You wrote: ...look at both sides of the conflict. Is it okay for Israel to kill almost five thousand Palestinians living in their lands under occupation during the past eight years, a fourth of whom are children? Is it okay to provoke Palestinians by confiscating their lands, bulldozing their houses, destroying their farmlands and orchards?
The answer is of course: no, that's all terrible, even criminal. But what Hamas does is also criminal. That Hamas is much less effective at killing than the powerful Israeli government doesn't get them off the hook, nor does Israeli occupation and oppression justify targeting civilians. Israel justifies it actions by complaining that their enemy is killing the people of Israel; Hamas makes the corresponding claim. But the fact is, Israel's people and Hamas' people are the same people. ALL of us share the responsibility to look out for each other, and when Hamas kills a civilian in Israel they are killing someone in their own family.
You wrote: "There is no job in the world (unless it is entry level) that one would argue against experience being necessary. Our country is in a horrific state of affairs right now; we need someone with the well honed experience to deftly drive us back on course., more then ever. We see what McCain will do & it is more of the awful crap that got us here. So our only hope now is to vote Obama; but it is a toss up at best if he is going to be able to handle the job b/c of his lack of experience. No a candidate with more of the right kind of experience would of course be better. However that is not what we have now so this is our only hope & we need to go with that instead of deliberately allowing more of the same crap to continue."
It doesn't seem to me you addressed my argument, you just asserted the opposite. In most jobs the reason experience is important is that there is some skill or skills one needs to learn. What's the skill that Obama lacks that (let's say) McCain has, or Hillary has? I would say that history doesn't support the idea that experienced Presidents tend to be better Presidents than inexperienced ones: the great Millard Fillmore had more experience than Abraham Lincoln--more also than Bill Clinton--but arguably Lincoln and Clinton were much more effective leaders. I think my argument shows WHY Lincoln's experience gap didn't disdvantage him relative to Fillmore.
IMO experience is not a legitimate issue at all, and I think I can prove it (perhaps my claim is a little strong but here me out:-).
The argument for experience is that the President with it has a better understanding about how the complex world works and would be better able to deal with the problems that might come across his desk. But for everything the President will have to deal with there are lots of people who have tons of knowledge and understanding of the relevant issues. If there is an objectively right response to those issues there will be a consensus as to how we should respond and a President who is smart and listens to all sides will know that and respond accordingly.
Most of the time there isn't a consensus though; most of the time even people who know all about the issue disagree about how we ought to respond. In those cases, understanding the issues obviously doesn't tell us what we ought to do since every option has experienced people who advocate for it. What the President needs is intelligence, judgment and leadership to take the government in direction the people want. If you ask me Obama satisfies all those criteria. He is smart, he listens to all sides. In fact, that's cost him politically because his willingness to negotiate helped fuel the earlier criticism that he was cynically abandoning his principles for political purposes. We have no reason to think that Palin has any of those criteria, and McCain's dependably economically and socially right wing voting record means he shares the blame for the failure of the last 8 years Republican policies.
This whole experience thing is just a political tactic, nothing more.
I checked your algebra using the TI-89 graphing calculator (machines do math better than I:-)and I got X = 0.486*(total vote) and Y = .465*(total vote). By that count (a) Hillary gets more votes than Barack and (b) the totals don't add up right.
I have no idea what the error is, mine or yours:-)
McCain's standing? He caved on McCain/Kennedy, "admitting" he "learned" that we have to secure the border before we reform the naturalization process. He caved on Bush tax cuts for the rich, now saying he wants to make them permanent. He supported the surge when no one else did? That view wasn't going to cost him any votes in the Republican primaries, it would just show how strong he was. McCain's even caved on Jerry Falwell and the Christian right wing!
To stick with your analogy, and apparently Obama's philosophy, it would be fine for him to campaign with the KKK because they claim to be Christians and want to do God's work.
I believe in diversity. And I believe that people have the right to be stupid idiots. And yes, people have a right to be so incredibly out of touch with reality that they buy in to this Obama bullshit.
But sorry, I ain't lettin no homophobic followers into the Democratic party. They can take their shit over to the Republican party where it has a home already quite comfortable for them.
Suppose that some homophobic voters who otherwise supported the social justice agenda the Dems would enact vote for Obama and give him the Presidency. Since Obama is a strong supporter of gay rights, this would be a big win for them. It would be ironic if the morally pure stance you are advocating actually made it so that homophobic LAWS stayed on the books.
I am saying how good a speaker is irrelevant. that the central issue i have is when people return to form over substance discussions. that obama a) is more than that at this point and b) we should expect something more substantive regarding what he says. using all caps doesn't by the way increase the effectively of your argument.
How good a communicator someone is has everything to do with how effective that person will be at building a progressive consensus. Listing the right policy proposals is just talk if you can't get any of it passed.
Arghhh!!! This is getting very stale, the condemnations from Obama supporters from Clinton supporters, from Edwards supporters. Any of the three would be excellent as President, and it is a certain fact that the two who don't win will support the winner in the general. In this particular case, everything Obama said was true. Reagan DID transform the political landscape, and the Republicans WERE the party offering ideas that challenged the status quo. Obama didn't say he agreed with the Republicans on those issues and his record shows he opposed them. What Obama was arguing was that there are historical moments when the people want to fundamentally change the direction of the country and that he is uniquely able to effect that change. Maybe you think the argument is wrong, but it is not fair to condemn him for things he didn't say. He didn't say Reagan was a good Presidenr, he didn't say the Republican ideas were good ideas. Obama is definitely right that we will not make any changes without some support from independents and some republicans, and there is nothing wrong with negotiating with them to bring about change. It's a guarantee that Hillary will do just that if she wins.
Romney has done better than any other candidate so far, which is why he has earned more delegates than anyone so far. Two silvers and a gold (in the major primaries) is better than 1 silver, one gold and a finish behind Fred Thompson (McCain) and one gold and a bronze (Huckabee). The press has spun McCain's lackluster performance into momentum because they love him, but it remains to be seen whether the anti-mexican faction of the Republican Party will support someone who voted with the Dems on Immigration reform.
Chris Matthews is supposedly a journalist tonight, analyzing the politics of it all. But he is shamelessly bashing Clinton--both of them--tonight. There's one thing I want to ask about though. Does anyone remember the specifics about Clinton's "Comeback Kid" thing? Matthews acts like BC just made it up at the time; he keeps talking about Bill having at first a 22% lead, then calling his subsequent 8% loss to Tsongas a comeback. What's the details on that?
All three Dems are very good and would be excellent in the White House. There is one thing though that bothers me about Hillary (and it might not be true): Hillary would prefer that the Independents go for McCain instead of Obama. I've heard a lot of pundits claim this, so it's probably wrong, but if it's true then she is putting her own ambitions above the principles she claims to support. The Independents who choose McCain over Obama in the primary will choose him in the general as well. We need the Independents to vote Democrat, that's critical. Every Democratic candidate SHOULD want what's best for the cause even if that costs him/her personal success.
I share your concerns about Obama, but I wonder if a politician like Obama is the only one who could actually accomplish progressive change. The fact is, even though most people agree with us on the issues, nearly half the Congress will be Republican, and we will not be able to pass legislation without some Republican support, especially when the corporate interests work as hard as they will to oppose change. The main stream of the Republican party will never compromise, but it might just be that an inspiring leader can peel off enough Republicans to actually get some of our good ideas enacted.