Posted by Bjnemp (anonymous) on May 27, 2008 at 11:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't think sexism or racism is the main problem within the democratic party. Can a woman be an effective president? Of course. Can a black man be a good president? Absolutely. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is not that woman and Obama is not that man. They are both utra-liberal disasters. I have voted Democratic for forty years but I am going to have to pass on this one. Secure borders, crackdown on illegal immigrants, Second Amendment rights, and winning the war on terrorism are way too important to me to vote for either democratic candidate who have totally weak (wrong) views on all four issues. Surrendering to terrorists, appeasing degenerate dictators, welcoming an endless hoarde of illegal aliens, supporting gay rights parades and gay marriages, and banning guns may draw praise in California but it doesn't play too well in middle-America.

Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on May 28, 2008 at 12:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you could take the far left wing ideas out of the Democratic party, and keep it about the common man like it use to be, I would be a Democrat in a heartbeat. Bjnemp says it all,and I was surprised to learn has been a Democrat. The fact is, the crazy far left stuff like gun bans, open borders, and gay rights(overboard gay rights, I am not for locking them up or hanging them, but I don't want it in my face all the time, just as I don't want blatant heterosexual activity in my face all the time) makes me vote Republican no matter who they run. I can't understand why the powers that be in the Dems can't see the mistake they are making.

Posted by Summer_Breeze (anonymous) on May 28, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Kelley, your editorial is right on point. If the Democrat party leaders, including Clinton and Obama, do not act to bridge the growing chasm within the party, Democrats once again will lose the White House. The sad thing about that is that John McCain will be more of the same that we've had for the past eight years. I can't believe any rational American wants to settle for that!

Every time I pay $50 at the gas pump, or spend more and more on staples at the grocery store, or watch the mounting animosity toward America in the news, I marvel that the country doesn't rise up and "cast out" the entire Congress, along with Mr. Bush. There's an e-mail going around about the 545 people who have put us, and are keeping us, in this position. It's not the President alone. In the words of an old radio personality, "Wake up, America!"

Posted by sexingthecherry (anonymous) on May 28, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Surrendering to terrorists,"

Not a single candidate advocates doing this. You are constructing a straw-person.

"appeasing degenerate dictators,"

Ditto here. Wanting to avoid violent conflict is not the same as appeasement. You would think, given our current international failings, we would be more willing to try an approach that has had greater historical success than Bush/McCain's guns-blazing method.

"welcoming an endless hoarde of illegal aliens,"

Again, nobody is doing this, or advocating it. Based on the rates of undocumented immigrants, it is glaringly apparent that SOMETHING is wrong with our immigration policies. McCain promises more of the same, whereas Obama/Clinton propose fixing those problems. Also...your use of the word "hoarde" here betrays your xenophobia. Are you sure you really ever voted Democrat?

"supporting gay rights parades and gay marriages,"

If we have Memorial Day celebrations, I don't really see any reason why any other kind of city-approved parade would be any different. Also, I've never heard any candidate speak particularly positively about gay rights--one of the major failings of the Democratic candidates, and a very unfortunate one. But still--how dare those gays demand civil rights! Shame on them, right?

"and banning guns"

Once again, NONE of the named candidates have done this. Sure, they may advocate stricter gun control (more extensive background checks, mental health evaluations, etc), but that is not the same as banning guns, and you are being dishonest in your characterization of the candidates' positions.

"may draw praise in California but it doesn't play too well in middle-America."

Well, I live smack-dab in the middle of Kansas, and there are plenty of people here that support the Democratic candidates. Many of the typically "red" states are swinging blue this election season, and for good reason. Bush (and Bush part 2, aka McCain) have turned people off of Republican leadership.

Also, alfalfa, I know you say you don't want hetero displays in your face all the time either, but I doubt you raise a ruckus when you see a hetero couple holding hands in public, or going to high school prom together, or sitting together at the movie theatre. The notion that gays are in-your-face is just as bigoted as more outright denials of their rights and equality.

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 9:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't want to live in the United Socialist States of America so I'll vote for McCain or McSame, however you'd like to say it. I'm actually very happy with the way Bush has ran the country so far and would easily vote for him again. We are winning in Iraq despite the fact that half of the country is cheering for the other side. Why on earth would we surrender now? Libya has given up their nuclear ambitions and North Korea and Iran would certainly have done the same by now if not for the upcoming election. With the possibility of another Jimmy Carter in office they see an opportunity for us to appease them.

