Maya Angelou supports Clinton

[metta 0]

My point is if elected, he [McCain] will be very sympathetic to bipartisan issues.

Such as?

Here are some..

the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (with Sen. Feingold),

bipartisan legislation addressing immigration (with Sen. Kennedy),

climate change (with Sen. Lieberman),

patient bill of rights (with former Sen. Edwards),

the Gang of 14.

What turns me off is his positions on Social Security and healthcare.

These are pressing issues and he knows that. He is a reasonable man with very substansive experience who has acted across party lines to solve real issues. Campaign drivien positions delineating one's self from opposition , are not etched in stone when it comes time for resolving real problems.

So that is why I said i will seriously take a good look again and eally mull over who to vote for , if it comes to a choice between Obama and McCain.

The centerpieces that will matter are where to go with the mess Bush will leave the next President in the Middle East and what to do to ensure that more than just a few participate in economic upturns again. Note that under Bush, for the first time in history, most Americans were left behind during the last economic expansion. McCain doesn't bring anything new to the table on either of these issues but promises more of the same.

I agree with you on the mess that will be left behind by Bush.

But let's face it, unless we can improve the economy, there will be no money to address the healthcare

or any of the domestic problems.

On that count, I feel very strongly that Hillary is the best among the three to tackle that.

With Mccain, if elected, he will be like Clinton forced to move to the middle by the democratic Senate and House on many of the issues like healthcare and economy and SS. On that count, he by his track record is not impervious to move with those across the aisle.

But, based on just his campaign platform, it will be very hard for me to vote for him.

Barack on the other hand is the real "iffy" choice for me. I agree with him in general on the principles and policy, but my life experience makes me very wary of leaders "parachuting in" with rhetorical flourishes knocking the socks off the people. Beside, he is not all that he claims to be in terms of changing over to new politics etc. These are very amorphous claims.

Take for example, the blogospere whcih is really a gigantic echo chamber for "all things bright and wonderful" proclaimed on behalf of him. And his ability to use the web 2.0 to excite and organize the young people is phenomenal and is something that will written about for many years to come.

Yet the seemingly grassroots entities like moveon.orgs and Daily Kos are infact influenced though not controlled by people like the controverisal billionaire Soros. I am sure, folks like him have funded 527s in favor of Barack.

In short, older folks like myself are not easily predisposed to "rhetoric and promises" only candidates.

If Obama gets nominated, I'll have to really struggle with myself to decide whether to vote for him or not. But that goes for McCain also.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My point is if elected, he [McCain] will be very sympathetic to bipartisan issues.

Such as?

Here are some..

the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (with Sen. Feingold),

bipartisan legislation addressing immigration (with Sen. Kennedy),

climate change (with Sen. Lieberman),

patient bill of rights (with former Sen. Edwards),

the Gang of 14.

What turns me off is his positions on Social Security and healthcare.

These are pressing issues and he knows that. He is a reasonable man with very substansive experience who has acted across party lines to solve real issues. Campaign drivien positions delineating one's self from opposition , are not etched in stone when it comes time for resolving real problems.

So that is why I said i will seriously take a good look again and eally mull over who to vote for , if it comes to a choice between Obama and McCain.

The centerpieces that will matter are where to go with the mess Bush will leave the next President in the Middle East and what to do to ensure that more than just a few participate in economic upturns again. Note that under Bush, for the first time in history, most Americans were left behind during the last economic expansion. McCain doesn't bring anything new to the table on either of these issues but promises more of the same.

I agree with you on the mess that will be left behind by Bush.

But let's face it, unless we can improve the economy, there will be no money to address the healthcare

or any of the domestic problems.

On that count, I feel very strongly that Hillary is the best among the three to tackle that.

With Mccain, if elected, he will be like Clinton forced to move to the middle by the democratic Senate and House on many of the issues like healthcare and economy and SS. On that count, he by his track record is not impervious to move with those across the aisle.

But, based on just his campaign platform, it will be very hard for me to vote for him.

Barack on the other hand is the real "iffy" choice for me. I agree with him in general on the principles and policy, but my life experience makes me very wary of leaders "parachuting in" with rhetorical flourishes knocking the socks off the people. Beside, he is not all that he claims to be in terms of changing over to new politics etc. These are very amorphous claims.

Take for example, the blogospere whcih is really a gigantic echo chamber for "all things bright and wonderful" proclaimed on behalf of him. And his ability to use the web 2.0 to excite and organize the young people is phenomenal and is something that will written about for many years to come.

Yet the seemingly grassroots entities like moveon.orgs and Daily Kos are infact influenced though not controlled by people like the controverisal billionaire Soros. I am sure, folks like him have funded 527s in favor of Barack.

