2008 U.S. Presidential Election Mega thread

[Dazzler]

didn't you not like Obama LONG before the "bitter" bullshit?

Yes, I've never been a fan.

That doesn't change the fact that any concession from me wouldn't be forthcoming once the topic of of that bitter garbage came into play. That may seem small to some people, but that's not surprising. He's not incorrect in his assessment of that situation. People in the rural labor communities DO feel disconnected and out of synch with much of the government. The issue I take is this seeming attitude that they feel that way because of some perceived unenlightenment; that the issues that are important to them are only so because they don't know any better. On a personal level, I find that gross. It seems even more appalling that it was said here in San Francsico, where the working class experience is an entirely different thing than back in the coal fields or steel factories. Not to mention that it was just grossly sweeping and generalizing.
If he wanted people to respect that opinion, and find it less condescending, then why not say it TO the communities he's talking about.
I'd be willing to lay bets that visiting a very blue-collar community and talking about them feeling out of touch with the government would have gone down a helluva lot better than speaking it in a place that the issues discussed could only seem like a confederacy of self-important people discussing the less fortunate like they weren't even there and needed their ever-so-invaluble help.

--Dazz

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Surely you must be mistaken, because Paul has stated many times how he can disagree with everyone besides me and never hurl an insult or attack them personally... :rolleyes:

You know, Sam: you argue some positions that I find utterly abhorrent. I won't lie about that. Some positions that I find.... insulting.

But. In arguing them, I've never felt personally insulted. Or like you were trying to one-up me. Or had something about yourself you felt you wanted to prove. Or that you intended to demean.

I appriciate it. In some ways, it's taking a high road.

[Dazzler]

As an aside, which one of you guys signed me up for the Barack Obama supporter newsletter?

I just got like 20 of them in my mailbox.

--Dazz

[Sabrinaset]

As an aside, which one of you guys signed me up for the Barack Obama supporter newsletter?

I just got like 20 of them in my mailbox.

--Dazz

Okay yes, your mailbox was stuffed, but c'mon, I just got a free dinner at Sizzler!

[Dazzler]

Okay yes, your mailbox was stuffed, but c'mon, I just got a free dinner at Sizzler!

Shall we trade?

I'm dying for a decent steak and dessert buffet.

--Dazz

[Sabrinaset]

Shall we trade?

I'm dying for a decent steak and dessert buffet.

--Dazz

I send twenty MORE Obama newsletters your way, and I get upgraded to a free dinner at Famous Dave's!

[section 8]

Yes, I've never been a fan.

That doesn't change the fact that any concession from me wouldn't be forthcoming once the topic of of that bitter garbage came into play. That may seem small to some people, but that's not surprising. He's not incorrect in his assessment of that situation. People in the rural labor communities DO feel disconnected and out of synch with much of the government. The issue I take is this seeming attitude that they feel that way because of some perceived unenlightenment; that the issues that are important to them are only so because they don't know any better. On a personal level, I find that gross. It seems even more appalling that it was said here in San Francsico, where the working class experience is an entirely different thing than back in the coal fields or steel factories. Not to mention that it was just grossly sweeping and generalizing.
If he wanted people to respect that opinion, and find it less condescending, then why not say it TO the communities he's talking about.
I'd be willing to lay bets that visiting a very blue-collar community and talking about them feeling out of touch with the government would have gone down a helluva lot better than speaking it in a place that the issues discussed could only seem like a confederacy of self-important people discussing the less fortunate like they weren't even there and needed their ever-so-invaluble help.

--Dazz

+1preach it!!

[Dazzler]

I send twenty MORE Obama newsletters your way, and I get upgraded to a free dinner at Famous Dave's!

:tongue:

Well.....send em.

But only if I get to share your entree.

And I get all your dessert.

--Dazz

[Infra-Man]

On the note of people commenting about the working-class/average voter and notions of elitism (whether perceived or genuine), I saw a review on Salon for the forthcoming book Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter.

