Female voters analyze Democratic front-runners Clinton, Obama

Posted by JEdgmon on January 24, 2008 at 12:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd vote for any Republican before I would Obama, Obama is the most whiney politician I've ever seen. And he's obviously got one heck of an ego problem. First, he gets on TV and basically endorses Reagan over Bill Clinton, then throws a huge tantrum because people dare to wonder why he voted "present" 130 times, when we all know he just didn't want to go on record, because he was planning his future. And tonight he has the audacity to say that anyone that supports Clinton will vote for him, but his supporters won't support Hillary. That's one heckuva an ego to even suggest that he knows how thousands of people will vote 10 months from now. And it's also pretty strange, because the last time I looked, which was just a second ago, Hillary was doing better in the general election polls, that mean ((((absolutely-absolutely)))) nothing at this point, than either Obama or Edwards. Look for yourself on real clear politics.com. Not only that, the election is decided by an electoral college, and even if Hillary was running worse, it still wouldn't mean anything, as long as she was winning key battleground states. But far be it for me to educate the stupid, afterall Obama will win SC by 16 pts on Saturday, which is a real shock..lol..

Posted by JEdgmon on January 24, 2008 at 12:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Re-phrase, any Republican besides that Romney fella, Romney reminds me of a corporate billionaire that would fire ya for sweating during a meeting outdoors in the Amazon.

Posted by JEdgmon on January 24, 2008 at 1:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama is a liar! First he says clearly and concisely that he never said he wanted a single payer healthcare system, that "the Clinton's were distorting his record and the facts," then the Clinton's prove he did without any question or any doubt in their recent ad. And now it's "Oh, if we were starting from scratch, that's what I would want," knowing he was caught dead to the rights in an outright lie. Not only that, he claims on Monday that he voted 130 times "present" in Illinois because he had problems with those bills, and anyone with a brain anywhere knows he voted that way because he was planning his future, and didn't want to go on record with anything slightly controversial. And then he basically endorses Reagan in an attempt to woo independent voters, which is what he was really doing, and then actually denies with a straight face mind you that he in any, way, shape, or form, was saying he liked Reagan's idea's.. Give me a break, this guy is a corrupt liar. Black people might as well vote "write in" "I am a racist." I wouldn't vote for a white guy like this, if they had a gun to my head..lol..

Posted by moonpie on January 24, 2008 at 6:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama is WORST than the Clintons. Thought I would never see that in my life time. Someone that will do and say ANYTHING to get elected president. I don't have a problem with the US having the first black president, just not him. Too many skeletons in the closet. Votes present 130 times. his church, his muslim back ground, pie in the sky message. We've heard this type BS a hundred times haven't we?
MARK MY WORD IT WILL BE THE REPUBLICANS ONE DAY TO NOMINATE THE FIRST BLACK CANDIDATE NOT THE DEMS!

Posted by Bgilbert on January 24, 2008 at 6:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a novel idea. Why don't women vote for the candidate who will raise the minimum wage to 9.50 an hour with scheduled raises after that. Or the candidate who will actually fight to get healthcare passed. Congress just lost another battle to the Republicans yesterday to get emergency healthcare for children of more unemployed people. And which two candidates are part of this impotent Congress which can't pass anything because they're too busy insulting each other. Or how about women vote for the candidate who will jumpstart the economy with new green technology or give students a free ride in turn for a year of service? Vote John Edwards and get the programs you need. Forget the gender/race issue and vote for what you need. No one is going into that voting booth with you and no one will be courting you after you vote. But one candidate will give you the fight you need in Washington. Edwards 08

Posted by 5thGenerationLocal on January 24, 2008 at 7:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I like how P&C does a cover story of what CNN did just 2 days ago. CNN got tore up for making such a blanket statement about black women. Just goes to show how biased this rag of a newsletter is.

Posted by madamvoter on January 24, 2008 at 7:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't vote for Edwards....He decided to run for office while visiting his wife in the hospital - shortly after she was diagnosed with terminal cancer. I think her illness might be a distraction if her husband was in office.

Don't vote for Monica Lewinski's x-boyfriend's wife....She is not truthful and has the spine of a jelly fish (She stayed with Bill knowing he was running around, which is an insult to all women.)

McCain....maybe....but he is old....

Huckabee....Super nice fellow,, but...Do we really want a preacher in the white house??

Giuliani......Quite capable

Romney........Quite capable and looks nice.

Obama.........Quite capable especially if he crosses party lines with a republican running mate.

Vote your conscience........

Posted by Bgilbert on January 24, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Except in the latest polls, McCain now beats Obama and Clinton in a general election, undoubtedly becasue people are now afraid that they have both become open to Republican attacks.

Posted by SCAron on January 24, 2008 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's look at Obama facts.
Missed votes: 129 out of around 4000 or around 3%. Considering that groups in Illinois that should be concerned are not, I won't be either. (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/mochila.php...)
Also, "in more than 50 votes, he seemed to be acting in concert with other Democrats as part of a strategy." http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/pol...

Reagan Comments: Obama said that Reagan 'changed the trajectory of America'. I think that Black Plague changed the history of the world, but that doesn't mean I love it, or want to see it come back. Additionally the Clintons (both Bill and Hillary) have praised Reagan. www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/clinton...

