Hillary will rise again!

Yes, I support the rights of women and of all people, not just Americans and not just those who vote Democratic, including the people in the Middle East.  Apparently, since you support Obama, you agree with Scalia on the death penalty (Obama does), with Scalia on distribution of guns (Obama does), on government support of religious organizations (Obama does), on the right of telecoms to invade my privacy (and yours, I assume) (IObama does), on threatening Iran with veiled suggestions of nuclear power if it doesn't fall into line with U.S. objectives  (Obama does).  Perhaps you've neglected to read Obama's health care plan, which does not advocate health care for everyone.  That was Hillary's platform and it was called mandated universal health care.

Fair and square is not informing the electorate that you are for public financing and when you win the primary, you're no longer for public financing.  Fair and square is not putting forth liberal positions and after you win the primary, you change those positions. Fair and square is not objecting to the super delegates when you think they favor your opponent and then accepting their backing when they favor you.  Fair and square is not refusing a revote in Michigan and Florida because you know you'll lose.  Why should I or anyone else believe anything this man says, including that he supports abortion rights?  If he gets elected and finds it's in his political interests to appoint pro-life justices to the Supreme Court why wouldn't he?  He's already agreed with Scalia and Thomas twice when every other Democrat disagreed.  Remember both those gentlemen (to be kind) are anti-choice.  Obama's changed positions on so many of the major social issues that I care about, why not on choice.  And his changes have been blatant and on a dime.

And to correct you on the nomination.  He's not yet the nominee, and the super delegates can change their minds on a dime, and I'm sure hoping they will.   

Further, I am totally uninterested in getting Bin Laden, and if I were interested, are you suggesting that Obama will do so and McCain won't.  The United States invaded Iraq, without reason or right and destroyed a country and hundreds of thousands of its people, and it has a moral and financial obligation to stay there until it puts Iraq back together, and frankly I don't care how much it costs American taxpayers. Perhaps if it costs us enough, we'll forego our habit of invading other countries. Hillary, as you apparently don't know, wasn't the only one who supported this war; in addition to every senator running for president, 80% of Americans supported it.  And, It would appear you don't know very much about your candidate, or you would also know that when he was supporting Kerry in 2004 (and soliciting Kerry's support for his senate candidacy), he acknowledged that if he had been in Congress at the time of the Iraq vote, he might well have voted "yea" himself.  There is no single position on which Obama is consistent, which is hardly substantive politics.  

I totally disagree with the two-party "frick and frack" system and have for well over forty years, and I intend to vote for Ralph Nader, unless another more viable third-party candidate shows up. I hope you're not suggesting I don't have this right. Nonetheless, I welcome anyone to post here whether McCain or Obama supporter if it's to discuss issues. It's great to hear from someone wanting to discuss issues and not Michele' Obama's clothing choices or whether Obama's daughers will get married in the White House.  I'm even more delighted to hear from one of the few Americans who were against the war--I assume from the heat of your comments that you were one of the 20% against this war and not one of the complacent 80%.   If the 80% of Americans who supported the war had objected vehemently when it counted, we wouldn't be having this discussion, and how nice that would be! 

What has Bill Clinton and his position on the death penalty have to do with Hillary?--unless, of course, you believe women are appendages of their husbands.  This thread is not about Bill Clinton.  Hillary is an individual and makes her own decisions. But as an aside, I did vote for Bill Clinton first time around, with regret because of his stance on the death penalty, and hated myself afterwards.  I didn't vote for him second time around for that reason and for other things as well, including his change on gays in the military.  I don't like change artists, and Obama is not an exception.  It's ridiculous to suggest that one has to choose the lesser of two evils, but perhaps that's the reason why we're always in the unhappy position of choosing between two evils. 

And Nader was right, which is why Obama may actually occupy the White House in November.  Nader predicted that if Bush were elected, the country would turn against the Republicans.  So it would seem that Obama owes a great deal to Ralph Nader.  But pick on the man as you wish--he doesn't have a huge money machine to protect him, just his principles.