Seems intentionally incendiary given the provocative title and the jacket description:

In Just How Stupid Are We?, best-selling historian and renowned myth-buster Rick Shenkman takes aim at our great national piety: the wisdom of the American people. The hard truth is that American democracy is more direct than ever-but voters are misusing, abusing, and abdicating their political power. Americans are paying less and less attention to politics at a time when they need to pay much more: Television has dumbed politics down to the basest possible level, while the real workings of politics have become vastly more complicated.

Don't know if I necessarily agree with the idea that the people are stupid (though it seems like there are a bunch of rubes out there), but I think many people just don't pay attention.

I'm kind of curious about how this book will attempt to prove its thesis. I'll probably flip through it at the store and see what it's like.

[section 8]

not stupid
careless, selfish, lazy, and ignorant, but not stupid

[Infra-Man]

not stupid
careless, selfish, lazy, and ignorant, but not stupid

Those two are likely the key ones, and they're interrelated.

[section 8]

i forgot "short-sighted" but that one kinda falls under "ignorant".

[rick]

You'll forgive me to think your talking about me in that. You do know I supported Michael Steele for his senate campaign in Maryland. He was the one who your side did racist caricatures of and threw oreo cookies at him during a speach...


Interesting how Steele and his communications manager were the only ones who ever saw those flying cookies.


The debate moderator didn't see any and the events center operations manager in charge of cleaning the venue up reported no cookies afterwards.

Funny how that works.

[rick]

Like conservatives don't have the race card played against them all the time... :rolleyes:


It's because so many conservatives are in fact racists.


Again, funny how that works out.

[section 8]

It's because so many conservatives are in fact racists.


Again, funny how that works out.

and many liberals are on drugs?
Can we keep the generalizations to a minimum here?

[FalconX2000]

Actually, if you remember the article Crowley posted a few pages back, Obama used to be naff at it and trained himself to be good.

Yeah. If you take a look at how Obama speaks when he's tired and sleep deprived in the Senate, he sounds duller than John Kerry actually. Check out his last questioning of General Patraeus, which was brilliantly structured but you could fall asleep listening to if you weren't naturally interested in the subject matter.

[FalconX2000]

Oh, please, with this 'Dazzler's Attitude' bullshit. You don't know the man, so let's not conjecture. I know him very well, and it's complete nonsense to say that 'using those papers as TP' is racist. What does that have to do with race? At all? In any way? What's the link?

He supported Hillary. He dislikes Obama for a few reasons. His supporters out here are strident. When West Virginia had it's primaries, Hillary campaigned in the state and Obama said West Virginia was 'not important'. Dazz is a damn proud son of West Virginia, and the son of a coal miner. Who's he supposed to support... the candidate who came and talked with the coal miners and rural folk of West Virginia, or the one who dismissed the state? And the people of the state (Sorry: 'clinging to guns and religion' is plain old condescending.) The people who he grew up with and who he loves.

So, are we now saying that you're either voting for Obama or a racist? Isn't it possible not to support the man for..... I don't know..... his campaigning and politics rather than his race? Is it more racist to reduce his candidacy to a 'yea or nay' on racism, or to actually, like, treat him by the same yardstick as any other candidate and coming to conclusions based on their words and record? What the fuck?

Yeah, lots of y'all disagree with Dazz on Obama. Yeah, Dazz is a guy who uses vulgarity to express disappointment. But y'all are reaching really far there, and I think it plain 'ol sucks.

You've just invented all those reasons in your own head (unless I've missed some posts, feel free to correct me if more than one person accused Dazz of racism).

We're slamming Dazzler because Obama and Clinton agree on 98% of their policy, Obama has given Clinton plenty of room for her and her supporters to absorb the loss, yet Dazzler wants to vote against all his own political interests out of spite. He is slamming Obama for reasons that exist only in the minds of people who make mountains out of moehills for everything that fits their preconception and ignore or twist everything that dispels what they want to see.

