BlogCatalog

if this were a harvard debating contest, obama would win hands down. i just don't feel entirely comfortable putting the nuke keys in obama's hands. now before anyone bites my head off...i'm not saying nuke the iranians, but obama's idea that you can sit down and 'talk' with these terrorists is ludicrous.

newsblip.blogspot.com/

[reply]

2/14/08

clioandme

Your statement about the Iranians presupposes that Iran is a monolithic society and that the authority of its current president is unquestioned. Neither of these assumptions is true.

I could also bring up McCain's "Bomb, bomb Iran" gaff last year, which is on YouTube, but that would be unfair.
2/14/08

IanThal

The "Bomb Iran" song is the sort of stupid gaffe that can worsen our relations with the entire Middle East region should McCain be elected-- it strengthens the position of the extremists there, and causes them and their proxies to act with greater extremism.

2/14/08

lisamcglaun

Why start a thread Barack Hussein Obama? That's meant to inflame in itself..just like the attack email that's been floating around for so long.

Give me a break.

[reply]

2/14/08

clioandme

I take it you're referring to the middle name? Yeah, Gandhi is a bit out of character today. But notice how no one bit. Kinda cool.
2/14/08

lisamcglaun

Yep...guess I should be as disciplined, Mark...:)

I'm just so fed up with that tactic. It makes me mad. I'll leave it alone and leave everyone to a civil discussion...:)

Happy Valentine's Day.
2/14/08

globalgirl

But it is his name: Barack Hussein Obama

He is not a Muslim, however. He and his family are members of the United Church of Christ.
2/14/08

clioandme

Do we typically use middle names in this country? As far as I know, only if the person wants to use it, or if there is confusion because of two people with the same name, such as the Presidents George Bush. Seems to me we can accord this same courtesy to our candidates.
2/14/08

clioandme

But really, I don't give a rat's ass. People who wouldn't vote for him because of this wouldn't vote for him anyway.
2/14/08

techfun

I came across this a long time ago when Obama first threw in his hat, some may find it of interest:

Let us now correct “the record.” Senator Obama’s middle name, Hussein, means "blessed" and “beautiful” in Arabic and dates back to the grandson of the Prophet Mohammad, Husayn ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib. Similarly, his first name, Barack, comes from berachah, meaning "one who is blessed" in both Hebrew and in Arabic. (From: www.arabisto.com/p_blogEntry.cfm?blogEntryID=369 )
2/14/08

clioandme

Thank you.
2/14/08

globalgirl

Correct. Usually it is the just the middle initial. Of course it is a tactic used by opponents (usually) to create fear that his allegiance is to Islam. It is not.

I am reminded of dear friends of mine now living in Lebanon (she is American and he is Lebanese - both Christians) with their young boys. Their children have traditional American names so they would not be associated with Islam, nor be possibly discriminated against strictly based on their names.
2/14/08

clioandme

Of course, having a "traditional" American name, whatever the hell that means, could have disadvantages in other contexts.
2/14/08

IanThal

"Barack" is cognate with the Hebrew name "Baruch."

His father was an atheist by all accounts.
2/17/08

gerryPlanetEarth

"Do we typically use middle names in this country? As far as I know, only if the person wants to use it, or if there is confusion because of two people with the same name, such as the Presidents George Bush. Seems to me we can accord this same courtesy to our candidates."

William Henry Harrison...William Howard Taft...William Henry Harrison...Franklin Delano Roosevelt...John Fitzgerald Kennedy...Lyndon Baynes Johnson...

James K. Polk...Ulysses S. Grant...Rutherford B. Hayes...James A. Garfield...Chester A. Arthur...Warren G. Harding...Harry S. Truman...Dwight D. Eisenhower

LBJ...JFK...FDR...

IKE...TEDDY...JIMMY CARTER not James Earl Carter, Jr.

George Washington and Abraham Lincoln do not seem to even have middle names....

Some people argue that Hiram Ulysses Grant(legal birth name) used the monicker "Ulysses S. Grant" to become known as "Uncle Sam" Grant...

Although the use of John Quincy Adams' middle name was also necessary to differentiate between the prior president John Adams similar to the George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush example of Mr. Stoneman, I fail to see or be able to find any laws, protocols, traditions or the "courtesy" Mr. Stoneman speaks about regarding how the legal birth names of U.S.A. Presidents are allowed to be used/or not used....
2/22/08

clioandme

Bush's father introduced himself as George Herbert Walker Bush back in his navy days. Most of your examples are dead, and I have no idea what the customs were back in the day. I'm talking about nowadays. I would think you very strange for calling me by my full first middle and last name. Your use of the middle name with only a first initial was deliberately inflammatory. I was happy to see, though, that almost no one here thought anything of it.

Apropos strange, why start a thread, and then add comments several days after the fact, when the chances are low that we'll even see them? But since you did it, I'll take a chance that you'll see this too.
2/22/08

gerryPlanetEarth

comment removed by the community.
2/23/08

clioandme

Gerry, why are you quoting my whole profile here?

2/14/08

stoneman,
i'm not overly in love with mccain either. i would say, though, that mccain's comment was as you say....a gaffe. if i remember the context of it...a beach boy's song was in the discussion. from what i've read and heard from obama's own mouth is that he wants to talk to the iranians. as i noted in another thread, talking to the head of a country that supports the destruction of another (israel) is rather chilling and speaks of obama's lack of experience on the foreign stage. the death of a key hezbollah leader this week in syria, with definite ties to the iranians, speaks volumes about what we're dealing with in iran. i think obama is well spoken, is a caring man, and has done some good for the people of illinois. i just don't feel that he's quite ready to lead the fight in the war on terror (just my two cents).

newsblip.blogspot.com/

[reply]

2/14/08

lisamcglaun

I saw Colon Powell on Tim Russert's show the past weekend. He stated clearly that before George Bush's administration we ALWAYS talked to rogue and enemy states. We negotiated and talked from the position as the most powerful nation on Earth with the stongest military and humanitarian record. He, himself, was involved in talks with Iran before he left his post.

Powell said that he feels great inroads were being made and useful information was being shared until Bush took his "no talk" stance. Now our administration is forbidden to go to the table with a nation until that nation agrees to ALL of our terms.

Where else in life does that tactic work? Would it work with you? Think about it..from daily life to the workplace to big business to nations. Bullying never works in any circumstance.

Powell also stated that Obama has never said that HE would sit down with Iran...he said WE, which means lower level discussions until we can make some headway. In the words of Colon Powell, "That's what we've ALWAYS done until now."

I want a leader who agrees with a great military mind like Colon Powell. That's Obama.
2/14/08

clioandme

We could also bring up the example of North Korea. Clinton talked. Bush didn't and things went to hell. Then Bush started talking and we've seen some improvements.

And like it or not, Iran is kind of like a neighbor, given that we have so many troops over there, not to mention considerable naval forces.

Finally, let's not confuse talking with caving in on key issues.
2/14/08

techfun

Davet, I asked this in another thread and never got an answer. I am willing to believe that talks with some countries may not produce the results we want, but I fail to see how TRYING is somehow worse than not trying. Can you explain why it would be better NOT to try to bring Iran or other such nations into talks?

(Edit: I am talking about established states with legitimately elected/appointed leaders... I can see where not opening talks with a government recently established via a military coup or other overthrow has its place as a diplomatic tool by not legitimizing an unelected government.)
2/14/08

clioandme

You mean without bringing up rules we might have learned on elementary school playgrounds?
2/14/08

IanThal

Mark- you're a military historian, perhaps you can answer me this:

Is Colin Powell really a great military mind? I always had the impression the he reached his position by being a yes-man to his superiors. He only appears intelligent and thoughtful because of the ideologues with whom he worked with in the first Bush administration.
2/14/08

clioandme

I can claim no expertise about the American system, though its general officers are famous for getting where they are because of cronyism and their willingness to conform. There is no general staff system for the most talented officers, as there was in Imperial Germany. A few intellectuals do get through, though, including Clark and Petraeus. Powell? I don't really know. I usually have more fun listening to what those below the level of brigadier general are saying. One thing: I was never impressed by the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force (as I learned about it through the media), since it completely ignored the kinds of wars we've been dealing with for decades, the First Gulf War excepted.
2/15/08

IanThal

Yes, I know your expertise is with regards to German military history-- but that certainly gives you some insights into what sort of questions could be asked about U.S. military culture. My understanding of the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force was also "don't get involved in a war unless it's going to be a cake-walk" and it was precisely this doctrine that led him to openly clash with Bill Clinton over the Yugoslavian wars, despite U.S. strategic interests in ending a human rights catastrophy bordering some of our NATO allies and the fact that Clinton era military intervention (under the command of General Clark) in that region was ultimately successful.

