Barack or Hillary ?

[red]

Barack and Roll!   ;D

[crazylove]

10 wins in a row for Obama!

Anyone change their mind yet?

[mjkoehler]

He also won the abroad vote with 65% of the vote. That's #11

[jesus christ]

I most definitely am pulling for Barack.  Hillary cannot be trusted.

And she was a member of the board of Wal-mart, thus never getting my endorsement

word and word!

[MMJ_fanatic]

Neither

[crazylove]

From the sounds of the debate last night, it seems like Hillary just might consider V-Pres.
It seems like she might cave just to be on the ticket.  I'm all for that!  This way we get new ideas, change, and forward thinking with some experience behind it!  

It looks like a Win-Win to me :exclamation

[thatswhatshesaid]

From the sounds of the debate last night, it seems like Hillary just might consider V-Pres.
It seems like she might cave just to be on the ticket.  I'm all for that!  This way we get new ideas, change, and forward thinking with some experience behind it!  

It looks like a Win-Win to me :exclamation

i would personally prefer john edwards.....or even better....stephen colbert!

[Kimbos_Evil_Bread]

Not too be a downer or even suggest that I'm a politico insider but does it effect anyone else that when the Dems took over Congress they didn't do much to roll back most of the policies set forth by the Bush Administration, much less effect any change in the status quo of the war in Iraq and in some cases, undermine the anti-war movement itself?  

I don't see Hilary winning the primary with the current numbers shes showing so if it became down to Obama and McCain I fear middle america would go for McCain at this point unless Barack stared giving details on how he would effect "change."  Personally, I prefer Obama and I hope that when he gets the nomination he starts going into specifics because it all sounds good on a base level but there's really no specifics offered and I can't say I have faith in either party.  The Bush administration did what it did but the Dems haven't shown any resolve against it so I feel like I'm living in the South Park episode where we're stuck between a douche and a turd sandwich.

My basic point is I have no faith that there's a lick of difference between either party.  No matter who wins, the republican or the democrat, I feel the the lobbiests are going to get their way regardless and that's a shame.

[ycartrob]

My basic point is I have no faith that there's a lick of difference between either party.  No matter who wins, the republican or the democrat, I feel the the lobbiests are going to get their way regardless and that's a shame.

agree. I am going with Obama, the lesser of the 2 evils. The Clintons (and you really cannot seperate the 2, their marriage is one of convienence for political clout to persuade some family values from the left  ie, put up with all your husband's bullshit and fooling around for your own safety and comfort and political gain) suck the tit of special interest lobbyists harder than anyone. There's the classic Bill Moyers interview with Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law School proffessor who wrote THE TWO INCOME-TRAP: WHY MIDDLE-CLASS MOTHERS AND FATHERS ARE GOING BROKE. The book talks about how the credit card industry works against the middle class. Warren talks about meeting with Hillary in the late 90's, when she was first lady, and Hillary was really concerned about this issue (middle class people living on credit) and Warren schooled Hillary on the issue. Hillary then helped convince Bill to veto a crucial bankruptcy bill that was being pushed through by the credit card lobbyists, and her platform was to stand up for those who could not stand for themselves (sound familiar?). Well, fast forward to Hillary becoming a senator, and she voted for the exact bancruptcy bill that she got her husband to veto. Why? The credit card lobbyists were lining her pockets and she could not refuse. It's a really interesting interview that exposes Hillary for who she really is: A POLITICIAN.

 read it here>>>
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript306_full.html

I happen to agree with the notion that most everything will be the same now that corporations are people and running our country. We are seeing the tip of the iceberg of how capitalism will fail (and it will fail, just like every other great empire that was ever around) and nothing short of a revolution will stop it. I'm going to make sure I enjoy my life in the meantime.

[thatswhatshesaid]

Not too be a downer or even suggest that I'm a politico insider but does it effect anyone else that when the Dems took over Congress they didn't do much to roll back most of the policies set forth by the Bush Administration, much less effect any change in the status quo of the war in Iraq and in some cases, undermine the anti-war movement itself?  

I don't see Hilary winning the primary with the current numbers shes showing so if it became down to Obama and McCain I fear middle america would go for McCain at this point unless Barack stared giving details on how he would effect "change."  Personally, I prefer Obama and I hope that when he gets the nomination he starts going into specifics because it all sounds good on a base level but there's really no specifics offered and I can't say I have faith in either party.  The Bush administration did what it did but the Dems haven't shown any resolve against it so I feel like I'm living in the South Park episode where we're stuck between a douche and a turd sandwich.

My basic point is I have no faith that there's a lick of difference between either party.  No matter who wins, the republican or the democrat, I feel the the lobbiests are going to get their way regardless and that's a shame.

Dude, you nailed it.

[megalicious]

blaaaaaah. i don't care for either barack or hilary.

My basic point is I have no faith that there's a lick of difference between either party.  No matter who wins, the republican or the democrat, I feel the the lobbiests are going to get their way regardless and that's a shame.

i second this emotion.

"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'"--Bill Hicks

[bridget]

blaaaaaah. i don't care for either barack or hilary.

My basic point is I have no faith that there's a lick of difference between either party.  No matter who wins, the republican or the democrat, I feel the the lobbiests are going to get their way regardless and that's a shame.

i second this emotion.

"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'"--Bill Hicks

Maybe. But actually, no - they are very, very different. Had Gore pulled through in 2000, the world would be a drastically different place. Many, many people who are not alive now, would in fact still be alive, and that's a big deal. A big difference.

I have many politically disillusioned friends. Many of them voted for Nader in 2000 - the first election any of us could vote in. Now a bit older and wiser, a lot of 'em wish they could eat that vote, 'cause they went in saying, "whatever, it doesn't matter, they're all the same." And look where we are now.

These are not perfect choices, I agree. Everyone's pretty dirty with special interests.  The system itself is kinda broken. I get it. But to say that the parties aren't different? Drastically different choices on judges, on tax policy, health care, definitely on national security, on diplomacy...

Please - hold your nose. Make a choice. It makes a difference.

[ycartrob]

These are not perfect choices, I agree. Everyone's pretty dirty with special interests.  The system itself is kinda broken. I get it. But to say that the parties aren't different? Drastically different choices on judges, on tax policy, health care, definitely on national security, on diplomacy...

You are correct, there are differences in which special interest lobbyists and corporations run both parties. I agree.

I am neither a democrat nor a republican, and I voted for Nader in 2000 and I might just vote for him again since he has announced he is running this year. You know, if Nader gets 5% of the vote then his party (Green) will qualify for federally distributed public funding. That was the goal in 200 but he only got 2.74%. So, are we going to sit back again and follow the Dems and Reps blindly, or is it time for a 3rd party? Aren't we all sick of having the lesser of 2 evils? Well?

[bridget]

Good luck to you. I appreciate everything Nader has done for this country. The seatbelt in my car has saved my life twice now, and I have nothing but my undying gratitude to him for that.

But again, if you are comparing the Bush Administration to a hypothetical Obama administration and honestly saying, "Y'know I don't see any difference." I think you are out of your mind (respectfully.)

[ycartrob]

Good luck to you. I appreciate everything Nader has done for this country. The seatbelt in my car has saved my life twice now, and I have nothing but my undying gratitude to him for that.

But again, if you are comparing the Bush Administration to a hypothetical Obama administration and honestly saying, "Y'know I don't see any difference." I think you are out of your mind (respectfully.)

well thank you bridget   :)   Nothing says, "I respect your opinion" more than, "I think you are out of your mind". That is some familiar "political discourse" that I think our country is sick of (at least I am).

Sorry, but I doubt your sincerity about your "respect" about my opinion (especially since you inferred some "hypothetical Obama administration" into the equation that I said nothing about).

I respect your opinion and I don't think you are "out of your mind". I would challenge you to see all sides of the argument, though, not just yours.

PEACE

[bridget]

Good luck to you. I appreciate everything Nader has done for this country. The seatbelt in my car has saved my life twice now, and I have nothing but my undying gratitude to him for that.

But again, if you are comparing the Bush Administration to a hypothetical Obama administration and honestly saying, "Y'know I don't see any difference." I think you are out of your mind (respectfully.)

well thank you bridget   :)   Nothing says, "I respect your opinion" more than, "I think you are out of your mind". That is some familiar "political discourse" that I think our country is sick of (at least I am).

Sorry, but I doubt your sincerity about your "respect" about my opinion (especially since you inferred some "hypothetical Obama administration" into the equation that I said nothing about).

I respect your opinion and I don't think you are "out of your mind". I would challenge you to see all sides of the argument, though, not just yours.

PEACE

Nope, I meant what I said sincerely. I sincerely, Respectfully, recognize your right to your opinion. I'm saying I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. It doesn't make sense to me in a real-world context. And I'm sorry if the language I used was flip and rude - as I re-read it now,  it was, and I appologize.

But also, as I reread the exchange, you did infer a hypothetical Obama administration, because you said you have looked at the choices this election has to offer and you don't see any difference, it's all corrupt and beyond repair, it's all more of the same, the lesser of two evils, etc... Obama is the likely Democratic nominee. He is exactly one half of who you are talking about in making those statements.

