The Public Opinion Soapbox Forum Index The Public Opinion Soapbox
Welcome to the Public Opinion's community message board. You must be registered to post, and all posts are subject to moderation by our staff.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Monday night's debate
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Public Opinion Soapbox Forum Index -> Politics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Coppy



Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 2265
Location: Chambersburg

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 11:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Peggy Noonan was on Daily Show last night (I watched tonight at Cool and she made an interesting point about Edwards. She thinks that a lot of people who supported Edwards supported him as an alternative to Hillary rather than Obama and his lack of participation in Super Tuesday may actually give votes to Obama rather than Hillary.

He also implied that if it comes down to a race between Obama and McCain, that either candidate could represent a positive change in the country since neither seems to "tow the party line," as he put it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
anonymous_coward



Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 490

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i definetely agree. mccain is an actual statesman. remember when he was passing the mccain-feingold act. If only he had won in 2000, we'd be so much better off now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bobo



Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 173
Location: Chambersburg

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm really tired of all this, "I didn't vote to go to war with Iraq and she did" crap. Does anyone remember the climate of the country at the time? How the Bush Administration had us all believing Saddam had nuclear weapons? Anyone who didn't vote for the war was seen as an extreme liberal - and we all know how the U.S. as a whole feels about liberals, unfortunately.

I do not see Clinton's vote for the war as a big deal. Since then, she has been on the front lines criticizing Bush and demanding troop withdrawals. She was the one I saw on TV blasting Bush over the war time and again - not Obama. To my way of thinking, she made a decision the majority - obviously - of other folks in Congress made, and now she obviously feels differently (as most of us do). So what's the big deal?

I'm more concerned about the economy and the environment, which I heard her mention specifically last night but I don't recall Obama talking about (the environment, that is).
_________________
The sun, the moon and the stars would have disappeared long ago... had they happened to be within the reach of predatory human hands. ~Havelock Ellis, The Dance of Life, 1923
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
.45chel



Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 2748
Location: Chambersburg

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bobo,
I think you're feeling my frustration. I'm trying not to hold grudges. I'm trying to shake it off because I know that I prefer any Democrat to a Republican this year.
Hillary has been beat up in the press and it's obvious of the match up the media wants to see.

McCain draws in independents and moderates. I really like him in 2000, but he has betrayed his 'straight talk, stick to my values' attitude in the past few years just so he would have a chance in the primaries. I don't know if I want a monkey who dances every time a political party plays the organ.
What about the people?


sigh.
_________________
I demand euphoria!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Yahoo Messenger
AnonyMouse



Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 405

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bobo wrote:

I'm more concerned about the economy and the environment, which I heard her mention specifically last night but I don't recall Obama talking about (the environment, that is).


I read that of the 3000 or so questions asked in the (R) and (D) presidential debates so far, six used the words "climate change" or "global warming." The same article said that to put that in perspective, three questions were asked about UFOs. And none of the candidates are bringing up the issue themselves.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/01/28/global_warming_tv/

Quote:
The importance of the next American president's stance on global warming may be hard to overstate. At the international climate talks in Bali in December, the United States was the only industrialized nation in the world that refused to commit to capping its greenhouse gas emissions. The odds are next to nil that rapidly developing nations such as China and India will do anything to curb their snowballing emissions if the United States, one of the world's top emitters, refuses to do so.

And scientists say that the window for taking meaningful action to lower greenhouse gas emissions is narrow. In late 2007, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the United Nations' prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: "If there's no action before 2012, that's too late. What we do in the next two to three years will determine our future. This is the defining moment."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bobo



Joined: 22 Oct 2007
Posts: 173
Location: Chambersburg

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ah Mouse! I love Salon. Great online mag.
_________________
The sun, the moon and the stars would have disappeared long ago... had they happened to be within the reach of predatory human hands. ~Havelock Ellis, The Dance of Life, 1923
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Coppy



Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 2265
Location: Chambersburg

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's aren't specific issues or stances that really push me toward Obama, from Hillary. I always thought they were both far more moderate than John Edwards. I think they're both sort of saying the same things while pointing fingers at each other.

I agree that it isn't fair for Obama to continually bring up the fact that Hillary voted for war while he wasn't even in the Senate at the time. But, I will concede to him that he spoke out against the war very early on, before even being elected to the Senate. As a State Senator, Obama was quoted as saying at a rally on Oct 26, 2002:

Obama wrote:
I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.


This was less than two weeks after the Senate voted for the resolution to invade Iraq. It's hard to argue his point that he was a much earlier critic of the war; had he been a Senator at the time, perhaps he would have voted for the resolution since that was the "thing to do" and the country was fooled into believing it. But I have to admit that I admire his foresight on the matter and his refusal to "tow the party line."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Torgo



Joined: 24 Oct 2007
Posts: 466
Location: Manos: The Hands of Fate

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Obama's opposition to the war is pretty much beyond question.

If Hillary's supporters have a problem with her vote, well, I don't blame them. Even if it was only to grease her slide to the right in the general election, which I doubt given her connections to the Council on Foreign Relations folks.

Must be a tough place to be.
_________________
"The Master would not approve..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Coppy



Joined: 28 Oct 2007
Posts: 2265
Location: Chambersburg

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree Torgo; Hillary's position on the war matters more now than it did in 2002. And I see the ability to change positions on an issue based on information and facts a sign of intelligence; while I see blind support despite those things a sign of ignorance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Public Opinion Soapbox Forum Index -> Politics All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. Hosted by phpBB.BizHat.com

Free Web Hosting | Free Forum Hosting | Photo Gallery | FreeMarriage.com

Powered by PhpBB.BizHat.com, setup your forum now!
For Support, visit Forums.BizHat.com