It's over. I WILL NOT vote for Senator Obama in the General Election if he is nominated.

[wyldwolf]

(of course, I'm not serious. But as a response to the thread where the OP says he/she will not vote for Clinton in the general election for the same reason...)

Asked if he believed homosexuality was immoral, Senator Barack Obama declined to answer the question and said "I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters... that's probably a good tradition to follow."

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usgays0315,0,2629782.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

We need leaders, not more of this "avoiding the question" shit. There is right and there is wrong. I will not vote for him, ever. (paraphrased from Clarkie1)

Let's hold them all up to the same standards.

[DemKR]

1. I said this a few hours ago

And Obama is still the cherished fellow who's allowed to say anything he wishes. Good luck.

[Clark2008]

4. Hold on there.

I don't like ANY of the three front runners all that much - one of them I won't vote for at all because I don't trust him (not Obama).

They're all like overcooked rice pudding - gooey and sticky and of no real substance.

:)

[AtomicKitten]

8. mmmmmmmmm

rice pudding ...... with raisins?

[marshall]

53. Why can't he have his own personal beliefs?

If he's not cramming them down our throats who cares what his own religious beliefs are. As a practicing Catholic presumably both Kerry and Kennedy would not find aborition acceptable in their own personal lives, but that doesn't stop them from recognizing the right women (both Catholic and non-Catholic) to choose for themselves. By the same token, who cares what Obama believes in the privacy of his own heart. It is his application of his beliefs to public policy that is important.

[msongs]

2. yeah that obama doesnt have to stand up the same way others to, he gets a pass nt

[fuzzyball]

36. Everybody is afraid to pick on an African-Am

for the risk of being not PC.

[bling bling]

38. bwaaaaaaaaaa haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa hahahahaha

ha ha ha ha ha. hee hee hee. heh heh. aaaah. Whew. Thanks. I needed that.

Or were you being serious?

[Colobo]

3. I will vote for whoever wins the nomination

I think we all need to chill a little bit... where's the damned wine????

[ElizabethDC]

7. LOL, exactly

:toast: (well, it's not wine, but close enough?)

I, for one, will proudly vote for whoever gets the nomination.

[TechBear_Seattle]

21. Likewise, but...

I'll be damned if I am going to support any of the currently declared candidates until the General Election. If they want my vote in the primary (not that the presidential primary means crap in Washington, but that is a different complaint) they had better be able to prove they deserve it.

[BeyondGeography]

5. When it's all said and done, Gore had a good day today

The left apparently remains wide open for claiming.

[Purveyor]

18. Now thats what I'm "talking about"!!! n/t

[AtomicKitten]

6. damn

And I was so looking forward to being called a bigoted homophobe for defending BOTH OBAMA AND HILLARY for not answering an inappropriate question posed by the MSM.

No more gotcha politics (nod to Kerry2008 for that).

[ccpup]

28. in the interest of making you happy

I, for one, officially consider you a bigoted, homophobe, AtomicKitten. :-) Better now? (ah, you know I luv ya)

[AtomicKitten]

29. unfortunately

some folks here at DU think lacing their posts with nasty epithets somehow augments their point ....

[ccpup]

31. either I can obsess that you missed the joke

(which I seriously doubt) or I can just take a moment to make sure you absolutely GOT that I was kidding you. The last thing I want is a mean AtomicKitten al'up'n'my grill, ... er, dog! :-)

[AtomicKitten]

32. here come the happy faces

sometimes their absence can be deceiving ...

[ccpup]

34. oh thank you jesus!

now I can crawl into bed and not fear being swallowed by nightmares populated with images of myself stranded in a saucer of milk surrounded by growling, circling, evil eyed ... oh, I can't even bring myself to finish. Best I quit while I'm ahead and shuffle off to bed.

That's not a saucer of milk in front of you, is it, AtomicKitten? :scared: :-)

[AtomicKitten]

35. No, I've gone straight to the hard liquor tonight

It helps me get my swerve on.

Sleep tight.

Here's a picture of my kitty Renfield kicking my dog Seven's butt ... look for him in your dreams - he's really scary.

[AZBlue]

42. Seven's got a smile going....can't fool me!

Renfield looks like my Maggie - especially the sideways "uh oh, she sees me" look in his eyes.

[AtomicKitten]

44. Ren is a wild animal.

... and look how cute he was as a baby.

[AZBlue]

45. Beautiful blue eyes!!!!!

Look at that innocent face...he's got the big-eyes look down pat!

Maggie's got big green ones:

[beaconess]

66. Awwwww! God made kittens 'cause He knows nobody would adopt a grown cat

Especially a vicious one like yours.

