« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Who better matches your views? Barack Obama or Cynthia McKinney?
We already know Obama's agenda, and we like it. We also know Cynthia McKinney will not be our next president. With this said, I ask you to inspect Cynthia McKinney's vote record and positions on some of the most important issues, and decide how strongly she shares a connection with you when it comes to these positions, and whether she or Obama better matches your views:
On war:
- Declares independence from Democratic Party and its war. (Mar 2008)
- Cut funding for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Feb 2008)
- Immediate withdrawal from Iraq & from rest of world. (Jan 2008)
- Introduced articles of impeachment at end of 2006 session. (Dec 2007)
- Voted NO on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date. (Jun 2006)
- Voted YES on disallowing the invasion of Kosovo. (May 1999)
- Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
- Keep affirmative action in college admissions. (Feb 2008)
- Supports gay adoptions. (Feb 2008)
- Repeal the Patriot Act and end Islamophobia. (Jan 2008)
- Reparations for former slaves, as promised & never delivered. (Jan 2008)
- Introduced MLK Records Act, to unseal assassination files. (Dec 2007)
- Voted NO on making the PATRIOT Act permanent. (Dec 2005)
- Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
- Voted NO on ending preferential treatment by race in college admissions. (May 1998)
- Supports reparations for slavery. (Aug 2001)
- Ending racial profiling is part of fight for justice. (Jan 2001)
- Constitutional Amendment for equal rights by gender. (Mar 2001)
- Require "Privacy Impact Statement" on new federal rules. (Apr 2002)
- Issue a commemorative postage stamp of Rosa Parks. (Dec 2005)
- Rated 80% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)
- Rated 97% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (Dec 2006)
- Supported legislation on violence against women & safety. (Jul 1999)
- Supported funding for women's and disadvantaged businesses. (Jul 1999)
- Voted NO on prohibiting product misuse lawsuits on gun manufacturers. (Oct 2005)
- Voted NO on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1. (Jun 1999)
Advertisement
Comments (52)
She actually represents my views better than does Obama, by far. So does Nader. Whether that is sufficient to get me to vote for either of them is unclear to me as of now. I still might be persuaded to vote for Obama on a "better of the evils" argument, given how atrocious McCain is. However, things like the FISA vote, the expressed eagerness for war in Afghanistan, etc., are making it more difficult to think about voting for Obama.
July 16, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately her behavior has been so bizarre and she stretches the limits of believability so far that I simply cannot take her all that seriously. At one time she was a good representative of the people but as her views became more and more bizarre, I could not follow her ideas at all. Thus, I could never vote for her. Obama on the other hand, by comparison, has a story well documented in Chicago, he is very basic in his beliefs, he is honest, and he is a born leader. My vote goes directly to Obama, I don't need to pass "go" nor will I get slammed in jail for my move.
July 16, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note how those who can't argue against McKinney progressive positions speak about her character, even though this thread is not about her character, but about her VIEWS.
July 17, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
And why do you believe that those two things are mutually exclusive of each other? Do you not believe that someone's "views" might guide their positions?
July 17, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
What about my view that you shouldn't slap a security guard, regardless of the situation?
My view is that siphoning off votes in search of publicity and self-promotion in an effort that will lose massively is not in any way, shape or form helpful to advancing any progressive goals. What progressive goals did Nader advance by electing Bush in 2000?
July 17, 2008 10:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
They are not mutually exclusive when it comes to deciding who to vote for. But my diary does not ask who you people will vote for. It focuses on the views on the issues. It is obvious that her attack on the cop was wrong. But it does not qualify as a view, no matter how much spin is applied to the whole thing.
July 17, 2008 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think her occasionally bizarre behavior and a few of her weirder positions (truther, anyone?) does 3rd parties, [i]especially[/i] one like the Green party, a huge disservice. The more the Greens at the national level continue foisting imbalanced presidential candidates on us, the harder it is for anyone to take Green candidates seriously at the local level.
July 17, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you mistake a recognition of the job left unfinished in Afghanistan as eagerness. There is nothing in anything Barack has said that would convince me he is "eager" for war with anyone. I also understand that the foreign surveillance legislation was one that caused you enormous anger and/or disappointment, but these issues are still mostly centered around national security.