I'm saddened that some individuals find it necessary to defeat Obama by spreading lies, instead of advocating the virtues of their candidates. Why is that? Is it because your candidate doesn't have enough virtues to advocate? Is it because you fear a black president? Do you have financial gain to be made by defeating Barack? I'm confident that Hillary, or the Johns (either Edwards or McCain) or any of the rest of the Republicans would make decent Presidents, but I am confident that Barack Obama will make a great President.

Posted by suec on January 24, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How about voting for the one who is best for the COUNTRY, not just for a certain group of peoeple.

"Hmmm, I think I need to vote for the candidate with blonde hair and blue eyes. Doesn't matter what their morals, plans or views are. I just want someone who can relate to ME and MY problems. Someone who will give ME what I want. Who cares if all those brunettes and brown eyed people have to pay for it. I will get what I want. To heck with the rest of you!"

When you vote it is a bigger responsiblilty than just what YOU want. You are voting for the country and everyone in it. Men, women, children of every color.

Posted by vicupstate on January 24, 2008 at 8:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And tonight he has the audacity to say that anyone that supports Clinton will vote for him, but his supporters won't support Hillary. That's one heckuva an ego to even suggest that he knows how thousands of people will vote 10 months from now. And it's also pretty strange, because the last time I looked, which was just a second ago, Hillary was doing better in the general election polls, that mean ((((absolutely-absolutely)))) nothing at this point, than either Obama or Edwards. Look for yourself on real clear politics.com. Not only that, the election is decided by an electoral college, and even if Hillary was running worse, it still wouldn't mean anything, as long as she was winning key battleground states. But far be it for me to educate the stupid, afterall Obama will win SC by 16 pts on Saturday, which is a real shock..lol..

WHen did Obama say that his supporters would not support Hillary if she wins the nomination?

The electoral college has NOTHING to do with who wins the respective parties nomination. It is only relevant in the general election.

Posted by LocalHero on January 24, 2008 at 8:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is the first time in my lifetime (52 yrs) that it looks like America will have a choice of someone other than a white male for president. That alone is reason enough to vote for Clinton or Obama. It's time to open the playing field so we have the other half+ of the country's population to work with.

One thing everyone seems to agree on is that we need change in a big way. I think everyone who voted for Bush should apologize to the rest of us and anyone who voted for him the second time should be banned from voting ever again. (joke)

I'm still undecided between the two but lean towards Obama because he seems to represent the greater change.

Posted by LocalHero on January 24, 2008 at 8:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

PS...I'm a white male.

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 8:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Citizen Suec quoted as saying, "When you vote it is a bigger responsiblilty (sp) than just what YOU want. You are voting for the country and everyone in it. Men, women, children of every color."

What a profound idea! I think I will write you in Citizen Suec as my choice. I have never thought about it as you have presented it. What a ground breaking concept! Too bad that has not been the case over the last 200 years and the total sum of our leaders demographically/economically couldn't be more different than the main stream and the masses.

Quoting Governor Mark Sanford, “The 1895 Constitution that set today's governmental structure was built around the fear that a black man would be elected governor of South Carolina, and any structure built on this foundation is an insane model from which to run your government in the 21st century.” Of course this implies that it was ok at the time.

Posted by Bgilbert on January 24, 2008 at 8:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No, the reason for increased healthcare is pharmaceutical companies charging outrageous prices for drugs that they hold patents on for profits, insurance companies refusing to lessen costs for individual plans so those people show up in emergency rooms for care, and then charging ALL doctors regardless of their history increased costs when one doctor messes up. And hospitals have become the the government. Charges for hospital care bump up the costs of basic supplies to outrageous levels (like the $100.00 nail). People have no qualms about suing each other for any number of reasons, but then blame lawyers for the lawsuits. It's people who are hungry for money who bring up lawsuits for petty reasons. There are some very real medical mistakes that kill and maim people, and doctors should be held responsible, but there can be a cap on lawsuits.

Posted by LocalHero on January 24, 2008 at 8:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The primary is one thing but does anyone have a handle on how likely it is that SC will swing to a blue state for the election? I'm not too fond of the electoral collage system.

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Citizen Early, I am merely quoting The Honorable Governor Mark Sanford's State of the State address given this month on January 16th of 2008. A speech that echoed the sentiment of change that many of all "man-made" racial categories are requesting.

Posted by LocalHero on January 24, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oops, collage = college. Hmmm I'm not sure what an electoral collage would be like...

Posted by suec on January 24, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Vote with your conscience.... Vote with your heart..."

No no no no no

Vote with your brain! Use wisdom.

Posted by soapboxcom on January 24, 2008 at 9:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And now...the attack radio ads from the Clintons...parsing together short snippets of recorded conversations to attempt to paint an ugly picture of a candidate who's just trying to elevate the political game beyond party lines, and beyond traditional thinking.

Does anyone have a clip from the debate the other night? You know, the one where Hillary SNARKILY replies...."We both have supportive, committed spouses who are outspoken on our behalf...."

There are many words that have been used to describe William Jefferson Clinton. "Committed" cannot be considered one of them when it comes to his wife.

I'm pointing this out because this clip IS available...and NOT being used by the Obama campaign. Obama could choose to remind the nation that Hillary's loudest supporter lied to a nation (and a grand jury) and embarrassed the office of the Presidency. But he CHOOSES not to. Bill Clinton as a committed spouse? JUICY stuff that could derail the whole Clintonista machine for a period...and Obama leaves it on the table.

Folks? He's TRYING to keep his message out there...but the attacks (since so many seem to buy into just about anything they read or see) ...need to be refuted and responded to.

Before you make up your minds this Saturday...please remember all the material that Obama or Edwards COULD be using...but aren't. And ask yourself who is more interested in politics as usual versus substantive, groundbreaking change.

Posted by ji_john on January 24, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a Quote; “Why is Bill Clinton courting such intense publicity, inevitably much of it negative? Is he crazy? Crazy like a fox. He has two goals and is achieving them both spectacularly. First, he wants to be the same kind of lightning rod for Hillary that she was for him during his run for the presidency.
As the 1992 Republican convention approached, Hillary ratcheted up her comments and profile precisely to attract GOP fire so that they would leave Bill alone. He and I discussed the plan. Hillary’s comment, for example, about “baking cookies and serving tea” put her squarely in the Republican Party’s sights as the convention approached. The Republicans fell for the lure big time and spent their entire convention going after Hillary. Bill was scarcely hit. And the 1992 GOP convention is one of the few that afforded its party no bounce at all. Now Bill is returning the favor. In the days before Iowa and leading up to New Hampshire, Hillary was the prime topic of political discussion. She took shots for misusing Bill’s record and trying to adopt it as her own, for minimizing King’s contribution to civil rights, for crying, for attacking her opponents, and for changing her campaign style to become more likeable. Now, she rarely gets hit anymore. They’re hitting Bill instead. Like a red cape, he is attracting the attention of the bull so his wife the matador escapes unharmed.
The other method behind his madness is that Bill wants to suck up all the oxygen in the room and dominate the coverage of the Democratic contest. By doing so, he cuts Obama out of the news, pushes him off the front page, and usurps the headlines. Of course, he also crowds out Hillary, but that’s OK, given her large leads in the national polls and in all the big states whose primaries are coming up. If there were a newspaper and television blackout, Hillary would cruise to an easy win, so Bill, by injecting himself into the coverage and hogging it, is accomplishing the same goal.
"Ultimately, the Clintons are playing a game of jujitsu with Obama, using his own strength against him. By challenging Obama for the black vote - by promising to go door to door in South Carolina in minority neighborhoods, for example - Bill is highlighting the question: Will Obama carry the black vote? Of course, he will. He leads, 4 to 1, among African-Americans now.
But by making that the central question, Obama’s South Carolina victory will be hailed as proof that he won the African-American vote. Such block voting will trigger the white backlash Sen. Clinton needs to win.”
THERE’S A METHOD TO CRAFTY BILL’S MADNESS Jan 22 2008
www.dickmorris.com/blog
Dick Morris knows the Clintons inside-out. Watch them!

Posted by Earl_T_Shudders on January 24, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The only thing that Hillary Clinton has 35 years of experience at is cleaning up/damage control after that hound dog of a husband of hers. She may have found her voice recently but I bet she will be using that voice mostly to call down Slick Willy if she gets elected. He will surely take on the responsibility of a traditional presidential spouse by fully embracing the role of women’s issues and do it on non-traditional ways. Perhaps this is why he is fighting so her to get her elected. Talk about fairy tales!

Posted by mdtpace on January 24, 2008 at 9:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This story sucked the last time they wrote it. The P&C is a pathetic newspaper. Just try saying you are going to vote for someone because they are white or because the are a man and see where it gets you. Are there not other black women that they can talk to other than the beauty shop crowd. I don't talk politics with my barber and he tried to talk to me about them it would be a surefire way to lose a customer. This story is insulting, still, to black women.

Posted by mdtpace on January 24, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, an Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama ticket is a sure loser.

Posted by tygers1231 on January 24, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's not forget Obama is the same person that didn't salute during the national anthem. Is this really a man that we want to run our country and put the lives of all our military in his control... I think NOT!!! I am still trying to figure out who of all the candidates are the lesser of the evil? This is a SAD time for all Americans!!

Posted by mggoose2000 on January 24, 2008 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Has voting for an Presidential Candidate come down to whether they are the first woman or black to be elected to office?

With the situation with the economy, illegal alien status and the overall climate of the country being what it is, we need to be looking at who is the best candidate for the job at hand, not their race or gender.

It scares the hell out of me to think that people are going to pick our next President based on these factors rather than the most important factor: QUALIFICATIONS

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Citizen Archdude--
Morals and Ethics are virtues that are constants and not variables that evolve over time at the mercy of scope, paradigms, paradoxical conundrums and all other perceptual distortions that have absolutely no bearing on the essence of right and wrong.

Furthermore Federal laws which trump state laws did not at the time support that kind of governmental racial exclusion and ironically just prior to this period, people described as "black", took over much of the administrative and civil duties while the Civil War was being fought all prior to Ben Tillman's rant about making SC's legislature exclusively run by people described as "white".

