Jesus Creed

Jesus Creed


Democrats: Who will it be?

posted by xscot mcknight

Kris and I watched the debate on CNN last night — at least most of it — and I’m wondering what you are thinking now about who will win? What strengths does your favorite have? (Avoid saying anything negative about a candidate.) And I’ve got one other question, it’s a tough one to be civil about, but it’s this: What do you think of the double-barreled approach of having Hillary and Bill Clinton on the campaign trail? And, will somebody tell us how it is possible — physically — for these candidates to do this for so long, day in and day out, and will keep doing it, and then somehow have energy to become President in January 2009?



Advertisement
Comments read comments(44)
post a comment
Georges Boujakly

posted January 22, 2008 at 12:29 am


And will it be easier if they took up writing day in and day out? Perhaps it’s a calling and they love what they do. I imagine it’s what they would say.
Perhaps they are driven by a deep conviction that if they make it to the top they will be able to leave their mark on history and change the world. That’s the noble thing to say. The not so noble thing is to say they are driven by a deep desire (possibly unhealthy) to compete and win, even at the cost of aging twice as fast as people their own age! Looking at George W’s pictures 8 years ago and now is shocking!



report abuse
 

Christine

posted January 22, 2008 at 12:55 am


Personally, I think that Barack was right in the debate tonight – sometimes it’s hard to tell which Clinton he is running against. I’ve watched quite a bit of Bill’s comments of late and I do not think he’s helping Hillary at all.
Someone on “Meet the Press” this weekend put it quite well, paraphrasing here: -Yes, she’s the first viable woman candidate running for president, but her husband is doing the dirty work. If she cannot control him during the campaign, how will she do so if elected president (end of paraphrase)? I agree, and the good cop/bad cop routine isn’t necessary.
Bill Clinton can be one of the most charming folks around, and there’s no one better in consoling a nation and offering comfort than he is. That said, a number of his comments about Obama over the last week reminded me of the side of him that I truly detest. It’s back to the ugliness in politics, and I don’t think the Clintons are playing fair.
I will say that Bill’s comments have definitely put me in the Obama camp.
Yeah, Scot, I dunno how they all keep going. Noticed the photos of Bill nodding off during one of the services today. Me? I’d have probably been comatose weeks ago!



report abuse
 

Christine

posted January 22, 2008 at 12:57 am


Scot, steroids, maybe?!! :-)



report abuse
 

RonMcK

posted January 22, 2008 at 1:03 am


For a presidential candidate, stamina is a more important quality than wisdom.



report abuse
 

art

posted January 22, 2008 at 1:04 am


My vote is going with Hillary. I know she has gotten a lot of slack for her views on medical care, but that is from people who don’t take the time to read her proposals and, instead, equate her views with the universal health care in other countries. When you read her proposed reforms, they are nothing like those other countries. Her positions on medical care is one of the larger reasons I am voting for her. How can we call ourselves the greatest nation on the earth and deny the poor medical care?
Her other positions on justice for the poor and governmental aid that does not just resort to ‘hand-outs,’ but actually works towards financial independence is also a major reason she is getting my vote.
And then there’s the added bonus of getting people at my seminary all riled up when I say I’m supporting Hillary!! There’s nothing like a furious and flustered presbyterian!
I think Bill supporting Hillary on the campaign trail is what should be expected. I’m not sure how it could be any other way. When your on the campaign trail, you are looking for anyway possible to get more support. I’m sure Barack, or any other candidate, would utilize the same strategy if he was afforded the chance.
Of course, that is coming from someone who is biased in favor of Hillary, so my perspective is more favorable than what others might think.



report abuse
 

eugene

posted January 22, 2008 at 2:13 am


Well, it’s just too close to call between Hilary and Obama. And honestly, I am still wrestling between the two. And while I understand the significance of the spouse’s role in the campaign, I’m getting a little put-off by Bill Clinton taking a more confrontational role [a la his engagement with Obama] – rather than a more supportive role [behind the scenes]of Hilary



report abuse
 

Jonathan Brink

posted January 22, 2008 at 3:33 am


I’d like to know how the people who elected them feel about their inability to do their day jobs.



