1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
2. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.
* The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
* The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
* The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
* The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
* The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
4. Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfilment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. the conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive.
The Committee further concluded that it was probable that:
* four shots were fired
* the third shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed.
The HSCA agreed with the single bullet theory, but concluded that it occurred at a time point during the assassination that differed from any of the several time points the Warren Commission theorized it occurred.
The Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, and the Warren Commission were all criticized for deficient job performance in their subsequent investigations, deficient in revealing to the Warren Commission information available in 1964, and the Secret Service was called deficient in their protection of the President.
"The Chief Counsel of the Committee later changed his views that the CIA was being cooperative and forthcoming with the investigation when he learned that the CIA's special liaison to the Committee researchers, George Joannides, was actually involved with some of the organizations that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved with in the months leading up to the assassination, including an anti-Castro group, the DRE, which was linked to the CIA, where the liaison, Joannides, worked in 1963. Chief Counsel Blakey later stated that Joannides, instead, should have been interviewed by the Committee, rather than serving as a gatekeeper to the CIA's evidence and files regarding the assassination. He further disregarded and suspected all the CIA's statements and representations to the Committee, accusing it of obstruction of justice."
i'm glad to see ol' obama take some gas. the man says nothing, has no positions, and does not have the experience to be the leader of this country. if change is all you want, then, yeah, he's your guy. it's not enough in my book.
beta, in all seriousness, explain obama's positions on anything. what is he bringing? what is his angle other than "change"? at least, i know where hillary and edwards (and mitt and mccain and huckabee) are coming from. obama speaks in generalities. anyone that vague is not prepared to be president of this country. he's a libreral bush - a likable guy without a lot of depth. sorry.
look, i'm still open and could even be convinced to vote for obama, but i need to hear A LOT more from him.
hillary clinton voted to give GWB the power to go to war. hillary clinton voted for the patriot act. hillary clinton voted for GWB's push to declare war on iran.
hillary clinton does not inspire anyone to become more than they thought could be. the day Obama becomes president does not mean that the world is instantly better, it does mean however that i am empowered to become better, to roll up my sleeves and get to work making the US better and the world a better place.
wrong, beta. the amazing thing about american politics is that no-one who gets to vote is actually out of their league. everyone's opinion matters just as much as yours.
the issues do matter, but what also matters is who has the power to get things done. hillary and her husband are so divissive, and hated by the right, that it IS nearly impossible to think she could ever reach across the aisle.
if the republicans are still in disarray, look out for Rudy, because one thing is certain; HILLARY CAN'T BEAT RUDY.
SW, i was half joking, i get tired of hearing how he has no experience, and somehow Clinton being a first lady of ark and the prez, counts as exp. i see this issue of experience, brought up by the clintonistas, as coded double speak; i think it's a way of playing or baiting conservative white dems that are unsure that a black man can be effective.
I'm mainly staying out of this, but since beta (and maybe others, I haven't read the whole thread) brought up Hilary "crying" I have to post this which I found on a website about non-verbal communication:
Women cry five times more frequently than men...Women's tears also flow more than men's (which usually well up in the eyes rather than stream down the face like women's tears)...People report feeling better after a cry, according to a study by University of Minnesota biochemist, William Frey. Frey discovered the neurotransmitters leucine-enkephalin (an endorphin or natural opiate-like substance for pain relief) and prolactin (released from the pituitary in response to emotional stress) in emotional tears; the substances were not found in tears shed in response to sliced onions. (N.B.: Tears may help the body alleviate stress and cleanse itself of toxins, as do other exocrine processes such as sweat, urine, and exhaled air.)
Crying is not a sign of "weakness"; it's a physical response to stress. Would we call any male candidate weak because he sweats? Or jump on a candidate who inhales/exhales to clear his/her head before speaking? Obviously that's ridiculous.
So even if Hilary is a conniving weasel, stop knocking her for crying.
