[Masthead] Fair ~ 40°F  
High: 57°F ~ Low: 33°F
Saturday, Nov. 29, 2014

Democratic dilemma

Posted Thursday, April 17, 2008, at 3:50 PM

Did you watch any of the Clinton-Obama debate Wednesday night in Philadelphia?

I watched some of it and came away with the same impression I've had for a long time. The Democrats don't have a candidate in my humble opinion.

Clinton wants to be president. Obama speaks well, at times, but I have no idea what side of him would be revealed if he should become president.

Should the Democrats toss both of them aside at the national convention level and try to find another candidate?

Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

That is an interesting thought Bo. It might be good for BOTH parties to consider. I am afraid that John does not inspire me either.

-- Posted by stevemills on Thu, Apr 17, 2008, at 5:03 PM


I agree with you but I don't think that the republicans have a candidate either. I can't imagine what is going to become of our country if any of the three becomes president.

-- Posted by cookie on Thu, Apr 17, 2008, at 7:23 PM

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had at least one candidate that was truly FOR the people he/she was suppose to represent? It seems all we hear these days are what he/she has done or haven't done in their past. Of course things you do in your past do come back and haunt you..but I want to know the facts. Don't tell me what you "want" to do, Tell me what you are "going" to do and tell me how you plan on paying for it. With our economy slipping further and further into the black hole we can not even think about taking on more government funding of any kind. Right now we are borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. It is no wonder why Americans can not control their own budgets when our very own Government sits the example of spending money they don't have. Of course they do have one thing we don't have, that's the ability to print more when they run out. Of course that is in fact making our dollar more worthless everyday, pretty soon when you use a dollar it will cost you and extra 50 cents.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Thu, Apr 17, 2008, at 7:25 PM

I dont believe either party has a candidate. It breaks my heart that out of all the people to run for president, we cant find one single person interested in the people. I was talking to a friend of mine (Chris Brown) today who is running for state rep. We were talking about all the issues we have here locally and that even on the local level we cant get anyone to represent us. I have come to realize that it has nothing to do with your ability to represent and listen to a group of people, but all about how much money you have. So if we cant get people on the local level to represent us without corruption, then how are we ever gonna get a Pres. to put our views in front of theirs.(Sorry if I hijacked your blog Mr. Melson)

-- Posted by greasemonkey on Thu, Apr 17, 2008, at 8:22 PM

I have been a true Republican for 30 years, but I honestly think I would vote for Clinton before McCain. Im almost to the point that I would vote for Evil Monkey before any of them, and he is the biggest knuckle head that I've even seen.

-- Posted by seedsower on Thu, Apr 17, 2008, at 10:31 PM

Anyone here remember when we had democrats and republicans fighting to claim the same candidates?

Someone like General Eisenhower was so respected by people of all stripes that he had a choice as to which party would offer him as their nominee.

It's been a while since the voters liked Ike but I'm worried that we'll not only fail to have candidates worth courting,we'll have blood running in the streets as people try to foist the unacceptables onto someone else.

Oh well,there's always Kinky Friedman...

-- Posted by quantumcat on Thu, Apr 17, 2008, at 11:08 PM

Maybe they should do what Jesse Ventura recently suggested on CNN, which is to put "none of the above" on the ballot. That way if citizens don't like any of the candidates, but still want to participate, they can cast a "no confidence" vote. Then if "none of the above" wins, they would have to change the system, or find better candidates.

-- Posted by Richard on Thu, Apr 17, 2008, at 11:16 PM

Really Seedsower? I find alot of the stuff you have said in the past to be quite... well lets just say I felt I lost a few brain cells reading your comments. And BTW what makes you think I am a male? I have never once stated my gender nor have you seen me.

Ron Paul is still campaigning btw. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ Pretty sad how the press doesn't let you know that. NONE of the networks are even showing that, nor are the newspapers, Totally discredit massmedia nowadays.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 12:57 AM

I have always voted because I felt it was a right that should never be taken for granted because of the many men and women who have died and fought for our right to do so. This year however I just don't know if I can actually bring myself to vote for either candidate(McCain or Obama) because neither one has the ability I think to fix the problems of America . . . one wants to stay with the status quo while the other one has his own agenda and no proven experience. If Clinton was to somehow get the nomination then I might, and I said might, vote for her but there are many things I don't like about her. She would be the lesser evil if against McCain but I am tired of voting for the lesser of two undesirable candidates.

