> On Jun 5, 12:01=A0pm, fiddler crabby
ya-nospam-hoo.com>
> wrote:>> That's just as unfair as saying all Clinton supporters are racists.
>>
>> I'll be voting for him because there are more important issues than an
>> isolated gaffe.
>
> What you call an isolated gaffe I see as a window into something very
> ugly inside him. I don't trust him at all.
Yet McCain gets a free pass for calling his wife the c-word in front of
others. And for cheating on his first wife, who'd stuck with him through
is imprisonment in Vietnam. And for marrying the woman he'd been
cheating with a mere month after the divorce was final.
Or for changing his formerly principled positions so dramatically in
this race, that there's no telling what he stands for anymore.
Apparently he's even changed his religion to something more palatable
for the evangelists.
If that's not something ugly, I don't know what is.
I'm more willing to forgive a black who's dealt with racism for having
some bitterness.
There's no excuse for McCain's behavior.
>> Yet John Edwards was a one-term senator.
>
> Before venturing into politics, John Edwards was extremely successful
> in an area that is of utmost importance to our nation. IMO because of
> his expertise and proven success representing Davids against Goliaths,
> no candidate could have done more for straightening out our nation's
> healthcare/insurance problems. After he dropped out of the race, I
> was amazed at the brazen way that both of the other candidates
> *borrowed* so liberally from Edwards plans.
So being an attorney is considered experience for being President?
But Obama's work is nothing?
Even though Obama's positions are very close to Edwards', McCain, who is
diametrically opposed, is a better choice?
>>> =A0The judgment that he's shown in the face of various
>>> hurdles in this campaign shows me that he is ill qualified for the
>>> post.
>>
>> Examples, please.
>
> The most obvious is the church saga. Let's see: He went to this
> church for 20 years, gave it tens of thousand of dollars, but
> purported never to have heard such a rant by the pastor as was
> splashed across the news, a rant that would give pause to any
> Christian.
Not "any Christian." To you, and others. There are all kinds of
Christians in the world, many of whom put social justice at the top of
their agenda, and who actually walk the walk. The church had grown
tremendously over Rev Wright's tenure.
> He defended the pastor by casting aspersions on his
> grandmother, yea, white women in general. What I heard was *what he
> says is ok because of what she says.* This for that, like a child
> pointing fingers.
Personally, I don't have a problem when black people get angry about
racism. I get angry about straight people sometimes, and for very good
reason.
> Then the pastor eructed before the press club and
> Obama couldn't deny having heard the spew. Then he purportedly broke
> ties with the pastor alleging *Shock* over the very same type
> statements that Obama had defended him for making just weeks before.
> I think this was all orchestrated at the point it became obvious that
> Obama was going to get his tail in a crack over this association.
>
> Because of my own experience of leaving the church, I find the way
> Obama handled this situation disgusting and his timing makes me ask
> *how stupid does he think I am?*
Seems he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't stay.
I didn't have any problem at all with what Wright said, once I saw the
entire speech. Look up the context in which he said it. Transcripts are
online.
Essentially, he said: God should damn a country that badly treats the
weakest among us. No one with any honesty about this country's history
can say it hasn't done some pretty horrific things.
You might look up more about Rev Wright, as well. He's not the guy whose
30-second soundbite was plastered all over the news for weeks.
Even if we accept that his words were hateful, are you willing to live
by the standard that _your_ life's work should be invalidated by one bad
moment? And that everyone who knew you over the past couple of decades
should be judged by what _you_ said?
>> Experience? A two-term Congresswoman. First lady.
>
> There are Laura and Nancy *Stepford wife* first ladies and then there
> are Rosalynn and Hillary first ladies. Yes, I think Hillary's
> experience far exceeds Obama's.
Just because.
>> I admire her refusal to be bullied, but all of the candidates have dealt
>> with adversity.
>
> Some more effectively and decisively than others.
>
>> You need to turn in your Yellow Dog card.
>
> Consider it done. I hold myself in much too high regard to hang
> around for the insults being hurled by the democratic party and its
> annointed candidate.
The duly elected candidate. The people voted for him. He didn't do this
on his own, and he wasn't handed this on a platter by anyone.
So much for your opinion of fellow Democrats, and for the process of
nomination.
Seems you wanted your anointed candidate, but her campaign didn't do
what it needed to do.
>> There are Republicans worth voting for, but McCain isn't one of them.
>
> Your opinion, not mine. There are democrats worth voting for and
> Obama certainly isn't one of them.
And yet you've not made a case for McCain being worthy of the office.
I have made a case against McCain. His (current) positions are
destructive, and his character is deeply flawed.
Obama's negatives pale by comparison.
>> What's his position on torture? On Bush's tax cuts? On the religious
>> right? On Roe v Wade? On the Iraq War? On warrantless wiretapping? On
>> finance reform? On the Federal Marriage Amendment?
>>
>> He's recently taken both sides on all of those issues. Which McCain will
>> take office if elected?
>
> I imagine we'll see starting next January.
If McCain wins, every time you post something critical of him I'm going
to remind you of the part you played in putting him into office.
--fc
