No, it was because you never responded coherently about First Lady and cabinet experience. I gave you multiple outs, but you continued to harp as only a sexist would. It really had nothing to do with your CDS-Clinton Derangement syndrome.

http://www.sossobriety.org/cults.htm

Fit any of these criteria?

I try to stick to factual statements and provide links. I don't constantly spin. I try not to post gossip and spread false rumors.

Oh and Krugman supported Edwards until last week. He just doesn't care much for Obama's Right Wing distortions on the campaign trail, nor does he care for Obama's health care plan. I don't exactly see how that makes him a Clinton partisan, but I don't see things like you do.

Obama's doing anything it takes to win, it is fairly obvious to anyone watching the race. He is running a very good campaign, some of his followers and their methods not so much.

That is my mistake and I apologize (to Rod) for incorrectly remembering my own post.

Monday SurveyUSA poll on Virginia:

Dem
Obama - 60%
Clinton - 38%

Rep
McCain - 48%
Huckabee - 37%

That's a considerable rise for Huckabee, if I'm not mistaken.

You're giving the cliches and platitudes quite the work-out, he? Actually, I did address your "First Lady=experience to be president'' canard by saying that, according to you, Nancy Reagan is just as qualified to be president as Hillary Clinton. Which is, of course, ridiculous. And that's not sexist because I would argue just as much that a First Husband is not any more qualified. It just so happens that there haven't been any First Husbands. So the sexism is just a blatant (and desperate) smear, not that I'd expect anything else from you, certainly not a coherent argument of any kind.

Apparently the movement conservatives haven't gotten the message that McCain is the front-runner.

Just like the liberals can't seem to understand that Hillary is supposed to be the inevitable candidate!

I actually like it when voters say to the pundits and experts "Hey, remember us? We're the deciders!"

The Ron Paul supporters haven't gotten the message that they're losing either. Now there's a cult. (just kidding, sort of)

I've been reading up more on McCain's platform. He is the most pro-science Republican candidate in decades. He supports embryonic stem-cell research, legislation to combat climate change, increased investment in nuclear energy, etc.

No of course not. When "big corporate media" sites have info you don't like, they are totally unreliable. But when you like to the NY Times or CNN, as you do constantly, they're 100% fact.

And of course, I'm a blatant sexist because I don't think that being married to a president qualifies one to actually be president, whether that person be a wife or a husband.



Right-wing distortions? Would that be anything like right-wing tactics? Because I'm trying to think of who it was who, in much the same that Bush accuses all of his critics of being liberals for not going along with all of his stupid shit, who it was who accused me of not being a true liberal because I don't tow the Democratic Party line. Who was that? Could you remind me?

Well, tomorrow is going to be interesting around here.

He is also for sensible immigration reform. Advocated campaign finance reform. Is against torture.

He's definitely a conservative on most social issues like gay marriage and abortion, but Clinton is also against gay marriage. And as I argued previously, abortion as a right isn't going anywhere. McCain is conservative but he's not Huckabee-like social crusader.

McCain's absolute worst stance is on Iraq. Obama's is the best, IMO, and Hillary is somewhere in the middle - although Hillary voted for the war, so she has precious little leg to stand on.

Yeah, of all the Republicans to lose to, McCain would be the one I would least mind being President. However, my opinion of him has certainly diminished since 2000, when he had a lot more principles.

Here's an interesting forum post I found from elsewhere:

"I am the "flip flopper" who would vote for Obama over McCain then flip and vote for McCain over Clinton.

There are policies which Obama supports that hurt my sensibilities. As a father I fell in love with my son long before his birth. I would give my life over his. Sorry, just can't help feeling that way.

But I also know that Barack was 100% right on the Iraq war. As a hunter I know what guns can and can't accomplish. Terrorism is a spiritual (not religious) war. We must win the hearts of the hopeless.

The rhetoric of evil enemy is misguided. We can’t fight our way to victory. As much as Bush/McCain use Germany and Korea as their guiding examples… they are simply wrong. Terrorism is not a state… it is a state of mind. Persuasion is the only strategy. In this war… words do matter!

Hillary and McCain don’t get it. I don’t fault them. They are just politicians.

McCain is an American hero. I deeply respect his service. If the Soviet Union attacks us I hope to God we call on him for guidance (and I am sure he’d be there). But they won’t because there is no “Soviet Union”.

Hillary and Bill do know how to manage. And they certainly thrive on politics. It is the “fun part” for them.

However, terrorism is emotional. Words are sacred. You don’t blow yourself up as a technical matter. You don’t memorize the sacred text for fun.

Obama has shown the capacity for understanding the human spirit. Might sound simple and even ridiculous, but in reality it is the highest level of leadership. He is our greatest hope to alter the internal dialogue of the hopeless. And that is where this battle plays out."

Bear in mind that I'm comparing him only to Hillary in a Hillary vs McCain race. In that case, the principles issue (which I agree with) still breaks in his favor.

Nah, should be pretty monotonous. Obama wins this, Obama wins that. Gets rather boring after a while.

Hehe. My favorite post of the day so far.

Eh, let's not get too excited over "McCain the progressive Republican" now.

He scored a zero from both Planned Parenthood and NARAL. He's pro-war and anti-gay rights.

At the March of Life this year, he had a dandy of quote: "If I am fortunate enough to be elected as the next President of the United States, I pledge to you to be a loyal and unswerving friend of the right to life movement."

Via Feministing, a hot breakdown of his bullshit record:

* Repeatedly voted for (and cosponsored) the Federal Abortion Ban. After the court upheld the ban, he said, "Today's Supreme Court ruling is a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity of the judiciary. The ruling ensures that an unacceptable and unjustifiable practice will not be carried out on our innocent children."
* Supported the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, a law that grants separate legal status to an embryo or fetus
* Repeatedly voted to deny low‐income women access to abortion care except in cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment
* Voted to permit federally funded Title X family‐planning clinics to decline to counsel women on abortion services
* Voted against lifting the ban that forbids U.S. servicewomen from obtaining abortion services at overseas military hospitals with their own funds
* Voted to require Title X family‐planning clinics to notify a teen’s parent before providing abortion services
* Voted in favor of the Teen Endangerment and Grandmother Incarceration Act
* Voted against the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE)
* Voted to terminate the Title X family‐planning program
* Voted against funding teen‐pregnancy‐prevention programs and ensuring that “abstinence‐only” programs are medically accurate
* Voted to uphold the Global Gag Rule
* Voted for the domestic gag rule, which would have prohibited federally funded family‐planning clinics from providing women with access to full information about their reproductive‐health options
* Voted to de‐fund the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), an organization that provides family‐planning services – not abortion – for the world’s poorest women
* Voted to earmark one‐third of all HIV/AIDS prevention funds for abstinence-only programs
* Voted to take $75 million from the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant to establish a new “abstinence‐only” program
* Voted to impose a federal parental‐consent law on teens seeking birth control. Not abortion. Birth control.
* Voted against legislation that would have required insurance coverage of prescription birth control, improved access to emergency contraception, and provided more women with prenatal health care
* Voted to allow medical residency training programs in obstetrics and gynecology to receive federal assistance even if they ignore abortion training requirements

Really, there is nothing "moderate" about McCain. The only difference between him and someone like Bush is he isn't mentally retarded.

That's only one issue, and one less relevant to the continued prosperity and intellectual standing of the United States as science policy. A wedge issue should not carry more weight than one that determines the rise and fall of empires.

I'm not sure it's fair to throw abortion to the side like it doesn't matter. In fact, it is the issue for a large number of people.

I'm also not sure how it's "less relevant to the intellectual standing on the United States as science policy". People are, by and large, "pro-life" because of a deeply felt superstition that has nothing to do with science. A government supporting that notion is decidedly anti-science and decidedly embarrassing.

I have to disagree with you there. While there is some religious foundation, there is science behind the question of when life begins. In fact, back before science was so advanced, the rules about abortions were that before a doctor can feel the baby "quickening" there can't be anything wrong with it. It was only outlawed originally bec the procedure was so inferior to the current procedures that most women died.

My point is, while I am pro-choice, and strongly believe for the good of the country that Roe v Wade cannot be over turned (and that the goddamn "partial birth abortion" ban is a travesty), I have a hard time really blaming anti-choicers for their interpretation of when life begins.

When life starts is not an empirically measurable concept. Abortion is yet another spiritual-emotional issue much like gay marriage. In fact, that abortion as an issue takes precedence over science policy is a major problem on its own. It is as irrelevant to the future greatness of this country as the shape of door knobs is to the structural integrity of a house.

For the record, I am pro-life myself.

For single-issue voters, it's a pretty simple choice. If you're pro-choice, vote Obama or Hillary. If you're not, then vote for McCain.

I am not a single-issue voter.

I'd argue that the foundation is entirely religious. If you remove the myth of a spirit or soul, how can you possibly argue with a straight face that something that shares more traits with a parasite than a human being is more important than the woman sustaining it?

Yes, the issue of women's health and safety is entirely irrelevant to the greatness of a country. WOW.




You don't say?!?!?