Comments on: More election endorsements, and choosing Clinton over Obama

By: Kristie Vosper

Kristie Vosper — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 07:46:49 +0000

I would’ve totally assumed you would have picked Obama. I would’ve bet some serious money on it.

By: Karen

Karen — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 16:04:25 +0000

Last night I watched the South Carolina Democratic debate sponsored by the Black Cacus. I get fed up with the media coverage. One commentator said that it got personal between Clinton and Obama. Who are they kidding? They must have a selective memory and stick their heads in the sand. Since when doesn’t politics get personal? It always gets personal, even if the demonstrations of personal is more covert, subtle and slick. It is also always repetitious and I didn’t see any difference here than what generally has been going for decades in the politics. I like Edward’s strong stance against corporate greed and the detrimental influence of corporations through lobbying, which in my opinion is destroying our country. This is a mess that has been going on for a long time, inherited by each successive presidency. I don’t see the other candidates speaking to this or much attention given to this huge problem by the media. Only one political analyst suggested the reason is because it doesn’t translate well in the media. I’m impressed with Edwards and we need more people like him leading our country and working for our citizens. We need to look at candidates records and think about substantive issues, not superficialities such as race and gender. The whole emphasis on race and gender is just another way to deflect attention off of the real issues. It infuriates me.

By: mercy

mercy — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 02:40:16 +0000

Wait…Let’s start a third party! What do you all think?

By: Vir Modestus

Vir Modestus — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 03:37:31 +0000

If the choice is between Clinton and Obama, I’d have to say Obama. Clinton touts her “experience” but she has only one term more on the national level and not much more legislative experience over all than Obama. And she voted wrong on the Bankruptcy and Medicare bills IIRC, wrong on Kyl-Lieberman, wrong on the PATRIOT act (twice) and wrong on the biggest of the biggies, the Authorization for use of Force in Iraq. We don’t need another Republican in the White House, even Republican-lite as a Hillary Clinton.

I would prefer Edwards. His positions on the budget, on unions, on healthcare are the best out there. But, if we take your point that Edwards won’t last, then I guess Obama. But I’m not sure if I agree with your supposition. He is only 4 delegates or so behind the front runners at this point. He’s being counted out by the talking heads of the punditocracy, not by those who count, the voters. I hope he keeps it interesting.

I used to be a bigger Obama supporter, but the more he talks about “reuniting” the country, the more worried I am. He continues to use Republican talking points in his speeches and I don’t trust that getting “beyond partisan politics” is the best thing for the country right now. We need to clean house and clean House, with lots of people going to jail for all manners of crimes, high crimes, and misdemeanors.

I can only think of the Republicans in terms of “who would I want the Democratic nominee to run against.” I can’t think of a single one who would do anything to improve our country. They all seem to try to out Bush Bush on the war and foreign policy and try to be the reincarnation of Regan when it comes to fiscal policy. Both Bush and Regan have proven to be absolute horrors for the middle and lower classes and we are still suffering the effects of their policies. Nope. It is time for about 20 years of Democratic rule so we can, again, have a surplus budget, a strong middle class, and a thriving economy (all of which happened under Clinton).

By: Hugo Schwyzer

Hugo Schwyzer — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:41:38 +0000

I think it would have been more likely were we not staring this massive budget crisis in the face…

By: djw

djw — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 01:13:34 +0000

Prop 92: Awesome. I wish I could vote for something like that here in WA. Do you think it’s likely to pass?

By: Mermade

Mermade — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 07:24:27 +0000

I’m for Clinton, but I’m keeping quiet about that for now. I like Obama, but I honestly don’t think that he has enough experience to run the nation yet.

By: Original Pechanga

Original Pechanga — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:42:01 +0000

I also agree with you on NO on 94-97. This is a bad deal for California and an EXCELLENT deal for the four tribes (pop. 1800)

Pechanga (no on 94) should not be rewarded for violating the civil rights of its people.

By: Frank

Frank — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:19:21 +0000

…Sorry, I should have written “the majority of citizens in 2016 won’t know…” Unless, of course, we extend voting rights to children!

By: Frank

Frank — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 03:03:28 +0000

I also like Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Living in a USA — living on this planet — with any one of them in the White House would indeed be much sweeter than what we’ve had the last seven years. Still, I have to say Obama has charmed me silly with an intelligence that works in so many dimensions: Policy, interpersonal, inspirational and more. Clinton is also extremely intelligent but I don’t think she matches Obama’s breadth of talents. I think a president has to lead and inspire as well as make decent choices.

I’m very concerned we’re initiating a dual dynasty: President Bush, President Clinton, President Bush, President Clinton. If Hillary serves for 8 years, the majority of voters in 2016 won’t know what it’s like to live in a USA with a president who is not a Bush or a Clinton. That treads heavily on the spirit of the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.

Ultimately, I haven’t entirely left sexism behind if I “want a woman in the White House.” That sounds like sexism with a gentler face, and has an eensy bit of the dynamic at work when we hear Obama is a “credit to his race.”