<snip> > Just out of curiosity, what do you think it is > about Obama that some folks are calling "elitist"?
It is part of the arsenal of the republican attack machine. They run it on everybody. It is bullshit and bluster. Your analysis give it the dignity of having a basis in reality. It doesn't need to. Even discussing such personality traits of a leader makes me feel like I'm in junior high. > snip> > > > The liberals who are supporting McCain are > > > doing so because they believe the Democratic > > > Party has failed them and needs to be brought > > > down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see > > > the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court > > > nominations as a kind of blackmail. > > > > How can it be blackmail when it is just a fact? > > How can it be a fact when it hasn't happened yet? > > (And even if it were a fact, why would that mean > it couldn't be blackmail??) It is a fact that McCain is more conservative than Obama and will appoint accordingly. That is a fact now. It isn't blackmail. > > The > > liberal/conservative choice for the next judges will effect the > > rest of our lives. No one is blackmailing anybody. > > Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all > the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president, > they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict > McCain will do that we won't like. It is the one thing that will effect us for the rest of our lives. I'm pretty sure that the Obama campaign covers other issues about what a great guy he is in all ways. I'm more interested in who is gunna appoint the judges. YMMV. > > > I also feel betrayed by the democratic party for cowering to > > Bush's Iraq war. But after 8 years of republicans I don't > > believe it can be brought down any more. > > It wasn't "the party," strictly speaking, that caved > to Bush on the war; it was the Democrats in Congress. I don't find your distinction useful. > > I believe that it can rebuild a lot better > > with a democrat in the White House. I don't see how four > > years of McCain/Palin is going to help re-build the party. > > The party leadership--Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, et > al.--will be discredited if McCain wins; that > will mean it will *have* to be rebuilt, with > different people in the leadership. If Obama wins, > it'll just be more of the same; they'll have been > proved "right." I don't get any of the logic here. I don't know how many years you want to see a republican administration to prove your point. I have had enough of them. > > > I fear that this crazy logic that electing McCain will HELP the > > democratic party will sentence us to four more years of > > republicans,and yes, more ultra conservative Supreme Court judges. > > Again, it's a matter of destroying the current > party and putting together a new one, not helping > the current party. Have fun with that. > > If > > the Bush/Gore fiasco didn't convince you of the wide > > reaching implications for the democratic party didn't > > convince you, I don't know what will. > > Want to try this again? Your syntax got garbled. Didn't > convince me of what, exactly? Yes, very garbled! Convince you of the need to have democrats pick the next judges. That picking the judges can even affect who gets in as president. If you want to risk conservatives appointing the next judges, that is your call. I don't. >
