Democratic Debate

Maybe the bigger issue about Obama is that when it came time to vote for the authorization of military force, he didn't have a vote, because he wasn't relevant on the political scene until 3.5 years ago.

He probably wasn't the best candidate for George Ryan's seat in the senate, and I'm really not sure what he has done to show he's ready to be president.

I don't know who I'm supporting to win the democratic nomination, but IMO, there's not a whole lot of reasons to think that either one of them is a better candidate than McCain/Romney.

I don't know who I'm supporting to win the democratic nomination, but IMO, there's not a whole lot of reasons to think that either one of them is a better candidate than McCain/Romney.

I actually think Romney and Hillary are very similar. They are both very bright, accomplished, and come from well-to-do backgrounds. They are also both political whores who will say or do just about anything for a vote. I understand that politicians appeal to their base during the primaries and the center before the general election, but those two have got it down to an art form. IMO, they are characterless and have no backbone. McCain and Obama are not without their flaws, but I can at least respect them.

Obama in particular seems interesting because, whether or not he is all flash, he inspires. In politics, perception is reality. Obama is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as an inspiring "transcendant" personality who can unite Americans and heal many of the wounds caused by Bush abroad. A true "uniter" who we Americans, and the international community, can rally behind is something we desperately need right now.

He probably wasn't the best candidate for George Ryan's seat in the senate, and I'm really not sure what he has done to show he's ready to be president.

Just think, what if Ditka had run against Barack and won

Among (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022700160_pf.html) Romney's inconsistencies:

_In his two previous campaigns, Romney said that regardless of his own personal beliefs, abortion should be safe and legal. Now, he describes himself as pro-life and argues that Roe v. Wade should be replaced with state abortion regulations.

_In his Senate race, he wrote a letter promising a gay Republican group he would be a stronger advocate for gays and their rights than his liberal opponent, Edward M. Kennedy. Now he emphasizes his opposition to gay marriage and civil unions.

_Then a registered independent, Romney voted in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary for Paul Tsongas. Two years later, he said he did so because he favored the Massachusetts senator's ideas over those of Bill Clinton, and was sure President George H.W. Bush would be renominated. Now, Romney says he backed the candidate he thought might be the weakest opponent for Bush.

_In his first two campaigns, Romney emphasized his support of gun-control measures. In 1994, he said: "I don't line up with the NRA." Now, he is a card-carrying National Rifle Association member. He joined the organization in August.

_Romney used to distance himself from President Reagan. Now he casts himself as a conservative in the mold of Reagan.

Sorry to threadjack.....back to the Dems.

I actually think Romney and Hillary are very similar. They are both very bright, accomplished, and come from well-to-do backgrounds. They are also both political whores who will say or do just about anything for a vote. I understand that politicians appeal to their base during the primaries and the center before the general election, but those two have got it down to an art form. IMO, they are characterless and have no backbone. McCain and Obama are not without their flaws, but I can at least respect them.

Obama in particular seems interesting because, whether or not he is all flash, he inspires. In politics, perception is reality. Obama is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as an inspiring "transcendant" personality who can unite Americans and heal many of the wounds caused by Bush abroad. A true "uniter" who we Americans, and the international community, can rally behind is something we desperately need right now.I'm not really high on Romney either, but I can at least respect his economic knowledge, and having a future in Michigan business management, it would actually be personally beneficial to me if Romney was president.

But a lot of the arguments that I make about Obama and his inexperience hold true for Romney too. I have serious questions about Romney's ability to lead and make good decisions for the international good, which of course is where the president holds the most power.

Perception is pretty important, possibly even more important than the issues themselves, but I would still feel way more comfortable supporting Obama eight years from now if he has solved some problems in his home state and has continued to gain respect and establish a political background, as opposed to now when he has done none of the above.

Then again, as long as Blagojevich is the Governor in Illinois, there's not a whole lot that can be done from the senate outside of damage control.