2/14/08

stoneman,
it is because of clinton's mishandling of north korea (trust, but not verify) that bush found himself in the mess he did with kim. bush has made a number of mistakes in his eight years (i've said that before), but the north korea mess was thanks to the 42nd president.

tech,
i believe we've put some carrots out there on the table for the iranian govt over the years. i'm not jewish, but i wholeheartedly support israel's right to exist. iranian leadership numerous times has called for and has supplied weaponry, funding, etc. to terminating israel, our closest ally in the region. would we talk with the mexican govt. if its main goal in life was to eliminate canada? our mistake (both republican and democrat) over the years was saying we'd give non responsible countries this and that if they'd stop their nuclear ambitions. that is the first mistake by offering them rewards for such conduct. iran's claim that its nuclear ambitions are strictly for peace and energy are a joke. they have enough oil to survive for an eternity. is it so unreasonable to have the iranian govt. stop sponsoring state terrorism, halt its nuclear program, etc. and then talk? or do we reward them for such acts and sit down with them and chat?

lisa,
taken from obama's web site.....

Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.

[reply]

2/14/08

lisamcglaun

Thanks. Saying he is willing to lead still does not mean that he will be at the first talks. I think it means he is willing to be the first to reach out and let other countries know that things are different now. I could be wrong. He has my vote and I'm willing to wait and see.
2/14/08

clioandme

I have to agree that there is nothing in this statement that suggests Obama wants to run into Iran's arms.

Also, how is talking with Iran a reward? A state visit, sure. But presumably we are thinking about low-level talks. Baby steps.

2/14/08

lisa,
like stoneman and tech's, i respect your views on here and can appreciate you backing obama. i think the man has some good characteristics and i can see why he appeals to many. my biggest concern as noted earlier is that i don't think he's quite ready for the war on terror. whether he is at the first talks, second talks, last talks.... his signal as i read it is that if iran, syria, north korea, sudan, etc. just wait it out a few more months, life will be much better for their terrorist governments. when bush is gone there will possibly be new leadership (obama) in the white house who will reach out to them and make peace. i think we've tried that before and seen the unfortunate consequences of such actions.

[reply]

2/14/08

clioandme

Bush's foreign policy was ideologically driven in his first term. It has shown a little more pragmatism in his second term, which is a good thing. Obama's approach to most problems seems to be more pragmatic than ideological. That is a good thing in my book.
2/14/08

lisamcglaun

davet,

I also respect your views. I love an intelligent debate and you always oblige. Thank you.

Peace,
Lisa

2/14/08

seakiev

I hope Obama wins the Democrat nomination, I look forward to voting for him in the national election. I think he is a breath of fresh air that will be good for the country.

[reply]

2/14/08

libdrone

@davet

I do not believe it is possible to wage war on a noun and that all of the "war" rhetoric that has been applied to our country's response to the 9/11 attacks had greatly hindered us in actually dealing with what I believe was crime rather than an act of war. That Obama is avoiding that incendiary language suggests to me he will be more, rather than less effective in dealing with those who intend us harm.

[reply]

2/14/08

davet

libdrone,
as i noted to earlier respondents....we agree to disagree and i respect all views. however, slamming planes into the world trade center, the pentagon, a field in pennsylvania and killing some 3,000 total; ramming the u.s.s. cole and killing 17 u.s. soldiers; etc. are not crimes. they are acts of war whether they be waged by a handful of militants, a country backing them, or both. both parties (repub and dems) have made mistakes in dealing with these folks. years ago our republican friends thought they could trust hussein and that he was the lesser of two evils during the iran-iraq war (80-88) - that proved wrong. clinton had a chance to take out bin laden in 1998 and didn't - that was wrong. the question is whether or not we learn from these mistakes and don't make them again.

2/14/08

B. Hussein Obama has yet to tell me anything! All I hear are change and hope. Sounds like empty promises to me. I'm all for change, but for gosh sake tell me what, when, how. Give me something to go on. On the other hand, none of the other candidates are giving me much either.

[reply]

2/14/08

clioandme

Now why are you using his first initial and full middle name?
2/14/08

debbit

Because I want to....and it brings to the forefront the irony of the whole thing.
2/14/08

globalgirl

Probably for the same reason George W. Bush is often called "Dubya".
2/14/08

clioandme

Dubya is called that because he has a father with the same first and last name. Dubya is an affectionate nickname for some, though it causes others to retch. My point, GG, is that the comparison is beside the point.

2/14/08

rather ironic that we have a candidate with the name of Hussien eh?
So what if its his middle name,,,,my middle name is James...but the irony is still there!

[reply]

2/14/08

clioandme

No irony. See Techfun's explanation of the names above.

2/14/08

and your point is? You think I cannot read? Or perhaps I'm as uneducated as the Democrats would like to think I am. My PhD (not piled higher and deeper) would indicate that I can at least read comments.

Read some Anne Coulter....then ask me why

[reply]

2/14/08

ThriftShopRomantic

Ah, now there's a reliable source of information...
2/14/08

globalgirl

Ah now Debbit, why did you throw Ann Coulter into the mix?

I find her annoying...
2/14/08

kristilinauer

I'm not a huge Ann Coulter fan. I think she has some good points, but she's quite harsh and crass. But when I hear Ann Coulter, and ultra right wing conservative, say that even she would vote for Clinton over McCain, it made me stop and think. I honestly don't know WHO to vote for in this election.
2/14/08

pointlessbanter

Read Ann Coulter? Wow I am ducking out of here fast.

2/14/08

She Is Annoying...but yanno what...at least she has a point about what she says. She can back every argument, like her or not she is a great debater.

[reply]

2/14/08

ThriftShopRomantic

Well, I agree she can come up with a response to what's tossed at her, but often how she responds is subject to whim more than any real data or investigative journalism.
2/14/08

clioandme

She is an entertainer. Nothing more.
2/14/08

techfun

Coulter's claimed role in the Paula Jones case (Jone's lawyers denied her involvement after Ann made those claims of involvement) destroyed any credibility she could have had with me. In her own words: "We were terrified that Jones would settle. It was contrary to our purpose of bringing down the President." (Later still, in confirming that leak* to the Hartford Courant, she remarked that her work with Conway and his colleagues had amounted to "a small, intricately knit right-wing conspiracy -- and I'd like that clarified.") archive.salon.com/news/feature/2000/03/04/willey/index2.html

* That leak is referring to Coulter admitting that they had given various journalists the story of the "distinguishing characteristic" of Clinton's penis.
2/14/08

clioandme

Okay, so entertainer and former conspirator.
2/15/08

Anok

What Coulter does to "back up" her points is cherry pick information, than distort it to her liking. It is only persuasive to those to thick to do their own research on the subject matter. IE, she's not fooling anyone who cares to educate themselves on the matter.

That said, she can only debate on paper, in person she fumbles....a lot.

She couldn't even take on a talk show host about religion for Pete's sake.

Furthermore her hatred has gone above and beyond as of late and has ruined what was left of her credibility (meaning after what Techfun said).

She is Hitler's little pin up. She hates Jews, the poor, homosexuals, anyone who isn't Christian, and democrats. Probably in that order.

2/14/08

She's a pundit....and by definition her argument is subject largely to come from the hip or on a whim. She does in finality come to the data of the argument eventually. She's not a journalist in the respect of being a reporter. Pundits are entitled to opinion by virtue of their designation. I wasn't asking anyone to like her. Simply to view the other side.

[reply]

2/14/08

Somehow i feel that Bill Clinton has become more of a liability for Hillary's campaign. They are being termed Billary. Obama on the other hand has been able to motivate the youth to a certain extent..which has helped his cause. However..I dont think either of them will reach the required delegate count..if things go this way..