I am no hawk by any means, but there are some things we will need to be responsible for as we transition to a more left nation. Two of those things are the wars we let Bush start and continue in the middle east. I think Obama has articulated clear reasoning and a detailed plan to transition out of Iraq while turning to fulfill our obligations in Afghanistan.
It is quite clear that they prefer an Obama moderated clean-up operation to clear their country of bad guys, while at the same time embracing his idea for a Marshall Plan type effort to turn those remaining enemies into friends. It's cheaper to build stuff than the blow it up.
Further, Barack has articulated a long-term strategy that drastically reduces our military footprint and am quite sure that as our reputation improves, we can actually cut our military to a size that makes sense. He has been quite clear about the need to direct those funds to infrastructure, education and health care.
I sure hope we are able to convince all progressives to support Barack despite any cynicism or disagreements we may have. I see the man as pragmatic and principled and doing the necessary bridge building to get the republicans and independents to join us in this enormous effort. The progressive changes both you and I want will take decades to accomplish.
That's why we need to be patient and careful as we build the foundations for those future efforts today.
July 17, 2008 7:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't see the legitimacy of what the US and NATO are doing in Afghanistan. It's no mystery as to why Osama was there before 2001; he was a part of the resistance against the Soviets and thus was a welcome guest there afterwards. (The CIA supported his being there at that time, remember?) Little discussed since 2001 is the fact that the Taliban asked the US for evidence that Osama was behind the attack on my neighborhood in lower Manhattan (and in DC). The US didn't provide them with such evidence, so they didn't ask him to leave. But the Taliban never attacked the US. As to the effect of the US and NATO presence in Afghanistan, the so-called government in Kabul is a corrupt joke and controls nothing, the US supports corrupt and vicious war lords, opium production is skyrocketing (which it wasn't under the Taliban), the Afghan people can hardly be said to be better off now than they were before the US and NATO tried to occupy the place. The US and NATO are unlikely to succeed there even with more troops. The British and Russians failed there 100 years ago, and the Soviets 30 years ago. I can't find much that would allow me to support Obama or any other American politician who wants to continue a US military adventure there. So, what is the job left undone there that you think Obama needs to do that Bush is botching? Exactly what is the national security issue that you think legitimizes a US and NATO war against these people who never attacked the US or any other NATO country? You want to clear Afghanistan of "bad guys," but I guess you don't include the bad guys that the US and NATO are supporting there. I cannot take this sort of argument seriously. We have no legitimate reason to be there, any more than the Russians or the British did 100 years ago when they played what they called "the Great Game" there. You speak of our reputation improving there under Obama. I doubt it, given the basic illegitimacy of out presence there. In this, McKinney makes much more sense than you or Obama do. By the way, talk of a Marshall Plan to Afghanistan isn't a notion that should be taken seriously, any more than the false promise of Laura Bush in 2001 that the US would improve the lives of Afghani women. Such nonsense coming both from Republicans and from Democrats! We have no business in playing a new Great Game in Afghanistan or Iran than the British or Russians did a century ago.
July 17, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK. A few hard returns would make this easier to read, but I get the gist of your point and actually quite agree. I wish we had never decided to play a game of nation building in that part of the world.
However, since we have stirred up the hornet's nest and broken the country, the least we could do is finish the job. We had the Taliban and Bin Laden finished and took our eye off the ball.
Seems to me that we either go back in and clean up our mess as we hand over Iraq to the Iraqis or we all have the blood of the Afghani people on our hands as their dictators clamp back down.
There is an honorable solution to this mess and simply walking away isn't it.
July 17, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The people of Afghanistan are those who have suffered terribly under decades of atrocious behavior by the British, Russians, Taliban and now us. I see no clear goal in Afghanistan for the USA. However, I also see that Obama can't say, "Let's get out of all wars right now" and get elected.
I do believe that Obama's goal is to get us out of war and into diplomacy, but that anything this complicated has to be done in steps. I can't read his mind, but I can refer back to my own limited time as an elected official and how making changes was a stepwise process, not an all-or-nothing full-frontal assault. If it were otherwise, Kucinich would be running for president.
Politics can be very complex, and constituents, no matter how absolutely correct morally and ethically they can be, often don't understand the path that elected officials must take to accomplish change.
