http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/05/hillaryclinton.barackobama1

Yeah, just what actors need. More money. What a bunch of privileged rich children. God I fucking hate actors. I'd rather have a drink with George Bush.

Alll he said was this: "At the Aipac meeting, Obama received several standing ovations. ...he yesterday promised that as president he would guarantee Israel's security. He also said that while he favoured talks with Iran, the military option would remain on the table."

HE's only against dumb wars, remember?

Guaranteeing Israel's security. Doesn't that mean if Iran nukes Israel there would be massive retaliation against Iran? Isn;t it better to tell them this in advance, so they don't do it? So isn't his position substantively the same as Clinton's, he just speaks more softly?

You want him to say "OK Iran, you attack Israel, and we won't use the military option"?

What do you want him to say, "my diplomatic approach precludes force"?
The idea is speak softly AND carry a big stick.

unPC the insincerity of everything you have to say about Obama is galling. How does it help him to have a two faced flack like you on his side? Anyone who knows you has to ask, are you lying now or were you lying then? Or does the truth become a lie coming from you?

I believe Hillary "The Obliterator" Clinton subscribes to the Yosemite Sam school of diplomacy: "I speak loud and carry a bigger stick!!"

Anyway, (un)PC, your contributions are appreciated. I look forward to continuing with this Clinton/Obama debate well into the fall.

Oh, and all but a tiny minority of screen actors are not rolling in dough. The guild doesn't exist for the benefit of actors earning $20 million per. It exists for the benefit of actors expected to work 18-hour days for peanuts.

And @19:

It's not a "choice" if you aren't given the option to "choose".

They also made a choice to create a guild. And which sainted Republican used to be president of that guild?

If anyone needed the protection of a guild, it was that hacky actor Ronald Reagan.

I understand that actors have hard lives 99% and they are well within their abilities to try and negotiate better working conditions. but it isn't totally outlandish for someone like poe to harbor resentment against actors complaining about how hard their job is, as if that has some kind of merit in and of itself, or compared to other media related jobs.

NOBODY - and I mean, NOBODY "chooses" to work "18 hour days for peanuts", because no reasonable person would work under those conditions IF they had an alternative. The people who DO work under those conditions do so PRECISELY because they DON'T have a choice in the matter - it's either that or starve.

And I also stated that people do work acting jobs because there is a potential payoff that can be huge at some point and that is why there is always someone willing to take those crappy acting jobs for peanuts. Have you ever not applied for an acting job or turned down a potential offer to act in something because it conflicted with your schedule or because you didn't want to do what was asked of you?

I just don't get this idea that actors don't have a choice in deciding that they wanted to be actors at the onset of searching for an acting job. Or that acting jobs are all that they can do and there exists no alternative employment. "I can either take this job or I'll starve because someone else is willing to do it. Oh why does god force me to be an actor and give me this cruel fate."

There is such a glut of people wanting to be actors that the studios can seek out those that are willing to do things a lot of people would consider unreasonable. The supply of acting jobs is scarce but the demand is huge. Reduce the amount of people that want to be actors and the cost of being an actor will go down.

Consider pharmacist's jobs. Should they be forced to take actions they consider immoral like distributing RU486? and if they should be forced, why? why should a pharmacy or the government give the ultimatum to pharmacists of "be immoral or starve." what alternatives do pharmacists have in this situation?

What about firefighters' jobs? Why should they be forced to stay awake for long shifts and put themselves in danger of injury?

What about soldiers? Why should they be forced to fight in wars they think are wrong? Surely most of the soldiers that enlist have very little alternatives otherwise they wouldnt sign up for something so dangerous and thankless.

I just don't understand how people are entitled to a shorter work hour and higher paying job if there are other people willing to do that same job for less money and longer hours.