Hillary Clinton says she's ready to be Obama's VP

[Reddogs]

Hillary Clinton now wants the VP slot..............

"...Clinton says she's ready to be Obama's VP

Sen. Hillary Clinton on Tuesday told New York lawmakers she is open to being the running mate of Sen. Barack Obama, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, two of the lawmakers told CNN.

Sen. Hillary Clinton trails Obama by 159 delegates and is 201 delegates shy of capturing the nomination.

1 of 2 Rep. Charles Rangel, a senior member of the New York Democratic delegation, also told CNN, "I have reason to believe she is open to the [vice president] slot."

One of the sources added that former President Clinton has been privately pushing for a couple of weeks for his wife to be No. 2 on the ticket.

On Monday night, a close friend and adviser of the former first lady told CNN Clinton will say tonight "that she will do whatever it takes" to put a Democrat in the White House. Barack Obama insiders saw that as an indication she would accept an offer to be his running mate if asked.

"In her speech [Tuesday] night, she will convey the message that first and foremost she is committed to Democrats winning in November and will do whatever she's asked to do," the Clinton adviser said....."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/03/election.democrats/index.html

[Dr. Shane]

I am about 80% sure I will vote for McCain if Hillary Clinton is Obama's VP.

[Bravus]

Angels and ministers of grace preserve us

[Dr. Shane]

I will be surprised if she is the VP but I think she is guaranteed a cabinet position.

[Jeannieb43]

I am about 80% sure I will vote for McCain if Hillary Clinton is Obama's VP.

You have no idea what you're asking for.

McCain said in a speech that his choices for Supreme Court Justices will be "in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas." [i saw that statement replayed on TV the other night.] He was speaking in code to his radical right wing supporters that he will do their bidding. But he didn't come right out and say just what that bidding will include. It will include:

Reversal of Roe vs. Wade,

Ending the separation of church and state,

Outlawing abortion,

Denying a woman's right to choose,

Allowing execution of juvenile offenders.

He didn't want to say those words, because he knew the general voting public would never stand for it. But to the "insiders" of the Repubs, he was speaking clearly. Though in code.

This was discussed by Jeffrey Toobin on PBS and also in a NEW YORKER article last week.

Not only would McCain be G.W.B. the Second, but he would be worse. The Iraq War and the Recession would be the least of our worries if he's elected. And since Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, his appointments could possibly adversely affect our personal rights in America for the next 40 years.

[Dr. Shane]

His Supreme Court appointees are perhaps the biggest reason I will vote for McCain, if I do. Obama's judicial philosophy is certainly worrisome.

Roe V. Wade should be reversed. It was bad law. Whether or not abortion is legal should be a decision made by the people in the voting booth. Not by men in black. I favor keeping abortion legal but passing laws to discourage it - much like tobacco is. However I trust the people enough to make that decision at the polls. There is not right to abortion in the Constitution. Only an activist judge can read one into it. It is very important to understand that reversing Roe v. Wade would not outlaw abortion. It will not. It will give the individual states the responsibility of deciding if abortion should be legal or illegal.

The Adventist Religious Liberty department has given Chief Justice Roberts very high marks for his rulings in regard to religious liberty. I see no reason to believe he intends to abolish the separation of church and state. Justice Thomas and Scalia are constructionists. That means they read the Constitution literally and try to interpret it in the light of what the founders and those adding Amendments intended. The opposing view sees the Constitution as a "living documents." That means the right to bare arms in 1789 may have given citizens the right to own guns but in 2008 it gives state governments the right to a National Guard. Definitions of rights can actually be changed just by a judge's opinion. I think our freedom of religion is safer under constructionists than under those that believe the Constitution to be a living document. So McCain's pledge to appoint constructionists makes me feel more secure about my religious liberty.

[Jeannieb43]

His Supreme Court appointees are perhaps the biggest reason I will vote for McCain, if I do. Obama's judicial philosophy is certainly worrisome.

Do you even know what Obama's judicial philosophy is?? If so, where did you study it?

Quote:

Roe V. Wade should be reversed. It was bad law. Whether or not abortion is legal should be a decision made by the people in the voting booth. Not by men in black. I favor keeping abortion legal but passing laws to discourage it - much like tobacco is. However I trust the people enough to make that decision at the polls.

You would give any other human being (your neighbor, your congressperson, or a majority of any group of people) the power to decide whether your wife could elect to have an abortion in order to save her life in an emergency!?? I find this impossible to fathom. I would agree only to holding my own life in my own hands, together with my doctor's. It is NObody else's business but my own! It should not be legislated OR voted upon.

It's obvious, Shane, that your family has never been critically ill, never had the choice of an abortion to save the life of a mother. But those things happen - every day. To tie the hands of the doctors and their very sick patients by some black-robed judge, or some majority of ill-informed citizens, is pure hogwash.

All such rulings would do is to force poor people into the hands of back-alley treatments, risking their deaths from hemorrhage or infection in the process.

Quote:

The Adventist Religious Liberty department has given Chief Justice Roberts very high marks for his rulings in regard to religious liberty. I see no reason to believe he intends to abolish the separation of church and state.

Just because you haven't seen such a reason doesn't mean such reasons do not exist.

Try to obtain a copy of the latest NEW YORKER and read Jeffrey Toobin's article on McCain's Court. It's positively scary. McCain is totally in the pocket of the Radical Right; they're pulling his puppet strings.