[reply]

2/14/08

kristilinauer

I agree about Bill being a liability. I've thought many times that I'd love to be a fly on the wall when they're alone behind closed doors. I would imagine she's given him an earful regarding some of his behavior and comments.
2/14/08

debbit

Obama has been able to incite crowds...still he's not saying much more than change and hope. I don't think that is enough to say. He needs to get down to specific goals and platform issues. Empty promises we've had enough of.
2/14/08

clioandme

Why "incite"???
2/14/08

kristilinauer

Is that bad? Webster defines "incite" as "to move to action : stir up : spur on : urge on."
2/14/08

clioandme

For me it has a negative sound, and the Oxford American Dictionary writes: "instigate or stir up (an undesirable or violent sentiment or course of action) . . ." I see Merriam Webster online doesn't make this distinction.
2/14/08

kristilinauer

Yeah, I guess the only way I've heard that word used is in reference to riots--inciting a riot.

2/14/08

techfun

debbit, if you are serious about only hearing "hope" and "change" from Obama and not just using that as a rhetorical device, you might want to check out www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm for more extended information beyond soundbites that are making it onto TV and the radio. There is a lot of info there on his economic positions as well as other issues.

For more indepth ideas and positions on all the candidates, you can go to www.ontheissues.org. I think most Americans are smart enough to decide for themselves when they push aside the pundits and look at the candidates words for themselves.

[reply]

2/15/08

debbit

I see what has been written. I don't HEAR it come from his mouth! He needs to specify what his goals are. In spoken word. Not just in print. I have read it ALL. This ain't my first rodeo, tech fun, I was voting and particpating when you were just a twinkle in your daddy's eye. Seriously, simply inciting crowds won't do it for him. He's gonna have to get to brass tacks and SAY what his plans are and back them up.
2/15/08

clioandme

And there we go again with that word "incite". What gives?

And what does your age have anything to do with anything here? It is whatever it is.

As to your point, isn't it a bit unrealistic to expect someone campaigning to talk about all their policy positions on video? I'm having a hard time imagining a communication strategy that would make that work during primary season. Obama's got a lot of hands to shake and primary election speeches to make. But perhaps you are not even thinking about the primary? Well, dealing with the Republicans will be the next step. One thing at a time. Even there, I don't think long policy speeches on national television would be an advisable strategy. Indeed, demanding that everything go on video and not in print seems rather arbitrary to me.
2/15/08

techfun

Transcripts of speeches and answers in debates offend you debbit? The link I sent is a roundup of speaking transcripts, debate responses, and other sources. Its a collection of his SPOKEN WORDs that you asked for. What is it that you are looking for - interviews, audio recordings of his speeches?

I'm sure it feels awesome to be able to keep saying you only hear "hope and change" and no real meat or depth; I'd know I'd love to be able to keep repeating a mantra like that about any of candidates, but I can't. It has no meaning in the face of the huge amount of information thats available to anyone making an effort.
2/15/08

debbit

tech fun...I hear what you say...and its all that I'm hearing. He refuses to debate the issues. Why? Oh well it doesn't matter anyway. Good luck to you all.

2/15/08

Arvind

I think the world is ready for and clamouring for massive change of leadership - and President Barack Hussein Obama is just the person to give us that.

I am personally very excited and optimistic about the future with him at the helm.

[reply]

2/15/08

Craw

I agree with Arvind. I'm hoping for Obama to win.

[reply]

2/15/08

sctshep

I love it. And knock off the Hussein stuff. It's just cheap fear mongering. We need someone with vision.

[reply]

2/15/08

if obama's vision is that iran's ahmadinejad is someone we can trust and someone who will stop his terroristic ways...then obama needs to go back to the 'iran 101 course' and study up a little more.

newsblip.blogspot.com/

[reply]

2/15/08

clioandme

Davet, you are beginning to repeat yourself. You already made this point above, and people offered rebuttals to which you have not responded.

Edit: By the way, perhaps you've noticed that signatures with links are not the norm here on BC? Your avatar is linked to your profile page, so you don't need one. Of course, it would help if you had an avatar.

Another edit: Looks like you did respond earlier. So I'll leave it at you are beginning to repeat yourself. Is this just about link dropping now?

2/15/08

stoneman,
you're sure worried about my avatar, link dropping, etc. the iran item is a valid argument and i'll repeat it if necessary 100 times. it scares the hell out of me when a candidate for the most powerful job in the world thinks you can sit down and talk with terrorists. i know you have no problem with that, but i do. i've responded several times as to why i think talking with iran is a bad idea. if you don't agree with me, that is fine, but save the personal shots for someone else or move on to another discussion.

[reply]

2/15/08

clioandme

That wasn't a personal shot. My initial observation had to do with your going over old ground, because I think people new to this now long thread might want to know that answers to your concerns are available above. Otherwise we have to do it all over again. You might have indicated that you were restating your belief, but you didn't.

Even better, you might explain in detail why you think low-level talks with anyone, no matter how much we dislike them, is a bad idea. You said it would be a "reward." I don't see how. You say you're scared. Why? Since when do open streams of communication amount to a sell-out?

By the way, I don't think this is a partisan issue. I need to look into it some more, but I would be very surprised if all Republicans thought that realpolitik was a bad thing. Remember those ultimate pragmatists---at least when it came to Mao's China---Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon?
2/29/08

carlgalloway

@davet and in agreement with stoneman, talking to Iran especially at a low level gives officials on both side the opportunity to get to know each other. This has the advantage of exposing people who might be able to influence the leadership that the other side has a viewpoint that should be considered. If that doesn't work you know where you stand, but really if you read any of the political commentaries about Iran you would know the vast majority of Iranians are peace loving and don't agree with their president about destroying Israel or pushing ahead with nuclear weapons. However, as in any similar situation, if you turn this into an attack on Iranians you get their back up which drives them back into the arms of the few extremists who hold power. Give the people of Iran some hope that they can change their future, support them by talking to their government, show some leadership. This is what the US needs to do. In my opinion.

2/15/08

Flimjo

He has a LONG WAY TO GO. He has to get past his speeches about "hope" and "change" and actually start addressing substantive issues.

[reply]

2/15/08

clioandme

Skepticism is always healthy. Asking what is behind Obama's charisma and popularity is a good idea. I think Techfun has addressed that issue above too, and he has included links to useful resources.
2/15/08

Flimjo

Barack can have as many websites as he wants that list his positions on issues, but at some point he has to communicate those positions to the American people. Going on and on in his speeches about vague notions of "change" and "hope" don't do him any good. He has to articulate on TV and in speeches and in town hall meetings what his positions are and how he's going to "change" the country. If he doesn't, McCain is going to crush him, which would be embarrassing.

2/15/08

In answer to the original question: No. I do not believe he would make a good president of the USA. After the terrible mess our country has had to endure over the past seven plus years, we need someone who can actually turn this country around and head us all in the right direction. That candidate is non other than Hillary Clinton.

P.S. I believe he is a very nice young man.

[reply]

2/15/08

clioandme

Well, at least you're voting for the right party.
2/15/08

Theresa111

Hopefully many will feel the same. Love you ... little red dog!
2/15/08

stephaniec

I agree. I see his positive qualities, and I understand why he appeals to so many. Personally, I feel Hillary is what we need right now. I wish ego could be put aside and there would be a Clinton/Obama ticket, but I doubt that will happen.
2/15/08

kristilinauer

It scares me that Americans have such short memories, and that they would even consider Clinton for president.

Have people forgotten the previous Clinton administration? Do you think that Hillary had nothing to do with all of the scandals and crimes that were committed during that administration?

That family had eight years to get it right, and they didn't pass the test. Why would we invite them back? And if you think that Bill is going to be "hands off" if Hillary is president, you're kidding yourself.
2/15/08

globalgirl

It is fascinating that she has been able to climb so far politically, despite the Clinton legacy. All I know is my vote will surely not go for "them". Their legacy of "questionable" activities (scandals) goes far and wide.
2/15/08

Theresa111

I certainly do remember the Clinton Administration and I shall politely remind you that anyone can create a supposed scandal and accuse people of wrongdoing. It doesn't mean they have done anything wrong. She was never convicted of anything. For the most part these allegations were drummed up by opposing parties and even though they impeached a man for a blow job, (WHO CARES!) they still couldn't get a 72% popular president out of the office, because he and Gore were doing such a great job. Don't you remember we were a country out of debt, for the first time in over forty years and that we had money in the bank, no more deficit, before the next election was stolen? That our real voted in president, AL Gore was cheated out of his rightful place and is a Professor who has since won a Nobel Peace Prize? That the guys 29% popular currently holding the reins of government have raped and robbed the US Citizens, and turned many countries against our wonderful nation! I recall the Clinton Administration as eight of the best years our country has had, with a Rhodes Scholar leading us even though everything was done to side-track and bushwhack them.
2/15/08

kristilinauer

Sorry, I can't even argue with that. Not because you made good points, but because it's clear to me that you're willing to stand by her regardless of the evidence.

