Presidential debates on ABC right now-both parties
Comments
-
"Why is it that some people (including the media) feel that Obama should not be president because he has no experience with foreign policy? "
Uh, ya don't tell the enemy you're pulling out in 2009. That's a start.
Shirley
-
"Why is it that some people (including the media) feel that Obama should not be president because he has no experience with foreign policy? We have had a president for the past 8 years who had no experience with foreign policy. People voted him into office.....And what about Ronald Reagan? He appeared to lack any foreign policy experience."
Speaking only for myself, but from the standpoint of America's allies, I'd say that having an American president with foreign policy experience is probably of less importance in times of peace than in times of war. This, unfortunately, is a time of war. If the wrong foreign policy decisions are made now, everything else might not matter much, either for the U.S. or her allies. This is simply not the same world that it was when either GWB or Ronald Reagan (or Bill Clinton, for that matter) were elected.
And as GWB, would you say that his lack of foreign policy experience has worked well for the world? Some research data that I posted last week on this thread would suggest that the U.S. allies don't think so.
-
Shirley that point is up for debate. I have never considered Iraq to be "the enemy" of me personally or of the USA.
-
No, I wasn't referring to the Iraqi citizens. I was referring to the terrorists.
Shirley
-
Shirley I know that-- but that's the way it can be interpretted is my point.
-
When Bush began his first term in office there was no war! So, I stand by my comment that he was elected without any foreign policy experience. And I do believe that comparing Obama to Bush is comparing apples to oranges--they are way, way different from each other. Maybe Bush wouldn't put my hackles up if he wasn't so arrogant and unwilling to admit when he makes a mistake!
I must say that IMHO Bush's push into war in Iraq was not strictly from his lack of foreign policy experience, but also from his lack of leadership experience, and surrounding himself with too many advisors that assisted his father previously (perhaps they wanted to finish the job his father began). I believe that they and he wanted to be "heroes" and fell quite short of that. For example, Colin Powell left after the first term and was "forced" in a sense to lie to the UN in order to get UN backing for attacking Iraq.
As for Obama's comment about removing the troops, that was very early in the campaign. I too was a little concerned about that. Time has passed, and he has learned along the way--if you listen to his answers now about troops in Iraq, he says he intends to take them out but does not give a timeline.
I'd rather have the troops removed than have them in for "100 years" as McCain stated in one debate.
It will be interesting to see what happens in Texas & Ohio on March 4th. I bet there will be many of us glued to the tube that night. Get ready to pop the popcorn!
grace -
grace,
Actually Obama still does have a definitive date for when all the troops will be out. Here's what's on his website today:
"Bringing Our Troops Home
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda." http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
-
"I'd rather have the troops removed than have them in for "100 years" as McCain stated in one debate."
I was not going to contribute to either political thread again--
But rather than a sound bite--maybe a few of you may have an interest in the context in which it was actually said.----------------------------------------------------------
Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years.
McCain: Make it a hundred.
That’s the sound bite. That’s the headline. Now let’s look at the context, which I think is worth considering in full.
McCain pointed to a burly, white-bearded man along one wall and said, “I think Ernest Hemingway is with us tonight.”
When the chuckles subsided, the Hemingway look-alike (who later identified himself to Mother Jones's David Corn as Dave Tiffany, a “full-time antiwar activist”) asked McCain “what you hope to accomplish in Iraq and how long it’s going to take.”
Here’s my rough transcript of what followed:
McCain: The fact is, it’s a classic counterinsurgency. And you have to get areas under a secure environment, and that secure environment then allows the economic, political, and social process to move forward. In case you missed it, New Year’s Eve, people were out in the streets in Baghdad by the thousands for the first time in years. That’s because we provided them with a safe and secure environment. Is it totally safe? No. I talked earlier about the suicide bombs and the continued threats. But then what happens is American troops withdraw to bases. And we reach an arrangement like they have with South Korea and Japan. We still have troops in Bosnia. The fact is, it’s American casualties that the American people care about. Those casualties are on the way down, rather dramatically. You’ve got to consider the option. If we had withdrawn six months ago, I can look you in the eye and tell you that Al Qaeda would have said, We beat the United States of America. If we’d gone along with Harry Reid and said the war is lost to Al Qaeda, then we would be fighting that battle all over the Middle East. I’m convinced of that and so is General Petraeus.... I can tell you that it’s going to be long and hard and tough. I can tell you that the option of defeat is incredible and horrendous. And I can look you in the eye and tell you that this strategy is succeeding. And what we care about is not American presence. We care about American casualties. And those casualties will be dramatically and continue to be reduced.