report abuse
 

Clay Knick

posted January 22, 2008 at 7:37 am


How about this? None of the above. That goes for
the Republicans too. None. Zero.



report abuse
 

Diane

posted January 22, 2008 at 7:52 am


It’s unfortunate if Clinton and Obama are attacking each other and going “negative.” What if they end up as running mates? I don’t think Bill helps his wife as much as undermines her: send him home! I too wonder how they keep going … of course, they don’t have to drive the kids to school, make dinner, do the laundry … I imagine what people have said above sums it up plus that adrenaline surge when you know this is it.



report abuse
 

Bill V.

posted January 22, 2008 at 9:00 am


No Democratic candidates excite me. An Obama/Clinton ticket or a Clinton/Obama ticket is not likely. Neither one of them wants to play second fiddle.
How can politics not be “negative”? It’s all about slinging do-do.
Obama is showing himself to be a crisis manager not a strategist and visionary. He took the Clinton’s bait.
How does it work for these candidates who say they are for the little guy, the middle class, the working person and yet they are all individually worth millions? I want to know how much Clinton and Edwards pay for the haircuts.
How many regular people are running for President; people like you and me? None! Thanks to McCain-Feingold, the rich run for President and you get to watch. Peachy!
Not all blacks need or will vote for Obama. Good!
Hillary wins!



report abuse
 

Dianne

posted January 22, 2008 at 9:08 am


So a win for Hillary would make Bill . . . First Gentleman? I’m just saying . . .!
No candidate, republican or democrat, at this point excites me but it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.



report abuse
 

Matt K

posted January 22, 2008 at 9:25 am


Unfortunately I think the Clintons will pull it off and get the nomination for a variety of reasons (many of them dirty tricks and cheap shots). They’ve straight up lied about Obama’s record and his words, they’ve played some of the Latino distrust of Black Americans for caucus votes, and they are also very likely behind the “Obama is a Muslim” smears. Bill Clinton governed by the polls, I don’t think Hillary will do any better. Hillary is the neocons favorite Dem, which makes me doubt her ability to keep us out of another war. And finally , Hilary won’t go on the record to end U.S. sponsored torture of detainees.
If it comes down to Hilary/McCain– I will vote McCain on that point alone.



report abuse
 

ScottE

posted January 22, 2008 at 9:27 am


Was that a debate? I thought for a few moments I was watching the Jerry Springer show.
All of the personal attacks are distasteful and most unfortunate. Can we stick with the issues please? What happened to civility?
As for Bill Clinton, I agree with Obama. It is sometimes hard to tell which Clinton is running for president. Personally I think Bill is muddying the waters and needs to back off a bit. Maybe this is a part of the Clinton strategy.



report abuse
 

Bill V.

posted January 22, 2008 at 9:32 am


#13 has something. If you can keep your primary opponent off balance as Clinton is doing to Obama, you gain momentum and conserve energy and watch your opponent trip and fall all over himself. Obama will destroy himself. Clinton will not care if you are listening to her or not (she’s hoping you won’t listen to her) because the vision of Obama fumbling around will be enough of a show. I can’t wait.



report abuse
 

sheryl

posted January 22, 2008 at 9:44 am


I didn’t watch the debate last night, but only read some of the “dialogue” between Obama and Clinton. Personally, I don’t like the idea of a senator, i.e., professional politician, becoming President. That applies to all parties. I think they lack the ability to govern the people and work with all facets of government and parties more effectively. Also, they are usually out of touch with the populus (or “plebs”), because they don’t have much contact with us like governors do. They live inside the Beltway–another galaxy.
As far as Bill Clinton campaigning for his wife . . . Can she help it that her husband is a former U.S. President? They are in an unique and delicate situation. He is an effective speaker who can influence people. As long as they are on the same page and working together, then HRC should use all her assets. Bush 41 campaigned for Bush 43 during the election cycles also. The media didn’t make it a big deal, probably because Bush 41 is not as polarizing a figure as Bill Clinton.
Michelle Obama campaigns a lot for her husband and we in the Chicago area hear about it all the time. She just doesn’t have the clout that Bill Clinton does nationally, so the media doesn’t give her the press time.



