Skip to main content

View Diary: May 2008 poll numbers with and without Gore (84 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Actually... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    xerico, NeuvoLiberal, annefrank

    He's at the bottom of my list along with Hillary.  I'd vote for them before a Repub, but only under those circumstances.

    Trust no organizaton bigger than two, and even those are suspect!

    by rjones2818 on Sat May 19, 2007 at 05:50:01 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Why? Too liberal for you? n/t (5+ / 0-)

      Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

      by DemocraticLuntz on Sat May 19, 2007 at 05:58:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nope, I think he'll keep the occupation going (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        xerico

        and he'd bomb Iran in an instant if he thought it'd gain him political points.  

        I may be wrong, but that's what I think.

        I'm a Kucinich person, although if Al runs I'll support him.  Too liberal has nothing to do with it.

        Trust no organizaton bigger than two, and even those are suspect!

        by rjones2818 on Sat May 19, 2007 at 06:04:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Please argue with evidence (5+ / 0-)

          this super strong claim: "he'd bomb Iran in an instant if he thought it'd gain him political points."

          •  Read this Diary (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SarahLee

            http://www.dailykos.com/...

            From my point of view, and I don't trust politicians for a moment, that reads to me as if he's going for the 'I'll use force, if politically needed' meme.

            Trust no organizaton bigger than two, and even those are suspect!

            by rjones2818 on Sat May 19, 2007 at 06:15:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yes, I don't think that the statement was (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SarahLee

              suitable at the current time. It's provokes before presenting a proper case that provocation is warranted. How about calling for a dialogue first before staring punitive steps, Barack?

              •  I listen to this particularly at the end (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                SarahLee

                I agree with you.  Obama said it'd be profoundly stupid to have a war with Iran, but that everything had to be on the table, which means he can contemplate doing something profoundly stupid.  Added to what's in the diary about the Iranian boycott, and that's enough to drop him to the bottom of the list.

                Trust no organizaton bigger than two, and even those are suspect!

                by rjones2818 on Sat May 19, 2007 at 06:29:48 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Everyone's saying 'everything is on the table' (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  xerico, porsupah, ibonewits

                  They shouldn't because that's code for potentially bombing Iran with nukes or nuclear buker/silo-busting bombs. Forget using nukes to bomb above surface. I don't think that's ever going to happen.

                  But, even bunker busters (which may not have surface impact, but could have other impacts) can be quite bad. Extreme measures such as this need extreme circumstances and iron-clad evidence. I expect solid answers based on methodical thought and analysis.

            •  That diary was the Daily Obama Hit Piece™ (3+ / 0-)

              We have all come to expect around here, complete with distorted quotes attributed to him from the oh-so-reliable Associated Press (which, as we know, has quoted Obama accurately in the past--meh) combined with a nice dash of "some-say"-type questions requiring Obama to prove a negative.

              That diary was an intellectually lazy POS, in my opinion.

              BUT at least it added to the DKos Daily Quota of diaries bashing the candidate so many love to hate here.

        •  Really? Obama's the only person running apart (5+ / 0-)

          from maybe Gravel (although Gravel primaried out a guy who voted against Gulf of Tonkin) never to have voted to authorize the use of military force (although he admittedly would've done so had he been there for the Afghanistan authorization).

          Only he, Kucinich and (presumably, although I'm not sure there's documentation) Gravel opposed the war from the start.

          He's trying to get Iran to comply with the UN and stop sponsoring terrorism with non-violent tactics.

          Join the College Kossacks on Facebook, or the Republicans win.

          by DemocraticLuntz on Sat May 19, 2007 at 06:12:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Soooo, Obama, (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kpardue, LV Pol Girl, chicago minx

          who is doing his damndest to get us OUT of Iraq, who foresaw the disaster that has become of the invasion and opposed it before the invasion and publically opposed it, would somehow want to keep this occupation going.

          And Obama, who has consistently emphasized the need for aggressive diplomacy around the globe, and who has acknowledged time and again that force is the very last resort, would be a trigger-happy cowboy gunslinger.

          Please cite your evidence supporting any of these notions.

    •  I don't love him either, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miss Blue, NeuvoLiberal

      but it's still

      1. Edwards
      1. Not a chance Dodd
      1. Gore
      1. Clark
      1. Obama
      1. Clinton
      1. Asshole Hairplugs Clean Articulate Biden
      1. Not vote.

      Barack seems nice to me.  He's generally excellent on the issues, but for a few details that I want to pin down, and I don't like his style, but he seems like a great guy.  If Edwards loses Iowa, I'll be working for Obama.

      -5.88, -7.49 "Will you stand up for an energy policy not dictated by the profits of big oil companies?"- John Edwards

      by cjallen on Sat May 19, 2007 at 06:09:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site