Tiffany: I do not believe that one more soldier being killed every day is success. There were three U.S. soldiers killed today. I want to know, How long are we going to be there?
McCain: How long do you want us to be in South Korea? How long do you want us to be in Bosnia?
Tiffany: There's no fighting going on in South Korea. There's no fighting in Bosnia. Let's come back to Iraq.
McCain: I can look you in the eye and tell you that those casualties tragically continue… But they are much less, and they are dramatically reduced and we will eventually eliminate them. And again, the option of setting a date for withdrawal is a date for surrender. And we will then have many more casualties and many more American sacrifices if we withdraw with setting a date for surrender. Now you and I have an open and honest disagreement. But I can tell you that six months ago people like you, who believe like you do, said the surge would never succeed. It is succeeding. And I've been there and I've seen it with my very own eyes. Do you want to follow up?
Tiffany: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years.
McCain: Make it a hundred. How long—We’ve been in Japan for 60 years, we've been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me. I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training and recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.
Tiffany: By the way, I hope you kick Romney’s butt. That man cannot lie straight in bed.
McCain: I knew there was a reason I called on you.
Tiffany: What if U.S. soldiers are being killed at the same rate, one per day, four years from now?
McCain: I can't tell you what the ratio is. But I can tell you, I understand American public opinion, sir. I understand American public opinion will not sustain a conflict where Americans continue to be sacrificed without showing them that we can succeed.
Tiffany: I hear an open-ended commitment, then.
McCain: I have an open-ended commitment in Asia. I have an open-ended commitment in South Korea. I have an open-ended commitment in Bosnia. I have an open-ended commitment in in Europe…
The rest was drowned out by applause. McCain said, “This kind of dialogue has to take place in America today, and I thank you.” -
Susie, IMveryHO, that was brilliant. Thanks for posting that. Let's see if this "100" year statement will cease. It won't. I recently heard Obama repeat it again.
Of course no one likes the war. WE CANNOT BRING OUR MILITARY HOME IN 16 MONTHS! It would be disasterous. I can't even wrap my head around what would happen.
Tell me if I have "misheard" Obama say that he voted against the war. Or did he say he was never for the war. The reason I ask is he wasn't even in the Senate when the war started. Please someone enlighten me or educate me or something. This has been driving me nuts.
-
Shirley, what I was saying before-- is it not just as effective for him to say radical or terrorist than qualify it with Islamic. Nobody called abortion clinic bombers radical christians-- because it's not necessary and because they've distorted what it is to be christian the way the those who claim to be islamic have.
Shirley-- Obama was in the Illinois State senate at the time the iraq was began and he spoke out against the war back when it was considered unpatriotic to do so. He has said he was against the war from the beginning because he was.
Has anyone heard Hillary's vitriol today? OMG she really went after Obama's character- it was one of the ugliest, mean spirited things I've heard come out of this campaign on either side. She was almost likeable for part of the debate Thursday -but I think this is the real Hillary coming out. She is either getting some awful campaign advice or she's just a negative person. All of the pundits talk about how much better she does when she's not going negative.
-
Amy, did you actually hear what Clinton said or did you only hear about it? I just saw a video of her full comments and I found nothing mean or ugly about it. Yes, Clinton was clearly trying to make a point, but she didn't yell, she didn't scream, she didn't raise her voice. She spoke calmly and made a rational argument. Nothing vitriolic there.
The fact is that Obama has been saying publicly that he's against negative politics and he's openly criticized the Clinton campaign for anything critical they've said about him. But there he is, sending out negative flyers about Clinton. So what he's saying he won't do, he's doing. What he's criticizing Clinton for doing, he's doing. He's just not doing it quite as publicly. Clinton's speech today was merely pointing out to the voters that he's been saying one thing and doing another. She was defending herself against the attacks he made in the flyers. Was she supposed to say nothing and stay quiet? Frankly, given all the criticism she's received from the press, I applaud her for having the cajones to speak out. She has to know that she'll be racked over the coals for it.
Oh, and what did she say that was so terrible? "So, shame on you Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public, that's what I expect from you." She also said that the flyers were "tactics that are right out of Karl Rove's playbook". That was pretty much the worst of it. OMG. I'm shocked!!
If the Obama campaign thinks this is unfair and uncalled for, how in the world will they handle what's about to come at them from the Republicans?