[Dazzler]

You've just invented all those reasons in your own head (unless I've missed some posts, feel free to correct me if more than one person accused Dazz of racism).

We're slamming Dazzler because Obama and Clinton agree on 98% of their policy, Obama has given Clinton plenty of room for her and her supporters to absorb the loss, yet Dazzler wants to vote against all his own political interests out of spite. He is slamming Obama for reasons that exist only in the minds of people who make mountains out of moehills for everything that fits their preconception and ignore or twist everything that dispels what they want to see.

Oh, good grief.

Tell me, then, oh wise one. What ARE my political interests that I'm supposedly voting against? Everyone seems to know them intimately. I'd just like to hear what you think they are.

--Dazz

[rick]

For the record I do not think that Dazz is a racist in any way shape or form.

But he should be deeply ashamed of himself anyway.

He is voting against his best interest for what extremely foolish reasons.

First off, while he is not a racist, Dazz has shown an interesting form of sexism with his reasoning on why Sen. Obama won the nomination. Apparently in Dazz’s version of America, the only reason Obama won was because of his genitalia.

It apparently is not possible that the majority of Democratic primary voters voted for the Illinois Senator because they liked what he had to say and were inspired by the man saying it. Instead they just hate women and are afraid to see them in power.

That kind of view is just as foolish as assuming that Clintons supporters backed her for no other reason than that she wasn’t the black guy.

As it stands I am not really willing to spend too much more time trying to convince him of the self-destructive nature of his intention to vote third party, however I am also not even for a minute going to back away from stating that letting his pique keep him for voting for a candidate that shares his views, he is in fact supporting everything evil and vile that the Republicans have done to this country over the last eight years.

Simply put, Dazz or any other Clinton supporter who doesn’t vote for the Democratic candidate in the Fall is voting to hurt their nation. They are being bad Americans and they are doing it out of spite.

If Sen. Clinton had won I would be saying the same thing to the more hardcore Obama supporters out there.

In the end it doesn’t matter if Obama or Clinton won the nomination.

It really and truly doesn’t.

Both were inspirational, poised, professional and revolutionary choices for the nomination and both were deserving of a win.

But which one of them won is nothing more than a bit of political minutia.

What matters, in fact, all that matters, is that the American people recover this nation from a semi-dictatorship, restore the constitutional rights of all citizens, and to get our kids out of an endless war that has cost the US more than 4000 lives and the people of Iraq, almost a million.

If the Republican candidate wins in November we are guarantied at least another four years of American kids getting killed or wounded and the continued shredding of our constitutional rights here at home.

Any of you Clinton voters go for the Republican or a third party candidate, you are betraying Sen. Clinton, you are betraying the United States of America during one of its times of greatest needs, and you are betraying yourself.

This is too important to be polite about and this is too important to be nice about.

[FalconX2000]

You know, Sam: you argue some positions that I find utterly abhorrent. I won't lie about that. Some positions that I find.... insulting.

But. In arguing them, I've never felt personally insulted. Or like you were trying to one-up me. Or had something about yourself you felt you wanted to prove. Or that you intended to demean.

I appriciate it. In some ways, it's taking a high road.

The highest road to hell still leads there. :biggrin:


Oh, good grief.

Tell me, then, oh wise one. What ARE my political interests that I'm supposedly voting against? Everyone seems to know them intimately. I'd just like to hear what you think they are.

--Dazz

They are obviously Hillary's political interests, or you wouldn't be her supporter. Now, as I already said, Hillary and Obama are trying to accomplish the same thing. If you think Hillary could have been more effective than him at pushing through policy, that seems a reasonable position to take.

Now that Obama is the nominee, however, you are seriously considering voting for McCain, who contradicts just about everything Hillary wanted to accomplish. That is voting against your political interests.

Voting for a third party candidate is a more complicated argument to make. I'll spend time on it if I need to.

[rick]

and many liberals are on drugs?
Can we keep the generalizations to a minimum here?


