Barack Obama vs. John McCain

[HerrKaiser]

The Republican record on gay/lesbian issues and women's issues is enough for me to vote against McCain for associating himself with the Republican platform. 

I do not think this is accurate. What record are you referring to as compared to democrats? Sounds like a broadly sweeping generalization that in reality is not the case.

[HerrKaiser]

How he stands on the economy - important  OK

How he stands on the illegal war - important  Stance on the legal war, OK

How he stands on gay issues - important  Not all issues are the same, nor should they be. That would be bias.

How he stand on a woman's right to chose - important  The entire abortion issue needs rethinking. The so-called right to choose without any measurements is antiquated.

How much experience he has - not that important (you don't know how you react until you're faced with those situations) How absurd to suggest predicting actions is unimportant. What the heck is the primary process for? The whole election process is about determining who will do best IN THE NEXT 4 YEARS, not yesterday! Experience may not lead to success, but inexperience almost certainly will not.

How his wife expresses her thoughts - absolutely not important  Huh? Can you spell HILLARY? We don't need another spouse who butts in and draws attention away from the work needed to get done. And, I do not want anyone with influence who has very strange ideas/views to be the one doing pillow talk.

How his preacher thinks - absolutely not important. Very important especially given the closeness and apparent endorsements a candidate appears to have given his preacher over the years.

How he smirks or appears over confident - not at all important Agree. but interestingly the left has spent 7+ years whining and wailing about Bush's smirks. Now not important, eh?

Come on folks - get real. That's what i say too.

[injest]

good to see you, Herrkaiser. I may not agree with everything you say but  do like to hear what you have to say..

[jstephens9]

Also remember that in most states only the registered Democrats are voting in the Democratic primaries. What happens in these states when everyone (Democrats, Republican, Independents) votes in the national election? It will no longer be between Hillary and Obama.

[HerrKaiser]

How he stands on the economy - important

How he stands on the illegal war - important

How he stands on gay issues - important

How he stand on a woman's right to chose - important

How much experience he has - not that important (you don't know how you react until you're faced with those situations)

How his wife expresses her thoughts - absolutely not important

How his preacher thinks - absolutely not important.

How he smirks or appears over confident - not at all important

Come on folks - get real.

Regarding the get real part....it seems several factors--important ones-- are missing from the list that was posted:

how he plans to solve the education issues

how he plans to deal with health care

how he plans to handle illegal aliens

how he plans to address the growing entitlement crisis

how he plans to create an energy independent nation



So far, not much in the way of plans/programs for these.

[LauraGigs]

How he stand on a woman's right to chose - important  The entire abortion issue needs rethinking. The so-called right to choose without any measurements is antiquated.

Who said anything about "without any measurements"? 

In any case, lack of choice for women is the thing that's antiquated. As is the lack of birth control funding, lack of overseas family planning aid, and flat-earth-style Abstinence-Only "Education".

Tell me: what tends to happen with the "entitlement crisis" when thousands of ill-prepared people have unwanted children?


[this may seem OT but it's pertinent, since if McCain (whom I respect) is elected, we will have more conservatives on the SCOTUS — and the right to choose will be in mortal danger.]

[HerrKaiser]

In any case, lack of choice for women is the thing that's antiquated.

Clearly, we are not living in the same country. Unlimited choices for women have been overwhelmingly guaranteed since RoevWade. So, the statement that choices are lacking for women relative to child bearing and abortion reflects a gross unawareness of the current legal choices available.

[LauraGigs]

Kaiser, what I meant by 'antiquated' was the idea that choice for women should be rolled back.  And yes, there are many restrictions on abortion depending on where you live (3rd- or 2nd-trimester bans, parental consent requirements, 'cooling-off' periods, etc.)

I don't think I have to tell you that if it were men and boys getting pregnant, the law wouldn't be talking down to them the way it historically has to women.  (A comedian once said that if men needed abortions, there would be clinics all over with scantily-dressed nurses cooing, "local or general?")  On the serious side, though, whether or not to have an abortion is an extremely weighty, serious decision and I don't know that I could ever do that.  What I question is who has a right to legislate on the issue and make that decision for everyone.
Any classical small-government conservative (who also questions the right to legislate against gun ownership) should be able to relate to that.

[jstephens9]

I don't want anyone to get the wrong impression of where I stand on social and moral issues. I do not think that the government should interfere with the rights of the people. Social and moral issues should not be decided by the government or the church. It is simply not any of their business. People should be free in their choices as long as these choices are not harming other people. I am definitely for the rights of women, the rights of gays, etc. I am a Democrat and I am a liberal. I always have been since I was a child. Not being for Obama does not change that. It may very well be that I don't vote for anyone if Obama does get the nomination. I do have my issues with McCain and as I have said before I have never voted or been for a Republican candidate for president. I truly wish that the Democrats could have given us more and better choices.

[injest]

Kaiser, what I meant by 'antiquated' was the idea that choice for women should be rolled back.  And yes, there are many restrictions on abortion depending on where you live (3rd- or 2nd-trimester bans, parental consent requirements, 'cooling-off' periods, etc.)

I don't think I have to tell you that if it were men and boys getting pregnant, the law wouldn't be talking down to them the way it historically has to women.  (A comedian once said that if men needed abortions, there would be clinics all over with scantily-dressed nurses cooing, "local or general?")  On the serious side, though, whether or not to have an abortion is an extremely weighty, serious decision and I don't know that I could ever do that.  What I question is who has a right to legislate on the issue and make that decision for everyone.
Any classical small-government conservative (who also questions the right to legislate against gun ownership) should be able to relate to that.

I get tickled everytime I hear one of the talk show conservatives wailing "I want GOVERNMENT OUT OF MY LIFE!!"

How much FURTHER could they GET into your life than telling you who you can sleep with and whether or not you have a baby?