report abuse
 

Tom Hein

posted January 22, 2008 at 10:14 am


It’s very difficult for me to vote for a Democrat because the party platform has been taken over by such radical elements. But, I’m not very excited about the Republican candidates either because I see the extreme need for health care reform, and I don’t think any of them are going to get it done.



report abuse
 

Jason

posted January 22, 2008 at 10:23 am


Sheryl (#15) – I think the difference between Bush 41 campaigning for his son and Clinton for his wife is that while Bush 41 had lots of nice things to say about his son (naturally) he never went on the attack against his son’s opponents (I don’t recall this personally but have heard several pundits in the media make the comparison, for what its worth). Obviously Bill Clinton has been something of a hatchet man for his wife’s campaign.



report abuse
 

sheryl

posted January 22, 2008 at 10:55 am


Jason (#17), I see your point. I guess Bill Clinton is being used in that manner to say the things that HRC would like to say, but can’t or won’t. There would be a backlash from her “negative” campaigning, such as last night’s debate between her and Obama. B. Clinton takes the edge off for her. We’ll have to wait and see if this strategy backfires.



report abuse
 

Friend of Pascal

posted January 22, 2008 at 11:15 am


The debate was despicable. While I have never really been an Edwards fan, at least he has been staying out of the battle. As a Hispanic, I really appreciated his strength of character in denouncing that deplorable anti-Clinton/Hispanics ad in Nevada. Obama’s unwillingness to do that and his behavior in the debate shows me he is not nearly as much of an agent of change as his rhetoric proclaims.
I rarely get ethnically offended; I’m not a “Chicano power” person. That ad was insulting to me, and I respected both Edwards and Clinton for denouncing it. It was expected from her, but he had nothing to lose. This was nothing less than a failed “swift boat” attempt.
Scot, sorry if this is too negative, but your request certainly didn’t stop the Clinton attackers.
Bill K #12, it was Obama’s supporters and his refusal to lead in Nevada that has turned me and the Hispanics I know away from him. Obama’s inaction resulted in betrayal through silence. You can’t blame his unwillingness to open his mouth and do what is right on the Clintons. It was equivalent to one of his “present” votes.
I just wish people would see through Obama’s nice guy facade and realize his record nor his actions match the agent of change lines. He is the same as any other politician (see Sheryl #15), but with a nicer demeanor and a great speaking ability. Style…not substance.
Sheryl, on top of your comments on Michelle and daddy Bush, no one goes nuts about the ridiculous comments Elizabeth Edwards has made.
I am now looking at Republicans. I wasn’t thinking that way a week ago. I was ready to vote for any dem getting the nomination. This has turned into a circus.



report abuse
 

Nick Fox

posted January 22, 2008 at 12:12 pm


Let me say up front that I have been backing Obama so far. But, whenever I heard conservatives talk about Hilary, they pretend as if she is the antichrist. I’m sure not all conservatives do this, but certainly some. I am having trouble figuring out why Hilary is so hated by conservatives. I suspect that most of them don’t have many good reasons and it is a gut reaction, but I don’t know. So any conservatives reading this, what is so bad about Hilary?
Thanks



report abuse
 

Tom Hein

posted January 22, 2008 at 12:33 pm


Nick….
I am morally conservative, but not big business conservative on economic issues, so I’m not sure I’m the best person to answer your question. I would say that social conservatives link her with Bill’s womanizing, along with the Democratic abortion/gay agenda platforms, so they dislike her because she panders to Bill and to her constituency. So, they see her as the face of immorality. I think that economic conservatives dislike her health care initiatives as being being too much big government/socialism. So, they see her as the face of economic socialism. By the way, this is not necessarily representative of my viewpoint. I’m just trying to answer your question as someone who rubs shoulders with conservatives of various stripes.



report abuse
 

Bill V.

