sn

Mc C ain more qualified than Obama????? Are you kidding? A person who is historically stunted in 1960s and has no clue about the difference between Shia and sunni, about the separation of Czechoslovakia into Czech republic and slovakia, the difference between world war II and Iraq War, and current logistics such as the number of troops deployed in Iraq should be automatically disqualified as a presidential candidate.

Moreover, as Olivia points out, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz should be more qualified than McCain in your opinion. posted 06/24/2008 at 01:41:09

Oba ma and Hill ary are light years apart on foreign policy. Hillary voted for the Iraq war, Klye-Lieberman bill for war against Iran, she further confirmed her strong war-based stance against Iran. Oba ma, in contrast, has always said that he would push for diplomacy, not war. Hill ary also opposed the Patriot Act or any amendments to the act, which Obam a and other democratic senators were trying to push. Hillary is definitely more hawkish than Obama based on her campaign message as well as her voting record in the senate. posted 06/13/2008 at 03:50:18

No, you are describing the Bush co and republicans. They are the ones that surrendered to Osama Bin Laden and let him get away in tora bora and are losing in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They are sending troops to die, not giving the troops body armor, installing a back door draft and destroying families of troops. All the excellent job and sacrifice of the troops is being destroyed by the civillian leadership. So don't you dare point a finger at the dems. posted 06/10/2008 at 07:47:14

Hume: This is pure offensive strategy against McCain. Obama will use different tools to appeal to each group. The platform that he is using to appeal to the evangelical voters is the same as he is using with athiests, jewish, hindus, black and white youth, and catholics--climate change, global poverty, focus on diplomacy, end of Iraq war and preventing war with Iran, ensuring human rights in countries like China etc. It is only the packaging that is different.

Evangelical block is significant in the general election and will go a long way in getting Obama elected. Getting the evangelical voters in the democratic party is also a long term strategy to increase the democratic base. It is also good for country because it helps bring the focus of this group to real issues rather than hate fueling issues such as abortion and gay marriage. He is not waivering from his liberal view to pander to the evangelicals. He is packing liberal issues in a smart way to appeal to the evangelicals. I see nothing wrong with that. posted 06/10/2008 at 08:15:42

The issues that he is using to appeal to the evangelical voters are the same that he is using to attract non-religious voters like you and me--global poverty, climate change, darfur, ending the Iraq war, focusing on diplomacy around the world. These are issues that some religious and nonreligious voters think deeply about. I think Obama took the cue of focusing on evangelical voters from Al Gore who had an ad showing Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton both coming together on the issue of global warming. posted 06/10/2008 at 08:05:40

The angry Hillary voters group is a sham. 90% of these voters are republicans posing a democrats. There was a great post on dailykos where one of the bloggers googled the people on internet and found that none of the "so called" angry Hillary voters had ever donated any money to either Hillary or DNC. Two of them turned out to be past Chuck Hagel supporters and one turned out to be a libertarian. This is another phony chaos strategy online. I hope disgruntled democrats do not fall prey to this sham. posted 06/09/2008 at 07:41:10

Even now the media is drooling over her. They have not reported a lot of unfavorable facts about Clinton such as:

1) her taking money from a company that has been accused by federal govt. of sexual abuse of its female employees. She has refused to return the money.

2) Clinton-Hsu connection. Norman Hsu, her leading donor, is in jail on charges of fraud.

3) The media hammered on Obama's NAFTA-gate, but never clarified that it was Clinton's campaign that contacted the Canadian administrative secretary about her NAFTA assertions.

4) underreported the Texas caucus results that suggest that Obama has won the Texas prima-caucus election with more delegates than Clinton. Instead, the talking heads on MSM keep repeating the Clinton victory in Texas.