Quote:

Justice Thomas and Scalia are constructionists.

The term is "strict constructionists," not "constructionists." This means they purport to construe (i.e., interpret) the law strictly (i.e., according to the clear meaning of the words as written). Trouble is, as any theologian will tell you, The Holy Bible is a translation--a revision--because none of us can read the original Greek or Hebrew. So, every version of the Bible [KJV, NIV, NKJV, etc.] is of itself a translation! No two people will give the same meaning to a set of phrases.

Likewise, the "strict constructionists" may construe a portion of the Constitution to grant or inhibit certain freedoms which other interpretations would not agree with.

Quote:

I think our freedom of religion is safer under constructionists than under those that believe the Constitution to be a living document. So McCain's pledge to appoint constructionists makes me feel more secure about my religious liberty.

Here again, I think you mean strict constructionists. If only we could be sure that such Justices truly exist in the real world.

[Reddogs]

Originally Posted By: Shane

His Supreme Court appointees are perhaps the biggest reason I will vote for McCain, if I do. Obama's judicial philosophy is certainly worrisome.

Do you even know what Obama's judicial philosophy is?? If so, where did you study it?

Quote:

Roe V. Wade should be reversed. It was bad law. Whether or not abortion is legal should be a decision made by the people in the voting booth. Not by men in black. I favor keeping abortion legal but passing laws to discourage it - much like tobacco is. However I trust the people enough to make that decision at the polls.

You would give any other human being (your neighbor, your congressperson, or a majority of any group of people) the power to decide whether your wife could elect to have an abortion in order to save her life in an emergency!?? I find this impossible to fathom. I would agree only to holding my own life in my own hands, together with my doctor's. It is NObody else's business but my own! It should not be legislated OR voted upon.

It's obvious, Shane, that your family has never been critically ill, never had the choice of an abortion to save the life of a mother. But those things happen - every day. To tie the hands of the doctors and their very sick patients by some black-robed judge, or some majority of ill-informed citizens, is pure hogwash.

All such rulings would do is to force poor people into the hands of back-alley treatments, risking their deaths from hemorrhage or infection in the process.

Quote:

The Adventist Religious Liberty department has given Chief Justice Roberts very high marks for his rulings in regard to religious liberty. I see no reason to believe he intends to abolish the separation of church and state.

Just because you haven't seen such a reason doesn't mean such reasons do not exist.

Try to obtain a copy of the latest NEW YORKER and read Jeffrey Toobin's article on McCain's Court. It's positively scary. McCain is totally in the pocket of the Radical Right; they're pulling his puppet strings.

Quote:

Justice Thomas and Scalia are constructionists.

The term is "strict constructionists," not "constructionists." This means they purport to construe (i.e., interpret) the law strictly (i.e., according to the clear meaning of the words as written). Trouble is, as any theologian will tell you, The Holy Bible is a translation--a revision--because none of us can read the original Greek or Hebrew. So, every version of the Bible [KJV, NIV, NKJV, etc.] is of itself a translation! No two people will give the same meaning to a set of phrases.

Likewise, the "strict constructionists" may construe a portion of the Constitution to grant or inhibit certain freedoms which other interpretations would not agree with.

Quote:

I think our freedom of religion is safer under constructionists than under those that believe the Constitution to be a living document. So McCain's pledge to appoint constructionists makes me feel more secure about my religious liberty.

Here again, I think you mean strict constructionists. If only we could be sure that such Justices truly exist in the real world.

I hate to tell you but the majority of abortions are just plain murder, nothing to do with saving the life of the mother or some other emergency.......

As for the abolishment of the separation of church and state, we know its going to happen in the last days so there is not reason to fear it, the sooner it comes to pass the sooner Christ appears...

As for our freedom of religion, 9/11 should have shown you that these things can be taken away before you even hear about it.

Many people say they await Christ coming, yet a good number seem to fear it.......

[Dr. Shane]

It is so important that people understand that overturning Roe V. Wade does not ban abortion. It places the issue of abortion in the hands of the people. I think we are right to question why some people fear the people being able to deal with this issue in a fair and just way.

Abortion is illegal in Mexico. Please read it again. Abortion is illegal in Mexico. That is our southern neighbor. Abortion is illegal in Mexico. However. (Please read carefully) Abortion is allowed in cases to save the mother's life or in cases of rape. Did everyone understand that? Abortion is allowed in cases to save the mother's life or in cases of rape. So let's summarize that. Abortion is illegal in Mexico but is allowed in cases to save the mother's life or in cases of rape.

Do we think that the American people, if given the opportunity, would pass an anti-abortion law more restrictive than Mexico?

Quote:

Just because you haven't seen such a reason doesn't mean such reasons do not exist.

Well, we have to judge people on their past. That is the only fair way to judge them. Chief Justice Roberts has a good record on religious liberty. So it isn't even a matter of giving him the benefit of the doubt. Our religious liberty departments tend to lean toward the liberal side. So if they are not concerned about Chief Justice Roberts, I am not going to be either.

Quote:

I think you mean strict constructionists.

I stand corrected. I didn't realize there was more than one kind of constructionist. Certainly those that claim the Constitution is a living document are not constructionists of any type. Of course we cannot interpret the Constitution perfectly as its authors intended but that needs to be the goal. When someone says the Constitution is a living document than a literal interpretation isn't even the goal. That is scary.