posted January 22, 2008 at 12:36 pm


#20,
If you mean “Bushies=Conservatives”, I think you’re off. But I am, like you, also surprised by the lack of “conservative” support for Hillary. Truth be told, current Bush isn’t much of a conservative. Let the record show:
President Bill Clinton first proposed what came to be called the USA Patriot Act. He failed to convince a the GOP-controlled Congress to approve the measure. G.W. Bush succeeded. President Bill Clinton gave us NAFTA, something current Bush has not only supported but expanded. Bush and Clinton are major players in amnesty for illegal aliens. Hillary is with her husband on these things.
Be honest…Bush and Clinton are politically made for each other. So that is why I am also surprised.
The true conservative is at odds with George and Hillary.
The true conservative will not support stupid treaties (like NAFTA) with foreign nations. True conservatives don’t believe in rewarding people for breaking the law (amnesty essentially rewards lawbreakers). True conservatives don’t like legislation giving the federal gov’t more control over the states and our lives (the Patriot Act).
Bush is no conservative.



report abuse
 

Dan Ra

posted January 22, 2008 at 1:07 pm


The debate was interesting, to say the least. I think Obama did well enough taking the fire. It was clear he was ready to attack Hillary. Everyone’s been saying that he needs to defend himself.
Ideally, it would’ve been better for Obama to stay “above the fray” and push his optimistic message, but that unfortunately doesn’t work in politics when you’re being attacked left and right.
I’ll say this: If Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, look to a Republican (McCain) being in office. I’d say… 90%. I can’t stand how us democrats are not being wise about this. If we want a democrat in office, we won’t get it with Hillary. The name Clinton is a Republican’s greatest nightmare and they’ll have bloodlust. Obama has much more crossover potential.
Add to the fact that he has the world’s vote.
Why can’t we see this?!?



report abuse
 

jim

posted January 22, 2008 at 2:00 pm


I agree with #23, if it comes down to Hillary and McCain, I – a democrat – will seriously consider supporting McCain.
Unfortunately Clinton not only has enough political firepower and a bull dog like Bill on her team to do all the dirty fighting that they will more than likely completely undo Obama. Sadly such a move will be the complete demise of the democrats for this election.
Doesn’t anyway have a bit of concern about this whole dynasty thing and the switching of the presidency between the Bushes and the Clintons over the 20 or so years?
And Clinton is promising change? Give me a break…



report abuse
 

Kacie Mann

posted January 22, 2008 at 2:11 pm


It’s too close to call… things could still change. I much prefer Obama for his character and history and the statement it would make to the world, but I much prefer Hillary’s policies.
To be honest, despite the fact that everything is overdramatized in election year, I doubt either of them would take this country down the drain.



report abuse
 

Scott Lenger

posted January 22, 2008 at 4:52 pm


I think the post CatholicAnarchy.org backing NO ONE in the U.S. presidential election is asking the better questions.
“…if Christians want to vote, fine. I just wish they wouldn’t act as if this is the only way to ‘be political,’ that we have a sacred duty to vote, etc.”



report abuse
 

Allie

posted January 22, 2008 at 5:49 pm


Precisely, Mr. Lenger. I firmly believe that while voting is a responsibility and a privilege, it isn’t the only way we can be politically active. It simply happens to be one of the easier ways. :)



report abuse
 

Aaron G

posted January 22, 2008 at 7:21 pm


RE: “how it is possible ? physically…?”
Body-doubles (ala Hannah Montana)



report abuse
 

preacherman

posted January 22, 2008 at 9:33 pm


I think we will have the first woman president. Mrs Presdent Clinton. Vice President John Edwards.



report abuse
 

Mike B.

posted January 22, 2008 at 10:17 pm


I’m excited about Obama’s candidacy and his views on religion in the public square since I read an article he wrote for Sojourners over a year ago. I’m sad that the recent comments and negativity from Clintons remind me how of disappointed I was with Bill’s character and integrity as president.



