Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
61 million suckers thought George Bush deserved to be re-elected. This is laughable and PATHETIC. It is no wonder that many of these people fail to see the magnificence that is Obama and fail to understand the severe inadequacies of jokes like McCain and Hillary. These people wouldn't recognize greatness in a candidate like Obama if he came up and slapped them in the face.
George Bush has the lowest approval rating if any president since such a rating was calculated. His policies have been a disaster at home and abroad. McCain, being a Bush lapdog and an old geiser, is currently PROTECTED by being in a race ONLY in his own party, a party filled with equally pathetic and repulsive candidates. Once this reject is brought into the light under the national spotlight in the general election, he will feel that true measure of his candidacy. He will understand that, as a Bush lapdog, the one candidate more likely to continue the inept policies of this current pathetic administration, he hasn't a chance in hell to win.
Hillary Clinton is no better. She's a joke. She voted for the war, had absolutely no impact while in the Senate. She had no impact when she was first lady. She is not a visionary. She can't inspire. She's not a good decision-maker. Poor judge of character. Sheltered. Her speeches lack dignity despite her farcical attempts to sound like a dignified, deep-voiced man. She lacks substance. When I listen to her talk, I feel like I'm at a flea market or listening to a sales floor manager at Walmart. She has never shown herself to be capable of introducing innovative, novel solutions to any problems, so I don't know what makes people think that she will do so once elected. She has shown that she will say anything to win because she has nothing SUBSTANTIVE TO say IN ITS PLACE.
Yep!!! The GOP will make mincemeat out of the Obama family. At least Hillary has already been through the grinder.
Obama's "change" and "hope" message is a yawn. To be grammatically incorrect here, he ain't changin' nuthin'.
Say hello to president McCain.
I guess it's possible, but unlikely, that McCain could win the presidency. His racist remark referring to Asians, unpopularity with conservatives (who will mostly stay home, unless Hillary's the dem nominee, in which case they'll come out in droves to oppose her), and weakness in debate and speech format will probably drag him down.
My deal-breaker with McCain is that the guy supported the invasion of Iraq. Not coincidentally, that's also the main reason I would never vote for Hillary. As an Iraq veteran, I in no way will consider voting for anyone who has supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The fact that McCain's been among OIF's staunchest supporters will be his end.
I guess it's possible, but unlikely, that McCain could win the presidency. His racist remark referring to Asians, unpopularity with conservatives (who will mostly stay home, unless Hillary's the dem nominee, in which case they'll come out in droves to oppose her), and weakness in debate and speech format will probably drag him down.
My deal-breaker with McCain is that the guy supported the invasion of Iraq. Not coincidentally, that's also the main reason I would never vote for Hillary. As an Iraq veteran, I in no way will consider voting for anyone who has supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The fact that McCain's been among OIF's staunchest supporters will be his end.
But isn't Hillary for a drawback of troops? I see your point with McCain, that guy is kookoo. Obama wasn't in the senate for the war vote, so he can hop on board the anti-war train. I'd be interested in seeing what his vote would have been ... of course, he'd say he would have opposed the Iraq resolution. It's like the democrats voted for the war "just in case" it worked out and now it's a giant egg on their faces. That's the thing I admired Edwards for, he admitted that his vote was a mistake and he regretted it. I wish Hillary would do the same thing. Obama wasn't there.
Being for a drawback of the troops now has no bearing on whether someone made the decision to vote to authorize force against Iraq in 2002/2003--which she did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by domergurl
I see your point with McCain, that guy is kookoo. Obama wasn't in the senate for the war vote, so he can hop on board the anti-war train. I'd be interested in seeing what his vote would have been ... of course, he'd say he would have opposed the Iraq resolution. It's like the democrats voted for the war "just in case" it worked out and now it's a giant egg on their faces. That's the thing I admired Edwards for, he admitted that his vote was a mistake and he regretted it. I wish Hillary would do the same thing. Obama wasn't there.
Well, Obama was vociferously anti-invasion at the time the decision was made, even though he wasn't a U.S. senator at the time.
You're right about Hillary--I could ALMOST forgive her if she were to admit her mistake. As it is, she looks as stupid as Dubya does, completely refusing to admit having made any kind of mistake.
i thought that with bush's incredibly poor performance that the democrats were a given for the general election but, simply put, obama may be too liberal to win the general election and carry the majority of both parties. his voting record is available for anyone to see. it is a little disingenuous to miss 38.8% of the votes because you don't want it to come back and haunt you later. that is not a sign of strong leadership.
i thought that with bush's incredibly poor performance that the democrats were a given for the general election but, simply put, obama may be too liberal to win the general election and carry the majority of both parties. his voting record is available for anyone to see. it is a little disingenuous to miss 38.8% of the votes because you don't want it to come back and haunt you later. that is not a sign of strong leadership.
Sure isn't, but these hope and changers don't care.
I'm afraid that Hillary suffers from Stubbornasbush-itis when it come to her Iraq resolution vote. But I will hold firm that since Obama wasn't there, he can pontificate all he wants about how anti-war he was, it means nothing because he wasn't there. What were his votes on subsequent measures regarding the war? The surge? More funding for the troops?
i thought that with bush's incredibly poor performance that the democrats were a given for the general election but, simply put, obama may be too liberal to win the general election and carry the majority of both parties. his voting record is available for anyone to see. it is a little disingenuous to miss 38.8% of the votes because you don't want it to come back and haunt you later. that is not a sign of strong leadership.
You do know that McCain has missed over 55% of the senate votes over the same period, right?
And what makes you think he's "too liberal"? Care to discuss issues, or have you simply attached the label? The "most liberal senator" label that the National Journal attached to him for 2007 was actually done by a composite process. Did you know that McCain missed so many votes that he did not have enough for TNJ to do that composite survey of his votes?
i thought that with bush's incredibly poor performance that the democrats were a given for the general election but, simply put, obama may be too liberal to win the general election and carry the majority of both parties. his voting record is available for anyone to see. it is a little disingenuous to miss 38.8% of the votes because you don't want it to come back and haunt you later. that is not a sign of strong leadership.
The only Senator to miss more votes than McCain last year was the poor guy with the brain hemorrhage.
Sure isn't, but these hope and changers don't care.
I'm afraid that Hillary suffers from Stubbornasbu****is when it come to her Iraq resolution vote. But I will hold firm that since Obama wasn't there, he can pontificate all he wants about how anti-war he was, it means nothing because he wasn't there. What were his votes on subsequent measures regarding the war? The surge? More funding for the troops?
Governors typically have the advantage in terms of becoming president. As governors do not vote on national bills, is it your position that any pontification they might do about the issues is inconsequential, since it means nothing? Should we only draw our presidential candidates from the ranks of Congress, then? I'm not trying to be catty here, but rather just trying to determine what a guy has to do, other than be a voting senator. If some of his statements against invading Iraq would be enough, I'll try and find some.
Governors typically have the advantage in terms of becoming president. As governors do not vote on national bills, is it your position that any pontification they might do about the issues is inconsequential, since it means nothing? Should we only draw our presidential candidates from the ranks of Congress, then? I'm not trying to be catty here, but rather just trying to determine what a guy has to do, other than be a voting senator. If some of his statements against invading Iraq would be enough, I'll try and find some.
He can have an opinion in hindsight, sure, but the fact of the matter is that he cannot say without any reservations that he would have voted against the resolution, he wasn't there. Plus, this speech was in ... 2002 ... at an anti-war rally. Kinda preaching to the choir so to say. Would he give the same speech today?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
