tw, you should really have read my previous posting on this thread.

So, tw, yes, I know what your saying. And just because he's been endorsed by a couple (not all) Kennedy's (Former Maryland Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, issued a statement in support of Clinton) and because he dusted off JFKs poetry does not mean he will be as great as JFK was during his short Presidency.

And, no, were not alive today because of JFKs leadership. That's stretching his impact.

There was a fear that a Catholic would be more loyal to the Vatican than to the US.

Yes, we are saying the same things with slightly different perspectives. However we are all alive because of what Kennedy did. It is a critical lesson from history.

It was called a 'button' because we launched no nuclear weapons or launched all against every 'enemy' nations. Had Kennedy not put a stop to 'big dic' thinking during the Cuban missile crisis, then we now know he would have had no choice but to push that button. The 1st Marine Division would have been nuked on Cuban beaches by tactical nuclear weapons we did not know existed. We came that close to ending the world as we know it only because 'big dic' thinking was doing anything possible to create what we now know would have been unrestricted 'world wide' nuclear war.

The Cuban Missile Crisis is the perfect example of why 'big dic' thinking - a one-dimensional solution that loves 'big gun' prescriptions - is often a loser's agenda. IOW America needs people with intelligence - not people who know only using one-dimensional political agendas.

We learned 30 years later how close the world changed as we know it. I was not stretching anything. It was Kennedy's leadership that kept us from making that 'world wide nuclear war' mistake.

We came that close to changing our world during those 13 days in October because a strong majority advocated 'big dic' solutions. Another lesson as to why intelligent leaders *always* talk to their enemies - this sentence directed at 'big dic' thinkers here who believe otherwise.

Intelligent leaders see things in perspectives - ignore 'good and evil' thinking. Intelligent leaders work with reality - not myths created by political agendas. Intelligent leaders ask damning questions to avoid traps advocated by 'big dic' thinking. Because Cuba was not invaded, we are all alive today. Scary were the number of Americans (including so many in the Kennedy brain trust) that advocated that 'big dic' trap.

Today, many religious extremists advocate imposing their religion on all others. Santorum was removed from the Senate because he imposed his religion on Terry Schiavo. Anyone voting for a political leader based upon his religious believes must also want the Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, and 30 Years War all over again.

How ironic that people feared Kennedy because he was a Catholic. But now have no problem with religious leaders (ie the Pope) ordering politicians to impose their religious doctrine in American laws. Yes, the Pope has ordered just that. He has ordered American politicians to impose Church doctrine on American laws. Evangelical Christian extremists are doing same.

whew! good thing you stopped there, i was afraid you might stoop to hyperbole!

America vetoed the Morman, maybe we can get a Jew on the ticket.

My wife took our kids out of school and went to the Clinton rally yesterday in Arlington. She has liked Clinton for years. I actually went into a N.O.W. office back in '92 and bought her a "Hillary for President in '96" pin for her birthday because she was such a fan.

She and the kids had to wait in line for a while and get there early to be able to get in. I'm glad the kids went. They learned more at that rally than they would have in school yesterday.

She's trying to convince me to vote for Clinton, but I'm trying to convince her to vote for Obama.

Here's Sen. Clinton being introduced by Arlington Country Sheriff Beth Arthur. See, Clinton is strong with law enforcement.

here's a great obama video i found......somewhere



do you like turtles?

Notice in the picture above all the young people behind Clinton? They were High School students who were seated behind the stage so they would be in all the pictures. The organizers also invited people to come down to the gym floor and stand in front of the stage "especially young people." They are really trying to appeal to the young folks, but the general population who showed up for the rally were mostly middle aged and older. While waiting around, one guy was talking with Mrs. glatt about when he was a Dukakis supporter and went to one of those ralleys.

My junior high school took us on an official field trip to a campaign rally for Ann Richards, the incumbent Democratic governor at the time (who ended up losing to George W. Bush.) A whole lot of parents were pissed as all hell when they found out that we were basically taken out of class without notice or permission to be used for a photo op for a politician they didn't necessarily support. Can't say any of the students cared one way or the other, except it was nice to be let out of class to go outside. :)

Sounds like my house, except I'm smarter than you. I don't need to pick that battle.

That's what makes debating fun! Except I wouldn't dare try to convince you to change sides. Oh hell no! :rolleyes:

My husband and I agree - were both for Clinton.

I found an interesting article on the battle between Clinton and Obama: http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ry_id=10656864
The entire article is good, but I found the below excerpt very perceptive:
I know a lot of people view Clinton as polarizing. Both her and McCain are abrasive and irritating. I think there's some people, like my husband and I, who this personality trait doesn't bother, wheras others can't stand these traits and will automatically shut out people like that. And my husband and I are cynical when it comes to inspirational poetry. I understand why people like Obama and dislike Hillary, I just don't agree.

Why don't you agree? Are your politics morwe in-line with hers? Does she excite you in some fashion? What is it about her that you like?

I think she has the committment to see something through that requires dedication, and the courage to back down and change positions when all key indicators are for another approach. Some say this is flip-flopping ala Kerry, but its not flip-flopping when it is infrequently done and only after analysis as shown a different approach is warrented. I know people look at the cronies she would appoint and claim same old washington politics. Truth is anyone brings in their favorites. She has a larger pool of advisors to pull from, advisors that are tested, experienced, and know their way around Washington politics. Everyone can say they don't want an insider, but an insider knows how to accomplish things whereas an outsider spends the first years trying to find out who really pulls the strings. She is smart and cunning. I say that in a positive way. I don't want a naive can't we all just get along President who is blind to others motivations. If you look at her positions, she is not as far left as Obama - and I am not far left, so I tend to agree with her positions more. She has more thorough plans than Obama; very solid well defined plans. And she makes decisions. Its all nice and well for Obama to claim he was against the war, but if he had been in the Senate, who knows how he would have voted. If you look at his voting record, he uses the vote of "present" to avoid being criticized. I don't want a President that won't make a decision for fear it would alienate someone.

I like her serious attitude. I like her take no prisoners approach.

It has also annoyed me how the media is hyping up Obama. A few weeks ago, when Obama was behind, instead of headlines like "Clinton wins x state", it was "Obama narrowly loses x state". That was done purposely to continue to paint him as a pontential victor. Yet when Clinton loses a state, its "Obama triumphs!", not "Clinton narrowly loses". When Clinton wins, its because the "middle age female voters came out en masse." Its not "Obama won because black voters came out en masse" when he wins. They've painted Clinton as only getting middle aged women votes, which isn't true.

I'm highly educated - so according to the pollsters I should be for Obama. I'm in my early 30s, so not middle aged - yet - so I should be for Obama. My husband is in his 40s, and a white male, and highly educated, so he should be for Obama. No, he's for Clinton too. Why? She knows how to get things done. And there were no pollsters where we voted.

I voted yesterday. My state went to Obama. I guess I'll vote McCain in the general election because I don't think Clinton's going to get the nomination. Obama's too far left for me, and I don't think he could handle another 9/11.

Black voters probably don't make up as large a portion of the electorate as middle-aged white women. However, the press has been astounded by the way that Obama has carried the black vote by 90% in most states since South Carolina.

Recently there seemed to be a demographic divide between the Clinton and Obama supporters: Obama has carried young voters (where by "young", I mean under 45), black voters, and the well educated / well off. Clinton has carried older voters (ie > 65), white women, hispanics, and unions.

In yesterday's Virginia primary, however, Obama won every demograpic group except white women, and I think that Clinton's only strong bastion of support was among white women older than 45.

The Media is pushing Obama hard and most people are sheep - they will just follow along and "do as they're told." Either way, it looks like he's got it wrapped up unless she can pull some of Jimx's magic rabbits out of her a**.

I'm confused by the polls stating its this or that demographic voting this or that way. There were no pollsters where I voted. So what, they stand at one station and get the snapshot of American voters from there? Or do they just pull this stuff from their behind and convince us its true?

Just think. We get to do this again in 4 more years. I bet Jeb Bush will run then.

well, if he doesn't you don't have to worry long. Neal Bush and Chelsea will be ready soon.

I was polled coming out of a rural voting station once. I think it was back when I voted for Ron Paul as the Libertarian's candidate for Pres. I'd suggest that they can do a decent job on polling if that's their goal. NPR did a piece this evening on a Clinton supporter, who is being sued by stockholders, who paid Bill three million bucks and happens to do CNN's polling... The media may really be jumping ship.

Chelsea, maybe. Neil Bush... oh hell no. He's got way too much dirty laundry, of the provable kind. It's hard to start a political career when you've admitted on public record that you had numerous encounters with overseas prostitutes, which led to your very messy divorce, shortly after which you marry a close family friend, and your ex-wife alleges that your new wife's youngest child was actually sired by you rather than her ex-husband... And that doesn't even count the drug allegations. :)

Here's the frustrating thing about McCain: McCain, even without catering to conservtive views, could be a foil to Obamamania that Clinton can never be; however, the conservatives apparently don't care for 'Straight Talk' either. While they are spoiled brats, McCain is too nice. I think McCain should do one of his own Sister Soulja moments to Ann Coulter.

WTF does any of that mean??:rolleyes:

Once upon a time it was unheard of to have a presidential run if you'd smoked a joint. or had previous affairs made public. or snorted a line. or had a DUI. Times change - and don't forget his last name is Bush. Will all of that really seem that bad when held up against previous Bush accomplishments?;)

Bank fraud? Someone has to draw the line there.

Not as long as the only one getting burned is the FDIC (us)

Don't forget, bureaucrats vote too.

Presumably in their own self interest.

Dn't we all Bruce, don't we all?