report abuse
 

Friend of Pascal

posted January 22, 2008 at 11:25 pm


Oops…I meant to say Edwards had nothing to gain by denouncing the ad. Sorry.



report abuse
 

Korey

posted January 23, 2008 at 12:04 am


Barack Obama represents an opportunity to transcend the bitter and vicious divisions in our country. He is compelling and inspiring. It troubles me to think of a continuation of the recent family dynasties particularly given the role of money in politics. The Clintons have stunned me with a form of politics that seeks to win however possible because the ends justify the means (Their behaviour is reminiscent of the politics of Karl Rove and Tom Delay). A year ago I would have never said such a thing or even conceived it. The republican attacks made me biased and unwilling to see the faults in the party to which I have a greater affinity.
Bill Clinton’s negative campaigning on behalf of his spouse is improper because of his stature as former president and his popularity within the party that is different from any of the other spouses. It’s one thing to campaign passionately and another to be so critical and dismissive of a leading contender. Obama needed to stand up and decide how to defend himself against Clinton’s attacks given the unique status of the Clintons within the party. I’m glad he did. I don’t mind a heated debate (see factcheck.org for a review of the charges and countercharges), although I’d actually call all of the debates competitive interviews instead.
Barack Obama is certainly not perfect, but to my mind he is the best candidate for president that I’ve seen in my 32 years. The fact that he will often say unpopular things that he believes in to traditional democratic constituencies (something John McCain also does to republican constituencies) demonstrates his honesty, independence, and desire to seek some reconciliation. When he answers questions I see a greater level of candor (putting the best foot forward, but not spinning incessantly and conspicuously) than with the other candidates (I also see this in McCain and Huckabee amongst the republicans and it’s refreshing!).
Whatever your race or gender I urge you to check out his website, read some of his writings, listen to his speeches. Give him a chance to present himself. Interestingly, as recent as early 2007 I would have said I was supporting Clinton. I had no issue with her or former President Clinton, although their tactics near the end of Iowa and since then have been quite discouraging. Essentially, I was drawn to Obama for some of the same reasons I am drawn to the “emerging conversation”. I think he offers us not just a way to solve intractable problems, but to do so with broad coalitions because he can help heal some deep divisions and shake up entrenched powers. He does not make republicans feel unamerican for being republicans nor does he speak inclusively only to those who would become democrats. He is respectful of his opponents and might concede that they just might have some reasonable ideas. And he’s willing to be honest about that even while trying to secure the nomination. He defies win at all cost politics. He operates outside of the conventional playbook. Who else does that?



report abuse
 

J-Marie

posted January 23, 2008 at 12:18 am


But what has Obama really DONE in his years as senator? Like what types of legislation has he created and had successfully passed? I am truly asking, I honestly don’t know.



report abuse
 

David

posted January 23, 2008 at 1:40 am


To frame this a bit, I am a registered Republican and have never voted for a Democratic Presidential Candidate. My wife and I have been watching quite a few of the debates and are both leaning towards supporting Obama.
That said, I am pretty disappointed with how negative the message of his campaign is becoming. As Korey (#32) points out, for a while at least he was able to focus our attention on the problems at hand and the need to work together to solve some really significant problems our country faces.
I am completely baffled by the message I am hearing from his rivals’ camps which seems to hold to the idea that “we can save the country if only we could beat down those crazy republicans…”
Seriously? That’s it?
There are no good ideas in the Republican party’s platform?



report abuse
 

Mike B.

posted January 23, 2008 at 10:33 am


Marie,
Your question peaked my curiosity so I googled “Obama Legislation” and found a nice list of bills Obama authored or supported from 2005-07 on such issues as voter fraud and intimidation, disclosing information about public grants (co-authored with J. McCain), addressing issues at Walter Reed Hospital, requiring the Air Force to report plans to close bases, among others. I was surprised at how easy the information was to find.
Mike



report abuse
 

Steve K.

