THE ENDGAME

Out and Down

If history is any guide, Hillary Clinton's next battle will be with the painful reality of loss.

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/11/2008 5:09:47 PM

    This is an exert from an interview with John McCain in 1999 regarding Roe vs. Wade

    Q: In 1999, you said, "In the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe vs. Wade, which would then force X number of women in American to undergo illegal and dangerous operations."
    A: That was in the context of conversation about having to change the culture of America as regards to this issue. I have stated time after time after time that Roe v. Wade was a bad decision, that I support the rights of the unborn.

    Q: If Roe v. Wade was overturned during a McCain presidency, and individual states chose to ban abortion, would you be concerned that, as you said, X number of women in America would undergo illegal and dangerous operations?

    A: No, I would hope that X women in America would bring those children into life in this world, and that I could do whatever I could to assist them. Again, that conversation from 1999, so often quoted, was in the context of my concerns about changing the culture in America to understand the importance of the rights of the unborn

    Here is the link : http://www.issues2000.org/2008/John_McCain_Abortion.htm

    • Posted By: mrubchak @ 11/16/2008 2:20:42 PM


      exert are you serious or just congenitally illitertate??? exert ia verb--look it up. You are after a noun. Let me help: the word id excerpt

    • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/11/2008 9:48:31 PM

      HERE'S A THOUGHT BUY A RUBBER OR GO TO YOUR LOCAL HEALTH DEPT THEY GIVE EM AWAY FREE OR GET ON BIRTH CONTROL MEN CAN GET A VISECTOMY OR JUST STOP SLEEPING AROUND HELL DO WHAT EVER IT TAKES NOT TO GET PREGNANT THEN IF YOU DO THEN THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE THE PROBLEM IS YOU SCREW AND GET PREGANANT GET ABORTION NO SEX FOR 3 WEEKS TIME TIC TOC TIC TOC GOES BY AND YOUR KNOCKED UP AGAIN !!! GEEZE SHOW SOME RESPONSABLITY

      • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/12/2008 11:49:43 AM

        Were you born this stupid? Seriously were you, do me a favor tell that to the women in your family , that is if any of them actually claim you as a relative. If you truly believe that the main reason for abortion rights is because the majority of women are just skanky or too lazy to protect themselves, then you are a sad sad person.

        What about the 12 yr. old girl that has been sexually assulted by her father or anyone else. What about the woman who was raped and as a result she became pregnant. What about the woman who finds out that it will endange her life should she try to carry a baby?

        Get a brain,

        • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/13/2008 8:48:22 AM

          i am speaking of late term abortions there are alot of loose woman in the world !!!!

        • Posted By: Nins @ 06/13/2008 1:23:51 AM

          SJ, this guy was born without a brain. That's why he is threatened by Obama's intelligence.

    • Posted By: tired and old @ 06/11/2008 8:56:54 PM

      A BIG ISSUE FOR WOMEN; IS THE RIGHT TO END THEIR PREGNANCY.

      BEING A GUY, I DON'T LIKE THIS IDEA.

      BEING A GUY I WANT TO PROTECT MY FAMILY AND THEIR LIVES.

      BEING A GUY, I CAN'T WALK IN A WOMENS FOOTSTEPS.

      GLAD ! I AM A GUY !

  • Posted By: ozarkajuice @ 06/09/2008 11:48:12 AM

    The problem Busby, you just dont get it. you can sit here and blame Obama supporters for Hillary down fall. but the bottom line, obama supporters didnt do it. Hillary did it to her self. Did she not think her making up stories will not catch up to her in the end? or Agreeing not to count MI and FL , but come back almost a year later whining about why we are not counting them? Or how about telling americans she is against NAFTA, but yet held meetings fro it, come on , stop blaming others for her faults. if anything you guys should be happy with hillary. she put up a strong fight, but yet you guys want to be nasty and start blaming others.

    and for the hillary supporters who are now going to vote for mccain, please do so. we dont need voters who vote on pure emotions, we want voters to actually read these polices that these candiates set forth. i am voting for the best policy that t the canidate has to offer, not on emotion.