Hillary, I think, would be a stronger leader than Bill was, but I just can't get over the fact that I don't think she's all that intelligent. I think she vastly underestimates the intelligence of the masses (but perhaps not as much as I once thought) by claiming two years ago to be totally uninterested in the presidency while she lined up contributions for her upcoming campaign.

I can support a lot of what Hillary says, but I just can't get over the fact that she may not have the ability to adjust to the parts of her plan for this country that reality is going to totally shit on.

So, I keep going back and forth on this Hillary vs. Obama thing, almost to the point of an apathy. No matter who wins, I just can't get behind either of them.

Hopefully McCain wins the Republican nomination so I have someone I can actually support in this election, because otherwise, I'm just going to be totally apathetic about the whole process, and probably vote for Romney if I'm not busy on that Tuesday in November.

Just think, what if Ditka had run against Barack and wonLOL. He would have won.

I have no idea if Mike Ditka knows anything about politics. If he thinks through domestic issues the same way he thinks through present day football analysis, it probably wouldn't have been a good thing if he had run.

Among (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/27/AR2007022700160_pf.html) Romney's inconsistencies:

_In his two previous campaigns, Romney said that regardless of his own personal beliefs, abortion should be safe and legal. Now, he describes himself as pro-life and argues that Roe v. Wade should be replaced with state abortion regulations.

_In his Senate race, he wrote a letter promising a gay Republican group he would be a stronger advocate for gays and their rights than his liberal opponent, Edward M. Kennedy. Now he emphasizes his opposition to gay marriage and civil unions.

_Then a registered independent, Romney voted in the 1992 Democratic presidential primary for Paul Tsongas. Two years later, he said he did so because he favored the Massachusetts senator's ideas over those of Bill Clinton, and was sure President George H.W. Bush would be renominated. Now, Romney says he backed the candidate he thought might be the weakest opponent for Bush.

_In his first two campaigns, Romney emphasized his support of gun-control measures. In 1994, he said: "I don't line up with the NRA." Now, he is a card-carrying National Rifle Association member. He joined the organization in August.

_Romney used to distance himself from President Reagan. Now he casts himself as a conservative in the mold of Reagan.

Sorry to threadjack.....back to the Dems.


sounds to me like he came to his sences. each one of those changes are for the better,imo.

It comes down to this. Which candidate (if any) will actually attempt to do what they campaign on? Which will actually help to provide affordable and affective health care for all people? Who will actually pay attention to the country's population in rural areas and not just the people's needs in big cities? Who will also work on bringing in decent paying jobs to these rural areas? I've heard a lot of promise from these candidates, but I'm not sure if what they campaign on is actually possible. We'll see though. Obama does seem like the most convincing candidate to me, and normally tend to side with Republicans.

I think we all agree we want change. We want our freakin' gas prices to be lowered if nothing else!

sounds to me like he came to his sences. each one of those changes are for the better,imo.

61 year old man coming to his senses? :doh:

It comes down to this. Which candidate (if any) will actually attempt to do what they campaign on? Which will actually help to provide affordable and affective health care for all people? Who will actually pay attention to the country's population in rural areas and not just the people's needs in big cities? Who will also work on bringing in decent paying jobs to these rural areas? I've heard a lot of promise from these candidates, but I'm not sure if what they campaign on is actually possible. We'll see though. Obama does seem like the most convincing candidate to me, and normally tend to side with Republicans.

I think we all agree we want change. We want our freakin' gas prices to be lowered if nothing else!

I don't care too much about what each politician says they will do in office. That sounds crazy, but (a) politicians often say things for the sake of securing votes, not because they actually mean what they say, (b) Presidents can't pass legislation without the help of that thing called Congress, and (c) candidates rarely reveal the specifics of their policy objectives and the devil is in the details.

I am FAR more concerned with any given candidate's intelligence, judgment, and integrity (by integrity I don't mean whether they get BJs or oppose gay marriage, I mean that they are principled and possess a clear identity independent of the voters). I'm more concerned about the President being able to deal with issues we don't anticipate.