Hillary Clinton Dropping Out on Saturday

[Gerry]

It is expected that Hillary Clinton is dropping out of the Presidential race on Friday after Obama's clinching of the nomination earlier this week. All I can say is that Democrats, we need to stand behind Obama now and win in November. They both ran great campaigns but it's time to move on to the General Election and win!

I am an independent leaning democrat and supporter of Sen. Clinton and I have to respectfully disagree with you, with the win of Sen. Obama I have decided to support McCain.I very strongly believe that the "unity"of our party can't be more important than choosing a candidate that is prepared and has the sufficient experience to lead the country at times like these regardless of the political party they represent or the differences in some of the issues.McCain is the best option after Sen. Clinton and democrats need to look at that and not the "well-being"of the democratic party when they make their decision come November.

[lostinthought9]

ahhhh, I'm torn apart between this! lol, it would have been perfect if Hillary would have just got the nomination, and I could vote for her....but no, Obama got it! so now, i have to decide, vote to help save the democratic party or vote against the guy that i dislike!? this sux...

[beckyg]

Gerry you are a great sport!

[Gerry]

Originally Posted by beckyg

Gerry you are a great sport!

Haha thanks Becky! I'm just doing what I think is right and don't want the same for 4 more years. I was very upset that she didn't win (and now have to remove all my Hillary banners on my web pages!) but hope the Democrats can take back the White House and make some major choices this country desperately needs. An Obama/Clinton ticket would be unstoppable and McCain wouldn't know what hit him!

[Austin]

ewww. I don't care for either to win >_>

I've heard rumors of Clinton running for vice-president with Obama. Not that it really matters to me, I'm still going to vote for Dr. Paul.

[Gerry]

Originally Posted by Nicvcer

I've heard rumors of Clinton running for vice-president with Obama. Not that it really matters to me, I'm still going to vote for Dr. Paul.

Ron Paul Revolution ...

I don't think you'll be able to vote for Paul. McCain will be the Republican on the ticket so Paul won't be, right? Unless you do a write-in.

[Chris]

YEAH!!! I HATE hillary im glad she might drop!!! I hope obama winns, cause white men have messed this country up enough!!! GO COLORED PEOPLE!!! WOHO!!!

P.S.i'm white

[Gerry]

Originally Posted by Mister Not Sure

YEAH!!! I HATE hillary im glad she might drop!!! I hope obama winns, cause white men have messed this country up enough!!! GO COLORED PEOPLE!!! WOHO!!!

P.S.i'm white

Wow that's really sad that someone so young as yourself has these views already which are so not true. It seems like you just backtracked to the 60s with the whole issue going on there ... we're now in the 21st century where equality among races is here. You seem racist against your own race. And I don't think you should say you hate someone that you don't even know, that's very disrepectful of you. Maybe you should re-think a few things because an attitude like that isn't going to go very far ... of course I'm not bashing or anything, just simply stating how incorrect you are about this issue. As I've said, you're only 13 so you should re-think things and maybe not have such an ignorant way of thinking.. perhaps it wasn't "white men" who "messed up this country", but maybe it was ignorant thinkers? Just something to think about...

[Daniel]

I agree with Gerry. To vote for a person because of how they look or for what gender one is is not what one should do. One must examine the politics of each canidate before making a decision. It does not matter what a person is but what a person does.

[TheMusicMan]

Originally Posted by drengenafmusik

I agree with Gerry. To vote for a person because of how they look or for what gender one is is not what one should do. One must examine the politics of each canidate before making a decision. It does not matter what a person is but what a person does.

Hear, hear! Unfortunately, my friend, the small-minded method you describe is precisely how a fair amount of the populace seems to vote. It is for that annoying reason that I've little faith in a democracy as divided as the United States is. I might venture to call the two divisions the Ignorants and the Earnests, though that might be a bit arrogant... maybe it's best just to stick with the conventional titles of conservatives and liberals, respectively.

[Daniel]

Ah yes but then that would require the use of logic on both parts no? And I really do not see either side as open minded enough to try to compromise.

[TheMusicMan]

Originally Posted by drengenafmusik

Ah yes but then that would require the use of logic on both parts no? And I really do not see either side as open minded enough to try to compromise.

It's difficult to compromise when your opposition does any of the following:
a) thinks the world is 6,000-10,000 years old, yet expects you to take them seriously in every way.
b) insists on poking his or her nose into the bedroom affairs of the citizens of a "free" country.
c) condones a "separate but equal" attitude toward the issue of same-sex marriage.
d) worse that c), insists that those not conforming to their lifestyle expectations are second-rate citizens.
e) claims that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation," without ever doing some actual research into the religious views of the country's Founding Fathers.

This list could go on forever...

Besides, who wants to compromise? Equality and societal advancement are, I think, not compromise-friendly--and thankfully not!

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by TheMusicMan

It's difficult to compromise when your opposition does any of the following:
a) thinks the world is 6,000-10,000 years old, yet expects you to take them seriously in every way.
b) insists on poking his or her nose into the bedroom affairs of the citizens of a "free" country.
c) condones a "separate but equal" attitude toward the issue of same-sex marriage.
d) worse that c), insists that those not conforming to their lifestyle expectations are second-rate citizens.
e) claims that the United States was founded as a "Christian nation," without ever doing some actual research into the religious views of the country's Founding Fathers.

This list could go on forever...

Besides, who wants to compromise? Equality and societal advancement are, I think, not compromise-friendly--and thankfully not!

Ah yes because being raised to think in another form is wrong. All forms of relgion are wrong. To believe in something that you have been taught is real is just such a stupid thing to do. That is why I don't have any form of religious views or pre concieved notions.

And so then no laws should be made about the bedroom? What about pedophilia and sex with animals? Then those should be private matters and a person should have no reprications for molesting a child?

You seem to have a similar view of those same people whome you condone. Those who do not think exactly like you must not be correct. Because that sense of thinking has done wonders in history. Galileo, Da Vinci, Newton, just to name a few thought in different ways and lord knows they were wrong.

And it is only partially true to claim that it was not founded as such. The United States of America was founded on the basis of religous freedom, so that Christians who practiced forms of Christianity that were illegal in Europe could have a safe place to worship and live in safety. And most of the founding fathers were Puritans, Quakers, Baptists, and whatnot. So say that they were born again and wished to have only one religion for the country is idiotic but to say that they thought of the USA as a non-christian country cannot be 100% correct.

And compromise gets people no where. Through compromise the state of California was not made a slave free state and the Missouri Compromise Line was never made. Through the Compromise of 1867 did Hungary recieve legal power in Austro-Hungary and the monarch retained no power.

No advances are ever made with compromise.

[TheMusicMan]

Originally Posted by drengenafmusik

Ah yes because being raised to think in another form is wrong. All forms of relgion are wrong. To believe in something that you have been taught is real is just such a stupid thing to do. That is why I don't have any form of religious views or pre concieved notions.

I'm not quite sure what to make of this, to be honest. You seem to be parodying me and at the same time admitting not to have any religious views or preconceived notions, something that is music to my ears! So which is it?

Originally Posted by drengenafmusik

And so then no laws should be made about the bedroom? What about pedophilia and sex with animals? Then those should be private matters and a person should have no reprications for molesting a child?

Excuse me as I bend over backwards to clarify my statement. Special exceptions to the "keep out" sign hanging on the bedroom doorknob must be made in the case of children and animals. Children are the paramount embodiment of human innocence, and given that their youth can be played upon (preyed upon) by pedophiles with stomach-turning ease, acts involving a grotesque age disparity must be considered individually. And as for animals, bestiality is an insult to their (understandable) inability to comprehend or intellectually consent to fetishist human sexual gratification.

Originally Posted by drengenafmusik

You seem to have a similar view of those same people whome you condone. Those who do not think exactly like you must not be correct. Because that sense of thinking has done wonders in history. Galileo, Da Vinci, Newton, just to name a few thought in different ways and lord knows they were wrong.