I disagree I think Hillary can beat Rudy, that dude is scary. I dont think that Hillary has a chance against McCain, many democrats would deflect on that contest.
I really like Bill and Hillary (I am proud to have served in the military under his presidency, I even met him back then), but seeing them up there brings chills down my spine, I think we are ready to move on...
It was incredible that the polls were SO off. I guess that voters lie about supporting Obama, and other black candidates. I guess the polls cannot be trusted in this race.
baiting conservative white dems that are unsure that a black man can be effective.
man, beta, who's baiting whom?
from your response, it sounds like you don't really care what obama's positions are. if i wanted to read webpages, i could find them myself. i want to know why you personally think obama is the right person for president. being anti-hillary seems to me to be the wrong reason for supporting a candidate.
Well said, Liberty. The media hype around her crying has been driving me crazy. If that was me, I'd be bawling my eyes out. She, no doubt, is a very strong individual.
I agree with Q. I absolutely agree that Hillary can easily defeat Rudy. She'll get the majority of independant votes because of her stance on the war. The evangelical base is scared to death of Rudy and will probably not vote for either candidate. That in turn will severly hurt the Republican party as it is their base. And, as a whole, his campaign and performance has been somewhat lackluster from the party's original projections. I volunteer for a voting demographics think tank. Our research and polling shows that many, many Republican woman are much more willing to switch parties solely to see a woman in office, even if it's Hillary. I think it's fair to say that she may get the woman vote as well.
Hillary and McCain - that's a different story altogether. If it the two of them head-to-head, it would be tight. He is a very level-headed politician and people love that. He'll be able to pick up the religious vote. And his experience in foreign policy can swing many independants. If there an introduction of a third party (Bloomberg - Independant) to the Hillary vs McCain race, we can kiss Hillary goodbye.
ja, you asked for positions, and when i gave you why i was voting, you said i didn't answer the question, so i gave you his position pages, and then you ask me why i am voting for him...???
lb, i am not knocking her for crying, but it seems that women want it both ways; she wants to be seen as strong, and then vunerable, and then demure or coy...men on the other hand can't ever be seen as vulnerable, despite the contrary view that women like men that show their vulnerable side, men are not allowed to be seen that way in public without evoking Muskee...
the criticism of her tears has to do with the clintons and their obivous calculated nature.
Hillary can't beat Rudy, I was there in NJ when Rudy and Hill were getting ready to do battle for the NY senate seat, he was whipping her ass...
i cynically looked to Obama because Hillary was supposedly "inevitable," and found Obama to be more convincing, and more inspiring and more genuine.
In terms of stances on policy issues, I don't think Obama and Hillary are that far apart from each other, or at least not enough to sway my vote.
Hillary's crying, while a somewhat-amusing side story, has been blown completely out of proportion by the national media, and I don't think it matters one bit in the long term. It's pretty sad state of affairs when her minor display of emotion gets more press than something like the US having the worst health care system of any industrialized nation.
What I like about Obama is that he has the charisma and the ability to inspire people, and I think he could potentially be the JFK of this generation. When watching his victory speech in Iowa last week, it was the first time in years that I really felt proud to be an American. While Hillary makes the campaign all about herself, Obama makes it all about us. If he wins the Democratic nomination, he'd be an effective candidate against whoever the Republicans nominate, and if he wins the general election, he'd have one hell of a bully pulpit from which to usher in some much-needed reforms.
What I don't like about Hillary is, in addition to how polarizing and divisive she is because of her baggage (justified or not), she represents more of the same type of mealy-mouthed, focus group-driven mediocrity that we've already had so much of. Listening to Obama speak inspires me to get involved and take action; listening to Hillary speak makes me feel like I'm listening to my former boss give a marketing presentation. Hillary is the person Republicans love to hate; they would do everything they can to crucify her during the general election, and they would continue to do anything the could to undermine her presidency if she were to somehow win in November.
Now, if Hillary wins the nomination and selects Obama as her running mate, that could be interesting. I think it would give her a big boost in the election, and give Obama the executive experience he needs to make a solid run for the White House in a few years.
LiG,
I was talking about this with friends last night...
If hillary winds up with this nomination, i would seriously hope Barack would consider the VP position.
That would be a very powerful combination combining what many dem's would see as the best of both worlds.
And another thing we all forget, or have forgotten recently, is that the VP is SUPPOSED to have a crucial role in legislation by acting as president of the senate. I think Obama could really infuse some energy into the senate... a senate which as of right now, is less popular even than bush.
I'd actually prefer that Barack stay in the senate than serve as VP for Hillary. That way he doesn't run the risk of being branded as a Clinton democrat/Republican target.
The real question should be if Barack gets the nom, would Hillary want to serve as his VP? Probably not me thinks...
I agree with the question above - where is all this experience that Hillary supposedly has? She hasn't been a senator that much longer than Barack and prior to that she was first lady and partner at a crooked law firm... She may be anti-war/anti-Bush, but her voting record proves otherwise...
Sadly, you're probably right. One of the reasons I hate Hillary is that she reminds me so much of my former boss in Chicago. It's always all about her, she knows what's best for everybody, and she wouldn't hesitate to run the entire organization (or the country) into the ground rather than give up some shred of control.
Letdown - Barack went on record over the summer stating that he wouldn't accept a VP offer. He didn't want to work under someone. I didn't like the wording of his statement and felt it was pretty careless for his usually articulate rhetoric. A VP doesn't work under someone, they still serve the American people.
I'd love to see a Hillary/Barack ticket. Her flaws (cold, not too personal, disconnect with American people) are his strengths (compassionate, charismatic, fresh to the scene). His flaws (lack of foreign policy, too general, not as politically grounded) and her strengths. They compliment each other well. I'd love to see them on a ticket but it's doubtful.
Rudy has Satan helping him - Rove - Hillary has ex-Clinton cronies. McCain is our grandfather trying to act hip without breaking a hip. I think the long money is on Satan, that is unless Obama wins the nomination.
if anyone is keeping score Barack: 1 and 2nd place, Clinton: 1st and 3rd place...it's early people, time to get to work, call people, canvass neighbors, get out the message...this man is for real.
Well, that's a pretty general question. If you are interested in her issues, I will refer you to her website for that information (similar to what you did above for Barack policies).
Listen, I don't think that Hillary is our answer to our nataion's policital prayers. I disagree with her on many issues, which is only natural because it's nearly impossible to find a candidate that you agree with even 80%. Obama fully has my support in the primary race. But, Hillary takes a bunch of unnecessary shit. Every arguement thrown at her can directly be rebuttled back to every single other candidate in the race.
I honestly dont care any candidates atance on any "issues" that have been popularized today. What counts to me is who is best equipped to lead and make decisions in future problems when and if they arise.No one knows what the next congressional climate or economy will be like. With Barak I believe we have a genuine thinker and leader, a classic statesman. With Hillary we have a political chameleon willing to cut a deal with anyone for anything to achieve short term goals.
these are such platitudes. do you care to expand? if you did, then, we'd be talking about issues and ideas, but you don't want to talk about that.
you can talk about great leader this, helluva guy that, but you've done nothing to convince me barack is the right candidate. name-calling and talk of clinton and satan only makes you sound ridiculous. there's no discussion going on here.
If the president of our country wants to accomplish what they set out to do they have to be able to bring people together. Which ultimately means they have to be likable, respected and someone that people want to work with. It doesn't matter how perfect your issues are if you can't get people to work with you or with each other nothing is going to change.
Also, I get so sick of the flip flop issue. I am a fan of generalists over specialists because it allows a greater amount of flexibility. If anything it frustrates me when people can't get off their high horse to see that there may be a better option. Do you really want someone who says this is my stance and I am not going to change. Thats ridiculous to think that way.
I also don't expect the president to know and be experienced at everything. That is what the cabinet is for to surround yourself with specialists to get the job done. The president should just be able to orchestrate it all.
Let me expand. The measure of a man's life is measured by the quality of his character and commitment to excellence regardless of his field of endevour. It is a bad statisticle comparisson to review Clinton and Obama side to side, as their fields of past endevour are very different. But if excelence in character is my measure than I can review each of their respective paths to this point with some certainty. If you read my quote it said, "What counts to me is who is best equipped to lead and make decisions in future problems when and if they arise". Obama offers an abstract chance to bring democratic and republican leaders together because he comes with no baggage. Hes clean.
...ja, i have been reading the Consitution lately, and maybe you should too, you'd be surprised to find out that most of the power resides with Congress, and the fact that Article 1 establishes the legislature and contains 10 sections, whereas Article 2 establishes the executive and has 4 sections, should tell you something about the role of the President.
"I think that Senator Clinton, obviously, is a formidable and tough candidate, and we have to make sure that we take it to them just like they take it to us," the Illinois senator said. "I come from Chicago politics. We're accustomed to rough and tumble."
Obama is bidding for resurgence in South Carolina and Nevada, which vote this month. On Wednesday, he received the endorsement of the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union local in Nevada in addition to the backing of the state's chapter of the Service Employees International Union.
Bill Clinton complained in New Hampshire that Obama was getting a free pass from the scrutiny turned on Hillary Clinton and likened the Illinois senator's campaign to a "fairy tale." Obama shot back Wednesday that "the real fairy tale is, I think, Bill Clinton suggesting somehow that we've been just taking a cakewalk here."
the endorsement above is critical to our success...
congrats, you're defense of barak citing satan and a truly epic comparison between obama and the constitution has made me less inclined to vote for obama. job well done.
and beta, what the hell are you talking about? just because there are fewer sections in the constitution on the executive branch than the legislative does not mean that we should accept candidates that are less qualified to be president. you're argument makes absolutely no sense.
you guys can retort, but i think i've seen enough.
you know what you are a tool. the reason there are less sections, and that article 1 has more - establishing the legislature - is to limit and check the powers of the executive, proposals about how and what should be done are rendered moot, because it takes congress to pass legislation, meaningful legislation can only get passed when the president can work with congress, with both sides of the aisle, and not be divisive contentious a-hole.
to be qualified to be president? article 2 section 1 sets up that criteria...
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
don't worry, the politics of personal destruction are something that the clintons are all too familiar with...i expect that now that the gloves are off, clinton the intern layer drawing first blood, we'll have more to say
Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Obama '08
interesting article @ slate which addresses some of the issues brought up in this forum.
As a follow-up to my previous post about the JFK assassination:
United States House Select Committee on Assassinations
The HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:
1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.
2. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.
3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.
* The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Soviet Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
* The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Cuban Government was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
* The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that anti-Castro Cuban groups, as groups, were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
* The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the national syndicate of organized crime, as a group, was not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy, but that the available evidence does not preclude the possibility that individual members may have been involved.
* The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that the Secret Service, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Central Intelligence Agency were not involved in the assassination of President Kennedy.
4. Agencies and departments of the U.S. Government performed with varying degrees of competency in the fulfilment of their duties. President John F. Kennedy did not receive adequate protection. A thorough and reliable investigation into the responsibility of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination was conducted. The investigation into the possibility of conspiracy in the assassination was inadequate. the conclusions of the investigations were arrived at in good faith, but presented in a fashion that was too definitive.
The Committee further concluded that it was probable that:
* four shots were fired
* the third shot came from a second assassin located on the grassy knoll, but missed.
The HSCA agreed with the single bullet theory, but concluded that it occurred at a time point during the assassination that differed from any of the several time points the Warren Commission theorized it occurred.
The Department of Justice, FBI, CIA, and the Warren Commission were all criticized for deficient job performance in their subsequent investigations, deficient in revealing to the Warren Commission information available in 1964, and the Secret Service was called deficient in their protection of the President.
Note items 2 and 3 in the list above.
Also note:
"The Chief Counsel of the Committee later changed his views that the CIA was being cooperative and forthcoming with the investigation when he learned that the CIA's special liaison to the Committee researchers, George Joannides, was actually involved with some of the organizations that Lee Harvey Oswald was involved with in the months leading up to the assassination, including an anti-Castro group, the DRE, which was linked to the CIA, where the liaison, Joannides, worked in 1963. Chief Counsel Blakey later stated that Joannides, instead, should have been interviewed by the Committee, rather than serving as a gatekeeper to the CIA's evidence and files regarding the assassination. He further disregarded and suspected all the CIA's statements and representations to the Committee, accusing it of obstruction of justice."
i'm glad to see ol' obama take some gas. the man says nothing, has no positions, and does not have the experience to be the leader of this country. if change is all you want, then, yeah, he's your guy. it's not enough in my book.
ja, you're out of your league, go back to the sidelines, you were a better benchwarmer...
You are out of your element!
beta, in all seriousness, explain obama's positions on anything. what is he bringing? what is his angle other than "change"? at least, i know where hillary and edwards (and mitt and mccain and huckabee) are coming from. obama speaks in generalities. anyone that vague is not prepared to be president of this country. he's a libreral bush - a likable guy without a lot of depth. sorry.
look, i'm still open and could even be convinced to vote for obama, but i need to hear A LOT more from him.
hillary clinton voted to give GWB the power to go to war. hillary clinton voted for the patriot act. hillary clinton voted for GWB's push to declare war on iran.
what are hillary's positions? other than crying?
hillary clinton does not inspire anyone to become more than they thought could be. the day Obama becomes president does not mean that the world is instantly better, it does mean however that i am empowered to become better, to roll up my sleeves and get to work making the US better and the world a better place.
wrong, beta. the amazing thing about american politics is that no-one who gets to vote is actually out of their league. everyone's opinion matters just as much as yours.
beta, you never answered my question - how does obama stand on the issues? what is his angle on this election?
who cares how he stands - he's the guy I wanna grab a beer with!
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
the issues do matter, but what also matters is who has the power to get things done. hillary and her husband are so divissive, and hated by the right, that it IS nearly impossible to think she could ever reach across the aisle.
if the republicans are still in disarray, look out for Rudy, because one thing is certain; HILLARY CAN'T BEAT RUDY.
Forget Rudy; Hillary would have a tough time beating McCain.
SW, i was half joking, i get tired of hearing how he has no experience, and somehow Clinton being a first lady of ark and the prez, counts as exp. i see this issue of experience, brought up by the clintonistas, as coded double speak; i think it's a way of playing or baiting conservative white dems that are unsure that a black man can be effective.
I'm mainly staying out of this, but since beta (and maybe others, I haven't read the whole thread) brought up Hilary "crying" I have to post this which I found on a website about non-verbal communication:
Women cry five times more frequently than men...Women's tears also flow more than men's (which usually well up in the eyes rather than stream down the face like women's tears)...People report feeling better after a cry, according to a study by University of Minnesota biochemist, William Frey. Frey discovered the neurotransmitters leucine-enkephalin (an endorphin or natural opiate-like substance for pain relief) and prolactin (released from the pituitary in response to emotional stress) in emotional tears; the substances were not found in tears shed in response to sliced onions. (N.B.: Tears may help the body alleviate stress and cleanse itself of toxins, as do other exocrine processes such as sweat, urine, and exhaled air.)
Crying is not a sign of "weakness"; it's a physical response to stress. Would we call any male candidate weak because he sweats? Or jump on a candidate who inhales/exhales to clear his/her head before speaking? Obviously that's ridiculous.
So even if Hilary is a conniving weasel, stop knocking her for crying.
I disagree I think Hillary can beat Rudy, that dude is scary. I dont think that Hillary has a chance against McCain, many democrats would deflect on that contest.
I really like Bill and Hillary (I am proud to have served in the military under his presidency, I even met him back then), but seeing them up there brings chills down my spine, I think we are ready to move on...
It was incredible that the polls were SO off. I guess that voters lie about supporting Obama, and other black candidates. I guess the polls cannot be trusted in this race.
man, beta, who's baiting whom?
from your response, it sounds like you don't really care what obama's positions are. if i wanted to read webpages, i could find them myself. i want to know why you personally think obama is the right person for president. being anti-hillary seems to me to be the wrong reason for supporting a candidate.
Well said, Liberty. The media hype around her crying has been driving me crazy. If that was me, I'd be bawling my eyes out. She, no doubt, is a very strong individual.
I agree with Q. I absolutely agree that Hillary can easily defeat Rudy. She'll get the majority of independant votes because of her stance on the war. The evangelical base is scared to death of Rudy and will probably not vote for either candidate. That in turn will severly hurt the Republican party as it is their base. And, as a whole, his campaign and performance has been somewhat lackluster from the party's original projections. I volunteer for a voting demographics think tank. Our research and polling shows that many, many Republican woman are much more willing to switch parties solely to see a woman in office, even if it's Hillary. I think it's fair to say that she may get the woman vote as well.
Hillary and McCain - that's a different story altogether. If it the two of them head-to-head, it would be tight. He is a very level-headed politician and people love that. He'll be able to pick up the religious vote. And his experience in foreign policy can swing many independants. If there an introduction of a third party (Bloomberg - Independant) to the Hillary vs McCain race, we can kiss Hillary goodbye.
ja, you asked for positions, and when i gave you why i was voting, you said i didn't answer the question, so i gave you his position pages, and then you ask me why i am voting for him...???
lb, i am not knocking her for crying, but it seems that women want it both ways; she wants to be seen as strong, and then vunerable, and then demure or coy...men on the other hand can't ever be seen as vulnerable, despite the contrary view that women like men that show their vulnerable side, men are not allowed to be seen that way in public without evoking Muskee...
the criticism of her tears has to do with the clintons and their obivous calculated nature.
Hillary can't beat Rudy, I was there in NJ when Rudy and Hill were getting ready to do battle for the NY senate seat, he was whipping her ass...
i cynically looked to Obama because Hillary was supposedly "inevitable," and found Obama to be more convincing, and more inspiring and more genuine.
In terms of stances on policy issues, I don't think Obama and Hillary are that far apart from each other, or at least not enough to sway my vote.
Hillary's crying, while a somewhat-amusing side story, has been blown completely out of proportion by the national media, and I don't think it matters one bit in the long term. It's pretty sad state of affairs when her minor display of emotion gets more press than something like the US having the worst health care system of any industrialized nation.
What I like about Obama is that he has the charisma and the ability to inspire people, and I think he could potentially be the JFK of this generation. When watching his victory speech in Iowa last week, it was the first time in years that I really felt proud to be an American. While Hillary makes the campaign all about herself, Obama makes it all about us. If he wins the Democratic nomination, he'd be an effective candidate against whoever the Republicans nominate, and if he wins the general election, he'd have one hell of a bully pulpit from which to usher in some much-needed reforms.
What I don't like about Hillary is, in addition to how polarizing and divisive she is because of her baggage (justified or not), she represents more of the same type of mealy-mouthed, focus group-driven mediocrity that we've already had so much of. Listening to Obama speak inspires me to get involved and take action; listening to Hillary speak makes me feel like I'm listening to my former boss give a marketing presentation. Hillary is the person Republicans love to hate; they would do everything they can to crucify her during the general election, and they would continue to do anything the could to undermine her presidency if she were to somehow win in November.
Rudy can't even win the Republican nomination
Plenty of male politicians have cried in public...it is not an issue.
LiG - your last two paragraphs nailed it... well said.
Now, if Hillary wins the nomination and selects Obama as her running mate, that could be interesting. I think it would give her a big boost in the election, and give Obama the executive experience he needs to make a solid run for the White House in a few years.
LiG,
I was talking about this with friends last night...
If hillary winds up with this nomination, i would seriously hope Barack would consider the VP position.
That would be a very powerful combination combining what many dem's would see as the best of both worlds.
And another thing we all forget, or have forgotten recently, is that the VP is SUPPOSED to have a crucial role in legislation by acting as president of the senate. I think Obama could really infuse some energy into the senate... a senate which as of right now, is less popular even than bush.
I don't think Clinton would even consider offering that VP to Obama
She has all her own policies and pundits already in place...
And that just illustrates (one of) my problems with her.
I think even though a CLinton and Obama ticket would be gold, she wouldn't ask him because she would never reach out to him..
That is exactly the kind of change in politics he represents,, and that she doesn't...
I'd actually prefer that Barack stay in the senate than serve as VP for Hillary. That way he doesn't run the risk of being branded as a Clinton democrat/Republican target.
The real question should be if Barack gets the nom, would Hillary want to serve as his VP? Probably not me thinks...
I agree with the question above - where is all this experience that Hillary supposedly has? She hasn't been a senator that much longer than Barack and prior to that she was first lady and partner at a crooked law firm... She may be anti-war/anti-Bush, but her voting record proves otherwise...
Sadly, you're probably right. One of the reasons I hate Hillary is that she reminds me so much of my former boss in Chicago. It's always all about her, she knows what's best for everybody, and she wouldn't hesitate to run the entire organization (or the country) into the ground rather than give up some shred of control.
(to namhenderson)
LiG - you just described my current boss!!!
Rudy vs Hillary in a US New York senate race is a complete different race than Rudy vs Hillary for US president race.
Letdown - Barack went on record over the summer stating that he wouldn't accept a VP offer. He didn't want to work under someone. I didn't like the wording of his statement and felt it was pretty careless for his usually articulate rhetoric. A VP doesn't work under someone, they still serve the American people.
I'd love to see a Hillary/Barack ticket. Her flaws (cold, not too personal, disconnect with American people) are his strengths (compassionate, charismatic, fresh to the scene). His flaws (lack of foreign policy, too general, not as politically grounded) and her strengths. They compliment each other well. I'd love to see them on a ticket but it's doubtful.
Rudy has Satan helping him - Rove - Hillary has ex-Clinton cronies. McCain is our grandfather trying to act hip without breaking a hip. I think the long money is on Satan, that is unless Obama wins the nomination.
if anyone is keeping score Barack: 1 and 2nd place, Clinton: 1st and 3rd place...it's early people, time to get to work, call people, canvass neighbors, get out the message...this man is for real.
name a SPECIFIC policy point from Clinton.
Well, that's a pretty general question. If you are interested in her issues, I will refer you to her website for that information (similar to what you did above for Barack policies).
Listen, I don't think that Hillary is our answer to our nataion's policital prayers. I disagree with her on many issues, which is only natural because it's nearly impossible to find a candidate that you agree with even 80%. Obama fully has my support in the primary race. But, Hillary takes a bunch of unnecessary shit. Every arguement thrown at her can directly be rebuttled back to every single other candidate in the race.
I honestly dont care any candidates atance on any "issues" that have been popularized today. What counts to me is who is best equipped to lead and make decisions in future problems when and if they arise.No one knows what the next congressional climate or economy will be like. With Barak I believe we have a genuine thinker and leader, a classic statesman. With Hillary we have a political chameleon willing to cut a deal with anyone for anything to achieve short term goals.
evilp, you got it, i am with you....
here here evilp, we have an agreement. well said.
I have to agree with EP on that one.
these are such platitudes. do you care to expand? if you did, then, we'd be talking about issues and ideas, but you don't want to talk about that.
you can talk about great leader this, helluva guy that, but you've done nothing to convince me barack is the right candidate. name-calling and talk of clinton and satan only makes you sound ridiculous. there's no discussion going on here.
If the president of our country wants to accomplish what they set out to do they have to be able to bring people together. Which ultimately means they have to be likable, respected and someone that people want to work with. It doesn't matter how perfect your issues are if you can't get people to work with you or with each other nothing is going to change.
Also, I get so sick of the flip flop issue. I am a fan of generalists over specialists because it allows a greater amount of flexibility. If anything it frustrates me when people can't get off their high horse to see that there may be a better option. Do you really want someone who says this is my stance and I am not going to change. Thats ridiculous to think that way.
I also don't expect the president to know and be experienced at everything. That is what the cabinet is for to surround yourself with specialists to get the job done. The president should just be able to orchestrate it all.
I am for Barack Obama and...Ron Paul in 2008.
Let me expand. The measure of a man's life is measured by the quality of his character and commitment to excellence regardless of his field of endevour. It is a bad statisticle comparisson to review Clinton and Obama side to side, as their fields of past endevour are very different. But if excelence in character is my measure than I can review each of their respective paths to this point with some certainty. If you read my quote it said, "What counts to me is who is best equipped to lead and make decisions in future problems when and if they arise". Obama offers an abstract chance to bring democratic and republican leaders together because he comes with no baggage. Hes clean.
...ja, i have been reading the Consitution lately, and maybe you should too, you'd be surprised to find out that most of the power resides with Congress, and the fact that Article 1 establishes the legislature and contains 10 sections, whereas Article 2 establishes the executive and has 4 sections, should tell you something about the role of the President.
Ja -
come to think of it, the constitution is a document full of generalizations or platitudes if you will, maybe we shouldnt vote for that as well.
touche.
oh it's really on now...
"I think that Senator Clinton, obviously, is a formidable and tough candidate, and we have to make sure that we take it to them just like they take it to us," the Illinois senator said. "I come from Chicago politics. We're accustomed to rough and tumble."
Obama is bidding for resurgence in South Carolina and Nevada, which vote this month. On Wednesday, he received the endorsement of the 60,000-member Culinary Workers Union local in Nevada in addition to the backing of the state's chapter of the Service Employees International Union.
Bill Clinton complained in New Hampshire that Obama was getting a free pass from the scrutiny turned on Hillary Clinton and likened the Illinois senator's campaign to a "fairy tale." Obama shot back Wednesday that "the real fairy tale is, I think, Bill Clinton suggesting somehow that we've been just taking a cakewalk here."
the endorsement above is critical to our success...
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080109/D8U2H6600.html
congrats, you're defense of barak citing satan and a truly epic comparison between obama and the constitution has made me less inclined to vote for obama. job well done.
and beta, what the hell are you talking about? just because there are fewer sections in the constitution on the executive branch than the legislative does not mean that we should accept candidates that are less qualified to be president. you're argument makes absolutely no sense.
you guys can retort, but i think i've seen enough.
you know what you are a tool. the reason there are less sections, and that article 1 has more - establishing the legislature - is to limit and check the powers of the executive, proposals about how and what should be done are rendered moot, because it takes congress to pass legislation, meaningful legislation can only get passed when the president can work with congress, with both sides of the aisle, and not be divisive contentious a-hole.
to be qualified to be president? article 2 section 1 sets up that criteria...
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
don't worry, the politics of personal destruction are something that the clintons are all too familiar with...i expect that now that the gloves are off, clinton the intern layer drawing first blood, we'll have more to say
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.
The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States.
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.
In case of the removal of the President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the case of removal, death, resignation or inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what officer shall then act as President, and such officer shall act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.
Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.
Section 4. The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.