posted January 23, 2008 at 11:30 am


The constant attacks by the Clintons on Barack Obama are precisely a part of their strategy to regain control of the White House. And it’s despicable — another example of the kind of dirty politics that Obama seeks to overcome.
The Clintons know that most voters will (sadly) not remember their dirty tricks, and they’ll only remember the questions placed in their mind about Obama’s record (most of which are totally unfounded!). It makes me sick, honestly.
I had actually brought myself to a point of thinking I could stomach another Clinton as president and actually vote for her IF Obama does not get the nomination. Over the last couple of weeks, that tolerance for Clinton has turn into rage against her because of all her dirty attacks and lies against Obama. As others here have indicated, if the choice is Clinton vs. McCain, I am now leaning towards McCain.
But that isn’t going to happen (Lord willing ;-)
BTW — I am concerned that Obama is getting sucked into the Clintons strategy by responding to every attack and false allegation, but I also understand the motivation to try and counter misinformation, expose the liars for who they are, and avoid getting Swift-boated out of contention for the White House. My hope is in God, not Obama, but I really do believe Obama represents the greatest hope for change in U.S. politics we have seen in a long time.
Obama ’08!



report abuse
 

Bill V.

posted January 23, 2008 at 11:51 am


I still think Hillary is it. She appeals to our national cynicism.
However, the more I watch this and I watch our interactions with the people and the process, I am growing more suspicious of the major candidates. Most of them seem dazed, clueless and cynical. I watched a group of people go basically bonkers over Huckabee last weekend. They were praying for him to win the SC primary. I was convinced they knew nothing about his politics other than he is Christian. He supports a “nanny state” (cradle-to-grave gov’t) which amounts to bigger gov’t.
Obama, how many people are trying to pray him into office? Obama represents nothing, smoke and mirrors. He hasn’t defined what he means by “change” and he won’t because he doesn’t know. Now he is stepping all over himself to fight the Clintons.
When it comes to US politics, I am inclined to vote for people who represent sticking as close as possible to our Constitution. If we like our way of life and our form of gov’t casting votes for cynical Democrats and Republicans (they are hoping you won’t look behind the curtain or they think you are too stupid or apathetic to do it) should not be in our play book. Candidates who advocate sticking to our Constitutional principles provide us with reality and hope, politically speaking. Obama is no more hopeful than a recently filled pothole. Clinton is dirty and everybody knows it. McCain has anger management problems. Huckabee is also a cynic. Romney stikes me as a drifter.
You know…the Libertarians and the Constitution parties are looking better all the time. You know…Ron Paul is not as tired as he looks.



report abuse
 

Korey

posted January 23, 2008 at 12:34 pm


Friend of Pascal #19:
“He is the same as any other politician (see Sheryl #15), but with a nicer demeanor and a great speaking ability. Style?not substance.”
I am obviously an Obama supporter as evidenced by my previous comment and will try briefly to persuade you that Obama is not the same as any other politician, nor are all politicians like every other politician. That sort of thinking obscures the differences between candidates in terms of overall credibility and integrity. It strikes me as a surrender to pessimism such that one gives up believing that any candidate can be remotely truthful or more or less admirable. To be sure, they are politicians and must characterize their positions to their advantage. There is a fine line between appropriate spin and dishonesty. Yet I do think its possible to be politically savvy and maintain a degree of credibility.
To assess a candidate’s truthfulness I suggest the following questions. Is the candidate ever challenging to her own base of support, not just her “adversaries”? Does the candidate speak to all Americans acknowledging that there are indeed Americans who actually differ with him or does he pretend all Americans basically share his position on solutions to controversial matters (like President Bush does)? Does the candidate ever stand by unpopular decisions and beliefs even when it troubles her supporters (or may seem politically disadvantageous)? Does the candidate ever acknowledge errors or mistakes particularly when it might not appear popular to do so? Is the candidate ever the first to offer praise of lend support to “opponents”, or does she only do so after the political analysis shows it to be safe and popular?
In terms of style not substance, a little investigation of any of the candidates would show substantive records of action. Visit his website. Give him a chance.
Along with John B in #35, here are more substantive examples:
In 2006, Obama, along with senators Coburn (R-OK), Carper (D-DE), and McCain (R-AZ), introduced the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act that was eventually signed into law by President Bush (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act). This legislation created the websites http://ExpectMore.gov and http://usaspending.gov. These sites enable you to see how government programs are going and how all tax money is spent and which legislators are respondible for the spending.
Also in 2006 Sens. Obama (D-IL) and Reid (D-NV) offered a $20 million amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The amendment allocated funds to support the African Union troops in Darfur.