Admittedly, I have a hard time separating emotion from this topic. 200 people in Florida and the world would be a different place. I respect your right to be disillusioned with the 2 party system - the system under which the next president will be chosen. I believe you have come to that opinion honestly and thoughtfully. It's just that that position, at this critical time, makes me nervous, makes me sad.

I suppose that's my problem, not yours.

Peace to you, Tracy. On this lovely Sunday.

[ycartrob]

Rant alert!   :P

we are where we are now. There is no "if Barak Obama were in office instead of Bush" and there is no "if Gore were president during 9-11". There is right now.

And right now, we need a 3rd party that is not corrupted by the deep pockets of the corporate elites and lobbyists. And it will never start as long as the republicans and Democrats are spending all their time hating each other. I mean, I know lib and cons who truly hate each other and the sad thing is they have more in common that differences.

Did you know the George Bush has apponited more women and minorities to high level positions of power than any president in US history?

Did you know that Al Gore's carbon footprint is about 10x the size of every member of this forum combined? (or greater)

I feel we need a drastic change and voting for the next corporate puppet is not the answer. I am looking years down the road, think 2050, and it starts with a 3rd party. The Dems and Reps like this conflict b/c neither one has to change, really. The conflict maintains the status quo.

No matter if Obama or McCain or Gore or Bush or Clinton whoever gets elected, my job (which is working with the homeless) will basically stay the same. The answer does not lie with the current choices. We are a great nation who is settling for mediocrity.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.


Never doubt
that a small group of
thoughtful, committed individuals
can change the world.
Indeed
it's the only thing
that ever has.
-MARGARET MEAD

[Taterbug]

Obama .........just because ;)

[bridget]

No matter if Obama or McCain or Gore or Bush or Clinton whoever gets elected, my job (which is working with the homeless) will basically stay the same. The answer does not lie with the current choices. We are a great nation who is settling for mediocrity.

So let's talk homelessness. As I understand it (correct at will), veterans account for maybe 10% of the population (less?) but about 25% of the homeless population.

As of last year, veterans were having to pay for their meals while recovering at Walter Reed, having to repay their signing bonus if they were injured in Iraq and had to come home before their tour was over, were given a horrible run around if trying to seek treatment for PTSD... I'd imagine all of these things would help to precipitate a fall to homelessness.

Barack authored and enacted legislation that led to a $1.5 billion increase in veterans medical care. He introduced an amendment (that is now law) providing food service to wounded veterans in military hospitals. He authored the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere (SAVE) Act to expand federal homeless veteran programs (that bill is still in committee.) During the budget debate in '07, he passed an amendment to increase funding for homeless veterans programs by $40 million. He introduced the Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Act, which aids in veterans transition from the DOD health care system to the VA by extending the window in which new veterans can get mental health care from two years to five years (that bill is also still in committee - if as few as ten more democrats were elected to the Senate in '08, it would likely become law.)

Incremental as it may be, don't those dollars / that legislation make a difference?

What is Nader's / the Green Party's plan to deal with a veteran population with skyrocketing PTSD, suicide, and homelessness rates? What is Nader's plan specifically to deal with anything? Besides "get rid of the lobbyists and then we'll talk."

The United States Government is a freakin' huge organization. It deals with people and money, ergo, there will always be people with moneyed interests in government. Yes, even in a third party administration. That's just the way it is. So I choose to accept that and find the best person to work within that. For me, that's Barack. I Hope that's Barack. We'll see.  

[ycartrob]

I am a veteran and actually had my money from the GI Bill stopped when the government shut down in 1995. I also worked at a Veterans' Home during the Clinton years (98-99) and the care they got was shameful. Again, the dems and reps react the same way to this stuff; it's Washington DC and it's beauracricies and red tape, but most importantly of all, it's big money.

I don't know what Nader's stance is on the homeless veteran population but I am pretty sure he could just say something that would be enticing. I do know that the solution is through the people and not the government. I am not sure you understand how much of a hole we are in when you are talking about the homeless and veterans and all that. This dates back to centuries and will not be solved with money being thrown at it or political posturing. The change I am talking about is drastic and I have very little faith that any big time politician will make a difference.

I just think this nation deserves more than 2 perspectives, a right or a left, a conservative or a liberal. They have boiled it down (quite brilliantly I might say) into a team sport.

Nader cannot win. Period. However, if he gets the 5% needed, then momentum starts for a vital 3rd party. Bridget, I respect your opinions and your passion. I will do my best to pay attention to numbers and if it looks like a sure tank, that Nader cannot possibly get 5%, then Obama is my man (then there's Hillary... and maybe Nader gets my vote after all).

thanks for trying to have this conversation via a message board, which is damned near impossible. I am more on your side than I am coming across

PEACE