    If hillary was the canidate, then my vote goes to her. but in tihs case its going to obama. since they both have the pretty much the same views. why would i want to vote for some one who has totally opposite views then the canidate i prefer? its obivious that hatered has clouded your judgment. so i am glad y ou guys are going to vote for mccain, i dont want to be associated with ppl with so much hate, that they will vote against their canidates views.

    • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/09/2008 12:37:13 PM

      Excellent Post, thank you

      • Posted By: loriw @ 06/09/2008 1:10:32 PM

        ditto

        • Posted By: loriw @ 06/09/2008 1:16:17 PM

          Oops, except I wouldn't have voted for Hillary under any circumstance. I don't vote straight ticket- If the candidate doesn't meet my standards then they don't get my vote. Hillary and Bill will never meet my standards which is why if Sen. Obama is forced to make her is VP I wouldn't be able to support that ticket.
          Blind, unquestioned devotion to any candidate or party is foolish.

          • Posted By: News and Notes @ 06/09/2008 1:33:40 PM

            You make an interesting point. Maybe the 18 million Hillary supporters won't just vote the ticket because Obama doesn't meet their standards. Your comment sounds like it is coming from a McCain surrogate.

            • Posted By: ozarkajuice @ 06/09/2008 1:47:39 PM

              what is this standard you speak of? since the hillary supporters say "Obama does not meet there standards" but yet never gives us the details of this statement.

              • Posted By: mrubchak @ 11/16/2008 2:13:05 PM

                It is THEIR standard not "there." Before sounding off, learn to spell

              • Posted By: News and Notes @ 06/09/2008 2:08:34 PM

                Where is loriw's specifics about standards when regarding HIllary?

                • Posted By: loriw @ 06/10/2008 1:08:47 AM

                  Standards regarding Hillary who holds herself up as a role model to women...
                  Presidential candidates should not lie (lies about sniper fire and how many popular votes she has), should not depend on the Friends of Bill vote to get her elected, should not remove from the White House items which were not hers to take (stealing from the American public), should not claim she is a role model for women's rights as she stays with a husband who treats women like sex objects.

                • Posted By: loriw @ 06/10/2008 1:04:20 AM

                  My standards in case you haven't been able to tell from my past posts. POTUS should possess high moral standards besides the ability to run the government. By high moral standards I mean he/she does not lie to the American public who elected them, he/she does not put themselves in a position where they could be impeached, he/she does not commit perjury, he/she does not take what does not belong to them but instead belongs to the Americcan public, he/she does not commit adultery from the White House, just to name a few

                • Posted By: tired and old @ 06/09/2008 11:06:13 PM

                  HILLARY THE WITCH HAS NO STANDARDS.

                • Posted By: Alvy @ 06/09/2008 5:54:45 PM

                  Good deflection! Still no answer. The white standard dummy. You know what it is.

                  See. If you have two people who are exactly the same with regard to belief, DNC or otherwise, and you can't stand one - even thought you have the same beliefs; you have to look at what's different. Gender and race are different.

                  Of the two - throughout history as far as policy and politics - the male has dominated anyway. So, that leaves one difference. Race.

                  Most people of good emotional and cultural standard or upbringing are not going to change their opinions, or re-write their personal foundations because of a skin color. Going to Mc would be akin to being a dog lover and buying a cat because you're minority neighbor has a dog and doesn't like cats. I guess you showed him huh?

          • Posted By: tired and old @ 06/09/2008 11:04:09 PM

            LORI MUST BE MY GENDER TWIN, WE BOTH HATE POND SCUM.

          • Posted By: sharenews @ 06/09/2008 5:39:42 PM

            Thats a pretty ironic statement coming from an Obama supporter.

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/11/2008 12:20:37 AM

    Know why McCain wants to distance himself from former Senator Phil Gramm? It is not just because of Gramm's recent obnoxious remarks calling Americans "a nation of whiners" and that unemployed Americans are in "a mental recession." In fact, those remarks were so obnoxious that I wonder if they were engineered just to provide McCain an excuse for publicly distancing himself from Gramm. This issue is a lot deeper than it looks on the surface.

    When Gramm was a Senator he was chair of the Committee on Banking, and in that capacity he was able to push through the legislation now known as the "Enron Loophole." This loophole allowed US investment banks to bypass the Federal regulations governing futures trading, and is the reason why the investment banks were able to falsely inflate the prices of oil, wheat, corn and other commodities through massive futures trading, causing your costs of gas, heating oil and food to go through the roof.

    Gramm was a member of McCain's campaign team, but now Gramms' name is turning to mud. In addition to the Enron loophole, Gramm pushed through the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act in 1999, which got rid of the laws that seperate banking, insurance and brokerage activities in America. Essentially, this Act did away with all of the good laws written after the Great Depression to protect us from another Wall Street/Banking Industry collapse. That's right, Gramm stripped the system of it's safe guards nine years ago, and guess what? The value of the dollar has nose-dived, Wall Street is highly unstable, and we are in the midst of a recession.

    Now you could say that this is not Gramm's fault, that he didn't know what the outcome of his actions would be. However, it turns out that the same investment banks that benefited from the Enron loophole and from the Gramm Act gave more than a million dollars to Gramm's campaign. Uh oh. A Congressional hearing is going to be convened to investigate this. And McCain wants to have noting to do with Gramm, wants us to forget that Gramm has been a key player on McCain's campaign team. Gramm was McCain's campaign CO-CHAIR and LEADING ECONOMIC ADVISER.

    With Gramm in the driver's seat as his leading economic adviser, now you know why economists and analysts are saying that McCain's economic policy plans are untenable.

  • Posted By: hotstuff @ 07/10/2008 7:07:08 PM

    Maybe Obama can let her play with her favorite toy: health care.
    But it´s a serious matter!

  • Posted By: sher_bear21 @ 06/15/2008 2:57:44 PM

    I am a staunch Obama supporter, but the MSM needs to leave Hillary Clinton alone. This is getting really ridiculous. Hillary Clinton deserves to be recognized for what she has done for this party: mobilizing women voters like never before, drawing attention to the needs of the middle class, and for making Barack Obama a better GE contestant because she was and IS a fierce and tough competitor. There is no doubt in my mind that she may be depressed after coming so close, but that is not something that the media needs to gleefully anounce in a two-page essay. Mrs. Clinton is entitled to process this loss IN PRIVATE. She deserves a lot more empathy and respect than what continues to be directed at her, and she deserves to decompress from this hard-fought defeat on her own terms. Shame on the media ... once again!

    • Posted By: Nins @ 07/10/2008 5:51:31 PM

      I agree with you Sher. What the media is doing is idiotic, and not even a reflection of what Clinton herself is doing. Clinton has stepped up to the plate for the Democratic party, and she deserves to be praised. After a long ugly primary, she had the backbone to do a 180 degree turn, and show what a true gentlewoman she really is. She has my respect. And if Obama names her as VP I will stand up and cheer.

  • Posted By: jhick81 @ 07/09/2008 3:23:21 PM

    Ugh...another article treating Hillary's collapse like it was a general election loss. Wake up people, she lost the primary, it's over, and it's not nearly as big of a deal as the Clintons, their supporters, and many in the media are making it out to be. Maybe some of the political junkies out there enjoy talking in circles about it all...just some. But I think the average American has moved on.

    Anybody else tired of the Clintons. It was getting nice when they took their little break from everything. I'm afraid it won't stay that way for long.

    "Reject a woman, and she will never let it go. One of the many defects of their kind. Also, weak arms."
    -Dwight Schrute, The Office

    • Posted By: Nins @ 07/10/2008 5:47:57 PM

      Dear Hick, I am not a Clinton supporter. Nevertheless, I think you comment about women was sexist.

      I hope some chick with big biceps takes you down someday when you make a crack about women having weak arm muscles. Guys like you deserve to get their noses rubbed in the mud.

  • Posted By: datzamore@aol.com @ 07/09/2008 10:33:02 PM

    The issue of Hillary's fake love-fest will pale in comparison to Obama's connections. Around most of America, east coast, west coast and midwest....Obama is being viewed as a huge phony....the most extreme left wing candidate we have ever had to this point....but with a nice smile.
    Obama's "close 20 year relationship" with a bigot named Reverand Wright is being discussed at the water cooler by Americans every day more and more. And that reverand's "close relationship" with one of America's biggest racists, Louis Farrakhan, who was given a lifetime achievement award by Obama's church. (hello?). Birds of a Feather, folks.. Most of America is starting to figure it out. Especially Hillary fans and Jewish voters.
    Remember, this is the same nation that re-elected a very unpopular George Bush only 3 1/2 years ago during an unpopular war. Also remember that Kerry led Bush 51%-44% in July....and he lost. And now....at only 46%-44%....the Obama Fever Gap is wearing off fast.
    - John McCain will win this election.

    • Posted By: Nins @ 07/10/2008 1:10:01 PM

      Datzamore, you are wrong about this. Obama is not an extreme liberal. Obama is and has always been a moderate Democrat. He has some liberal ideas and some conservative ones, but overall he is a centrist. Read his book Audacity of Hope (written more than four years ago) and you will see that he is saying the exact same things today that he was saying then.

      The liberal media and the radical right have both wanted to paint Obama as a leftist liberal, each for their own reasons. They each were guilty of creating an image of Obama that simply is not accurate. Now, they are both screaming, the liberals saying "He's going centrist and abandoning the liberals!" and the right wingers saying "He's flip flopping by going moderate!"

      Both factions are wrong. Obama has not changed. Obama himself referred to this problem last fall, when he said that people were going to project all kinds of ideas onto him, and that some of them were going to be disappointed, because he can only be who he is.

      Obama is a moderate Democrat. Always was a moderate Democrat. End of story.

      • Posted By: sharenews @ 07/10/2008 3:26:42 PM

        NATIONAL JOURNAL???s
        2007 Vote Ratings
        Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007
        By Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, National Journal
        © National Journal Group Inc.
        Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008

        Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.

        • Posted By: Nins @ 07/10/2008 5:44:58 PM

          I tired to access that article on the National Journal website, but it is for members only, so I was not able to find out what criteria they used to say that Obama is "the most liberal" Senator.

          Without knowing their criteria or the personal subjective slants of the authors, I can not assess this "rating." I will say though that just because some media group calls Obama liberal does not mean that Obama is a liberal.

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/13/2008 9:02:15 AM

    this is to nins and sj and sharednews this a comment rebuttle ....a child has a soul at conception that is stated in the bible !! as for woman they can do what they want with thier bodies i don't care but it is the woman who does things like abortion and sleezy sex with many men that will have to pay in the end i was NOT refering to little girls that got molested or a woman who got raped or was in danger of dying for the pregnancy i was how ever speaking about all those sleezy women who don't use any method of birth control and get abortion on a regular basis they do exist and they are on these blogs if your offended then too bad but i will not compromise my thoughts on this horrible thing that goes on in this country watch a video of a late term abortion and see the poor child try and fight off the doctor thats trying to kill it the poor child actually tries to get away for the scaple and vacume device

    • Posted By: Nins @ 06/13/2008 7:03:09 PM

      Will Not, what you "will not" is will not listen. My post was about the fact that the very women who you brand as "sleazy" have themselves been molested as children. Women who are prosititues and women who are highly promiscuous have a phenomenally high incidence of being victims of child abuse and rape. And you, a Christian, are willing to throw the first stone?

      Shame on you.

      • Posted By: paulte @ 07/10/2008 3:01:28 PM

        People will always make excuses for their behavior. Women who were sexually abused when they were young are more likely to become lesbians than prostitiutes. Look at all the promiscuous girls in the Ivy League school's co-ed dorms. Were they all abused as youths? Get real!

    • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/18/2008 8:22:33 PM

      I am not going to question anyone's beliefs - abortion has always been a tough issue. Late term abortions are the extreme case of an already tough issue. If you assume the premise they are done to protect the life of the mother - then that means someone has to die - either the mother or the unborn child. My heart goes out to anyone who has to make that decision.

      What I am going to question is anyone who sterotypes those who seek abortions. That's just not fair. People are complex, their lives are complex, and the situations they find themselves in are complex. I am always astonished that it is often the most religious that are the first to judge. That is not what the bible teaches. If you are going to quote the bible and try to live by what it teaches, you cannot be selective in doing so.

      Shame on you.

    • Posted By: tired and old @ 06/13/2008 10:58:04 AM

      WILL NOT VOTE OBAMA !

      IF YOU SAY SOMETHING IS IN THE BIBLE, THEN QUOTE THE PASSAGE.

      YOUR INTENSE TALK OF WOMEN AND SLEEZY, PUTS SOME DOUBTS ON YOUR MENTAL SITUATION.

      SEX IS IMPORTANT, ENJOYING IT IS NORMAL RESPONSE.

      I AGREE THAT KILLING BABIES IS WRONG, IN MANY CASES; BUT, IT MAY BE NECESSARY IN SOME SITUATIONS. I DON'T LIKE IT; BUT, I HAVE TO ACCEPT MEDICAL CONCERNS FOR THE MOTHERS SAFETY.

  • Posted By: Nins @ 07/10/2008 1:07:46 PM

    Carly Fiorina is one of John McCain's chief surrogates, particularly talking him up to women. But Fiorina, who was ousted as chief of Hewlett-Packard in 2005, is not above lying to soften the edges on McCain's positions that are unpopular with women.

    On Monday, Fiorina said this to a group of reporters "Let me give you a real, live example, which I've been hearing a lot about from women. There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won't cover birth control medication. Those women would like a choice." She said. And then for emphasis, she repeated "Those women would like a choice."

    Clearly, women don't need to chose between birth control and Viagra. So by saying those women would like a choice, just what did Fiorina mean? Is she trying to make McCain look Pro-Choice?

    This is not the first time that Fiorina has taken some license with McCain's positions. She recently told women in Columbus, Ohio that McCain "has never signed on to efforts to overturn Roe vs. Wade." This is a blatant falsehood and misrepresentation of McCain's position, since McCain's own campaign website states "John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that."

    When it comes to the birth control issue, in a rebuttal to Fiorina's Monday comments, the group Pro-Choice America was happy to point out that McCain twice voted against measures that would have required insurance companies to cover birth control -- in 2003 and in 2005.

    The Republican said Wednesday that he did not recall those votes. "It's something that I had not thought much about." he added.

    Now that will make him popular with women voters.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/07/09/mccain-squirms-on-birth-control-question/

  • Posted By: jhick81 @ 07/10/2008 10:17:07 AM

    It's funny when republicans make things up. Yeah, Obama's being viewed as a phony across the whole entire country....so I guess McCain must be a pretty weak candidate to be losing right now to a widely known phony. I'm also pretty sure that every single Democratic candidate that ever ran for office was once labeled "the most left wing candidate we have ever had" by the right wing. Only problem now is that, in reality, the "conservative" brand has lost so much weight in America, and the liberal label is not the curse it once was.

  • Posted By: MarieMcD @ 07/09/2008 1:48:42 PM

    Hillary was not being crapped on in the media. Keep perpetuating that myth. She was losing and they were reporting it. Newsflash: She is still as of today, July 9th, expecting and hoping that something will happen so she is the nominee. She has released her supporters to undermine Obama in everway possible in order for him to loose, while she pretends to support him, hoping he wil lose and she can run againin 2012. She was giddy because she will do whatever she can to defeat him. Get real. Their political origins are the south. They know all about the dirty politics that work: Jesse Helms. They employed his tactics by using code race words like elitist. Out of Jesse's playbook. They will do anything, even try to look like they care, to improve their chances a money, power, and prestige. Nope, truth be told, HIlary won't be depressed because she doesn't believe she lost. She won't until Obama wins on November 4th. Until then, she'll urge her surrogates to present her as a victim of sexism. Journalists wives will guilt and bully them into spreading this delusional viewpoint, and she will hope for the worst.

  • Posted By: NeoPoliticus @ 06/16/2008 4:48:00 AM

    Why would she be unwilling to admit defeat? Maybe because her run was derailed by a news media which ridiculed and belittled her at every opportunity? She was the only decent candidate the Democrats had. Thank God I'm a Republican. But if Obama wins, it won't be long until even the Dems regret their stupidity.

    • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/09/2008 1:38:31 PM

      How can they regret the essence of their being?

    • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/18/2008 8:09:44 PM

      You can't be serious. Eight years of Bush - nothing could we worse. And if McCain wins, that's just another four more years. Enough is enough.

  • Posted By: onepoker @ 07/09/2008 1:36:55 PM

    Don't worry Hillary Madonna is almost done with A-Rod I heard he has a special way with the older ladies.

  • Posted By: thehappyamerican @ 06/19/2008 12:25:50 AM

    Suporters of Hillary wanted her "not to yield?"... on sexism preasures? What were they thinking! this lady was tough?
    She's been pushed around by powerfull men her whole life!
    By the way? Where'd she disappear to, any way?