In short, older folks like myself are not easily predisposed to "rhetoric and promises" only candidates.

If Obama gets nominated, I'll have to really struggle with myself to decide whether to vote for him or not. But that goes for McCain also.

See, ever since McCain outlined his plans for the economy and health care and earned the nick-name McSame for essentially promising America to continue on the wrong path we're on (on top of already being on the wrong side in regards to the Middle East), I'd rather take my chances with hillary should she happen to snatch the nomination somehow. It would be a real bad pill to swallow for me but I cannot in good conscience vote for a guy that's going to continue on Bush's path. I owe my daughter something better. Bush's maxed out her credit card already. No need to have McSame max out the cards of her children and grandchildren.

So, while I think that Obama would be best suited to effect the changes we need, I'd pick Hillary over McCain still. After all, on the issues, there aren't worlds between the two Democrats. There are, however, worlds between them and McSame.

[GaryC 7]

See, ever since McCain outlined his plans for the economy and health care and earned the nick-name McSame for essentially promising America to continue on the wrong path we're on (on top of already being on the wrong side in regards to the Middle East), I'd rather take my chances with hillary should she happen to snatch the nomination somehow. It would be a real bad pill to swallow for me but I cannot in good conscience vote for a guy that's going to continue on Bush's path. I owe my daughter something better. Bush's maxed out her credit card already. No need to have McSame max out the cards of her children and grandchildren.

So, while I think that Obama would be best suited to effect the changes we need, I'd pick Hillary over McCain still. After all, on the issues, there aren't worlds between the two Democrats. There are, however, worlds between them and McSame.

I see you have picked up the latest dem mantra, trying to paint McCain as Bush Jr. Are you sure thats what you want to do? Here is how I see it. The dem base is going to vote for the dem candidate minus the disaffected ones from the losing side of the primary. The rep base is going to vote for McCain. Those two are a given. The election is going to turn on those in the middle. Your side is going to run against Bush and not McCain in essence. Most people see McCain as a maverick that isn't beholden to either side. He has a reputation of going against his own party on many occasions. Trying to make him Bush Jr isn't going to work. Those in the middle just will not buy it. But hey, I am all for your side trying this angle. It's a sure fire way to lose. Please carry on.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The rep base is going to vote for McCain.

A lot of rep's will stay home because of McCain's weak position on immigration. Bank on it.

[GaryC 7]

The rep base is going to vote for McCain.

A lot of rep's will stay home because of McCain's weak position on immigration. Bank on it.

Not when the alternative is Obama or Clinton. No matter how disgusted they are with McCain they will vote for him to prevent the disaster of one of them becoming president. I don't think you realize the depths of hatred the reps have at the thought of either of them becoming president. The dems did us a real favor by picking these two. They chose the most liberal Senator now serving and the most hated women politician in America. Then they gave us a real gift when the fighting continued. This protracted primary has shown a real spotlight on what they are really like. Along with being entertained we are also being educated about their real goals. Trust me, we are paying attention and we do not like what we see.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Not when the alternative is Obama or Clinton.

Hillary will get a lot of those voters. Obama wouldn't, but he won't be on the ballot in November anyway.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

See, ever since McCain outlined his plans for the economy and health care and earned the nick-name McSame for essentially promising America to continue on the wrong path we're on (on top of already being on the wrong side in regards to the Middle East), I'd rather take my chances with hillary should she happen to snatch the nomination somehow. It would be a real bad pill to swallow for me but I cannot in good conscience vote for a guy that's going to continue on Bush's path. I owe my daughter something better. Bush's maxed out her credit card already. No need to have McSame max out the cards of her children and grandchildren.

So, while I think that Obama would be best suited to effect the changes we need, I'd pick Hillary over McCain still. After all, on the issues, there aren't worlds between the two Democrats. There are, however, worlds between them and McSame.

I see you have picked up the latest dem mantra, trying to paint McCain as Bush Jr. Are you sure thats what you want to do?

Actually, Gary, I've seen McCain's plans on the economy and health care. Those aren't plans, those are continuations of the current administration. On Iraq and the larger issue of the Middle East and Persia, I never agreed with McCain to begin with.

For the economy, we can't afford any more give-aways to those that don't need it at the expense of my children and grandchildren. We can't afford another economic cycle that leaves most Americans behind. Trickle-down economics didn't work under Reagan, it didn't work under Bush II and it won't work under McCain. It is, as Bush Sr. correctly pointed out, voo-doo economics. It's a scam. The economy is properly stimulated from the bottom up. Then, the median income will see a decent increase as it did during Slick Willy's term. Then, everyone gets to share in the gained prosperity. I don't know about you, but I think it's time to leave some of the prosperity with those that work hard to produce it - folks like you and me - rather than with those that put themselves on a pay scale where performance doesn't even matter anymore and where they get rich even if they run their companies into the ground.

