Should how previous 2008 presidential candidates vote on issues be in the Presidential forum?

There is discussion about how Hillary Clinton voted on today's FISA bill, which is an improvement of her not voting on it last February. How she votes as a previous presidential candidate is interesting, but it is as relevant as how Joe Biden or Chris Dodd voted, who also were running for President this past primary season.

Is it relevant how previous presidential candidates vote on legislation and get discussed in the post-primary allocated Presidential forum?

controversy again. I'm sick of it.

Just curious....

their purpose, does it?

the primaries.

And trust me, based on past performance, if Hillary was the nominee she would have voted to both give the telecoms immunity and for the FISA legislation in total.

When it was in her interests to avoid taking a stand, she didn't vote.

:thumbsup:

and one of her lousy ass votes which showed a true lack of judgment has cost over 4000 american lives and countless Iraqi lives... the second, Kyl/Lieberman has the potential of taking the lives of more american men and women, not to mention Iranians and could very possible give Bush and Cheney the go ahead to launch WWIII!!!

Those votes have a much greater effect and more far reaching, unfixable consequences that FISA that a president Obama and a dem senate can repair.

You can't bring back the lives of those who lost their lives because of Hillary's complicity in crimes against the nation by the Bush administration!!!

Her vote against the FISA bill today was not only safe for her now, but was a deliberate slap in the face to Obama.

she co-sponsored Dodd's amendment last time - she has a long history of opposing this incarnation of FISA. To twist her vote into something anti-Obama is just insanity.

And Kyl-Lieberman has no binding power. It's a "sense of the Senate" resolution and has no legal impact. Obama didn't even vote on it, so it's hard to claim what his stance on it is.

Let go of the hate.

I will leave it up to the Admins or Mods to tell us where posts should go. The OP would be better suited to send a PM to an Admin or Mod instead of posting this flammatory poll.

This is not meant to be a "flammatory poll". This is actually a poll about whether the relevancy or validity of the Presidential forum should be in question.

Is it a forum to rehash old Primary arguments that have nothing to do with the Presidential race?

Is this forum meant for people to try to bring up arguments or positions of previous presidential candidates that possibly work against the Democratic Presidential candidate?

Should we just let this forum be a free-for-all for people to jab at Obama when it (according to what I am assuming) should be about the 2008 Presidential race?

I've alerted the admins on this, but also wanted to see what would unveil in a poll. Surely it would be nothing but intellectual dishonesty to say that questioning this forum's relevancy?

Why not discuss car prices while we're at it? Wanna buy a Maverick? :rofl:

Thank God

She's still a top tier vice-presidential contender, so she's still very relevant to this forum.

Coincidentally, both Senator Biden and Senator Dodd are vice-presidential contenders as well, so they're relevant to this forum.

What do Hillary's votes have to do with Presidential campaign discussion when she is not the presumptive nominee?

What does her voting record have to with Obama's campaign strategy?

The only thing that happens when Hillary's name is brought up is that the same old arguments from the primaries are restarted. What's the point?

Based on that logic, then they certainly are still running for President, hence this being the "Presidential" forum. I think I get it now...

:hi:

You can make the case that it belongs in the General Discussion board.

but I understand why you don't like it.