Obama said, not once, but twice, that he had no idea how he would have voted on the war if he had been in the Senate, once in 2004 and once in 2006.  I can post both statements if you wish. But if that's the only reason you're voting for him, it's rather weak.  

Afghanistan is the war we have to win!  Isn't that what they said about Iraq.  And isn't that what they'll say about Iran!  Apparently, you're not against war, just Bush's wars. 

Obama stated explicitly that he would vote "no" on FISA until the day he voted "yes."  All the rest is spin. 

It's sheer nonsense that the Clinton's, either Bill or Hillary, played the race card.  It's a canard and an ugly one at that and not one I will discuss.

McCain's Political Instincts, or Lack Thereof

I don't understand why McCain doesn't find himself more qualified advisers.  He doesn't speak well, although his speech to the NAACP was the best I've heard from him, in both content and style, and it's doubtful at his age that his speaking abilities will improve by much.  But his political instincts are equally poor--it seems to me at least.  

He knows Americans want us out of Iraq, yet he's refused in the past to give a timetable for getting out.  Maliki gave him the ideal opportunity to close shop on that issue.  Since he stated in 2004 that if the Iraqis wanted us out, we'd get out, all McCain had to do when Maliki spoke was to reiterate what he said in 2004, and get himself out of a position that is not helping him in the general election, and without conceding anything to the oppostion. Instead he held strong, missing the opportunity to look flexible, and now he's talking about a limited timetable which is interpreted as conceding that Obama is right rather than as a concession to the Iraqi people.  I'm glad he's finally showing flexibility, but why did he wait?

And speaking of instincts, for the most part Obama is better than McCain at giving the folks what they want, yet I think he slipped up with his trip to Europe.  He had to go to Iraq and Afghanistan to get McCain off his back--and I think that was a good decision--but if I were one of his advisers I would have nixed the trip to Europe and Israel, which held too many possibilities of mistakes, with not that much to gain. 

The polls can change, I suppose, but right now it appears from the few taken so far that the trip is backfiring.  The assumption that he's the president-elect has annoyed lots of the Hillary democrats and independents who are still sitting on the fence.  It's what happens with a sports team that's favored to win a game and is not shy about self-advertisement. The die-heart fans (in this case the Obamamaniacs) love it when their team acts brash and declares the inevitability of a win, but those who are still on the sidelines tend to start rooting for the underdog and the fans for the other team just get angry and even more determined that their team will win. 

I read an article that the Rove Republicans are planning to use a similar strategy to one they used four years ago.  They're busy putting various social issues on state ballots--such as amendments to state constitutions to prevent gay marriage--to lure their conservative base to the voting booth, where the assumption is they'll vote for the amendment and then for McCain, for  whom they don't have a great deal of enthusiasm.  This will force the opposition candidate (Obama, most likely) to condemn the initiative and probably lose the votes of independents who are against gay marriage, or if they don't condemn the initiative (or even show some support for it) lose voters on the left, those who, like me, are already annoyed by Obama's right-hand turns. 

I'm still getting emails from Hillary, asking me to support various candidates, but I haven't seen or heard a word about her in weeks.  I wonder what she's doing these days?  The same of Nader.  He might have died and already been buried for all we hear of him.

Obama travelled to Europe to demonstrate his qualifications to be President of the United States, to let us know back home that he's presidential. Here's part of his discussion with David Cameron, the opposition leader in the British Parliament, and the way things are looking for Gordon Brown right now, likely to be Britain's next Prime Minister.  This is from the New York Times today:

LONDON (AP) — Senator Barack Obama had a pleasant chat with the Tory leader, David Cameron, at the Houses of Parliament on Saturday — even down to his vacation plans. What is less clear is whether the two men knew how much of their supposedly private conversation was picked up on a live microphone.

It went like this, according to a transcript:

Mr. Cameron: You should be on the beach. You need a break. Well, you need to be able to keep your head together.

Mr. Obama: You’ve got to refresh yourself.

Mr. Cameron: Do you have a break at all?

Mr. Obama: I have not. I am going to take a week in August. But I agree with you that somebody, somebody who had worked in the White House who — not Clinton himself, but somebody who had been close to the process — said that should we be successful, that actually the most important thing you need to do is to have big chunks of time during the day when all you’re doing is thinking. And the biggest mistake that a lot of these folks make is just feeling as if you have to be ...

Mr. Cameron: These guys just chalk your diary up.

Mr. Obama: Right. ... In 15 minute increments and ...

Mr. Cameron: We call it the dentist waiting room. You have to scrap that because you’ve got to have time.

Mr. Obama: And, well, and you start making mistakes or you lose the big picture. Or you lose a sense of, I think you lose a feel ...

Mr. Cameron: Your feeling. And that is exactly what politics is all about. The judgment you bring to make decisions.

Mr. Obama: That’s exactly right. And the truth is that we’ve got a bunch of smart people, I think, who know 10 times more than we do about the specifics of the topics. And so if what you’re trying to do is micromanage and solve everything then you end up being a dilettante, but you have to have enough knowledge to make good judgments about the choices that are presented to you.

Me again:  Ladies, we all may have missed our calling. We too can talk presidential, if not look the role.  Heck, our discussions here and on the other political threads have more political content than anything discussed by our next president (or so we're told by MSNBC) and the likely next British PM.  And, as always, even when discussing vacations Obama manages to say a lot without saying anything.  

I think, and this is me, that if I were meeting the probable next PM of England I'd have some more to talk about than my vacation!  And how full my diary is.  How about some discussion of mutual issues, like global warming.  Does Cameron (conservative) have a different take from Brown on the types of cooperation needed to solve this problem, for example.  What is Cameron's position on removing all English troops from Iraq; if he's PM will he send more troops to Afghanistan.  Of course, they wouldn't come to any conclusions, or deep discussion--he allowed an hour for Cameron and also neither is yet the head of his country, but how about feeling the guy out.  Isn't Obama showing signs of being exactly what he says he doesn't want to be, a dilettante. 

In the end, Beesie, from his comments above, your instincts are correct--don't look at him, but at his advisers for a feel of which positions he'll take, since he seems to be saying that he'll rely on his advisers. Of course, a president can't know everything, but one hopes that, unlike Bush, who reads one page position papers--and I've read they're not even one page, Obama would emulate JFK (since that's the comparison being made) who read thoroughly on every subject before he made decisions.  Surely, Obama didn't go half way around the world for this type of conversation.  My take anyway.

I believe he was saying that someone said, "should we be successful."  It's not Obama saying this.  Anyway, makes me regret I never went into politics.  Lots of perks and apparently not much headwork.

Susie--I just heard that McCain had a mole removed on his temple, and my husband and I were both saying that if it's cancer he should renounce.  I have nothing against the man other than his policies, and I rather like his personality--even when he's grouchy, but from where I'm sitting (and I no longer have a horse in the race) he's running a horrible campaign.  He can't speak and has made so many mistakes that it seems inevitable that Obama will win. He looks old and he's very repetitive. 

I do hope it's not cancer; how I hate that word.

Considering my age and my cancer history, I'm reluctant to say he shouldn't run, but he has such a strong history of melanoma that it's hard for me (and I assume others) not to think of his history. I hope it's benign, whatever it is, but each time this happens it puts folks in mind of his past problems.  Just listened to him a short while ago and he sounded like a commercial for a sun screen product. I didn't know whether to laugh or feel sad.

I agree, be daring.  If Obama assumes he'll still get the left as he moves right, why shouldn't McCain assume he'll get the right if he moves to the center.  Some may not vote, but most will. I've never voted for a Republican but if McCain chooses Olympia Snow, who is also pro-choice, I might this time.  I respect her very much.  She has integrity, is a centrist, often voting with the Democrats (and is considered one of the top ten senators)--I always wonder why she hasn't changed parties. Even better, there's little of the politican about her--and she's a woman!  And if McCain agrees to one-term, we'd have a good chance of a woman president four years from now.