Clinton, Obama, or Edwards?

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Is that LXA pursuing state supported terrorism and a nuclear weapons program?

No comment.

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

How nice if I tell you where to put that bubble.

Would you not vote for a President of ChiO because LXA would have a problem with it?

Hm, interesting post or not.

Maybe if you put ASA in I could comment more but I won't.

Oh, you have no comment? Amazing!

[GeekyPenguin]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Please realize first that I don't feel that I have a dog in this fight - yet.

What bothers me is that I've been told by someone in foreign policy that a devout Muslim man cannot be touched by a woman to whom he's not related, that he cannot enter Paradise if it happens. This person then explained that's one of the biggest reasons we're not getting very far with our Middle Eastern policies, as Condeleeza Rice is our Secretary of State.

Now, assuming that he's correct, why would we even entertain the concept of a female president? Wouldn't that put us even further behind in the Middle East?

If you can, put your thoughts about me aside, and discuss this. I'd be interested in hearing if anyone knew if that was correct or not.

I did a little Googling because I had never heard of this and was curious since I've seen Muslim classmates of mine shake hands with other women, and I don't think it's true they can't enter Paradise, but I do think it's a forbidden practice. Several articles also mentioned that Orthodox Jews have the same practice.

I wouldn't really consider this when I voted anyway - maybe Secretary Rice just doesn't shake hands when she meets Muslim men. A bow or head nod would probably suffice.

[mulattogyrl]

I was really torn about this, but the more I learn about him, the more I'm leaning toward Obama.

[mulattogyrl]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Please realize first that I don't feel that I have a dog in this fight - yet.

What bothers me is that I've been told by someone in foreign policy that a devout Muslim man cannot be touched by a woman to whom he's not related, that he cannot enter Paradise if it happens. This person then explained that's one of the biggest reasons we're not getting very far with our Middle Eastern policies, as Condeleeza Rice is our Secretary of State.

Now, assuming that he's correct, why would we even entertain the concept of a female president? Wouldn't that put us even further behind in the Middle East?

If you can, put your thoughts about me aside, and discuss this. I'd be interested in hearing if anyone knew if that was correct or not.

I don't know where this person got this info from, because there have been female Muslim leaders throughout history:

http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Muslim_Leaders.htm

[Munchkin03]

I am debating between Obama and Clinton. I think Hillary is too much of a flip-flopper, though, and will do anything to please her audience. I really want Obama to get more experience in the Senate, though.

John Edwards (and his wife too!) is spending too much time lashing out at the other candidates. What is he bringing to the table?

[AKA_Monet]

I hate to mean, but that's another reason why the Demoncrats will not win the WH in 2008...

McCain vs Romney, hands down.

Do I support them? No, I donated money to Obama's campaign. I think he means well. But under pressure, what can he do?

Now, Michelle Obama has my vote anyday! That chick is tight! In fact she does wear Prada...

[justabeachbrat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

You mean like Reagan?

Actually, yes.

Re: Reagan. despite pretty commercials, was it a new dawn in America, or whatever, and being able to deliver a good speech, (perhaps a skill from his acting days), I feel he didn't "see" the poor and needy. If you don't address them, they don't just go away.

Would perfer Obama to Clinton or Edwards. But I think it is much too soon for any of them to be too secure. First, the election campaigning began way too soon--the alleged frontrunners run the risk of becoming very stale. That is why I think there is more than enough time for someone else to take the ball and run.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by mulattogyrl

I don't know where this person got this info from, because there have been female Muslim leaders throughout history:

http://www.guide2womenleaders.com/Muslim_Leaders.htm

He's in one of the US's international security programs, and has been there for several years/administrations. I would consider him an impeccable source.

Maybe they do simply nod or bow instead, I don't know. I did read it somewhere recently, but that source was much less "pure".

It probably is a difference between the sects. After all, some Muslim women simply cover their heads, others wear the veil, still others cover their entire body. I did find this passage which states that an engaged couple should not hold hands.

I will definitely ask my friend further questions, and continue to check the internet for further enlightenment on this.

[AGDee]

I'm leaning toward Edwards of the three. I think it's time for some newer blood rather than have a Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton era. Hilary is polarizing. Obama is charming and well spoken and can impress a crowd, but he offers few details about how he will do all that he promises. That leaves Edwards, who I really have no complaints about at all.

[LeslieAGD]

So far, I like Hilary. I haven't really heard much from Obama and Edwards that is changing my mind.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by justabeachbrat

Actually, yes.

Re: Reagan. despite pretty commercials, was it a new dawn in America, or whatever, and being able to deliver a good speech, (perhaps a skill from his acting days), I feel he didn't "see" the poor and needy. If you don't address them, they don't just go away.

Remember when you posted about "foreign policy" and "learning on the job" . . . and how a governor couldn't do it?

That's what I responded to - also, I'm not sure what you mean by "Reagan didn't see the poor and needy", and I suspect you really don't either.

Honestly, most of the front-line candidates lack experience in one major area or another - unless you can give me a valid reason why that experience is completely necessary (or even beneficial - "practice makes permanent" after all), it seems like nonsense to me.

[mulattogyrl]

Originally Posted by honeychile

He's in one of the US's international security programs, and has been there for several years/administrations. I would consider him an impeccable source.

Maybe they do simply nod or bow instead, I don't know. I did read it somewhere recently, but that source was much less "pure".

It probably is a difference between the sects. After all, some Muslim women simply cover their heads, others wear the veil, still others cover their entire body. I did find this passage which states that an engaged couple should not hold hands.

I will definitely ask my friend further questions, and continue to check the internet for further enlightenment on this.

There are some differences between sects, but there are more differences between cultures. The issue of women covering is moreso a difference in culture. There are rules between men and women that Americans are definitely not used to, but I always thought that we accommodated to other people's cultures anyway - like instead of a woman president shaking hands, she would just nod in acknowledgement.

Unmarried men and women are supposed to keep their distance from each other, but I was just questioning 'or they won't go to heaven' part. Things are interpreted differently depending on the part of the country/culture/sect/etc.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by mulattogyrl

Unmarried men and women are supposed to keep their distance from each other, but I was just questioning 'or they won't go to heaven' part. Things are interpreted differently depending on the part of the country/culture/sect/etc.

That part bothers me, too - it just seemed a bit "stiff" and I do of Muslim men who have been touched by a woman to whom they weren't married.

My friend is on vacation, so it will be at least a week until I find out his "why".

[KDAngel]

While I'm not a Democrat or fans of any of the aforementioned candidates, I must say throwing Edwards into the mix is a joke. I grew up in NC (24yrs) and just moved from there in May and what the rest of the country has yet to realize is that NC doesn't even like Edwards. He's a joke on so many levels. He has no shot, nor does he deserve one.

And while I hate to think of a Clinton administration, especially now that I'm living and working in DC, I think she's far superior to Edwards or Obama.