And on health care, this is the same ####### we've been hearing for years. And all that happens is the insurance companies get fatter, premiums go up while coverage goes down and more people are left out of the system alltogether. It's a rip-off.

Edited April 21, 2008 by Mr. Big Dog

[GaryC 7]

See, ever since McCain outlined his plans for the economy and health care and earned the nick-name McSame for essentially promising America to continue on the wrong path we're on (on top of already being on the wrong side in regards to the Middle East), I'd rather take my chances with hillary should she happen to snatch the nomination somehow. It would be a real bad pill to swallow for me but I cannot in good conscience vote for a guy that's going to continue on Bush's path. I owe my daughter something better. Bush's maxed out her credit card already. No need to have McSame max out the cards of her children and grandchildren.

So, while I think that Obama would be best suited to effect the changes we need, I'd pick Hillary over McCain still. After all, on the issues, there aren't worlds between the two Democrats. There are, however, worlds between them and McSame.

I see you have picked up the latest dem mantra, trying to paint McCain as Bush Jr. Are you sure thats what you want to do?

Actually, Gary, I've seen McCain's plans on the economy and health care. Those aren't plans, those are continuations of the current administration. On Iraq and the larger issue of the Middle East and Persia, I never agreed with McCain to begin with. We can't afford any more give-aways to those that don't need it at the expense of my children and grandchildren. We can't afford another economic cycle that leaves most Americans behind. Trickle-down economics didn't work under Reagan, it didn't work under Bush II and it won't work under McCain. It is, as Bush Sr. correctly pointed out, voo-doo economics. It's a scam. The economy is properly stimulated from the bottom up. Then, the median income will see a decent increase as it did during Slick Willy's term. Then, everyone gets to share in the gained prosperity. I don't know about you, but I think it's time to leave some of the prosperity with those that work hard to produce it - folks like you and me - rather than with those that put themselves on a pay scale where performance doesn't even matter anymore and where they get rich even if they run their companies into the ground.

Hehe, have it your way. Supply side works. But I know you will not agree with that. Run against Bush, please. It isn't going to work.

[no name 1]

Obama wouldn't, but he won't be on the ballot in November anyway.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Obama wouldn't, but he won't be on the ballot in November anyway.

Look at the SUSA poll out of PA. Tuesday is going to be a very good day for you and metta.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

See, ever since McCain outlined his plans for the economy and health care and earned the nick-name McSame for essentially promising America to continue on the wrong path we're on (on top of already being on the wrong side in regards to the Middle East), I'd rather take my chances with hillary should she happen to snatch the nomination somehow. It would be a real bad pill to swallow for me but I cannot in good conscience vote for a guy that's going to continue on Bush's path. I owe my daughter something better. Bush's maxed out her credit card already. No need to have McSame max out the cards of her children and grandchildren.

So, while I think that Obama would be best suited to effect the changes we need, I'd pick Hillary over McCain still. After all, on the issues, there aren't worlds between the two Democrats. There are, however, worlds between them and McSame.

I see you have picked up the latest dem mantra, trying to paint McCain as Bush Jr. Are you sure thats what you want to do?

Actually, Gary, I've seen McCain's plans on the economy and health care. Those aren't plans, those are continuations of the current administration. On Iraq and the larger issue of the Middle East and Persia, I never agreed with McCain to begin with. We can't afford any more give-aways to those that don't need it at the expense of my children and grandchildren. We can't afford another economic cycle that leaves most Americans behind. Trickle-down economics didn't work under Reagan, it didn't work under Bush II and it won't work under McCain. It is, as Bush Sr. correctly pointed out, voo-doo economics. It's a scam. The economy is properly stimulated from the bottom up. Then, the median income will see a decent increase as it did during Slick Willy's term. Then, everyone gets to share in the gained prosperity. I don't know about you, but I think it's time to leave some of the prosperity with those that work hard to produce it - folks like you and me - rather than with those that put themselves on a pay scale where performance doesn't even matter anymore and where they get rich even if they run their companies into the ground.

Hehe, have it your way. Supply side works. But I know you will not agree with that. Run against Bush, please. It isn't going to work.

As the last economic expansion period started to come to a close in 2007, most Americans make less (60.5K) than they did at the end of the previous expansion period which came to a close in 2000. Then, the median income was 61K. This is the first time in history that most Americans did not reap any benefit from an economic expansion. The median income decreased for the first time. How anyone can still say that supply side works is beyond me. The numbers prove that statement wrong.