As far as the debate between Obama and Clinton, all I got out of it was that Obama has way too many questions surrounding him and seems upset that anyone questions that and doesn't seem to be able to define what he truly stands for. As for Clinton, she spends way too much time exerting negative energy and in attacking Obama while she should be cleaning the skeletons out of her own closet and get her facts straight. McCain on the other hand though has no clue about the economy and pretty much believes we should remain on Bush's course in Iraq. He really seems to have no clue about anything.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 6:48 AM

Are we going to spend a lot of time between now and November fretting over the fact we have NO worthy presidential candidate?

Think of all the money that will be squandered, money that could be put to better use, while neither major party has the guts to admit America needs and wants a truly worthy candidate.

Is it time to think America rather than Democrat or Republican? Do those who think and live only politics at our expense owe us that?

-- Posted by bomelson on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 8:42 AM

I also DO NOT know who to vote for anymore....Clinton I believe also does alot of talking and putting down Obama...Then Obama spends alot of his time explaning all the bad stuff Clinton has said about him...To me McCain does alot of talking about nothing and I find anyone that smiles as much as him has something to hide..McCain now is talking of taking the taxes off the gas for the summer..I thought that with the taxes on the gas it pays for all our road repairs..I think it would be nice to save what ever we can on gas BUT we never get anything for nothing..So something seems a little funny about that...I want to vote..But I do not know who to vote for anymore..If I do not vote then who ever get's voted in I really will not have a right to complain about how things are going...How do we vote when we do not have anyone good to vote for...I vote YES for putting in NONE OF THE ABOVE..

-- Posted by rebelrose on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 10:13 AM

Two words: Dave Barry.

-- Posted by Jicarney on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 10:20 AM

The problem with "none of the above" is there are die-heart Obama Fans and die heart McCain fans just like there are die-heart Clinton fans. If none of the above don't receive as many votes as any of the other candidates wouldn't it be the same as not voting at all? Would anyone actually pay any attention to the none of the above votes?

On the Ron Paul issue? Is he running on the Green Party ticket now or Independent? He lost on the Republican ticket but I haven't heard anything about him running in a different party.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 10:42 AM

Dianatn..You are right..But it did sound good for a little while...By now I always knew who I was going to vote for...But not this time...I hope when it comes time for us to vote that we do not have only a certain amount of time to stand behind the curtain to vote..Cause i may be standing there for a while still tring to decide if something doesn't change soon to help me pick who I am going to vote for..

-- Posted by rebelrose on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 10:54 AM


He is still on the republican ticket in the PA primaries. No clue about the other states. I would find it funny if he won:)

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 10:56 AM

I presume a Dave Barry candidacy would be like a Pat Paulsen candidacy?

-- Posted by stevemills on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 11:37 AM

I think Britain has a system where you can vote "No" on a candidate or issue-not just "yes".

You can also demand a "do-over" at any time if you can prove it's warranted.

We can either vote for a candidate or not at all and our recall and impeachment processes are seldom used.

I think the voters should participate in the whole process at all times.

Instead,we are remembered when it's time to pick new officials and pretty much out of the equation the rest of the time.

I'd prefer we be a bit more active in the operation of our government and become more involved in structures like the Scandanavian 'thing' or town meetings.

Work on the local level would prepare us for inclusion in the upper level organizations.

The more that is expected of the people,the more they can deliver-and the more they can extract from those they install in positions of trust.

When we stay passive and uninformed,we make ourselves vulnerable to the incompetent or unethical.

We need to not only demand good public servants but work for the common good ourselves by knowing the issues,dealing with small-scale matters on our own and growing our own leaders.

Then,we need to serve as a constant reminder that the government acts as the agent of the people as a whole.

The constituents are its partners in serving the community on a local,national and international basis.

They are not its puppetmasters nor the livestock it feeds upon.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 12:36 PM

Ok enlighten me here John McCain has enough delegates to secure the nomination there is no way Ron Paul will ever get enough delegates to win on the Republican ticket, am I correct in saying that?

So is he continuing to run just to make a statement? And what about all the money he would be spending to run knowing he will never get into the general election?

Don't get me wrong I wish he did have a chance but it seems to me he would have been better off running as an Independent.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 1:05 PM


It doesn't matter on the amount of delegates unless you want to have a republican nomination and backing from that party. He can run for President as a republican, he just won't have their backing or funding.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 2:22 PM

The problem is we don't have any true statesmen any more. The country needs a truly deep thinking, objective leader and there just aren't any around. All of our politicians are so tied to their respective party's ideology or are so dependent on corporate cash that they can't think for themselves.

Our media is too focused on digging dirt and pointing out trivial shortcomings of each candidate rather than asking each candidate to elaborate on the issues that they (the candidates) feel are the nation's top priorities. The debate between Obama and Clinton the other night in Philadelphia was a prime example. George Stephanopolos(sp) and Charles Gibson were too concerned with asking meaningless questions of each candidate that citizens viewing the debate came away without knowing any more about the candidates' true stand on many of the issues.

The whole campaign process is just sad really.

-- Posted by volfanatic on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 2:33 PM

How would you react to a candidate who would put one group of Americans out of work, the huge number of bureaucrats who wouldn't know how to turn in an honest day or work, only add to the out-of-control federal spending, and let this group hack out a living like everyone else?

-- Posted by bomelson on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 4:05 PM

Bob Barr is considering a run on the Libertarion ticket. He is strong on the second admendant. Other than that I know nothing about him.

-- Posted by jim8377 on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 4:27 PM

Obama seems to be ashamed of his white heritage.


-- Posted by jim8377 on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 4:28 PM

Yea EM I realize he can run but why would he run as a Republican when they won't back him? I always looked at Ron Paul as more of an Independent than a Republican anyway. There are a lot of party voters out there so maybe he is hoping that the Republicans who refuse to vote for McCain but will not vote for a Democrat will throw him their votes. I just don't see it as being enough..I wish I was wrong though. I also think he would do better on a Independent ticket than a Republican ticket because his views are way off line to be Republican.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 4:35 PM

Let me start by saying that I was born a republicrat, that is one of my parents was a republican and the other was a democrat. So needless to say, I have always been alittle confussed as to what I am. Nonetheless, I fear that if McCain is elected we (Americans) may become worse off than what than we are today. Then I get to thinking that the last time the budget (or whatever it is called) was balanced and things were looking pretty good economically, it took a democrat. Maybe Hillary was right in one of her debates, it took a Clinton to clean up after one Bush and it looks like it may take another Clinton to clean up after the second Bush.

-- Posted by lmarlow on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 4:35 PM


I understand what you are saying but I don't feel the questions were meaningless although I do think the answers were very meaningless.

-- Posted by Dianatn on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 4:37 PM

I would love to elect a candidate who can insure that people who knew what they were doing were turned loose to do it.

The rest should be taught how to accomplish something positive.

If they can't do it,get them into an assistance program.

If they won't,let them fend for themselves without support from the dole or criminal activity.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 8:01 PM

Thank goodness Evil Monkey still doesn't agree with my posts. I was begining to think I was becoming a retard like him, uh her, uh I mean it.

-- Posted by seedsower on Fri, Apr 18, 2008, at 11:24 PM

Hey,do y'all realize how dumb it is to use terms like "retard" that way?

It sounds really lame-like something some spaz or moron would say.

So try not to be so gay when you're choosing words to slag folks,o.k.?

Then,people won't mistake you for an idiot.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Sat, Apr 19, 2008, at 12:52 AM


Maybe we can meet sometime and you can tell me how you feel since you clearly have some weird fascination with me.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Sat, Apr 19, 2008, at 7:49 AM

When the choice is between two lawyers and a War hero, I'll take whoever isn't the lawyer every time.

-- Posted by Farmer Bill on Sat, Apr 19, 2008, at 8:10 AM

Unfortunately the war hero only knows about war (and questionable about that) and has no clue about the economy. Doesn't sound like a winning combination to me . . . unless you believe that President Bush did a fantastic job but then you probably believe in the Easter bunny too.

-- Posted by jaxspike on Sat, Apr 19, 2008, at 9:06 AM

Evil Monkey . . .havent you seen Fatal Attraction. You never know how that person might be. LOL!

-- Posted by jaxspike on Sat, Apr 19, 2008, at 9:07 AM


-- Posted by seedsower on Sat, Apr 19, 2008, at 12:01 PM

The Easter Bunny HATED Fatal Attraction

-even though he adores Glenn Close,Michael Douglas and Anne Archer.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Sat, Apr 19, 2008, at 12:54 PM

Retard, is what (Elementary KIDS) say when they don't like someone.

