Comments on: Vote 2008! President of the U.S. http://greenlagirl.com/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/ Urban environmental lifestyle blog in Los Angeles Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:11:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: hank hauffe http://greenlagirl.com/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-220322 hank hauffe Wed, 06 Feb 2008 18:36:59 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/2008/02/04/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/#comment-220322 I really enjoyed your thoughtful explanation of why you expect to vote for Hillary over Obama. The one thing that has soured me most on Hillary is her recent vote on Iran. Bush has been saber-rattling again and he again has been trying to set himself up to do another invasion. If experience is good for anything it is to learn and yet Hillary again votes in support of his demonizing. Didn't her experience teach her anything from the first time? I want a change in so many areas it's impossible to count but one of the main areas is a change in our self-rightous demonizing approach to foreigh policy. I was very disappointed to see Hillary exhibiting the same mindset as Bush. Again, I very much appreciate your thoughtfullness about this. All the best from Houston ~ I really enjoyed your thoughtful explanation of why you expect to vote for Hillary over Obama. The one thing that has soured me most on Hillary is her recent vote on Iran. Bush has been saber-rattling again and he again has been trying to set himself up to do another invasion. If experience is good for anything it is to learn and yet Hillary again votes in support of his demonizing. Didn’t her experience teach her anything from the first time?
I want a change in so many areas it’s impossible to count but one of the main areas is a change in our self-rightous demonizing approach to foreigh policy. I was very disappointed to see Hillary exhibiting the same mindset as Bush.
Again, I very much appreciate your thoughtfullness about this.
All the best from Houston ~

]]> By: Jeff http://greenlagirl.com/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-219816 Jeff Wed, 06 Feb 2008 04:35:15 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/2008/02/04/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/#comment-219816 Gill, Nader did not lose the election for Al Gore. I recommend you read "Crashing the Party" or watching "An Unreasonable Man". Almost all exit polls showed that the overwhelming majority of people that voted for Ralph Nader would not have voted had Ralph Nader not been running. (Actually, everyone I know that voted for Ralph Nader were republicans, and polls also confirmed that the majority of people that voted for him that were registerd one party or another were Republicans) I personally voted for Gore, and felt that I sold my soul a little in the process. As far as ruining a legacy, Nader deals with that in "An Unreasonable Man" - basically he was never in this for a legacy, he was in this to make the country better, so if he ruins his legacy so be it. Let's also consider the fact that Florida lost the election for Gore - well, every other 3rd party candidate won enough votes in Florida to have put Gore over the top, so it is really insane to blame it on Ralph. Perhaps Gore lost because he decided to, as the Dems overall seem to have, let the Republicans control the conversation and fought to the death over the few undecided voters, instead of saying something fresh and new and getting some of the 50% of eligible voters who don't vote to vote. Don't blame Nader for Gore's misstep. How about we have some Democrats that are truly progressive in the mold of FDR and that have backbone - Howard Dean and John Edwards were good starts. Until then, I can never fully call myself a Democrat. Gill, Nader did not lose the election for Al Gore. I recommend you read “Crashing the Party” or watching “An Unreasonable Man”. Almost all exit polls showed that the overwhelming majority of people that voted for Ralph Nader would not have voted had Ralph Nader not been running. (Actually, everyone I know that voted for Ralph Nader were republicans, and polls also confirmed that the majority of people that voted for him that were registerd one party or another were Republicans) I personally voted for Gore, and felt that I sold my soul a little in the process. As far as ruining a legacy, Nader deals with that in “An Unreasonable Man” – basically he was never in this for a legacy, he was in this to make the country better, so if he ruins his legacy so be it. Let’s also consider the fact that Florida lost the election for Gore – well, every other 3rd party candidate won enough votes in Florida to have put Gore over the top, so it is really insane to blame it on Ralph. Perhaps Gore lost because he decided to, as the Dems overall seem to have, let the Republicans control the conversation and fought to the death over the few undecided voters, instead of saying something fresh and new and getting some of the 50% of eligible voters who don’t vote to vote. Don’t blame Nader for Gore’s misstep. How about we have some Democrats that are truly progressive in the mold of FDR and that have backbone – Howard Dean and John Edwards were good starts. Until then, I can never fully call myself a Democrat.