The Irony of the South

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 10:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And Citizen Archdude, yes when paradigms and scope are limited, they distort the truth.

Posted by JEdgmon on January 24, 2008 at 10:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

vicupstate, you're correct, the electoral college has nothing to do with the Dem nomination, the point was and remains, that the Obama campaign constantly makes the false accusation on every pulpet that they're more electable, and they can bring a national consensus to support him. And as the recent general election polls prove, he's basically no more electable than anyone else. Secondly, the suggestion that he makes that he's ((more)) electable is also inaccurate, because as the point that I thought was perfectly clear, by I guess it wasn't is. Obama and Edwards are no more electable than Hillary Clinton, because it's not the overall polls that matter in a general election, it's how you're running in key battle ground states, and it's how your electoral college numbers are matching up with the GOP opponent.

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Citizen Early, you as so right and the proof that anyone can vote is clearly seen in the last two presidential elections, especially voting for a second go round.

Posted by JEdgmon on January 24, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Palmetto man, who cares about Obama's race or church, the only people that care about that crap are trouble makers stirring up crap from the GOP. Basically mocking the intelligence of people.

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Citizen JEdgmon, Senator Obama declaring he is more electable is called,.... drum roll please....
CAMPAIGNING....

Have you seen the Republicans? There is the obvious concern given the Democrats were beaten by Bush…. (Pause for meditation and or prayer) twice but do you think this country can bear a repeat of the current administration or anything remotely close to it?

Posted by jaysin on January 24, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Many of you have your stories confused.
Obama never endorsed Reagan over Clinton. He simply said that Reagan had "ideas" and was successful at moving those ideas into action. He didnt say he agreed with them or not.

Why cant a candidate respect the other side? I think it proves he could care less about the labels of Republican and Democrat, just like McCain could care less. Has anyone seen him campaigning with Joe Lieberman? I think both these candidates are popular b/c of this as they should be.

Another thing, someone mentioned that Hillary is somehow less of women b/c she stayed with Bill during his infedelity? You southern evangelical, god fearing hippocrats make no sense. Doesn't anybody remember thier wedding vows? Isn't marriage a contract between a man and a women and doesnt she have the right to choose? If she left Bill, all of you would have chastized her for not following her wedding vows.

Another thing. Why is it that whenever Obama's name is evoked on these talk boards, there is some sort of reference to race?

Posted by champayoga on January 24, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bill O'Reilly for President!!!

Posted by JEdgmon on January 24, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SCAron writes"Considering that groups in Illinois that should be concerned are not, I won't be either."

Son you're not concerned with the fact that your candidate doesn't vote on anything that is controversial, including the most recent Iran vote in the Senate, claiming that he had other arrangements that couldn't afford him the opportunity to make it to the Senate to cast his vote?? Come on, you can't be serious here??

SCAron writes "Additionally the Clintons (both Bill and Hillary) have praised Reagan."

Son, irregardless of the actual point, which you dodged, the point was that Obama was obviously and without question trying to appeal to independents with his praise of Reagan, meanwhile he gets on stage and says he in no way, shape, or form, said Reagan had good ideas. Your candidate to be nice is FOS.

SCAron writes: " I'm saddened that some individuals find it necessary to defeat Obama by spreading lies, instead of advocating the virtues of their candidates. Why is that? Is it because your candidate doesn't have enough virtues to advocate? Is it because you fear a black president?"

Son, still race baiting, how stupid does Obama think black people are? And the only person that I've seen outright lying and getting caught red handed in the process, is your very inexperienced candidate, that you obviously support irregardless of any and all evidence to the contrary. Yes, obviously some Republicans have lied about this man, more than likely for the so purpose of trying to drive a wedge in between the Democratic party. Newsflash son, that's going to happen, they're out to win, and they will do this. And yes, your inexperienced candidate as was reported on Keith Olberman last night further drives a wedge in the party with his inexperience, by saying his people will not support Hillary, which is exceptionally egotistical to the 10th power, and outright stupid, if he truly believes in his policies and beliefs. But then again you may be right, who really knows what side Obama is on, because he never votes on anything of merit or controversial to begin with

Posted by JEdgmon on January 24, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Minoritysouth writes: "Senator Obama declaring he is more electable is called,.... drum roll please.... CAMPAIGNING...."

No question, it's also campaigning to point out that it's not true, in fact, in actuality if we were to compare meaningless numbers right now in Florida, Ohio, NM, just the opposite would be true.

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Son,

Truly Senator Obama and Senator Clinton are both strong candidates. Neither are perfect but bashing them really plays right into the hands of the Republicans.

Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the book that typically starts around preschool age children typically playing their parents against one another.

In other words, the two candidates should be tested but be prudent about the litmus and don't give the opposition ammunition, son...

Posted by jjfnikki on January 24, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OBAMA KEEPS TALKING ABOUT BRINGING US TOGETHER,BUT IT SEEMS HE IS ONLY DIVIDING US.HE WILL NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANYTHING.HE REMINDS ME OF BUSH.

