't be a big "freedom of speech" issue.  I think polite observance of the request of someone who starts a thread is a way to maintain solidarity, polity, comity, "a big tent" for all of us women, who have BC in common and reasons to bond and support each other - even if you think it's silly to have a "worshipful" thread, and you think the people who are "worshipping" are all wrong.  The overriding bond of BC should let us "turn the other cheek" or "bite our tongues" and let people enjoy their favorite "spots" -- you don't see the "Positive Girls Club" posting their disapproval on the "I Bitch, I Moan" thread -- or vice versa.

Anonymous

Ya know, I don't mind be called a troll.  Hell, why should I?  This isn't a locked thread.  I can enter anytime I want.  However, I highly resent being called racist.  Perhaps you haven't PERSONALLY called me out, but it sure was implied.  I have supported Obama to REAL racist people..people that wouldn't vote for him because he's a ______..you know, that dirty, nasty word!  I will not let anyone get by with saying they won't vote for Obama because of his race. 

And, yes Obama was AGAIN using the race card.  He did it before and he did it again.  However, I doubt very seriously he'll do it again.

The color of his skin doesn't bother me one bit.  Actually, I don't even notice it.  Have you noticed it does seem he puts more whites on the stage with him than blacks.  I find that strange.

Okay, go back to your calling names. 

And, BTW, the person who you referred to that can't vote in this country was invited to share her thoughts with us many, many, many months ago.  Are you saying that she shouldn't share her thoughts?  She's a member of this breast cancer community too.

Bye, once again.

Shirley

LAphoenix

Thanks, Ann, for trying to appeal to our better angels.  Sometimes I think this board is a lot like the DMV or a call to jury duty.  As you say, we're all here because of one common trait--we were diagnosed with breast cancer.  Otherwise, we're as different as a collection of people waiting for our name to be called in the jury room.  Have you noticed during jury duty how people tend to pair off and seek friendship with certain others?  I think that's how many of the threads here operate. We seek out like-minded people, women we feel comfortable and safe chatting with, whether it's talking politics or pets or religion.  We also come together to talk breast cancer and offer one another support.  We're not going to all like each other, but one hopes we can all respect one another.         

It's obvious to me that there are women here who thrive on argument.  Nothing wrong with that,  it's just not what this particular thread, and this particular group of women, were supposed to be about.  And apparently it's not what LindaMemm wanted when she started the Republican thread and asked that only Republicans and independents post.  The Obama group doesn't have a problem with that, why do others have such a problem with our identical request?  Why has our request been ignored and disrespected over and over?  Do you really hate Obama that much?  Are you really so certain about the correctness of your judgments that you have no qualms inserting yourself into our discussion and questioning our judgments?  Then acting outraged when some of us stoke the fires and strike back in anger?  What were you expecting?  To be treated respectfully?  Maybe we should all go to the doghouse for a while and cool off.  Then let our better angels prevail.       

sccruiser

Thanks Ann and LAphoenix for your comments. Hopefully, your words will be read and processed by those who continue to insert their negativity about anything Obama into this thread.

Amy, I'd also like to say that no one has the right to "report" you to the moderators, as you never put a name to the descriptor "troll." It could be anyone on this thread, truly. How someone interprets our own words is their perspective and not necessarily (as LAphoenix states) the"correctness of judgements" on their parts. Those who participate here in a negative way will hopefully take their negativity elsewhere. Quite frankly, I have decided to let my better angel prevail, and I will no longer respond to their negative diatribes on this thread, as someone else suggested I do!

Now, I was watching CNN last night, and they played part of a speech that McCain was giving on the "economy." Now, I wrote down his exact words: "government has grown by 60% in the last 8 years and the American People are angry because the Administration and Congress haven't done their job." WTH?? 

1. He's a member of Congress (so I guess he hasn't done his job either--and he wants to run this country? Why? So he can continue to not do the job?

2. government has grown by 60%--that seems to happen when the Republicans are in office doesn't it--at least it's been happening in the past 20 years!! And we wonder why the middle class is disappearing, and we can't feed or take care of the homeless in this country, and in inner city schools more than 75% of the high school students drop out (so much for no child left behind). He's not building any confidence that would convince me he will do any better than Bushy--it will just be a third term.

3. Bushy & Darth Vadar have been running this country for 8 years, right down the  tubes. When Bushy took office in 2000, the nation's budget had a huge surplus (which Bill Clinton managed to put together with his 8 years in office) and Bushy has, in the last 8 years, run this country into the LARGEST deficit in the HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY!!! So, why would anyone want to vote for a man who would continue the losing policies of the current administration, or should I say regime because they sure don't like to hear anything negative about what they do!

4.Wasn't the Congress Republican for 6 years of the 8? that gave them a lot of time to not do their job! A Democratic Congress has been in place for 2 years, and is unable to get the Republicans to work together with them on issues that are important to the American People--namely, the Bush's War of Folly (Iraq), Bin Laden & Afghanistan, oil & gas, housing market, jobs, unemployment, homelessness, education--need I go on! Three-fours of the time this Congress has been "working" has been Republican. Any fool can see that McCain doesn't have a clue who has damaged our economy and won't take responsibility for it.

How can he possibly be our president when he doesn't even know who's up to bat, and who struck out?

And Obama has not used the race card--it's the other folks out there who don't want to talk about RACE! Hello...why do you think there are still problems with how people treat each other? Why do you think that in this country we have about 12% Blacks or African-Americans--and over 70% of the men in jail in this "great" nation are what? BLACK OR AFRICAN AMERICAN. And no one wants to talk about race. And no one wants Obama to mention that he's Black. And no one wants to admit that they might be racist--even a little? Come on. You can continue to live in the land of denial, but one day you might just understand all you won't listen to or consider? This country is a Meritocracy, not a Democracy. There is no Affirmative Action (AA) and there should be. McCain doesn't even know what AA is, and IT IS NOT A QUOTA!! He was asked about AA, and that was his answer: "I don't believe in quotas." Mmmm? What else doesn't he know, or want us to know what he thinks about RACE? 

This country was started by White Men, and it continues to be run by White Men (they are the majority in positions of power). Why do you think Hillary had such a difficult time? McCain won't talk about race because he can stay a "covert racist," by not talking about it. We don't even know to what level he might be racist. It's years of conditioning, and ignoring color is another way of not having to admit that you are a racist in some way. We all are. We may not mean to be, and we may not want to be, but we are maybe just a little, but it's there. We just don't want to acknowledge it because that would me we would have to do something about it. AND if we don't do anything about it, we can quietly continue to go about our lives, because we of the white skin can pretend that everything is hunky-dory and it's not my problem--it's their problem--the Blacks, the African Americans, the Native Americans, the Hispanics, the Asian, the etc., etc.,...

That's how we have operated in this country and that's how we will continue, until people are willing to sit down and talk about race. To have serious conversations about it, and that's scary, because we don't want to admit that we are wrong!

I believe that McCain does not want to address race, and will accuse Barack of using the race card when he can, because McCain doesn't know how to talk about it. He's afraid he might make some mistakes and we would learn the truth about him, and how he conducts himself. We need to keep asking questions, and ferreting out his true character. Yes, he's a POW survivor, and a Veteran, and a cancer survivor. We can find common ground somewhere there. But that's a small part of who he is. I just don't trust him. 

Okay, I'm gonna go work on my better angel--not sure it's apparent in this response.

Have a lovely evening everyone 

Anonymous

Grace, everybody has every right to report anybody........ Amy has called people out without naming names.  If that's ok, then everyone have at it! All by innuendo. 

I am not arguing anyone's point of view ....... just the FACT that she is calling people trolls and racist.  To please stop name calling. There is no defending the other side.  It is not ok to call names. If it is .....then all bets would be off and that would be a sad day to see name calling on other threads.

LAphoenix

Well, here's David Gergen's take on the racism in the campaign issue: 

"I think the McCain campaign has been scrupulous about not directly saying it, but it's the subtext of this campaign. Everybody knows that. There are certain kinds of signals. As a native of the south, I can tell you, when you see this Charlton Heston ad, 'The One,' that's code for, 'he's uppity, he ought to stay in his place.' Everybody gets that who is from a southern background. We all understand that. When McCain comes out and starts talking about affirmative action, 'I'm against quotas,' we get what that's about."

But apparently Obama's doing better than expected with working class whites (except in West Virginia, which we know from the primaries is home to the most blatantly racist Democrats in the nation).  The poll watching talking heads chalked it up to their fears about health insurance--losing it, or not having it to begin with.  

I was also cheered by the comments of Kathy Hilton, who took you-know-who to the woodshed for his silly ad.  I give her props for expressing some empathy for struggling folks.   

