Comments for en-gb 30 Wed 01 Oct 2014 15:09:57 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at allmymarbles 152, Ed.Thanks. This has been confusing me. Fri 29 Aug 2008 01:11:01 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Ms Marbles, The XXV amendment was proposed in 1965 and ratified in 1967, and thus supersedes the 1947 rules. xxed Fri 29 Aug 2008 00:25:30 GMT+1 allmymarbles 149, Gary.Then were do the 1947 succession rules fit in? And I believe that Albert was acting president briefly. Thu 28 Aug 2008 22:36:50 GMT+1 mary gravitt Americans can't resist humiliating an opponent. This is why they could not understand the Northern Allliance in Afganhnistan. They saw them fight each other to the death, then hug and change sides. Americans cannot do this.This may have a basis on how Americans become Americans. It was based on Race. Until the Voting Rights Act as part of the Civil Right Act of 1965 came into force, to be an American with full rights as a citizen, one had to be white. Thereby Whiteness had to be protected. One way to protect one's whiteness was to distance oneself from all tangents of Blackness, whether it was a move from the city to the suburbs, or to oppose Affirmative Action. By the way, the greatest benefactors of Affirmative Action has been White women and John McCain.Affirmative Action Laws prevent discrimination based on age, sex and gender.Even with the great speech that both Hillary and Bill Clinton gave pledging support for Obama, the US Media still was not satified. They want blood. If they could make it possible for both Clintons to be thrown to the lions, they would. Their biggest event and headline is or will be "Bill Clinton Not to Be At Mile High Statium to Hear Obama Sworn In." He may have something else planned. After all the Dems Primary season ran rather long.American as Christians need to learn to forgive. We came a long way but maybe this need for blood is in our collectif American genes. Perhaps that is why we cling so much to the Death Penalty and we have the highest number of men, women and children incarserated in our over-crowded prinson systems. Thu 28 Aug 2008 22:28:13 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill allmymarbles (#138), you are writing off the top of your head and you just don't know what you are talking about. The replacement of the Vice President is governed by the 25th amendment. Albert was never in the picture. Nixon nominated Ford, and he was confirmed by the Congress. When Ford advanced to the Presidency, he was replaced with Rockefeller by a similar procedure. Rockefeller wasn't even in the Congress.There is no excuse for being so ill-informed on Constitutional procedures when the document is available so easily online (I use the Cornell University Law School web site). Thu 28 Aug 2008 15:45:59 GMT+1 sd1979 The debate about the Speakers place in line has been answered - see useful link to Cornell site - but there is confusion between the event of a vacancy arising for the office of Vice President, and what would happen if President and Vice were incapacitated at the same time. VP (is also President of the Senate hence why 4th in line is President pro tempore of the Senate - the longest serving member) then Speaker then president pro tem of the Senate. If Joe Biden were to become President then he is not obliged to have Nancy Pelosi (or whomever is the Speaker) - he can nominate anyone subject to approval by Congress. Pelosi is very much on the left of the party and would not necessarily be the best choice to step up. Thu 28 Aug 2008 15:01:28 GMT+1 invisibleserendipity #110If, by chance, you read my posting (#60) and interpreted it as vitriolic Hillary bashing then you misunderstood my meaning. It had nothing to do with Hillary - more to do with her voters. It was not partisan - rather - very, very concerned.What I cannot understand is why Hillary women, (I am a woman and I am not trying to stir things up but, rather really cannot comprehend this phenomenon which leads to my frustration) who have probably the most to lose when at least two if not three justices come off the Court in the next four years (and, let's face it - it is the Supreme Court who holds the most power in the US), are totally unphased. That is one (out of many) reasons why myself and my female Republican friends are crossing the aisle. We know that of which our party is capable of. And, any woman who doubts this should read how very close Roe v. Wade came to being overturned in Casey v. Planned Parenthood in Pennsylvania not that long ago ...We have serious issues in this country (and so does the world vis-a-vis US policy) that need to be addressed. My point was that if republicans are willing to stand behind the democratic nominee (and the world has not stopped spinning!) because: 1). We support Obama's message of change; 2). the Republican party frankly is no longer the Republican party. States rights, low taxes, small government, fair trade, thoughtful foreign policy and protection of individual freedoms have been thrown out the window; and 3). We have great concerns over the Court - why aren't the tried and true faithful of the democratic party.I would disagree with you on the fact that this is overblown - yesterday, a woman wearing a Hillary shirt was standing behind me in line as I was waiting to get a cup of coffee. I asked her whether she would vote for Obama and she told me she was voting for McCain. Unfortunately, in this tight election - every vote will count. So, whether it is overblown or not, it matters ... Thu 28 Aug 2008 14:38:17 GMT+1 possumpam I agree with Alberude *775. Have followed the Obama v Clinton story for many months buthave recently become aware that Justin's reportage has become strongly pro Clinton and anti Obama. Wonder what made him eschew impartiality?Pam, London Thu 28 Aug 2008 13:12:39 GMT+1 Xie_Ming #142Strangely, many evangelicals will not accept that Catholics are "Christians" at all.Fifty years ago and more, the political claims and activity of the Church were quite overweening. In the USA, this was particularly evident among the Irish-American priesthood.Although they would not share my view, I see many fundamentalist/evangelicals as expressing the same Inquisitorial intolerance that characterized the Roman Catholic Church 700 years ago.It is a characteristic of all fundamentalisms to be intolerant in doctrine- "my faith is the only true faith".Where the real problems emerge is in the manner the faith is expressed- there are stages that vary from personal belief, to public expression of belief, to civic activities, to voting on religious grounds alone, to denouncing people in the street, to killing physicians. Thu 28 Aug 2008 10:50:38 GMT+1 JM Hillary may never be preisdent but her role will be to ensure EVERY americian will have access to health care-even prehaps as part of a deal a place in the cabinet?This will ensure her place in the history books and thats OK for her(I think)What amazes me as a Brit why Bush was reelected?Does any americian look at policy?If the Dems are clever they should be attacking the GOP about Bush´s "special intrest" politics and his warmongering and of course Mccains house blunder is really an insigt to his person and double standards.This election is for Obama to lose not to win! Thu 28 Aug 2008 07:22:00 GMT+1 allmymarbles 141, David.The priests can only preach to those who go to church. Catholics are much less observant than evangelicals. Thu 28 Aug 2008 06:37:51 GMT+1 allmymarbles 141, David.Catholics tend not to practice what they preach. They are better at rationalizing. And besides you can be forgiven for anything. Evangelicals consider Catholics "leftists" because of their free and easy ways. Although there is strict church dogma, people tend to take it with a grain of salt. Evangelicals are more serious. Thu 28 Aug 2008 06:35:40 GMT+1 David Cunard #136. allmymarbles - Both evangelicals and Catholics are on the same page when it comes to abortion and all else mentioned in #140, although of course there are many of both groups who will ignore the teachings of their church. There are obviously condom sales to Catholics, and gay 'born-again' Christians, but when it comes to voting, pastors and priests encourage their flock to do so in a particular way. If it were up to me (and it isn't!) I'd remove their tax-exempt status for encouraging congregants to vote one way or another. Thu 28 Aug 2008 06:01:22 GMT+1 David Cunard This post has been Removed Thu 28 Aug 2008 05:52:28 GMT+1 MikeIL #135 Jacky Boy...."Virulent"?Since when did it become "virulent" to follow long-establshed religious rules and dogma of one's chosen faith?What is virulent is when those rules are ignored or even worse claimed to be something they are not -- Like Sen. Pelosi claiming the Catholic Church had no idea when human life begins and agrees with Obama on abortion.Now that is truly Virulent. Thu 28 Aug 2008 05:51:54 GMT+1 allmymarbles 116, Gary.Yes, Ford was the minority leader. Albert was speaker, but a democrat, and he declined. Although there are rules, you seem to be able to maneuver them a little. As the rules for succession stand, though, it would be Biden and Pelosi. Thu 28 Aug 2008 05:48:12 GMT+1 MarcusAureliusII "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players: they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts, his acts being seven ages."She came on, read her lines, took a bow, and exited. I don't think she convinced anyone. Those of her supporters who were not going to vote for Obama before her speech will not change their minds on account if it IMO. Was this her final curtain call? Thu 28 Aug 2008 05:40:36 GMT+1 allmymarbles 86, David.There is an enormous difference between Catholics and evangelicals. Evangelicals have more fervor and are doctrinaire.Catholics, particularly Latin Catholics, are more laissez faire. Note that Italy has a minus birth rate and the birth rate in France is very low. They practice birth control, and I don't mean rythm. Also they do not proseletize. If you think of the protestantism as originating in northern Europe and Catholicism in southern, it makes more sense. Irish Catholics are more conformist than the Latins.It is not possible to equate the two groups. Catholics often do not attend church regularly. Certainly in my city Catholic churches keep closing for lack of attendance. Yet if asked those who do not atten church if they are Catholic, they will say yes. Thu 28 Aug 2008 05:40:21 GMT+1 jacksforge 86 that is really not quite true for all catholics there DCcatholics go to communion all the time in other countries.Last time you heard of a catholic refused communion in the UK?Henry the 8th, no plenty since then but not as a result of abortion work.America has a virulant version of all the old world religions. Thu 28 Aug 2008 05:09:53 GMT+1 David Cunard #133. allmymarbles - While I agree it is like a play - or "theatre", I can't agree that she did not want to hear the New York vote; it was the obvious place for her to make an appearance; where else would it have been appropriate for her to step in from the floor? The entire Convention has been like old-fashioned vaudeville, each act with music in between and building highs and lows in the presentation. I once went to a Billy Graham 'Crusade' and it was almost identical, supporting 'acts' until the star, Dr Graham, arrived. His mantra then was "It's all in the book" (meaning the Bible) but even now it has a familiar ring. I've not watched gavel-to-gavel coverage but I've seen enough to recognise the technique - or 'maneuvers' as you say. But it's not just the Clintons, it's the entire show. And as Al Jolson said "You ain't heard nothin' yet!" - Senator Obama's speech, in a vast stadium, will be the spectacular Finale. Personally I find that a bit over-the-top, uncomfortably reminiscent of pre-war demagogues. Bowls of flame and thousands of flags would be all that was needed to further remind us of those rallies; an unfortunate choice of venue - and style - in my opinion. Thu 28 Aug 2008 02:49:09 GMT+1 allmymarbles 131, David.I see this all like a play. She goes for acclamation when New York comes up. She does not want to hear the New York vote because it may not be so flatterling. So this is the time she chooses a face saver.I find that political, not generous. I also find it very interesting. The trick is not to get to involved. Yes, it is true I don't like her, but that does not prevent me from seeing the maneuvers. I am much colder than you think, at least as it applies to politics. Thu 28 Aug 2008 01:43:19 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Meanwhile..."The McCain campaign is ecstatic over this report from Reuters: "Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's big speech on Thursday night will be delivered from an elaborate columned stage resembling a miniature Greek temple."By noon, three emails mocking Obama over the columns had been blasted out by the Republican National Committee, with more sure to come."And, then how's this, for hypocrisy?Salaam, etc.ed Thu 28 Aug 2008 01:40:48 GMT+1 David Cunard #129 allmymarbles: "We can talk about it again in 2012 (if old age hasn't done you in by then)." I'm not as old as you and my mother died when she was 91, so perhaps we shall talk about it again! I fear that tonight's display did not endear Mrs C. to you, but so far, the Convention has been all about her. Perhaps next week will be as entertaining - we can concentrate on the Republican VP, whoever that my be. Thu 28 Aug 2008 01:09:34 GMT+1 allmymarbles 128, Loquacious.In my state I had to register as a democrat to vote in the primary. I guess if I like a rupublican next time I can register as a republican. I don't know, because I don't often vote in primaries. Thu 28 Aug 2008 00:18:00 GMT+1 allmymarbles 125, David.You are right about my age, but I am likely to outlive the Clintons (genes). I still think she is finished. We can talk about it again in 2012 (if old age hasn't done you in by then). Thu 28 Aug 2008 00:08:19 GMT+1 LoquaciousIvy allmymarbles (#121)--You're right about the limited choice, but I always hope for the best. Sometimes, it's all you have. I guess I wish we had more of a choice. Oh well.I wish I could register as an Independent, but my dumb state doesn't have it as a party distinction and I want to be able to vote in the primaries because local politics are important. Wed 27 Aug 2008 23:58:50 GMT+1 Xie_Ming One may notice that several publishing houses have books out now, quoting Obama on policy issues. Wed 27 Aug 2008 23:40:49 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill The filling of a vacancy in the office of Vice President is controlled by this amendment to the US Constitution, adopted in 1967: Wed 27 Aug 2008 23:29:54 GMT+1 David Cunard #122. allmymarbles wrote: "She has no chance whatever in 2012. Read #113." Perhaps you should read #116! But #107?? The post you refer to wasn't mine. May be you meant 89, not 98 - but nevertheless, much as you hate the idea, Hillary is not going away, no way, no how. Since you must be in your 70s, I fear she's going to be an irritant for the rest of your life. Wed 27 Aug 2008 23:26:42 GMT+1 allmymarbles 116, Gary.The act of 1947 lists the order as follows:presidentvice presidentspeaker of the housepresident pro tempore of the senateAlbert, who was speaker of the house, refused the position, after Nixon and Agnew were out, because he was a democrat. The position eventually went to the minority leader, Gerald Ford. Wed 27 Aug 2008 23:19:13 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Doug, "He has more problems than good points, more ghosts and skeletons in his closet."McCain has enough skeletons to fill all the closets in all seven houses.Off to check those youtube hints...;-)ed Wed 27 Aug 2008 23:13:28 GMT+1 allmymarbles 26, Sylbia.She has no chance whatever in 2012. Read #113. Wed 27 Aug 2008 23:05:27 GMT+1 allmymarbles 35, Loquacious.Let's be fair. We really don't have much choice in our president. A very few people are shoved in our faces and we make the best of it. As an independent I may have a little more choice than others, because I am not bound by party loyalty. But still, how many choices do I have? Wed 27 Aug 2008 23:02:57 GMT+1 allmymarbles 28, MikeIIThe best analysis I've read so far. Let's see if Bubba runs true to form tonight. Wed 27 Aug 2008 22:58:39 GMT+1 allmymarbles 26, Sylbia.There is all this talk about how important it is to get a woman into the White House. Is that how we choose a president. Hormonally?That is not how Thatcher got her job, or Meier, or Ghandi, or the others. It seems to me we lose one ism and find another For some obscure reason we are not allowed to call women sexist. But it is all right to call men sexist.Sorry, Sylbia, but people like you bore me silly. Wed 27 Aug 2008 22:50:01 GMT+1 allmymarbles 92, Xie.Never mind not liking welfare mothers. I don't much like welfare anything. Welfare used to be a stop gap. Now it is a way of life. I resent every penny I pay for these people. Wed 27 Aug 2008 22:34:12 GMT+1 Cyril_Croydon Justin, I completely disagree with this: "nothing that has happened to her since New Hampshire (including losing!) has done her anything but good." In the latter stages of the primaries, when the contest was all but over, Hillary went on the record to say that Obama was not qualified to be President, amongst other insults. Those comments are now being effectively used in GOP attack ads. If her intention was to help McCain win so she can run again in 2012, it was an effective strategy. She doesn't care about the Democratic Party, she only cares about herself.MarkfromOxford, yes the Hurricane may overshadow the Republican convention, but it may not strike New Orleans. Somewhere in Texas is equally possible.Dominickvilla, I disagree that the next President will only serve one term. It's too early to say what the circumstances will be like in 2012. It's unlikely Hillary will be able to overturn a sitting President as the nominee next time, unless Obama chooses not to run again. Besides, there are far superior candidates out there than her. People like Kathy Sebelius and Mark Warner. Wed 27 Aug 2008 22:23:33 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill allmymarbles (#113), you are mistaken. The Speaker of the House does not advance to the Vice Presidency when there is a vacancy. There is a precedent: remember Gerald Ford succeeding Spiro Agnew? Wed 27 Aug 2008 22:21:11 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill I think 2016 will be too late for Hillary, but, ironically, that is the first election year that Chelsea will be eligible to the office of President. Wed 27 Aug 2008 22:13:29 GMT+1 babawaya #85,#74 #79. I agree with you on abortion and also if the child will be born in a condition that he/she has no chance of survival and infact will suffer after birth (this can be a gray area but that is just my stand).For all those who called me, # 65 an 'evangelical' I'm not. Those are just my values. I don't judge anyone and I respect people of all orientations. The problem with most of us is disrepecting each other just because we disagree and creates a wedge that does us all harm than good. I do not incriminate. I believe in showing love to all; for love is the more excellent way.We can disagree on all these issues and still work together. Ask Senator Casey.#86. I actually have a relative stand on death penalty. I believe taking another life does not solve the problem. I could also argue that sending someone to a state prison for life does not solve the problem. It is weird the government tells us how to discipline our kids and when they rebel and grow up to be murderers it puts them away. While we will always deal with these situations and tough decissions we can limit how often. Inter city programs that would offer better alternatives for the kids and equal support for all schools regardless of their location. Some cities and towns have been marginalized by the government and the end result is high school drop outs consequently high crime rates.All these will remain the same if we keep on supporting tax cuts and rebates and funding wars we had no business engaging in. This why I can make a case that John McCain will use the same tactics as G W and leave us worse than we are.Can you imagine worse than we are? Wed 27 Aug 2008 22:04:39 GMT+1 allmymarbles 103, Sam.You are correct. I guess if the Clintons were truly obsessed they could seriously damage Obama's presidency, but that would not get her into the White House, for the reason you mentioned.Even if Obama were to die in office she still would have no chance, because Biden would take his place and, by the rules of succession, Pelosi would be vice president. A strong comboNo, she is done. Phew!! Wed 27 Aug 2008 21:55:15 GMT+1 brigitte_kc Many thanks for all your replies which were very helpful.Anyway, early start so better leave it there.Bye for now Wed 27 Aug 2008 21:53:42 GMT+1 Darrell #22 "upped regstration".Yes Obama and the DNC has. In North Carolina the new Democrat registrations in 2008 are getting close to matching the "polling gap". This put the state about even, with 43 days more to go for for voter registration. to this the nominal thought that polling of new registrations lags the change in the demographics, and that polling of young voters and African American is lower than its representation (both groups are likely to favor Obama) and NC is very much in play.What are the thoughts on an Obama Landslide?Hillary's speach last night has done wonders in appeasing some of her voters, and altough I understand several NC Delegates for her will still cast their ballots for her tonight, they will work for Obama for the remaining nine weeks of the campaign.I also do not think the DNC handpicked Obama. Going back a few months the super-delegate majority was in HRC's camp rather than Obama's. Multiple Superdelegates took the view they would support the popular vote in their congressional district, including the SG for the district I live in. That is not the DNC deciding. Wed 27 Aug 2008 21:53:14 GMT+1 RFK2008 At last Justin, you have got it right.I totally disagreed with your 'convention all about her piece'. Obama was being clever and making sure her supporters would be appeased. He has plenty of time in the spotlight. He knows it. So why risk arrogance when you can try and get 18 million more votes?Hillary is a great politician. I think her speech last night was fantastic. Glowing for Obama, but still solid Clinton. She is who she is. If she had come out with too much 'I love Barack, he is my hero, let's all love him', she would have been accused of being disingenuous. This way she looks like a true supporter, and to be honest, I thought everything she said last night was true, and that she believed it.It's a shame the same old partisan, belligerent Hillary haters jump on this blag as a chance to have a go at her. She is gracious in defeat. She is helping Obama as much as she can. So why not give her a break hey? Having a constant go just makes the Democrats look divided, and also, what reason is there left to be having a go? You afre not helping Obama by having a go, you just look like bad winners. Why not have some grace like Barack does?If Obama loses, the nomination is Hillary's in 2012. To be honest, I don't think he will lose, and I dfon't think she expects him to. Wed 27 Aug 2008 21:47:25 GMT+1 gunsandreligion Oh, and before anybody jumps on me for postingthe "In Like Flint" reference, I just thought it wasfunny. I don't have any problems with a femalepresident. Wed 27 Aug 2008 21:26:12 GMT+1 allmymarbles 88, guns.You're right. Weasels make good pets. Politicians bite. Wed 27 Aug 2008 21:21:13 GMT+1 allmymarbles 98, David.She is not that senior. Longevity plays a big part in the peckingorder. Wed 27 Aug 2008 21:19:54 GMT+1 gunsandreligion The mods wouldn't let it through, but if yougo to youtube, and type in "in like flint", you'llget to a scene where Hillary explains how sheis going to take over.(I especially like the part about the hairdryers) Wed 27 Aug 2008 21:19:15 GMT+1 allmymarbles 100, guns.I watched the "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes," and I saw staphy. He was the one ranting.Of the four comments I noted, two were not printed and two were. The two not printed were middle-of-the-nighters. The content of the daytimers was about the same. Wed 27 Aug 2008 21:17:08 GMT+1 gunsandreligion I don't think that we've seen the last of Hillary... [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] must be going on behind the scenes. Wed 27 Aug 2008 21:04:01 GMT+1 SamTyler1969 Hi Brigitte,Yes, she can run. In fact anyone can run, you don't have to be elected. Indeed, some senators have run both for the senate and the presidency at the same time.That bsaid it is regarded as deeply treacherous to run against a sitting president. In fact to do so has often resulted in the other side winning and there is no way that she would do that if Obama wins. It would be political suicide.Electoral Sam Wed 27 Aug 2008 20:52:39 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill bridgitte_kc (#97), I would not predict this early that Clinton would run again in 2012. That would only happen if McCain is elected, because if Obama wins, the incumbent almost always is renominated. Suppose McCain wins. If her Senate seat is up, that complicates matters. because she cannot run for both at once, as a practical matter, even if possible legally. I expect she would make that decision in early 2011, depending on how she feels then and who the competition is likely to be. Wed 27 Aug 2008 20:46:00 GMT+1 gunsandreligion #97, brigette_kc, to answer your question, anybodycan run for president, they do not need to hold office. Wed 27 Aug 2008 20:43:23 GMT+1 gunsandreligion #96, marbles, yes I did. What we don't fully appreciate yetis that these simian experiments will result inour planet being ruled by another species soon. Wed 27 Aug 2008 20:41:45 GMT+1 LoquaciousIvy brigitte_kc (#97),Losing her seat would not prevent her from running for President. You don't have to be a sitting Senator to run for President. She wouldn't lose the seat until the November election, when she ostensibly would be in the running for President. Technically, during the 2012 election she'd still be a Senator. If she chose to run for President, however, she most likely would not run for re-election to the Senate. Running dual campaigns would be seen as accepting failure (see Lieberman 2000) of the Presidential race. So, if she ran for President and lost, she would have neither the Presidency nor her Senate seat. Hope this helps! Wed 27 Aug 2008 20:37:32 GMT+1 Mark 96. allmyMaybe the ones who work during the day are English, and the those who work at night are not? Just a thought, probably wrong ;) Wed 27 Aug 2008 20:28:19 GMT+1 brigitte_kc Hi there ....... I am new to joining in a discussion on the bbc site, although I have enjoyed reading your comments and exchanges for a while now.I have a question (as a non-American) which I'd be grateful for advice on ...... I know that many people here as well as political commentators predict that Hillary will be running for President in 2012. However, I understand that her seat in the Senate will be coming up for grabs then too .... my question is if New Yorkers fail to elect her to the Senate and she loses her seat, can she still run for President? I have heard comments in the media from New Yorkers who feel she hasn't represented them well or achieved anything for them so far, and doubt she will retain her seat ... would this exclude her from the Presidential race? Wed 27 Aug 2008 20:26:15 GMT+1 allmymarbles 80, guns.Why is it that the moderators that work during the day as so good-tempered and the ones who work in the middle-of-the-night so peevish? By the way, did you follow my suggestion?Now I will go to YouTube. Wed 27 Aug 2008 20:17:53 GMT+1 invisibleserendipity #81Why do you think I watch? Only, Olberman would be toast as Matthews never shuts up long enough for anyone to make their point!I believe in fair and balanced news - that is why I combine FOX and MSNBC ...(that is a joke by the way) Wed 27 Aug 2008 20:05:05 GMT+1 SamTyler1969 All,I suspect that Hillary is still thinking of a future run, if not for herself then for Chelsea who seems to be rather prominent in the Clinton events these days.Apart from the suit, which was a little distracting, it was a thoroughly professional delivery and opens up some nice counter ads for the Obama campaign ('Hilary is right' and just change the end to 'No McCain, No Way, No How' and you've got a cracker). I think we also forget she isn't that old. By the end of an Obama second term she would still be young enough to run. Biden probably wouldn't, he'd be as old as McCain is now and the man has way too much common sense. Women also don't fall apart the way guys do post 70 so she'll probably be in fine spirits to run for at least one term. If this year does fall apart she could of course run in 2012. But I honestly don't think she wants Obama to lose. In fact I doubt anyone who leans left or vaguely left wants to see McCain in power. All the 'disunity' and PUMA stuff is really hilarious. The Republicans held a happy hour for 'Clinton supporters who will vote for McCain' in down town Denver yesterday. 100 people showed up. I reckon I could get more folks in asking them to sign a petition for rebuilding Soddom and Gomorrah with free booze and snacky cakes. Heck, I like Hillary and I would have gone just to make John-boy buy me a beer.Cheers,Sam Wed 27 Aug 2008 20:04:36 GMT+1 Xie_Ming #74Speaks from experience.The question about "why be concerned with the morality of others?" may be answered by the pressing need to externalize the inculcated guilt. Wed 27 Aug 2008 20:03:09 GMT+1 Xie_Ming #79The indoctrinated mind comes to accept belief as reality.One thorougly and deliberately inculcated with a sense of personal guilt has a wound-up psychological spring that must be directed at an external target.Gays and welfare mothers are customary and helpless targets.Fundamentalist teaching concerning the status of women also comes into play. The female, as servant, must serve a reproductive function. One can sublimate guilt over sex in this fashion.Would a woman be allowed choice? Perish the thought! Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:57:58 GMT+1 KSUprof It's so deja: 1968, we were fairly well furious over the Dems, heart-broken by the murder of RFK, and ready to go with Gene. We ended up with Hubert and abandoned voting alltogether. We were saddled, by not voting for the better candidate, with Tricky Dicky for six years and thousands of more American soldiers dying to depend against the lie called the "Domino Theory" (hey, NeoCons: why hasn't Thailand fallen to the Communists? Why isn't Australia a part of Red China?).I very much hope that Clinton supporters who are angry, and feel betrayed and ignored, won't pull off another botched election. We can't afford anymore of the sell-out, no-tax-spend-lots, bridge to nowhere neo-cons running things. Enough is enough! Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:56:15 GMT+1 robzaba Is H's speech, welcomed by many, not just another 'fall-back to the future' given there was nowhere else for her to go, except to save grace?It was indeed a brave and strong speech, (she really appeared to believe her own warm words this time), but for me, more reasons via policy (ie Obama's) would have given it more gravitas.Bill is on 5 seconds delay. Hope there won't be any costume malfunction...Waiting for:a) real detail re: foreign policy.b) how to get out of the economic chaos that has always followed GWBushc) some hints that the R's know where they stand in the world..., and what the world expects of them... Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:55:07 GMT+1 David Cunard #72. allmymarbles: In this case, wishing will not make it so! I think you're going see a LOT more of Hillary during the next four years. If she stays in the Senate, and (as will happen) Ted Kennedy dies, if nothing else she will become a power to reckon with. Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:51:53 GMT+1 gunsandreligion Oh, and Marbles, I don't understand why you wouldbe so prejudiced against weasels as to compare them to politicians. Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:49:34 GMT+1 Xie_Ming #65Yes, there is one person here who conversed with evangelicals for years.____________________________Most single cells of all types are alive.Some religious people wear masks and sweep ahead of them, so as to kill as little life as possible.Anyone who takes anti-biotics is willfully taking millions of lives.On the living human scale, Hiroshima and born-again Bush's "shock and awe" took hundreds of thousands of lives.Every act of contraception is depriving many cells of the chance of living a richer life.It is doubtful that an evangelical can distinguish between fact and the assertions of a particular religious philosophy. Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:49:26 GMT+1 David Cunard #65. AnonymousCalifornian - It's not just "evangelicals" who subscribe to the notion that life and soul begins at conception or that same-sex marriage is abhorrent, it the (Roman) Catholic Church as well. They go so far as to deny Communion to anyone who even supports abortion as policy (e.g., Kerry) and of course, do not consider that birth control should be used, except for the so-called "rhythm" method. Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:47:06 GMT+1 jacksforge 65 ok thats your view and fine, but are you also against the death penalty?should this issue be as important as the abortion issue.they are alive and God does say do not is the choice of the evangelicals if they wish to gain the moral high ground with the right to life question. Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:43:44 GMT+1 invisibleserendipity #73 AllmyGame. Set. Match. Got it. Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:42:18 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill WCC (#66), I think it's true that many Americans are more attracted to the individual than the party, as evidenced by the increasing number of voters who call themselves independents. This applies to both parties, however. Reagan had a large following because people liked him. Bush (senior) less so, hence he was not reelected. Bush (junior) I don't understand, because he seems to me to be less likable than his father, yet was reelected. Perhaps it was because of people like me who just didn't like Kerry, so sat out the election. Democrats can blame me if they like, but my state voted for Kerry, so I didn't affect the result.One question this year is the degree to which this factor applies to McCain. A lot of Republicans don't like him. Enough to matter? Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:40:49 GMT+1 gunsandreligion #22, MarkFromOxford, we should send Bushand Cheney down there in a dinghy with some"heck of a job" brownies as food... Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:40:08 GMT+1 MagicKirin This post has been Removed Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:37:41 GMT+1 gunsandreligion #61, Ms. Marbles, I can't post a link directly, butif you go to youtube, and type in "Conquest of thePlanet of the Apes," I believe that you'll be presentedwith a plausible theory. Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:37:29 GMT+1 SaintDominick Ref 65Actually, Anonymous, I only support abortion when the life of the mother is at risk, and while I oppose gay marriage, I accept civil unions because of the legal and economic benefits they confer and because I accept the reality that homosexuality is not a sin. The exception I make on abortion is based on the fact that, to me, the life of my wife is much more precious than the survival of a fetus. Unlike some evangelicals, I oppose the death penalty for the same reason I object to abortion, and because I do not believe the State has the moral right to kill. Being pro-life, in my opinion, means much more than opposing abortion.My posts on these issues simply highlight the fact that, for many voters, these are the defining issues that influence their decision regarding who they vote for; and that they often take precedence over economic, fiscal, and foreign policy concerns. Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:27:59 GMT+1 invisibleserendipity #68 MarkfromOxfordI couldn't agree with you more. We are on the same page.Although I am American, I spend (and have done for quite a long time now) considerable amounts of time in the UK and understand the mis-information or lack of information that reaches US soil. At times, it feels as if two entirely different accounts on the same issue are being published and put out there for consumption. Which is correct and which is incorrect? I do not know. But, I do know that we cannot continue at current rate and pace. Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:26:01 GMT+1 chancythegardener MarkatOxford - re the stormYou ought to check out Andrew Sullivan over at The Don't think that the moderators of this site would like it ! Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:23:45 GMT+1 Gary_A_Hill chancy (#71), we are in a "post-feminist age," but Hillary Clinton and her contemporaries (Geraldine Ferraro, e.g.) are from the feminist era. Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:19:49 GMT+1 albarudi1978 I knew that justin would commend Senator Clinton's speech, while dissing and sowing seeds of doubt regarding Michelle Obama's heart felt speech. No matter how steely Senator Clinton is, and no matter how connected she is to the working class and her vindictive sisterhood of the traveling pants, she will never be President, let alone a nominee of the democratic party without African American support and she knows that. It is time that it is made clear to her PUMAS that she lost fair and square, and if they think they are mad, wait until Barack loses. If they think that Black folk will be readily available to drive her to the Presidency like Miss Daisy, they have got something coming for them. And please for all those who think the media is biased toward Obama, here from Jill Zuckman, Mark Halperin, Dana Milbank, Lynn Sweet, Joe Scarbrough, John Decker, Lou Dobbs, Wolf Blitzer, ... and on and on and of course, Justin Webb Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:19:42 GMT+1 LoquaciousIvy #65, I don't have to put myself into an evangelical's shoes--I was raised one. I've seen first hand the bigotry, close-mindedness, and willfull ignorance of some of these people. I've seen them talk about tolerance on one hand while spewing venom about "sinners" on the other. I've seen them preach about abstinence while committing adultery and letting their children have abortions. I've seen good evangelicals too, who preach the word of God and live accordingly, but in my experience (and that's all anyone can discuss), they are few and far in-between.I have a question for you--why do you care what another person does with their body? If abortion is murder, as you say, then isn't that a sin that has to be reckoned between that person and God? What does that have to do with your personal relationship with God and your life? How does it affect you? I've never understood why other people's business is important. The same is true for gay marriage. If gays and lesbians are allowed the right of marriage (for surely, what else can it be but the right of legal recognition and protection of a partnership), how does that affect heterosexual couples? I'm not uninformed. I'm just no longer initiated. And yes, I know about zygotes, or I would have been a poor molecular biologist. Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:18:31 GMT+1 allmymarbles 60, Invisible.The democrats would like to get their act together, but they can't get rid of the Clintons. These viciously ambitious people are not above blackmail. Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:13:41 GMT+1 allmymarbles 62, Doug.Last night was the kiss-off for her. There won't be a 2012. She will be old news; the public likes new faces. Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:08:27 GMT+1 chancythegardener #66I thought we had reached the post-feminist age. Such intransigence leads to hubris. Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:04:45 GMT+1 allmymarbles 16, Loquacious.Everyone is tired of this election. Don't get upset. Hibernate. Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:04:08 GMT+1 allmymarbles 66, WCoast.It is not at all difficult to understand. It's sexism. It's also stupid. To vote for someone just because of color or sex implies that ability is secondary.Other people can nurse their causes. I will vote for the candidate I think is best. Wed 27 Aug 2008 19:00:19 GMT+1 Mark 60, invisibleI haven't seen US TV because I'm in England at the moment, but if the political channels are commenting, then it means they are preparing to shift focus if need be ...And, yes, there is too much at stake this time round, and it is not just about Iraq or South Ossetia. I'm a Platonist when it comes to politics: I believe every politician should be held to the highest standards of their beliefs and criticised for every failure to live by them. I simply think, like I'm sure you do, that Obama is about the future, whereas McCain and HRC are about the past, and they just cannot and will not let go ...I wish, for once, a US politician would tell you all the truth about what Bush has done. It is not just the paranoia that is so obvious in the awful way that they have scarred the Senate and the Supreme Court with roadblocks, temporary walls, and so on; or how some of the most beautiful architecture in the world now has to play second fiddle to an obsessive Maoist 'never-ending war'.Bush has sold you to China for a 'war on terror' that he could not finance and that they have because they now have more leverage over everything you do. The US dollar has declined by 40%+ since 2000 against free floating currencies: price your homes and salaries in those currencies and you are poorer now than then.I could go on ...Denis healey may have been a very poor British Chancellor but he did once offer one important piece of political advice: 'when in a hole, stop digging'. Wed 27 Aug 2008 18:54:25 GMT+1 themissinglink Forgot Clinton's speech, the speech of the night belonged to Governor Brian Schweitzer: roused the delegates with a speech on energy independence, whilst coming across as both genuine and very likable that can't be easy. Wed 27 Aug 2008 18:50:47 GMT+1 WCoastConservative For those who fail to understand why 30% of Hillary supporters (according to Gallup) don't support Barack in spite of the fact that their policies are eerily similar, remember: Americans vote for individuals, not parties or platforms. A lot of people - including millions of Republicans and Independents, and some men too - love Hillary and/or want a women president, period.Barack is neither Hillary nor a women (nor did he pick a woman for VP), so they won't support him.How difficult is that to understand!? Wed 27 Aug 2008 18:40:48 GMT+1 AnonymousCalifornian LocquaciousIvy: Seeing that several people have already called you on #16, here's one for #8: How did McCain 'sell his ideas' (ideals?) for evangelical votes? And enough with all the evil, evvil, evill, eeeeeevil evangelical nonsense which is so frequently expressed on this blog by so many. Really, have any of you anti-evangelicals ever even met a single evangelical--much less many of them--so that you can reasonably paint them all with a broad brush, instead of just characterizing a group comprising roughly a quarter of the electorate with inaccurate stereotypes/beliefs on your part and painting them all with a broad brush anyway? McCain has been pro-life since before 2000. His attitude on homosexual marriage has also not been radically altered. Both he and Obama oppose homosexual marriage, but aren't particularly opposed to civil unions, which in many states are practically identical to marriages in terms of the legal rights they confer. McCain still would have homosexual marriage's legality or illegality decided on the state level rather than nationwide. And just to point out another seemingly common misconception about evangelicals: for many, if not most, evangelicals, abortion and homosexual marriage are not treated equally. One is considered murder, the other improper living (as is being a druggy or alcoholic, or unfaithful spouse). Homosexuals aren't killing other people, and thus homosexual marriage is not as big an issue. Evangelicals can live with homosexuals in the world. Evangelicals could conceivably vote for a pro-homosexual marriage, but pro-life, candidate while they would not vote for a pro-abortionist. One more thing (if this post gets through the moderation). In response to one of D. Vila's posts, try putting yourself into an evangelical's shoes. An evangelical who considers human life* to be defined not by intelligence or cell count, but by either having or not having a soul, and believing that a human being receives a soul at the point of conception. Put in that perspective, millions of human beings, children, would be murdered each year, putting the Holocaust of the second World War to shame. Vila's statement, hinting that evangelicals don't pay attention to the economy, again demonstrates the general ignorance of quite a few on this board, and their willingness to portray evangelicals as people unable to see the 'big issues' of the day. If given the choice between a pro-life candidate with bad economic policies and a pro-life candidate with good economic policies, of course evangelicals would vote for the good economic policy candidate. Ending mass murder on the scale of millions per year (in their opinion) just happens to trump economic reform (go figure). Vila's post, from an evangelical perspective, is tantamount to declaring that Nazi Germany and the world should have kept Hitler in power, because even if he did murder some 6 million Jews, Roma, and others, at least he brought the Third Reich from the third world status of the Weimar Republic to 'developed' status in a few, short years. And neither Obama nor McCain will be able to directly fix the economy, anyway (at least short of an executive order). Much of what needs to be done to fix the economy requires laws which are made and passed by Congress, not the President. Whether the President is Obama or McCain, Senators and Congressmen will be in charge of economic reform. Meanwhile, several of the Supreme Court justices are ossifying at a rapid pace, particularly some of the liberal ones. They could even just be clinging on in the hopes that a liberal President will be sworn in soon. In contrast to who makes laws, the President does directly nominate Supreme Court justices. If the ratio of Supreme Court justices swings in support of social conservatives, Roe vs. Wade could be overturned and--potentially--the right to life constitutionally enshrined. Thus, for this election cycle, you can see why evangelicals have even more of a reason to vote a pro-lifer into the Presidency (even if you happen to disagree with them). General rule: try to be more informed about people whom you unfairly malign. Many BBC readers know little about evangelicals and don't have much opportunity to meet and converse with them, and many of the posters here are grossly misrepresenting evangelicals as individuals, and what they believe (as varied as that is). *As opposed to what D.V.'s post suggested, almost all people recognize that a zygote is alive; what's debated is whether that life constitutes a human being. Wed 27 Aug 2008 18:40:47 GMT+1 babawaya John McCain is an honorable man but he is stooping too low with these ads. I want the best for this country; after paying attention to him for a while, honestly, I'm afraid I don’t think he is the best we can come up with. Guys let's put America first and forget the issues that often divide us and do more harm to this country than help us. Anyone has travelled to Europe lately? Guys we are lagging behind in almost every aspect of development. America used to lead the way but today we are trailing because in Washington division and too much lobbying. What about China? They have become our ‘pay day loan center’. Instead of paying back the loan we get tax cuts. Who will pay all this debt and with what money? A good example is the cars we drive and reliance in petroleum. Know why McCain was unpopular in 2004 among the RNC bigs (in Washington); he was fighting for you and me. I wish I could say the same of him today. I'm a Christian and very devoted. But our conservative party has taken advantage of us. They know we always vote our conscience and so they do whatever they want every time we reelect them. If countries like Brazil, Greenland, Sweden, Holland, Finland etc. can establish a great energy program, why not America? The problem with us in America, majority of us are not well informed and the government does a great job in keeping us that way. It is to their benefit for us to stay that way so that we don't pressure them.Most conservative voters are spiritual conservatives but we vote for leaders (most of them) who care more about fiscal conservatism than spiritual. When you vote for tax cuts think twice. The trade off is not worth it. 6 yrs ago a regular public university was about $1700 a semester. Today it is about $5000. So, we get tax cuts and majority of Americans struggle to go to college. That is why a lot of college students are still in community colleges; some going on to their 4th year. We pay tax, the government builds highways and they demand we pay toll!!! It just does not add up.Only Americans can change this trend. We get all crazy with these politicians and yet we don't know what they stand for. I'm pro choice and I'm against gay marriage but America is bigger than those two issues. Most of us from the south are especially the victims of those two values. Right now as we talk my electricity bill is $649; used to be at most $250. Why don't we have solar panels enforced on every house especially in the south where we get sunshine for a good part of the year? My electricity company is getting huge profits and when I call customer service I speak with a representative from somewhere in Asia; and they still get a check back from the government. Fellow Americans, what is wrong with this picture.Let's be open and vote like wise people. George Bush is the most conservative president we have ever had. I respect him as a person for he stands for everything as a Christian I stand for. As a president he shoots with the same gun, the 'republican machine' which in my view has stripped America its greatness both economically and internationally. Tough talk against Russia is smart but deep inside our realistic being we know we cannot even dare try go to war against them. It is not even fathomable. Our resources are so depleted to even think about another war is absurd. Our next president must not be trigger happy. We need time to rebuild our military from bottom up. We need better incentives to encourage Americans to serve in the military. The next president must work with Europe and form better and mutual and dependable alliance. Russia needs Europe and so is America. In fight against terrorism we cannot be lone rangers any more. Wed 27 Aug 2008 18:33:24 GMT+1 Mark 54, ChanceyThanks and yes, I agree. One of the reasons the storms are such a risk is global climate change: an issue the US has buried its head in Arabian sands about. As the planet warms, the Gulf of Mexico is increasingly acting as an agent that intensifies storms because the water is so warm: all you need is the wrong storm avoiding as much land as possible, and that is what this one seems to be doing, hence my comments.So what another storm does is, apart from anything else, shift climate change and oil dependency right to the top of the agenda .... Wed 27 Aug 2008 18:30:09 GMT+1 DougTexan Even my wife thinks Hillary was to 'save' us from No-bama. Thought her prison garb and smiling face gave an excellent speech, so good, that alot of her supporters won't vote for him.Nothing bad, but I believe she and Bill truely don't believe he'll win, and will vote for McCain, because in 2012 she will be back, and Nobama won't.He has more problems than good points, more ghosts and skeletons in his closet. The Clintons will assist in his downfall from behind the scenes giving her an opening in the 2012 election.His wife and children are not running for office, so I think he shouldn't put her out there daily. She had an angry disbelieving look on her face last night. During Hillarys speech, Michele (mybelle) looked fairly angry more than once.countdown tofinish linenext Wed 27 Aug 2008 18:30:02 GMT+1 allmymarbles 30, Guns.Go back to "Did she connect with you?" and read comments 268, 269, 321 and 345. You will learn something very interesting. Remember I said I would get back to you today? Wed 27 Aug 2008 18:27:26 GMT+1 invisibleserendipity MarkfromOxford:Great observation re: Hurricaine. MSNBC spoke at length about the potential impact on the Republican convention next week. I believe CNN mentioned it as well.In any case, as a Republican who will be voting for Obama in November, the sheer ridiculousness of Hillary supporters is aggravating. If I am willing to turn away from my party (the only time in over two decades) and many of my Republican friends are willing to do the same - why can't the dems get their act together? There is too much at stake ... Wed 27 Aug 2008 18:26:11 GMT+1 Mark Mike,I should also add that it is potentially important because it would change the issues and the political dynamic. If you stand there talking about South Ossetia when people are losing their homes and livelihoods then all the bluster in the world will not get you noticed. Wed 27 Aug 2008 18:23:20 GMT+1 willsmac #32Indeed - and everyone is idiosyncratic I suppose, making one wonder about all the commentators (dare one say bloggers?) who discuss the electorate in blocks (white working class...). But then it is not easy to see what else to do! Wed 27 Aug 2008 18:23:01 GMT+1 Mark 53, EdThanks :) Wed 27 Aug 2008 18:16:55 GMT+1 Antwerp1 How many of these PUMAs are true Hillary supporters and how many are Republican activists deliberately trying to stir up friction between Obama/Clinton supporters. Anonymous blog comments are really not to be taken seriously (including this one). Wed 27 Aug 2008 18:16:37 GMT+1 Mark 51, MGI'm not advocating it with zeal or joy: I've been to New Orleans ... I'm taking a cold hard look at the maps, what they are revealing, and then putting the two timelines together. If I was a political strategist, I'd be thinking quite hard about where to be because, cynically, politicians like to be in the right place at the critical moment. For the Republicans the problem will be that they are committed by virtue of their convention to being in your fair state: it is the wrong place at the wrong time, and they are a very long way away from the Gulf Coast.And yes, I'm sure that 'they' and the emergency services will 'do better': if 'they' don't the political consequences would be profound indeed. The problem for the GOP is that the 'human news' will take over from the political, and their moment in the sun will be eclipsed. The keynote speeches will be lost in the endless detail of flood levels, rainfall, and damage. I do hope it is not a real disaster, but with winds at speeds of at least 125mph something is going to happen and it has all the potential makings of one. Do you think it is wrong to look at a map and point out the obvious? Wed 27 Aug 2008 18:16:12 GMT+1 chancythegardener Mark # 45I picked up on your posting - read it with great interest and thought to myself "events, dear boy, events". We all pray that people won't suffer as last time (and presumably proper precautions will be taken this time) but these constant and terrible storms in the Gulf should remind some of the pols that there are enough problems to be addressed at home without the need for them to roam the world looking to start fights.Not to mention getting involved in the sort of activity that Ed so rightly refers to in #46. Wed 27 Aug 2008 18:09:36 GMT+1