Obama not ready to lead and protect us from day 1.

I'm going to butt-in here. I don't think the issue was that Roberts was a bigot. At one point Obama thought about confirming him. The issue with Roberts has everything to do with whether he would uphold laws like DOMA and Marriage Protection Act as being unconstitutional. Justice Roberts (before confirmation) had a record of upholding laws that he felt were flawed by the construct of the legislature, but would not interfere as he thought it wasn't the judges job to interfere (legislate from the bench). So if someone were to challenge whether the DOMA or MPA as unconstitutional, he is likely to uphold those laws even if he thinks it's not a federal issue (previous opinions he held on school prayer and amendments to abortion).

I don't think Obama called Roberts a bigot. He voted against confirming him as a justice.

Zoe,
You rock. You are the articulate voice of reason in this thread. I vote for Zoe.

good lord...tell me what I overlooked...no, really. tell me.

Overlooked? No, I mean it. Every post of yours is a little chunk of excellent scholarship. You have a crystal clear picture of the last 40 years of politics, it seems. I am a hereby a fan.

Point well taken. And I can see why people would look at Clinton with scrutiny because of things like this.

I don't try to point to a number of questionable incidents that show how the candidates are alike. Like I stated before, every politician lies, distorts stories and tries to avoid issues in order to paint a better image of themselves. Instead, I look at the overall performance and see where the USA is at before and after they do their term. With the Clintons in office (1992-2000) we saw a lot of growth in our country. With Bush in office (2000-2008), we went from being one of the most loved to the most hated countries on the planet. Even if Clinton and Bush do have some agendas that are similar in nature, I really don't think we'd be in a worse situation if Hillary was in office. If Obama wins the nomination, maybe he would bring forth the changes we need. But I'd feel more at ease with him in office if I knew he was being backed by some people who knew how to deal with the red tape & BS of Congress.

...........................We will see,time will tell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoe73 The issue with Roberts has everything to do with whether he would uphold laws like

Speaking of gay rights, which seem to be dear to you, isn't Barack opposed to gay marriage? The Advocate berated him for not using his comfortable lead to push this matter ahead while campaigning for his US Senate seat.

Instead, while opposed to a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage, along with...hmmm...just about everybody else, left and right, he has expressed his belief that marriage was between a man and a woman.

Conveniently, he is not opposed to civil unions (fine by me, but please, he deserves no chocolate medal for such a safe stand in 2008) and certainly knows how to hide behind the states and the churches when politically expedient.

How does his stance differ from the Clintons' on that topic?

Again, politics are about compromise, aren't they?

In Britain we're getting a LOT of coverage of American politics. The result does matter to us (and we don't even get to vote!)

Clinton is managing to look as if she has already lost. She's playing catch-up. From this side of the pond it looks as if Obama is going to get the Democratic nomination. Okay it can all change, but I'm guessing Obama.

So are we facing an election for the most powerful job on earth between an experienced man whose appeal seems to be in part that his skin happens to be black, and an old age pensioner? Couldn't America find someone below retirement age with a bit of experience?

Gee but by experience - do you mean someone that is telling us we'll be in Iraq for 100 years and we'll have even more wars?

I fail to understand how Obama's experience within the state legislature is not counted as public office, they just zone in on his time in Washington (less than 4 years). He's sponsored more bills in his public career than Hillary has in the 6 years she's been in Washington.

His appeal isn't about the color of skin - nice to know 1/2 assed observations carry well ... abroad.

Again, he's appealing to americans to get involved and pay attention to what is happening. The Kennedys compared him to JFK, he didn't volunteer that association, they (Ted and Caroline) gave him (Obama) that comparison. I give a toss.

Between Hillary and McCain, they both have a truckload of baggage and corruption in their past history and sent us in to war without body armor or an effective military strategy to get out. It was an embarrassment how under prepared our military was. So I'm not jumping up and down about what their experience means. Under their oversight, including Hillary's, the value of the dollar has crumbled (and I blame her, because if she can take credit for the economy while being married to Bill in the 90's for that economy, she should be held accountable for it's decline as a US senator) over the last 6 years.

So I'm not really looking how experienced one leader is over the other. And what the hell is the name of your new prime minister? I don't remember.

I miss Tony Blair.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zoe73 Gee but by experience - do you mean someone that is telling us we'll be in Iraq for 100 years and we'll have even more wars?

With every passing post, your unconditional infatuation with Barack (down to his cocky underwear bit) and irrational hatred for anything running against him is becoming more apparent.

Now, the Antechrist Hillary is responsible for the fall of the US dollar. Well, many on Wall Street don't even think a weak USD is a bad thing, given that the greenback is and will remain, for decades to come, the world's reserve currency.

As for Barack's IL state legislature work...Granted. Credited. Never mind even the Baseball Commissioner has more power and prestige than the whole IL legislature.

Funny, I came into these threads on the fence, intrigured by all the candidates and the opportunities they all present (if to varying degrees).

Instead of being swayed one way or another, I only learned one thing: W came to power because analytical skills are in very short supply among most of the electorate.

No, they didn't change how things are done. But they got things done. And that's the whole point. Unless you're extremely talented and politically savvy, you can't get what you want in politics by being "the outsider." And if you are this so called outsider, you damn well better not be running on the wings of one of two major political parties. Inside men make change because they want to do it. Nixon cared about women's rights because he had two daughters and no sons. Reasons and motivations behind why people act the way they do are much, much simpler than most people want to believe.

Hmm.. you have a good point. I guess what relieves me of how Obama would handle the bs red tape of congress - is what he has to say about how he would get rid of Guantanamo and bring back Habeas Corpus.

He taught constitutional law for 10 years in Chicago, so I'm very confidant that he's moral and equipped to deal with what "constructionist" definitions really are. Not this ad-hoc crap about enemy of the state whereby I point a finger and say you're an enemy of the state and I don't have to tell you what you're charged with. I don't care what terrorist group you're associated with - blatant power like that is based on an accusation and that's all it takes and it's not what our country was founded upon. It's created by leaders that weren't ready that do not have a background in law, did not have a background in military law or know what the word Geneva conventions mean. At least Obama understands the rights that makes us free are the provisions we give the accused and if there are terrorist organizations that have demonstrated acts against us - they can be tried and prosecuted and consult with attorneys. Guantanamo is what countries do an amnesty international gets involved, people that are plucked up and never heard from again.

So I think at a minimum Obama has that over Hillary and McCain. I think he understands the complexity of those issues that one requires a constitutional ammendment or charge. So for those that thought it odd he voted against Justice Roberts - he resepcts his intelligence, but has fundamental differences on how he would uphold a local jurisdiction or legislature even if it contradicted the fundamentals of the constitution.

I'm critical of Hillary because she volunteers herself that is what makes her qualified to lead and why Obama is not. The truth is she did not have a clearance in her husband's administration. She did not have any bearing on what happened in Kosovo when NATO was bombing it in 99 or how complicated the situation is with Serbia (unofficially propped by Russia) and resistent to UN or EU oversight and reluctant to let Kosovo go to Ethnic albanians. She's talking about they must secure it under international law and I'm like - we're going to rely on the UN to enforce another policy? Don't they historically drag their feet with enforcing anything?

It's almost like she mentioned Kosovo because it was a current event and was waiting to slip that in to the debate. Might as well use it to demonstrate how she is up on her current events and speak to it. Great by to demonstrate your foreign policy? She volunteered that she negotiated for open borders in Kosovo? Did she? So who is securing them? The EU? Kosovo? The UN? Serbia must secure our embassy? You think they aren't more preoccupied with the uprising they will face with the masses that are dealing with less peace-keeping?

I don't understand why Obama does not specifically ask her to name ONE thing that she actually sponsored on foreign policy. Not this touring 80 countries. When she said she negotiated for open borders in Kosovo, why not ask her - how did that come about? Who did she talk to, what vote did she cast. She can recant what she did for healthcare or children's healthcare and how it worked. She doesn't name anything specific or speak to the conflicts that Serbia/Kosovo is dealing or that it may require pulling the UN to bolster peace keeping efforts (nevermind the Mob has filled in Milosevic's wake). I seriously think she touts her knowlege of current events and how she would handle it without having any insight as having the edge. It's just not correct.

She casted a vote for war in Iraq before reading the National Intelligence Assessment. The national intelligence assessments have both supporting and dissenting views. So you know... I'm just spent with her boasting how much more ready she is.

I'd respect her more if she stuck with what she did know. The reality is that she was passing child healthcare when she could not get universal passed. She was dealing with the fallout and political target of her husband's misbehavior. I don't care how smart and capable she is - that definitely preoccupied her some time to resolve it. She was not paying attention to Kosovo back then. Her efforts were diverted elsewhere.

Okay...I'm not railing against Hillary and McCain. Obama would basically have to be accused of something heinous like ... I don't know, being a pedophile for me not to vote for him.

How about something simple to prove you really are a public servant.

Pay attention to what candidate says "we" verus the candiate that says "I" "me" and "mine" all the time.

Zoe, not that you had any credibility left to begin with but this one sentence did you in.

From what I've seen of Obama over the last four years, he's more than a competent leader, he's a listener and a deliberator. I think he's uniquely abled to take into account many points a view -- not just a single, narrow worldview that relies on a jr. high school social studies worldview circa 1958 and child's Sunday school understanding of religion. He'll certainly be able to lead us from day 1. Protect us? Well, that's what we have an Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, Police and firefighters for.

So true.