I'll assume you mean "condemn" rather than "condone" here. My attitude is anything but fundamentalist, and I'd be willing to have a serious, intellectual conversation with both sides of an issue before deciding which basket to place my eggs in. And even then, I'd always be open to hearing alternative views. That, however, doesn't mean I have to agree with them, should they lack reason or thoughtful merit.

Originally Posted by drengenafmusik

And it is only partially true to claim that it was not founded as such. The United States of America was founded on the basis of religous freedom, so that Christians who practiced forms of Christianity that were illegal in Europe could have a safe place to worship and live in safety. And most of the founding fathers were Puritans, Quakers, Baptists, and whatnot. So say that they were born again and wished to have only one religion for the country is idiotic but to say that they thought of the USA as a non-christian country cannot be 100% correct.

I agree that it would be absurd to say this country is a non-Christian country in practice. In theory, though, I hold the claim that it is not in any way fair to brand it as having been built on Christian doctrine.

Originally Posted by drengenafmusik

And compromise gets people no where. Through compromise the state of California was not made a slave free state and the Missouri Compromise Line was never made. Through the Compromise of 1867 did Hungary recieve legal power in Austro-Hungary and the monarch retained no power.

No advances are ever made with compromise.

Your satirical tone is understood. I would agree with you that compromise is a necessity in forging ahead toward that ever-distant glimmering goal of equality. My only frustration with compromise is that it is by nature lukewarm and miniscule when looked at step-by-step. Granted, over a long period of time, the progress becomes overwhelming marked (and hopefully in a good way). It's rather like microevolution versus macroevolution, where small mutations in a gene pool seem tiny at the individual level, but over a vast amount of time, the gene-carriers flourish into something almost unrecognizable. My question is, why can't the progress be made in leaps, rather than being a long, drawn-out series of half-hearted compromise? I know the answer to this question, as any thinking person would. But that still doesn't keep me from being frustrated at the whole thing.

P.S.: Apologies if I came across as exasperated in my earlier post.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by TheMusicMan

I'm not quite sure what to make of this, to be honest. You seem to be parodying me and at the same time admitting not to have any religious views or preconceived notions, something that is music to my ears! So which is it?

If you can't detect my sarcasm in this section I actually need to apologize. I assume that everyone can detect it but as I am a new member and am not known for my sarcasm yet I must say read what I wrote earlier so that you can feel the sarcasm dripping from it.

That being said I am religous, follow the Godlen Rule, and I do have preconceived notions.

Originally Posted by TheMusicMan

Excuse me as I bend over backwards to clarify my statement. Special exceptions to the "keep out" sign hanging on the bedroom doorknob must be made in the case of children and animals. Children are the paramount embodiment of human innocence, and given that their youth can be played upon (preyed upon) by pedophiles with stomach-turning ease, acts involving a grotesque age disparity must be considered individually. And as for animals, bestiality is an insult to their (understandable) inability to comprehend or intellectually consent to fetishist human sexual gratification.

Alright so you do believe that some regulations are needed for the well being of others? That is what those whome you have the greatest issue with have as well. But they simply do not realize that they aren't dealing with someone who cannot comprehend what is happening but a grown adult who understands the actions taking place.

Originally Posted by TheMusicMan

I'll assume you mean "condemn" rather than "condone" here. My attitude is anything but fundamentalist, and I'd be willing to have a serious, intellectual conversation with both sides of an issue before deciding which basket to place my eggs in. And even then, I'd always be open to hearing alternative views. That, however, doesn't mean I have to agree with them, should they lack reason or thoughtful merit.

Here I need to ask for forgiveness again do to my now poor english. I often confuse words and my spelling is phenetic.

But that is exactly my point. Listen to both sides. Although you find one argument to be flawed, I find parts of that argument to be valid as well. To each his own. Just so long as each person examines all the possible sides of the story and choose after carefull deliberation which is best for oneself.

Originally Posted by TheMusicMan

I agree that it would be absurd to say this country is a non-Christian country in practice. In theory, though, I hold the claim that it is not in any way fair to brand it as having been built on Christian doctrine.

And how so is that?