-- Posted by Momof3&3step&1gran on Sat, Apr 19, 2008, at 1:20 PM


Wow what a coward, I open the door and you merely ring the doorbell and run away while everyone is watching. I gave you the opportunity to voice your concern to my face but instead you have call people names. You are such a pillar to our society ...

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Sat, Apr 19, 2008, at 7:10 PM

A pillar? Isn't that what a retard like you lays your head on at night. By the way...have you figured out if you're a boy or a girl yet?

-- Posted by seedsower on Sun, Apr 20, 2008, at 1:12 AM

Haha, what a coward. Keep hiding.

-- Posted by Evil Monkey on Sun, Apr 20, 2008, at 8:38 AM

Evil Monkey is neither a boy or a girl.

EM is an adult.

The grown-ups here like debating with adults but the T_G might have problems with our talking to the playground set without their folks' permission.

Those of y'all who still have maturing to do can give John Carney their permission slips and I bet you'd be allowed to continue to blog so long as you aren't disruptive.

-- Posted by quantumcat on Sun, Apr 20, 2008, at 12:42 PM

Quantumqueer, no one even mentioned your retarded name. Why did you even get involved with something between the the Bi-gendered monkey. Maybe when puberty kicks in IT will find out what IT is.

-- Posted by seedsower on Sun, Apr 20, 2008, at 12:56 PM

Quantumqueer-- Posted by seedsower on Sun, Apr 20, 2008, at 12:56 PM

I hope everyone will just ignore anything further you have to say.

This is the story of seedsower. You don't go on to verse 8.

Mat 13:3 And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

Mat 13:4 And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:

Mat 13:5 Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:

Mat 13:6 And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

Mat 13:7 And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them: STOP

-- Posted by devan on Sun, Apr 20, 2008, at 2:15 PM

Queer means strange or odd. Homosexuals ruin the meaning of perfectly good words such as gay and queer.

-- Posted by seedsower on Sun, Apr 20, 2008, at 7:53 PM

Words get changed by people of all stripes all the time.

Does anyone know the sexual preference of the folks who changed gossips from spiritual brothers and sisters and hussies from respectable married women?

When did starving change from cold to hungry?

Amused once meant pole-axed instead of entertained and glamorous refered to illusion.

Sophisticated went from referring to glib but fallacious arguments to the unnatural and adulterated to clever and elegant.

Nice and lewd used to be synonyms meaning ignorant.

Silly once meant blessed.

A girl who was a harlot meant a youth who was a boy.

A deer eating corn might have referred to a pig eating rye as easily as a creature with antlers eating maize.

Linguistic drift occurs for many reasons but deliberate distortion by a segment of society isn't a typical cause.

There is a word that has referred to female dogs,kitchen maids,slovenly people of both sexes and the promiscuous.

The word (rhymes with hut) IS being purposely adopted nowadays by an "alternate lifestyle" group.

(I don't think the mainstream folk were using it much,though.)

We have to be careful how we use words if we don't want their definitions to evolve and expand.

If we want to use the old definitions,don't ever call me brave.

(But,I'd be honored if you called me a cretin.)

-- Posted by quantumcat on Mon, Apr 21, 2008, at 3:04 AM

Woo Hoo Hillary took PA by double digits. :>)

-- Posted by Dianatn on Tue, Apr 22, 2008, at 10:51 PM

Yes she did. I just wonder if it's too late. Those two need to come together, (or a big time Democrat needs to run with Hillary, one that is loved by all communities) ASAP.

-- Posted by darrick_04 on Thu, Apr 24, 2008, at 7:06 AM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.


Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.

Bo Melson is a retired sports and police beat editor of the Times-Gazette. He passed away November 15, 2014, at age 81.
Hot topics
Your Dreams
(16 ~ 8:53 AM, Nov 25)

Shelbyville Mills School
(779 ~ 11:40 PM, Nov 17)

Hope I'm Wrong, But-
(6 ~ 9:51 PM, Nov 8)

More Annoying Television Ads
(11 ~ 2:23 PM, Oct 31)

Just Some Thoughts
(93 ~ 2:43 PM, Aug 26)