-
I never thought I think this, let alone say it, but I now understand all those people who don't go to the polls on election day. I may change my mind this year, but at the moment that's where I've landed, with the great unwashed.
I was actually glad John McCain was winning the Republican nomination, because even though I wouldn't vote for him, I thought I could live with him if he won. And then I find out how the Straight Talk Express has been doing favors for lobbyists for years (and I'm not talking about his personal life, as I could care less!), and this after the Keating Five scandal and his repeated assertions that it was a one-off mistake. If this latest scandal hadn't been publicized, I wouldn't have known of his corporate jet travel or the various favors he's done lobbyists in the years that he was advocating against the status quo--or the friends he keeps, apparently all lobbyists. it appears now that he was the gold standard of the status quo!
And now the revelations from the Ohio campaign concerning the New Boy on the Block; the Uniter (not the Divider) has been playing politics Rove style. I'm particularly angry about his distortion of Clinton's plan for universal health care and his claims that salaries will be garnished. I knew previously about his using the Harry and Louise look-alike ad, and couldn't understand how Clinton's campaign wasn't making a big deal about it. Harry and Louise was one of the uglier ad campaigns in advertising history--after the Willy Horton ads. And I'm sure if I looked I could find some similar stuff on Clinton.
It's all so dirty that I'm beginning to feel that if I vote I'm a willing participant. I have to find a way to file a protest vote so that I'm not giving up my right and duty, but that I haven't participated in the same old old. I hope there's a third party candidate this year, so I can lodge a protest against the Democrats and the Republicans. Ralph, I'll forgive you for 2000 if you run again this year!
-
I heard it first hand, when she said it and I'm a bit offended to think because you disagree with me, you assume I didn't hear it first hand. I am not one who makes decisions about things based on what other people say. Hillary did worse than yell--- she acted the same way Larry Craig did when he wagged his finger at Bill Clinton in the 90s saying, "Mr. President, you should be ashamed of yourself." She is a hypocrite--- she first went after Obama's health care plan, then acts the victim as if how could any democrat go after her plan. She refuses to admit that Obama's plan is really not different than hers and parses the word universal health care. I know you've said that universal health care is mandated but I see it differently-- that it's available at an affordable price.
Back to her tone-- how successful a president would she be telling foreign leaders they should be ashamed of themselves. For anyone to actually believe Obama is using "carl rove style politics" hasn't been paying attention to Hillary's constant attacks on Obama-- her attacks have had such a personal nature. I would love to see a woman president some day, but not one who plays into the worst stereotypes of women in power. Hillary has run a terrible campaign or she would already be the nominee for president.
ByGrace--- are you reading? I'd love to hear from someone else who hasn't drank the coolaid!
-
Kool-aid is too sugary...they're just people's opinions..I don't think anyone is trying to sound cultlike
-
twas a joke not an accusation, em....
-
oh..lol
-
Yes PRAmy I am here! I am reading all this and trying to wrap my mind around it! I still would rather have a president that wants to end our illegal occupation of Iraq, than one who is willing to stay not only 50 years, but 100 years, whatever it takes!
I agree with Obama. Our troops were sent there unprepared and unprotected. And that has been reported since the war began by journalists. And as the journalist stated, there is still one death every day of an American soldier, but how about those that are wounded? How about those that will return to the US and struggle to get the medical care they will require for the rest of their life? And can someone tell me how we could send National Guard troops to another country, when I was under the impression that they were here to protect us on our own land?
I still can't believe how easily the American people (some that is) accepted our declaration of war on Iraq. And Bush did tell Iraq and Saddam that he would invade if Saddam didn't cooperate. Looks like he had plenty of time to get rid of his evidence (WMDs).
As far as the bases that McCain suggests should be in the Middle East (particularly Iraq), I would be asking him why that is not equally important as setting up bases in some areas of Africa? Could it be that there aren't any resources we really want from there? How can we continue to watch whole populations of people be slaughtered and women raped so badly the doctors cannot even repair what has been done to them, and not do something about this? I'm appalled that this country, which was founded on freedom and considers itself a "world power," is not doing something about this. I know there will be an argument that there aren't enough troops. and as far as the bases in other countries, most of those countries do want the bases there.
The Defense Secretary under Bush's campaign was an incompetent, right up there with Michael Chertoff who totally bungled aid to LA after Hurricane Katrina and was removed from his job only to have Bush put him in as Secretary of Homeland Security. Is anyone else concerned about how safe we are now with this idiot in charge of our safety and security? hello!
As for this lobbyists payoffs, superdelegates stuff--time to get rid of them all. And it's high time our federal government cleaned up it's act.
What I have seen and heard during this campaign so far, leads me to know in my heart that there should be an end to "buying yourself a presidency." I wish that the Federal Government would mandate that each and every candidate would receive the same amount of money to campaign with. that would put everyone on a level playing field, and let the games begin.
Okay Amy, the ball's in your court! LOL
grace -
Amy,
I assume you're referring to the post I wrote above yours re your comment on "Carl Rove" as I appear to be the only one who, so far, has compared his tactics to Obama's recent tactics. Well, "recent" is perhaps a misstatement. I wrote the following piece for a political blog on February 2, long before the contretemps in Ohio. And I've been rather amazed, frankly, that Clinton's campaign took so long to make this public. But at least one of my hopes has come true. I'm not now forced into either the McCain "Straight Talk Express" or the Democratic version of "The Uniter, not the Divider."
Posted February 2 on a number of political blogs:
One of the most unsavory and vile ad campaigns ever run in this country was the Harry and Louise ads run in the 1990's to scare Americans off the idea that universal health care would be beneficial to us as a nation. The number of uninsured has grown incrementally since then, to 45,000,000 plus, and the cost of insurance has skyrocketed. Premiums for my husband and me went from $12,000 a year in 2001, to $14,400 in 2002, to $18,000 in 2003, at which point we dropped our American health insurance and purchased Italian national health insurance for less than $1,000 a year for the two of us. We were living in Italy at the time.
I point this out, as I just found out that Barack Obama has been running an ad that looks and sounds like the Harry and Louise ad of the 90's, aimed at distorting Senator Clinton's plan. I wrote earlier that, after the Tuesday debates, I felt better about the possibility that Senator Obama might be our nominee. Not any more!
This ad has turned my stomach so much so, that I have a strong feeling that I may not work for him in November if he is the nominee. Where has this information been hiding, by the way? I haven't seen anything about it on TV, and I have one of the two political channels tuned in all day, every day.
The two most vile ad campaigns in my years watching political campaigns (which are many) were:
--Willy Horton, a racist campaign run by the Republicans against Dukakis, the Democratic nominee.
--Harry and Louise, a scare campaign, run by the pharmaceutical companies (with Republican compliance) and using every Madison Avenue trick ever devised, to keep Americans from supporting universal health care.
The profits that the pharmaceuticals received after they destroyed Clinton's plan to give us universal health care have been in the tens of billions and seniors have to travel to Canada in groups to try and find drugs they can afford. (As an aside something similar has happened with gasoline and heating oil. Exxon today announced the largest profit made at any time in our history by a single corporation, while seniors living on $500 a month, are paying $3.50 for a gallon of home heating oil.)
That Barack Obama would have run an ad imitating so closely 'Harry and Louise,' and against a fellow democrat, is the worse thing I've learned of him to date. It's enough to have decided me not to work for him if he gets the nomination. -
"Ralph, I'll forgive you for 2000 if you run again this year! "
Anne--You've gotten your wish. LOL
-
Thanks Grace--- I was drowning
-- yes it was your remark I was referring to-- Ann. Comparing obama's campaigning to carl roves????? you've got to be kidding--- Hillary is the one who has launched all of the negative campaigning and gotten personal against Obama. She attacked his plan before he attacked hers. She's attacked him time and time again and he's responded with dignity. Hillary is just mad at the similarity to the Harry and Louise ads because they worked and it reminds her of her previous failures and because the pundits are saying she gave a valedictory speech & might pull out of the race. -
But I'm not talking about why Hillary is angry; I'm talking about why I'm angry. Harry and Louise didn't affect Hillary's health insurance, just her plans for getting all of us health care; it affected mine and many many other people's. If those ads hadn't been run, and they were totally false, we would have had health insurance for everyone. I suspect I'm one of the few people here who actually vote platforms and for the candidate I think can best implement the platform. I've never been drawn to the cult of personalty, not even when I was 14 in the days of Elvis. I really don't care which Democrat gets in, if that Democrat is serious about providing health care for all, and which is why I am so emphatically against Obama, and why I was initially for John Edwards until he dropped out of this race, and why I plan to vote for Ralph Nader now that I know he's running.
If Nader can get on the debate stage he'll force Obama to acknowledge that what he is calling health care for everyone can't happen without mandates, and perhaps in the course of the campaign Nader will force him into the position of making that promise. I gather Obama called him a day or so ago to talk him out of running but at the same time refused to make any concessions on his platform--the uniter, not the divider.
Fortunately, for Ralph, no one can accuse him of buying million dollar houses at hugely discounted prices because of sticky associations with slum lords, or accuse him of using his spouse's presidential clout to mount a compaign, or accuse him of associating with and doing favors for lobbyists. So, now let's see what everyone has to say about Ralph. He's now my candidate of choice. Oh, yes, he does dress badly, I admit, but that's because he practices what he preaches and spends very little on himself, and he doesn't look so good, but good looks don't make quality of character. He does have a larger ego than most, but then, don't they all!
I never kid about things I really care about!
-
Ah, but I'm not talking about why Hillary is angry; why would I care? I'm talking about why I'm angry. Harry and Louise didn't affect Hillary's health insurance, just her plans for getting all of us health care; it affected mine and many many other people's. If those ads hadn't been run, and they were totally false, we would have had health insurance for everyone. I'm one of those who actually votes platform and for the candidate I think can best implement the platform. I've never been drawn to the cult of personalty, not even when I was 14 in the days of Elvis. I really don't care which Democrat gets in, if that Democrat is serious about providing health care for all, and which is why I am so emphatically against Obama, and why I was initially for John Edwards until he dropped out of this race. And it's why I plan to vote for Ralph Nader now that I know he's running.
If Nader can get on the debate stage he'll force Obama to acknowledge that what he is calling health care for everyone can't happen without mandates, and perhaps in the course of the campaign Nader will force him into the position of making that promise. I gather Obama called him a day or so ago to talk him out of running but at the same time refused to make any concessions on his platform--the uniter, not the divider!
Fortunately, for Ralph, no one can accuse him of buying million dollar houses at hugely discounted prices because of sticky associations with slum lords, or accuse him of using his spouse's presidential clout to mount a compaign, or accuse him of associating with and doing favors for lobbyists. Ralph Nader is now my candidate of choice. Oh, yes, he does dress badly, I admit, but that's because he practices what he preaches and spends very little on himself, and he doesn't look so good, but good looks don't make quality of character. He does have a larger ego than most, but then, don't they all!
Maybe, this time he'll pick a woman for his vice presidential candidate, so some of the women who feel disenfranchised this year can also vote for him. But if he does, I hope it's a woman of substance.
I never kid about things I really care about!
-
"I hope there's a third party candidate this year, so I can lodge a protest against the Democrats and the Republicans. Ralph, I'll forgive you for 2000 if you run again this year!"
Anneshirley...he's baaaacccckkk!
-
Amy, my apologies for questioning whether you'd seen the Clinton speech yourself. I guess I'm just so surprised at what you saw compared to what I saw. Since we both have our obvious biases, I suppose reality is somewhere in between. I did chuckle though at your comment "I'd love to hear from someone else who hasn't drank the coolaid!" because I'd already come to the conclusion that some of the Obama supporters must have drunk the KoolAid. There has to be some reason why everyone is so entranced and I can't come up with any other explanation.
Seriously, I really wish that I could like Obama and trust him. I know he's going to win and I was hoping that as I heard him speak more, I'd start to feel better about him. But the opposite is happening. The more I hear him, the more I see the weakness of his policies, the more I see the flaws in his personality, and frankly, the more I am appalled by how he is running his campaign. As was pointed out during the round table discussion today on "This Morning with George S.", to clinch the nomination Obama is adjusting his message to appeal to voters who more naturally would have chosen Clinton; once he's elected, these voters will realize that they don't agree with many of the things Obama wants to do. They also pointed out that Obama, who positions himself as the one who can "(bring) together Democrats and Independents and Republicans", actually has a straight hard left Democratic voting record whereas Clinton has the record of working more successfully in a bipartisan fashion.
Sorry, I forgot. We don't want to confuse this with facts, do we?
-
Actually Anne--If I wasn't voting almost entirely on foreign policy issues I'd probably join you since Nader is the only candidate who endorses a single payor system for health care and I believe that is the only way to reign in these tawdry tactics of the current HMO's.--But then again I don't feel any candidate will be able to fix healthcare and I'm not into protest votes never-mind his other positions.