Just the fact that you would say that "they impeached a man for a blow job" shows that you're clearly willing to state inaccuracies just to stand by your woman.

And I shall politely remind YOU that OJ Simpson was never convicted of murder, although we all know that he committed the crime.
2/15/08

globalgirl

The Lewinsky deal was not the ONLY Clinton scandal. You know this. It may have been the one to receive the most press, but certainly the Clinton scandals went beyond and BEFORE that event.

I have family members who long for him (her, they) to be back in office. I am not one of them.
2/15/08

Anok

I think it would be prudent for all voters not to compare this years candidates with last season's president.

Everyone looks good compared to the "Decider" who presided over the US for the past 7 years and counting....

Clinton certainly looks better than Bush, but it is wise to remember that outside of scandals, there are policies to be looked at. Not all actions were noble and well. Granted, Bill Clinton did a much better job than Bush Jr, in hindsight, of course.

But there is that pesky problem again - Bush isn't running for president.

Therefore, we ought to be comparing Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama. And their records, not those of the previous presidents. Not just yet anyway....
2/15/08

Theresa111

Okay, he said he did not have sex with that woman and I believe him. Sex in his mind was fornicating and I believe him when he said he didn't "tap" that. Personally, I do not care who has sex with whom. None of my concern. In this day and age, it shouldn't be anyone's concern.

You state evidence: Go ahead and point out the evidence and then show us all, where she or he was convicted of any wrongdoing. You seem to point a finger at them but have nothing to substantiate your so called facts. I am waiting.

One other matter. Standing by my girl, as you so eloquently put it. Hillary has good character. Good family values. She is faithful and has a clear vision for our country. She has seen the best president in action, close-up, and knows the White House intimately. She is honest and has integrity.

Because I am experienced in these matters, I possess a rather remarkable gift in judging a good character.

One more thing. Whether Bill Clinton is hands on or hands off, is none of anyone's concern. Look in the mirror and be concerned with your own faults, as I do my own. His hand is a hand I would gladly shake. I admire him, what he has done for our country and what she will do for our country. Hillary has the smarts ... that's why she makes so many old men pissed off. They cannot stand the thought of a mere woman in the White House. We need a woman.
2/15/08

clioandme

One reason I am less than enthusiastic about Clinton, is because I don't want to hash through all these stories. This thread shows that I might be in denial though, insofar as we would have to put up with nonsense about Obama too. People will hate and smear and whatever else it takes to undermine a good candidate whose worldview they oppose. Sad. One thing's for sure, Clinton has got to be one tough woman. These scandals have probably only made her more qualified than she otherwise would have been. (I'm still rooting for Obama, but I see nothing wrong with Clinton.)
2/15/08

kristilinauer

RECORDS SET by the Clinton Administration at the end of Bill's 8 years in office:
- The only president ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First president sued for sexual harassment.
- First president accused of rape.
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

STARR-RAY INVESTIGATION
- Number of Starr-Ray investigation convictions or guilty pleas (including one governor, one associate attorney general and two Clinton business partners): 14
- Number of Clinton Cabinet members who came under criminal investigation: 5

CRIME STATS
- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

CAMPAIGN FINANCE INVESTIGATION
- As of June 2000, the Justice Department listed 25 people indicted and 19 convicted because of the 1996 Clinton-Gore fundraising scandals.
- According to the House Committee on Government Reform in September 2000, 79 House and Senate witnesses asserted the Fifth Amendment in the course of investigations into Gore's last fundraising campaign.
-James Riady entered a plea agreement to pay an $8.5 million fine for campaign finance crimes. This was a record under campaign finance laws.

CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS WERE OBTAINED
Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.

OTHER MATTERS INVESTIGATED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTORS AND CONGRESS, OR REPORTED IN THE MEDIA
Bank and mail fraud, violations of campaign finance laws, illegal foreign campaign funding, improper exports of sensitive technology, physical violence and threats of violence, solicitation of perjury, intimidation of witnesses, bribery of witnesses, attempted intimidation of prosecutors, perjury before congressional committees, lying in statements to federal investigators and regulatory officials, flight of witnesses, obstruction of justice, bribery of cabinet members, real estate fraud, tax fraud, drug trafficking, failure to investigate drug trafficking, bribery of state officials, use of state police for personal purposes, exchange of promotions or benefits for sexual favors, using state police to provide false court testimony, laundering of drug money through a state agency, false reports by medical examiners and others investigating suspicious deaths, the firing of the RTC and FBI director when these agencies were investigating Clinton and his associates, failure to conduct autopsies in suspicious deaths, providing jobs in return for silence by witnesses, drug abuse, improper acquisition and use of 900 FBI files, improper futures trading, murder, sexual abuse of employees, false testimony before a federal judge, shredding of documents, withholding and concealment of subpoenaed documents, fabricated charges against (and improper firing of) White House employees, inviting drug traffickers, foreign agents and participants in organized crime to the White House.

NUMBER OF TIMES THAT Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.
Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
Hillary Clinton 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton 348
Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697

MYSTERIOUS DEATHS ASSOCIATED WITH CLINTON ADMINISTRATION:
-Number of persons in the Clinton machine orbit who are alleged to have committed suicide: 9
- Number known to have been murdered: 12
- Number who died in plane crashes: 6
- Number who died in single car automobile accidents: 3
- Number of one-person skiing fatalities: 1
- Number of key witnesses who have died of heart attacks while in federal custody under questionable circumstances: 1
- Number of unexplained deaths: 4
- Total suspicious deaths: 46

ARKANSAS MONEY MANAGEMENT
- Amount of an alleged electronic transfer from the Arkansas Development Financial Authority to a bank in the Cayman Islands during 1980s: $50 million
- Grand Cayman's population: 18,000
- Number of commercial banks: 570
- Number of bank regulators: 1
- Amount Arkansas state pension fund invested in high-risk repos in the mid-80s in one purchase in April 1985: $52 million through the Worthen Bank.
- Number of days thereafter that the state's brokerage firm went belly up: 3
- Amount Arkansas pension fund dropped overnight as a result: 15%
- Percent of Worthen bank that Mochtar Riady bought over the next four months to bail out the bank and the then governor, Bill Clinton: 40%.
- Percent of purchasers from the Clintons and McDougals of resort lots who lost the land because of the sleazy financing provisions: over 50%

THE MEDIA
- Number of journalists covering Whitewater who were fired, transferred off the beat, resigned or otherwise gotten into trouble because of their work on the scandals (Doug Frantz, Jim Wooten, Richard Behar, Christopher Ruddy, Michael Isikoff, David Eisenstadt, Yinh Chan, Jonathan Broder, James R. Norman, Zoh Hieronimus): 10

UNEXPLAINED PHENOMENA
- FBI files misappropriated by the White House: c. 900
- Estimated number of witnesses quoted in FBI files misappropriated by the White House: 18,000
- Number of witnesses who developed medical problems at critical points in Clinton scandals investigation (Tucker, Hale, both McDougals, Lindsey): 5
- Problem areas listed in a memo by Clinton's own lawyer in preparation for the president's defense: 40
- Number of witnesses and critics of Clinton subjected to IRS audit: 45
- Number of names placed in a White House secret database without the knowledge of those named: c. 200,000
- Number of women involved with Clinton who claim to have been physically threatened (Sally Perdue, Gennifer Flowers, Kathleen Willey, Linda Tripp, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Juantia Broaddrick): 6
- Number of men involved in the Clinton scandals who have been beaten up or claimed to have been intimidated: 10
2/15/08

kristilinauer

Sorry for the long post, but you asked for evidence. And that's not even all of it. I omitted the parts about the people who found themselves the object of investigation because they began to delve deep into the scandals of the Clinton machine.

Theresa, I think your position could be more accurately stated as "I'm a feminist, therefore I'm going to vote for a woman."

I don't doubt that some of the scandals that surrounded the Clintons were dredged up by the opposing party, but to simply write off ALL of them as "conspiracy" is illogical.
2/15/08

clioandme

Err, presumably you have a source for all this? Care to share?
2/15/08

kristilinauer

prorev.com/legacy.htm

All of the above is from this source. However, I wouldn't base my position on one source alone. If you search, you will find that these statements are substantiated in many sources.