]]> By: Cindy http://greenlagirl.com/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-219774 Cindy Wed, 06 Feb 2008 02:43:01 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/2008/02/04/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/#comment-219774 Siel, Yes, left a word out and spelled your name wrong. Sorry. My post disagreed with the issue of Obama supporters buying into hype. Your post did not say all, it said "a lot of people". Personally, I think that voters across the board are probably equally informed (or uninformed). Siel,
Yes, left a word out and spelled your name wrong. Sorry. My post disagreed with the issue of Obama supporters buying into hype. Your post did not say all, it said “a lot of people”. Personally, I think that voters across the board are probably equally informed (or uninformed).

]]> By: Siel http://greenlagirl.com/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-219691 Siel Wed, 06 Feb 2008 00:27:23 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/2008/02/04/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/#comment-219691 Surely we can be as civil to each other here as Obama and Clinton were during the CNN debates? Most comments are indeed civil and constructive; I just hope we can move all comments in that direction. cindy -- I feel you've really misconstrued my words. I wrote, and I quote: "That’s not to say Obama’s all hype." So I'm not sure why you seem to be saying that I claim all support for Obama is due to hype (your sentence there appears to've been left accidentally incomplete, so I'm guessing a bit to the meaning, but it appears that you intended to say that you disagreed with what you saw as my premise that support for Obama is all hype). Of course, if I really thought Obama was all hype, I WOULD be upset if he won. As it is, I do think Obama's a great candidate -- I just believe Hillary is a better one for the reasons named above. Jeff -- Again, I'd like to reiterate what I began this post by saying: I have nothing against Obama, and will not be upset if he wins. But I think the stats you're citing, as mk pointed out, are a bit misleading and skewed. Obama has not at ALL had a perfect record when it comes to the environment. The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=1&oref=slogin" rel="nofollow">front page story in the NYT yesterday</a> about his watering down his own nuclear energy regulation bill due to pressures from the Republicans and the nuclear industry is a case in point. Again, that's not to say Hillary's record's been perfect! I'm just pointing out that we are voting on two great, but imperfect, candidates. I believe Hillary is the better choice. You clearly disagree. Surely we can be as civil to each other here as Obama and Clinton were during the CNN debates? Most comments are indeed civil and constructive; I just hope we can move all comments in that direction.

cindy — I feel you’ve really misconstrued my words. I wrote, and I quote: “That’s not to say Obama’s all hype.” So I’m not sure why you seem to be saying that I claim all support for Obama is due to hype (your sentence there appears to’ve been left accidentally incomplete, so I’m guessing a bit to the meaning, but it appears that you intended to say that you disagreed with what you saw as my premise that support for Obama is all hype). Of course, if I really thought Obama was all hype, I WOULD be upset if he won. As it is, I do think Obama’s a great candidate — I just believe Hillary is a better one for the reasons named above.

Jeff — Again, I’d like to reiterate what I began this post by saying: I have nothing against Obama, and will not be upset if he wins. But I think the stats you’re citing, as mk pointed out, are a bit misleading and skewed. Obama has not at ALL had a perfect record when it comes to the environment. The front page story in the NYT yesterday about his watering down his own nuclear energy regulation bill due to pressures from the Republicans and the nuclear industry is a case in point. Again, that’s not to say Hillary’s record’s been perfect! I’m just pointing out that we are voting on two great, but imperfect, candidates. I believe Hillary is the better choice. You clearly disagree.

]]> By: mk http://greenlagirl.com/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-219666 mk Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:39:18 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/2008/02/04/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/#comment-219666 jeff, another issue with averaging out votes on the environment that might have us see a tilt toward obama is the fact that he's had fewer votes to cast over a shorter period. and hillary's had fewer still than mccain. if you want to give honest assessments of all three, mccain hands down has the most experience. unfortunately, what he's chosen to do with his votes almost eight out of ten times is the wrong thing. and that's just his decision-making related to the environment. how does another 100 years in Iraq sound to you? Gill, Amen. mk jeff,

another issue with averaging out votes on the environment that might have us see a tilt toward obama is the fact that he’s had fewer votes to cast over a shorter period. and hillary’s had fewer still than mccain. if you want to give honest assessments of all three, mccain hands down has the most experience. unfortunately, what he’s chosen to do with his votes almost eight out of ten times is the wrong thing. and that’s just his decision-making related to the environment. how does another 100 years in Iraq sound to you?

