Obama supporters

cameragirl21 wrote: I'm curious about something. So a good friend of mine lives in Illinois, she hates Obama and is voting for McCain and is rather upset that I'm voting for Obama. I told her I could never support someone like Palin and that my beef is not with McCain at all. Anyway, she told me that Palin blocked anti-gay legislation and showed me this (warning, it comes from a gay website because she wanted to make sure I couldn't claim that it's a biased website) website as proof: http://www.queerty.com/mccain-picks-palin-as-veep-20080829/
Her point was that even though Palin's views may be unpalatable, she doesn't really live by them as a politician, in other words, her anti-choice stance won't make her try to reverse Roe v Wade even though her personal opinions are anti-choice.
I told my friend that I still can't stomach voting for her BUT this story about blocking anti-gay legislation *might* make me fear her less if she were to win. The gay issue is certainly not number one on my list but I do feel gays deserve equal rights to the rest of us and struggle with politicians who may see otherwise. I also think an anti-gay politician is more likely to have rigid views, just like Palin, for example.
So I'm curious--does this article and the fact that she blocked anti-gay legislation make you fear her any less if her side were to win?
Btw, hope no one is offended by my posting a link to a gay website, it's just that it's the best form of proof that Palin blocked this legislation and it's the only website my friend provided so it's the only proof I have.

lisar replied: I dont keep up with any gay legislation so personally I really just could care less on either side. When I am looking at the candidates that isnt something that I look at, at all.

luvbug00 replied: first and totally arbotrary, i noticed the stinky creapy crawly on that girls arm in your picture...what are they called.....scorpians..YES! oh lord if i were her mom i would have run away soo fast! lol!


But back to your topic, I am NOT an obama supporter at all. Just because Sarah doesn't believe in aborition doesn't mean she will be able to turn over the law giving woman the "right" to choose. I would personally be so shocked if they could do that not to mention there are so many other things that need to be taken care of before they even get to their own personal agendas. As for the whole not passing gay rights laws, I don't believe that is up on their priority list but should one cross the repulican table it will most likely get shot down. Republicans have been labeled as conservitive and traditional. But like i said thease reasons listed above are not why i would vote for them. Although i have my own opinions on both topics that i'm not going to share as it would serve no purpose..

jcc64 replied: I fear Palin not b/c of any one specific issue, though her views on abortion are radically out of step with the majority of people in this country, particularly in cases of rape and incest. Katie Couric just interviewed her (for a 2nd time) and asked her point blank if she believes that a 15 yo girl raped by her father should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term, which you can read about here:
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/200...litics/war_room
I'm sorry, but if my dd was raped, I would not want the gov't deciding what the best decision for her would be.
My biggest fear of Palin stems from the fact that the McCain campaign seems utterly determined to hide her away from all but the most tightly controlled media events. The woman is "interviewing" for the 2nd most important job in the country, and has been made available to the press a scant 3 times- which is unprecedented. On the one hand, she presents herself as " a pitbull with lipstick", (her words) and she certainly minced no words during her acceptance speech, and yet the campaign complains bitterly about how unfairly she's been treated by the press. You can't have it both ways. If you want this job, you have to face the people and endure all the scrutiny. You can't hurl a bomb, and then run for cover- it doesn't work that way.
All I can conclude is that in the very few instances in which she has spoken off the cuff, she has compromised her candidacy or the campaign in some glaring way. It's clear the only time she can handle the spotlight is in heavily-scripted, well-rehearsed speeches, and I'm sorry, but with the country such a mess I don't think she's exhibited the kind of intellect we need in a leader.
With McCain a 72 yo cancer survivor, the vp pick is pivotal this election cycle. I don't think there are too many people left who believe she's up to the job. She's cute, sassy, and has a compelling personal story. But the vp needs heftier credentials than that.
And finally, I know people have very passionate opinions about gay marriage. But don't we have more important things to be worrying about as a country right now?????

cameragirl21 replied: lol, Nadia, yes, that's a scorpion and the girl loved it! She named her Raquel (it's a girl scorpion) and wanted to take her home and keep her. I held her, she's pretty cool and not scary at all. The girl had the scorpion crawling all over her and she absolutely loved it. The mom wasn't scared either. There was an animal handler/reptile and scorpion expert just outside the frame of the picture.

luvmykids replied:
Haven't I already said this?

msoulz replied:
I am as of yet undecided but I think you make some very valid points. And I think you always do get your points across very clearly and I enjoy reading your posts whether I agree or not!

MommyToAshley replied: I agree with Lisa, the gay rights issue is not at the top of my list right now and wouldn't sway me one way or the other. I am more concerned about the candidates views on how they plan to address the issues about our economic situation, health care, and Iraq (as well as other foreign policy issues). Those are my top three. However, if a candidate had an anti-chrisitian stance and made that part of their platform then that would come into play in my decision, but that doesn't seem to be a factor in this election.

I have to say something that has been bugging me though. It seems like most people are comparing/contrasting Obama and Palin, when actually it should be Obama and McCain. Yes, she's part of the ticket, but she's not the one running for president and Palin will have to come to terms with some of McCains policies whether she agress 100% or not.

cameragirl21 replied: Jeanne, I am certainly not claiming that gay marriage is the number one issue in the country, just using it as an example that Palin doesn't necessarily live by her rigid opinions.
As I stated previously, I still don't like her or her opinions and will not be voting for her. In fact, I think this decision on McCain's part just proves he's no more fit for this job with his extensive experience than Obama because he made a very bad decision.
As for the economy, I really don't think the next president will change much, it's a virus that has to run its course and it doesn't really matter imo who lives in DC, it won't change much.

MommyToAshley replied:
I think the next President will play a very big part in the economy -- the executive veto power and ability to lead will be very important when it comes to making and passing legislation regarding tax policy, health care issues, stimulus packages, the bailout, etc -- which all affect our economy.

cameragirl21 replied:
I am not an economics whiz by any stretch but this bailout imo is just a bandaid on a festering wound. It will help in the short run but in the long run banks are going bankrupt because they wrote loans that should never have been written, we can't live on credit forever. Our new president can offer stimulus packages, health care and pull us out of Iraq but the cycle we're in will continue until it heals itself. This of course is jmo but my mom, who IS an economics whiz says the same thing. What's happening has to run its course and while the president will not just be a potted plant sitting around not doing anything, Idk how much effect it will have on the situation at hand where banks are collapsing in an unprecendented way.

luvbug00 replied:

I don't believe they are determind to hide her. I think they are preparing for the debate ahead. It's the one thing they need to prepare her for and should have been doing so since day one. Her job is not to impress the media, it's to be able to impress us at the debate and show us that she is worthy of this position. The media is being very media like. I would hope she knew what she was getting into. I think she is trying to focas on her job and i'm sure she is not happy with how she is being made to look. ( no matter how well tina fay does sound and look like her..)
I believe she can handle her own and is just treading softly until the debate and then i think we will see her personality again and pitbull asertiveness. Basically she is taking in alot of information and she has much to learn. But believe in the end she will do us right.

jcc64 replied:

That's very nice of you to say that, thank you, I'm flattered!

jcc64 replied:

Her job is to make herself available to us, the public whom she is asking to give her a job, so we can get to know her better. Unless she has the time to visit each of our homes door-to-door, her only vehicle is through the media, whether she is fond of the job they are doing or not. That goes with the territory of being a politician, which she certainly should know by now. You want the job, you sit for the interviews, whether they're unpleasant or not.

Crystalina replied:

"...honoring the family structure"? Well I guess that would all depend on who you considered to be in your family wouldn't it? I've seen very structured gay/lesbian families and many straight families who leave a lot to be desired.

I'm not even going further with this one. It's not worth the headache I know I will get.

lisar replied:
Very true.

luvbug00 replied: Let's pretend for one minuete that She has those media outlets. Oprah won't even let her on the show. She hasn't been invited or was probaly turned down by Ellen and Tyra to be interviewed because of opposing beliefs. Biden and Obama have done ABC news and 60 min. Obama is promoted by the entertainment industry and i hear his commercials on the radio alll the time ( to nauseam) Just because she has chosen not to sit down and answer 20 questions more about her family and would rather focas on what is ahead is fine with me. Doesn't make her any less smart, doesn't make her any less outreaching. . Obama hasn't said anything new from what i have heard in the debates or otherwise, all i know is he can mutter are the same words "don't repeat the last four years...". I haven't heard biden say much of anything at all.

jem0622 replied:

I think (although I could be very wrong) that they are contrasting Palin and Obama because there isn't a significant amount of confidence that McCain would live long enough to fulfill a presidential administration due to health/aging. I do understand what you are saying.

For me, I never in a million years, and even if she is a female, would vote for her. Just wouldn't.

cameragirl21 replied:
This is true, at least for me. McCain is not that old but he would be the oldest president to enter office and he is a two time cancer survivor and while I don't expect him to die, per se, the possibility of something happening to him, whether it be death or some health problem that essentially incapacitates him from being an effective president scares the heck out of me with someone like Palin at the helm.
Julie, I absolutely wouldn't vote for her either but does the fact that it would seem she doesn't truly live by her beliefs make her less scary to you?

DVFlyer replied: Does the VP really have THAT much influence to be a major consideration in who to vote for the next president.

<-------*disclaimer* ----- doesn't vote.

cameragirl21 replied:
normally, no, but this is an unusual election in that McCain is not so young and not so healthy and Obama, well, I fear some crazy racist may gun him down if he wins the throne.
So I think it's totally reasonable to see this as a Palin v Biden adventure.

DVFlyer replied:
Makes sense....

Crystalina replied:
Yes, that's why I think people are so on her butt as well. He's not only a cancer survivor but he's had it four times! And that's not saying anything about his other health issues. With the stress of running our country who's to say what may happen to him before his first four years are up. And then we are stuck with her. I have nothing against her running Alaska but it scares me to think she may be left with the "lower 48" in her hands.

Crystalina replied:

I've heard more then once that SP going on Oprah was a rumor and this kind of proves it. Think about it. It's very obvious that Oprah supports Obama (Hello! She even went on the campaign trail with him in the begining) so why would SP want to put herself in that situation? The woman seems to have enough problems with interviews, do you really think she'd let someone like Oprah (who gets to the point and totally does not support her) interview her? I have a feeling this never happened.

redchief replied: Boy am I glad this thread is specifically targeted at Obama supporters. Else I'd have to counter many of the points here. Instead I'll just make a couple of observations, in fairness to my rather conservative stance.

What in the world is an anti-choice? If by context it means pro-life it would disturb you anti-life people that most pro-life advocates enjoy any number of choices in their lives. We just don't think it's cool for the Supreme Court to create legislation, which is where the so-called abortion law came from. There is no federal abortion law. A liberally stacked Supreme Court ruled that state laws regulating abortion were a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The court also ruled broadly in describing how carrying a child to term could affect a woman's health. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but ignorance bugs me.

In the same paragraph in which Palin was blasted for avoiding the scrutiny of the people by dodging the media, it was stated that she'd had two interviews in prime time on CBS's The Early Show with Katie Couric. Is that not media? Or are we talking about those liberal elitist, badgering, very often rude circuses known as press conferences? Frankly it wouldn't hurt my feelings to see that crowd fired wholesale. Press conferences used to be respectful and dignified (when I was growing up a rude member of the press pool was removed post haste). Now they're just plain nasty. it's a well known fact that the Clintons became very good at controlling that pack of dogs. Bush, McCain and Palin would do well to mimic their handling of the Press Corps. If you're interested in what Palin is doing on the campaign trail, it can be tracked on the internet. I don't think many here will be very interested though.

In this thread I've seen several comments that elude to McCain's battles with cancer. He went from cancer survivor to two-time cancer survivor to four-time cancer victim very quickly. He had two spots of melanoma removed from his skin, once in 2000 and again in 2002. His lymphatic system was tested as result of the findings and he's been declared cancer-free since then. Of course that doesn't address his "advanced" age at 72. Longevity apparently runs in his family as attested by his very healthy and vibrant 96 year-old mother. I think he'll make the 5 year run without any major difficulties. Perhaps a McCain ticket in 2012 isn't out of the question!

As a governor and past PTA member, Palin is at least as qualified to make policy decisions as Obama, a junior senator who has arguably spent most of his in-office time campaigning for president. Carrying that thought forward, Obama is running for President, not Palin. That's just one man's opinion.

Finally, and bristle all you want, but if gay rights becomes a leading issue in this campaign I will lose most all of the respect I have for this great country. There are much bigger nuts to crack in the coming four years than whether gays can marry or not. I think and I hope that most of the country simply doesn't care about the "gay rights" issue at all. I personally have no bone to pick with the gay community save their insistence that their agenda be shoved down my throat.

cameragirl21 replied: I just want to state for the record that I did not mean to turn this into a gay rights topic. I don't care what anyone here thinks about gay rights, I mean, it's not that I don't care, it's just that my question was NOT about whether or not you support gay rights but rather the question was--does Palin's blocking of anti-gay legislation when she herself is anti-gay suggest that she does not necessarily keep her political decisions in line with her personal ones and does that make the Obama supporters less afraid of her?
That was my question, I really don't give a hoot if you support gay marriage or not but before you insist it is an unimportant issue please bear in mind that for the millions of gay people in the US, it may be THE issue so don't dismiss it as unimportant, bear in mind it is unimportant to you.

Calimama replied:
Wow. Just wow.

I strongly disagree with that statement and I'm actually pretty shocked to have read it. I bet a lot more people than you think care.

5littleladies replied:
I kind of have an answer to this. I personally believe that living a homosexual lifestyle is wrong, but I don't believe it is the job of the government to say what gay people can or cannot do, nor what rights should or should not be extended to them. This is a free country and if I say that the government should restrict the rights of some people, well then why shouldn't they restrict my rights as, say a homeschooler, or a Christian even? Why are my rights more important than theirs? And yet, I don't agree with the lifestyle-I guess that would be seen as a contradiction. Perhaps this is how Sarah Palin feels. Believing a certain way doesn't necessarily translate into an automatic "political" behavior.

*disclaimer* I don't think a persons "rights" apply if a person is harming another person. Obviously.

Danalana replied:
This is what I was thinking too....I agree.

MoonMama replied:



And Jennifer (4littleladies) I was thinking that too.

gr33n3y3z replied: Ed is right it shouldnt be about that now there are more pressing,scary and frightful things that need to be delt with

luvmykids replied:
This is way OT, but I read somewhere (online of course, so it could be way off) that only 3% of the population is GLBT.....I only mention that because I thought that number would be MUCH higher, the article I read said they just seem larger in number because they are such a united group of people as far as getting themselves heard.

Just thought it was an interesting tidbit, go back to your regularly scheduled posting

jcc64 replied: Actually, I believe conventional wisdom holds the number of self-identified gay people somewhere around 10%, Monica, though of course the accuracy of that is probably somewhat difficult to ascertain, b/c who knows how many people are still "in the closet" for whatever reasons.

How you can equate being a PTA president to being elected the first black president of the Harvard Law Review is beyond me. I know it's not politically expedient these days to advertise one's intelligence, but I'm sorry, you're not comparing apples to apples when likening the PTA to the Harvard Law Review, you're just not. And Ed, you're a very bright guy yourself, but based on what you've witnessed thus far, do you really think Sarah Palin sounds as informed as Obama? I'm not asking whether you agree with his policies, just for an analysis of the breadth, scope, and mastery of the subjects on which he's been questioned vs Sarah Palin. And I stick to my guns, I wouldn't hire a babysitter based on 3 interviews- and yet we're being asked to hire her on 4 ( counting the debate)
And finally, please don't call me anti-life, Ed. That's just unnecessarily aggressive and provocative. No one here is "anti-life". I do my homework, I am well aware of the history of Roe v Wade, I know what the language of the law means. But throwing abortion back to the states means that it will b/c unavailable for those who need them most: poor people who cannot afford to carry every unexpected pg to term. I will say for the umpteenth time that if the people who are so concerned with the sanctity of life exhibited a fraction of the compassion and commitment to the impoverished babies and children who are already alive that they do for unborn fetuses, I'd be able to have a more meaningful dialogue with them. In the meantime, I remain committed to the unfortunate need for safe and legal abortion, especially in the case of rape or incest, which happens way more than anyone would like to think.

cameragirl21 replied:
Ditto. I cringed when I saw the words anti-life. I wouldn't call Sarah Palin pro life for reasons that most people here can probably guess so I'll keep them to myself so I refer to her as anti-choice, or I could simply call her anti-abortion. No one is anti-life OR pro-abortion, these are misnomers meant to drum up negative emotions in people.

boyohboyohboy replied: I think jennifer your topic is very interesting..I do think how a person speaks and acts should very well help determine how I feel about him or her.

if they say one thing yet do another...it should make me wonder how other situations might be handled, ones that I might find more serious then the one you mentioned.

I so far am a sarah palin supporter..I am also interested in finding media coverage of her and biden that isnt so biased, but havent been able to make a real decision on anyone due to the horrible reporting that is out there.

I also think your topic, made me want to inquire more on what you have pointed out in a canidate I am interested in, so thank you.

cameragirl21 replied: I just wanted to thank Jennifer (4littleladies...soon to be 5littleladies) for her answer...this is just the kind of answer I was looking for. I'm a bit disappointed that most people here misunderstood my post and turned this into a gay rights topic and discussion about whether or not this issue is important. Maybe I didn't make myself clear and also I wanted to say that maybe I didn't use the best verbiage and instead of saying that Palin does not live by her beliefs, it would have been in better taste to say that she doesn't push her beliefs on the nation if they are not in line with the majority...sorry if my wording offended any of you who support the McCain/Palin ticket, that was not my intention at all.
Also, one thing I wanted to mention--I have been here long enough to know that gay rights is so not a topic to debate here and didn't mean for my question to be misconstrued but for those of you who are quick to dimiss gay rights as an unimportant issue or an issue that should not be important, please bear in mind that anyone here, be they a member or a guest who is lurking and considering membership...anyone here may have a close friend or family member who is gay and when you say things like that, you may be really hurting someone's feelings without even realizing it. Same goes for the abortion debate...I know of several people who have had abortions and none of them had them under happy circumstances...some of them are very proud mothers today. You don't know the circumstances of everyone here so please be careful when you make blanket statement of this sort, someone's feelings could be really hurt.
And that goes for me too, btw, I know I too have to be careful when I state my opinions on certain topics as well so I am admonishing myself just as much as anyone else.

Crystalina replied:

I don't think your post was misunderstood but when points are made and others have different points to make on the same subject then some (me ) feel the need to make a point as well.

To answer your question, I don't think her way of thinking on that would make me change the way I feel about her. If it were the only thing about her that bothered me then yes, but there are many so I would not be swayed in the least bit.

lisar replied: I am gona say this:

The government has way to much control.

redchief replied: Jeanne, either you're losing your ability to sense my sarcasm, or I've become even more sarcastic in my old age. The whole "anti-life" sentence was dripping in purposeful sarcasm. We don't like to be called "anti-abortion" anymore than you like to be called "anti-life." True pro-life people see the eradication of human life in all forms to be morally and humanly wrong, including abortion. It is my firm belief that no one needs an abortion unless her physical life be in danger for carrying the child to term, at which point a true and extremely sad choice must be made. Financial difficulties are no reason to kill.

Finally, I've said before that it is all of society's responsibility and duty to care for it's children. We don't always agree on how that should be done, but it's one of the areas I feel government has a duty and ongoing responsibility. And this may come as a surprise, but I also feel that society must come to grips with the reality that children are our responsibility if we agree that killing humans at any age is wrong. I further fully believe that though society has a duty to act in the cases of children who are in need, it has a balanced duty to NOT act when parents are raising their children in a responsible manner. I further believe that government has to stop reinventing irresponsibility.

That being said, anyone who would sexually abuse a woman or girl, regardless of the relationship, should be locked away in a place where they could never harm again. There is no crime, save murder, that effects the victims and their families more than rape. Again, though, two wrongs do not make right and that a child is not present creates only the delusion that no life was begun. Even the most horrified can't be fully deluded, though can they?