report abuse
 

Korey

posted January 23, 2008 at 12:37 pm


Oops, Mike B in #35, not John B.



report abuse
 

Bill V.

posted January 23, 2008 at 1:43 pm


#38:
This is a good example of what I consider unconstitutional behavior:
“Also in 2006 Sens. Obama (D-IL) and Reid (D-NV) offered a $20 million amendment to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act. The amendment allocated funds to support the African Union troops in Darfur.”
It’s a lousy amendment. Our federal gov’t has no business sending OUR $20 million to any foreign power or army. This is what is called an entangling alliance. We, as a sovereign nation, should offer no foreign aid to anyone. If an American citizen or a group of American citizens determines a foreign country or army is worthy of their money and support, let them send it. Our federal government has no authority to use our American taxpayer dollars to get us bogged down in overly complicated, total loss “entangling alliances.” The stance of not getting involved in entangling alliances gives us a low profile on the world stage and we will be less likely to receive the ire of many nations and it may even make us less a terrorist target.



report abuse
 

Ron Fay

posted January 23, 2008 at 1:53 pm


My problem with any Senator getting elected is that those who are running for office frankly do not have the experience as an executive (i.e. executive branch) to run the country. Hilary has been a Senator for what, 1 term? Obama has been a Senator for about 2 years. Obama’s record in IL was pathetic, let alone his in the Senate (in terms of actually appearing and voting). He has been more about self-promotion than actual governance.
I cannot vote for any of the candidates right now, with the possible exception of Huckabee and Ron Paul (who will not be in it).
Scot,
When do we plan on starting the Purple Party again?



report abuse
 

Friend of Pascal

posted January 23, 2008 at 10:39 pm


Ron #41. “Obama?s record in IL was pathetic, let alone his in the Senate (in terms of actually appearing and voting). He has been more about self-promotion than actual governance.” Yup…that sums him up. Anyone who looks at his Senate power ranking compared to Clinton and McCain would see that.
And ditto on the Purple Party. I am too liberal to be a conservative and too conservative to be a liberal.
Korey #38. I was fairly comfortable with Obama until his utter lack of integrity and leadership in Nevada. So…I had given him a chance, and he blew it. I found his behavior insulting. This time it was personal because it treated the Hispanic community like we were stupid enough to think that Clinton is against Hispanics. Come on…at least everyone can admit both Clintons have been fantastic to people of color for a very long time…they (at least Hillary) have probably been working for minorities since Obama was in diapers, literally. (He was born in 1961 … she met MLK in 1962 through her youth pastor. In 1965 she took black friends to her white church.)
It baffles me how Obama supporters cry “foul” at the Clintons and dismiss his behavior. What happened in Nevada was nothing short of a failed swift-boat attempt. But if it came from Clinton supporters they’d have a cow.
The Clintons are being the Clintons. No one is surprised. Obama is acting like the Clintons, and turning around and pretending to be some upstanding guy. I’ll take the ones who have shown their true colors. At least you know what you’re really getting. Ron #41 summed him up perfectly.
Korey, if he gets the nomination it is possible I will have cooled off by November. Right now, his utter lack of leadership was insulting. Like I said earlier, I rarely get ethnically offended, so it shows you how low that ad was. If you haven’t read the text, look it up. Edwards had the guts to say something.
Obama was his typical mamby-pamby self. If there’s a tough issue he’ll vote present or not show up…like the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist group vote. He doesn’t show…then criticizes those who had the guts to go on record. That doesn’t bother you?
Do you really dismiss his Nevada behavior?