[no name 1]

Obama wouldn't, but he won't be on the ballot in November anyway.

Look at the SUSA poll out of PA. Tuesday is going to be a very good day for you and metta.

I guess I'm wearing my 'I Heart Hillary' shirt to work!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Obama wouldn't, but he won't be on the ballot in November anyway.

Look at the SUSA poll out of PA. Tuesday is going to be a very good day for you and metta.

I guess I'm wearing my 'I Heart Hillary' shirt to work!

I'm not happy it's ending this way but you've taken a lot here on VJ so I'm happy for you

[no name 1]

People who weren't necessarily big Clinton supporters but think John McCain is not bad for a Republican)

if the Obama campaign under-estimates McCain (as some people here do),

You are not alone in saying that. Obama (the hypocrite) agrees! :rofl:

READING, Pennsylvania (CNN) – Democrat Barack Obama conceded Sunday that all three leading presidential contenders would be better than President Bush — including Republican opponent John McCain.

"Either Democrat would be better than John McCain," he said. "And all three of us would be better than George Bush."

In the past, Obama has equated a McCain presidency to a "third Bush term."

link

The irony is astounding.

Hillary Clinton took aim today at Barack Obama’s assertion that anyone would be a better president than George Bush — including John McCain. In Johnstown, PA, Clinton said McCain is just more of the same — and the Democrats should be ready to fight him, not praise him.

“Senator Obama said today that John McCain would be better for the country than George Bush,” she said. “Senator McCain is a real American patriot who has served our country with distinction. But Senator McCain would follow the same failed policies that have been so wrong for our country in the last 7 years.”

Bashing McCain for wanting to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years and failing to come up with a plan to end the home foreclosure crisis, Clinton asked “is that better than George Bush?”

“We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain, and I will be that nominee.”

link

Obama wouldn't, but he won't be on the ballot in November anyway.

Look at the SUSA poll out of PA. Tuesday is going to be a very good day for you and metta.

I guess I'm wearing my 'I Heart Hillary' shirt to work!

I'm not happy it's ending this way but you've taken a lot here on VJ so I'm happy for you

Thanks G. That means a lot to me.

[GaryC 7]

See, ever since McCain outlined his plans for the economy and health care and earned the nick-name McSame for essentially promising America to continue on the wrong path we're on (on top of already being on the wrong side in regards to the Middle East), I'd rather take my chances with hillary should she happen to snatch the nomination somehow. It would be a real bad pill to swallow for me but I cannot in good conscience vote for a guy that's going to continue on Bush's path. I owe my daughter something better. Bush's maxed out her credit card already. No need to have McSame max out the cards of her children and grandchildren.

So, while I think that Obama would be best suited to effect the changes we need, I'd pick Hillary over McCain still. After all, on the issues, there aren't worlds between the two Democrats. There are, however, worlds between them and McSame.

I see you have picked up the latest dem mantra, trying to paint McCain as Bush Jr. Are you sure thats what you want to do?

Actually, Gary, I've seen McCain's plans on the economy and health care. Those aren't plans, those are continuations of the current administration. On Iraq and the larger issue of the Middle East and Persia, I never agreed with McCain to begin with. We can't afford any more give-aways to those that don't need it at the expense of my children and grandchildren. We can't afford another economic cycle that leaves most Americans behind. Trickle-down economics didn't work under Reagan, it didn't work under Bush II and it won't work under McCain. It is, as Bush Sr. correctly pointed out, voo-doo economics. It's a scam. The economy is properly stimulated from the bottom up. Then, the median income will see a decent increase as it did during Slick Willy's term. Then, everyone gets to share in the gained prosperity. I don't know about you, but I think it's time to leave some of the prosperity with those that work hard to produce it - folks like you and me - rather than with those that put themselves on a pay scale where performance doesn't even matter anymore and where they get rich even if they run their companies into the ground.

Hehe, have it your way. Supply side works. But I know you will not agree with that. Run against Bush, please. It isn't going to work.

As the last economic expansion period started to come to a close in 2007, most Americans make less (60.5K) than they did at the end of the previous expansion period which came to a close in 2000. Then, the median income was 61K. This is the first time in history that most Americans did not reap any benefit from an economic expansion. The median income decreased for the first time. How anyone can still say that supply side works is beyond me. The numbers prove that statement wrong.

Ah, the other dem mantra. You know as well as I do you can make the numbers say anything you want them to say. My income went up over 40% in the last 7 years. I suspect that a lot of others did to. Go ahead, run against Bush. Promise to raise their taxes. Punish the very people that are providing the jobs. It's a fast track to failure. People are not as dumb as you hope they are. They see that they are better off now and they don't want their taxes raised.