Just joking - I'm a cat lover. And your cat looks like he's a hoot!

[bling bling]

46. Sorry to butt in....

But you really ought to submit that pic to mycathatesyou.com. That's hilarious.

http://www.mycathatesyou.com/

[AtomicKitten]

47. done

Of note, Seven was a very aggressive rescue that we adopted. We were her third family because she kept getting returned to the shelter. Our vet told us to never leave her alone with our cats. As you can see four years later with a lot of patience, training, and love, we now worry about leaving her alone with Renfield for her own safety. Ha, ha. Seriously, Seven is a poster-dog for pit bulls that are thought to be irretrievably aggressive (she is part pit bull, part Australian cattle dog).

This photo is also at our local shelter and at my vet's office.

Thanks for the heads-up. I submitted it to that website. I hope it gets people to think differently about pit bulls. :)

[orleans]

9. i just heard malloy reading his responses to this question and

his dodging the question THREE TIMES.

i'm as disappointed in his response as i am in her response.

couldn't they have at least replied with: "THIS ILLEGAL WAR IS IMMORAL"


hillary courts the female vote but how many of us females found her response offensive--how many of the women who liked her have gay children, gay friends, or are gay?

obama courts the progressive vote but how many of us progressives found his response offensive--how many of the progressives who liked him have gay children, gay friends, or are gay?

their answers were ... not good.

[marshall]

65. Immorality=Personal

To Harry Reid coffee drinking is immoral, but he's not being asked if he thinks Starbucks should be run out of business. I'm pretty sure Senator Clinton would say she believes adultery is immoral, but does anybody think she would try to have it declared illegal? Not that coffee drinking or adultery are the same as being gay, but I think it is possible for people like Obama or Clinton to hold personal religious beliefs in what is moral and what is immoral and not have it adversely impact their ability to be a good leader.

[loyalsister]

10. Same standards?

Not answering is lame, but it does not come close to suggesting the possibility that considering homosexuality immoral is legitimatly debatable.

[DemKR]

11. Oh yes,

Allowing someone to have their own PERSONAL opinion is SO radical!

[loyalsister]

19. It is a hypocritical suggestion

to leave room for that opposing idea when she has spent the last week pandering to the gay community.

[Catchawave]

12. I hit alert on that other one

Thank goodness I saw your disclaimer :hi:

Is the other one still there?

[mtnsnake]

13. Who the heck will you vote for then? Edwards didn't say "no" either.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3162436

Pretty soon, you're gonna be left with only Biden!

[Nedsdag]

17. You're not going to find the perfect candidate.

Period. End of story. Get over yourself.

Next year either vote for Nader, hold your nose and vote for the Democratic nominee or stay home.

[wyldwolf]

20. psst! read my whole OP

[Nedsdag]

24. Whoops!

My bad!

[mtnsnake]

26. psst!

I thought you'd know by my Biden comment that I wasn't taking you serious.

[hlthe2b]

14. I get so tired of the knee jerk responses...

There is an incredibly long time until the super primary, Feb, 2008--much less until the election. During that time ALL the potential candidates are likely to either say something stupid, or be misinterpreted, leading to a firestorm of controversy-- for about 10 minutes.

I think some DUers are going to have a nervous breakdown by then if they don't step off the emotional rollercoaster...:shrug:

[Bitwit1234]

15. You know the press is just looking for conterversary..that's why they

stick the mike in their face.

Remember how that right wing nut followed Kerry's wife around at the DNC convention and when she told him to bug off they made a big deal about it. What do you think would have happened if a dem followed Laura Bush around every step she had made and stuck the mike in her face.

I guess they think it is OK to harrass dems but not republicans. No wonder Hillary and Obama wouldn't give them the satisfaction of an answer to start a contervarsary.

[HappyWeasel]

16. Oh, come on...

this is a bad thing, but 80% our friend is NOT 20% of our enemy....but still, in this early stage, we must criticaly weigh all of our options. However, this should not give the neo-clowns a chance to steal some dixiecrat votes and keep our "green" friends form voting.

[wyldwolf]

22. psst! Read my whole OP

[ElizabethDC]

23. I think this is indicative of how many people will respond solely to the title of a tread n/t

[AZBlue]

43. LOL! I was just thinking the same thing!

Scary! It's not like the post was that long and you had to skim it to save time.

[HappyWeasel]

30. I did. It was just a scary headline and somethin we cannot entertain even 20% seriously.

[wyldwolf]

51. did you weigh in on the FIRST thread when it said "Clinton" and not Obama?

