Comments | firedrake_mor: Scariest Quote of the Campaign:

firedrake_mor

Scariest Quote of the Campaign:

Jan 18, 2008 09:45

SAY WHAT?

"I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that's what we need to do is amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than trying to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

firedrake_mor January 18 2008, 18:54:58 UTC

Oh, I wouldn't have voted for him on a bet -- his position on abortion just begins the reasons I think he is not suitable to be President. I'm a sort of libertarian/progressive -- I'll be voting Democratic in the Primary, but I still haven't decided for whom.

I was sorry to see Bill Richardson get forced out -- of the whole field, he had the most real-world experience in both state and federal offices. Edwards can make sense if you ask him a direct question.

Sen. Clinton? Well, maybe, but I get tired of her talking about her experience when the first elective office she ever held was Senator. Yeah, she was First Lady, and made a lot of noise, and yeah, she was a young lawyer working for the Watergate Commission, but I just don't know. On the other hand, I'm tired of being told she's being strident and bitchy when she's not being any more assertive than a male candidate. Then the mainstream media turns around and makes much of emotion welling up in her voice when she IS touched by something. What do "they" want from her? ( I also get annoyed with the fact that everyone refers to her by her first name, but you don't see posters for "Barack" or "John" -- yes, I know we need to differentiate her from Bill, but I don't have any problem with that -- what would be wrong with posters that say "Clinton '08"?) I do fear her corporate connections, but she actually does seem to be a woman of principle. I wonder if Bill could be SecState? It'd be a good place for him, and keep him from having to choose china patterns.

Obama? Speaks beautifully, and has just as much national experience as a certain Arkansas governor did 16 years ago. His skills at inspiration and persuasion may stand him in better stead dealing with recalcitrant parties than governing experience.

So, I'm juggling concepts. And rambling, but you could tell that.

aeddie January 18 2008, 19:08:17 UTC

Obama has as much experience in a national office as a certain Arkansas governor is a more accurate way to phrase it I think. Mr. Clinton's time as governor gave him some experience on a national level dealing with the Congress and the other states for interstate trade, international issues dealing with ports and such.

ngelinadb January 18 2008, 19:44:37 UTC

Wouldn't have expected you to at all--it's more to the point that the evangelical extremism played well in Iowa and will in a few more small states, but will sink without a ripple on Feb. 5th. (Can you say Primary system stupid in 21st century?)

I am leaning toward Obama, and more interestingly, so is Thomas. (As he said to the Obama canvasser at the door several months ago, "I'm tired of the crazies that have hijacked my party.") Experience you can hire, and I think Obama would have the sense to listen to it once he has done.

elmunadi January 19 2008, 05:59:26 UTC

Primary system isn't the only thing stupid in 21C... How about the electoral college in general? Hello?

ngelinadb January 19 2008, 08:39:11 UTC

Yeah, I'm there for that.

admnaismith January 18 2008, 22:52:58 UTC

I'm still enthusiastic about Edwards, and I'd take O'Bama in a heartbeat (it sounds like such a nice Irish name). Clinton, I'd settle for, if it was her or a Republican, but I wouldn't be too happy about it.

Right now, this year, any candidate who chooses to run as a Republican is morally unfit to hold public office.

Back to all threads