www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall What do Democrats think?

The Obama vs the Clintons fight for the nomination is heating up. The party seems to be split between race and sex. To Democrats: does this in-house fighting affect how you would vote in the primary or caucus in your state?

Terry
(I do not use 'gender' because I do not think God was making a distinction of grammar when He made Adam and Eve.)

I prefer Edwards, and I find the fighting between the Obama and Clinton camps undignified and unhelpful. I also think Bill Clinton is not behaving in a dignified, statesman-like way an ex-president should. He was better when he and George Sr. were working together. Americans need to see more of that.

I believe the republican controlled media manufactured both the Clinton and Obama candidacies and is engineering this public mudbath. Neither candidate is viable. Everyone says they would vote for a woman or a black, but in the secrecy of the polling booth they will not vote that way.

Who is viable? Do you mean they are inviable to be nominated by the DNC or that they do not have qualities a President needs?

Just thrilled to no longer be a Democrat. Historically, my family has roots in the Democratic Party. However, most of us have returned to serious practice of the Catholic Faith, and it is extremely difficult to find a Democratic politician one can vote for without committing serious sin. It is rare to find a Democrat candidate who is pro-life, and pro-family (in the way that the Church defines family). Our Senator Casey, in fact, lied about being pro-Life. He has already voted pro-death on a couple of bills, one involving the Mexico City Policy. Northeast Pa. is rather an odd place, politically. Registration is overwhelmingly Democratic. This has roots in the coal-mining history of the area, and ties in with unionism. However, it is a socially conservative region. There is a high degree of church attendance, and there are no abortion clinics between Allentown, Pa., and Binghamton, N.Y. Most local and State Democratic officeholders profess to be pro-life and pro-2nd Amendment, and vote that way. But, as soon as they aspire to higher office, they have to drop all of that, and most of them do. While the local politicians profess Catholic values, they campaign, and obtain votes for, pro-death politicians running for higher office. The whole thing is maddening. When James Timlin was the RC Bishop of Scranton, he told a pro-life gathering which I was attending that "these people of ours have to realize that they are baptized into the Church, and not into a particular political party". I endorse that comment.

In Christ,
Dn. Robert

Sorry...I have to snicker at the notion that the media is "republican controlled". If so, the party is far more self-destructive than I thought, and Chris Matthews is a better liar than anyone ever realized!

You might consider the extensive documentation by the Media Research Center on the liberal bias of the vast majority of media sources in the US. Until FOX News and Conservative Talk Radio, there was nothing that resembled a balanced conservative media outlet...and even then, Fox News is not always consistent.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/welcome.asp

It is such a shame he voted pro-death. What a disgrace to his late father's memory. His Dad worked so hard to protect the unborn. Memory eternal to his father.

Hi Terry,

You asked "What do Democrats think?" about the infighting between Clinton (Mr. and Mrs.) versus Obama. Personally, I think it is a huge time waster and something I don't care about. I think a lot of Democrats feel likewise.

You also asked who was viable. I think Obama and Clinton are viable. We'll see about Edwards; South Carolina and Super Tuesday are coming up. As for the Republicans, I think Romney and McCain are viable; we'll see about Huckabee and Giuliani after Florida and Super Tuesday.

Personally, I'm still undecided about who I will vote for.

-- John

We had some clue as to where he was gravitating. In his Senate campaign, he took money from the Soros people (MoveOn.org), and other pro-aborts. He also says that the "morning-after pill" is not abortifacient, and is only contraceptive (he is dead wrong on that, but for a real Catholic, even that would be a problem), and therefore, he supports government funding of that pill for the poor. Just another politician. His dad was probably the last Casey (and the last Democrat) worth listening to.

Dn. Robert

Little bit of a problem for any Catholic, and any other serious Christian-Mr. Edwards is pro-death. Why doesn't the Democratic Party find it possible to nominate a serious pro-life/pro-family candidate? That would actually be a smart tactical move, and an almost guarantee of victory. The Republicans are slouching in the wrong direction on life issues, in recent days. Serious Christians in the Republican Party are "ill at ease", esp. with people like Rudolph Giuliani.

Dn. Robert

I believe a viable candidate is someone that the majority would vote for. Neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama are viable by that definition regardless of their qualifications.
I know most people claim there is a liberal bias in the news but I have never observed it. Conservatives never get bad press like liberals do. But the observation of bias would depend on whose ox is being gored I guess.

I'm just flummoxed by this claim. Anybody ever hear of a chap by the name of George W. Bush? No bad press? Huh?

Fr David Straut

P.S. I guess to be fair: Some Conservatives of my acquaintance would style Mr Bush as a Liberal, so perhaps the above statement is correct.

LOL! Yes, just look at spending since he has taken office, and his lack of willingness to veto. Of course, he has done quite a bit for the pro-life cause.

As a Republican, I personally think an Obama/Edwards ticket would be a pretty tough ticket to beat. I have a liberal friend who wishes that a certain Consumer Advocate was still running...

God bless,

Gordo

Yes...in some ways he is quite "Reaganesque"...

But given the choice between high taxes and more spending and lower(ed) taxes and more spending, I'll take the latter over the former.

I tend to like to keep the $$$ I earn.

Gordo