www.ditl.org

Tsukiyumi wrote:

sunnyside wrote: I still can't understand how that's even allowed. "Let's vote on subject A. Oh, wait, the senator from *insert state name* wants to add subject B to the same vote... Uh, NO! We'll vote on subject B seperately, as it has no bearing or connection to subject A." Wow. That was hard.

They shouldn't be allowed to toss whatever crap they want onto an unrelated bill. Hell if they'd ever vote to make that a law, though...

That's actually one of the issues I like McCain. He's got a loooooooong record of fighting earmarks and promisis to throw nasty vetos at anything crossing his desk with them in it.

I googled to actually see how Hillary and Obama do and found this.
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/cli ... 06-13.html
And this.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/ ... 32145.aspx

And I think this might speak to the experience issues. Both Hillary and Obama use earmarks for further their agenda and bring money to their States, however from the first article Hillaries political clout and ability to build political alliances makes her a heck of a lot better at it. It would seem she out porks Obama by something like 6 to 1 cash wise.


Can we really be that confident Obama can pass all the stuff he says he will if he can't "bring home the bacon" very well? I mean he does a little. Getting in 65 million for Chicago's commuter rail system.
(Note that Obama doesn't oppose earmarks. His thing is that they should be disclosed and transparent).

To be fair, Dusk, Obama picked up some major coups over Hill-dog in the unions.

And earmarks, riders, etc. on bills are often simply used as a way to knock down a bill, or to stigmatize it.

Mikey wrote:To be fair, Dusk, Obama picked up some major coups over Hill-dog in the unions.

And earmarks, riders, etc. on bills are often simply used as a way to knock down a bill, or to stigmatize it.

You are right. But there are people who flat out would not vote for him because he was black, and I'm ashamed to have some relatives who are in that category. Diehard Democrats, but they live in the Midwest, and they're not voting for "one of those." (They'll probably just sit out when/if he wins.) I'm not proud of that at all of course, but they're somewhat distant family I didn't grow up closely with, living very far apart.

I think that if everything about Obama were the same, except that his father had been from the Netherlands or something, Hillary would have been up the creek months ago.

Duskofdead wrote: Some part of that is that people tend to assume "liberal" when they hear "Democrat." There are an awful lot of union or former-union workers in the U.S. who voted hardcore Democrat pretty much on labor issues alone; and a lot of these people are Midwestern or Southern white people who wouldn't exactly rub shoulders with black people.

It doesn't help that the unions will often endorse a candidate and then the members are expected to vote for them. The CAW does that up here. "Liberal" in US politics has almost no relation to what it means in the rest of the world anyways, even Obama is quite far to the right in comparison to a Canadian Liberal Party member.

Obama may lose some votes because he is black. But he will pick up just as many if not more because he is black.

Same with Clinton. Some may not want a woman in power but a lot of woman do want one in power.

Teaos wrote:Obama may lose some votes because he is black. But he will pick up just as many if not more because he is black.

Same with Clinton. Some may not want a woman in power but a lot of woman do want one in power.

Yes but I get the distinct impression that she (and her supporters) assume that woman will vote for her because she is a woman. That's not a good thing to base your run on, candidates that have based their run on being black didn;t have much luck either.

To true.

Look at the lattest TIME magazine. They have the stats from the uo coming primary and the stats for woman voting for Clinton over Obama are unbelievable.

Duskofdead wrote:

Mikey wrote: I think that if everything about Obama were the same, except that his father had been from the Netherlands or something, Hillary would have been up the creek months ago.

Actually I think if his dad had been from the Netherlands he wouldn't even be running for the President right now. Not as a young (for a president) first term senator. He might still go places, but he wouldn't have been able to rise this fast.

And I feel pretty confident he wouldn't have 80% of the black vote either.


Where I worry about racism hurting him instead of helping him is in the general election. Now white racists tend to vote republican anyway, and Blacks tend of vote Democrat. So those two groups don't matter as much (except maybe for getting people to vote who otherwise wouldn't bother).

But there are some in both camps that may flip. And I don't know how the important independent and moderate camps are going to act between racism and voting for the first black American president.

With a little luck it'll sort of cancel out and it'll come down to issues and the person.

Independents tend to be effected by race and gender than either of the parties.

Other minorities may be a surprising issue, too. Hispanics have tended to favor Clinton; if Obama is the nominee, that's a bloc that might sit out rather than support the party line.

Mikey wrote:Other minorities may be a surprising issue, too. Hispanics have tended to favor Clinton; if Obama is the nominee, that's a bloc that might sit out rather than support the party line.

They may support her because of her lax stance on border control. Yet another reason I'll never vote for Hillary Clinton...

I think they both offer pretty sweet deals for illegal immegrants. Actually I'm a little surprised they haven't gone more for Obama. He's offering illegals drivers licences and I believe Hillary drew the line after Medicaid, welfare, and social security.


On that issue I don't see them picking McCain over either.


Actually though maybe the reason they swing for Hillary is that illegal immegration isn't the major issue for the bulk of the population.

Obama

are we really going to let a woman who has been cheated on by the former leader of our country get into his exact same position? Next thing you know she'll be bonking the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Obviously I think alot more of Obama than Hillary anyway, but I need to see the debates.

sunnyside wrote:...Actually though maybe the reason they swing for Hillary is that illegal immegration isn't the major issue for the bulk of the population.

Too bad more people don't live in Texas, or they'd realize how big of a problem it actually is. I'd say 30 million people living in our country illegally is a bit of a problem, especially when our tax dollars pay for their health care and education. They need to fix their own country rather than come screw up ours.

hey tsuk
is the 30million a realistic quote, or scaremongering,whats the source?
If it is 30million,then is obscenely high