It doesn’t sound like Clinton’s going anywhere anytime soon

[Dan J 277]

When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton.

There is something I just don't understand. Obama has the most liberal voting record in the senate. Not once has he included reps in any of his bills. He is so liberal he make Hillary look like Reagan. Just how is he supposed to unite us? IMO he would polarize the nation even more than it is now.

Liberal/Conservative is a matter of persective isn't it? A voting record only shows a candidates position on certain issues.

How polarizing a candidate might be is best shown in how they run thier own campaigns. What tactics they do or do not use, how they handle themselves in debates, or wether they comprimise or attack.

Bush was largely polarizing, not because of his stance on issues, but with how he and his adminstration ran things.

[Dan J 277]

I think the assumption is that his charisma and 'likeabiltiy' will somehow act like a magnet and members of the GOP will find themselves agreeing with him/voting with him just because he represents the 'new face' of politics. I personally think this is one aspect of his campaign that is utter bull. One of the many things he says to win voters without any proof of how he would achieve the outcome he claims he desires.

If you don't agree with an issue, you wont vote for it not matter how 'likable' the person is pushing it. I don't think that is so much about getting congress people to vote for your position, but more to geting people to work with you. Instead of using filibusters or other tools to block and stall legislation.

Of course, you will always have people who will never agree, no matter what kind of comprimise or legislation you come up with.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The super delegates will decide at the convention. If they deem Obama unelectable they will switch. That is their purpose in the DNC nomination process. The will of the Democratic voter is secondary to winning of the elections.

If that happens, I'm leaving the Party.

If Hillarys win is determined by superdelegates, that act alone will likely make Hillary unelectable in Novemeber.

I've said it before and I say it again: The Clintons are working on getting McCain elected (by actively destructing the Democratic party and Obama) and will be back in 2012 after Obama has lost the 2008 general election. Mark my words.

I don't know about that. But i think Hillary is playing the right game, but for the wrong year. If this was 2000, or 2004, she would likely already have the nomination.

But this year, there is a canidate of a type she didn't expect. The way she runs her campaign isnt having the same effect as it would on other types of candidates. So its gotten a bit nasty. The race has pushed on, and many people are getting very emotionally involved with thier candidate. There will be at least some on both sides, who will not vote democratic or not vote at all if thier candidate is not nominated. (Hillary can also claim support of some DINO's who defeintly will not vote for her even if she wins the nomination )

I think the Democratic party has alot to gain out of this election, but at the same time, alot to loose. Is the voice of the people going to matter? Or will it be overridden by a small minority?

yeah, like the people of Florida and Michigan. Disenfranchized by Obama lawyers who manipulated behind the scenes to prevent a revote....

Hillary had no problem boycotting FL and MI when she thought the nomination was all hers. If you believe for one second that Hillary really cares whether FL and MI voters have their say, you are seriously kidding yourself. She cares about the two states now out of pure self interest.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton.

There is something I just don't understand. Obama has the most liberal voting record in the senate. Not once has he included reps in any of his bills. He is so liberal he make Hillary look like Reagan. Just how is he supposed to unite us? IMO he would polarize the nation even more than it is now.

Liberal/Conservative is a matter of persective isn't it? A voting record only shows a candidates position on certain issues.

How polarizing a candidate might be is best shown in how they run thier own campaigns. What tactics they do or do not use, how they handle themselves in debates, or wether they comprimise or attack.

Bush was largely polarizing, not because of his stance on issues, but with how he and his adminstration ran things.

Exactly.

[PlatyPius 5]

When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton.

There is something I just don't understand. Obama has the most liberal voting record in the senate. Not once has he included reps in any of his bills. He is so liberal he make Hillary look like Reagan. Just how is he supposed to unite us? IMO he would polarize the nation even more than it is now.

I tend to agree. In my political science classes we're learning that during times of war an unseasoned leader will be tested more by other leaders in the world to see what these new leaders are made of. For example look at the Kennedy's presidency and all the havoc that reigned during his presidency. Do we really want to repeat the 60's?

Personally the fact that people are supporting Obama shows what an uneducated nation we are in regards to our position and tactics in handling our world affairs currently. I used to believe in some of the conspiracy theories that lead us into this war but that's changed after reading the required load of literature for my college minor by some of the best Political Scientists of our time. I now can admit I came from a place of political ignorance and I recognize that many Americans are in that place of ignorance still.

When push comes to shove Hillary has the experience needed out of the two and the alliances within the political system that comes with a seasoned leader. She's even has the home court advantage of formerly being in the White House as the first lady and meeting world leaders and being aware of the insider information at the highest levels of operation in our country.

McCain's foreign policy is weak. Obama's leadership is weak. Some people don't like somethings about Clinton but she really is the lesser of all the evils in regards to the current affairs our nation faces.

So..... people who support anyone but Billary are uneducated? Nice generalisation there. The quoted post is a perfect example of why I detest Hillary and her supporters. "If you support anyone else, you're stupid. Nya nya!"

Oddly enough, *I* had my political science classes many years ago. Yet, somehow, I support Obama. Guess I'm uneducated and stupid.

This sentence: "Clinton but she really is the lesser of all the evils in regards to the current affairs our nation faces."

should be edited to read: "she really is the lesser"

cuz if you vote for Billary, you're really uneducated and ignorant. (to use the words of the Hillbots.)

[GaryC 7]

When asked if the three presidential candidates could be successful in uniting the country if they were elected president, 60 percent of all voters believed Obama could be successful at doing this, 58 percent of all voters said McCain could unite the country while only 46 percent of voters said the same about Clinton.

There is something I just don't understand. Obama has the most liberal voting record in the senate. Not once has he included reps in any of his bills. He is so liberal he make Hillary look like Reagan. Just how is he supposed to unite us? IMO he would polarize the nation even more than it is now.

Liberal/Conservative is a matter of persective isn't it? A voting record only shows a candidates position on certain issues.

How polarizing a candidate might be is best shown in how they run thier own campaigns. What tactics they do or do not use, how they handle themselves in debates, or wether they comprimise or attack.

Bush was largely polarizing, not because of his stance on issues, but with how he and his adminstration ran things.

After the "honeymoon" is over and reality sets in his stance on issues will be the important thing. His personality may go a little ways to make the fighting less but if he pushes an ultra-liberal agenda as his voting record suggests the less liberal among us will dig in their heels. I have looked up his record as it's the only way to get past his rock-star persona and find out what he really stands for. He has consistently backed anything far left and I would assume that is how he would run his administration. He would not bring the right into his camp and the political fighting would be intense regardless of how "nice of a guy" he is.

If people really want someone that will unite the country on that count there is really only one candidate that has any track record on that. That person is McCain. On many occasions he has gone against the part line and brought the other side into the conversations, much to the dismay of the right. Hillary may not be as far left as Obama but her style and personality would be such that she will always tend to pizz off people on the other side much like Bush has done to those on the left. If anyone thinks that a Obama or a Clinton presidency will unite the country they are just kidding themselves. It will be worse than it is today. The only true centrist is McCain and the only one that stands a chance of reducing the vitriol and divisions of the country. Don't get me wrong, there is a lot that I don't agree with McCain but if your main goal of a president is to unite then the only real choice is McCain.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

BTW, Gary....I watched McCain speak at a conference last night where he said that he believes that Global Warming is a real concern and that he wants to reduce our use of fossil fuels as well as nuclear energy. Whoohooo! Not trying to rub it in, but I'm elated to hear him say that. He's not the quite the candidate you are hoping for either. The way I see it, the Democrats are in a win-win-win situation....we win no matter which of the three is elected President.

[GaryC 7]

BTW, Gary....I watched McCain speak at a conference last night where he said that he believes that Global Warming is a real concern and that he wants to reduce our use of fossil fuels as well as nuclear energy. Whoohooo! Not trying to rub it in, but I'm elated to hear him say that. He's not the quite the candidate you are hoping for either. The way I see it, the Democrats are in a win-win-win situation....we win no matter which of the three is elected President.

Yeah, just in time for the scientists to change their consensus about GW. A lot of people are going to feel very foolish when it turns out man made GW was all a bunch of BS. Of course by then we will have a new "the sky is falling" disaster to worry about.

But I do agree that we need to get away from fossil fuels and find other ways to power our society. So I agree with his goal, just not the reasons for doing it.

Edited March 27, 2008 by GaryC

[one...two...tree 2,762]

BTW, Gary....I watched McCain speak at a conference last night where he said that he believes that Global Warming is a real concern and that he wants to reduce our use of fossil fuels as well as nuclear energy. Whoohooo! Not trying to rub it in, but I'm elated to hear him say that. He's not the quite the candidate you are hoping for either. The way I see it, the Democrats are in a win-win-win situation....we win no matter which of the three is elected President.

Yeah, just in time for the scientists to change their consensus about GW. A lot of people are going to feel very foolish when it turns out man made GW was all a bunch of BS. Of course by then we will have a new "the sky is falling" disaster to worry about.

But I do agree that we need to get away from fossil fuels and find other ways to power our society. So I agree with his goal, just not the reasons for doing it.

I'm relieved to hear that you agree with his goals because I was under the impression from what he said last night that as President, he would push for governmental regulations on the use of fossil fuels - something that you've been adamently against in the past.

[GaryC 7]

BTW, Gary....I watched McCain speak at a conference last night where he said that he believes that Global Warming is a real concern and that he wants to reduce our use of fossil fuels as well as nuclear energy. Whoohooo! Not trying to rub it in, but I'm elated to hear him say that. He's not the quite the candidate you are hoping for either. The way I see it, the Democrats are in a win-win-win situation....we win no matter which of the three is elected President.

Yeah, just in time for the scientists to change their consensus about GW. A lot of people are going to feel very foolish when it turns out man made GW was all a bunch of BS. Of course by then we will have a new "the sky is falling" disaster to worry about.

But I do agree that we need to get away from fossil fuels and find other ways to power our society. So I agree with his goal, just not the reasons for doing it.

I'm relieved to hear that you agree with his goals because I was under the impression from what he said last night that as President, he would push for governmental regulations on the use of fossil fuels - something that you've been adamently against in the past.

I didn't say that. I am in favor of encouraging the use of alternate fuels but I am not in favor of draconian regulations if any sort. Make it economically advantageous to use alternate fuels without killing our economy and the free market will take care of the transition.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

BTW, Gary....I watched McCain speak at a conference last night where he said that he believes that Global Warming is a real concern and that he wants to reduce our use of fossil fuels as well as nuclear energy. Whoohooo! Not trying to rub it in, but I'm elated to hear him say that. He's not the quite the candidate you are hoping for either. The way I see it, the Democrats are in a win-win-win situation....we win no matter which of the three is elected President.

Yeah, just in time for the scientists to change their consensus about GW. A lot of people are going to feel very foolish when it turns out man made GW was all a bunch of BS. Of course by then we will have a new "the sky is falling" disaster to worry about.

But I do agree that we need to get away from fossil fuels and find other ways to power our society. So I agree with his goal, just not the reasons for doing it.

I'm relieved to hear that you agree with his goals because I was under the impression from what he said last night that as President, he would push for governmental regulations on the use of fossil fuels - something that you've been adamently against in the past.

I didn't say that. I am in favor of encouraging the use of alternate fuels but I am not in favor of draconian regulations if any sort. Make it economically advantageous to use alternate fuels without killing our economy and the free market will take care of the transition.

You owe Al Gore an apology then. That's what he's been pitching all along.

[GaryC 7]

BTW, Gary....I watched McCain speak at a conference last night where he said that he believes that Global Warming is a real concern and that he wants to reduce our use of fossil fuels as well as nuclear energy. Whoohooo! Not trying to rub it in, but I'm elated to hear him say that. He's not the quite the candidate you are hoping for either. The way I see it, the Democrats are in a win-win-win situation....we win no matter which of the three is elected President.

Yeah, just in time for the scientists to change their consensus about GW. A lot of people are going to feel very foolish when it turns out man made GW was all a bunch of BS. Of course by then we will have a new "the sky is falling" disaster to worry about.

But I do agree that we need to get away from fossil fuels and find other ways to power our society. So I agree with his goal, just not the reasons for doing it.

I'm relieved to hear that you agree with his goals because I was under the impression from what he said last night that as President, he would push for governmental regulations on the use of fossil fuels - something that you've been adamently against in the past.

I didn't say that. I am in favor of encouraging the use of alternate fuels but I am not in favor of draconian regulations if any sort. Make it economically advantageous to use alternate fuels without killing our economy and the free market will take care of the transition.

You owe Al Gore an apology then. That's what he's been pitching all along.

Gore is an idiot. I don't owe him anything but my disdain. His scare tactics have done more to hurt the cause of environmentalists than to help. His contention that the car is public enemy #1 is total BS.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

BTW, Gary....I watched McCain speak at a conference last night where he said that he believes that Global Warming is a real concern and that he wants to reduce our use of fossil fuels as well as nuclear energy. Whoohooo! Not trying to rub it in, but I'm elated to hear him say that. He's not the quite the candidate you are hoping for either. The way I see it, the Democrats are in a win-win-win situation....we win no matter which of the three is elected President.

Yeah, just in time for the scientists to change their consensus about GW. A lot of people are going to feel very foolish when it turns out man made GW was all a bunch of BS. Of course by then we will have a new "the sky is falling" disaster to worry about.

But I do agree that we need to get away from fossil fuels and find other ways to power our society. So I agree with his goal, just not the reasons for doing it.

I'm relieved to hear that you agree with his goals because I was under the impression from what he said last night that as President, he would push for governmental regulations on the use of fossil fuels - something that you've been adamently against in the past.

I didn't say that. I am in favor of encouraging the use of alternate fuels but I am not in favor of draconian regulations if any sort. Make it economically advantageous to use alternate fuels without killing our economy and the free market will take care of the transition.

You owe Al Gore an apology then. That's what he's been pitching all along.

Gore is an idiot. I don't owe him anything but my disdain. His scare tactics have done more to hurt the cause of environmentalists than to help. His contention that the car is public enemy #1 is total BS.

I can assure you that if you actually read or listened to him talk about alternative solutions to our current use of fossil fuels, you'd be amazed at how in sync the two of you are.

Anyhow, my point ...going back to McCain and the candidates in general... as Dan said, it's not so clear as to which one is more conservative or liberal than the other when you look as specific issues like the environment. As a voter, I'm more concerned about where they stand on key issues than whether or not their political ideology suits my tastes.

[GaryC 7]

BTW, Gary....I watched McCain speak at a conference last night where he said that he believes that Global Warming is a real concern and that he wants to reduce our use of fossil fuels as well as nuclear energy. Whoohooo! Not trying to rub it in, but I'm elated to hear him say that. He's not the quite the candidate you are hoping for either. The way I see it, the Democrats are in a win-win-win situation....we win no matter which of the three is elected President.

Yeah, just in time for the scientists to change their consensus about GW. A lot of people are going to feel very foolish when it turns out man made GW was all a bunch of BS. Of course by then we will have a new "the sky is falling" disaster to worry about.

But I do agree that we need to get away from fossil fuels and find other ways to power our society. So I agree with his goal, just not the reasons for doing it.

I'm relieved to hear that you agree with his goals because I was under the impression from what he said last night that as President, he would push for governmental regulations on the use of fossil fuels - something that you've been adamently against in the past.

I didn't say that. I am in favor of encouraging the use of alternate fuels but I am not in favor of draconian regulations if any sort. Make it economically advantageous to use alternate fuels without killing our economy and the free market will take care of the transition.

You owe Al Gore an apology then. That's what he's been pitching all along.

Gore is an idiot. I don't owe him anything but my disdain. His scare tactics have done more to hurt the cause of environmentalists than to help. His contention that the car is public enemy #1 is total BS.

I can assure you that if you actually read or listened to him talk about alternative solutions to our current use of fossil fuels, you'd be amazed at how in sync the two of you are.

Anyhow, my point ...going back to McCain and the candidates in general... as Dan said, it's not so clear as to which one is more conservative or liberal than the other when you look as specific issues like the environment. As a voter, I'm more concerned about where they stand on key issues than whether or not their political ideology suits my tastes.

He may want us to move to alternate fuels like me but I don't want it rammed down my throat by the government with lies and scare tactics like he advocates.

As far as the issues and my vote?

Agree with Obama on key issues = 0%. Agree with Clinton on key issues = 15%. Agree with McCain on key issues = 60%. My vote = McCain. Simple math.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

As far as the issues and my vote?

Agree with Obama on key issues = 0%. Agree with Clinton on key issues = 15%. Agree with McCain on key issues = 60%. My vote = McCain. Simple math.

That remaining 40 percent is got to be a real heartburn though. ...but if 60 percent is the best that's out there, what can you do?