Posted by greyrider on January 24, 2008 at 11:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How about voting for the best candidate? Or am I making too much sense?

Posted by hillbilly on January 24, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I wonder if these women would consider voting Republican if Condi Rice were on the ballot

Posted by JEdgmon on January 24, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yep, nuttin like a good ole boy representing the likely GOP nominee claiming he was "afraid of the black man" which is why he offered $20 for sex to an undercover black officer in a public restroom. LOL..
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007...

Now how many people said they would vote Republican if Obama didn't get the nomination again? I can actually see people running from that in my mind now..LOL..

Keep your mind on the goal people, and it's not personal, it's about all people, and what's best for the country!!!

Posted by BillMan on January 24, 2008 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Clintons sure are nasty, hardball politicians! My wife who is a teacher was set to vote for Hillary Saturday but her personal attacks against Obama have turned her away! 2 votes for Obama in this house!

Posted by YankeeLady on January 24, 2008 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Did any of you see the commentary on CNN last night? The journalist covering Charleston all but stated bluntly that the media has to build up the "first woman" or "first black" story line. Remember, folks, that Obama and Clinton aren't the only Democratic candidates. Don't let the talking heads tell you who's worth voting for so that they can have something to increase their TV ratings. I plan on voting for Edwards.

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 12:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Citizen Archdude, are you for real?

Let me help you. Scope and paradigms in relation to ethics and morals are limited by only our perception of scenarios, models, and known circumstances.

HOWEVER, In terms of an all inclusive political system, the subject matter you choose to debate, it is not ethical or moral to tax law abiding citizens yet put laws or practices in place to prevent them the same opportunities afford to their peers who have no other material differences other than the perceived difference called race.

It is not moral or ethical regardless of the scope and paradigms YOU have created for this time period to justify bigotry.

What are the paradigms of 1895 that you are referring to that made it moral and ethical for Ben Tillman to proclaim and I quote Governor Sanford quoting Ben Tillman "We of the South," he said on the floor of the U.S. Senate, "have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and never will."?

Support your argument, Citizen Archdude. You may want to get under your sheet first though. It is cold out side.

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 12:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ethics (usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

I will not make any apologies for my opinion that Man does not define right and wrong and are simply the wards of these concepts making us human, thus right and wrong are constants. Man defines what is acceptable in a given culture and what is not acceptable which is related but still discreetly different.

It was a pleasure and I wish you well.

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 12:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A higher power, be it the ultimate culmination of humanity, Yahweh, Yeshua or the higher power as you understand it. It certainly is not me. Maybe its you...

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 12:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I quoted Govern Sanford's State of the State because he talked convincingly about change and I do not hide behind any other alias besides MinoritySouth.

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Citizen Early and Archdude you are both certainly my Guru. God Bless you both.

Posted by SCdeacinNYC on January 24, 2008 at 1:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well back to the issue at hand!!

I am voting for Obama, that's no secret, but I do think all the Dem candidates are strong. Edwards, Clinton and Obama are not saying anything too different. However I like the cross-society appeal of Obama. Edwards is not going to get enough delegates to come through. And even though I think the media has been generally unfair to Hilary, I'm sorry but I would like to prevent Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton....the whole possibility of that crap even happening speaks volumes about the American political system.

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 1:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Exactly, the platform of all three Democrats dwarfs the competition's. The country having royal families sends up all sorts of red flags.

Thank God for some one who makes sense, Citizen SCdeacinNYC.

My well wishing is sincere but how is recapping history a negative thing? Why is it not racist talking about the atrocities of the holocaust? I will answer that, because it is part of our history and should not be forgotten.

Some in the forum have insinuated that Senator Obama will not look out for the interest of the country as a whole.

That is simply a lie.

That is the mentality of Ben Tillman.

Posted by SCdeacinNYC on January 24, 2008 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Early, I have an honest question. And I am serious about it before you jump all over me...for clarification:

Is your account used by more than one person?

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Citizen Archdude, what does your race, age, or sex have to do with changing our government? Rhetorical... Hold on, I need to look out my window. Still in South Carolina but thank you for the noun version of ostracize. Like I said you are my guru.

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 1:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Good Question Citizen SCdeacinNYC. I wanted to ask that question of several alais but I did not want to sound paranoid.

Posted by Test2007 on January 24, 2008 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Philosophy anyone?

Anyway...
So, if they select Obama you will vote republican? And??? This place is for us to share and discuss our thoughts on issues, not to browbeat someone because they are voting for someone you don't like. You don't like Obama? So what? Who really cares? Someone doesn't like Hillary or John. Again, who cares? Moving on. Don't try to convince someone else that the candidate they like is this or that. YOU just don't vote for him. Get it? Got it? GOOD.

Posted by newyorktimes on January 24, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Palmettoman And JEdgmon, Your hatred for Obama is only surpassed by your stupidity. Your Rants make it quite evident to us what kind of people you are... the more things change...

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 1:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That would make it a noun. Now wouldn't it??? No pun intended. And you think too highly of yourself. Depending on the perspective a guru is not necessarily positive.

Posted by Thagan on January 24, 2008 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

HEALTH CARE: I heard Obama say in the last debate and eleswhere that if he was starting from scratch he'd support a single-payer plan. BUT but for the sake of expediency, he has opted to work with the current system in place (i.e., employer plans, government plans, medicare) and provide choice for both employers and individuals. I for one don't want mandates on health care until health care is reformed. It's gone up 78% since Bush took office. What incentive is there for insurance companies to lower costs if everyone has a mandate to buy it. Further, unlike Hillary's plan, college students can stay on their parents plan until they are 25. If have to understand when Hillary talks about 15 million uninsured, she's talking about those college kids who are covered but don't have to buy their own plan at 18. Factcheck.org states that Hillary's plan will leave out 1% and Obama's will leave out 2-3%. What Hillary says, and what she means are not necessary the same thing.
1 TRILLION DOLLAR TAX INCREASE: Hillary has passed out flyers in New Hampshire and Nevada charging Obama with a 1 trillion tax increase on "hard-working Americans" to fund Social Security. Obama was talking about raising the "cap" from $97K to $200K. The truth of the matter is that those who make $97K or less already fund SS 100%. Those who make more than that (about 6% of the American people) don't pay SS payroll tax on anything under $97K but still are eligible for full benefits. You have to ask, "If Hillary is so concerned with the burdens on the American people, why would she force people to buy health care and leave the burden of funding SS on the middle class? You have to wave aside the smoke she blows that keeps the focus off of her and has us distracted on her opponent.

Posted by Thagan on January 24, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

VOTE YOUR POCKET BOOK. VOTE OBAMA.
HEALTH CARE: I heard Obama say in the last debate and elsewhere that if he was starting from scratch he'd support a single-payer plan. BUT but for the sake of expediency, he has opted to work with the current system in place (i.e., employer plans, government plans, medicare) and provide choice for both employers and individuals. I for one don't want mandates on health care until health care is reformed. It's gone up 78% since Bush took office. What incentive is there for insurance companies to lower costs if everyone has a mandate to buy it. Further, unlike Hillary's plan, college students can stay on their parents plan until they are 25. If have to understand when Hillary talks about 15 million uninsured, she's talking about those college kids who are covered but don't have to buy their own plan at 18. Factcheck.org states that Hillary's plan will leave out 1% and Obama's will leave out 2-3%. What Hillary says, and what she means are not necessary the same thing.
1 TRILLION DOLLAR TAX INCREASE: Hillary has passed out fliers in New Hampshire and Nevada charging Obama with a 1 trillion tax increase on "hard-working Americans" to fund Social Security. Obama was talking about raising the "cap" from $97K to $200K. The truth of the matter is that those who make $97K or less already fund SS 100%. Those who make more than that (about 6% of the American people) don't pay SS payroll tax on anything under $97K but still are eligible for full benefits. You have to ask, "If Hillary is so concerned with the burdens on the American people, why would she force people to buy health care and leave the burden of funding SS on the middle class? You have to wave aside the smoke she blows that keeps the focus off of her and has us distracted on her opponent.

Posted by captivated on January 24, 2008 at 2:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

GOBAMAGOBAMAGO!

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 2:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Citizen Archdude, you are a leader in the field of how not to conduct one's self as far as I can tell in this medium.

Posted by JEdgmon on January 24, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by newyorktimes "Hey Palmettoman And JEdgmon, Your hatred for Obama is only surpassed by your stupidity. Your Rants make it quite evident to us what kind of people you are... the more things change..."

What kind of person am I exactly? The same type of person that just went after McCain to the same extent I have Obama? Why isn't he crying racism? The same type of person that actually went to Iraq with Moveon, before the last invasion to help remove innocent people, and have suffered as a result of my actions since then? The same type of person that has defended both Sharpton and Jesse Jackson from wrong claims for many yrs, by racist people claiming they're just as racist as any other racist out there? BTW.. I will be happy to show you the message board, where this took place, not yesterday, (((but 5 yrs ago.))) What kind a person am I, the kind of person that stands up and says the truth, which people like you don't want to hear, despite what may or may not be popular to true hate filled/animalistic bigots, using fictitious screen names to manipulate people to do the wrong thing, for the eventual hope that you can continue the same wrong direction this country has been going in, which is exactly what a vote for Obama truly means.

Posted by MinoritySouth on January 24, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Besides, didn't you stop talking to me several posts ago? Anywho, I am done now. Never argue with a fool. Someone watching may not be able to tell the difference.

Posted by ndolan622 on January 24, 2008 at 2:36 p.m. (Suggest removal)

First of all, I am female, white and in my 50's. And my vote will go to the person I feel will make the BEST president - my choice will have nothing to do with either race or gender.

I am concerned with many things I have been reading lately that show Clinton WANTS to lose in the Palmetto State...
Dick Morris says the 'tactic' is this: "By challenging Obama for the black vote — via going door to door in South Carolina in minority neighborhoods, for example — Bill is highlighting the question Will Obama carry the black vote? Of course, he will. He leads, 4-1, among African-Americans now. But by making that the central question, Obama's South Carolina victory will be hailed as proof that he won the African-American vote. Such block voting will trigger the white backlash Sen. Clinton needs to win. "

Apparently, the Clinton's truly think that ALL the American people are stupid! Using the blacks against the whites against the hispanics, etc.

I say we ALL send them a message....We are NOT sheep you can manipulate!!!!

I do not like the fact that the media and politicians can manipulate us to make OUR DECISION for us as to who our next President will be!

Posted by BillMan on January 24, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NDolan,
The Clinton's will do everything in their power to win an election. That ploy Hillary pulled in New Hampshire with the tears was because she was down in the polls! Tearing down a man like Obama who is the modern JFK will keep this democrat from voting for her should she be the nominee! I will pull the lever for McCain!

Posted by ndolan622 on January 24, 2008 at 2:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

archdude

"All of the voting public should make their own decision from fact and go vote." Agreed!

"Unfortunately, too many Americans are lemmings that will only do as they are told". Disagree...this year's election has gotten many more people involved than ever before. And, judging from comments I'm reading, all over the US, people are becoming much more aware of the 'political BS' out there. Glad to see it!

Posted by newyorktimes on January 24, 2008 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

JEDgmon,
Fallacious ramblings such as moveon does not give you any credibility. Continually calling anyone who supports Obama a bigot does not disguise your character. but this isnt about you or me. If you could objectively criticize politicians by disecting their policies, it would be appreciated. If you're going to be an armchair intellectual at least sound intelligent.

Posted by eyfigueroa on January 24, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Archdude & minority: I certainly hope that you two take a deep breath and come back to this or any other forum with a renewed mindset. Both of you are far too intelligent to lower yourselves into this type of discourse. I’m sorely disappointed; however I’m looking forward to reading ya’lls posts in the future.

Posted by eyfigueroa on January 24, 2008 at 3:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I want to thank everyone on this board for ignoring raregard67. it’s important to have differing opinions on subject matters, that is what this board is for. As many of you know, I often enter into spirited debates on various subject matters on this board and regardless of how I may feel, I certainly hope I don’t lower myself to the horrid and vicious race baiting of raregard. He/she is certainly deserving of prayers and forgiveness but doesn’t deserve the joy of true and honest debate. Again thank you all for not sinking to his/her level.

1-24-08 POSTS ON THIS ARTICLE ALONE:

“Just go to any DMV office or government buiding and see the wisdom of the black female at work. Axe them a question and if you are inrerrupting a chat w/ another black female...OUCH Your delay is compounded. They aren't deciding who will be the next prez. they are helping to decide who will get their @ss whupped by a white rep. male”

“It has been suggested black women just keep slamming their heads in the door. I believe this is an African dance they should excel at. Maybe this accounts for their red, blue, blonde, and purple hair. It might also account for their diminished I.Q.”

“Just look at the 1st sentence in the article. Black women can't even choose a man who will stick around and provide for the welfare of the kids they generate; how in the world could they be trusted to help select a president. I axe you to look at how they allow themselves to be polarized. Now $hitlery is a white race baiter female, and Barack Oh'my aching@ss,Bama is a black empty suit who when he sneezes, all black women catch a cold. No whiteys out there that catch your eye gals? Enquiring minds wanna know.”

“..."they distort the truth." My friends, truth is to blacks what kryptonite is to Superman. Try to explain the old proverb to a black woman..."Vegetarian is an old Indian name for POOR HUNTER." They look at you like you are acting white. Please don't taze me, bro!! I like Condi Rice.”

Posted by Girleygirl on January 24, 2008 at 3:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ey- Rare is not even worth it he/she/it proved it last week. Paul Crawford reads the post and I sure hope he will block his access soon.

I enjoyed reading some of you alls post to the subject matter and no matter what I am going to vote for the candidate that is more in the loop with me and my needs as a citizen, a woman, and mother.

Posted by jjfnikki on January 24, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OBAMA IS IN ANOTHER WORLD AND ANOTHER TIME.HE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT BRINGING US TOGETHER,BUT HE IS ONLY DIVIDING US.OBAMA DOES NOT CARE ABOUT ANYBODY BUT HIMSELF.HE NEVER ANSWERS ANY QUESTIONS.WE ONLY KNOW THAT HE IS ONE OF THOSE CHICAGO POLITTIANS,AND HIS NAME HAS SURFACED IN A FEDERAL CORRUPTION CASE.

Posted by transparentgov on January 24, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A Superb Video of OBAMA’S REAL LEADERSHIP FOR SENIORS!!!!!!!!

Please SHARE THIS VIDEO with your friends, parents, grandparents, and/or SENIOR neighbors/associates.

"Fulfilling a Generation's Promise”----
Real Leadership for
SENIORS

http://youtube.com/watch?v=oq4uoIG-UyI

Posted by eyfigueroa on January 24, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

archduke & girleygirl: in some respects i don't want the posts deleted. i want EVERYONE to see them and perhaps it will be a cautionary tale as how NOT to be perceived on this forum. foolish and vicious.

Posted by gukegang on January 24, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hi,

To all those female African-American voters who are still undecided:

I am a white male, 50, and a life-long Democrat. I believe Barack Obama has a better chance of winning the general election. I have no problem voting for a woman, and Sen. Clinton is intelligent and tough. But a lot of people don't like the Clintons. And a lot of people won't vote for her under any circumstances. Barack will carry white liberals like me, he'll carry a lot of moderates and independents,and he even will carry some liberal Republicans. He'll bring up the youth vote a bit too. Hillary will have to rely on the tired, old and shrinking traditional Democratic base that lost in 2000, and lost again in 2004. If she does win, it won't be by much, and she won't have the kind of majority the Democrats needs to govern.

The fate of the country is in your hands. I know you're thinking long and hard about what to do. I thought I'd take the time to write because you need to know what kind of people are supporting Barack. He can win, if you turn out, in large numbers, and give the man his chance. Please, have some faith, have some hope, and give the man his chance.

Posted by Girleygirl on January 24, 2008 at 5:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Archdude- I know what is was! He was looking from love by a black woman and she rejected his sorry tail so now he hates all black woman. I love the fact that he can detail everything about a black woman from her shoes to the color of our hair. Real detailed lol!!! I guess he never seen a white woman that colored her hair differently. LOL

I guess he only has the constitution up to amendment #13 since he wants an answer to his stupid question.

Posted by Girleygirl on January 24, 2008 at 5:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

looking for love....I said from... my bad

Posted by outrage on January 24, 2008 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Where is Obama(stance) on immigration?

Posted by BillMan on January 24, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Name me someone who has run for president who represents the ideals, dreams, and generational change Obama has brought forth since JFK in 1960! The time for change is now and Obama is the man to do it! I have been involved in Democratic Party politics on the precinct level and many like me (whites) feel that Hillary is ripping the Democrat party apart with her attacks on Barack! I have proudly voted for Bill Clinton many times but this lifelong Democrat will be pulling the lever for McCain should Hillary be the nominee!

Posted by BillMan on January 24, 2008 at 5:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hillary no matter what her Democratic ideals is more of a machine than a person, win at all costs is what she believes! I have never been more impressed by a politician than Barack Obama since the legend of JFK and I will cast my first vote for a Republican presidential candidate should she be the nominee! The tactics she has used against Barack should make all Democrats ashamed!

Posted by jjfnikki on January 24, 2008 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OBAMA KEEPS TALKING ABOUT BRINGING US TOGETHER AND CHANGE,BUT ALL HE IS REALLY DOING IS DIVIDING US.OBAMA WILL NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.THE ONLY THINGS THAT WE KNOW ABOUT OBAMA IS THAT HE IS ONE OF THOSE CHICAGO POLITTITIANS,AND THAT HIS NAME HAS SURFACED IN A FEDERAL CORRUPTION CASE.

Posted by outrage on January 24, 2008 at 6:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Archdude - I am an independant. I am having trouble with this healthcare for everyone idea. I didn't have health care until I was 34. I grew up in a family of democrates, but I am leaning towards Romney. Edwards scares me!sorry!

Posted by ACPO2 on January 24, 2008 at 7:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Anybody But Clintons. If their lips are moving they're lying!!!

Posted by lillycollette on January 24, 2008 at 7:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

John Edwards has my vote.

Posted by Dis on January 24, 2008 at 9 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't vote for Clinton, or McCain (I'm an Independent who support who I see as the best candidate, regardless of party). I cannot support any candidate who voted to go into Iraq, instead of full force into Afghanistan.

Obama: He's not perfect, but I can find more reasons to vote for him than against him. He has a lot of support for him from red and blue states, which I like. And he appears to be open to viable solutions about doing what is best for our country-regardless of where those ideas come from. He would be a step up from what we currently have now.

eyfigueroa: The one consistent thing about the Internet is that your choice of words provide a window into who or what you are in the real world, and what you contribute to it. Anyone who has to use disparaging comments to get their point across show that they are someone no one pays any attention to in real life-they are insignifcant.

Which may show why the person your referred to is so against Obama. Whether he becomes President or not, Obama is a winner in life in a way that the other person will never be. Telling.

Enjoyed reading all of the other rational comments above, regardless of Party affliation. You guys consistently remind me why I love my home state.

Posted by transparentgov on January 24, 2008 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Check out these videos featuring Lorna Brett Howard, the former President of Chicago NOW (National Organization of Women).

In the 1st video, Lorna describes why she went from being a Clinton supporter to a strong Obama supporter, in the wake of Clinton's misleading attacks on Obama's record on choice...

In the 2nd video, Lorna describes how Senator Obama was a critical advocate in the fight to preserve choice in South Dakota...

http://women.barackobama.com/page/conten...

For more on Obama's strong record on women's rights, check out Women.BarackObama.com.

Posted by JEdgmon on January 24, 2008 at 11:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Clinton should thank Willard Romney, heck when a spoiled, pampered, looking, sleazy looking billionaire attacks you personally twice, that's got to be good for at least 2 pts in the polls nationally..lol.. Poor Hillary, 5 republicans, 2 Democrats, MSNBC, CNN, all against her, and she's still fighting like a trooper. Gotta give her a lot of credit for toughness. Poor Obama, a couple attacks by the Clinton's and he's crying under the bleachers, in all sincerity, all politics aside, if Obama was rattled by this, he's obviously not ready for what will be coming if he was to ever become a real threat to the GOP.