Gill,
Amen.
mk

]]> By: Gill http://greenlagirl.com/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-219645 Gill Tue, 05 Feb 2008 23:15:46 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/2008/02/04/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/#comment-219645 If any body votes for Nader, they are wasting their vote, and supporting someone who has devasted his legacy and wiped out a lot of the good that he has done for the American people. He had no business running for President in 2000 and he helped elect the worst, most disastrous administration in American history, usurping power from the real winner of the election, Al Gore. Nader has no business to be involved in politics. The system does need improvement, and other good candidates like John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich were marginalized and not given enough media coverage. If there was to be public financing of campaigns, big moneyed corporate and lobbyist interests would not be able to dictate who can become President. If any body votes for Nader, they are wasting their vote, and supporting someone who has devasted his legacy and wiped out a lot of the good that he has done for the American people. He had no business running for President in 2000 and he helped elect the worst, most disastrous administration in American history, usurping power from the real winner of the election, Al Gore. Nader has no business to be involved in politics. The system does need improvement, and other good candidates like John Edwards, Bill Richardson, and Dennis Kucinich were marginalized and not given enough media coverage. If there was to be public financing of campaigns, big moneyed corporate and lobbyist interests would not be able to dictate who can become President.

]]> By: cindy http://greenlagirl.com/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-219500 cindy Tue, 05 Feb 2008 20:30:41 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/2008/02/04/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/#comment-219500 Seil, As an Obama supporter, I find the premise that the support behind him might be due to "buying into hype" rather than looking at the issues. Perhaps his supporters have looked at the issues and decided to support him based on the issues. Personally, I think the experience argument is not true. So where did Hillary get her 35 years experience?? Was it relevant to dealing with foreign matters?? Obama has 11 years in office, Clinton has 8 years in office. I don't count her 8 years as First Lady. Even if the experience argument was true, I vote for a fresh face who may not be so entrenched in the political machine, that he might actually be able to lead this country in another direction. Seil,
As an Obama supporter, I find the premise that the support behind him might be due to “buying into hype” rather than looking at the issues. Perhaps his supporters have looked at the issues and decided to support him based on the issues. Personally, I think the experience argument is not true. So where did Hillary get her 35 years experience?? Was it relevant to dealing with foreign matters?? Obama has 11 years in office, Clinton has 8 years in office. I don’t count her 8 years as First Lady.
Even if the experience argument was true, I vote for a fresh face who may not be so entrenched in the political machine, that he might actually be able to lead this country in another direction.

]]> By: Jeff http://greenlagirl.com/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-219323 Jeff Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:05:37 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/2008/02/04/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/#comment-219323 mk, For further clarification, I was speaking specifically about the 2006 %'s from the league of conservation voters, not the overall percentages of a career in the Congress. (Im concerned more with "what have you done lately?") What has caused Hillary to go from a strong supporter of environmental bills to a sometimes supporter, especially in a year in which the environment and it's causes have been getting so much help? one can only speculate... mk,

For further clarification, I was speaking specifically about the 2006 %’s from the league of conservation voters, not the overall percentages of a career in the Congress. (Im concerned more with “what have you done lately?”) What has caused Hillary to go from a strong supporter of environmental bills to a sometimes supporter, especially in a year in which the environment and it’s causes have been getting so much help? one can only speculate…

]]> By: kenya http://greenlagirl.com/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-219307 kenya Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:39:23 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/2008/02/04/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/#comment-219307 i think it's both thrilling and excruciating to choose between Clinton and Obama for our democratic nominee. thank you for your very thoughtful analysis ... much needed today! i think it’s both thrilling and excruciating to choose between Clinton and Obama for our democratic nominee.

thank you for your very thoughtful analysis … much needed today!

]]> By: mk http://greenlagirl.com/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-219300 mk Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:35:03 +0000 http://greenlagirl.com/2008/02/04/vote-2008-president-of-the-us/#comment-219300 just to clarify: clinton gets 90% at LCV. http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/voterguide/clinton-page.html obama gets a 96% at LCV. http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/voterguide/obama-page.html mccain gets a 26% at LCV. yes, that's a 2. and a 6. if you vote for mccain over hillary, you do not care about the environment, even a little. same goes for those who throw their votes away on nader. PLEASE reconsider. http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/voterguide/mccain-page.html just to clarify:

clinton gets 90% at LCV.
http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/voterguide/clinton-page.html

obama gets a 96% at LCV.
http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/voterguide/obama-page.html

mccain gets a 26% at LCV. yes, that’s a 2. and a 6. if you vote for mccain over hillary, you do not care about the environment, even a little. same goes for those who throw their votes away on nader. PLEASE reconsider.
http://presidentialprofiles2008.org/voterguide/mccain-page.html

]]>