5) repeatedly declared the race a tie when it is mathematically impossible for Hillary to win. posted 03/30/2008 at 16:30:09

Likeability is extremely important in getting anything done in Washington. To get any bills passed in the congress, Hillary will need the support of at least some republicans. Given, her hatred among republican voters, not a single republican senator or congressman will support her bill, and in the process, nothing will get done. This is evident in her senate record. Hillary has had major problems getting even democratic senators, leave alone republican senators, to co-sponsor her legislations. As a result, she has not passed a single substantive legislation in the senate. In contrast, Obama has worked with moderate (Lugar, Hagel, McCain) and even extremely conservative repbulican (Coburn) senators to get substantive legislations on ethics reform, transparency act, and nuclear non-proliferation acts passed in the senate. posted 03/30/2008 at 16:22:28

You are totally correct lcmartin. Also, she has alienated voters from small states, red states, and caucus states by saying that these states are undemocratic and don't matter. How can you expect these states to vote for her in the general election??? Moreover a lot of these states are battleground purple states that can be won by democrats in the general election--IA, WI, MN, CO, VA, NV etc. posted 03/30/2008 at 16:17:47

What is wrong in pointing out the wrong decisions that Hillary made in the senate???? Hillary did vote for the Iraq war. Without the approval of the congress, it would have been impossible or at least very very difficult for Bush to wage the war in Iraq. Thanks to Hillary, McCain and other senators that gave Bush a blank cheque for war, we have this mess. So yes, Hillary is responsible for the war along with other democratic and republican senators who voted for the war--including Biden, Dodd, and Edwards. But they have all dropped out of the presidential race. posted 03/30/2008 at 16:00:21

And Hillary has the support of the entire PA democratic establishment (Mayors, Governor, Senators) except Bob Casey, who sided with Obama. I think it is the fault of the democratic voters who refuse to rally around the front runner (Obama). Republicans had a major problem with McCain, but they rallied around him very early, once they found that he was the front runner. Why are the democratic voters messing things up in a year where democrats should be winning hands down in presidential, senate, and house races????? Is Obama that horrible a candidate that democrats are voting against him at such late juncture in the primary???? If Hillary had lost in OH and TX, she would have been out of the race. It is the voters in OH and TX (the slim margin allowed republicans to mess the primary election) that kept her going. Now again, the easiest way to throw Hillary out of the race would be a defeat in PA. But that is not going to happen, so she will go on running. This is democracy and it is up to the people to now start rallying around the front runner. posted 03/30/2008 at 15:53:33

Can you please justify your statements with facts and figures? Here is why I think Obama is a great leader:

1) Was against the Iraq war when 70% of the public and most senators and congressmen were in favor of the war--He had the foresight that most other people did not have.

2) Ability to work with republican senators to get legislations passed--Ethics reform bill with MacCain, Transparency Act with Coburn, Nuclear Non-proliferation act with Lugar, Global poverty act with Hagel. He has received praises from several moderate republicans such as Hagel, Lugar (who defended Obama against Clinton's false attacks on not conducting Afghanistan-Nato meetings), Chaffee, and Eisenhower's grand daughter. Obama has made clear that his administration will include best qualified democrats as well as republicans (e.g. Hagel for secretary of defense, Lugar etc.).

3) Global appeal--The domestic media has not addressed the soaring popularity of Obama around the world including Europe and Asia. This will be great to repair our relations around the world. Hillary and MacCain will be the same old politics and will do little to change our image around the world--especially since both supported the Iraq war, which is the source of hatred for the U.S. around the world.

4) Anti-Lobbist--Both Hillary and MacCain are tied much more closely with lobbists and special interests (especially the arms lobby) than Obama. Therefore he will be more likely to get us out of Iraq earlier and also avoid other "stupid" wars.

Can you please provide similar arguments as to why you think Obama is a failure as leader? I would be interested in hearing your rationale. posted 03/21/2008 at 10:23:07

They are also messing the national polls now and showing that Hillary matches up much better with MacCain than Obama. Unfortunately, the media is not reporting this and still showing their bias towards Hillary. posted 03/21/2008 at 10:06:34

Scalar: I also had a positive opinion of Hillary at the beginning of the campaign and was indifferent about either Obama or Clinton. However, right now, the priority of the democrats, left leaning independents such as you, and moderate republicans should be to unite and rally around the front runner. I really want Hillary to back out. I do prefer Obama to Hillary, but if Hillary was the front runner, I would have voted for her in both the primary and the general election so that we can defeat "more war, "Iran-Al Qaeda," "tax cuts for the rich," "no knowledge about economic policy" MacCain. It will be a disaster to have a bad tempered, senile guy in charge of the highest office in the world. He has already embarassed himself as well as U.S. in his middle-eastern trip. The domestic media is shielding him from his horrible gaffe about the Iran-Al Qaeda link. However, he has become a joke in the foreign media. posted 03/21/2008 at 09:36:15