So, while I totally agree with everything you have said about Afghanistan, and I feel deep anger and sadness at what has happened to that country, I can't say I know better than Obama how to deal with the situation today. Tomorrow is another matter. Get him elected and we have a chance to move in a better direction. Vote for anyone else and McCain has a better chance to win, and I can all but guarantee that McCain will not make the lives of the Afghan people better.
July 17, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that McKinney treated her staff poorly, t and did not condone supporters that made anti-semitic remarks on behalf of her campaign is enough for me to never take anything she says or does seriously.
Furthermore, she thinks she commands respects for no apparent reason other than the fact that she was a Congresswoman.
Please.
The Progressive Electorate
July 16, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
She apologized for striking that police officer. I don't know why you claim she "thinks" she commands respect, as if she had continued behaving the same way she behaved when she made the mistake.
July 16, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter what her or Nader's positions are, since they're irrelevant to the question of who's going to be the next president, and will be as long as any of us are alive.
I don't mean to offend, but I can think of a long list of people from all walks of life I would vote for if it simple came down to their positions. Since none of them are ever going to run/win, doesn't really matter what they think, either.
On the practical side, be happy to see Feingold run, but he refuses to. Kucinich...again, I've never taken him seriously because he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning.
I know 'loop' was asking to be seduced/convinced in another thread, and while I respect that and wish I had the energy, all I can say is that the facts is what they is. You either vote for Obama or you're voting for McCain. That's the way the two-party system works. And it's not any more complicated than that.
I have no idea how long it will endure, but I'd rather start trying to get America used to the idea that Republicans aren't the only presidential option. If that can be accomplished, then somewhere down the line one of these alternate candidates will become a more realistic possibility.
July 17, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
kohoutek,
MAN, AS THEY SAY IN Jamaica, "YOU LICK DI NAIL PON THE HEAD"!!
YOU MAKE A FANTASTIC POINT!! My Concern is wasting my vote on a LONGSHOT CANDIDATE or PARTY Like The So Called "GREEN PARTY" especially in a time when we NEED to take on BIG challenges like aulternative energy, solving the health care crisis, end the war, fix education etc.
SERIOUS Commonsense People Can Never take 3 parties seriously, because you NEVER see any of them try to make any serious effort after a General Election to get people informed and register to vote and invest the time and the energy to make success a reality. Every 4 years they emerge with this LONG SHOT grand idea to detrown the major 2 political party and win the white house! THEY ARE JUST NOT BELIEVEABLE and therefore come across to many as a Mischievous radicals trying to derail progress!!!
July 17, 2008 3:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The two party system will endure so long as we tolerate it. It's as simple as that. If and when the American people become fed up with it, it wont' exist any longer. Accepting it simply because it exists is the reason that it continues to exist. You point is terribly accepting of something many reasonable folk would find unacceptable. (By the way, my invitation to "be seduced" in another thread was in response to the claim in that thread that a failure to vote for Obama was a form of masturbation. I was suggesting that instead of using sexually insulting imagery against those who question whether they should vote for Obama, one might try seducing them. I stand by my point; one doesn't win votes by insulting the potential voter. In this Dean and Obama are right to attempt to seduce the "Reagan Democrats" rather than to insult them, which has been the habit of many progressives. The same applies to those on the left who hesitate to jump on your bandwagon. Try to earn their support rather than to insult them. It's simply good politics and being a good citizen.)
July 17, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would love to see a viable alternative to the two-party logjam we have in this country. However, in this particular time in history (as in 2004), with the neocons effectively pulling off a ku that took over our government and simply smashed its face in with their lies and offenses to the rule of law, I simply don't see this as the exact moment in history to try to support a third party, or a fourth or a fifth.
I've had this discussion with other people, and they cite principle and voting for what they believe in - the Nader defense. While I respect their sense of integrity, I do not respect their disregard for consequences. We all face choices in our lives in which we must decide between alternatives, and we weigh those alternatives to make the most rational decision at the moment. Usually, that decision involves self-interest. What will benefit us the most. Occasionally, that decision involves a more altruistic sense of what will benefit others the most, or "us" as a group.
Today, I think the only rational decision is to make sure the neocons do not get another four or eight years to further destroy our country, increase the divide between wealthy and poor, trash the Constitution, continue their bigoted ways against people who are different from what they think is the right way to be, stack the courts (not just the Supreme), and operate in secrecy and utter self-interest at the expense of the rest of us.
No, I've had way too much of that, thank you. I'm voting for Obama and will breathe a (temporary) sign of relief when those people are out of office and (temporarily) out of power. Because, when Obama wins, the real work begins. This election is just the prelude. Reform and a revisiting of our American values and our eroding national identity and international reputation, not to mention a complete examination of how our separation of powers failed for the past 7+ years - these are what I think we are fighting for today.
July 17, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
We all know that I won't be dating Uma Thurman tomorrow.
That said, I think I'll spend some time pondering in what ways Uma Thurman might be hotter than my significant other.
A more productive mental wankfest I can't imagine.
July 17, 2008 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, Tom the Dancing Bug represents my views, but it's nice to see someone stand up and be a bit audacious - that of course makes her unelectable, but a compromise candidate somewhere between the two could be interesting.
July 17, 2008 5:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, something makes her unelectable.
Now.
Since she was actually elected and re-elected - with the same views- before striking that guard that suggests that it was her behavior which cost her her seat, not her positions.
To be honest , I disagreed with her positions on Israel ,but if I were one of her constituents I'd have voted for her on the strength of her overall positions .
July 17, 2008 5:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know the situation myself, but many McKinney supporters think that a cross-over Republican voting strategy cost her re-nomination to Congress. Nonetheless, for me the interesting question isn't about her electability to the Presidency. Clearly, she won't gain the White House. But, that doesn't mean that she isn't playing a legitimate and important role in this election, which is to provide clear positions against which to measure the candidates of the two "major" parties. She illustrates ways in which Obama's positions are deficient. That doesn't mean, of course, that one need vote for her or against Obama. One reasonably might decide to vote for Obama despite the ways his positions are deficient. But her positions, as well as those of Nader, ought to be taken seriously on their own merit. We have plenty of pressure from the right in this country, but precious little from the left. Let's be thankful that we have some from the left to keep those ideas afloat. Given the collusion of the Congressional Democrats in the horrors of the Bush administration, we need people pushing from the left. Otherwise the Democrats will drift more and more to the right.
July 17, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for continually refining and reaffirming our positions, but I'm also wary of derailing Obama's candidacy. It's a fine line, but not one I'm willing to use as a reason to repress dissenting opinions. Still, when the arguments are framed, they do not need to be anti-Obama. They can simply be pro-position and clarifying our values.
We can also express our hope that Obama will come closer to our positions once elected - because in some cases, I very much hope he will do so.
July 17, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we're nominating cartoon characters for fringe candidate who could potentially steal votes from Obama(and I definitely include Cynthia McKinney in that category), I'd have to go with the penguin in "This Modern World."
But that would never happen, of course, because the penguin would never allow himself to be a spoiler.
July 17, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you serious?
She's not a five year old kid who can hit people (especially a policeman) and apologize and everything be too cool for school.
The list of McKinney antics go on and on. A vote for McKinney is not only a wasted vote but it is affirming anti-semitism as well as racism.
July 17, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
McKinney is a racist and an anti-semite. And a nut. Suggested U.S. knew in advance of 9/11. Tells you something about the deplorable and pathetic state of the Greens that they would turn to such a vile person. In 2000, the Greens gave us Bush. Now they want to give us McKinney. They're going downhill.
July 17, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
There have been reports widely circulated in the press that Bush was warned before 911 that some sort of attack was coming. HIs chief anti-terrorist advisor has said so publicly. Why do you take this as crazy?
July 17, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Failing to read the memo "Bin Laden determined to attack inside US" and being warned of a specific plan pre 9/11 are two VERY different things.
July 17, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am frustrated by voters who see their votes primarily as self-identifiers, and not as opportunities to participate in a collective decision. Sure, the Green Party represents a much closer reflection of the political views of many progressives. But we're a smaller subset of a larger group that lies to the left of the bright line dividing Democrats and Republicans. Those who believe they are too pure to vote for someone who does not align perfectly with their views are simply opting out - and yes, giving a de facto vote to McCain - because their personal idealism is more important than moving the country in the general direction that those of us on the left of that line all would like to move.
July 17, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do support for gay adoptions, repeal of the PATRIOT act, opening the MLK assassination investigation files or the issuance of a Rosa Parks commemorative stamp fall under the heading of "the economy"? That small quibble now voiced, I would say in answer to the question that those views represent me quite well, but I am still voting for Obama. I hope that her presence in the race moves the frame of reference for the electoral dialogue further to the left, but I do not hope that she gets many votes (except, perhaps, from drunken frat boys too plastered to tell the difference between McCain and McKinney).
July 17, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of what value are a candidates policy positions if they cannot get them implemented?
July 17, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Allow me to push to its limits the logic of the argument that one should vote only for candidates who have a realistic chance of winning, such as Obama rather than McKinney or Nader. The polls all showed in 1972 that the Democratic candidate, George McGovern, couldn't beat Nixon. Indeed, in the end McGovern won only one state (Massachusetts), showing the polls were right. By the logic that one shouldn't vote for candidates who cannot win, we all should have voted for Nixon in 1972. Now, you might respond that you couldn't have voted for Nixon and would have voted for McGovern anyway, just because a vote for Nixon would have represented things you oppose as completely repugnant. But couldn't someone say the same today about Obama? Sure, he's probably a lot better than McCain in most ways (he's certainly a lot cooler), but he does stand for things that I cannot support (FISA vote, Afghanistan). But by the logic of many expressed at TPM, I should not vote for "fringe" candidtates who cannot win. So, one shouldn't vote for a Democrat when the polls show his/her chances are next to nothing, as was the case with McGovern. We shouldn't have voted for Mondale over the Gipper because Mondale's defeat was a forgone conclusion? At the least, the admonition to vote only for candidates who can win isn't an argument that's been thought through completely.
July 17, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's pushing the logic a little too far, but perhaps I should refine the definition to one who technically has a chance to win, as in one of the two major-party nominees.
I fully agree that a two-party system isn't going to provide for much choice. And that what results is a splitting of the difference. But that's the mind of America. The populace are inheritors of a fairly conservative religious tradition that hasn't abated near as much as in other industrialized nations, and the country has always rested on a foundation of unbridled greed favoring business, profit, capital as an expression of 'freedom'. We were somewhat screwed from the outset by Calvinism's (I think I've got that right) equation of worldly success as a reflection of righteousness.
And although other major industrialized countries have better social safety nets, and more egalitarian labor laws, etc., and a greater sense of social justice, they still in the last 30-40 years have all evidenced the same centrist tendencies over time, and are equally morally compromised in many regards. They're becoming more corporatist, in other words, it seems to me.
But it seems to me the thing to do is side with the party that at least has the philosophical potential to deliver on the national level (ie, isn't diametrically opposed to what you hold dear), while working on the local level to support and groom candidates that are more progressive. But for winning a majority of votes (electoral or otherwise) in a national election, there's just no escaping the geographical concentrations of progressives, and the counterweight of more conservative fellow citizens.
I wish there were a more broad-based progressive mindset, but there isn't. Which means that progress is only going to be slow, and has to start at those few places where there's widespread agreement, like healthcare.
Getting rid of the electoral college would help speed progress, it seems to me.
July 17, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your logic is completely skewed as I see it.
Voting for the better of two options, even in a hopeless cause, is still the best choice you can make.
Choosing a third choice, when that choice cannot win, but one of the other two can - and where one of the other two is preferable by a wide margin - is a completely different situation.
In the first case, you may not affect the outcome, but you can vote for the candidate of your choice.
In the other situation, your vote for a third candidate who cannot win can, in effect, alter the outcome. I would agree with your example IF AND ONLY IF Obama had NO CHANCE at all of beating McCain. Then you could vote your conscience without altering the outcome against your own interests.
But that is not the case here.
July 17, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beyond The Fringe:
"Perkins"
"Sir!"
"Perkins, the War isn't going well."
" Oh my God!"
"Perkins, hop in your crate, pop over to Hamburg,don't come back. It's time for a futile gesture. Improve the whole tone of the War."
"Good bye , Sir...Or perhaps it's au revoir."
"No, Perkins".
July 17, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not talking about her inability to get elected. Even if elected she would not be able to get her agenda through because she is incapable of mounting a good argument in favor of it. Instead of acting like a politician she acts like a loon. That prevents her from getting the co-opreation she would need.
July 17, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm new to TPM, so allow me to introduce myself..I am a white, female, born-again Christian, long-time registered Republican who is enthusiastically supporting Obama...I know I'm not the be all, end all, but I AM a member of a number of the demographic groups that Obama is hoping to make inroads with, and he has w/ me.
I had intended to sit out this election because there is no way I can reward the Republican party for 8 years of screwing this country up one side and down the other, but I couldn't see myself voting for "hillbilly" either...then I heard an Obama speech, did some research, and have been actually excited about this race ever since.
But now I'm watching in horror as you Dems attempt to implode his candidacy and give the election to John McCain.
I am all for free speech and for exercising your right to vote for a 3rd party candidate, but if you disagree w/ Obama and just can't violate your precious principles and vote for him, even though the alternative is to give the GOP another 4 years to mess up the country, can't you just do it quietly instead going out of your way to bash him and elevate the other side's position?
Threatening to withhold financial support unless Obama supports every one of your positions is harmful, not helpful. If I base my vote purely based on his positions, I couldn't vote for him...So I'm sucking it up and voting for him anyway. I don't consider it a vote for the "lesser of 2 evils", but rather a vote for hope that this country really CAN be changed.I am so sick of "Politics-as-usual" that I am willing to set aside my differences with him and vote for a man that I believe will help put the government back in the hands of the people, take away the power and influence of the lobbyists, restore a pride in our country, improve relations w/ other countries, get us out of Iraq and deal w/ the real war on terror, address the energy problems w/ REAL solutions (not gas tax holidays...give me a break!) encourage people to take responsibility for themselves while providing a little back up for them so they can, and on and on and on.
Many times in the real world you have to make compromises, no place more than in politics. With such a broad range of opinions, consensus is hard to reach. Many times you have to reach your goal incrementally, taking the best you can get first (as in FISA) and then work to edge closer and closer to your ideal...You cannot ram things down people's throats, just because it is what you want. You pick the person that most closely meets your needs, help get him elected, then work to help him accomplish your goals. If you DEMAND that he support your position, even though it is controversial, he cannot get elected and your hopes are dashed for another 4 years. People, PLEASE dial back the rhetoric (and try to have an intelligent discussion w/o the swearing!)...let's get him elected, THEN do your lobbying to get as much as you can of what you want...This in-fighting will do NOTHING except help to get John McCain elected...God help us all...
July 17, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You need to cut and paste this into its own post, stat, so it can get recommended. :)
July 17, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Keep your idealism. Many of us share it.
July 17, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Green Party has made itself irrelevant with the nomination of McKinney.
July 17, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Demosaur...how do you do that? I've never done it before...
July 17, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yikes! I'm slow but I figured it out! Thanks for the suggestion!
July 17, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know why anyone would compare Obama to McKinney. She's nuts.
July 17, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
On reparations for slavery:
The North won, and Lincoln freed the slaves.
So can we ask the Confederacy to pony up the dough?
We could dig up the graves of all former slaves, tell 'em we're sorry, and stick a few bucks between their ribs before burying them again.
July 17, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I bring that up not to be a jerk, but to point out how easy it is for Ms. McKinney to have views like this, when her constituency is so small and narrowly focused...Obama is trying to win the majority of electoral votes of the entire country, and his positions are going to relflect that fact, much to the chagrin of some Progressives.
July 17, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
43 comments have been submitted, and only the following people were capable of answering the simple question written in the diary headline:
• Out of the loop
• A Missouri voter
• flavius
The member "Out of the loop" was the only one to give a clear, unambiguous answer. This shows how well blog readers have mastered the art of spin. You guys need to learn how to read.
It is entirely possible to both call McKinney a racist unelectable anti-semitic looney AND state whether Obama or McKinney better represent your views on issues such as those I cited as examples.
July 17, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment presumes that the only important aspect of this thread - which is a conversation - is the basic premise of the blogger. However, I have little interest in that, as blasphemous as that might seem to you, and more interest in what some of the other posters have said.
July 17, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing I presumed is that my question should have been answered. There's no reason not to answer my question. Even anti-McKinney voters could have answered my question. Don't read my mind.
July 18, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gee, I'm auditing this course, prof. Lighten up.
July 17, 2008 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it was a loaded question. Why would anyone it seriously?
July 18, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why would anyone take it seriously? - ed
July 18, 2008 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: If you'd stick with a single ID, it would be a lot clearer who we're responding to, Andrew Perez/truthseeker77/whoeverthehellelseyouare.
July 18, 2008 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get it. Since when do I have more than one ID?
July 18, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment