“Throughout the primary, Hillary’s supporters were viciously attacked by the Obama campaign with name calling, misogyny and sexism.”

How? Where? When? People keep asserting this stuff, but nobody ever shows me a single specific example. They just all seem to know.

It’s like all the disrespectful, sexist, racist comments Obama supposedly made about Hillary. People constantly say he did that. But nobody has ever showed me a single, solitary example. They all just seem to know he did it.

It’s the old Joseph Goebbles principle at work: “Repeat a lie often enough and people will begin to believe it.”

So just keep repeating this one over and over: “I can vote republican and still be a democrat.”

Here’s yet another: “I can vote for a man who supports the war and still be against the war.”

I’m seeing plenty of evidence lately that the principle works.

I agree that experience is important, though there are diminishing returns in that front, from what I gathered on the topic a few months ago by listening to an interesting program on NPR in which psychologists discussed research findings that suggest so. As it turns out, a doctor’s reliability, say, does not increase steadily or linearly in time. There is a point at which it starts diminishing, irrespective of age. It seems that after a while experienced people start becoming overly confident, and this is a problem.

In my mind, then, a better proxy (than experience) for the ability to make good decisions is a combination of two attribute: (1) the ability to surround oneself with diverse sources of advice, especially when one lacks optimal knowledge of a subject; (2) the ability to listen to counter-arguments when one is utterly confident.

Nonetheless, experience (and expertise) do matter, and you give good reasons for why it should. In my case, the dismissive attitude of Clinton towards economic experts was revealing and quite disappointing on this front. In that episode, Hillary seemed to suggest that expertise does not matter, and that struck me as a serious flaw.

Obama is inexperienced and untested, and he is bound to make mistakes. I can understand apprehensions about him. But Hillary and McCain are experienced, sure of themselves, and have made catastrophic mistakes, particularly a mistake of major economic and political proportions about which Obama showed better judgment at the time.

Finally, experience is but one variable among many. I know McCain is more experienced than Hillary, but she seems to have opinions on domestic policy that align more closely with mine (and I would support her over him).

your response is illuminating, well articulated, and thoughtful. I do worry about cults of personality, and I certainly recognize that there is some truth in what you say. (To what degree I cannot say.) I am reassured by what I know from him by having lived in Illinois.

In my case, Clinton’s behavior was significantly more determinative in my decision to support Obama than Obama’s or his supporters’. Cultural sensibilities matter. (It’s interesting to see how they matter in different ways to different people, like yourself and I.)

It is true that Barack Obama has less experience in Washington than Hillary Clinton, but experience is not as important as the ability to surround oneself with experienced advisors along with the disposition to listen to one’s detractors and critics.

That’s a very idealistic sounding, and well articulated notion. But it’s missing something. Anyone who has a great deal of experience in one field or related fields knows this. Experience is crucial as the decision maker – especially at a very high level. It’s exprience which helps us discern between and idealistic plan, and a realistic one, and further, to judge character and timing. A U.S. President who must rely solely on her/his advisors is in a perilous position. There will be many operating on behalf of special interests. There will be many who are eager, but lacking in wisdom. Compare it to any other field in life. Why do I want a surgeon who doesn’t know what to do, but is surrounded by lots of people who have a little bit of knowledge about different parts of the body? I’m sure you believe what you’re saying, but I guess (and I’m sure this will make you scowl), I’m old enough (and experienced enough in my fields of expertise) to know better.

Nothing changes until something changes.

And let conversation degenerate so no real thought could penetrate?

Obama Girl, with Obama’s name scrawled on he ass and tits, represents the Obama camp’s idea of a “liberated” and “accomplished” woman. She’s a hero for them. Brainless and docile, ready to give it all to Obama, and willing to sacrifice her pride and dignity in any environment to prove it. A teenage boy’s dream? (Don’t know, I’m not a boy).

Hillary, on the other hand, had the Audacity to be powerful and accomplished. She dared to defy the ruthless efforts of the Obama Mafia to get her out of the race quickly. She dared to be smarter, better informed, more experienced, and by far more articulate in debate and town hall type meetings. She made Obama look bad. So Hillary was a “witch” a “whore” a “nutcracker” a “poisoner” and a “nag”.

I think I understand the kind of women’s lib the Obama-bully-bots can get behind.

Sick.To.Death.Of.It.

I can’t support that.

It could be the following. Posted on a blog;

In a nutshell, Hillary was told by many super delegates that they had
made a pact with the DNC not to support her at the convention if she
chose to “Take it to Denver”, and pretty much strong armed her out of
the race.

Why? According to this source, the DNC doesn’t really care if Obama
is elected as president, as much as they care about all of the money
Obama supporters will be pouring into their coffers. Which is,
apparently, one of the reasons for the huge push to get the Supers to
declare early and get Hillary out. All that money will go not only to
aid Obama’s campaign, but will go to help ALL democratic candidate
campaigns for November. But it isn’t just the money, it’s the “new”
voters. The DNC believes that all that money and all those new voters
will ensure sweeping victories for democratic candidates across the
board. So even if Obama loses the GE, the DNC gets control of the
White House, gets a ton of money, and gets all those fresh,
impressionable minds.

Somebody should remind them 1972.

Nixon was very unpopular. There was an unpopular war. The economy was sinking. Nixon won a landslide.

Democrats never learn.

Obama has put together the McGovern coaliton. He has the votes of the liberal elite and african americans. That is not enough to win the general election. You need working class whites.

How can you possibly state with any certainty that IDX has never been performed on a healthy mother or fetus?

“These abortions are performed to save the mother or her reproductive ability when there is something horribly inevitably awry…”

Oh really?

According to a 1987 study that included specific data about late abortions (i.e. abortions “at 16 or more weeks’ gestation”),women reported that various reasons contributed to their having a late abortion:

71% Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
* 8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn’t know timing is important
5% Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other

http://www.holysmoke.org/fem/fem0543.htm