Originally Posted by TheMusicMan

Your satirical tone is understood. I would agree with you that compromise is a necessity in forging ahead toward that ever-distant glimmering goal of equality. My only frustration with compromise is that it is by nature lukewarm and miniscule when looked at step-by-step. Granted, over a long period of time, the progress becomes overwhelming marked (and hopefully in a good way). It's rather like microevolution versus macroevolution, where small mutations in a gene pool seem tiny at the individual level, but over a vast amount of time, the gene-carriers flourish into something almost unrecognizable. My question is, why can't the progress be made in leaps, rather than being a long, drawn-out series of half-hearted compromise? I know the answer to this question, as any thinking person would. But that still doesn't keep me from being frustrated at the whole thing.

P.S.: Apologies if I came across as exasperated in my earlier post.

Ah simple frustration is never fun but to get through and reach the goal is a great reward. And yes life would be easier to just have things advance quickly but then lessons wouldn't be learned and things could be easier to forget.

[Jeimuzu]

Originally Posted by futurediplomat

I am an independent leaning democrat and supporter of Sen. Clinton and I have to respectfully disagree with you, with the win of Sen. Obama I have decided to support McCain.I very strongly believe that the "unity"of our party can't be more important than choosing a candidate that is prepared and has the sufficient experience to lead the country at times like these regardless of the political party they represent or the differences in some of the issues.McCain is the best option after Sen. Clinton and democrats need to look at that and not the "well-being"of the democratic party when they make their decision come November.

McCain has already promised to fight against gay rights. And you're saying you're still supporting him?

As a leader, experience is irrelevant. Most of the best leaders in American history had little more than a couple of years of senatorial experience; indeed, many of the world's best leaders were totally new to it. A lot of America's most maligned presidents have had in excess of ten years as senators.

The concept of him being a good leader, well has he proven this? Obama's whipped up support well against the odds, and shown plenty of intelligent initiative and political shrewdness simply to win the democratic battle. McCain hardly had a fight, they all seemed to lay down and give up. Obama's already passed one massive test, and he beat Clinton - who everyone knew by face and by name, long before this all started. He beat someone with a huge personal fortune. He beat someone with a husband who has been forgiven all transgressions by the world's public - indeed, whose reputation has been completely repaired, polished, and given pride of place in people's hearts and minds - thanks to the massive screwup he was replaced with.

I really really hope Clinton joins Obama's campaign. They're on the same side, and maybe if she does, then finally the Clinton fans will side behind Obama. Obama and Clinton were similar enough in policies, and Obama strikes me as... well, as a good politician, if I'm honest. He seems to understand what the people want him to be; as completely different to George W. Gump as it is humanly possible to be. A woman and a black man... two people who might just bring some degree of equality to America.

I can't see McCain being the determined and enthusiastic leader America needs. Another rich republican won't fix America's economy, Iraq, the human rights abuses in places like Guantanamo bay, and indeed, the US reputation. Under republican control, America has gone from being a superpower to being a laughing stock.

McCain will be another Bush, but less funny to listen to.

Clinton's out of this race now. And if she's that good, listen to her. She's not gonna be telling America to vote for McCain, let's put it that way.

Even though I agree with you in saying that experience isn't everything I still differ when it comes to an Obama-Clinton ticket if he chooses her for the vp spot no doubt would they defeat McCain but that is the only reason he would chose her, he has shown no honest respect for her, at some points in his campaign he even mocked her and that's not just politics,thats plain demeaning. Don't get me wrong I am proud that the U.S has finally elected the first african-american presidential nominee of a major party but I just don't agree with who it was and his ties to people like Rezko and Wright amongst others. He not only has a lack of experience but is the only candidate who has been linked with people like this and that's not a coincidence. And when it comes to the issue of gay marriage that is precisley what I meant when I spoke about different p.o.v's when it came to issues, I did not vote for McCain nor is he my hero but in comparison to Obama he is the best option. Oh by the way when Clinton comes out asking her supportes to back Obama it will clearly be because of the pressure of the DNC and their ridiculous claim for unity, I can guarantee you she is not celebrating or jumping at the possiblilty of being his vp.

[Nodnarb]

Ridiculous claim for unity?

Maybe she believes that the country would be better off with Obama as president than McCain?