Posted by sexingthecherry (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What leads you to believe we are "winning" in Iraq? What does a victory for us there look like? You are revealing an alarming disconnect with reality.

Furthermore, Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. There is literally not a shred of evidence to support this notion. And North Korea has launched missiles in our direction and we literally did nothing.

Again--nobody argues for appeasement.

"to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles."

Not a single candidate condones this behavior.

Also, I think the Red Scare is over, so screaming "communism!" or "socialism!" isn't really all that scary or effective. The US has plenty of long-standing socialist policies that nobody seems to mind.

Posted by under_score (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Victory in Iraq is removal of Saddam Hussein, removal of any WMD that they may have had, installation of a moderate democratic government, reduction in violence to allow said government the ability to be successful. Most important to our success is staying and supporting Iraq for it is the message that we send to other nations about our resolve that will best deliver our message. Those are what I feel would constitute victory. Now, what are your conditions? If you are like many people who spew the same tired slogans of the left I suspect that you are not so concerned with victory as you are losing.

"Furthermore, Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. There is literally not a shred of evidence to support this notion"??? When militant governments who are threating to wipe us and/or our allies off of the map are developing nuclear capabilities I guess I would rather them prove it to the international community rather than just taking their word for it. Incidentally, they also claim the Holocaust never occurred and that they don't have a single gay person in their country. Do you believe that too?

"And North Korea has launched missiles in our direction and we literally did nothing." I'm not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that we should actually do something about this? If so, I do agree that something should be done to deter NK. Do you have any suggestions? We've been talking to them for a number of years and cannot seem to reason with them. They keep asking for things that we cannot concede. Are you suggesting we bomb them or give in to their demands. I'm sure that you have some really great ideas

"to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort, sometimes at the expense of justice or other principles."

Governments of Iran, Venezuela, and N. Korea want to sit down one on one with the US to lend validity to themselves. Obama says he would sit down with them. This is exactly what they want, by doing so he would be "yielding in a conciliatory effort to their "demands" at the expense of commonly accepted diplomatic "principles".

Many of us in this country weren't around for the rise of communism/socialism but still would rather not live in a socialist country. You are correct that there are many socialist policies in place in this country but to say that nobody minds them is beyond ignorant.

Posted by jayhawker (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 4 p.m. (Suggest removal)

President Bush is a good and honorable man who has put the welfare of our country far above his own personal popularity. History will treat him kindly, and there will come a day when we look back and say that we should have listened to him. Presidents Lincoln and Truman were similar presidents. Both were extremely unpopular during their administrations (Lincoln's popularity rebounded only because of the way that he died), but both stuck to their principles. President Bush is the Lincoln and the Truman of our age. We will miss him after January 20.

Posted by alfalfa (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 10:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sexingthecherry: I do not raise a ruckus when I see gays holding hands, that is not what I was thinking about. What I was thinking about was a couple of items on the news recently from good old California where in one case two dressed as nuns I believe "invaded" a Catholic mass, and another a gay pride parade around Easter portrayed Jesus in a rather unflattering way. That is in your face and it offends me, and I am very tired that those of us with traditional values must always give way to those without, and if we state what we feel we are branded bigots, narrow minded, racist, right wing nuts,etc. I have traditional values for the most part, I am willing to accept legal immigrants, I am also willing to accept homosexuals, but I am not willing to accept homosexual marriage or actions such as those I mentioned, and when in the voting booth will vote accordingly. If that makes me in your opinion a bigot, I guess that is the way it is, however, I fail to see how you can claim not to be a bigot if you will not allow me to freely express my own views. This is still America.

Posted by USNretired (anonymous) on May 30, 2008 at 11:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Obama and Clinton are just showing how they act under stress. Very informative, I must say. As a life-long Independent thinker, I don't like what I see, and I still have many questions about Obama, since he doesn't have much of a track record to peruse. We all have our own opinions that have been formed by experience, although some younger people only know what they have been told concerning things that some of us actually remember. You have a right to believe what you choose and attacking your beliefs based on my own would be idiotic. Just get all the information you can and keep an open mind as long as possible. These choices tend to become obvious over time.