Honestly, now that Obama is the nominee........

[Steviefan49]

Originally Posted by vermicious knid

I have been wondering how many of the people who said they would vote for McCain are Republicans, and how many are disenchanted Democrats.

Consider me disenchanted. I live in reliably Republican Texas, so my vote has never made a difference. A vote for a Democratic president here is a symbolic "I like you" vote. And since Obama blowing his nose has never sent me into waves of ecstasy, I won't give him that vote.

Thank you sweetie, on all counts! Being that I am your neighbor, (LOL) I can't agree more! That's exactly where I am too! One thing you can count on tho, and that is "if" I do decide to vote, due to my girl not running - I can assure you I certainly won't be voting for 4 more years of this mess.. I surely don't want Obama either tho... If only our girl could run on a "Independent ticket".. Wouldn't that be nice? LOL

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by Steviefan49

Thank you sweetie, on all counts! Being that I am your neighbor, (LOL) I can't agree more! That's exactly where I am too! One thing you can count on tho, and that is "if" I do decide to vote, due to my girl not running - I can assure you I certainly won't be voting for 4 more years of this mess.. I surely don't want Obama either tho... If only our girl could run on a "Independent ticket".. Wouldn't that be nice? LOL

I disagree with not voting for Obama because he is not Hillary. IMO, if you don't want four more years of W, then you must vote for Obama even if you live in a state like Texas that is likely to go R. I think all bets are off on R states this year because Obama's race will play a huge factor. Also, I think winning the popular vote is a good, though relatively meaningless, thing to do. If enough voters decline to vote based on the thought that if their vote counted, they would bite the bullet and vote for Obama, don't vote, it could enhance the R's chances. So, I accept that Hillary was defeated and that Obama will be the nominee. So, for me, the most important thing is to prevent McCain, even though I must swallow my pride to do so.

[Steviefan49]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I disagree with not voting for Obama because he is not Hillary. IMO, if you don't want four more years of W, then you must vote for Obama even if you live in a state like Texas that is likely to go R. I think all bets are off on R states this year because Obama's race will play a huge factor. Also, I think winning the popular vote is a good, though relatively meaningless, thing to do. If enough voters decline to vote based on the thought that if their vote counted, they would bite the bullet and vote for Obama, don't vote, it could enhance the R's chances. So, I accept that Hillary was defeated and that Obama will be the nominee. So, for me, the most important thing is to prevent McCain, even though I must swallow my pride to do so.

Yeah.. you are right there.. I just can't seem to stomach him, and all the lies.. LOL.. I certainly can't handle another 4 years of this mess for sure! So, I think we are caught between a rock and a hard spot, but it's definitely time to change the channel - as far as the R's go for sure! LOL

[strandinthewind]

^^^

And, for the record, I was not wild about Hillary. I just thought she was better than Obama. I did, however, vote for Obama in Georgia because I knew it would not matter as Obama was destined to take Georgia in the primary as I think he is in the general election.

[Steviefan49]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

^^^

And, for the record, I was not wild about Hillary. I just thought she was better than Obama. I did, however, vote for Obama in Georgia because I knew it would not matter as Obama was destined to take Georgia in the primary as I think he is in the general election.

Really? I SOOO thought she would have definitely been better by a "landslide" then Obama too.. ! But the party is what I'm after to win for sure!

[vermicious knid]

Here is an interesting fact. There have not been three two-term presidents in a row since the early 1800's! Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe are the only example of such a thing happening. If the next president gets re-elected, this occurance will repeat itself for the first time in more than 200 years.

[strandinthewind]

^^^

Interesting tidbit!

ALso -- for the R supporters -- Good Thing we have a Pres. we can believe in much less believe at all.

BTW -- if it can be proven, the Scooter Libby incident most certainly is an impeachable offense.

Finally, I think it is sad that the WH and its real press sec. (Fox News) are once again villifying the messenger insteadof the message. How many more is it going to take?
________________________________________________

McClellan: Bush must blame himself for mistrust

By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
44 minutes ago



If the nation doesn't trust the Bush White House, it's the president's and Dick Cheney's own fault, Bush's former spokesman told Congress Friday.

From life-and-death matters on down — the rationale for war, the leaking of classified information, Cheney's accidental shooting of a friend — the government's top two leaders undermined their credibility by "packaging" their version of the truth, former press secretary Scott McClellan said.

He described the loss of trust as self-inflicted, telling the House Judiciary Committee that Bush and his administration failed to open up about White House mistakes.