Suffice it to say, the Clintons scare the crap out of me. Based on the evidence, I think the Clinton Administration was the most corrupt in our nation's history--or at least during my lifetime. And the fact that people continue to turn a blind eye astounds me.
2/15/08

clioandme

I won't comment on the corruption, but I'm glad you added "or at least during my lifetime." Someday maybe we'll have access to the files of the presidencies we know. Unfortunately, the current Bush administration is making it harder and harder to get such access. I personally don't see Bush as corrupt, but there were plenty of people feeding on his military spending frenzies.
2/15/08

globalgirl

Kristi, Thanks for posting these Clinton scandals.

There are even more scandals not reported here (as if these were not enough to make you scratch your head in bewilderment), but the message is clear and stunning. How is it that the Clintons are still in politics, let alone running for President (again!)?! (Rhetorical Q)
2/15/08

clioandme

Maybe it has something to do with our legal system? I'm talking about that innocent until proven guilty thing that some seem to feel is no longer necessary.
2/16/08

Anok

Kristi, now imagine what Bush's rap sheet will look like - never mind the political mess ups he's created - but also all of the criminal stuff too.....yikes!
2/16/08

AmmoBob

Anok,
I would think someone of your investigative thoughts and powers would have the Bush list of "Dirty Deeds, Done Dirt Cheap" handy just for an occasion. lol....
2/16/08

techfun

Ok, I was gonna try to ignore the Clinton "rap sheet" - which would be much shorter if it stuck to just the Clintons themselves and only convictions.

Since it cast such a wide net to include anyone associated with the Clinton's socially, professionally, or governmentally (appointments... etc) I figure Kristi thinks thats fair so th same should apply to the Bush administration.

I would have ignored this but sometimes you gotta just admire the cleverness of some people.

Holly Allen, Christopher Beam, and Torie Bosch over at Slate.com have created one of the best uses for Flash I have ever seen:

Keep in mind, GW Bush is the head of the Republican party - www.gop.com/About/PartyLeadership.htm

Bushies Behaving Badly - An illustrated guide to GOP scandals
www.slate.com/id/2165783/

And for people who don't like multimedia, there is a text version of the project at www.slate.com/id/2165980/
2/17/08

kristilinauer

Yes, that would be very useful information indeed, if Bush were running for president.

Being that the topic is current presidential candidates, and why or why they are not suited to run the country for the next four--possibly eight--years, I'm not really sure how the list regarding Bush is relevant.
2/17/08

techfun

Kristi, I was going to ask that about your list since so much of it focused on Bill Clinton who is not the candidate but I assumed you had a good reason as did I.

I think the very very widespread corruption throughout the upper echelons of the Republican party when compared to the same folks in the Democratic party is pertinent to people's selection of a candidate.

No president operates in a vacuum and their real power comes from their party members in the Congress along with any support they can get from members of the other party. A party with the corruption evident right now in the GOP cannot produce a clean candidate at this time.

As a former Republican, I am particularly ashamed of the party right now. I hope that after Bush leaves office the GOP will take a long hard look at the 1994-2008 years and do the major housecleaning thats long overdue.
2/17/08

globalgirl

Techfun, once again, thanks. The Bush's are no less corrupt than the Clintons. I want neither in the WH.
2/17/08

kristilinauer

"I was going to ask that about your list since so much of it focused on Bill Clinton who is not the candidate."

If you'll look at the list, several things involve Hillary directly. However, even if they were ALL Bill, it would still be relevant, because Hillary in the White House means Bill in the White House...AGAIN. And if you think he's going to be "hands off", I'm afraid you're kidding yourself. Even during her campaign, he's proven that he can't keep his mouth shut...and because of it, he's hurt the credibility of her campaign.

Bottom line--the Clintons have had scandal and criminal activity follow them and surround them since their days in Arkansas. Why anyone would invite them BACK to the White House is beyond me.
2/17/08

techfun

Ok, I must be dense or its just too late for me at 1:30am. Our constitution only allows for a single President and former president or not, Bill Clinton might be able to authorize a pizza delivery but he can't sign laws or anything else as far as governing goes.

I did read your list with interest since it was a a jamboree of semantic conjectures and that stuff always fascinates me. (I know you didn't write it and I went to the source you linked to and see that it wasn't you originating the Weasel Wording of the content.)

It just mentions Hillary Clinton saying "I don't know" or "I don't recall" or the equivalent. I do not see or remember any perjury charges against her so those seem to be legitimate answers. All in all, if you remove the weaselly terms like "Clinton Machine" and other terms used solely as a rhetorical technique to permit the writer to cast a very wide to create those truly frightening numbers.

If there was a bibliography with the info at prorev.com/wwindex.htm so we could see whether we are talking about speeding tickets by campaign phone bank workers or people closer to the Clintons that compilation would be really interesting to me.
2/22/08

gerryPlanetEarth

Speaking about Billary Clinton and Bill Clinton and their tremendous moral and ethical conduct prior and during Bill Clinton's presidency and the great moral and ethical role models they are I am reminded of a funny story regarding Monica Lewinski told to me by a colleague who used to do Monica Lewinski's dry cleaning...

On one of Monica's frequent visits to the dry cleaning shop where he worked he asked her when she needed the bundle of her soiled clothes cleaned by she replied inaudibly mumbling and my friend was unable to understand a single word she said...

When he asked her Pardon me? again she replied again in an in audible mumbling manner like she had marbles in her mouth or something...

When he further queried her with the standard Come again ? this time she replied in a cleary audible manner the words "No...I swear it's toothpaste"....

2/15/08

A Clinton/Obama ticket would be ideal. Then he would get the on-the-job-training to be a really fine president, the next time around. I would be so happy to vote for him in this way. He has potential for greatness, but I just don't get the vibe that he really believes that indeed he is actually ready, just yet. A few more years experience would be a true embellishment and make him better prepared for such a huge job.

It takes a good woman to clean up a man's mess and this time the mess is so depressing that Obama might crumble, instead of lead. Think about it. Perhaps next time will be his time and the setting of the White House will not be in upheaval.

[reply]

2/15/08

clioandme

I can't really imagine either Obama or Clinton taking the number two spot, even if it was offered. Can you?
2/15/08

Theresa111

No. I am not a feminist. Deliciously feminine, I must confess. I do not believe these trumped up accusations. Nothing proven. The thing is you should do more homework on Bush and Cheney to see who is really the scoundrel. Exxon made $60 Billion in profits 2007. At whose expense I should ask? Ours. The Bush family and the Saudi's shake hands, we are looted and Cheney's business cohorts are supposedly re-building Iraq. Truthfully, Republicans in the government have wanted to bring down the Democrats since 1992's election and they did almost everything they could to destroy anything good coming out of the Clinton office. Yes. I certainly believe in conspiracy theories and even though someone has made up reports that you seem to have copied and pasted here, doesn't make them real.

What really pisses me off is that they won't be brought to justice. That the American people are too afraid to do something to stop them. That the American people seem to be paralyzed by the rights that they began taking away from us.

I am voting for the best candidate for the position.

P.S. If I were one, I would gladly say so. Just never wanted to be one. Okay, I used to be a Tomboy when I was a young girl.
2/15/08

clioandme

I don't understand the problem people have with saying they're feminists. To me it means nothing more than people who are willing to admit that women are also people. Admittedly, I take a longer historical view of this. Most "non-feminists" today would have been radical feminists by nineteenth-century standards.
2/15/08

kristilinauer

"The thing is you should do more homework on Bush and Cheney to see who is really the scoundrel."

Neither are seeking the presidency. The issue is the upcoming election.

"No. I am not a feminist."
Based on your previous comments, I would disagree. You stated "It takes a good woman to clean up a man's mess and this time the mess is so depressing that Obama might crumble, instead of lead." Based on this statement, you believe that Hillary's being a woman is what makes her the best choice.

"What really pisses me off is that [Bush and Cheney] won't be brought to justice."

According to your own reasoning and argument, the lack of a conviction means innocence. If you're going to apply that reasoning and argument to the Clinton Administration, you must apply it to the Bush Administration as well.
2/15/08

Theresa111

First. Women have been cleaning up after men since the day they met. It is only good common sense that a woman should become president after 200+ years of the men doing it. It only seems fair.

If you look at the movie Farenheit 911, you will see the ingratiating hand shaking and pats on the backs between the business family Bush and the Saudi's. If you Google Haliburton, you will see the links with Cheney (hopefully I spelled that correctly.)

I feel that Obama will be a mediocre president, easily influenced should he win. I believe he would be a better candidate for the presidency by getting more experience as say the vice-president and then being a very strong leader four years down the road.

The reason I brought up the current administration was as a way to show the difference in how the Clinton Administration vs the Bush Administration uplifted the country but had the Republicans opposing them daily. Whereas, this administration has broken the laws of our Constitution, time and again, yet remain in office and allowed to do whatever they please.
2/15/08

kristilinauer

Hmmm...voting for a candidate based on the "it's only fair" argument. That seems very bizarre to me.

"Whereas, this administration has broken the laws of our Constitution, time and again, yet remain in office and allowed to do whatever they please."

It's funny how you brush off the claims against the Clinton Administration (even though the claims are greatly substantiated by many sources both online, and in other written sources), and yet you continue to make these claims about the Bush Administration.

Again, according to your "logic", the lack of a conviction means innocence. If you're going to apply that logic to the Clinton Administration, you must also apply it to the Bush Administration.
2/16/08

freeatlast

I'm a feminist, and proud of it.

2/15/08

stoneman,
as noted earlier...the personal shots i was referring to were the avatar, the linking, etc. who cares if i have an avatar? who cares if i throw in my link at times? as for iran, i personally (and maybe i'm in the minority) do not want to engage in public talks, low-level or high level, with a murderous regime like iran. i'm not stupid...we know that talks behind the scenes have been going on. we were no doubt talking to saddam shortly before we invaded iraq in '03. my concern is that when we go public with this kind of info the wrong message is sent to many around the world. if you push your nuclear program (a program they say is for peaceful means - i highly doubt), engage in terror around the middle east, squash freedom movements in your own country, such talks with the u.s. will get you pretty much what you want. i'm not saying you.... but the 'blame america' crowd is growing by the day. where is the outrage in the world that syria was hosting a terrorist mastermind with the blood of hundreds (many of which were americans) and likely more on his hands? where is the outrage when taliban militants kidnap, decapitate and blow up others? where is the outrage in the world when iran takes british sailors in international waters hostage? if obama thniks that you can sit down and rationally deal with these folks, he's showing his inexperience.no, i do not advocate invading iran. i do advocate throwing every sanction possible at them and if as a last resort, taking out as many of their nuclear sites as possible. offering any regime money, status in the world, etc. for stopping inappropriate behavior is wrong, whether that person offering it is mccain, clinton or obama. countries like iran, syria, north korea, etc. want to be part of the civilized world, then they can take the initiative and show that they come in peace, rid themselves of the terrorist cancers that live n their countries, and begin a new relationship with the west. sorry for rambling...but it is a subject i deeply care about and i don't want on the job training for mr. obama.

[reply]

2/15/08

globalgirl

davet, who do you want to see in the WH and why?
2/15/08

clioandme

Regarding the avatar thing, it just makes it easier to recognize people around here. It ties into the whole visual aspect of humans, who, you will recall, like graphical user interfaces on their computers. But of course no one has to have an avatar.

I also mentioned it because of the linking, which isn't done here. Nothing to argue about on the latter point. It isn't done.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "going public" with talks. Either we talk or not. The contents of such talks would be pretty darn hush, hush, I should think. That's how things have been with Korea. The fact that talks were actually occurring with Iran could help things with our allies and other countries in the world. There was a time when the USA could compare itself to the USSR and say we were better because of our openness. Remember that? A battle against terrorists of different kinds is a battle of ideas too. Our openness is a strength, not a weakness. It's high time we remembered that fact.

2/15/08

global girl,
i'm a mccain supporter, but not in love with the guy. i have differences with him on a number of social issues, as i've had with bush. i know the economy is extremely important, but i still feel in my heart that the war on terror is our number one issue. for all of bush' faults, and i admit a number of them, he's kept us safe these last 6+ years from another 9/11. i think mccain will be equally tough on terror. as i've said before, we've made a number of mistakes in iraq, but i just don't want to see us cut and run for a variety of reasons. i think of the three candidates left (with all due respect to gov. huckabee), mccain is best equipped to handle the terror fight. i made a prediction on my blog site the other week that i wouldn't be surprised if he picks romney for his VP. despite their differences, i think it would be a good choice and balance the ticket.

[reply]

2/17/08

globalgirl

With all due respect, regarding the war on terror... our greatest threat? Not in my book. Our greatest threat is the downward spiral of our economy.

Let's look at the history of the Bush family and their relationship with Osama's family and their ties to the oil industry and beyond. We went into war based on a false premise. Period. We need to get out.

Regarding Romney: I hope he won't be VP and am glad he backed out of the Presidential race.

2/15/08

theresa111,
did clinton do some good things - yes. did clinton screw things up (no pun intended) at times - yes. people can and will make the argument that had clinton taken bin laden out when he had the chance in '98, we wouldn't have had a 9/11. by the way.... i don't think 'W' personally asked for 9/11, so people need to remember that our economy took a major hit in order to fight the war on terror. i've been on record as saying i think we should have finished afghanistan before we invaded iraq, so i have no problem with people being critical of the iraq issue. that being said, we need to finish it properly and not do a cut and run like hillary and obama plan on doing. as for the 2000 election being stolen, there is likely tons of more evidence of wrongdoing with the clintons/whitewater and bill letting his zipper down, than any evidence that bush cronies stole the election from gore. the electoral college has been in place for a long time and presidents don't win by popular vote alone. a telling fact is that gore couldn't carry his home state of tennessee.

[reply]

2/15/08

clioandme

"Doing it properly", as you say, requires a military we might no longer have. I am in doubt about how much freedom of action any president will have on this point.
2/15/08

Theresa111

2/15/08

Another thing that is worth considering about the Clinton candidature..is that it will encourage a family's 'dynastic' political ambition. Here in India..we are already grappling with the dynastic nature of our political setup...the Nehru family being at the helm. Such political practices do more harm than good..in the long run.

[reply]

2/15/08

clioandme

That's one reason I'm not supporting her in the primary season, though I would if she won the Democratic nomination.
2/15/08

Theresa111

Sounds as if Hillary has her term and then you expect quiet little Chelsea to run? Ha! My sides are hurting. LOL
2/15/08

clioandme

Well, but it's easy to see where he's coming from, given the political traditions of his country.
2/15/08

Theresa111

I do see his point and thank him for it, but I have never once even considered either family to be a dynasty. Makes me think of Joan Collins. Actually a dynasty is the royalty on the throne of England. That's a dynasty. Or a dictatorship like in Cuba. Old Castro is very ill and yet his brother steps in.
2/15/08

clioandme

Well, there was a father/son thing in the Bush case, but I don't see the Bush daughters getting into it. Still, how about using another word, say nepotism?
2/15/08

bnsullivan

Funnily enough, I remember reading that George H.W. Bush once said (quite a long time ago) -- in response to something about the Kennedy "dynasty" -- something like "Just wait until the Bush boys grow up."

Unfortunately I can't remember where I read that -- but I'll try to recall. It did stick in my mind, though.

This is thread creep, sort of, but does anyone remember a statement by Jeb Bush (the President's brother, recent governor of Florida) who was asked by a journalist, on camera (in Spanish), what his future plans were? Jeb answered, "No tengo futuro." (I don't have a future.)
2/15/08

clioandme

No, but that is telling. His brother certainly messed things up for him.
2/15/08

bnsullivan

Yes, I think that was his (implied) point!

2/15/08

laughoutloudadmin

i donno know.. after seeing how strong-headed is the current u.s president.. was thinking of having female as president for a change

[reply]

2/15/08

Flimjo

Barack can have as many websites as he wants that list his positions on issues, but at some point he has to communicate those positions to the American people. Going on and on in his speeches about vague notions of "change" and "hope" don't do him any good. He has to articulate on TV and in speeches and in town hall meetings what his positions are and how he's going to "change" the country. If he doesn't, McCain is going to crush him, which would be embarrassing.

[reply]

2/15/08

McCain isn't going to crush anyone.

[reply]

2/16/08

Flimjo

If Obama keeps talking about "hope" and "change" and how there is "hope" in "hope" and not to give up on "hope," and if McCain lets him keep talking like that and, by contrast, focuses on conservative issues, he will undoubtedly crush Barack Obama.
2/16/08

clioandme

Aawww. Ain't it nice to see a Republican dare to hope too?