And now Obama is being mocked for suggesting that people can save gas by inflating their tires properly and getting tune-ups.  You-know-who's campaign is selling $25 tire gauges as a joke (shades of the sarcastic purple hearts worn at the Republican convention in 2004?)  Where did that crazy idea come from anyway?  Some fringe environmental group no doubt.  

From The Detroit Free Press (where they know something about cars): "Tire pressure checks have been a key fuel-saving tip that automakers, tire companies and government experts have recommended for years. On its fuel economy Web site, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that underinflated tires can shave up to 3% from a vehicle's fuel economy.

Over a couple hundred million vehicles, those shavings add up. The Department of Energy estimated in 2005 that U.S. motorists wasted 1.2 billion gallons of gasoline a year from driving on underinflated tires -- roughly 61 million barrels of oil.

By comparison, the U.S. Department of Interior says there are 17.9 billion barrels of oil available off-shore in areas under the federal drilling ban. Due to a shortage of equipment and legal hurdles, experts estimate that if the ban was lifted, it would take at least five years to produce an additional drop of oil from those areas.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration said last year that new off-shore drilling could add about 200,000 barrels of oil per day to U.S. output -- not enough to have "a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030."

And did you know that tire pressure is the sum total of Obama's energy policy?  He has no other ideas apparently!  Has never said a word about his energy policy until yesterday.  Has never talked about alternative energy sources or setting standards for fuel-efficient cars, or anything else.  Yes, it's true, because you-know-who said so! 

OK, that's my daily dose of sarcasm.   

Amy G.

P.S. Grace, how was your s-i-l's wedding?  Was it "traditional?"

NoH8

Hey Obama supporters, the negative posts on this thread remind me of the way McCain is trying to muddy the waters with attacks that have nothing to do with the presidental campaign.  This site can be really cliquish.

When do you think the VPs will be announced. I think McCain is going to wait until Obama announces, and since the republican convention is 2nd he can do that even if Obama waits until the last minute. I am almost positive I know who McCain is going to pick, but not as sure about Obama. I think McCain will pick Carly Fiorino (sp?), former HP head in an attempt to go after the Hillary stragglers and put in place a strong business person. Even though she is more socially liberal and probably prochoice, at worst I think religious right zealots will stay home rather than vote Obama, or they might vote for Barr and some of Hillary's fringe still blame Obama and sexism for her loss. Carly has been out there on the cable shows touting McCain and I think McCain wants to make some big news to quell some of Obama's appeal.

I heard something interesting from my crush Rachel Maddow in response to a comment from Pat Buchanan. Pat said that for Obama to pick a woman other than Hillary would be a slap in the face to Hillary. He said Hillary is the woman in line. Well this pissed Rachel (and me) off and she said that women weren't monolithic and that one couldn't be exchanged for another that some women brought different experiences and positives than Hillary and vice versa. I wish I had the exact quote because it was brilliant. It was on the last few minutes of race for the white house.

Also, Obama supporters--- what do you think about Bill Clinton's comments about Obama. The guy just doesn't know how to be subtle. He sure doesn't like Obama, does he LOL. I've said this before and I'll say it again, I really think there is a medical component to Bill's lack of ability and/or desire to monitor himself.

LAphoenix

Amy, yeah, catch your drift.  Too bad Obama doesn't have a blocking option on the McCain campaign.  Wish we could fast-forward to November, although the convention should be fun. 

Picking Fiorino would be bold, for sure, but didn't she say something recently that was the opposite of the McCain platform?  She might have the same problem that Biden does.  Too much of a loose cannon.  Plus, they say that the VP should be someone the pres candidate feels comfortable with.  Can we picture McCain being comfortable with a strong woman?  Lieberman seems more his style.  They seem to really like each other.  Picking a woman would be a wise strategic move, though, in many ways.

Have to agree with Maddow, although "Uncle Pat," as she calls Buchanan on her radio show, isn't the only one who's expressed that sentiment about picking a woman other than Hillary.  I've heard it numerous places.  Bill is seeming more politically superfluous every day.  I think that's what's hard for him--accepting that he's truly an elder statesman and not a player anymore.  His AIDS work is impressive though.   

The Daily Show had a hilarious bit last night about all the "cards" in politcal reporting.  It was a montage of TV news people saying things like, "Is he going to play the race card?"  "Have they played the gender card?" "What about the age card?"  'Is it time for the experience card?" on and on, until Stewart finally says something like, "Are they talking politics, or playing pinnocle?"

Amy, how's the volunteering been going?  What do you do?  I've been thinking about doing some myself.  I volunteered to be a poll worker; thought that might be interesting.