First, I've gone through this board and boy do you all think you know why women supported Clinton. But it wasn't just women. It was a lot of men too. Of course, none of you thought to ask.

Here's the thing, posts like this do the exact opposite of what you want to achieve. All McCain has to do is get 10% of Clinton supporters to stay home or peel off 5% to win the election. Why do you guys persist in hurting your candidate?

Clinton supporters supported her for a wide variety of reasons. In my case, it came down to an analysis of Clinton's and Obama's platforms. He really lost me on his health plan. You can't have universal health insurance if you allow people to opt out. However, that conflicts with your world view. Clinton voters couldn't possibly have a rational reason for choosing her over Obama because that would mean you would have to admit that maybe he wasn't quite as perfect as you think he is.

Given my choice between Obama and McCain, I prefer Obama. Luckily, I live in Massachusetts and will be able to use my vote as a protest vote against the DNC and not hurt his opportunity to get elected.

Just so you'll understand, I've talked to many men and women who are now planning on voting against Obama. There reasons are that they do not feel that he is experienced enough to be President and that McCain has the experience. Secondly, they feel his relationships with people like Rezko, Wright and Pfleger make him too "skeazy" and "untrustworthy." I happen to think that McCain is far more tainted, but I try instead to point out the associates of Obama that are exemplary. He's still has a few more skeletons in his closet though; for example, Rev Willie Barrows. She's another associate of the Farrakhan and since she's also on her advisory team that's going to hurt him.

Wow, you took a simple comment about the funky formatting glitches and turned it into a full on personal attack. Alrighty then.

When I was talking about huge spaces I meant between the paragraphs. They’re not editing anything out. It’s just several lines of space between paragraphs rather than just one.

Yes you may call me Cassandra. It is my name after all. I brought up personal details because they were relevant to the thread. If someone attacks you personally and questions who and what you are it is only natural to defend yourself by providing the relevant details. For example, someone assumed that I didn’t have any military experience in my family and the opposite happens to be true. Another person asked if I was enjoying my GED, which prompted to me to let them know that rather than getting a GED I felt the need to go ahead and graduate from high school with honors and then earn MA’s in political science, business, and theology. This is why people should never make emotional assumptions based on how they feel rather than what they know.

I believe that my posts are articulate, accurate, and to the point. I go out of my way to make sure I know what I’m talking about and I enjoy reading the opinions of others. I never expect anyone to take me at my word, but rather look things up for themselves from many different sources. If I am wrong then I want to know about it and I want to see evidence of it. I will review the evidence and if I agree with you I will retract my statement.

None of my posts have been edited and that isn’t what I said.

My dark complexion comes from my Chinese heritage. There are 56 different ethnic groups (or tribes) in China and my family comes from one that have predominantly darker complexion than average for Chinese people. I’m surprised you didn’t remember that I’m Chinese.

You’re implying that I care about race and I can assure you that I do not. The fact that Obama is black has absolutely nothing to do with how I feel. I was raised to believe that all races are equal. You implication of racism on my part would surprise my white husband, Arab adopted daughter, half black/half white adopted sons, and Samoan best friend. As I said, as a racial minority and a woman I would love to vote for either, but only if they were qualified for the job. As it is now we have neither.

Thanks for the useless sarcasm.

Cassandra

Just as I suspected, Gatesta, you can't just get a simple "piss off" from bananbrain. You get both bores of her boring bellicosity.

She's your booger now. You know, stuck to your finger....

It is the Keating 5, you are the only person I've ever heard call it that. Plus, McCain used his position as Senator to help his friend. as you keep trying to tie peripheral connections to Obama (where nothing can be shown), so it should go for McCain as well (with Diamond and Keating just the tip of a very visible and documented iceberg).

Yes. McCain suffered immensely while a POW. So did his first wife. Especially after the car accident that crippled her. She had to suffer silently so as not break his morale (she requested no news get to him through the aid organizations in touch with the POWs). And by growing apart, you really mean McCain had affairs, which he has admitted to. Again, if you are going to judge one man on his relationships outside public domain, you must judge the others as well. Especially since McCain supports the defense of marriage movement. But that's from loving gay couples, not philandering heterosexual war heroes. They get a pass.

And no. McCain doesn't get to use Cindy's plane. It is her company plane. And any time he uses that plane for campaign matters, he must pay for it at a fair market price. He's already gotten in trouble for it. They have a pre-nup that separates their finances. So, what is hers is not his. Kerry ran into the same thing in 2004.

Oh, and people have come out, not just anonymous sources, about the Iseman affair. Plus, her clients benefitted by that relationship, professional or personal.

And Cassandra, some day, hopefully soon, you will develop some foresight worthy of your namesake. Because right now, if you still feel you voted for the best candidate in 2000 and 2004, your hindsight ain't too hot.

Barbara Mikulski: Her votes against the authorization of force against Iraq in 1991 and 2002 disqualify her.

Diane Feinstein: She’s hardcore pro-choice, which disqualifies her.

Mary Landrieu: Much better than the others, but still pro-choice.

Janet Napolitano: She’s another hardcore pro-choice activist, which disqualifies her as well. Her lifestyle choice is contrary to my beliefs as well, which means she would support legislation that I would oppose.

Kathleen Sebelius: Again, she’s pro-choice, which disqualifies her.

I wouldn’t vote for any of these women.

In fact I wouldn’t mind seeing Elizabeth Dole as the POTUS or VP. I think she’s far more qualified than any of the women you mentioned.

Cassandra

Banana Boat - I'm going backwards up your last post and I don't have italics etc so it just is what it is.

1. Neo-con. I use that term to describe new (yes, I know neo means new) conservatives as opposed to the conservatives who are for small government, fiscal responsibility and strict construction. I use "neo-con" to refer to all the Religious Right, Moral Majority, GWB-type "conservatives" who use the Republican Party to masquerade their agenda of ripping apart notions of civil liberty, civil disobedience, privacy and freedom that have historically and legally been part of this country.

2. By virtue of being a United States Senator Obama (and McCain and Clinton) have passed the threshold of loyalty and patriotism. Period. To question that about any of them is specious and a thinly veiled attempt at character assasination, playing on the fears and ignorance of the public. THAT is what I'm accusing you of doing.

3. Your use of the word "friendship" does the same thing - plays on the fears and ignorance of the public. How do you know what kind of "friend" Obama is with Rezko, Farrakhan or Wright? How do you KNOW? You don't. You read shit in the papers and you don't have any idea so you believe it. WE, in America, are in fact NOT judged by our friends. Work on that in Law School okay? We are NOT judged by our friends, family or associations. We are judged by our actions. Again, anything else is attempted character assasination.

4. If Obama's friends were members of the KKK or Tim McVeigh etc no I wouldn't vote for him. Not because of his friends, but because he would be a fucking Republican. I'm afraid you and your Republican pals get to work on the disconnect between the KKK and Timothy McVeigh-types. - because THEY are registered Republicans. I know this because I live in the south. So is Fred What-his-name who has the godhatesfaggots website. Yeah, baby, they're Republicans. Have fun with that.

5. Believe it or not, in America, which is a country of laws not tribal rules or clan rules or family rules but LAWS on the books people like Ayers can be caught, convicted, punished and .... (drum roll) ... move back into society, with a forgiveness that allows them to continue to work and live within the liberties and freedoms guaranteed by our constitution. We don't do banishment, exile or stuff like that. Courts, laws, penalties. Done. If you want to hold a grudge against Ayers for the rest of your life fine. Enjoy it. Doing things like that is similar to drinking poison in the hopes it will kill the other person. Good luck with that.

6. Rev. Wright, Farrakhan, and whoever else that is an American citizen who wants to say God Damn America is fucking allowed to do that in America. It separates us from China, Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It's what I like about America. Sure it may make people uncomfortable. Whatever. Discomfort isn't fatal.

To describe the guilt-by-association you and the Republican party wants to bury Obama with as anything other than character assassination is just crap. You have a choice. Great. Exercise it. Vote for McCain. And you can talk shit too. You can spread rumors and jump up and down and call Obama evil. God Bless America for that.

You can also walk down the street in shorts. Have a baby. Divorce your husband. Vote. Own property. Sue people. Be a doctor. Or a homeless person.

I don't believe we in America need to fearfully and desperately "protect" ourselves from the world. I think we should hopefully, courageously, vigorously shout our Democratic Republic heads off about what a great place this is. Or what a shitty place it is. Or whatever the hell else we want to say.

Do you know that for the last four years, for the first time in my 50 years of life I have been afraid - literally - to voice my discontent with this Administration? I have three kids in college who may want to be politicians or lawyers or legal clerks one day. So, rather than following in the footsteps of Henry David Thoreau and expressing my Civil Disobedience and total diasgreement with the President I have held my tongue (as best I can).

THAT SUCKS.

I have also been subjected to searches and intimidation at domestic airports. And not because any Islamic terrorist was there with a bomb. But because Homeland Security is doing its damnedest to make sure that I"m scared shitless and think that "only Conservative Republicans" can protect me.

BULL SHIT.

So while I appreciate all the enormous military and political hardship your family has gone through, you'll excuse me if I think you're just a bully. I think you use your brain and your intellect to throw your REpublican "weight" around - to feel strong and to intimidate others into thinking you're smart.

I'm sure you are smart. You couldn't write like you do unless you were.

But what a fucking waste of time. You're in your 20s and you spend all this time writing meaningless bullshit neo-con garbage on a FRAY BOARD???

Go get real.

.

You asked for women who were more qualified than HRC. Each one of these women have years of public service that make them as or more qualified as HRC.

They are less qualified because Hillary holds many of the same views and takes many of the same stances.

As for Dole, as a member of the Armed Services committee. Especially Readiness and Management Support. Great job, Doley. And the work she did on the subcommittee on Financial Institutions. Thank God she did her job there and our banks are so solid now.

Napolitano? Really? Dismissing a woman because she is a methodist (only choice she seems to have made according to lifestyle I can see) is against your beliefs? McCain is an admitted philanderer. Convince me that is something you believe in.

Yes I know it was called the Keating 5. I called it the Keating 4 because it should have been only 4.

Yes McCain did use his position to help his friend. The friendships and associations I have listed for Obama are well known, well documented, and acknowledged by the senator. He’s not ashamed enough to deny it or minimize it. And for the sake of argument let’s say that McCain is guilty. I believe that compares rather favorably to Obama’s list of friends that he agrees with and accepts support from. Keating’s worst mistake was in being stupid and greedy while Diamond is greedy and power hungry. Compare that to actively supporting racism, dissention, and domestic and Islamic terrorism against the United States. One side is just a bit more evil than the other.

Yes, when I said that McCain and his wife grew apart I meant just that. I didn’t go into the details as I consider their private sex life to be just that, private, as in completely none of our business. It’s rather distasteful to bring it up. You’ll notice that I never went into anything that personal about Obama.

McCain made mistakes while trying to adjust. He is responsible for his actions. He cheated on his wife and he has to deal with that. However, cheating on your wife and maintaining friendships with people that are known enemies of the state are not on the same level.

McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment because he believes that such decisions should be made at the state level, which is why he supported the 2006 Arizona initiative to ban gay marriage. The fact that he has cheated on his wife has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he believes that gay marriage is wrong. They are completely unrelated.

If there were something to the Iseman affair it would still be news, but McCain denied it and it died on the vine.

In 2000 you had Bush, who I already knew was lame, verses Gore, who is a new world order activist with absolutely no loyalty to the united states. If elected he would have destroyed much of what makes the United States great. I say this based on what he said in speeches and what he has said in his books. I didn’t vote for Bush because I liked him, but rather to vote against Gore.

In 2004 you had Bush, who was still lame, verses Kerry, who is one of the most liberal senators in the history of the United States. He either threw away his medals or someone else’s (he has changed the story back and forth numerous times). He was a founding member of the VVAW, which was a domestic terrorist organization guilty of numerous acts of harassment, theft of government property, vandalism (throwing urine and feces on government buildings and monuments), and treason, and he met with the enemy (North Vietnamese) without government sanction, which is an act of treason. The only reason he wasn’t executed for it is because Jimmy Carter pardoned all domestic terrorists in 1980. This was an easy vote as well.

Bush has made some mistakes and I’m not happy with him, but I still think he did a better job than Gore or Kerry would have done. Based on their words and voting record I believe they would have weakened the United States enough that we would have been attacked again.

In 2008 the choice is even clearer. McCain 2008.

Cassandra

Napolitano is a lesbian and that is the lifestyle choice that I disagree with. The fact that she’s a Methodist is irrelevant.

I believe her name is Elizabeth Dole, not Doley.

McCain was wrong to cheat on his wife.

Cassandra

Piss off

Yes. Piss off everyone.

Banana butter, I hope these thugs did not upset you too much. And for swineboy to bring up McCain's sleeping with other people. If he wanted to sleep with other women, that's nobody's business but his own. Unless he used prostitutes? Then it would be their business. Literally. But he wouldn't do that. No right minded politician in this day and age would be stupid enough to do that.

And Napolatino is a methodist? Well, better to know now . . .

Oh, have your heard? Obama is a muslim and I think Michelle Obama has tasted of the sweet forbidden flesh, veal. It's all over the news. Well, newz.

pig:

Substitute term for year which was the point. And you still sidestepped the balance of my post. I

n the end on healthcare in 1993, the Clinton Administration made bold moves that would have made a substantial difference for US citizens today in terms of care and cost. That moderate dems and repubs did not buy on to it is no fault of Clintons, it is the failure of the Congress to recognize a growing issue amongst the middle class and families; but then, they are not the lobbiests or the monied interests are they? Clinton was well ahead of the curve in recognizing that healthcare cost and healthcare insurance is one of the 5 largest costs impacting families and the middle class within the US. A cost that has increased 74% from1970 until 2005.

As far as Illinois politics, I grew up there, in Chicago,and am still connected as a Dem to it through Michigan. Please don't cite to me on Illinois as I am fully aware of the politics within it. Working the system is a way of life there and is nothing extraordinary.

Female_Engineer's complaint still stands and not one of you has addressed her issues other than to take it out of context, contrue it, calling it a rant, and stalking her. The only ranting I see being done is being put on by you and company.

And which certain sectors are you referring to? Conservatives?

I prefer to speak plainly and articulately. I make it a point of saying what I mean and meaning what I say. This means that my points are easy to understand, whether you agree with them or not.

I can imagine being inspired by Reagan. After all the man was a wonderful president. In fact my grandmother-in-law used to eat lunch with him when he was the Governor of California. Reagan was the second most important president of the 20th century behind FDR.

Some terms do evolve, while others pretty much stay the same and neo-con is one of those terms. For the foreseeable future it will mean a liberal and/or socialist that has grown weary of the weak kneed approach to foreign policy that dominates the Democratic Party and switched sides. This is true of every neo-con alive today.

A person that believes that liberalism will fail and therefore turns away from liberal thought would be a conservative, which is what I am. Liberal policies rarely work. Socialism is a failed ideology. You will never find a purely socialist government that has ever worked and American liberalism is basically socialism. Conservatives, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights hold it in check. Otherwise it would be a runaway train.

My description of what a neo-con is comes from my understanding of the word, it’s origins, and who is applies to. I very rarely use Wikipedia since as a “wiki” it is susceptible to vandalism. This is not the first time a liberal has mistakenly and haphazardly referred to me as a neo-con. Based on the accepted definition of the word, I do not qualify as one.

I didn’t brag about anything. I mentioned how long I’ve been a conservative, which started when I developed an interest in politics. You may have been in kindergarten at the age of 5, but I was in second grade by then. I graduated high school at the age of 14 and earned my first MA by the age of 17. I have since earned 2 more MA’s.

Helping my case is irrelevant. I was simply stating the facts.

Cassandra

Mmmmm. Banana bread. One of my favorites. Do you know how to make it?

This might work, if it was accurate and a synopsis fails miserably if it isn’t. So far you’ve revealed that you don’t know me at all and it doesn’t appear as if you’re even paying attention. I do not believe in a culture of fear and war, but rather strong defense and kicking the enemy’s ass if and when they need it. I want security as long as it doesn’t limit our freedoms beyond what the US Constitution allows during times of war. I will vote for the best candidate available and this time the clear choice is McCain. If both choices are evil then I always pick the lesser of the two. You’re mistaking my agreement with the policies with blind obedience. Sorry, but they’re not the same thing.

I’ve gone into great detail explaining why I would never vote for Obama. The fact remains that I believe that he is unqualified for the position and I’ve given what I believe to be excellent reasons for that belief. Since I am not a public speaker and he is, it is only natural that he would be more articulate. He’s more articulate than you as well. Does that matter to you? While my higher education isn’t as extensive as Obama’s, I’m no slouch with MA’s in political science, business, and theology. Whether he’s more intelligent than I am is debatable. We don’t know enough about him and you don’t know enough about me to know either way. You may disagree with me, but you know damn well that I’m not stupid. More ambitious is debatable as well. We have different ambitions. He wants to be President of the United States while I do not. I had a career planned in politics and a position being held for me before I decided that I would rather work at home and spend more time with my family. I used the money I saved up from my years as a model to start up my real estate business, which I run from my home. I started with $330,000 and have since turned that into a little more than 12 million in cash and assets with an annual income of around $1.2 million.

You know, if you go out of your way to make personal attacks and question the intelligence, background, racial makeup, family, and qualifications you encourage them to defend themselves. If you question my intelligence I’m prompted to mention my education. If you question my capabilities and ambition then I’m prompted to list my accomplishments. Defending myself against personal attacks is not the same thing as being self-absorbed. If you’re tired of reading it then stop attacking me.

Cassandra