  • Posted By: sharenews @ 06/12/2008 6:54:27 PM

    HILLARY SUPPORTERS:

    Wednesday, June 11, 2008
    Democratic Disenfranchisement: The Final Report
    The Final Report: Democratic Disenfranchisement

    http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/06/democratic-disenfranchisement-final.html

    NOTE: Hillary Supporters, beware. Obama supperters are so desperate about this site ( www.blog.pumapac.org ; check it out) being available to us Hillary supporters that they are now starting to make up posts they say are on the above mentioned site; check out Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/12/2008 6:39:00 PM blog below. SJ, shame on you.

    • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/18/2008 9:07:13 PM


      I'm an Obama supporter and I read the article. I thought it was pretty interesting and I agreed with some of what it said. I definitely concur that cacuses should be eliminated. I was not in complete agreement with some of the statements on proportonal delegate assignment. I think they missed the bigger question. If the purpose of a primary is for the Democrat Party to select its nominee for President, why would you even allow Republicans and Independents to vote in the primary? After all, they are not members of the Party. The answer is that the state legislatures determine the primary rules, not the DNC. Some of the "injustices" refereneced in the article are an attempt by the DNC to prevent Republicans from skewing primary results. While you can certianly debate the methods used to do this, I believe the rational behind the effort has merit.

      I absolutely agree with the general position of the article that the Democrat primary process needs improvement. Of course, all you have to do is look at the continuing conflict between Clinton and Obama supporters to see that.

      What I cannot agree with is extending the points the article makes into an argument that Clinton should have been the nominee and Obama stole the nomination. Both candidates understood how the nomination process worked - the fact that Obama's campaign did a better job of analyzing the complexities of the process and used it to their advantage - especially with respect to the cacuses - does not invalidate his nomination in any way. You play the game by the rules as they are at the time the game is started. You don't wait until the game is over, realize that you lost, then complain the rules weren't fair.

      I have no doubt that Clinton and her campaign team cleary understood the primary process and all its intricacies. After all, she was the more experienced politican. When the campaigning started, as the front-runner, she thought those intricacies (or inequities, depending on your viewpoint) would benefit her. Turns out she was wrong. But that doesn't mean the playing field wasn't fair.

  • Posted By: Nins @ 06/13/2008 1:13:33 AM

    It has been the stated goal of the religious right to appoint conservative judges to overturn Roe vs. Wade for years. Bush is on board with this plan. Every single judge that Bush appointed to every single Federal bench that came open during his tenure was a right wing Christian conservative. The Democrats were stymied when the GOP controlled congress, and Bush got to appoint two right wing Supreme Court Justices.

    First Bush appointed John Roberts to replace Sandra Day O'Connor when she stepped down. When Chief Justice Wm. Rehnquist died in 2005, Bush appointed Roberts as Chief Justice, and then filled O'Connor's empty chair with Samuel Alito. Both Roberts and Alito are Catholic, and both are outspoken against abortion.

    Bush has appointed two of the nine Justices, including the Chief Justice. The current Supreme Court has been sharply divided on a number of high profile issues, including abortion rights, affirmative action, eminent domain, gay rights, the separation of church and state, sovereign immunity, and states' rights. The number of close votes in cases involving these areas suggests that a change of one or two key justices could completely shift the thinking of the Court on such issues.

    Right now there are four Justices who are elderly and will soon either retire or die. The next President will get to appoint at least two new Justices. If the next President is McCain, those two will both be conservative right wing Christians. McCain has publicly PROMISED to do this, and explicitly said that his goal is to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

    Most Americans, even most Republicans, value the separation of church and state. That clause is in our Constitution to protect us from exactly what is going on in America today! Allowing any religious group (especially a radical one) to control the interpretation and application of our laws in the highest court in the land is NOT democratic. Nor is it wise.


    I don't care if you are a disappointed Hillary supporter or an undecided Independent or a life-long Republican or are pro-Obama. ANYONE, regardless of stripe, needs to vote against a candidate who had declared his intention of appointing partisan judges. Judges are supposed to be impartial. That is the basis of our legal system. Without that, you might as well live in a dictatorship, without recourse to law.

    • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/18/2008 8:38:21 PM

      One interesting point is whether you are for or against abortion, Roe vs. Wade will eventually become "bad law" and require revision. That is because the court created different categories throughout a pregnancy based on the viability of the fetus and the risk to the mother and applied different standards to each of those categories. Those categories were based in part on medical science. Because medicine has improved so much since the original decision, those categories, which were more or less mutually exclusive at the time of the decision, now overlap.

      So the question really isn't about overturning Roe vs. Wade - that is going to eventually happen regardless of who is on the Supreme Court - the real question is what will it be replaced with.

    • Posted By: RetiredMarine @ 06/13/2008 7:14:55 PM

      Nins you make a good point on judges being impartial. But if a judge is a far left extremists.... can that be considered impartial? Everyone is going to have his/her view on different topics for that is human nature. But extremism goes to both ends. Lets use this last bit about these enemy combatants being afforded rights as US citizens as an example. Those types of cases have always been out of judges' jurisdiction and in the hands of military and the President as commander in chief. Now you have a set of judges who want to give the same rights to the people from foreing countries trying to kill us. Sorry but that just doesn't make sense at all. If the President had any balls he would put these judges back in their places. Problem is that instead of judges enforcing laws, they have taken upon themselves the role of legislature in determining laws, rewriting laws, etc... Lets just talk about the economy of it all. We are already having financial trouble with oil and everything else. How much of our tax payer dollars are going to go to the defense of these terrorists we have captured? Yes, that is a great deal of money. The enemy is laughing at us as we bankrupt ourselves. Now at the trial, are they going to demand that the military troops that captured them (on the battlefield) appear? Now if they have the same rights as US citizens... did the troops read the miranda rights? (NO). The list goes on and on... and is quite rediculous. This liberal decision only endangers our troops more, esp if they were going to act like police officers..... If it were me, I'd be taking NO PIRSONERS because of our judges stupidity. Anyway, that is just an example. You are right that judges need to be impartial, but they need to do their job and let others do theirs.... They should be pretty much down the middle. Not left, not right. Any arguement otherwise makes your original arguement hypocritical

      • Posted By: Nins @ 06/13/2008 7:32:09 PM

        Hi, Marine, I agree with you that judges should be impartial. I did not say that I thought they should be left wing to balance the right wing, I said they should be impartial. And I mean it. Either holding centrist views themselves, or mature and dispassionate enough to suspend their personal agendas when judging cases. Unlike Justices Scalia, Roberts and Alito, who openly discuss their personal/religious views and use the Supreme court as a platform to further their political agenda. Could or would the left wing do this, given the chance? Probably so. That's human nature. But the Constitution was written to protect us form the bad, out of control parts of human nature.

        As to what it will cost to bring the Guantanamo detainees to trial, well, sure, it will be expensive. But considering many of them have already been captive for seven years, probably WAY CHEAPER than it would have been if we had followed the Geneva Convention, International Law and US Law and given them fair trials in the first place.

        What I agree with you about most is that the terrorists are probably laughing themselves to sleep every night, watching our economy go down the drain while Geo. W Bush ineffectually blunders his way through these international matters that are so far above his head.

        I am a Republican. I wish the GOP had a leader to get us out of this mess, someone I really could want to vote for. I think McCain is more of Bush, and we can't afford that. So I'm voting Democrat for President for the first time in 30 years.

  • Posted By: sharenews @ 06/13/2008 3:51:02 AM

    TO NEWSWEEK BLOGGERS (specifically if you are NOT an Obama supporter; although beware of a few Republican bloggers in democratic clothing in some cases):

    If you are a very good blogger that brings detailed info to the forefront about your candidate to support your candidate against an offense said about your candidate by a blogger or if you bring detailed info to the forefront about the opponents candidate (including source info: with links) to discredit their candidate they do not like it at all to the point of getting NASTY and resulting in you getting targeted to be e.g. a White Supremist. Racist. compared to Hitler. You name it!!

    MY SUGGESTION: Next time you get a degrading blog from The O TEAM or ANYONE else for that matter, ask them to give you an example of one of your blogs that confirms what they are saying as being racist, et al. Depending on the accused blogger, in most cases they wont be able to give us an example. That is my plan moving forward. In my case, all of my blogs I have never gotten into name calling, racist attacks, only opinions backed up with source info / links that (some) Obama supporters just go nuts when they see them (or they can be Republicans just doing the same under Democratic clothing.) Hard to tell most times but I have my thoughts / opinions / suspicions in that area as to specific bloggers that are part of that (group O Team effort) of bloggers that have non-flattering (to put it mildly) comments about non-Obama supporters. Just though I'd share. --Sharenews : - ).

    • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/18/2008 8:27:18 PM

      Sharenews, I think you make a great point. Although I will say there are some bloggers who post comments just to be hurtful. I see no sense in wasting time trying to be rational with people like that. In those cases, you have to call a spade a spade.

  • Posted By: aajulia @ 06/13/2008 5:24:57 PM

    Take a break with her family, Hillary may emerge later as a powerful figure in promoting universal health coverage. Obama, if wins the white house, will have a much tougher job as he is not as qualified as she is. He will need all the help for cleaning up Bush's mess. He will need her help.

    • Posted By: Zig Zag @ 06/18/2008 8:12:21 PM

      I don't necessarily agree that Clinton was more qualified - but Clinton and Obama do see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues. She is a smart lady and we are definitely going to need her and a lot of other smart people to clean up eight years of complete and total incompetence by the Bush administration.

  • Posted By: willnotvoteobama @ 06/17/2008 9:21:55 AM

    Almost one year has passed since Obama made his vow to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that abortion would be the first priority of his administration.

    "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July, 2007, speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.

    The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.

  • Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/16/2008 11:47:43 AM

    SHARENEWS!

    BELOW IS MY RESPONSE TO YOUR REPLY TO MY POST. SEE ALL BELOW.

    re: Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/12/2008 6:39:00 PM
    Comment: This was posted on another site by a Clinton supporter. I thought that it was interesting;

    Good morning PUMAS!

    a couple things before I start printing flyers
    John McCain is starting to make me very nervous???Even George Wil-big GOPer-says a vote for McCain is a vote for war with IRAN-and make no mistake-JM had a call w/his fundraisers-he plans to over turn Roe V wade???this is not BO propaganda-Hill said it herself-repeatedly.

    and after reading thishttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1024927/The-wife-John-McCain-callously-left-behind.html

    I will NEVER vote for McCain. I hope I don???t upset too many PUMA???s with my opinion. I will fight for Hillary???but not for some guy whose only qualification is that he was tortured???off to print my flyers and get 25 people to this site.

    Have a great day!


    Posted By: sharenews @ 06/12/2008 19:11:03
    Comment: SJ, Hillary supporters have the right to explore the Puma option / site. Are Obama supporters like you THAT desperate to actually write a fake blog like you just did above and say it is something that lives on the www.blog.pumapac.org site? This is pathetic. Are Obama supporters that threatened about Obama not getting elected in the fall to resort to this tactic? Sad, very sad.: - (

    Posted By: sharenews @ 06/12/2008 6:54:27 PM
    Comment: HILLARY SUPPORTERS:

    Wednesday, June 11, 2008
    Democratic Disenfranchisement: The Final Report
    The Final Report: Democratic Disenfranchisement

    http://politicallydrunk.blogspot.com/2008/06/democratic-disenfranchisement-final.html

    NOTE: Hillary Supporters, beware. Obama supperters are so desperate about this site ( www.blog.pumapac.org ; check it out) being available to us Hillary supporters that they are now starting to make up posts they say are on the above mentioned site; check out Posted By: sjpersonal @ 06/12/2008 6:39:00 PM blog below. SJ, shame on you.

    MY REPY: *** YOU! How DARE you accuse me of fabricating information. I have been on these boards for quite a while and have never never considered posting something that cannot be verified. Are you and your other minions so angry and pathetic in your victim role that you are unable to comprehend that someone who supports Clinton would make the choice to actually think for themselves and not follow your idiotic logic of VOTING FOR MCCAIN TO PUNISH THE US GOVERNMENT, yes I read quite a few of the posts on PUMA, and ALL OF THE MEDIA OUTLETS FOR NOT MAKING SURE THAT CLINTON WON THE NOMINATION. PHUCKING SICK! I ACTUALLY DEFENDED YOUR STUPID A$$. NEVER AGAIN.

    DONE WITH YOU!

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse