# Wow, Obama takes New Hampshire!



## athena123 (Jan 8, 2008)

Ever since Hilary Clinton announced her candidacy, it's just been assumed that she would win the democratic nomination. It's nice to see she's being knocked off her throne and can't take the women's and black voters for granted. Although I'd love to see a woman president, I would never vote for Hilary. I WOULD vote for Condaleeza Rice. Although he's very charismatic, I won't vote for Obama either; too liberal for my tastes and I find some of the things the leader of the church he and Oprah belong to rather frightening. 

Either way, I hope he gets the nomination!


----------



## Juneplum (Jan 8, 2008)

sweet!


----------



## liv (Jan 8, 2008)

Technically, he's only won the first two towns that cast the first ballots.  It's not over yet. =]


----------



## AppleDiva (Jan 8, 2008)

Speculation is never a good thing.  As of now, the race is still too early to call.


----------



## newagetomatoz (Jan 9, 2008)

Out of all the candidates, I am most in favor of Obama.  None of the candidates completely align with my views, but he comes the closest.  The only thing that upsets me about this years Democratic nomination process is that we have a black man and a white woman running, at the same time.  I wish they would have chosen to run in different elections because it is forcing America to decide right now if it wants a black man, woman president, or conservative christian male.  Which value is more important, racial or gender equality?  Because I'm sure that fact is weighing on the minds of some voters who are still undecided. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




  I'm just glad I'll be eighteen by November so I can vote!


----------



## SquirrelQueen (Jan 9, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *athena123* 

 
_Ever since Hilary Clinton announced her candidacy, it's just been assumed that she would win the democratic nomination. It's nice to see she's being knocked off her throne and can't take the women's and black voters for granted. Although I'd love to see a woman president, I would never vote for Hilary. I WOULD vote for Condaleeza Rice. Although he's very charismatic, I won't vote for Obama either; too liberal for my tastes and I find some of the things the leader of the church he and Oprah belong to rather frightening. 

Either way, I hope he gets the nomination!_

 
Guess this statement was a bit premature.  Hillary was just declared the winner in New Hampshire.  Frankly, while Obama has good ideas, I think the problems our country faces need to be addressed by someone who has a bit more experience.  Hillary has unique experience that no candidate has ever had before---she's been First Lady, an activist and a policymaker in her own right.  And she's done an amazing job as a senator in New York.  Obama will be a great president someday but but he needs to mature as a statesman---he can run after Hillary finishes her two terms as President. 

BTW, what exactly is so "frightening" about Obama's church?  He and Oprah belong to the United Church of Christ, a mainstream liberal Christian denomination.  The UCC believes in social justice for all persons regardless of race, age, gender, sexual preference, socioeconomic status or ability.  What's so radical or "frightening" about that?


----------



## gigglegirl (Jan 9, 2008)

I just googled Obama + religion b/c I hadn't heard about this yet (United, Lutheran, Catholic and just Evangelical Mennonite churches were the ones I was surrounded by in my town). 
From  Fox News“Statements that suggest you cannot truly understand God unless you are black or poor are exclusive.”" 

About 6-7 paragraphs down. 

I am not black but the snippets quoted do not seem crazy to me. I think the pastor was being motivating to his congregation. I don't know, but some of the churches I've sat in have been FAR more out there. I remember the time going to a friend's baptism--us group of girls (this was back in high school about 7 years ago) sat on the "wrong" side of the church (men on one side apparently, women on the other) and the leaders of the church sat high like judges facing the congregation...many other interesting things but I digress, it was an experience to say the least.

Personally if it could be possible, I'd love for there to be the separation of church and state like there should be. But I find this being hard to implement in all practicality--your values about where you stand on hot topics like abortion are largely guided by faith--so that's what would influence you in the back of your mind when posed that question. Ultimately you are to represent your constituents but I wonder how you "know" what they want. High chances its not unanimous. Ugh this just reminds me how much I could never be a politician.


----------



## MxAxC-_ATTACK (Jan 9, 2008)

I honestly, would be frightened if Hilary became President.  
I'm a Conservative but I am registered as a Democrat (I registered in high school when I followed whatever anyone told me ) So I have to vote Democrat in the Primary's, I will be Voting for Obama , for the soul purpose of not wanting Hilary to win.


----------



## gigglegirl (Jan 9, 2008)

can someone explain this to me? Though I am not far from the US, I don't understand some things. If you register as a republican, democrat or independent thats how you have to vote? Does that carry over into the final actual presidential election? 

Here in Canada, I vote for the person who has a better track record and who says things that would be best for me--regardless of party. Here we don't vote for the Prime Minister and then for the candidate in our area (is that how the US does it? I thought I remembered hearing that somewhere). We just vote for the person/party in our area, and the number of seats won translates into which party and which leader of said party actually leads.


----------



## kimmy (Jan 9, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *MxAxC-_ATTACK* 

 
_I honestly, would be frightened if Hilary became President._

 
same here. and would probably have to flee the country out of either fear or sheer embarassment, haha. seriously though...

i'm kind of upset at how badly ron paul did. he seems like such a nice fellow, and such fabulous ideals, in my opinion. ron paul ftw.

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *gigglegirl* 
_can someone explain this to me? Though I am not far from the US, I don't understand some things. If you register as a republican, democrat or independent thats how you have to vote? Does that carry over into the final actual presidential election?_

 
no, but in the primaries you have to vote within your own party. when it comes time for the actual election, you can vote however you choose.


----------



## AppleDiva (Jan 9, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *kimmy* 

 
_same here. and would probably have to flee the country out of either fear or sheer embarassment, haha. seriously though...

i'm kind of upset at how badly ron paul did. he seems like such a nice fellow, and such fabulous ideals, in my opinion. ron paul ftw.



no, but in the primaries you have to vote within your own party. when it comes time for the actual election, you can vote however you choose. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 
Actually, it depends on what state you are in.  Some states have open primaries where anyone who is registered to vote can vote, but some states have rules where only registered voters of a particular party can vote.  For example, in 2004, only Democratic (registered) voters could vote in the primaries in certain states, since the Republican candidate was the incumbent.

I used to live in Massachusetts and when registering to vote, you have to register as Democrat, Republican or Independent.  In Michigan, where I live now, you do not have to do that.  So voters must be responsible to learn the election rules for their states (which tend to be archine!)


----------



## foxyqt (Jan 9, 2008)

im not American & i'd like to know, why doesnt anyone want Hillary to win?


----------



## Dizzy (Jan 9, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *SquirrelQueen* 

 
_ And she's done an amazing job as a senator in New York._

 
As someone who lives in New York, I beg to differ.  She hardly represents the people of NY- those of us who aren't within her economic class.  She ran on a platform of knowing whats best for NY, but told upstate and downstate voters two completely different strategies for doing so and hence has divided the state even further within our own legislature-which is quite the feat since our senator has nothing to do with our legislature!- something that had been happening for quite a while, but got decidedly worse with her second term and her false promises.

Right after 9/11 when the scandal with Whitman declaring the air clean around the WTC when it was toxic and the subsequent lawsuits against the city, state and feds (iirc on that one) for them refusing to compensate those who ended up needing extensive medical care, she vowed to make sure they received the help they needed.  They're STILL waiting on the goods from that promise, and it's been over five years.  

Within her work with the Senate itself, she voted to re-authorize the Patriot Act and has been less than consistent in her voting record.  Her proposed economic policy leaves too many open questions, and is seemingly even more irresponsible than the one we currently follow.  Her plan for health care lacks the funding necessary, something that added to its failure in 1996.  You can even hear in her speeches that she's polarizing- it's always "and we can beat the Republicans!" or "the Republicans are scared now!" Erm- that's not how you get things done, and she's the only Congressman from any party that I've ever seen blame bad policy that she voted for on the opposite party.

I could go on and on with this, but I think you get the idea.  Clinton wasn't elected because she was the best person for the job, she was elected because we had a choice of Clintion or John Spencer, a guy who used to be mayor of one of the worst run cities in my county, not to mention he was from downstate which didn't help him at all in the upstate counties.  She won by default, not because she's good at what she does.  

I do agree with you that Obama needs more experience, however, before anyone can accurately judge his potential for President.  Give him another few years in the Senate and then we'll be able to have a solid foundation with him.

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *gigglegirl* 
_Personally if it could be possible, I'd love for there to be the separation of church and state like there should be. But I find this being hard to implement in all practicality--your values about where you stand on hot topics like abortion are largely guided by faith--so that's what would influence you in the back of your mind when posed that question._

 
Separation of Church and State doesn't mean that your religion has no bearing on how one acts within Congress or as POTUS, etc., it's simply there so there is no official church akin to the Church of England.  A religious figure will never make laws in the US, but that doesn't mean religion doesn't influence our laws.  We were built on a solid Christian foundation- you're never going to erase that, and if it is erased, we won't be the US anymore.  You're allowed to worship as you please, where you please, as long as someone else's rights aren't violated (ie: no sacrificing your neighbor's kids).  

I'm just wondering: why does everyone find abortion to be such a debate for a Presidential candidate?  It's not like the President can just decide to overturn Roe v. Wade or CASEY by himself; that's a matter for the Supreme Court to decide, and even in the unlikely event that it is reopened and overturned, it would go back to being a state's right to decide whether or not they want to allow abortion.  Same with gun ownership (requires a constitutional amendment), and many other controversial topics.

I'm just wondering why people aren't more concerned about the things that really affect you- fiscal policy, our monetary system, the erosion of our civil liberties, etc.?  Abortion is not high on the list of rights at risk- your Constitutional right to be left alone is.  

In any way, I'm disappointed in my party (Republicans) and even the Democrats.  With the exception of one "long shot" candidate, there's no one in either party that I can find myself agreeing with even 50%.  They remind me of that Simpsons Halloween episode where Kodos and Kang ran for President- no matter who ends up POTUS, I don't see anything changing all that drastically.


----------



## user79 (Jan 9, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *gigglegirl* 

 
_ Here we don't vote for the Prime Minister and then for the candidate in our area (is that how the US does it? I thought I remembered hearing that somewhere). We just vote for the person/party in our area, and the number of seats won translates into which party and which leader of said party actually leads._

 
Which is actually misleading, because it goes by ridings. So number of votes in Canada don't always turn into actual representation, it can mean that a party with lesser votes can win an election because a riding has more seats. It's ridiculous.


----------



## athena123 (Jan 9, 2008)

Well, I was wrong! Looks like Hillary won after all but Obama sure did shake up her sense of inevitability didn't he? Good for him! 

I just hope she doesn't win. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a woman president, but I'm not gonna vote for Hilary just BECAUSE she's a woman; I want the best person for the job, someone who has a clear vision and Hilary doesn't have it. It's too bad, really. She has the intelligence, some of the experience and has proven herself able to get things done in the Senate, but she tends to blow with the wind and rule by poll numbers. 

As much as you may disagree with our current President Bush [and I disagree with him on many, many, many things] at least Bush has conviction and integrity, something Hilary Clinton can't claim to have. A few years ago, I read the book "All Too Human" by George Stephanaupolis [spelling] - very insightful look inside the Clinton administration with a lot of inside knowledge. After reading that, I really wouldn't want her to lead I just don't think she has what it takes. 

As far as the Trinity United Church of Christ goes [Obama and Oprah are members], the obvious racist attitudes are what frighten me. The tenets of that church border on very cult-like exclusiveness; the pastor disavows American middleclassness as not being "black valued". Huh?  It's my understanding that values, ethics and morality apply to all, regardless of race, gender, religion or creed. Can you imagine the outcry if a pastor of any other church spoke out for "white values"? The outrage would be enormous, but strangely enough there was no outcry toward a pastor who thinks of his flock as "Soldiers for Black Freedom" and the "Black Value System". If this is supposed to be a rant against materialism, why not say so and why use such divisive terms? 

Now what about Condaleeza Rice? Can you imagine if she ran for president in 2012 and won, she'd be the first black woman president that would be cool! If she ever does run, I'll work on her campaign because I believe in her.


----------



## gigglegirl (Jan 9, 2008)

That is true MissChievous--you were better able to explain what I wanted ><  I wish there was a separate line to vote for who you want to lead the country. 

And to Dizzy--I just pulled out abortion b/c thats what I've heard/read snippets about, how one candidate flip-flops and how one thinks its alright to change your position while many others stick to their original opinion. You're right, the things that affect you are what you should be looking for in a candidate who says what you want to have happen. But I have to agree, how drastic would the changes be? Here goes the skepticism but it seems most (if not all) politicians say one thing, get voted into office, then are "working" but nothing major seems to change. Thats why politics frustrates me. Everyone says vote so you have a voice, but that voice never seems to go anywhere, seems to stay pretty stagnant.


----------



## Dizzy (Jan 9, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *gigglegirl* 

 
_Here goes the skepticism but it seems most (if not all) politicians say one thing, get voted into office, then are "working" but nothing major seems to change. Thats why politics frustrates me. Everyone says vote so you have a voice, but that voice never seems to go anywhere, seems to stay pretty stagnant._

 
That's why I don't believe a damn thing a politician says.  I'm an intern in my Congressman's office, and have had internships with my town board and the state legislature; even as an intern I've learned that what they say and do are often two different things.  

My vote has never been based off a party's or person's platform, but rather on their actions and voting records.  They can say whatever they want to CNN, but their voting records say more than they ever could.


----------



## *Stargazer* (Jan 9, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *foxyqt* 

 
_im not American & i'd like to know, why doesnt anyone want Hillary to win? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 
Personally, I refuse to tell my daughters that I support the idea that you should let a man walk all over you just to get into a position where you can have some form of power. I believe serial infidelity to be a form of emotional abuse and I won't vote for someone who condones it. 


Seems like everyone these days is bleah. I have a couple of really hot button issues and unfortunately, they don't tend to find themselves in one candidate. I do kinda dig Bill Richardson, if only for his foreign service experience. 


I'm on the Ralph Wiggum '08 bandwagon.


----------



## Dizzy (Jan 9, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by **Stargazer** 

 
_I'm on the Ralph Wiggum '08 bandwagon._

 





 Best choice possible.

And I agree with everything else you said, you're 100% right.


----------



## susannef (Jan 10, 2008)

As far as Ive understood, Obama is more liberal the Clinton? I dont understand why you conservative gals would rather vote for Obama then?


----------



## Dizzy (Jan 10, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *susannef* 

 
_As far as Ive understood, Obama is more liberal the Clinton? I dont understand why you conservative gals would rather vote for Obama then?_

 
Hillary is corrupt; that's been proven time and time again.  She's in it for the power and prestige, not for any reason that suits us common Americans.  Check out her voting record, the investigations into her criminal activities in 1996, the money laundering schemes that she was involved in with Gore and her husband during his presidency, her work with the Robert Treuhaft law firms, and a laundry list of other actions that contradict what she says she stands for.  I'm not against a female for president (and she's far from being the first to run for the position), but I'm against Hillary Clinton for president- she just doesn't understand the common American and her policies don't reflect change, they reflect oppression and more un-Constitutional methods.

Also, think of the entire generation that grew up in (basically) a political dynasty.  I was born in Aug of 1987- the last few months of the Reagan Administration.  Then George HW Bush was president, followed by 2 terms of Bill Clinton, followed by 2 terms of George W Bush, and now to have all of those debacles followed by another Clinton term?  I want a new person in office, preferably someone who has had nothing to do with these to families.

I'm not an Obama fan either, but then again I'm not a Democrat anyway. I just dislike the Clintons more than anyone else.  But that's just my take on the situation


----------



## lilMAClady (Jan 10, 2008)

To me, it seems that people get so chugged up on petty details that they forget what's truly important. So what Hillary's a woman, so what Obama is bi-racial and so what Mc Cain, or Romney are conservative. It should be about who is going to do the most good for the most people. Noone is going to be completely satisfied with each candidate. There WILL be a flaw in all of them because we're all human. People like to say well I voted for Bush, he's Christian and against abortion! Well I say who cares what he _says, _what has he done? In my opinion he's a terrible president. A crazy man. So, you may not agree for various reasons. Ok. I can live with that. But honestly anyone you vote for is going to deviate from what they say once they get into office because like it or not they didn't get there by themselves. They have made promises and if they expect to have a smooth term they had better keep them. ALL candidates in-directly answer every question ALL the time. They don't tell the truth, they give sugar coated blanket statements that will prayerfully satisfy more people than the other guy AND so they can't be quoted on MSNBC later for saying something different than what they said in 1982 and called a "Flip-Flopper. It's a terrible, sick, sad game that only the wealthy and influential win. I just pray that whoever does become the next prez they try to rectify whats going wrong HERE and help make the world as a WHOLE a better palce. I don't know if my ballot truly counts or not, but I will be there to cast it. Too many people died for this right for me not to.


----------



## athena123 (Jan 10, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *lilMAClady* 

 
_ I don't know if my ballot truly counts or not, but I will be there to cast it. Too many people died for this right for me not to._

 
It's frustrating when it comes to casting your vote. No one will be completely aligned with what's important to you; in the end, you may wind up voting for someone you think will do the least amount of harm. 

The last presidential election, I choked down my vote for Bush not because I was voting FOR him, but because I was voting against Kerry. I'll be very glad to see the Bush Clinton Bush dynasty come to an end and am hoping that this year won't be a vote AGAINST the other guy, but a vote FOR someone who I think will be the best person for the job. I'm actually excited by a couple of candidates right now and feeling a lot more optimistic about our next president, whoever that may be.


----------



## lipstickandhate (Jan 10, 2008)

I can't stand ANY of the candidates. All I know is if Mike Huckabee wins ANYTHING other than Iowa, I'm moving!


----------



## athena123 (Jan 10, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *lipstickandhate* 

 
_I can't stand ANY of the candidates. All I know is if Mike Huckabee wins ANYTHING other than Iowa, I'm moving!_

 
LOL, I just may join you! I've certainly had my fill of fundamentalism in the White House to vote for someone who doesn't believe in evolution!


----------



## Cosmopolitics (Jan 10, 2008)

I think out of all the candidates, I like John McCain the best. He sounded really PRESIDENTIAL the other night, when he took New Hampshire for the Republicans. 

I really don't mind Hillary, and I don't really mind Obama either. Both have their positives and negatives, hell, every candidate does. But that's politics. No one's going to agree with a candidate 100% of the time. 

However, I find Edwards and especially Romney shady. Huckabee seems nice as a person but I don't like his policies at all. You're supposed to be taking the issues at hand and a candidate's work ethic more seriously than a candidate's personality. I think with Huckabee we'd be getting more of the same crap we're going through now, with 50% more neoconservatism. I dread Romney winning the nomination but if even he did that it would be an easy win for the Democrats. I don't mind either Hillary or Obama taking the nomination but I do question Obama's experience and seriousness a bit. His days in the Senate have been him not really being in the Senate because he's been campaigning for President.


----------



## Suzyn (Jan 10, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *MxAxC-_ATTACK* 

 
_I honestly, would be frightened if Hilary became President.  
I'm a Conservative but I am registered as a Democrat (I registered in high school when I followed whatever anyone told me ) So I have to vote Democrat in the Primary's, I will be Voting for Obama , for the soul purpose of not wanting Hilary to win._

 
  I agree with this.  I think our country would have many problems if Hillary wins.  I don't classify myself as republican or democrat, I vote for whoever I like and Hillary is definately not it.

i found this on tshirthell.com.  *Sorry if it offends anyone*.  I just thought it was funny.









I think I find myself buying one of these shirts...


----------



## *Stargazer* (Jan 10, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *lipstickandhate* 

 
_I can't stand ANY of the candidates. All I know is if Mike Huckabee wins ANYTHING other than Iowa, I'm moving!_

 
You and me both. 


I don't identify myself with a particular party or leaning because I'm all over the map. The one thing I know for absolute certainty is that I will not vote for someone who supports the idea of amending the Constitution to ban gay  marriage. Ever. At all. Period.


----------



## Beauty Mark (Jan 10, 2008)

Two words: Third Party.

I vote Green but I'm not advocating that party necessarily.

The problem for me with the two party system is that you have super liberals and moderates in the Dems and super conservatives and moderates in the Republicans. For me, because I define myself as more of a super liberal type, I vote Green party (of course, I do read about the particular person before I vote). 

I wish more people would look into other parties.

I really wish Obama's race and Hillary's gender weren't an issue. I wouldn't vote Hillary if she were a man nor do I think Obama should be voted for because he's black. I was always disappointed when I heard staunch liberals say they'd vote Condi Rice if she ran, because she's a black woman. WTF? It's good to see that a non-white person or female can get the votes, b ut that should be, at the most, a tie breaker, not a defining reason.


----------



## liv (Jan 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Dizzy* 

 
_Hillary is corrupt; that's been proven time and time again.  She's in it for the power and prestige, not for any reason that suits us common Americans.  Check out her voting record, the investigations into her criminal activities in 1996, the money laundering schemes that she was involved in with Gore and her husband during his presidency, her work with the Robert Treuhaft law firms, and a laundry list of other actions that contradict what she says she stands for.  I'm not against a female for president (and she's far from being the first to run for the position), but I'm against Hillary Clinton for president- she just doesn't understand the common American and her policies don't reflect change, they reflect oppression and more un-Constitutional methods.

Also, think of the entire generation that grew up in (basically) a political dynasty.  I was born in Aug of 1987- the last few months of the Reagan Administration.  Then George HW Bush was president, followed by 2 terms of Bill Clinton, followed by 2 terms of George W Bush, and now to have all of those debacles followed by another Clinton term?  I want a new person in office, preferably someone who has had nothing to do with these to families.

I'm not an Obama fan either, but then again I'm not a Democrat anyway. I just dislike the Clintons more than anyone else.  But that's just my take on the situation_

 
We're about the same age, so I'm confused by all this contempt you apparently have for the Clinton family.  We were in grade school when Bill was in office, so unless you watched CNN instead of Cartoon Network and actively educated yourself on the matter, obviously all of these views are not based solely on your opinions, but what, most likely, your parents/relatives told you.  I feel that if you were merely researching her in hindsight, you wouldn't have these same strong feelings as you would if you were politically active during the Clinton terms.  
There were several Councils convened to investigate all of those claims, and all of them had insufficient evidence.  As for your other claims, they're vague blanket statements that don't prove or disprove anything.  
Then again, I've never understood all the hatred for Hillary, and I don't judge her for staying with her husband.  I know that in many families/religions, divorce is severely looked down upon.  We weren't raised in her household,  and to understand one's message you first have to understand their background and culture. Don't judge a person until you've walked a mile in their shoes.


----------



## Dizzy (Jan 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *liv* 

 
_We're about the same age, so I'm confused by all this contempt you apparently have for the Clinton family.  We were in grade school when Bill was in office, so unless you watched CNN instead of Cartoon Network and actively educated yourself on the matter, obviously all of these views are not based solely on your opinions, but what, most likely, your parents/relatives told you.  I feel that if you were merely researching her in hindsight, you wouldn't have these same strong feelings as you would if you were politically active during the Clinton terms._

 
I'm a poli sci and history double major- for the last three years I've studied recent politics in depth, and have done part of my senior thesis (thus far) on the Clinton family and the path the Administration began to take us down.  I've held internships in politics on the local and state level for the last two years.  My father was extremely involved in politics when I was younger, and has tapes and newspapers of/with the coverage of the Whitewater scandal, most of which you can still find online. My research from the Clintons doesn't come from just media outlets, but from her own voting record (which is public record and thus freely available for anyone) along with said media coverage of the events.  This is where my distaste for Hillary stems from.

And being politically active at 9 isn't something most kids do; but people in my major usually do go back and investigate these scandals- in my case, I've had to, as it's been required for some of my classes.  

 Quote:

  There were several Councils convened to investigate all of those claims, and all of them had insufficient evidence.  As for your other claims, they're vague blanket statements that don't prove or disprove anything.  
Then again, I've never understood all the hatred for Hillary, and I don't judge her for staying with her husband.  I know that in many families/religions, divorce is severely looked down upon.  We weren't raised in her household,  and to understand one's message you first have to understand their background and culture. Don't judge a person until you've walked a mile in their shoes.  
 
I'm not here to do your research for you- most of this is a matter of public record and many places archived the information as it was happening.  But, here you go anyway.

Her voting record
Her not reporting almost $2M in donations for her campaign for the Senate
Clintons use foundation to violate donation laws
Touches on her work with the Treuhaft law firm
And who can forget-- Whitewater!!
Other Hillary Investigations

*_I hate using Wikipedia as a source, but I'm pressed for time right now.  Sorry._

These allegations are not vague- they're easily researched if someone takes the time to do it.  

And quite frankly, I'll judge whomever I want, especially if they're running for the highest office in my country.  I'll scruitinize them as much as I want- it's my responsibility to vote and part of that responsibility is judging their potential as a leader.  I'm not going to pat her on the back because she can cry and stay with a serial cheater, along with going on and on about a foundation of "change" when that has yet to be proven- just because you can cry on cue and plant questions beneficial to you in a forum doesn't give you credibility in the political world.  

Even without the personal problems, I don't like Hillary's record, her unsupported platform and I don't agree with her plan for America should she become President.  I'm an of-age voting citizen, I pay my taxes, and I can judge her however I want.  She put herself on the public stage, she has to be judged for the position.  Her background and culture have nothing to do with this; her record does.


----------



## Beauty Mark (Jan 11, 2008)

I don't hate Hillary, but there are plenty of reasons to dislike her besides her family, much like I can go on a list of reasons I hate the current president without discussing his personal life.

Part of Obama's appeal is that he's so new that he hasn't given people a reason to hate him yet.


----------



## *Stargazer* (Jan 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Dizzy* 

 
_, I'll judge whomever I want, especially if they're running for the highest office in my country.  I'll scruitinize them as much as I want- it's my responsibility to vote and part of that responsibility is judging their potential as a leader.  I'm not going to pat her on the back because she can cry and stay with a serial cheater, along with going on and on about a foundation of "change" when that has yet to be proven- just because you can cry on cue and plant questions beneficial to you in a forum doesn't give you credibility in the political world.  

Even without the personal problems, I don't like Hillary's record, her unsupported platform and I don't agree with her plan for America should she become President.  I'm an of-age voting citizen, I pay my taxes, and I can judge her however I want.  She put herself on the public stage, she has to be judged for the position.  Her background and culture have nothing to do with this; her record does._

 
A. friggin. men.


----------



## liv (Jan 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Dizzy* 

 
_I'm a poli sci and history double major- for the last three years I've studied recent politics in depth, and have done part of my senior thesis (thus far) on the Clinton family and the path the Administration began to take us down.  I've held internships in politics on the local and state level for the last two years.  My father was extremely involved in politics when I was younger, and has tapes and newspapers of/with the coverage of the Whitewater scandal, most of which you can still find online. My research from the Clintons doesn't come from just media outlets, but from her own voting record (which is public record and thus freely available for anyone) along with said media coverage of the events.  This is where my distaste for Hillary stems from.

And being politically active at 9 isn't something most kids do; but people in my major usually do go back and investigate these scandals- in my case, I've had to, as it's been required for some of my classes.  



I'm not here to do your research for you- most of this is a matter of public record and many places archived the information as it was happening.  But, here you go anyway.

Her voting record
Her not reporting almost $2M in donations for her campaign for the Senate
Clintons use foundation to violate donation laws
Touches on her work with the Treuhaft law firm
And who can forget-- Whitewater!!
Other Hillary Investigations

*I hate using Wikipedia as a source, but I'm pressed for time right now.  Sorry.

These allegations are not vague- they're easily researched if someone takes the time to do it.  

And quite frankly, I'll judge whomever I want, especially if they're running for the highest office in my country.  I'll scruitinize them as much as I want- it's my responsibility to vote and part of that responsibility is judging their potential as a leader.  I'm not going to pat her on the back because she can cry and stay with a serial cheater, along with going on and on about a foundation of "change" when that has yet to be proven- just because you can cry on cue and plant questions beneficial to you in a forum doesn't give you credibility in the political world.  

Even without the personal problems, I don't like Hillary's record, her unsupported platform and I don't agree with her plan for America should she become President.  I'm an of-age voting citizen, I pay my taxes, and I can judge her however I want.  She put herself on the public stage, she has to be judged for the position.  Her background and culture have nothing to do with this; her record does._

 
You are obviously well versed in politics, and I respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it, but c'est la vie.  I have done my research, and I still find, personally, that she hadn't done anything that made me dislike her as a potential candidate, but if you have, that's your prerogative.  I just find that most people dislike her and when I ask why, they regurgitate some spoon-fed media line, rather than have more concrete reasons. 
Anyway, I'm not here to change anyone's opinion, or bash on anyone (not that you are) but talking politics is already difficult enough when it's face to face discussion, and this is far more frustrating to me given this is an online forum.  So I think I'm done for now. =] 
<slowly backs out of thread>


----------



## Dizzy (Jan 11, 2008)

You're absolutely right- to each their own.  

But don't discount the political threads on Specktra- the ones with the debates here are usually really interesting.  We've got a few people here who can debate (respectfully, at that) like nobody's business 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




.


----------



## liv (Jan 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Dizzy* 

 
_You're absolutely right- to each their own.  

But don't discount the political threads on Specktra- the ones with the debates here are usually really interesting.  We've got a few people here who can debate (respectfully, at that) like nobody's business 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




._

 
I second that. 

Oh, I'm not, they are fun to read; however, I don't have the debating finesse that they do, and since it's so easy to take things as offensive or out of context (since you don't know the person and can't hear intonation), I'd rather just read them to educate myself further and not stick my foot in my mouth. =]

Election '08 is going to be mighty interesting!


----------



## *Stargazer* (Jan 11, 2008)

The problem I constantly come across when someone asks me why I don't like Hillary is that they IMMEDIATELY discount my reason. Because as far as they are concerned, nothing she has done is egregious enough to justify my dislike of her. So I must be brainwashed by the media. 

I hate that attitude.


----------



## liv (Jan 11, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by **Stargazer** 

 
_The problem I constantly come across when someone asks me why I don't like Hillary is that they IMMEDIATELY discount my reason. Because as far as they are concerned, nothing she has done is egregious enough to justify my dislike of her. So I must be brainwashed by the media. 

I hate that attitude._

 
Yeah, there are always two sides to an opinion.  I'm usually on the opposite side, except it's not like I'm some huge Hillary supporter, I just don't like when people say they like her, and then have no reasons to back it up.  Like Dizzy, who has several points of speculation/fact that she finds a problem with, and that's awesome.  If someone has convictions and can back them up, then you aren't media brainwashed, you're smart and you've done your homework and have an informed opinion.


----------



## Beauty Mark (Jan 12, 2008)

People who often assert media brainwash (oh, it happens with me and my hatred of the current president/most liberal ideals I have) when people have decent arguments are often brainwashed themselves by the media. They can't come up with a reason to like the person.


----------



## SquirrelQueen (Jan 17, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *athena123* 

 
_
As far as the Trinity United Church of Christ goes [Obama and Oprah are members], the obvious racist attitudes are what frighten me. The tenets of that church border on very cult-like exclusiveness; the pastor disavows American middleclassness as not being "black valued". Huh?  It's my understanding that values, ethics and morality apply to all, regardless of race, gender, religion or creed. Can you imagine the outcry if a pastor of any other church spoke out for "white values"? The outrage would be enormous, but strangely enough there was no outcry toward a pastor who thinks of his flock as "Soldiers for Black Freedom" and the "Black Value System". If this is supposed to be a rant against materialism, why not say so and why use such divisive terms?_

 
I agee with you completely that values, ethics and morality apply to all, regardless of race, gender, religion or creed.  The thing is, there has been a smear campaign against Obama's faith, and the fears many people have about his religion are based on inaccurate portrayals by those who have a political agenda and want to want to discredit Obama.  As Gigglegirl posted, Fox News has been very aggressive in spreading stories about the alleged racism of Obama's church.  I'm sorry---Fox News is not "fair and balanced" as it claims to be.  My son found this clip on YouTube and, frankly, it's chilling.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY04gIruZ4E

Here's an excerpt from a letter from John Thomas, the head of the United Church of Christ, that was posted on the denomination's website:

 Quote:

  Since Obama won the Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3, a flurry of e-mail messages with identical language and sentiment began circulating across the internet, claiming that Trinity UCC was a "racist" congregation because of its long-stated church motto: "Unashamedly Black, Unapologetically Christian."

"Trinity UCC is rooted in and proud of its Afrocentric heritage," Thomas said. "This is no different than the hundreds of UCC churches from the German Evangelical and Reformed stream that continue to own and celebrate their German heritage, insisting on annual sausage and sauerkraut dinners and singing Stille Nacht on Christmas Eve. Recognizing and celebrating our distinctive racial-ethnic heritages, cultures, languages and customs are what make us unique as a united and uniting denomination."

While Trinity UCC is predominately African American, it does include and welcome non-Black members. The Rev. Jane Fisler-Hoffman, Illinois Conference Minister, who is white, has been a member of the congregation for years.

"Trinity is a destination church for many members of the UCC, a multi-racial, multi-cultural denomination that is largely Caucasian," Thomas pointed out. "When in Chicago, many UCC members flock to Trinity to share in and learn from its vibrant ministries, dynamic worship and justice-minded membership. Contrary to the claims made in these hateful emails, UCC members know Trinity to be one of the most welcoming, hospitable and generous congregations in our denomination."  
 
http://www.ucc.org/news/thomas-denounces-smear-1.html

As Gigglegirl pointed out, there are churches that do teach a doctrine of exclusion.  Not many are blatantly racist---those that are tend to be fringe churches that cater to white supremacists.  However, many are sexist and do not permit women to be pastors or even vote in congregational matters.  Others are homophobic and bar gays from membership or receiving communion.  I know pastors from fundamentalist churches who have written letters to the members of other congregations that have chosen to have female or gay clergy.  There was one gay UCC pastor who was met by protest when he moved to his community---other clergy in the area felt it necessary to picket his home.  What difference did it make to them if he was gay?  His church knew he was gay when they called him.  

Getting back to the issue about Obama and his faith, I think part of the problem is that people don't know that much about the UCC.  Actually, I had been only marginally aware of the denomination before I met (and later married) a UCC pastor.  I don't completely agree with Obama's pastor (and, incidentally, neither does he) but I do feel comfortable with Obama as a man of faith and I'm certain that he would not discriminate against anyone if he was President.  (BTW, no I haven't had the opportunity to worship at Trinity UCC but I hope someday I do.)

I think it's interesting to hear why people are in favor or against certain candidates.  It's sobering to hear the negativity toward Hillary---how much of it is really her and how much of it is garbage that we've gotten from the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh?  I used to be against Hillary myself but then I learned more about her from her books and from truly objective sources and now I support her.  Although---I think Obama could be an excellent leader and, on the Republican side, I'm impressed with John McCain's leadership as well.

I just hope we get competent, thoughtful leadership to guide this country through the many challenges we currently face.


----------



## Fairybelle (Jan 17, 2008)

My vote is for anyone but Hillary...


----------



## athena123 (Jan 17, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *SquirrelQueen* 

 
_  Getting back to the issue about Obama and his faith, I think part of the problem is that people don't know that much about the UCC.  Actually, I had been only marginally aware of the denomination before I met (and later married) a UCC pastor.  I don't completely agree with Obama's pastor (and, incidentally, neither does he) but I do feel comfortable with Obama as a man of faith and I'm certain that he would not discriminate against anyone if he was President.  (BTW, no I haven't had the opportunity to worship at Trinity UCC but I hope someday I do.)_

 
I have a problem with any candidate who's a member of a congregation that promotes racism, be it black or white supremacy. This is one of the reasons why I'm uncomfortable with Mitt Romney as well. I can't stomach the Mormon church and their ideals any more than I care for the racist attitudes expressed by Obama's pastor. Are you aware that he [Obama's pastor] considers Louis Farrakhan [another black racist] to be a hero? Sorry, but I'm gonna judge people based upon their CHARACTER rather than their race. If they can manage to keep church separate from state, I'm all for faith as long as they can understand that not everyone is a christian or shares their same faith. The ones that want to join church and state, like our current alfred e. neuman occupying the white house are the ones I want to stay away from! 

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *SquirrelQueen* 

 
_  I think it's interesting to hear why people are in favor or against certain candidates.  It's sobering to hear the negativity toward Hillary---how much of it is really her and how much of it is garbage that we've gotten from the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh?  I used to be against Hillary myself but then I learned more about her from her books and from truly objective sources and now I support her.  Although---I think Obama could be an excellent leader and, on the Republican side, I'm impressed with John McCain's leadership as well.

I just hope we get competent, thoughtful leadership to guide this country through the many challenges we currently face._

 
I've learned about Hillary not because I've been "brainwashed", 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 but because I'm old enough to have lived through all the vagaries of the Clinton administration. Not only does she tolerate an unfaithful husband so she can remain in the halls of power, she is corrupt. She is big government/Big Brother personified, not what our founding fathers at all had in mind. Not only does she have the wrong values as far as I'm concerned, but her lack of integrity, leadership skills and vision make her completely unsuitable for the task.  If she thinks she's gonna get my vote just because she's a woman and I'm a woman she's dead wrong. 

The only candidates I'm even remotely excited about right now are Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul. Rudy, because he has already shown us leadership during times of trouble although I think he's a little too much a part of the "old boy network". Ron Paul, because overall he represents the things I value most. The Constitution. The Bill of Rights. Freedom FROM Government. 

P.S. Yes, although I'm not a Republican I listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Larry Elder and KFI talk shows. I also listen to NPR and form my own conclusions. I can't stand Ann Colter either...


----------



## SquirrelQueen (Jan 17, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *athena123* 

 
_I have a problem with any candidate who's a member of a congregation that promotes racism, be it black or white supremacy. This is one of the reasons why I'm uncomfortable with Mitt Romney as well. I can't stomach the Mormon church and their ideals any more than I care for the racist attitudes expressed by Obama's pastor. Are you aware that he [Obama's pastor] considers Louis Farrakhan [another black racist] to be a hero? Sorry, but I'm gonna judge people based upon their CHARACTER rather than their race. If they can manage to keep church separate from state, I'm all for faith as long as they can understand that not everyone is a christian or shares their same faith. The ones that want to join church and state, like our current alfred e. neuman occupying the white house are the ones I want to stay away from!_

 
No, I wasn't aware of that.  Thank you for pointing it out.  You're right---that does give me a little pause regarding Jeremiah Wright---although Obama has come out to say publicly that he disagrees with Rev. Wright on this issue.  http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...l?hpid=topnews  I think that it's a sign of healthy faith if one can disagree with one's pastor---I don't agree with my pastor 100% of the time and he's my husband!  It will be interesting to see the implications of this latest revelation---if Obama continues to rely on Rev. Wright as his spiritual advisor or if he can agree to privately and publicly disagree with him.  

The hate emails do bother me.  There was a tremendous amount of misinformation (as well as outright lies) about John McCain when he ran for the Republican nomination for President in 2000 and those inaccuracies totally derailed his campaign.  It saddens me to think that people in power do play such games and that our nation ends up being the loser when good people are so viciously cut down.  And that's how we ended up with, as you said, the current Alfred E. Neuman in the White House.  

 Quote:

  I've learned about Hillary not because I've been "brainwashed", 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 but because I'm old enough to have lived through all the vagaries of the Clinton administration...If she thinks she's gonna get my vote just because she's a woman and I'm a woman she's dead wrong.  
 
 Quote:

  P.S. Yes, although I'm not a Republican I listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Larry Elder and KFI talk shows. I also listen to NPR and form my own conclusions. I can't stand Ann Colter either...
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



 
I'm glad that you think for yourself.  There are far too many people who let others think for them, whether the others are their pastors, Rush Limbaugh, Oprah Winfrey or someone else.  You seem to be someone who is thoughtful and carefully weighs the issues before making up your mind and, while we may not agree, I respect your opinion.  I wish that everyone made informed opinions but unfortunately, most people have little patience for serious debate and are swayed instead by emotionally wrought soundbites.  Again, this is what troubles me about the concerns about Obama and his faith.  If people are looking at it objectively and forming their own opinions, that's one thing.  If they're instead just buying into emails that prey on emotion and have little factual grounding, I'm concerned.  I have tremendous respect for someone who can tell me why she disagrees than someone who simply reacts in a knee-jerk fashion.   

I would like to see a woman as President but agree with you that we should not vote for someone simply because she is a woman.  I personally don't get that impression that Hillary expects women to vote for her simply because of gender but I do understand how someone might have that perception.

This is a good, thought-provoking discussion.


----------



## Dizzy (Jan 18, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *athena123* 

 
_The only candidates I'm even remotely excited about right now are Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul. Rudy, because he has already shown us leadership during times of trouble although I think he's a little too much a part of the "old boy network". Ron Paul, because overall he represents the things I value most. The Constitution. The Bill of Rights. Freedom FROM Government._

 
I think it's a little bit ironic that Giuliani is mentioned in the same paragraph as Ron Paul.  Giuliani proved nothing on 9/11 other than he couldn't create or follow proper procedure; but he looked damn good walking around NYC with a news crew.  Even more so than that, he doesn't support the Second Amendment, he didn't do his homework as to the prior circumstances of 9/11 but touts his 'leadership' during it as his platform for candidacy, and what he's claiming as his platform for his campaign is in almost complete contrast to his record as mayor, amongst many other issues I have with him. To me, Giuliani is a Democrat in a Republican suit, but I didn't like the man as my mayor, never mind as a Presidential candidate.  Paul I think has a really good economic policy and wants to leave me alone- that's enough for my vote.  

I do happen to read Ann Coulter, but only because I think she's absolutely nuts, and who doesn't like to watch a trainwreck?  She's like the Courtney Love of the political world.


----------



## liv (Jan 18, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Dizzy* 

 
_I think it's a little bit ironic that Giuliani is mentioned in the same paragraph as Ron Paul.  Giuliani proved nothing on 9/11 other than he couldn't create or follow proper procedure; but he looked damn good walking around NYC with a news crew.  Even more so than that, he doesn't support the Second Amendment, he didn't do his homework as to the prior circumstances of 9/11 but touts his 'leadership' during it as his platform for candidacy, and what he's claiming as his platform for his campaign is in almost complete contrast to his record as mayor, amongst many other issues I have with him. To me, Giuliani is a Democrat in a Republican suit, but I didn't like the man as my mayor, never mind as a Presidential candidate.  Paul I think has a really good economic policy and wants to leave me alone- that's enough for my vote.  

I do happen to read Ann Coulter, but only because I think she's absolutely nuts, and who doesn't like to watch a trainwreck?  She's like the Courtney Love of the political world. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	


_

 
Random tangent...every time I see Ron Paul in print I automatically thing "Ru Paul."  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I agree about Giuliani, the scandal surrounding Kerik doesn't help him either.  He has Democratic social views, with more Republican fiscal views (of what I've seen/heard, to be honest I haven't bothered looking into him in depth since I don't consider him a contender)

Ann Coulter = Out of her freaking mind.  Courtney Love is a wildchild (if only at heart) and Ann is just one cold hard b*tch.


----------



## kimmy (Jan 20, 2008)

Quote:

   Originally Posted by *Suzyn* 

 
_



_

 
hahahaha oh man! that is brilliant.

i just have to say on the subject of rudy guliani...he claims that he was such a hero in the wake of 9/11, but how many people did you see his ass dragging out of the twin towers? because i sure didn't see him helping anyone out. unless maybe it was that twenty eight minutes of continuous news coverage i missed...

 Quote:

   Originally Posted by *dizzy* 
_Paul I think has a really good economic policy and wants to leave me alone- that's enough for my vote._

 
i couldn't have said it better myself.


----------

