2005 McCain, or 2008 McCain, which one is real?

[Zeradul]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/28/mccain-strongly-rejected_n_99082.html

He reminds me of Hillary as far as they both seem to say literally anything will boost their chances, and not what is right, not what they think, and CERTAINLY not what they plan to do in office.

I cannot vote for either.  I demand that any candidate that I vote for is honest with me on what they think about current issues, and if a candidate does not respect the voters enough to do that, then they can go to hell.  This is too important to vote for someone you "HOPE" does the right thing when they get into office, and it's the not knowing for sure that is a real problem.

And if the Democrats steal this nomination from Obama who has mathematically already won, I will laugh, and then I will cry.  This is what the superdelegates were designed for, ENDING CLOSE RACES once the balances have clearly tipped one way or another.  They aren't living up to their obligations.

[Mnementh]

So I would ask you, are you the exact same person you were 3 years ago?  Do you hold ALL the same viewpoints and opinions that you did in 2005?  If you answer yes, then I'd call you a stagnant ignoramus.  The very nature of knowledge and opinions is that they always need to stay within a state of flux, always changing and adapting, integrating new information and natural growth, morphing to stay up-to-date with the age and the times.  This is the same flip-flop crap that the Republicans brought out against Kerry.  So McCain's viewpoints changed?  When they stop changing is when I'll start to get nervous. 

And if you want honesty, you should not be looking for it in politicians.  Of course they are going to say whatever they need to so they can get elected.  That is their job.  It is also a part of their job description that they be able to lie and that they be good at it.

I do agree with you about the Super Delegates...they need to vote in a way that reflects the wishes of the voters.

[Zeradul]

So I would ask you, are you the exact same person you were 3 years ago?

Good Point.  I have more of a problem with his changing stance without giving reasons supporting his change in stance.  All of his comments from 2005 were valid, and still are.  It terrifies me to see such wholesale change without serious reasons.  It also makes me wonder what those "reasons" are exactly.

I think you'd agree, if you're going to do a 180 on a topic, you need to either have discovered some serious flaw in your previous thinking, or the evidence for the new idea must be substantial, or at least in excess of the evidence supporting your old view.

Of course they are going to say whatever they need to so they can get elected.  That is their job.

Yes, but they can also get elected by earning our votes by being up front and honest with us.  I also respect the need to be a good liar, but ideally that generally should be reserved for lieing to one's enemies, and the people are not the enemy.

[joel]

Just accept that he's going to be your president already.

[Zeradul]

Not Funny!

If the Democrats can't win this election, then they are completely irrelevant, and we are down to a one party system.  The superdelegates need to do their job and AXE Hillary now, because every statistical scale has clearly tipped in Obama's favor.  That is their purpose, to end the race before the convention, to keep the party from tearing itself apart.

This election has literally been gift wrapped for them.  If they can't seal the deal, then the party might as well not exist.