POLITICAL ISSUES

[Harlan Huckleby]

What has Obama done to earn such ire? and such an unfavorable comparison to Clinton?

Their formal positions are the same. Clinton is much deeper in her understanding of the world. The question of negotiating with IRan, Cuba....was instructive.

I don't know who Obama is, really.

[MJZiggy]

Sorry, Harlan. I was referring to Tex's comparison to Bill...I'm curious as to what (besides his suggestion that people might drive smaller cars) he's done to garner such vehemence.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Sorry, Harlan. I was referring to Tex's comparison to Bill...I'm curious as to what (besides his suggestion that people might drive smaller cars) he's done to garner such vehemence.

You mean you want to understand Tex's mind in greater detail!?

[hoosier]

And that makes him different from Bush, Clinton, Reagan?

All three were governors of states.

Obama is ridiculously under-qualified.

I've heard Obama supporters mention Lincoln, who ran with similar background. Lincoln was lightening in a bottle. And in the Lincoln-Douglass debate three years prior to his presidential run, it was clear he was a mature, intellectual giant. I've seen Obama in action in the Senate, he is green.

I'm not buying it. What ever happened to your spiel from before the primaries ridiculing people who vote based on candidate persona when we all know that elections are really about putting one or the other party apparatus in power? Does the vote-for-the-party-not-for-the-candidate logic only hold for people who are swayed by persona instead of "experience"?

[texaspackerbacker]

What has Obama done to earn such ire? and such an unfavorable comparison to Clinton?

Ziggy, after reading and responding two my original post and the followups, you still ask that question? Everything I referred to as "their side" in those posts were essentially Obama. Never mind inexperience; Never mind associations with an unrepentant terrorist or a horrendously anti-American minister; Never mind the sick anti-American words of his wife. Obama's stated and admitted positions are enough to cast him to the trash heap of history.

Comparison to Clinton (Bill)? Bill was first and foremost a political animal with a hunger for power and what the power brought him--NOT an ideologue.

Obama, at least as I read him, actually BELIEVES the horrendous things he spews (see the original post). And THAT is just not acceptable.

It's all about ISSUES--did I not make that perfectly clear in the original post? Furthermore, there is a hierarchy of importance of issues. On that criterion, Obama is an absolute America-hating piece of shit.

[MJZiggy]

Actually, (you may have missed this post from a while back)I've said before that I'm not paying much attention to the Clinton/Obama wars as I don't belong to either party and therefore cannot vote in the primaries so it makes no sense to get emotionally invested in a candidate when I have no power to choose which one wins. Therefore I don't really pay attention to what the big O stands for until he wins the nomination. Then I officially care. But in the meantime, it means that I don't know what he's said or done unless it makes big news.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Hard to tell the two parties apart anymore. The Republicans are spending our money like drunken soldiers too. I disagree with Democrats on about 90% of issues, but the Republican leadership isn't doing much to keep me with the party. Where's my viable 3rd party?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_funding;_ylt=As86UMdDYA4iBXvqszJGJAIE1vAI

[texaspackerbacker]

Actually, (you may have missed this post from a while back)I've said before that I'm not paying much attention to the Clinton/Obama wars as I don't belong to either party and therefore cannot vote in the primaries so it makes no sense to get emotionally invested in a candidate when I have no power to choose which one wins. Therefore I don't really pay attention to what the big O stands for until he wins the nomination. Then I officially care. But in the meantime, it means that I don't know what he's said or done unless it makes big news.

As I said, what I referred to as "their side" in the original post is virtually up and down the line, Obama's positions. By the fact that you seemed to agree with (although really didn't come right out and logically defend) those positions, you'll probably end up as part of the abomination that is Obamanation.

Harvey, NO DIFFERENCES? Did YOU read my original post? Granted, spending is one of those issues where there is some overlap--and in fact, I am one of the overlappers. Ditto that for illegal immigration. However, ALL the rest of those issues, the differences are extremely large and clear.

[MJZiggy]

Didn't you used to say you were a libertarian?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Didn't you used to say you were a libertarian?

No. I've said I'm fundamentally a Libertarian, but they aren't viable, so I generally vote Republican. It's frustrating. The left has moved the center to the left.

[texaspackerbacker]

Didn't you used to say you were a libertarian?

Hell No!!!! I referred to the damn Ron Paulists as total loons. I said that in a different forum, a Libertarian actually claimed I was liberal, and that the Libertarians were the REAL conservatives.

Out of curiosity, what made you ask that question?

Oh, you meant Harvey? OK, never mind (Gilda Radner voice).

[HarveyWallbangers]

I think she was talking to me, old man.

[MJZiggy]

Out of curiosity, what made you ask that question?

The fact that I was asking Harvey!!

[Joemailman]

Hard to tell the two parties apart anymore. The Republicans are spending our money like drunken soldiers too. I disagree with Democrats on about 90% of issues, but the Republican leadership isn't doing much to keep me with the party. Where's my viable 3rd party?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/...vqszJGJAIE1vAI

Which brings to mind McCain's comment that statements like yours are unfair to drunken sailors.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm not buying it. What ever happened to your spiel from before the primaries ridiculing people who vote based on candidate persona when we all know that elections are really about putting one or the other party apparatus in power? Does the vote-for-the-party-not-for-the-candidate logic only hold for people who are swayed by persona instead of "experience"?

I believe strongly in two ideas that have come into direct conflict:
1) Elections choose parties first and foremost.
2) Obama is an unacceptable choice to be president.

This is a dilemma. I am forced to compromise one of my deeply felt views. The fact that I'm throwing my lot in with the Republicans reflects how negatively I view the Obama candidacy.