2/15/08

biobob

Greetings
A resounding "YES"
Anything is better than the moron that's there now.
Biobob

[reply]

2/15/08

Let us agree to disagree. Goodnight all. Peace.

[reply]

2/16/08

from stoneman....
One reason I am less than enthusiastic about Clinton, is because I don't want to hash through all these stories. This thread shows that I might be in denial though, insofar as we would have to put up with nonsense about Obama too. People will hate and smear and whatever else it takes to undermine a good candidate whose worldview they oppose.

Stoneman,
i don't believe i or anyone else on here is smearing obama. i simply don't believe he's laid out an effective plan when it comes to foreign policy. that is not smearing the candidate, that is having simple differences with the man. as for the clinton-bush debate on here... all presidents have made mistakes in their terms in office. we were in iraq when bush was re-elected. if the country was that upset about iraq at the time, would bush had not been voted out of office? or is it simply to say that kerry was a weak candidate? the democrats came in in a wave of votes in congress in 2006 with the story that they were going to hold bush accountable and bring change. what exactly have they done for the last year and a half? their approval rating (republicans included) is below the president. bush will certainly not go down as our best president ever. i doubt, however, he'll go down as the worst at least in my lifetime. i can only think of two words on that subject - jimmy carter.

[reply]

2/16/08

clioandme

Now what has Carter done that bothers you?
2/16/08

Theresa111

Hey, Davet! Leave Jimmy Carter alone. He is a fine man and has worked tirelessly toward bringing countries together. He has spent years being an Ambassador for this country.
2/16/08

techfun

Re: Carter

If you look at what was going on in the world at that time. The oil embargoes, and resulting inflation, a revolution in Iran... no US president could have done much differently in his place.

2/16/08

You never know when quiet little Chelsea may grow up one day Theresa! Hillary as a presenditial candidate,already has a huge advantage over other candidates, as she was the first lady for 8 years..and then rode on a popular sympathy wave during the Bill Clinton scandal. So, when she decided to try and run for office.. her cause had already been propogated all over the US. Despite all these advantages..if she is trailing Obama..then either she has done something horribly wrong in her campaigning..or Obama is really the better candidate of the two .

[reply]

2/16/08

And one more thing...the word dynasty was used sarcastically....not factually..as you misinterpreted Theresa

[reply]

2/16/08

Theresa111

Chelsea is studying to become a doctor of medicine. She is on the campaign trail because she believes in her Mother's abilities, just as millions of Americans do. The main thing that pisses people off about Hillary, is the fact that she is a woman. Enough!

Next is the interpretation of the word dynasty. The Clinton's are not a dynasty. They are not royal. They came from humble beginnings and have worked hard almost every day of their lives. You need to pull out your dictionary or go to :
www.dictionary.com and read. You might use a different word to describe what it was you really meant. Sarcasm is for the embittered and disenfranchised youthful males of the population. You are so blinded by the Bush(es) that you cannot recognize that Hillary is a good choice and she is what we need. No matter what Bill's proclivities may be, he is a well respected former president of a great nation and has strong influence with world leaders. He would be a working First Gentleman, who would be an asset in bringing the US and world countries back together once more. Look what he did in Northern Ireland. We need strong leaders and I will vote for a strong principled woman who deserves to win.

2/16/08

Lol..you know the meaning of sarcasm? I used the word dynasty...sarcastically...and not to imply that they are royal or anything. Secondly...sarcasm is not for the embittered..as you wrongly put it. Sarcasm can be used for satire and for humor. If you take it for bitterness..not my problem. I never meant to be bitter.
Secondly..even Bill and Hillary were well read professionals before pursuing their political ambitions. Chelsea is studying medicine today..she might start an innings in politics tomorrow! What makes you so cock sure that she wont? Have you forseen the future?
Lastly...i never mentioned anything about Bush in my comments. I was talking only about Obama. The only point i was trying to make was..that despite the huge political advantage Hillary had from Day 0..she is lagging behind Obama. Thats what i found surprising.
Your concerns about me being pissed off by a woman are unfounded. I never get pissed off so easily..and that too by trivial arguments

[reply]

2/16/08

clioandme

Apropos the phrase "trivial arguments", let's not get personal.
2/19/08

Theresa111

Love you little red dog!

2/16/08

rverspirit

Dynasty has to do with the handing down of power within one family,
royalty or not.

[reply]

2/17/08

Oh..sorry if it felt bad stoneman..but she also got a little personal in her comment. No worries though...we are all good friends

[reply]

2/17/08

theresa/tech fun,
sorry, but i don't give carter a break. are we going to argue he inherited everything from pres. ford and couldn't solve anything in 4 years? jimmy carter was a fine man, just a terrible leader. if we use the argument that carter had all these problems to deal with when he came into and while in office, then the same can be said for bush 43. he didn't ask for 9/11 (although the conspiracy loons on the left will say the u.s. government was behind the plane crashes in n.y.c, washington, d.c. and pennsylvania). as noted earlier, if clinton had taken five minutes of his time to break away from monica, jennifer, paula, etc. and go after bin laden in '98 when we had him in our sights, we wouldn't have been dealing with him in '01. back to carter for a moment....there is an unwritten rule among presidents that formers don't criticize the current at least until they're out of office. carter has broken that rule numerous times with his trash talking of bush 43. the respect many of us had for carter as a person has gone way down since. we disagreed with his policies, but we respected the man known as jimmy carter. now he sounds like a bitter old man who goes out of his way to criticize everything this country and its leadership does. not exactly the traits you want in an elder statesman.

[reply]

2/17/08

techfun

davet - I see now we will always have to disagree, which is fine. Having read your comment I see that we are so different we could be speaking different languages. When you said:

"there is an unwritten rule among presidents that formers don't criticize the current at least until they're out of office. carter has broken that rule numerous times with his trash talking of bush 43.

You are taking that information and seeing it as a criticism of President Carter while I look at the exact same information and feel it says FAR FAR more important things about G.W. Bush's behavior and policies than it does about Carter. Carter ignoring what he sees as harmful to the USA which he loves for years until GW Bush leaves office would be a negative as far as I am concerned.

2/17/08

techfun,
yes, there is nothing wrong with disagreeing and i respect your views. i have been critical of bush 43 in the past and will continue to be with him when i don't agree with him. i'm simply saying that carter has been a respected elder statesman and i feel some of that has diminished with his comments towards bush. if reagan had come out in the 80s and been critical of carter numerous times, the democrats would have been screaming and i'd have said the same thing about reagan. we know clinton and bush 41 obviously had different views, but the two turned out to be friendly and actually worked on some projects together for the good of the country and others around the world. perhaps carter can take a page from this relationship. he doesn't have to be in bed with bush 43, support him on everything, etc. it just bothered me when carter came out months back and when asked in an interview, said this may be the worst presidency when it comes to foreign policy in the history of the u.s. he then back tracked some knowing the uproar it caused. let bush finish his second term, then be critical of him if you (carter) want.

[reply]

2/17/08

I am excited to have Obama on the ballot for several reasons—he's intelligent, progressive, well-spoken in an era when presenting one's self well is essential, and his Blueprint for Change aligns with my own views. I am also excited because it shows that our nation has come a long way in the race wars. Fifty years ago, a man like Obama wouldn't have even been considered, and now people are talking about how he is likely to win the whole deal.

[reply]

2/17/08

Funked

He can't be any worse that having Gordon Brown as your Prime Minister

[reply]

2/18/08

uspaper

yeah vote for change

[reply]

2/18/08

DJInBoise

It's not just about a vote for change. Obama hasn't been tainted by DC like some of the others in both parties. I'm tired of people acting like Democrats are going to bring our nation down. I'm tired of saying we aren't patriotic when we're probably the party that truly supports the troops. We're the party that stands up and fights for their benefits. We fight for more pay so people can truly support their families earning an honest wage. We fight for the rights who contribute to America with hard earned sweat and long hours. We are the party that will lift you up when you are down.

We aren't the party that lies to the country in hopes that we won't see right though it. We aren't the party that supports CEO's earning millions of dollars driving a company into the ground, while the workers wonder how to pay the next house payment. We aren't the party that bad mouths gays and then taps our foot in the bathroom. We aren't the party that tells you how to live your life and then does something different.

So yeah I'm going to stand up and fight because I'm tired of all the BS the last 8 years. I love my country. I'm proud to be a Democrat. I will celebrate like there's no tomorrow when either Obama or Clinton take that oath!

[reply]

2/18/08

kevingoodman

Of course there is a candidate whose integrity was tested by torture. A candidate who could have exercised privilege and didn’t. A candidate who as POW had a chance to go home and refused because others had come before him.
2/18/08

kevingoodman

Of course there is a candidate whose integrity was tested by torture. A candidate who could have exercised privilege and didn’t. A candidate who as POW had a chance to go home and refused because others had come before him.
2/18/08

clioandme

This is why you will probably see few personal attacks from the Democratic side. But it doesn't mean I have to want McCain as president.

2/18/08

No one can doubt John McCain's integrity. Of all the Republicans who initially put their name on the list in the early days of the primaries, he was the one who understand the importance of working with leaders from either party and refused to tow the party line when he believed it headed in the wrong direction. But integrity isn't enough in creating the right national leader. And integrity doesn't trump the direction his party has been following the last several years.

[reply]

2/19/08

He is a disaster!

kufs.blogspot.com/2008/02/barack-hussein-obama-just-took-lead.html

[reply]

2/19/08

clioandme

[sarcasm] And you're not gonna say why; you're just gonna drop a link. Nice. [/sarcasm]

2/19/08

Stoneman- I have to much to say. He scares me for many reasons. The link is a teaser :-) No, seriously, I have too many points to mention. Check me out and let me know. I am new to this world. Thanks.

[reply]

2/19/08

I can understand disagreeing with Obama's politics or his approach to fixing the mounting problems in our nation—those under the control of the federal government—but I can't understand calling him a disaster. He is intelligent, backed by a wide range of supporters, and has a well-thought through plan to put our flailing country back on track. And given what I have read in The Audacity of Hope, I believe he is capable of working effectively with members of both parties.

[reply]

2/19/08

Mommy2Lots

He has my vote. He's clear on his viewpoint of the issues with the whole plan right on his website: www.barackobama.com/issues - If there's anything many candidates have a history of, it's not being clear on their issues. Not only is he clear on what he wants to do, but his plan reflects much of what I would like to see.

[reply]

2/19/08

DJInBoise

Thanks for posting that link. I'm tired of people saying all he talks about is change and hope. That's the media giving the public bits and pieces. The Audacity of Hope is a great book and gives you an understanding of what he stands for.
2/20/08

Mommy2Lots

Hi DJ. You're welcome. I do believe in the hope and change he speaks, but I do agree that the media often portrays only that portion and not the important issues. Were you able to hear him speak last night? I got the chance to do so and it was awesome, as always.

2/19/08

100cute

It would be great if he becomes president

[reply]

2/19/08

lasunrose

I have no problem with a minority being president, provided that he will be impartial to all beings. I'm not much of a political analyst!

[reply]

2/20/08

gerryPlanetEarth

"I have no problem with a minority being president"

Could you please elaborate on the above phrase...

What is your definition of a "minority" ?
2/20/08

kristilinauer

That seems like a strange question...unless maybe you're not American. I'm going to assume you're not American.

In America, the term "minority" is used to describe certain groups of people who do not represent the majority. The term generally refers to race and ethnicity, such as blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc., but can also be used to describe other groups like women or homosexuals. Other minority groups may be based on religion, i.e., Muslims in America.

Therefore, both of the Democratic candidates are minorities.
2/20/08

clioandme

The question of what a minority is is perhaps not all that strange. It depends on what slice of the world you're looking at when you say it.
2/20/08

IanThal

Actually, since Obama is of mixed ethnicity, he might not be as much of a minority as you think. In fact, that might be very representative of America.

As far as Clinton being a minority on the account of being a woman, I think your math is seriously off. Women are actually in the majority in America owing to longer expected lifespans-- the issue is that women make up a minority within the highest echelons of power.
2/20/08

kristilinauer

Women have long been seen as a minority group in America. The term "minority" doesn't always refer to sheer numbers, but opportunities.

And Obama, whether he's 10% black, 50% black, 70% black, is still representative of a minority group in America. So whether he's "not as much of a minority as [I] think", he's is a minority nonetheless.
2/22/08

IanThal

Women are not a minority. They are the majority-- women just happen to make up a minority in the upper echelons of power-- which says something about the long term consequences of millenia of sexism and misogyny.

2/20/08

Obama does represent a microcosm of this country--his skin is black but he was raised by white middle-class grandparents, and he is comfortable relating to all the various segments of our culture. He was partially educated abroad and is well traveled, giving both he and his wife a deeper appreciation of the importance of the freedoms we hold dear. Calling him a "minority" at this point may be getting us caught up in semantics, and the fact that he can draw votes from all races across the board suggests he represents us all equally.

[reply]

2/20/08

looks like hillary is not going to go quietly. although i think obama is short on substance, he' run a strong campaign and has kept his head above the mud slinging. will be interesting to see if hil goes on the attack at thursday night's debate.

[reply]

2/20/08

kristilinauer you said:

"That seems like a strange question...unless maybe you're not American. I'm going to assume you're not American."

"In America, the term "minority" is used to describe certain groups of people who do not represent the majority. The term generally refers to race and ethnicity, such as blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc., but can also be used to describe other groups like women or homosexuals. Other minority groups may be based on religion, i.e., Muslims in America."

"Therefore, both of the Democratic candidates are minorities."

WOMEN ARE THE MAJORITY sweetie. In America. And I am an American. And the only minorities that complain are african-americans. So that is why we call them a "minority". Larry Elder (an a-a) discusses this in his latest book.

I never hear Asians or Eskimos screaming about being minorities. So we do not call them that. And furthermore, I wear glasses, so according to your premise I am a minority.

Ridiculous.

kufs.blogspot.com

[reply]

2/20/08

kristilinauer

Do you always speak to women in such a condescending way? I'm not your sweetie, so I would thank you to NOT speak to me in such a way.

Sorry, but your caveman-like, archaic views of women, and the way in which you speak to women, only proves my point. Women have a long way to go in this country. YOU'RE the ridiculous one.

And as I said before...the term "minority" does not always deal with sheer numbers, but with opportunities.
2/20/08

jafabrit
2/20/08

kristilinauer

Actually, jkufs, in reading your comment again, I realize that it's probably not worth arguing with you, as you really let your true colors show...not only in your condescending attitude towards women, but also towards black people.

"And the only minorities that complain are african-americans."

Ahhh...spoken like a true chauvinistic white male.
2/20/08

jafabrit

hum kristilnauer! I am outta here!
2/20/08

kristilinauer

jafabrit, why did you erase your comment? You made some great points!
2/20/08

jafabrit

Because Kristilinauer they are lost on those who don't comprehend what the term minority means, and labels any minority group as complainers for having the audacity to fight for their rights.

But thank you nevertheless.
2/22/08

IanThal

"the only minorities that complain are african-americans."

You might not hear certain "complaints" because you are cut off from any voices from those communities, and while there might be a few "complaints" which I might regard as "playing the race card"-- the vast majority of the issues being brought up are firmly based in reality.

Which leads to your next statement:

"I never hear Asians or Eskimos screaming about being minorities. "

They generally don't complain about being minorities, but they do have genuine grievances about racism, media stereotypes, economic and civil-rights issues that affect ethnic minorities et cetera.

Better to be thought a fool than to type and confirm it.

2/20/08

kristi,
i was waiting for you or another woman to jump on the sweetie reference. i agree with ya 100 percent.... the cave is still open for business, but not all us white males are chauvinists. you come on here and debate like a classy lady, so my props to you. and hopefully you're proud of your country...unlike mrs. obama's comments the other day. hopefully she just had a brain cramp when she made those remarks.

[reply]

2/20/08

kristilinauer

Yes, davet, unfortunately there still remains a large number of men with these archaic views of women AND blacks. I have had the misfortune of knowing many...but I've also had the fortune of knowing those who do not agree wit that kind of backwards thinking.

Things are definitely getting better in America, and I am certainly proud of my country. I'm proud of the fact that most of us realize that there's still much work to be done in these areas.

2/20/08

kevingoodman

I write my canidates in - gOooo Jack Kevorkian. This message has not been approved.

[reply]

2/20/08

The sweetie comment was meant to tip you over. And it worked. And my true colors? Conservatism? There was nothing I said kristi without facts. Is that clear honey? Women are a minority...hahaha.

[reply]

2/20/08

kristilinauer

The only thing that has become clear to me is that you are most assuredly an ass.

2/20/08