[Elidor]

25. Lol, good answer by Obama

That's what gets me about Hillary's answer: it is so incredibly inept. I expect a certain amount of savoir faire from veteran campaigners. This is the clumsy stuff of a neophyte. What's up with that? She's smarter than this.

You better hope she addresses this quickly, because it will get ugly fast if she doesn't head it off. I was off the Hillary reservation already (for other reasons), but if she can't stand up and say that gay people are not immoral, she is in deep, deep shit with a whole lot of progressives.

Is it unfair that Obama isn't getting the same grilling? His turn will come, believe me. But as the putative front-runner, Hillary gets the first shot at it. She can lead or she can follow. She's not off to a great start on this matter. She's never been really good at PR, but even for her this is amazingly tone-deaf.

[Colobo]

27. This thread has a purpose, but it should be locked as well

[ncteechur]

33. I think this is why it is absolutely stupid to announce this soon.

You immediately put a bullseye on yourself. They shouldn't announce until the third quarter of 07 at the earliest. Particularly Mrs. Clinton who already had a huge warchest of $$$. As for Obama, he probably thinks it should be OK for gays to openly serve. But to say that openly is painting himself into a corner. Now you can say there is right and there is wrong, but unfortuately for every vote he gets by saying one thing, he will lose that many in return. He kept his mouth shut which is probably the best thing this early. So if you don't vote for him if he gets the nomination, fine, don't, but don't bitch about it later. Vote for Nader if you want to--let's repeat 2000. Freaking W should have never even come close and a lot of it was Nader's fault. Just as Perot took votes from HW in 1992.

[politicat]

37. To quote exactly what I said in the other thread:

If you feel you have the leeway to vote for a third party (or not vote at all) in the general election and still have your state go blue, then you're lucky. Some of us don't have the luxury of voting our principles in the general election. We HAVE to vote the lesser of evils because we live in swing states. To quote Molly Ivins (in regards to the 2000 election, discussing the logic of voting for Nader as a Texan, where no matter what she voted, she was effectively disenfranchised)

This is an old argument between radicals and liberals; sometimes I'm on one side, and sometimes on the other. In the primaries, I vote to change the world; in November, I vote for a sliver more for programs that help the needy.

I do not believe that things have to get worse before they can get better. I think you will find that most mothers object to the idea that you would deliberately do something to make a child's life worse in order to bring about some presumed greater good in the long run. I believe that the best can be the enemy of the better. I believe in taking galf a loaf, or even a slice. (Emphasis added.)

And how do we ever change the whole rotten system at that speed? Brick by brick, child by child, slowly, toward liberty and justice for all.

The 2000 Vote, October, 2000 (originally the newspaper column; reprinted in Who Let The Dogs In?

When it's a choice between a candidate that works incrementally (as the Clintons (and Obama) are famous for doing) to improve the lives of all citizens and a candidate that wants to rule as dictator by king's writ, I take the incrementalist. When it's a choice between an Objectivist Free marketer libertarian type and an open market, DLC type, I take the latter because the latter at least believes in some regulation. When it's a choice between someone who thinks that his only reason for being on earth is to bring about some sort of end times and someone who is at best wishy-washy on religion, I take the wishy-washy. And when it's a choice between someone who evades a moral question when the questioner is trying to make private morals into public policy, then that person has my support. Private morals are not public policy.

I don't ask for any politician to be perfectly in line with my views. All I do ask is that we can agree on the basic principles that government does what individuals can't, that it provides a safety net when we fall, a hand up to get us back on our feet, and a fair deal for our labor. I ask that a pol be aware that s/he's an employee of the people, not the other way 'round. I ask that s/he listen more than s/he talks.

If you're expecting perfections, you're expecting FAR too much.

[wyldwolf]

50. you didn't actually read my post, did you?

[politicat]

61. I did actually. And I disagree with you (sort of)

Sorry that didn't come through. I know you were poking a bit at the outrage, but I see a bigger issue -- candidates are getting trapped into making statements that there's no reason to make, and we, the constituents, are getting outraged (even briefly) about it and getting ourselves into outrage corners. Which doesn't do us or the candidates or the political process any good at all.

Making light of it is great - we need to be taking this kind of rhetoric lightly. But we also need to be committed to working towards the path of greater good, rather than committing ourselves to some ideological pose that may have greatest good as its ultimate end, but ends up causing harm in the short term.

Sorry... I should know better than to post while feverish (I'm really trying to break through a nasty case of flu).

[Clarkie1]

39. Well, that's very unfortunate....my list is getting much shorter.

I truly hope I do not have to excercise the third-party option. I would like to see the specfic context of Obama's remarks. If he refuses to state that homosexuality is not immoral, I cannot vote for him.

It's a basic human rights issue. All people need to be regarded with dignity and respect. We need enlightened leaders.

[ellisonz]

40. But I thought Kerry was so so electable...

}(

fmrly: cynicalSOB1

[Jack Rabbit]

41. Mr. Wyldwolf

While I agree that candidates should be held to the same standard, and I will not be so foolish to as to say "I will never vote for Hillary Clinton", I must say I am appalled by her response to that question. While I don't think Senator Obama give a wholly satisfactory answer, either. it was still better than Senator Clinton's. At least Senator Obama let us know he doesn't care what General Pace thinks on the matter; Senator Clinton, on the other hand, seems to be saying that she doesn't care who decides as long as she doesn't have to do it. Would she care if General Pace were the one to decide?

I would be less than honest if I said Senator Clinton is my first choice for 2008. I don't know who is, but she definitely is not. Her response to the question about homosexuality as a moral issue is just one of many pronouncements she has given in the last several years that leave one wondering where she really stands on any issue.

Whether I agreed or disagreed with him, I appreciated Senator Kerry's penchant for nuance, even while others did not. Mrs. Clinton's response isn't nuance; it's cop out. It sounds like another focus group tested statement that says nothing.

OK, if she wants to say that it isn't for the President to decide what's moral or immoral, fine. But while she's at it, she could at least say something like, "When I am President, all Americans will have equal protection under the law."

Given what we've seen in the last six years, that would be a good start.

[wyldwolf]

49. Of course you think Obama's was better than Clinton's

[Jack Rabbit]

54. Do you want to elaborate on that?

I love to hear people tell me what I think. Sometimes they know what I think better than I do.

[wyldwolf]

64. certainly

Your rationalization of why Obama's response was better is classic idol worship.

If the two were in a footrace and crossed the finish line at the same time, you'd say Obama really won because he had better form or something.

[BootinUp]

56. Not sure I agree with your take

on the meaning of Clinton's statement. What I think she is saying is she doesn't put herself in the place of deciding moral questions on homosexuality for other people. Thats different than saying she doesn't care. Its similar to her position on abortion, no? Anyways she could have expounded more on it, but the fact is the Democratic party has been pummeled on this issue for over a decade and its only smart politics to measure your words carefully and not respond to gotcha questions. If you need to know where she stands on an issue then a specific policy question is required. Not do you think homosexuality is immoral. That is not a policy question its a religious question. Hope I didn't upset anyone.

[Jack Rabbit]

57. Actually, that is a more positive way of stating my take on it

It is still an inadequate answer.

Senator Clinton seeks to be the chief executive of the federal government. It isn't up to the government to enforce any body's interpretation of Christian teachings, whether General Pace's, Jerry Falwell's, or St. Francis of Assisi's. It is the duty of the president to assure equal protection under the law, at least in terms of law enforcement. In fact, I would deem it immoral for the president to prosecute Democrats for corruption and be lenient to Republicans for the same thing (or vice versa). She could have taken the opportunity to have said that.

There would be nothing wrong with -- or even bold about -- that statement. It bothers me that she deemed it safe (or "smart politics") not to go even that far. Her response was a cop out.

My problem with Senator Clinton is that too often she makes this kind of statement that says as little as possible in as many words as possible. As a voter, I want to have some idea what she would do if she were president.

I would be more likely to support her -- and much more likely to just respect her -- if she would speak from focus group reports less and from her heart more.

[BootinUp]

59. Equal protection, sure

but the question she was asked was a different one. Hence the answer can not be applied. All I am saying is if she speaks on equal protection or is involved in legislation efforts in that arena I am sure you would not be as disappointed.

[JNelson6563]

48. More idiocy

Oy.

Tit for tat threads so remind me of kids in grade school.

[wyldwolf]

52. More idiocy...

..for responding that way.

[BootinUp]

55. rofl. n/t

[natrat]

58. i will not vote for whoever the msm and a lot you support

[Alexander]

60. You sure do love the flamebait, huh?

How many threads of yours have been locked now?

:eyes:

[wyldwolf]

62. It's no more flamebait than the post that inspired it

...how many of my threads have been locked now? Not many at all, considering I'm still posting.

[PresidentObama]

63. Dear MSM: NO MORE GOTCHA POLITICS!!

I'm tired of coming to DU and seeing each group of candidate supporters going after one another. And what do they use? The gotcha politics the MSM feed us!!

Enough is enough.

:grr: