 sj |
||
|
||
BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 31 Mar 08 - 12:33 AM Romney really really wants that VP slot. Considering McCain's age its a much better job than being Obama's running mate. If McCain should pull off a win he might be able to manage just one term, then his VP is first in line next primary season. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Riginslinger Date: 30 Mar 08 - 11:13 PM It looks to me like McCain and Romney have gotten pretty tight lately. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 30 Mar 08 - 10:45 PM It would be very funny to see Hillary jump the fence and take second slot for McCain. I doubt he would ask her, though. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Peace Date: 30 Mar 08 - 07:08 PM There's a rice shortage on the horizon, Jack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 30 Mar 08 - 06:49 PM The most interesting possible race would be McCain/Clinton v Obama/Rice |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 30 Mar 08 - 04:56 PM How about Clinton as McCain's running partner? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 29 Mar 08 - 11:42 AM Elizabeth Kucinich came across as a real fireball of humanity and intelligence. It's a damn shame she isn't natural-born, or she would smoke the Republicans in 2012. Dennis as well, but less magnetic. Edwards and his wife also. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 29 Mar 08 - 11:39 AM I don't think Kucinich sounded like a slogan-spouting automaton any more than Obama does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Mar 08 - 11:14 AM I pretty much agree Dick. But I thought that John and Elizabeth Edwards came across OK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: dick greenhaus Date: 29 Mar 08 - 10:45 AM Oddly enough, the only candidates (and former candidates) who came across on interviews as real human beings rather than slogan-spouting automatons have been Obama and Huckabee. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 29 Mar 08 - 09:56 AM He is a very thoughtful, rational and compassionate person. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 29 Mar 08 - 12:29 AM OBAMA ON THE VIEW. Man! he is a good speaker! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 28 Mar 08 - 11:34 PM Formidable??? Have you seen Chongo when he gets his hand on a Thompson? Kreeg--Ahhh! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Mar 08 - 10:04 PM Nice to meet you Fay. I may be able to get a couple of "Obama" buttons for you and Sol. Shall I send them along if I do? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 28 Mar 08 - 10:03 PM You underestimate Little Hawk's imagination, Charley. If he can come up with a couple of characters like JtS and me, he can certainly find a way to get us hitched. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Charley Noble Date: 28 Mar 08 - 09:56 PM Posters on Mudcat are actually married to one another? Good lord, and I always thought most of the posters here were the byproduct of Little Hawks imagination. The fact that some of you may be real is a sobering thought.... Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Scanner Date: 28 Mar 08 - 05:42 PM No Jack. Mick is not married to Rabbi Sol. I am. Mick has met me in person and can attest to the fact that I am quite a "formidable" person. FAY |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Mar 08 - 04:06 PM As my horse is watered and my armour polished in anticipation of the next round I shall gladly join you in a mug. If you will look closer you will see that my Lance, as sharp as it may be, is Nerf. I am simply replying to friend Mick's hardy humorous bluster in kind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:53 PM Gentleman: It is a wopnderful thing to see chivalry rise up, but in this case, I think we are all in the same end of the lists, and our sharpened lances should be reserved for those more in need of puncturing. Join me in a mug of mead and a brief rest until the tourney actually calls on us. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:23 PM >>>As to my comment to mind your own business, I meant it. My comment to Carol was not addressed to you. The last time I checked, Carol is a worthy opponent in a debate, always well informed on her position, and does not need anyone to "protect" her or speak for her. Where I come from, women are very capable of handling their own discussions and don't need male protectors to speak for them. I have always found this so with Carol. I don't mind having a debate/discussion with you on a subject. But it is with you. As to Carol, she speaks just fine for herself<<< I really don't give a damn what you meant. You don't have any authority to tell me what is my business and what isn't. Who in the hell do you think you are? For one thing, I was in the conversation a lot longer than you and for a second Carol is my wife and the last time I checked, you were not married to Rabbi-Sol. You had no business making up the bullshit about Carol. Again, be a man. Back it up or shut up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Big Mick Date: 28 Mar 08 - 03:01 PM No, Jack there is no apology coming. No, Jack, I am not speaking in my role as a moderator. And no, Jack, I am not worried about the implied threat in your post. I would suggest that you save that type of thing. It is a road fraught with peril. As to my comment to mind your own business, I meant it. My comment to Carol was not addressed to you. The last time I checked, Carol is a worthy opponent in a debate, always well informed on her position, and does not need anyone to "protect" her or speak for her. Where I come from, women are very capable of handling their own discussions and don't need male protectors to speak for them. I have always found this so with Carol. I don't mind having a debate/discussion with you on a subject. But it is with you. As to Carol, she speaks just fine for herself. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 28 Mar 08 - 01:32 PM Yes, that is the way I would phrase the question. Integrity is not part of the equation here. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 27 Mar 08 - 11:31 PM "Would he change the way he looks at the Constitution in order to help put a black man into the oval office?" That one looks a bit more reasonable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 27 Mar 08 - 11:23 PM Carol, You are trying to put words in my mouth again. Let us put it more mildly "Would he change the way he looks at the Constitution in order to help put a black man into the oval office?" As Bobert just said, it is all about politics. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:36 PM The question is "In his mind can he separate the two"? He believes so strongly in conservatism that it is indistinguishable from integrity. He has always voted that way 100% of the time. So you're asking whether or not he would discard his concept of integrity in order to help put a Black man in the presidency? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Bobert Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:18 PM Ahhhhh, as for the Supreme Court being this exclusive gruop pf jurist who are concerened with only interpreting the Constitution... Bull!!! That's right... Bull!!! Our Constitution has been interprted thousands of times since it was written... And that is a good thing... Each time it is interpreted that new interpretation is what is called precedence... It's when courts ignore precedence that we have waht is know as "activist courts"... The Warren Court ignored precedence because the time had come for black folks to come out from under Jim Crow's heel... That was a good thing and moved the country further down the road toward being a just and civil society... The Warren Court, though Chiel Juastic Earl Warren resigned in 1969 continued well into the 70's in it's "activism" in rulings that, IMO, did move the country forward... Problem is that with every action there is an equal reaction and since 1980 the court went through a period of "less activism", but as one Repub after another nominated conservatives to the bench the court is now the exact opposite of the Warren Court... This isn't as much about stict or loose constrution but politics... The court has become extremely partisan and political and regardless of the tides of liberalism that is taking hold in the country, the counmtry will have to dance around this court for the next 2 decades and Congress will have to dot every "i" and cross every "t* if it enacts anything that resemebles "liberal" legislation... And that, my friends, is the way it is... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:08 PM The question is "In his mind can he separate the two"? He believes so strongly in conservatism that it is indistinguishable from integrity. He has always voted that way 100% of the time. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Mar 08 - 09:06 PM Mick, Are you talking as a moderator? If so, you had better say so and quick. Because what you say to Carol is a lot more my business than what Carol says to Rabbi-Sol. If you are talking as a moderator, you had better back up what you say or be a man and apologize. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:59 PM So I guess the question then, is: If the Supreme Court would find itself in the same position in relation to the upcoming election as they were the 2000 election, and the nominees were Obama and McCain, would Justice Thomas rule on strict constructionist or loose constructionist grounds? If he ruled on strict constructionist grounds, he would rule that the state should decide. If he ruled on loose constructionist grounds, would he base his ruling on the historicity of the upcoming election, or would he base his ruling on a desire to see a Black person serve as president? Alternately, would he base his ruling on a desire to keep the republican party in office another four years? But at least with these choices, it is possible to select a choice that arises entirely from integrity, rather than self-interest or partisanship. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Big Mick Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:50 PM Jack, You have just given an example. My comment was not addressed to you. Mind your own business. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:45 PM Mick, I think you should point out an example or find something else to talk about. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Big Mick Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:44 PM Damn..... I guess I should say something about Jack so Carol can speak. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:39 PM Carol, The entire legal profession exists because the Constitution is not just black and white. There are many gray areas that have to be defined and that is why Al Gore paid big bucks to David Bose to try to convince the justices to see it his way. Unfortunately they saw it Bush's way by a 5 to 4 vote that broke along political and idealogical lines. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:31 PM Hardly, Mick. This is the kind of stuff that I have called an attack... You are so married to your delusions...buy into your delusions...tin hat brigade Those are what I call attacks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:29 PM Mick No she doesn't. Please show an example where Carol has attacked Rabbi-Sol or an example of where someone else has said the same things that she is saying and she has called it an attack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Big Mick Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:23 PM Carol, when folks do to you what you are doing to Rabbi Sol, you accuse them of attacks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:09 PM Race and political leaning are obviously not the only two choices, as you have just illustrated yourself, Rabbi Sol, but you have only included those two choices in your question. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 27 Mar 08 - 08:07 PM "Adherence to Constitutional law" as defined by who? The loose constructionists or the strict constructionists? This debate has been going on ever since the time of John Marshall & Thomas Jefferson. Each Judge interprets the Constitution "as he or she sees it". SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Ebbie Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:56 PM Thank God there are still Constitutional scholars and jurists out there. Remember Sam Ervin? He's gone now but I sincerely hope and believe that there are others that remain. It seems to me that adherence to Constitutional law should be the first requirement for someone to be nominated to the highest court. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:52 PM It is possible for a Justice to base his or her ruling or opinion entirely on the Constitution and not on race or political leaning. It does happen. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:44 PM Carol, What is or is not Constitutional is a matter of interpretation by the individual Justice. Just like in baseball, the strike zone varies with each umpire. One umpire's Strike 3 can be another's Ball 4. The point that I am trying to make is that it is SUBJECTIVE and not OBJECTIVE. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:31 PM The only thing Justice Thomas is supposed consider is whether or not his ruling would be Constitutional. Why isn't that option included in your choices? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:22 PM Justices Breyer and Ginsburg will definitely vote against McCain, even if Lieberman is his running mate. But they are part of the minority. Thomas is part of the majority. Also, I feel that the case of a black president would be much more historically significant than that of a Jewish president, given the history of this country. First of all, there are many more black people in this country than there are Jews. For this alone it is fitting that there should be a black president before there is a Jewish one. Second of all, America has been very good to Jews, perhaps better than any country in the history of this planet. They have prospered and continue to prosper in this great land of opportunity. The election of a Jew to the presidency would be newsworthy but not earth shattering. However the history of blacks is much different. They were brought to this country in chains, against their will to begin with. After Lincoln freed the slaves, they were systematically kept down by the Jim Crow laws of segregation and denied economic & educational opportunities by an ingrained system of racism that continues to this very day. Therefore, were a black man to achieve the highest office in this land it would be a culmination of the dream that Martin Luther King refrerred to in his famous speech. Perhaps culmination is the wrong word. It would be the beginning of the end to racism in this country. This indeed would be an earth shattering event and a significant benchmark in the history of the United States. This is what Justice Thomas would have to consider in this case. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 27 Mar 08 - 07:11 PM I think the fact that you are unwilling to answer the question I posed, Rabbi Sol, is an indication that you don't like the two choices that I have offered. I don't blame you. That kind of question, when only those two decisions are given as possibilities, shows prejudice against the group that is being discussed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:53 PM Sorry, my mistake. I was thinking of Justice O'Connor. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Ebbie Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:25 PM Since when is Ruth Bader Ginsburg not on the Supreme Court? Are you perhaps thinking of Sandra Day O'Connor? Also, the name is "Breyer", not Brier. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:25 PM Almost forgot this part... and you have told us that someone you know has pretty much guaranteed that Senator Lieberman will be McCain's running mate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:23 PM Ruth Bader Ginsberg is still on the Supreme Court, Rabbi Sol. So your answer is to not answer. As far as I'm concerned, you have answered loud and clear. But let me go ahead and pose the question anyway... if McCain is the nominee, and his running mate is Joe Lieberman, and we find ourselves in the situation you have described with the vote going to the Supreme Court, how do you think Justice Ginsberg and Justice Breyer, known liberals, would vote? Would they vote for McCain and make history by helping to put in office the first Jewish vice president, or would they vote for the liberal? I think this is in keeping with the subject of a thread entitled, "McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: dick greenhaus Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:08 PM And Rabbi---who sold you that bridge? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:06 PM Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is no longer on the court. You could pose the same question about Justice Brier (who is Jewish) vis a vis Lieberman. But Lieberman is not running for President, Obama is. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:04 PM You continue to define this contest in terms of race. I think that Clarence Thomas will decide the case in terms of the law as he sees it. So will Justice Ginsberg. So will the rest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 27 Mar 08 - 06:02 PM Carol, I do not think you are that naive to believe that the justices of the Supreme Court put their own political and idealogical views completely out of their minds when ruling on important cases before them. They interpret the Constitution but that interpretation can be biased and colored by their own political ideology. If you do not think so I have a bridge in Brooklyn that you might be interested in purchasing. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:59 PM We appear to have cross-posted, Rabbi Sol. I pose my question again... You only pose two possible answers, neither of them having any integrity, Rabbi Sol. You do not postulate the possibility that Justice Thomas would rule according to what he believes would be Constitutional. Is there some reason for this? Would you have posed the question the same way if we were discussing Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and the candidate in question as Lieberman as the vice presidential nominee? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:54 PM Jack, You are reading things into my words. I am NOT implying in any way that black people are inferior, nor do I hold that opinion. The fact of the matter is that Justice Clarence Thomas is perhaps the most conservative of all the judges on the supreme court, with the possible exception of Justice Scalia. I believe that his voting record is prefectly pro-conservative on any matter that has ever come before the court. He also happens to be black and was appointed by the elder Pres. Bush as the token African American justice on the supreme court amid great contreversy (remember Anita Hill). His views on social issues such as affirmative action and abortion are diametrically opposed to those of Obama. As we saw in the last election, the justices of the Supreme Court usually follow the politics of the Presidents that appointed them. That is why you usually get a 5 to 4 vote on highly controversial cases. By appointing Justices Roberts and Alito, Dubyah gave the conservatives a one vote majority. So my question remains, does Justice Thomas, as the tie breaking vote, go with the party line or does he sieze the once in a lifetime opportunity to make history? SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:48 PM You only pose two possible answers, neither of them having any integrity, Rabbi Sol. You do not postulate the possibility that Justice Thomas would rule according to what he believes would be Constitutional. Is there some reason for this? Would you have posed the question the same way if we were discussing Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and the candidate in question as Lieberman as the vice presidential nominee? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:33 PM Rabbi-Sol, I am gathering that you have an underlying view that black people are inferior. Why impugn a man's ability to be a fair judge based upon his race? What makes you think it would be decided on race? Why not age? Old people deciding for old people? Then it would be seven to two with Alito and Roberts in the minority. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: beardedbruce Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:04 PM THAT is a matter of opinion. Of course, if only the decision you want can be correct, then I agree- it has been wrong in about half the cases. At least in someone's opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 27 Mar 08 - 05:00 PM I would so hope, as well. But the Supreme Court has betrayed that trust in the past. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: beardedbruce Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:36 PM I would hope he would rule based on the facts of the arguement, and NOT on who the winner would be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 27 Mar 08 - 04:32 PM If Obama is the nominee, and the general election is a repeat of the 2000 Gore vs. Bush fiaso with the Supreme Court having the final word, a hypothetical situation might arise. In a 5 to 4 decision with Justice Clarence Thomas holding the deciding swing vote; Does he vote to make history by putting a fellow African American into office or does he stick with his conservative views and vote for McCain? It is a highly unlikely scenario but not beyond the realm of possibillity. Which way do you think Thomas would go? SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 26 Mar 08 - 04:27 PM She is presently promoting the concept that any delegate should vote for any candidate at will regardless of popular vote. This is going to make her look as good as Bush in 2000. Except that she won't own the judges and won't be able to buy the press to pull it off. Smoke city. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Mar 08 - 04:08 PM Rabbi-Sol, Hillary is going to lose the delegate count. She has almost no chance to be the nominee. After all the bridges she and Bill have burned. If she does get the nomination, She won't be President. She doesn't deserve to be President. Because by every measure she and Bill have said should be the benchmarks, McCain is the better candidate. Experience, Readiness to be commander in chief, integrity, willingness to bring about change. McCain has a long, distinguished record of all these things. He does not have to pad his resume on these things. Obama is more experienced as a legislator than Lincoln was. Nixon was the Most experienced President ever. Experience is overrated. Just in this campaign Obama has shown, leadership, integrity, pressure under fire and the courage to deal with the hard issues intelligently and head on without condescending to people. Hillary has done the opposite. She failed to show leadership in by reigning in Bill and Ferraro. She failed in the integrity by throwing the kitchen sink at Obama and by praising McCain in a feeble attempt to make Obama look bad. Under pressure she has stooped to smear tactics. She has flip flopped on Florida and Michigan, blaming the Obama for being undemocratic when it was a DNC decision which she initially agreed to. She constantly avoid the hard issues and weasels around them. She still does not take responsibility for her vote on the war. Based upon their performance in these past few months. Hillary Clinton is the second to the last American Politician I would like to see handle a serious crisis. Unfortunately the worst one is in office. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:48 PM In order to appreciate why Obama is so popular, Reb, you have to be able to recognize the difference between character and scar-tissue. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 26 Mar 08 - 03:38 PM And just how is Obama going to bring about this thing called "change" that he proclaims so loudly? Most of you folks here are old enough to remember that last time a young and charismatic leader captivated and energized the nation with such a message. Yes, It was JFK. And unlike Obama, JFK was not a freshman senator. He had twice as much legislative experence as does Obama. He also had the additional advantage of coming from a family of experienced and seasoned career politicians who knew all the ropes. However, even JFK, with all these attributes could not get his progressive legislation through a congress that was controlled by his own political party. It took a seasoned veteran of congress, Lyndon B. Johnson, to finally get the "Great Society" legislation that brought about real change in our nation, enacted into law. That is why Hillary would be more effective as a leader of our nation. These old career entrenched members of the House & Senate with their super seniority will resent taking orders from a young man who is still "wet behind the ears". A 2 term senator and wife of a former president will carry much more weight with them. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 26 Mar 08 - 01:43 PM "I am rabbi and a supporter of Barack Obama. While I don't believe that I've ever said anything quite as incendiary as Pastor Wright, I certainly would not want any of my congregants to be faulted for my sermons or my failings, no matter how egregious. Perhaps all the hullabaloo about Pastor Wright is our inability to look deeply inside ourselves, atone for the wrongs we have committed, and look toward a leader--inspiring, dedicated, visionary, fallible--to help all of us to be more accountable, thoughtful, compassionate citizens of this great nation. While I may vigorously oppose some of Pastor Wrights statements, this controversy and Barack Obama's leadership have called me to consider how race plays out in my own life and how I might be a bearer of justice and dignity. I welcome a leader who calls me to a higher purpose, even when that means I search my soul and atone for past wrongs, in the hope that together, we might built a brighter, more just America. Might this hurt Obama and the Democrats in the fall? Perhaps. But I am honored to once again believe in a politics that is more than just about winning for the sake of winning. I am grateful that Senator Obama has asked each one of us how we might make our communities and our nation stronger, more whole, indeed--more perfect." (From a WaPo commentary). Just so too many do not get tarred with the same brush... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Mar 08 - 01:43 PM >>>As the Minister of my fellowship, I can preach whatever I deem to be true, without fear or reservation. The members of the congregation are free to disagree with me (and they often do). Together we engage in a creative conversation and together, we all grow and move toward a greater truth. Isn't that worth preserving?<<< It certain is worth preserving. But not to worry, the opposition to Obama over this seems to be boiling down to those who would attack him anyway for nefarious reasons of their own. Hannity, Coulter and Mrs. Clinton being the most notable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 26 Mar 08 - 12:07 PM LOL Like shooting fish in a barrel, right surfin? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 26 Mar 08 - 11:12 AM Excellent post, Dan. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Dan Schatz Date: 26 Mar 08 - 10:51 AM Thank you, Carol, for that link. It is instructive to hear the rest of the soundbyte: "...for treating her citizens as less than human... as long as she tries to act like she is God and like she is supreme." The entire sermon is a critique of the Bush Administration's policies, based on a biblical exegesis. "God doesn't change," he says, "but governments do." And he speaks very favorably about Bill Clinton. I preach two or three times a month in my Unitarian Universalist congregation. Sometimes I've taken strong stands on social issues - including an especially hard-hitting sermon on human rights not long ago, as well as sermons on racism, equal marriage rights and pacifism. Over the years I've said many things from the pulpit, some of which were well crafted, and some of which were probably less so. I'm sure I have said things that were poorly expressed or that represent thinking that has since shifted. I have never written a sermon with the thought that a phrase or a half-sentence could be lifted out and meant to represent who I am as a minister or person - much less who my parishioners are. The sermon, whether in church, temple or mosque, is the one of the last bastions of nuanced thought, of oratory that cannot and should not be boiled down to fifteen second soundbytes. If ministers and rabbis now need to preach like politicians speak - because we know that anything we say might show up years later to be used against us - we will have lost the ability to be prophetic, to challenge social structures, to do the best of what religion can do. If we cannot risk making mistakes from time to time, even in the pulpit, then religion loses its authenticity and its power. In my tradition we have something called a free pulpit. It boils down to this: As the Minister of my fellowship, I can preach whatever I deem to be true, without fear or reservation. The members of the congregation are free to disagree with me (and they often do). Together we engage in a creative conversation and together, we all grow and move toward a greater truth. Isn't that worth preserving? Dan |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Jeri Date: 26 Mar 08 - 09:24 AM Jack, you don't have to try so hard. Anybody who chooses a rumor over the truth that disproves it because the fiction supports his own hatred-driven agenda is his own worst enemy. Deliberate cluelessness. Once a person regurgitates that Obama smear, people see what they believe is a matter of choice and they'll lose all credibility. It's not worth arguing with people who swallow stupid shit because it plays to their hatred. Either the person knows the truth and ignores it or has "consistently failed to obtain any degree of 'clue'." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Mar 08 - 12:29 AM Rabbi-Sol If your strategy is to lie, you should wait at least 24 hours before you contradict yourself. Date: 25 Mar 08 - 08:51 PM >>My objection to Obama is strictly based upon his association with Rev. Wright<< Date: 25 Mar 08 - 12:33 AM >>>I know that you folks only want to see one side of this candidate and consider him the second comming of the Messiah. But if there is any possiblilty that he is still a Muslim, I would not want to see him in power a mere 7 years after 9/11. My memory is not that short. I lost friends that day and if not for the grace of G-d, my dear wife would have been there that day as well.<<< Are you actually a Rabbi? You seem to play fast and loose with the third and ninth commandments. Is it really OK to make condescending jokes about the Messiah? Its not very respectful that is sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 26 Mar 08 - 12:21 AM Looks like I forgot to include the link. Rabbi Sol, it's right here in this link. The longer context... http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/80481/ He is saying that the US has caused suffering for a lot of people in other countries and 9/11 was a response to that, and that instead of killing a lot of innocent people in retribution, we should go within and examine the nature of our own relationship wit God. It's all right there in the video. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 26 Mar 08 - 12:17 AM Rabbi Sol, what people are showing in the YouTube videos is edited in such a way as to make it look like the message in Reverend Wright's speech is something entirely different than what it really was. This is a fact that can be seen by anyone who is more interested in the truth than in spreading hate, as the people you have been getting your information from are doing. It's all right there in the link I provided. If you are more interested in the truth than in spreading hate, I think you will watch that video. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 25 Mar 08 - 11:43 PM Carol, Rev. Wright's speech is on YouTube for everyone to hear. I understand English very well and he comes across quite clear. His words and meaning are unmistakable. It does not take a rocket scientist or Phd to figure out what he is saying. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 25 Mar 08 - 11:07 PM There was nothing hateful in the speech given by Reverend Wright. People who are intent on spreading hate are selectively excerpting Wright's words for the purpose of making people believe that his speech is hateful. But when the words are heard in the longer context, they are not hateful at all. Reverend Wright was appealing to the better natures of the people in his congregation and exhorting them to look within and examine their own relationship with God rather than sinking to the level of killing innocent people in revenge for what happened on 9/11. This is the opposite of spreading hate. It is the people who are distorting his message who are spreading hate, Rabbi Sol. That would mean that it is the people you are getting your information from who are spreading hate, not the Reverent Wright. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Charley Noble Date: 25 Mar 08 - 10:22 PM Well, the chain gets even more complicated: Malcolm X to Louis Farrakhan to Rev. Wright to Obama. Of course there are several disconnects in the chain but why should that trouble anyone who wants to make a case against Obama or anyone else for that matter. Hell, I even lived in the same city where Malcolm X spent his teenaged years: Lansing, Michigan. And my father gave up on his religion way back when his rabbi refused to recommend him for application to City College; the rabbi said he'd be wasting his time and should help his family run his store. Father disagreed and made it through college anyway, graduating with two degrees, one in philosophy and one in accounting; both proved useful. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 25 Mar 08 - 10:22 PM Wright has received letters of thanks for his services to LBJ and Ronald Reagan; he served six years in the US Navy and the US Marines. Perhaps he is a different person than you imagine him to be because of his recent malignment. If it is just the connection to Farrakhan that informs your decision, I have n data on what that really consists of, as distinguished from what hate mongers and fear mongers have painted it to be. So I will suspend my judgement until I feel I know a bit more. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 25 Mar 08 - 09:34 PM Amos, If I had been a member of a synagogue where the Rabbi turned out to be associated with the Neturei Karta, (the ones that embraced the President of Iran and burnt the Israeli flag), I would quit that synagogue and never set foot in there again. No matter how wise or smart that Rabbi was, I would completely disavow him and never talk to him again. And I am not running for the highest elected office in the land, where a candidate must be squeaky clean or simon pure. If Obama was to say that Wright was a despicable person and that he would no longer associate with him or his church ever again, I would have a different opinion. However he still respects and admires him, and having Rev Wright as an adviser to the President of the United States sends chills up and down my spine. It is a scary thought indeed. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 25 Mar 08 - 09:04 PM Sol: Your position, I think, is built on fear and prejudice. The Reverend Wright, as far as I have seen, has not demonstrated anti-semitism. If you have evidence that he has, I would like to see it. Have you looked at the links provided here that show his remarks in fuller context? Do you think it just, or reasonable, that Wright's opinions should be made into Obama's opinions, which are worlds different on these issues? Why is it right to drag one man through another man's opinions in the commons as though they were not widely different, when they are? Isn't that the kind of blind associative thinking that permeated the race hatred you yourself have suffered from? Why should such thinking be promulgated against others? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 25 Mar 08 - 08:51 PM For the record. In both of the last 2 presidential elections I voted for the Democratic candidate. If Hillary is the nominee I will vote Democratic again. I am now and have always been against the Iraq war. I feel that it was the stupidist foreign policy blunder in the history of our country. However, Israel had nothing to do with this war. It was strictly Dick Cheyney's greed for the oil and Dubyah's desire to finish the job that his father started but never completed. My objection to Obama is strictly based upon his association with Rev. Wright, a man full of vitriolic hatred who's church honored none other than the arch anti-semite, Louis Farrakhan. Obama was a member of this church for the past 20 years and could not be so naive that he failed to realize what was being said and preached there. By his own admission he was close to and admired the Rev. Wright and only when the words of hatred emerged on You Tube did he disavow the offensive statements but still respects his pastor and looks up to him. I watched Obama's famous "We The People" speech in which he tries to explain everything away based upon the history of Jim Crow in this country. When you cut through all the fancy words and rhetoric that has all you folks here hypnotized, his response boils down to 4 words, "Whitey doesn't get it". Well, I have news for him. Whitey does not have to get it. We have a rule in this country that "The customer is always right" and in this case "The voter is always right". Come November people are going to vote their fears and their prejudices and McCain will see to it that Obama runs against Rev Wright just like Dukakis had to run against Willie Horton. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: dick greenhaus Date: 25 Mar 08 - 06:54 PM I guess it's a good thing that he wasn't named "Abraham"--somebody might have accused him of being a Jew. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Charley Noble Date: 25 Mar 08 - 09:20 AM Rabbi Sol- Sorry that I snapped at you with regard to the significance of particular names. The "Adolphs" of the world had a real hard time in World War 2 and the only thing worse would have been if my father's father (who was named Aaron) had named him "Sue." Obama's name or names should not be a subject of speculation. However, I still find your linking of all Moslems with 9/11 misguided and even hateful, even if some of them danced in the streets in jubilation. Many more Moslems here and abroad were profoundly shocked and appalled. The real regret is that the Bush-Cheney Administration squandered this international sympathy on its discretionary war to achieve "regime change" in Iraq. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Barry Finn Date: 25 Mar 08 - 03:10 AM Rabbi, I can't believe you think that you have the gall to even print that trash. Obama, a Muslim, so what if he were (& he ain't), his middle name (his middle name could be "Fuck Off" for all that it matters) & you think that Muslims are at fault/blame for 9/11! You are as much a part of the problem as those that flew the planes into the towers then. It's the racist religious hatred & Godly Greed that's at the bottom of the troubles, here in America as well as in the Mid East. You obliviously don't have the capacity to stand in the shoes of others, you must be above that & they must be beneath you. I'm not religious so please tell me, is this how religious people think? Do you think that you are all so different from each other & so superior to one another? You seem the same to me & I don't want to see any of you in office if that's how you feel & think. I understand the religious right & how they'd love this nation to be run "for & by" them but I didn't realize that Jews & Muslims feel this way too, you can all go to hell. I always thought that religions were used to better people & society when the followers didn't/couldn't do it on their own. I never cared wither someone was religious or not or if they were what type of religion they believed in & because of this I don't know many religious people or I just don't know if they are or not. I didn't see religions as being an evil thing just a necessity for some. But I'm reassessing that at the moment. Your mention of the Jewish vote being had by the release of one man, that's pretty narrow too. Talk about a one issue vote. I see this again as being part of a tunnel vision mentality & I'm wondering if this too isn't a religious overlap. The church & state from this angle should be so far apart that the two shouldn't ever meet in the same room if possible, they shouldn't even breath the same air, it's just too deadly. As far as a canidate needing to have some kind of religious background to get voted in, you all deserve each other, just don't do any harm to us non belivers, you can go crucify yourselves though, have a party at it. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Mar 08 - 01:12 AM Christianity is not a club you join like the Elks Lodge . Rabbi-Sol, you would be welcome in any truly Christian Church. And you are clergy and not Christian. You don't have to renounce anything to attend service. Accepting Jesus into your life is a personal choice. It is an informed choice. Many people make it WHILE THEY ARE IN CHURCH. It would be unthinkable to bar people from hearing the Word BEFORE THEY RENOUNCED their OTHER BELIEFS. How would you covert them? How could you help them if you didn't let them listen to the word? Since you seem to be so ignorant on these matters, maybe you should watch a Billy Graham crusade. Keep in mind that, he is not preaching to the converted. He is preaching to those who want to be converted. Reverend Wright did not build a congregation of 10,000 by keeping people out. You are obviously blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few. You know that is wrong. You know that is evil. Be thankful that people do not think that all members of your faith are like you. There are all kinds of crazy clergy with strange and ignorant ideas, In my faith and apparently in yours. I am praying for you Rabbi-Sol I am praying that the God will soon lift this veil of hatred from your eyes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 25 Mar 08 - 01:03 AM One more thing, Rabbi Sol... But if there is any possiblilty that he is still a Muslim, I would not want to see him in power a mere 7 years after 9/11. My memory is not that short. So you think that all Muslims should be held responsible for what a miniscule number of Muslims have done? Does that mean we should hold all Jews responsible for what some Jews do? Some people have a beef with the devastation caused to this country by people like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. People embracing your kind of bigotry might say they would not want to see Lieberman become our vice president because the memory of what people like Perle and Wolfowitz have done to this country is too fresh in their memories. Is there any possibility at all that if someone said that to you, you would not accuse that person of anti-Semitism? I rather doubt it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 25 Mar 08 - 12:51 AM And by the way, Rabbi Sol, I am not an Obama supporter. It's just that I can't abide racism of any sort. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 25 Mar 08 - 12:49 AM Barack Obama was never a Muslim, Rabbi Sol. He was raised as a Christian. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 25 Mar 08 - 12:33 AM I know that you good folks would jump down my throat even though I said that it should not be taken in a pejorative sense. Charlie, My uncle, (father's older brother), his name was Adolf and he also came from Austria. But he was very tall and did not have a mustache, so I guess that did not make him a nazi. So much for names. Here is something else to consider. Muslims do believe in Jesus as a prophet the same as they do of all biblical prophets that came before him. They only stress that Mohammed was the "last prophet" and therefore he has the final word on everything. Therefore, in order to become a Christian such as Obama did, he would not necessarily have to renounce his Muslim faith. I saw recently on another website that this is exactly the case in Obama's Church. An inquiry was made to that church by an Egyptian Muslim who was told that he could join that church without renouncing Islam and in fact the church had many members who fit into that category. When asked specificly if Barack Hussein Obama was one of those people the person on the phone would neither confirm nor deny it. I know that you folks only want to see one side of this candidate and consider him the second comming of the Messiah. But if there is any possiblilty that he is still a Muslim, I would not want to see him in power a mere 7 years after 9/11. My memory is not that short. I lost friends that day and if not for the grace of G-d, my dear wife would have been there that day as well. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: artbrooks Date: 24 Mar 08 - 11:25 PM And here I thought it meant "he who has many wives and writes bad poetry"... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Ebbie Date: 24 Mar 08 - 09:09 PM Incidentally, I understand that "Solomon" means "peaceful". Obviously, ascribed meanings are not always accurate. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Charley Noble Date: 24 Mar 08 - 09:01 PM Dear Rabbi Sol- If you would like to play games with names, my father's name was "Adolph." Now in your opinion did that make him a Nazi during World War 2? Some of his neighbors thought so, and reported him to the FBI. What kind of mischief are you indulging in if you think a candidate's name has some significance? I am extremely offended and disappointed by your persistent posts on this question. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:57 PM Rabbi Sol, I think you might need to start getting your information from some new sources. The ones you've got now are lying to you, and it kind of looks like they're doing it for nefarious reasons. Obama is of Luo ancestry, and the name is from the Luo people and language, not Swahili. This is the only meaning I have been able to find so far for the name Obama... a Luo name (male) from Western Kenya (Nyanza Provice) which may derive from "obam," which conotes "bending" or "leaning". http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080127090913AAMqwIr I know you said you didn't mean anything by it, but I think the only reason someone would spread that kind of falsehood would be in order to smear someone. This is very sad for two reasons. The first one being that people would stoop to that kind of dirty smear against a political candidate, and the second being that people are promoting the idea that a Muslim couldn't be a good president of this country. There are many Muslims in the world who have every bit as much goodness and capability as any Jew, Christian, Hindu, or any other religion or any people of no religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:43 PM Just in the interests of truth, Rabbi, a virtue we can all surely agree on, the following from the National Review: "Before ducking off from the press scrum, Obama took a moment to explain that his first name is Swahili, and means "one who is blessed by God." It also relates, through Arabic and Semitic roots, to the Hebrew baruch, which means "blessed." An African-American Senate candidate who can speak a little Hebrew? Could focus groups have come up with a better candidate for a diverse America? The good news for Democrats is that Obama seems like the real deal Ñ he hasn't made any nutty statements, he avoided gloating during the scandal-tinged implosion of his GOP rival, Jack Ryan, and he appears situated to cruise to a November 2 victory." I've seen anumber of references--none authoritative-- to the notion that the Swahili word Obama itself refers to Luo Africans who were converted to Muslim. But Barack Obama is an American. Or have you forgotten that part? A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Ebbie Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:33 PM Rabbi Sol says: I was told that the name "Obama" in Swahili is translated as "He who converted to Islam". Rabbi, even *if* (which, frankly, I doubt) Obama in Swahili means "He who converted to Islam", it would NOT refer to Barack Obama, Junior's spiritual journey in any way. As is fairly common, he inherited and perpetuates the name of his father. It amazes me that some people don't recognize the racist nature of their posts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:05 PM I was told that the name "Obama" in Swahili is translated as "He who converted to Islam". That is NOT meant as a pejorative statement. Just a point of information while we are on the subject of names. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: MarkS Date: 24 Mar 08 - 07:36 PM As long as we are having fun with names, maybe somebody could post Obamas mothers first name. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,mg Date: 24 Mar 08 - 07:23 PM I think HRC was somewhat upper middle class..don't know for sure..but weren't her father's family Pennsylvania coal miners perhaps? Not too aristocratic there..maybe her mother was more so. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST Date: 24 Mar 08 - 05:56 PM >>Did the Israeli embassy immediately turn him over to the US authorities? Did he continue to spy? If the answers are "no" then Israel was our enemy in this instance and the Mossad or something equivalent was involved.<< "no" should be "YES" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 24 Mar 08 - 05:53 PM Rabbi Sol, Did the Israeli embassy immediately turn him over to the US authorities? Did he continue to spy? If the answers are "no" then Israel was our enemy in this instance and the Mossad or something equivalent was involved. We've argued this before you and I but I think that the crux of our difference boils down to my desire to see those who spy for Israel, or any other country, thoroughly deterred. I don't think you would be so concerned had Pollard been Anglican and had given information to the British. Pollard and many like him have mixed loyalties and their motivations are much stronger than a man selling secrets for yacht money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 24 Mar 08 - 04:50 PM Jack, For the record, Pollard was not working for the Mosad. He was working for himself and took it upon himself to provide the classified information directly to the Israeli Embassy. He felt that this was information that Israel, an allie of the United States should have had and was being witheld. Was he wrong? Absolutely yes. Should he have been punished? Absolutely yes. Was a life sentence in solitary confinement, after the government reneged on a guity plea, a fair punishment? In light of the fact that people who spied for the Soviet Union, an enemy of the USA at that time, were released from prison after serving their sentences, a resounding NO. I know that Joe Lieberman disagrees with me on this and you do too. So Jack, you are in good company on this one. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 24 Mar 08 - 04:08 PM Rabbi-Sol, Given the position you have taken, I think you are bound to be embarrassed to find out that the other Democratic contender's full name is as follows. "Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton" Why is the press hiding this middle name before her two LAST names from us? Is it her worship of the Roman goddess of the Hunt? My God no! Her name is Dianne! She must be a Pagan!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 24 Mar 08 - 03:54 PM BEcause Rodham is a white aristocratic name; Hasan is an aristocratic name, as well -- the Kings of Morocco were so named, for example -- but it is not suited for our exo-phobic herd-think. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 24 Mar 08 - 03:35 PM The only reason they mention Rodham is because she used that and not Clinton as her last name for many years after she was married. She didn't change it to Clinton until it became necessary for reasons of political expediency. So she was known by many as Hillary Rodham and not Hillary Clinton. But none of the middle names of the other candidates are mentioned at all. I don't know the middle names of any of the other candidates. People are making a point of using Obama's middle name for the purpose of spreading hate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 24 Mar 08 - 03:14 PM You always hear Hillary Rodham Clinton but her newsworthy opponent for the Democratic nomination is never referred to by his middle name. WHY? SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 24 Mar 08 - 02:50 PM Rabbi-Sol Barrack uses his full name. He used it in his comments on the Ferraro incident. The press also infrequently uses it. But that is not the problem. The few times it has been a problem, it has been from the way in which it has been used. I am sure you can think of instances where an otherwise innocent word has been used as an insult in hate speech. It's not in the usage but the tone. I am sure that Obama's mother uses his full name with love and respect. That asshole radio talk show host, the one McCain pretended to be mad at in Ohio, did not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 24 Mar 08 - 02:46 PM Correction: Rabbi Sol, how many times have you seen John McCain's middle name mentioned in the print or broadcast media? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 24 Mar 08 - 02:45 PM Rabbi Sol, how many times have you seen John McCain's name mentioned in the print or broadcast media? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 24 Mar 08 - 02:36 PM I don't understand either why it should be politically incorrect. If so, how come it is never or seldom ever used by the print or broadcast media? Somehow they are trying to play it dow. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 24 Mar 08 - 02:33 PM >>> Lieberman is capable of separating Israel's interests from America's. He is the only Jewish politician who has gone on record AGAINST the release of Jonathan Pollard.<<< I'm glad to know that. It is certainly a point in Joe's favor. >>>If Obama was to state that he would pardon Jonathan Pollard as soon as he was sworn in to office, he could get the entire Jewish vote overnight. That would negate all the negative fallout from Rev. Wright and his politically incorrect middle name.<<< Rabbi, do you really believe this? I believe that there are a lot of people who don't like Obama's middle name who would be, at best, unaffected by a pledge to reward the Mossad for spying on us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Emma B Date: 24 Mar 08 - 02:05 PM Husayn, Hussein, Hussain, Husain, Hosein (Arabic:ÍÓیä Turkish: Hüseyin), is an Arabic name which is the diminutive of Hasan, meaning "good" or "handsome". In addition it is a royal name in Jordan. I don't understand why it should be considered 'politically incorrect' |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Big Mick Date: 24 Mar 08 - 02:03 PM Rabbi Sol, my friend, I am not sure how one can have a politically incorrect middle name. I am watching this one from the sidelines, and have been a long time supporter of Israel. But I don't understand that statement. It is simply the name his parents gave him, and there is no shame in that. Actions are what should dictate our views, not something we had no say in. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 24 Mar 08 - 01:59 PM Jack, Lieberman is capable of separating Israel's interests from America's. He is the only Jewish politician who has gone on record AGAINST the release of Jonathan Pollard. If Obama was to state that he would pardon Jonathan Pollard as soon as he was sworn in to office, he could get the entire Jewish vote overnight. That would negate all the negative fallout from Rev. Wright and his politically incorrect middle name. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 24 Mar 08 - 01:48 PM Rabbi-Sol, I am certain that McCain is paying Lieberman's expenses when our tax dollars are not. John has planes and busses and there is always room for someone as distinguished and controversial as a former Democratic VP candidate stumping for the Iraq fiasco. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 24 Mar 08 - 01:44 PM Bruce, The point I was making was about Rabbi-Sol. Not about Lieberman. I was trying to present to the good Rabbi, the possibility that Joe could be supporting John for reasons other than the VP slot. But to be perfectly honest with you Bruce, having watched him in the news for nine years, I don't believe that Lieberman is capable of separating Israel's interests from America's. And like many many others he seems to see Israel's interests from a Likud viewpoint, as a zero sum game, that everything that the Palestinians gain must be at Israel's expense. I think that he, as McBush has done til now drive this country to division and financial peril for the sake of very dubious, small gains, in Israel's security. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 24 Mar 08 - 01:13 PM Jack, Lieberman is NOT a very wealthy man. With the high cost of fuel today airline prices are very expensive. If he has to pay out of pocket to travel all around the USA, he has to be getting something in return for it. I am sure he is not going by Greyhound. On the other hand, if the McCain campaign fund is paying the expenses they must consider Lieberman a very special person who is important to their efforts; important enough to be VP. Would I do it? Only if someone paid my Amtrak fare. I don't fly. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Texas Guest Date: 24 Mar 08 - 10:34 AM I sure do miss Molly Ivins - she would dislike the reality of some of what is going on, but she'd love the spectacle. Cheers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Arnie Date: 24 Mar 08 - 10:22 AM I really don't believe Obama is an "enemy of Israel". He's an remarkable candidate who promises much hope with his eloquent words. I do believe that Israeli's and the Jewish community are very paranoid at this time, and worried- trying to figure out the real politics of the candidates. Here is something from the editor of The Jerusalem Post called "Editor's Notes: The challenge of the would-be presidents" http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420743245&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull It may give some insight into some of the thinking that's taking place in this regard. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 24 Mar 08 - 09:40 AM I should rephrase that one: "enemy of Israel" as defined by Rabbi Sol and those who share his perspective on this subject. Definitely not as defined by those who are working to end the occupation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 24 Mar 08 - 09:36 AM However, that was not the point in brining that one up, as I'm sure you are aware, Arnie. If Senator Obama is such an enemy of Israel, it seems to me he would have gotten a much higher score on that one. Don't you think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 24 Mar 08 - 09:31 AM What's the score on the campaign ending constant rocket attacks and killings of civilians in Israel? The campaign to end the occupation and the campaign to end the rocket attacks and killing of civilians (both in Israel and in Palestine) are the same campaign. They cannot be separated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: beardedbruce Date: 24 Mar 08 - 09:00 AM Jack, Re Lieberman: Might he simply be doing that if he thought that a McCain presidency was the best thing for the US? Wouldn't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: artbrooks Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:48 AM It seems to me that a McCain/Rice ticket would have one big advantage for Obama (if he is nominated): the single-issue racists would all stay home rather than voting for McCain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Arnie Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:42 AM score of 2 on U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation ? Give me a break! And why is it that Jew haters and Israeli haters always mention Israeli expansionism but never mention any of this: What's the score on the campaign ending constant rocket attacks and killings of civilians in Israel? What's the score on ending incitement of hate towards Jews and complete destruction of Israel from it's neighbors? It's pretty clear from the Jewish perspective that Israel's surrounding Arab countries are gathering momentum for a major showdown to finish Israel off once and for all, and the rest of the world is accepting this possibility and now condoning the Arab violence as acceptable. Israel cannot afford to lose one time- another holocaust could be in the works, and just like the last one most of the world might just sit back and go along with it. That is why American Jews must be careful as to who they vote for - it's a matter of survival!!! Also a matter of gaining peace or having a major war- it will be a critical time. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Charley Noble Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:29 AM Democratic governors of bog swing states? Ohio Pennsylvania Michigan depending on definition of swing I've probably missed one or two. Not Texas or Florida or California. Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 23 Mar 08 - 11:48 PM Well Condi would sew up the tight assed conservative skater vote for the GOP. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 23 Mar 08 - 11:44 PM A lot of other names have been mentioned -- including Tom Ridge, the hapless Homeland Security agency guy. But if McCain really wante dto make Obama jump hoops he would tap Condi Rice. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 23 Mar 08 - 11:44 PM SOL, Might he simply be doing that if he thought that a McCain presidency was the best thing for Israel? Wouldn't you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 23 Mar 08 - 11:13 PM If you just stop and think for a moment, Lieberman would not be travelling around the country stomping for McCain unless he was promised something in return, that being the VP slot on the ticket. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 23 Mar 08 - 10:12 PM Edwards as AG? Wouldn't Law and Order type be better? How many Governors of big swing states are Democrats? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Ebbie Date: 23 Mar 08 - 09:53 PM Oops. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Big Mick Date: 23 Mar 08 - 09:38 PM Ebbie, I am referring to Lieberman on a Democratic ticket. He may end up on the McCain ticket, because he is the one that will need help. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Ebbie Date: 23 Mar 08 - 09:32 PM You may well be right, Big Mick, but Lieberman's body language is certainly signalling a sure thing of some sort. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Big Mick Date: 23 Mar 08 - 09:30 PM Throw Waxman into EPA, and we got a dream team. Sorry to throw a wet blanket on all the dreaming going on here, but there isn't going any moderate Republican on the ticket, and you sure aren't going to see Lieberman on any Democratic ticket. I stand ready to consume all the crow you can dish up if I am wrong, but that just is not going to happen. There is no need. McCain is the one who needs across the aisle help, not Obama or Clinton. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Charley Noble Date: 23 Mar 08 - 09:08 PM "The most effective thing Obama could do in selecting a running mate is recruit Colin Powell." Another moderate Republican that would do the same thing would be Bill Cohen, a former Republican senator from Maine who served as Secretary of State under Clinton. But probably Obama will plunk for a governor from one of the big swing states. That would be the strategic thing to do and the game is to win. Richardson for Secretary of State. Edwards for Attorney General. Hey, the next four years could be damn good! Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 23 Mar 08 - 08:17 PM The Vice Presidential choice will be much more critical for McCain than it will be for either Hillary or Obama. That is because McCain is already 72 years old and had had a history of melanoma. Both the Democratic hopefuls, particularly Obama, are much younger and much more likely to survive 8 years in office. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Big Mick Date: 23 Mar 08 - 08:01 PM Edwards is certainly on the short list, if he would take it. I am not sure he would, but if not, I would think he would be a wonderful Attorney General. I think Richardson has probably cemented his position with Obama as Secretary of State. I had always thought he would be VP, but the events of the last week have changed that. By his endorsement, he accomplishes the same thing as he would as VP, bringing the hispanic vote. And Obama would not have to worry about exacerbating the 5% to 7% natural race based loss. For those that are not political hacks, that is the threshold we use in evaluating an African American candidate. S/he must be able to win with the addition of a 5% to 7% loss factor for those that simply will not vote for a person of color. Obama has skewed that somewhat in his favor by virtue of the young voters he has attracted, but it is still reasonable to expect that kind of defection. He also, to his credit, has done all he can to run on the basis of position, and to place the historic nature of his candidacy in a strong, but secondary place. If he makes it to the nomination, always remember that the VP's positions have less to do with the nomination than what s/he brings to the table. His choice will be based on what the polls show as a place that needs shoring up. It is going to be a very interesting 3 months. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 23 Mar 08 - 07:34 PM Thank you Ebbie, I appreciate you saying that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 23 Mar 08 - 07:33 PM Edwards is a good choice because their messages are similar. Hillary would be a bad choice because she is too fat a target for the 527's. I like the idea of Richardson campaigning to Hispanics. He'd be good in Debates and he makes a good speech. It would be an interesting campaign for sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Ebbie Date: 23 Mar 08 - 07:30 PM Jack, the Sailor, I agree with you whole heartedly. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 23 Mar 08 - 07:26 PM I think Richardson would make a good Secretary of State. If Obama would pick Edwards as his running mate, and put Richardson on his short list for Sec State, he'd be pretty hard to beat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,mg Date: 23 Mar 08 - 07:00 PM I do not think Richardson would be a good VP for Obama...as much for stylistic reasons as not..I would like to see him perhaps go back to energy if he has a good grasp of it all. Darn, I liked that gov. Granholm of Michigan on first glance, although she is for Clinton and I don't know her role in the Michigan vote fiasco..but she impressed me. But she can't be vp anyway because she was born in Canada. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: artbrooks Date: 23 Mar 08 - 03:57 PM This column from yesterday's Jerusalem Post has a somewhat different perspective. It was written by Andrew Silow-Carrol, editor of the New Jersey Jewish News, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 23 Mar 08 - 03:55 PM Looks like Richardson is sucking up to Obama in hopes of getting picked for the VP slot. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 23 Mar 08 - 02:59 PM Rabbi, His post on Obama is decidedly lacking in substance and more than a little condescending and racist. It is uninteresting to me. If you wanted me to gather that Braunstein is a buffoon, then you have succeeded. I agree that what Braunstein and the Hamas people are saying about each other is deplorable and has no place in civilized conversation. Israel has www.braunsteinspeaks.com, Likud and the idiotic "conservatives" have Faux News The Palestinians have Hamas. I pray for the hate mongers on both sides. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 23 Mar 08 - 02:38 PM Jack, Go to www.braunsteinspeaks.com Read his top, (most recent), post about Obama. Then read the post below it about the Palestinians and the blood libel. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 23 Mar 08 - 02:25 PM Rabbi-Sol, I agree that it won't be Jeb. I think, it almost certainly will be an evangelical Prodestant, probably a Baptist. Mccain has to appeal to the "Left Behind" readers." I have to say that my mouth is agape with your support of Arnold. I am I correct that you are against Obama at least partly because his estranged father was part of the Muslim faith and his preacher sometimes rails against US policy including its support for Israel, but you can support Arnold whose father was a member of the NAZI party. By your standards can I also call the Governor a "liberal" because his wife is a prominent member of the Kennedy clan. I am certainly not that way. I am for judging the Senator and the Governor both on what they themselves say and do, not on the actions of friends and family. You have started out here saying that you do not support Obama because of his support of Anti-semites, now that that argument has failed to gain traction, you don't support him because of his lack of experience. It is obvious, to me at least, that your mind is made up for reasons you are not directly sharing. Since you have said that you are a one issue (support for Israel) voter. I think that you are against him because he has not expressly shared your desire to expand Israel at the cost of peace. Since McCain has, you already have your man. Me, I don't share the view of some of McCain's backers that expanding Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates so that Armageddon will happen and the Messiah can rule for a thousand years is a good way to conduct foreign policy or a good reason to kill millions and bankrupt this country. I am sorry to say this, but Israel's "right" to behave as they have been is not worth 4000 young American's lives, ten of thousands maimed and trillions of dollars. Not to mention dead and maimed Iraqis. My religion tells me to love my neighbor. I don't get to choose which neighbors to love based upon political expediency. Other Christians are my neighbors, saints and sinners alike, as are Jews whether they be peace loving, militant fanatic settlers or likudniks, as are Mulims in Palestine, Iraq or Dearborn. We cannot make peace through war and we cannot solve the problem that Likud's allies in the Neocon movement have created in Iraq by throwing more lives and money at it. It is time for the Iraq war to end. It will end soon despite what Likud and Aipac want, because that what 70% of America wants. This is a very good thing and it gives me hope. It is change we can believe in. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 23 Mar 08 - 01:30 PM Jeb Bush will not be McCain's running mate. After the fiasco that Dubyah has perpetrated on us for the last 8 years, the GOP realizes that any name of Bush on the ballot would hurt them big time. Too bad that Arnold was born in Austria and can never run for President. He took a literally ungovernable chaotic situation in California and turned it around. He would have been the best choice. As far as Obama is concerned he is an eloquent speech maker who can paint a picture with words as no other candidate can. However he lacks substance. He has yet to tell the American people what specific steps he is going to take to bring about the "change" he is talking about. African Americans are voting for him because, "he is one of us and we want to see history made in our lifetime", as one of my close Black friends (a former Hillary supporter) told me recently. Even they can not point to any specific accomplishment that he has done since he has benn a Senator. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor Date: 23 Mar 08 - 12:24 PM From the first article that Rabbi-Sol posted. >>>Several concerns leap out at us. Until this speech, Sen. Obama maintained that he hadn't heard or known about Rev. Wright's controversial comments. This claim plainly did not pass the smell test. <<< This plainly is untrue. I saw Mr. Obama is several interviews before the speech and I have seen old recordings of Rev. Wright since then. Mr. Obama was careful to refer to those statements that were currently playing on youtube and elsewhere when he made those statements. And it is plain to me that Wright said plenty of controversial things, critical of US policy that fall short of the inflammatory rhetoric which has caused the controversy. Also they point out that Obama told a group in Cleveland that Wright was upset with Israel because of their support for apartheid. But the Jewish press says this was a lie because he was upset about the oppression of the Palestinians. Why couldn't both be true? Certainly it is a lie to say with certainty that Obama was lying. This article plays fast and loose with the truth and is plainly a smear job. If this website wants to support McCain because they feel that he is an aggressive war mongering hawk, then they out to say so. The shouldn't resort to lies and smears and false accusations of racism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Donuel Date: 23 Mar 08 - 10:11 AM Well drop my jaw and pee in my socks, I heard Rove is working on... McCAIN & JEB BUSH 08! (look for the trial balloons in June.) Rove thinks it will energize the base more than Romney or Lieberman. (Rove has been wrong before) Bill, Amos & others, I think the fear within the Jewish community is that Obama is not just that he may not be a friend to Isreal, but that a real withdrawl of US troops will put Isreal in a more precarious position. That is probably what is behind the hyperbole of ficticious anti sememetic claims. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: artbrooks Date: 23 Mar 08 - 08:53 AM Pretty weak stuff, Sol...and Moaz really has done nothing nothing more than quote other articles written elsewhere. He does attribute, so I guess you can't call it plagiarism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 23 Mar 08 - 01:50 AM Great article, number 6! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 23 Mar 08 - 01:48 AM Thanks for the Article. Excellent. Here's another Bill Bragg. Bet you a quarter you laugh out loud, albeit nerviously at the end of the first verse. Billy Bragg - Waiting For The Great Leap Forward |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: number 6 Date: 23 Mar 08 - 01:43 AM Great song ... much thanks Jack. The only hope the "barn raising" for the U.S. and for the world (as for we all are one community) is Barrack Hussein Obama. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 23 Mar 08 - 01:21 AM bILL That was such a good song, I'd like for you to hear this one. Billy did this well before Obama's run for President. But if anyone can preside over the "barn raising" that Billy is talking about its Barrack Hussein Obama. The Price of Oil |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: number 6 Date: 23 Mar 08 - 01:21 AM Thanks Jack ... When I first heard this song by Steve it really moved me ... I can certainly relate to it ... especially the first 2 stanzas. Here is an article that some might find interesting ... especially relating to this thread. It's an Israeli's view concerning this U.S. election. 2 Americas biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 23 Mar 08 - 01:15 AM Thanks for the Lyric, Six. I had to go find the song. Its a good song, combines some of the best attributes of Bob Dylan, Woody Guthrie and Bruce Springsteen. Steve Earle - Jerusalem Cool that I have a guitar like too, that except mine is has dots marking the frets instead of blocks. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: number 6 Date: 23 Mar 08 - 12:52 AM "I woke up this mornin' and none of the news was good And death machines were rumblin' 'cross the ground where Jesus stood And the man on my TV told me that it had always been that way And there was nothin' anyone could do or say And I almost listened to him Yeah, I almost lost my mind Then I regained my senses again And looked into my heart to find That I believe that one fine day all the children of Abraham Will lay down their swords forever in Jerusalem Well maybe I'm only dreamin' and maybe I'm just a fool But I don't remember learnin' how to hate in Sunday school But somewhere along the way I strayed and I never looked back again But I still find some comfort now and then Then the storm comes rumblin' in And I can't lay me down And the drums are drummin' again And I can't stand the sound But I believe there'll come a day when the lion and the lamb Will lie down in peace together in Jerusalem And there'll be no barricades then There'll be no wire or walls And we can wash all this blood from our hands And all this hatred from our souls And I believe that on that day all the children of Abraham Will lay down their swords forever in Jerusalem" .... Steve Earle Sorry ... just had to post it. JTS ... good post. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 23 Mar 08 - 12:44 AM Rabbi Sol If attacks on Israelis are your only concern, you ought to go and vote there. Certainly the government there has a lot more say in preventing those attacks than any candidate here. Maybe you should try to remove the veil of hatred for Muslims from your eyes and try to see things from their point of view. I pray for Israel. I pray that it will stop its course of expansion repression and theft before those sins consume that country beyond redemption. If Eretz Isreal is the goal behind this madness, I urge you to remember that as a promise from God. It is only God's to give. No number of modern day would be Joshuas in F16's will make that come to pass. Prayer and a quest for peace is the path. Not conquest using my tax money. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: number 6 Date: 23 Mar 08 - 12:32 AM You are correct on that one Carol C. :) biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 23 Mar 08 - 12:28 AM The bigots do, number 6. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: number 6 Date: 23 Mar 08 - 12:27 AM Who gives a rat's ass what religion they are. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 23 Mar 08 - 12:25 AM McCain's not a Catholic. He's always been an Episcopalian (a kind of Protestant), but lately he's taken to calling himself a Baptist. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 23 Mar 08 - 12:22 AM Rabbi Sol: If you are in the camp that says that because of his name, he must support Arab extremists, you are beyond all reason, sir. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Barry Finn Date: 23 Mar 08 - 12:19 AM Not only should O'Bummer want US out of Iraq, he should see that we withdraw from Israel too. Another front that doesn't need our backing our our money. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 23 Mar 08 - 12:08 AM Jack, Go to the Jewish Press website (www.thejewishpress.com) and read this week's leading editorial "The Candidate and The Cleric". Then go to Jason Maoz' column "Obama Unmasked". And yes, as long as my fellow Jews in Israel are getting rockets rained down on their heads that originate from Hamas contolled Gaza, and as long as 9 innocent students are being massacared at Yeshiva Merkaz in Jerusalem by an Arab terrorist, I and my fellow Orthodox Jews will continue to be one issue voters when judging candidates. And tell me folks "Why is it politically incorrect to mention Obama's ineffable middle name "HUSSEIN"? I am sorry that I could not get back to this thread sooner but I do have a life besides Mudcat. In addition to celebrating the Purim holiday yesterday I am also involved in my new carreer as a promoter of folk and bluegrass concerts. As such, I get on the average of 5 submissions a week from various performers all around the globe and I do try to get back to all of them in a timely manner. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: dick greenhaus Date: 22 Mar 08 - 11:22 PM I think we need a McCain/Lieberman ticket. Just think, if they ran against Obama/Clinton we'd have a Jew, a woman, a black and a somewhat doddering Catholic---bigots would go crazy trying to figure out who not to vote for. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 22 Mar 08 - 07:10 PM I think that Obama Lieberman is more likely than Obama/Clinton. Which is to say that both are as likely as Clinton/Snowball from Hell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,Texas Guest Date: 22 Mar 08 - 05:27 PM Well, IMHO, the Obama/Clinton, or Clinton/Obama ticket will become a reality before this thing irons out. The bottom line here is that it doesn't really matter whether or not they like each other; what really matters is: the desires of the leaders of the Democratic Party. It appears that neither candidate will have enough committed delegates to "win" the nomination; therefore, it will be worked out behind closed doors. Again, IMHO, if Obama is "perceived" to be the front-runner and does not get the nomination - race relations in America will be set back big time, or, "BIG TIME." I'm sure the DNC does not want that to go down; but, they don't want to do anything that will leave one half of the democratic voters at home because their candidate didn't get the nomination - there are a lot of folks out there carrying that feeling. Finally, IMHO, Jefferson and Adams are probably rolling over in their graves while Franklin is most likely laughing his ass off with a nod of admiration for this republic to have lasted as long as it has. Cheers. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:35 PM Hillary's exagerrations discussed in WaPo. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:32 PM Irony, my dear artbrooks, irony. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:24 PM Artbrooks. That was Carol's point I think. That Rabbi-Sol's assertion that Obama is an anti-semite is absurd. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: artbrooks Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:14 PM How could a score of -2 from the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation be considered as denoting an anti-Israel position? Unless, that is, one considers a pull-out from all of the occupied territories as being pro-Israel. As desirable as that might be, and I'd personally put some conditions on that, I rather doubt that the Israeli government or most Israeli citizens would agree. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 22 Mar 08 - 01:33 PM I think an Obama/Clinton ticket would be a serious error on the Dems part; and I do not believe they are much interested in snatching defeat out of anywhere. That phrase is another one of those slanted cynicisms that says so much about the world-view of those who use it. What they are interested in is building a better nation; an interest I share. McCain certainly will not do it, and Hillary would not do it as well as Obama. The most effective thing Obama could do in selecting a running mate is recruit Colin Powell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 22 Mar 08 - 01:29 PM >>>Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol - PM Date: 21 Mar 08 - 12:58 PM Folks. McCain/Lieberman IS going to happen. There is a neighbor on my block who is a multi millionaire real estate magnate. He is a close personal friend of Lieberman and has hosted a fundraiser for him in his home during his last senatorial campaign. I saw him in synagogue last week and he told me that the deal was made for Lieberman to be VP on the ticket before he started campaigning for McCain in Florida. As a practicing Orthodox Jew, Lieberman will be able to win over the right wing conservatives because his views on morality and family values coincide with theirs. Also, Orthodox Jews will not accept any ticket with Obama on it, even if Hillary is at the top. They see him as an enemy and a danger to the state of Israel because of his association with the arch anti-semite, Rev.Jeremiah Wright and his strong Muslim ties. Orthodox Rabbis have already been mobilizing their congregations against Obama's candidacy. They will even go so far as to proclaim a day of public fasting and prayer should Obama in fact be the Democratic nominee. SOL<<< Rabbi, The above post is very disturbing to me. Do you have an proof that Rev Wright is an "arch anti-semite" And what do you mean by that? What is wrong with "Strong Muslim ties?" Are you saying that it is somehow evil to simply be Muslim? Also do you realize that Lieberman would bring very little support to the ticket that McCain does not have on his own. McCain can get one of those little first debate Bush boxes on his back to whisper corrections in his ear rather than having Lieberman do so in such a public and embarrassing manner. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: CarolC Date: 22 Mar 08 - 12:32 PM LOLOL Obama is so anti-Israel, he got a score of negative 2 (that's less than zero, folks) from the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation... 2005-2006 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation's position, Senator Obama received a rating of -2. http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=9490&type=category&category=32&go.x=10&go.y=10 LOLOLOLOL... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Bobert Date: 21 Mar 08 - 09:12 PM Agree, Bill, agree... Too many folkls out there tellin' other folks how they6 are supposed to vote... Problem is that Obama ain't all that vulnerable to this strategy of folks tellin' other folks what they are supposed to think because they are white, yellow, Jewish, left-handed, blue-eyed, or whatevr divisive political crap/jargon that these racists are coming up with to convince folks that's Obama is the devil hisself... What a joke... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Bill D Date: 21 Mar 08 - 07:45 PM "Orthodox Jews will not accept any ticket with Obama on it, even if Hillary is at the top. They see him as an enemy and a danger to the state of Israel because of his association with the arch anti-semite, Rev.Jeremiah Wright and his strong Muslim ties." Talk about ridiculous paranoia! I am SO tired of single-issue political stances! So, as long as a candidate 'promises' to favor Israel, anyone will do? Even if their other issues are lame, stupid and destructive? Obama is the candidate...not an old preacher! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Bobert Date: 21 Mar 08 - 07:25 PM Einstein said that "a problem cannot be solved with the same consciousness that created it"... I rest my case when it come to McWar... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 21 Mar 08 - 07:08 PM Bruce: I don't think it is just me; but I have frequently acknowledged the things about your perspective that seemed reasoned, to me. I know my list of alternatives was slanted, but I haven't seen any reason to think those things would change under a mcCain administration, anymore than Bush was willing to do anyting but repeat his delusions about his own rightnerss in every step of going to war, spending a trillion dollars, and sending a thousand soldiers to death. The problem I have with all that is that he keeps insisting it was justified. Yet no concrete persuasive argument has been made for it; he keeps falling back on the unspoken concept that it was the clever thing to do. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Bobert Date: 21 Mar 08 - 06:37 PM bb, McWar, McWar, McWar or whoule you prefer... McEndlesswar, McEndlesswar, McEndlesswar??? What you call Obama is your business... I'll continue calling it the way I see it... If you think that Obama's position that if the Pakistani governemnt wouldn't act against known terrorist that we should makes Obama a monster then have it it... Lotta folks, even a lot of Bushites, would agree with Obama... Unless, of course, they knew what Obame said, which is doubtfull... B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 08 - 03:10 PM Just you. Should I now define the principles of what YOU stand for, since you so kindly have informed me what I think? It seems to me that the strong point that Obama brings is to try and unite- and the tack you are taking is one designed to divide. As long as you insist that those who disagree with you are evil and only you have the best interests of the nation in mind, you are one of those that Obama is complaining about. When you allow that it is permissable to have different opinions as to HOW to achieve the desired goal, and then talk about it ( rather than insist YOU have been told from high the only way(how Bush-like you seem!) )THEN you might be able to persuade me that a Democratic admisnistration might not be a disaster for the nation. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 21 Mar 08 - 03:02 PM Gee-- his basic philosophy was good enough for Jefferson, Adams, Paine et al. Can't see why the mainstream should object to that. I expect when it comes down to the wire, there will be surprising slide over to our ancient liberal traditions based on human respect and the hope of pursuing happiness, rather than the more recent conservative traditions of debt, fear, and invasion of privacy. Just my guess, though. There is a certain appeal to exporting the idea of genuine, intelligent democracy finding a path to positive change in a series of win-win steps, as contrasted with the notion of exporting extraordinary rendition torturees, military power, corrupt contractors with unlicensed firearms, and McDonald's franchises to the world. But, maybe that's just me. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 08 - 02:48 PM My sense is that the Democrats will talk themselves out of the WhiteHouse. With maybe 35% liberal ( vote Dem no matter who runs) and 30% conservative ( vote Rep no matter who runs), the deciding factor is the 35% or so in the middle. They will vote what they perceive as their iown interests- what they think will make them better off. IMO, a larger number of them will see that a ticket with a (liberal) conservative AND a (conservative) liberal will seem much better than one with two liberal liberals- as the Dems seem likely to run. Obama has charisma and eloquence - but his basic philosophy may be too liberal for the Center. We shall see. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: GUEST,heric Date: 21 Mar 08 - 02:45 PM Rabbi Sol: Note: According to wikipedia (without a cited reference) the Anti-Defamation League reports that it has no record of anti-Semitic commentary from Dr. Wright. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 21 Mar 08 - 02:40 PM My sense is that if as Rabbi Sol says Lieberman is slated to run with McCain, that the Democratic campaign is doomed to succeed. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 21 Mar 08 - 02:22 PM Well, you can believe in the wrongness of abortion, McGrath, but realize that making a policy out of it to bind others to that belief is politically an unwise thing to do. Having differing beliefs but still finding a way to manage the commons is the whole point of good political process (of which we have a dearth). A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 08 - 02:21 PM ""Vote for me. I can guarantee that I don't believe in any of the things I say, on principle." True enough for many politicians that would be the honest truth, including some who speak most fervently about issues of "morality". " True of ALL politicians - at least the ones who get elected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 21 Mar 08 - 02:15 PM An odd use of "beliefs". Your "beliefs" are the things you believe in, and what kind of policies are they if you don't believe in them? "Vote for me. I can guarantee that I don't believe in any of the things I say, on principle." True enough for many politicians that would be the honest truth, including some who speak most fervently about issues of "morality". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 08 - 01:29 PM " Their beliefs are just that, they should not become policies." Gee, that is what many conservatives keep saying about liberals... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Barry Finn Date: 21 Mar 08 - 01:27 PM TIA, I think they mean to say that they paint both with the same "Black Brush". How extreme of them. Another religion not worth hearing from, if that's their case. I for one well be pleased to see a McCain/Lieberman ticket. With all the right wing/extremeists/religons getting into the show & them shoving their beliefs down the throats of the majority of Americans I think that they'll soon wear out their welcomes & the Americam public will consider the religious baggage a turn off. I may be way off in my timing for this but I eventually see the church & state becoming unlikely bedfellows, being in the same company with them is like being in the same bedroom as a couple ready for a nasty divorce. Their beliefs are just that, they should not become policies. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 08 - 01:16 PM Bobert "How do you spell "grumpy old men"???" B O B E R T And if you keep saying McWar, I'll insist on Oh Bomb Ah - he did say he would go back into Iraq when Al Quida causes trouble there... But then I guess you think calling someone names iss better than actually trying to do anything positive ( one of the points I have to give Obama- he does NOT act like a number of his supporters here.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: TIA Date: 21 Mar 08 - 01:11 PM "...strong Muslim ties..." Please explain. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: number 6 Date: 21 Mar 08 - 01:08 PM McCain/? .... though I certainly don't endorse McCain's politiks I do feel we should not undermine the McCain/Cheney/Bush right wing machine ... I think there are a lot more right wingers out there than we give credit for ... the drums will beat loud and louder .... this machine will go to all ends to make sure they retain the throne. scarry. biLL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Rabbi-Sol Date: 21 Mar 08 - 12:58 PM Folks. McCain/Lieberman IS going to happen. There is a neighbor on my block who is a multi millionaire real estate magnate. He is a close personal friend of Lieberman and has hosted a fundraiser for him in his home during his last senatorial campaign. I saw him in synagogue last week and he told me that the deal was made for Lieberman to be VP on the ticket before he started campaigning for McCain in Florida. As a practicing Orthodox Jew, Lieberman will be able to win over the right wing conservatives because his views on morality and family values coincide with theirs. Also, Orthodox Jews will not accept any ticket with Obama on it, even if Hillary is at the top. They see him as an enemy and a danger to the state of Israel because of his association with the arch anti-semite, Rev.Jeremiah Wright and his strong Muslim ties. Orthodox Rabbis have already been mobilizing their congregations against Obama's candidacy. They will even go so far as to proclaim a day of public fasting and prayer should Obama in fact be the Democratic nominee. SOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Bobert Date: 21 Mar 08 - 11:40 AM McWar/Lieberman??? How do you spell "grumpy old men"??? B;~) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 08 - 11:14 AM Come on, Barry- tell us what you really think. Stop holding back like that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Barry Finn Date: 21 Mar 08 - 11:12 AM Soon enough when it comes down to the 2 final running mates & their opposition (MaCain & who ever) it won't matter who he has by his side. The fight is with whose gonna be the democratic leader, there will be no republican leader & no republican majority either. I sense that when the smoke clears the nation will, by November, be so sick & choked from what's happened to this country that the republicans may not see the light of day for at least the next 16 years. We have slowly been falling down the lee side of the trash heap for the past 8 yrs & now in last gasp of this administration's 6 months the slow fall is becoming a landslide that won't stop until it rests at the doors of of the DC Shithouse & the cleanup & followup that follows on from what's been a tragic slip since the Rag-on/Bush yrs will take it's toll on the American con-slience. We will all pay dearly but we'll be the better for it all in the end, it's just that the costs weren't needed, it's to bad we can't learn by/from the mistakes of others. Bush may, & rightfully so, die by suicide once he fails from office come the new year. He'll get a clear picture of what his legacy will look like & his spineless backbone will not be able to stand the shock of it all & he will shatter & shit himself (not necessarily in that order) & wander off to rid himself of the world that hates him or rid himself of the world he seems to hate. He's one spiecies that I gladly bid farewell to. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 08 - 11:12 AM IMO, the McCain/Lieberman ticket would sweep the conservatives- after all, they would just be acting like the Dems in the last election and voting AGAINST the other party's candidate. In that case, it does not even matter if you agree with YOUR candidate. But thinking people would have to wonder who is more inclusive- a candidate that talks about bringing people together, or one that runs with someone of a different political bent. It does depend on WHO Obama picks as VP- He could get a strong win out of one of the more "liberal" Republicans. I just don't see that happening, though. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: heric Date: 21 Mar 08 - 11:09 AM A McCain nation or an Obama nation? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 21 Mar 08 - 11:04 AM No, I think McCain / Lieberman is a great slate for the righties. If they can't get behind re-integration of the nation, Obama's unification theme, they can at least field a dramatically divisive candidacy. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 08 - 10:53 AM McCain/Steele? Barry, "He couldn't hold his own in his own state " He DID win, as an independent. HE BEAT the Dem. Seems like the party tried to dump him and the PEOPLE decided he should stay. Maybe it is the Dem. Party that is on the way out... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Barry Finn Date: 21 Mar 08 - 10:50 AM Lieberman,,,,,,,,,,,,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,He,He,He,He couldn't hold his own in his own state & he can't even figure out if he a Dem, Repub or an Indie much less a pro or con hawk or dove. He stands in a puddle of his own piss. NO WAY, he's on the way out, he just can't find the back door yet. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: artbrooks Date: 21 Mar 08 - 10:43 AM McCain/Lieberman is a non-starter. Lieberman, for all his "backing of the war" is still very liberal. McCain needs someone from the right wing of the party to bring in the conservatives and evangelicals since, for all his "backing of the war", he is seen by them as very center-left. Obama/Powell is an interesting thought but, I'm sorry to say, probably too "black". How about Obama/(Gen. Wesley)Clark? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 21 Mar 08 - 10:32 AM WHat a great idea. Obviously that Vicodin is good for you.... :D A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Bobert Date: 21 Mar 08 - 10:26 AM Not that far fetched, Amos... I heard a Powell interview recently where he said he was "undecided"... Given that McWar had allready sewn up the Repb nomination that leads me to bwlieve that Powell is leaning toward either Clinton or Obama... But Powell also said that he and Obama had had "discussions" on foreiegn policies amd added that he fasvored Obama's pledge to talk with adversaries... The way I read it is that Powell is a closet Obama-ite,,, I also have wondered if Powell might serve in an Obama cabinat as Secretary of State... Heck, he allready knows the job, the various player and under a visionary president might do wonders in that position... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Amos Date: 21 Mar 08 - 10:00 AM Ya know, I wonder if Colin Powell wouold be interested in backing Obama as Veep? Wouldn't that be a hoot? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Bobert Date: 21 Mar 08 - 09:02 AM I don't think McWar can win regardless of who he picks... He has nothing to offer the country other than policies that clearly aren't working... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Donuel Date: 21 Mar 08 - 08:58 AM McoCaine / Powell I wonder if Colin is still interested. Mac Cane / Rice & beans. Mc Cain / Cheney Rove will sort it out, don't you worry. Diebod will do the rest of the heavy lifting as long as they don't release the election results a week early. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: Big Mick Date: 21 Mar 08 - 08:55 AM Not a chance that McCain could beat Gore. McCain has so many negatives that are not really being put out, that will come out in the campaign. But my old boss, Al Gore, is not interested in running. Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 08 - 08:40 AM McCain Vs. Gore? McCain wins that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: MarkS Date: 21 Mar 08 - 08:33 AM A Clinton/Obama ticket could win, but the likelyhood of a reconsiliation between them is remote. Latest story I have heard floated around is that there will be a deadlocked convention, with Al Gore emerging as the Democratic candidate. |
|
Subject: BS: McCain/Lieberman Vs. Clinton/Obama? From: beardedbruce Date: 21 Mar 08 - 08:23 AM Point to discuss- Could a Clinton/Obama ticket win ( anywhere besides here in Mudcat) against a McCain/Lieberman ticket in the general election? IMO, no- Demonstrating inclusion would seem to wipe out the (small) lead that Obama has over McCain. Clinton would bring out the more conservative voters that might sit out a McCain vs Obama race. WHat do you want to bet that THIS is what the Dems will decide on, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory again? |