report abuse
 

Korey

posted January 24, 2008 at 12:26 pm


Friend of Pascal:
I confess that I find the overall history of the Clintons to be a mixed bag and I’d rather not have them back in power. And I disagree with your characterization of Obama’s “not present” votes. Although I do agree that such actions are politically difficult to explain, I find the explanations more than adequate (See http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Present-Votes-Fact-Check.html?_r=2&scp=11&sq=obama&st=nyt&oref=slogin&oref=slogin).
I am also comfortable (as an Obama supporter mind you), with his lack of a vote on declaring the Iranian Republican Guard a terrorist group. As an opponent of the invasion of Iraq, Clinton’s vote to authorize was troubling to me. So when she endorses this bill, I am again uncertain on how firmly she will stand up to the administration when she fears political backlash. Obama was campaigning in New Hampshire at the time. I think he should have been there to vote no (which I’m convinced he would have based on his statements). I’m generally more concerned with how a vote is actually cast, whether yes or no, then votes not cast. As US senators she’s missed 23.5% this session or 104 votes, Chris Dodd 37.5%, Obama 37.7% or 167, and Joe Biden 39.1%. The average among all senators is 5%. During 2005 and 2006 she missed 16 vs. Obama’s 11. So clearly the missed vote thing in the US Senate is due to campaigning for both of them. See http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/ for exact data.
And how many of your criticisms are of things Obama himself actually said, or others on his behalf (or not on his behalf)?
I do not have such negative feelings toward Clinton, though I’m certainly against her nomination. Can you cite actual behavior of Obama that was “insulting” or instances (e.g. speeches, debates, interviews, writings) where he “treated the Hispanic community like we were stupid enough to think that Clinton is against Hispanics.”? I’m not saying they didn’t occur, but I’d consider your complaints more significant with more evidence.
“The Clintons are being the Clintons. No one is surprised. Obama is acting like the Clintons, and turning around and pretending to be some upstanding guy. I?ll take the ones who have shown their true colors. At least you know what you?re really getting.”
This is cynical to me and exactly what the Clintons and a significant number of politicians strive for. They obfuscate and try to muddy everyone so that integrity and candor are devalued. They will admit an unpopular position if it appears advantageous because others are doing it or they’ll admit a mistake if others already have. The goal of this sort of politics is to obscure overall significant differences in character. Sort of like saying “See, you’re no different than me… we all have skeletons in our closet.” But this negates the possible fact that one candidate has far greater positive attributes than another, or far more negative attributes.
Finally, I highly recommend this article from The Atlantic magazine to explain why I support Obama: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama.



report abuse
 

Korey

posted January 24, 2008 at 12:29 pm


Sorry for my blog unfriendly links. The last link was botched with the period at the end of the sentence, so here goes again http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More Blogs To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Jesus Creed. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 11:15:58am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Our Common Prayerbook 30 - 3
Psalm 30 thanks God (vv. 1-3, 11-12) and exhorts others to thank God (vv. 4-5). Both emerge from the concrete reality of David's own experience. Here is what that experience looks like:Step one: David was set on high and was flourishing at the hand of God's bounty (v. 7a).Step two: David became too

posted 12:15:30pm Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Theology After Darwin 1 (RJS)
One of the more important and more difficult pieces of the puzzle as we feel our way forward at the interface of science and faith is the theological implications of discoveries in modern science. A comment on my post Evolution in the Key of D: Deity or Deism noted: ...this reminds me of why I get a

posted 6:01:52am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Almost Christian 4
Who does well when it comes to passing on the faith to the youth? Studies show two groups do really well: conservative Protestants and Mormons; two groups that don't do well are mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics. Kenda Dean's new book is called Almost Christian: What the Faith of Ou

posted 12:01:53am Aug. 31, 2010 | read full post »

Let's Get Neanderthal!
The Cave Man Diet, or Paleo Diet, is getting attention. (Nothing is said about Culver's at all.) The big omission, I have to admit, is that those folks were hunters -- using spears or smacking some rabbit upside the conk or grabbing a fish or two with their hands ... but that's what makes this diet

posted 2:05:48pm Aug. 30, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.