-
"Amy, my apologies for questioning whether you'd seen the Clinton speech yourself. I guess I'm just so surprised at what you saw compared to what I saw. Since we both have our obvious biases, I suppose reality is somewhere in between. I did chuckle though at your comment "I'd love to hear from someone else who hasn't drank the coolaid!" because I'd already come to the conclusion that some of the Obama supporters must have drunk the KoolAid. There has to be some reason why everyone is so entranced and I can't come up with any other explanation."
Beesie--I Love it!
-
Saluki,
I do agree about a single payer system; however, I believe that Clinton had to design her plan so as not to freighten people. My own view is that, if she still does get the nomination, her plan will change gradually, moving towards single payer. In the end, I believe we will have a single payer system (I don't know how anything else is possible); I also believe it will take at least two terms to finally achieve any real reform. The corporations are very powerful and they will fight very hard to keep it from happening. Perhaps they'll borrow Obama's "Harry and Louise" ad rather than paying to make another of their own!
Sicko didn't win best documentary this year but I was happy to see which one did win. It's difficult to decide at times between domestic and international concerns, but since I believe both Obama and Clinton will bring the troops home (I don't think McCain has a chance), my heart is with universal health care.
Just finished watching the Oscars. Daniel Day Lewis has a great face, doesn't he?
-
Bessie..just to say I really enjoy reading your comments.
It may be an advantage that I am out of the country and not inundated with ads. The news I watch on TV is BBC World, Bloomberg and local RAI (Italian). I usually read the Washington Post...I'm disappointed lately in the NY Times. When I have the time, I stream NPR....I so like NPR.
I like this article on flip flopping http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/24/ST2008022402134.html?hpid=topnews
I did notice the subtle changes in positions. As for Hillary's push of late...the Obama campaign said they will respond to any attack that she sends....why would Hillary hold back on anything at this point? And, bravi to her...why conceed to the polls that are not exactly accurate...which means this race is not predictable. And what better way to test the waters of the Obama mystic? If Hillary is to remain in politics...on her own two feet...then she needs to stand on them.
The cult factor is a concern of mine in any election....fashion comes and goes....the US needs substance. But I am not yet convinced that Obama is a cult happening...his education, social and work experience come into play and that is not a bad thing at all.
I've heard from more than one person here and around that they are hoping from this election to witness the US rise from the ashes....if the US can heal, there is hope for the rest of us....IMHO. It's been great to observe the Italian elections taking a page out of the book of the US...the mayor of Rome left his position to champion a new party and is running for Prime Minister...traveling around the country in a very big green bus and formed a party that promises to not allow anyone in who have had ties to mafia....it's interesting to watch and listen...the people are responding. If I had my citizenship now, I'd vote for him. The mafia and their tentacles in parliament are destroying a very beautiful country....but this is life everywhere...it's time to find balance.
The votes for Obama seem to cross so many demographics .... people are voting to change government...to clean up it's house....thus they are rejecting the old guard. History will reveal the value of that decision.
I received an email from Democrats Abroad today. It touted the landslide vote for Obama as the voice of ambassadors in foreign countries. I agree with this to some extent. Europe was screaming with protest to stop the war but the news coverage of the US didn't reflect it. The problem is that the Republicans don't have a similar organization if I remember what I read somewhere, so how can it be compared?...and the vote of Democrats Abroad was a 20% show....I think it a bit low to equate it to a landslide. Otherwise, I was happy for the message.
Everyone gets eager to put spin on their positives....maybe sometimes too eager.
I like Ralph Nadar....always did. But his appearance seems more tactical than substantive. The vote percentage drained is a telling too. Maybe that's what he is trying to achieve...don't know.
-
As was pointed out during the round table discussion today on "This Morning with George S.", to clinch the nomination Obama is adjusting his message to appeal to voters who more naturally would have chosen Clinton; once he's elected, these voters will realize that they don't agree with many of the things Obama wants to do
We must see things differently, because I watched the show and took a different message -that Obama was running his campaign well and hillary was not-- that he got under her skin with advertising and that their plans were not that different.
Anne Shirley, interesting that your anger is exactly what the Clinton campaing puts out is all I was saying. It's so interesting that when she put out her distorted take on his plan her supporters didn't complain about that.
I think when all is over and history is talks about this campaign the big news will be how poorly Hillary ran her campaign and went from presumptive nominee to 2nd place.
-
By the way if you thought McCain was a senior---Nader is 76 years old but has anyone ever questioned his age? Whoops-off by two years 74.
PS--Been a fan of Daniel Day Lewis since The Last of the Mohicans-great film.
Loved La Vie En Rose
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team