The focus of the panel's hearing was the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, and McClellan said that was a good example of the administration damaging itself by backtracking on a pledge be upfront.

"This White House promised or assured the American people that at some point when this was behind us they would talk publicly about it. And they have refused to," McClellan said. "And that's why I think more than any other reason we are here today and the suspicion still remains."

The White House dismissed Friday's hearing as unenlightening and McClellan, the president's former top spokesman, as uninformed. Republicans on the committee accused him of writing about sensitive matters to make money, a reference to his recent book, "What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington's Culture of Deception."

"I think Scott has probably told everyone everything he doesn't know, so I don't know if anyone should expect him to say anything new today," said White House spokesman Tony Fratto.

Fratto, who is Bush's deputy press secretary, came to the White House after McClellan left, apparently in good standing, in April 2006.

McClellan, considered an ultimate Bush loyalist until the book came out, worked for Bush when the future president was Texas governor, jumped to his presidential campaign and then followed him to Washington when he won.

On Friday, McClellan returned repeatedly to his theme that Bush, Cheney and others in the administration had done great damage to themselves — and by extension to aides like McClellan — by being less than truthful on a range of official matters.

"This is a very secretive White House," McClellan said. "There's some things that they would prefer not to be talked about."

McClellan took aim at Bush's personal honesty when discussing the president's handling of allegations that he had long ago used cocaine.

In the book, McClellan recounts hearing Bush on the telephone telling a supporter that "I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not."

McClellan called that kind of response to sensitive questions by Bush and other politicians "essentially evasion" that for Bush later "transferred over to other issues" of policy.

"It tells something about his character," he maintained.

Committee Republicans said McClellan was the one with the credibility problem.

"Some would say that you included that sensational information about the alleged drug use and his denial not to promote bipartisanship and civility but rather to promote book sales," said Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla.

McClellan made clear in the book and in person that he felt especially burned by the Plame matter.

He said that former White House chief of staff Andy Card told him that the president and vice president wanted him to publicly say that Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was not involved in the leak.

"I was reluctant to do it," McClellan said Friday. "I got on the phone with Scooter Libby and asked him point-blank, 'Were you involved in this in any way?' And he assured me in unequivocal terms that he was not."

In fact, both Libby and former presidential adviser Karl Rove had discussed Plame's identity with reporters.

State Department official Richard Armitage first revealed Plame's CIA identity to columnist Robert Novak, who used Rove as a confirming source for a 2003 article. Around that time Plame's husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson was criticizing Bush's march to war in Iraq.

Plame maintains the White House quietly revealed her position to reporters as retribution for criticism from her husband. McClellan told the panel he agreed.

Libby resigned from office the day he was indicted on charges of covering up the leak. He was later convicted, but last July Bush commuted his 2 1/2-year sentence, sparing him from serving any prison time. "It was special treatment," McClellan said of the commutation.

Rove left the White House last August. He has never been charged in the case.

McClellan told the House panel he doesn't know if a crime was committed and does not believe that Bush knew about or directed the leak. When asked about Cheney, he replied: "I do not know. There's a lot of suspicion there."

Fratto disputed the notion that the Plame issue concluded with Libby's conviction, freeing the White House to talk about it openly. He pointed out that she and Wilson are suing several administration officials.

"The White House has the consistent position that we would refrain from comment while there was ongoing litigation," Fratto said. "Scott must have forgotten the policy he repeatedly stated from the podium."

McClellan cited several other examples, some stemming from the Plame incident, of what he said was a lack of candor pervading the Bush administration.

The White House had said in 2003 and 2004 that anyone who leaked classified information in the case would be dismissed.

By July 2005, Bush qualified his position, saying he would fire anyone for leaking classified information if that person had "committed a crime."

When Cheney accidentally shot a friend during a hunting trip in 2006, McClellan initially quoted the owner of the ranch as saying that the injured man had been at fault for not letting Cheney know he was nearby. Cheney himself later said it was not his friend's fault.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080620/...cia_leak_probe

[vermicious knid]

Obama wants disappointed Hillary supporters to "get over it" without much effort on his part. That is what he indicated to my representative, Sheila Jackson-Lee, when she urged him to reach out to Clinton's supporters. Lack of time was the reason he cited. Wouldn't you think he would make time to entice the nearly 18 million people who supported Hillary? One of his advisors said the same thing a few weeks back, that they wouldn't be spending much time wooing her people. I guess he still has the same arrogance that led him to say "I am confident that I will get her votes if I'm the nominee. It’s not clear that she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/V...5215668&page=1

[David]

Do you guys think that I would make a good president?

[Steviefan49]

Originally Posted by vermicious knid

Obama wants disappointed Hillary supporters to "get over it" without much effort on his part. That is what he indicated to my representative, Sheila Jackson-Lee, when she urged him to reach out to Clinton's supporters. Lack of time was the reason he cited. Wouldn't you think he would make time to entice the nearly 18 million people who supported Hillary? One of his advisors said the same thing a few weeks back, that they wouldn't be spending much time wooing her people. I guess he still has the same arrogance that led him to say "I am confident that I will get her votes if I'm the nominee. It’s not clear that she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/V...5215668&page=1

I do have a few "choice" words for him... but can't repeat them here! LMAO

[Steviefan49]

Originally Posted by David

Do you guys think that I would make a good president?

Absolutely David!!!! You got my vote ! You running on the "Independant" ticket??

[strandinthewind]

Pandering and obviously trying to correct the Wright situation. I wonder what the left will have to say about their golden calf now.

Personally, whatever initial reservations I had about it, I think in effect, it has not been a bad thing. And, I do think the chruches (all denominations and faiths) do a much better job than the govt. in administering to the poor. Sadly, the far right can use that charity in a non-charitable way.

Who know though - maybe Obama can be the one to unite the country from a secular and religious angle. He certainly has astounded before

Bombay - does this make you like Obama less?
_______________________________________________

Obama to expand Bush's faith based programs

By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

Reaching out to evangelical voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush's program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.

Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday in Zanesville, Ohio, at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, youth ministry and other services.

"The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone," Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. "We need all hands on deck."

Obama's announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday's Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.

The Democratic presidential candidate spent Monday talking about his vision of patriotism in the battleground state of Missouri. By twinning that with Tuesday's talk about faith in another battleground state, he was attempting to settle debate in two key areas where his beliefs have come under question while also trying to make inroads with constituencies traditionally loyal to Republicans.

But Obama's support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could invite a storm of protest from those who view such faith requirements as discrimination.

Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.

Bush supports broader freedoms for taxpayer-funded religious charities. But he never got Congress to go along so he has conducted the program through administrative actions and executive orders.

David Kuo, a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives until 2003 and later became a critic of Bush's commitment to the cause, said Obama's position on hiring has the potential to be a major "Sister Souljah moment" for his campaign.

This is a reference to Bill Clinton's accusation in his 1992 presidential campaign that the hip hop artist incited violence against whites. Because Clinton said this before a black audience, it fed into an image of him as a bold politician who was willing to take risks and refused to pander.

"This is a massive deal," said Kuo, who is not an Obama adviser or supporter but was contacted by the campaign to review the new plan.

Kuo called Obama's approach smart, impressive and well thought-out but took a wait-and-see attitude about whether it would deliver.

"When it comes to promises to help the poor, promises are easy," said Kuo, who wrote a 2006 book describing his frustration at what he called Bush's lackluster enthusiasm for the program. "The question is commitment."

Obama proposes to elevate the program to a "moral center" of his administration, by renaming it the Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and changing training from occasional huge conferences to empowering larger religious charities to mentor smaller ones in their communities.

Saying social service spending has been shortchanged under Bush, he also proposes a $500 million per year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students. A campaign fact sheet said he would pay for it by better managing surplus federal properties, reducing growth in the federal travel budget and streamlining the federal procurement process.

Like Bush, Obama was arguing that religious organizations can and should play a bigger role in serving the poor and meeting other social needs. But while Bush argued that the strength of religious charities lies primarily in shared religious identity between workers and recipients, Obama was to tout the benefits of their "bottom-up" approach.

"Because they're so close to the people, they're well-placed to offer help," he was to say.

He also planned to talk bluntly about the genesis of his Christian faith in his work as a community organizer in Chicago, and its importance to him now.

"In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work," he was to say.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080701/...pr/obama_faith

[vermicious knid]

This video is especially appropriate for a Fleetwood Mac forum.

[BombaySapphire3]

[QUOTE=strandinthewind;761550]

Bombay - does this make you like Obama less?
______________________________

I am not overly thrilled with any of his religious ties or notions being a huge proponent of the seperation of church and state .A seperation I know you believe doesn't exist.He is doing what politicians do in an election year to win .Will it deter me from voting for him or supporting him ? Certainly not.The day a flat out atheist can win the Presidency in this country will be a fine one indeed.

[TrueFaith77]

Where's the Nader option?