Many liberals are on drugs.

But that doesn't change that many conservatives are racists.

Fear of things that are new or different is sort of what being conservative is all about.

[rick]

Oh, good grief.

Tell me, then, oh wise one. What ARE my political interests that I'm supposedly voting against? Everyone seems to know them intimately. I'd just like to hear what you think they are.

--Dazz


To begin with, the Bill of Rights.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

You've just invented all those reasons in your own head (unless I've missed some posts, feel free to correct me if more than one person accused Dazz of racism).

'Course.

Why would I speak from experience, and the conversations I have with the man every work day, when I can make up fictional reasons instead?

Man, there's so much presumption here, I could slice it out of the air with a knife.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Any of you Clinton voters go for the Republican or a third party candidate, you are betraying Sen. Clinton, you are betraying the United States of America during one of its times of greatest needs, and you are betraying yourself.

Oh that's nonsense.

Tarring someone who you disagree with by calling them a 'betrayer' is far too easy, and shows not only no understanding, but no intention to understand another's position.

Dogpiling someone who disagrees with the most popular viewpoint is pretty low too.

For the record, I've never in my life had an intention to vote for Clinton for so much as dogcatcher. For a while, I was in the Obama camp. If I hadn't been registered Green, I would have voted for him in the California primary. If the election were held tomorrow, though, I wouldn't vote for him. Part of the reason is that the kinda rhetoric by his supporters is so outrageous, monolithic, and lacking in any desire to understand the viewpoint of another that it's tainted my opinion of the man.

He has until November to try to win me over. But seriously, y'all, for a lot of you.... if you reflect what he represents, I want no part of it.

[rick]

Oh that's nonsense.

Tarring someone who you disagree with by calling them a 'betrayer' is far too easy, and shows not only no understanding, but no intention to understand another's position.


No, it is not nonsense.

We really and truly are in one of those rare "With us or against us" moments.

Either you support the end of the war and the restitution of the Constitution or you don't.

You actually don't get any other choice this election.

[a. non]

"Understanding is a three-edge sword--there's your side, their side, and the truth."

There's always a third option. You crossed a bit of a line there, rick.

[Dazzler]

They are obviously Hillary's political interests, or you wouldn't be her supporter. Now, as I already said, Hillary and Obama are trying to accomplish the same thing. If you think Hillary could have been more effective than him at pushing through policy, that seems a reasonable position to take.
So, basically, you have no idea.
I'm a Hillary supporter, yes, but do I have to agree with her policy 100%? Absolutely not. And I don't. However, do I feel that in this race, she's been the only viable and potentially productive candidate. Yes.

Now that Obama is the nominee, however, you are seriously considering voting for McCain, who contradicts just about everything Hillary wanted to accomplish. That is voting against your political interests.

Voting for a third party candidate is a more complicated argument to make. I'll spend time on it if I need to.
I have absolutely no intention of voting for McCain. I wouldn't dream of it. So that's one thing you've seriously misconstrued.

I am seriously considering voting for a third party candidate, despite being more conservative than your typical third party supporters.

And while I'm not entirely sure what I'm going to do, the least of things that's going to inform my final decision is NOT being brow-beaten and threatened with typically Republican tactics by Democrats about being a "bad American" for making up my own damn mind and voting how I see fit. If I'm developing a spite, and I'll be honest, at this point, I am, it's not the least of which thanks to that kind of crap.

--Dazz

[Dazzler]

For the record I do not think that Dazz is a racist in any way shape or form.

But he should be deeply ashamed of himself anyway.

He is voting against his best interest for what extremely foolish reasons.

First off, while he is not a racist, Dazz has shown an interesting form of sexism with his reasoning on why Sen. Obama won the nomination. Apparently in Dazz’s version of America, the only reason Obama won was because of his genitalia.

It apparently is not possible that the majority of Democratic primary voters voted for the Illinois Senator because they liked what he had to say and were inspired by the man saying it. Instead they just hate women and are afraid to see them in power.

That kind of view is just as foolish as assuming that Clintons supporters backed her for no other reason than that she wasn’t the black guy.

As it stands I am not really willing to spend too much more time trying to convince him of the self-destructive nature of his intention to vote third party, however I am also not even for a minute going to back away from stating that letting his pique keep him for voting for a candidate that shares his views, he is in fact supporting everything evil and vile that the Republicans have done to this country over the last eight years.

Simply put, Dazz or any other Clinton supporter who doesn’t vote for the Democratic candidate in the Fall is voting to hurt their nation. They are being bad Americans and they are doing it out of spite.

If Sen. Clinton had won I would be saying the same thing to the more hardcore Obama supporters out there.

In the end it doesn’t matter if Obama or Clinton won the nomination.

It really and truly doesn’t.

Both were inspirational, poised, professional and revolutionary choices for the nomination and both were deserving of a win.

But which one of them won is nothing more than a bit of political minutia.

What matters, in fact, all that matters, is that the American people recover this nation from a semi-dictatorship, restore the constitutional rights of all citizens, and to get our kids out of an endless war that has cost the US more than 4000 lives and the people of Iraq, almost a million.

If the Republican candidate wins in November we are guarantied at least another four years of American kids getting killed or wounded and the continued shredding of our constitutional rights here at home.

Any of you Clinton voters go for the Republican or a third party candidate, you are betraying Sen. Clinton, you are betraying the United States of America during one of its times of greatest needs, and you are betraying yourself.

This is too important to be polite about and this is too important to be nice about.
My friend, the moment you throw out that "bad American" strong arm bullshit is the second conversation with you is finished.
Welcome to my ignore list.

--Dazz

[rick]

There's always a third option. You crossed a bit of a line there, rick.


I wish that was true, but the stakes are just too high and the consequences just too serious.

The truth must be spoken.

Either you are for the war or you aren’t.

Either you are in favor of the Constitution or you aren’t.

Those are the true and only options in this election and thinking anything else is a case of self-delusion.

[rick]

My friend, the moment you throw out that "bad American" strong arm bullshit is the second conversation with you is finished.
Welcome to my ignore list.

--Dazz


Ignore me if you want, but you are still planning on committing a reprehensible act that will harm your nation.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I wish that was true, but the stakes are just too high and the consequences just too serious.

The truth must be spoken.

Either you are for the war or you aren’t.

Either you are in favor of the Constitution or you aren’t.

Those are the true and only options in this election and thinking anything else is a case of self-delusion.


Ignore me if you want, but you are still planning on committing a reprehensible act that will harm your nation.



Oh, lord. This is laughable.

War isn't the only thing, appearently, that represents a failure of imagination.

[rick]

Oh, lord. This is laughable.

War isn't the only thing, appearently, that represents a failure of imagination.


What is more important than stopping the war?

What is more important than our rights as citizens?

You tell me Maxine.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

What is more important than stopping the war?

What is more important than our rights as citizens?

You tell me Maxine.

You believe that Obama's gonna 'save us all and make everything all right again?'

I call bullshit on that. He won't. Hillary wouldn't have. McCain won't either.

We have to WIN these things, not vote for someone in a nice suit to make everything better.
Who's gonna win this election? The corporate interests that pay for the dog & pony show.

[Dazzler]

EDIT: Oh fuck it.

I'm having a popsicle.

--Dazz

[rick]

You believe that Obama's gonna 'save us all and make everything all right again?'

I call bullshit on that. He won't. Hillary wouldn't have. McCain won't either.

We have to WIN these things, not vote for someone in a nice suit to make everything better.
Who's gonna win this election? The corporate interests that pay for the dog & pony show.


Only one of them is calling for the end of the war and only one of them is calling for the restoration of constituional protections.

So you have to choose.

Are you for the war or against it?

Are you in favor of the Constitutuion or against it?

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Only one of them is calling for the end of the war and only one of them is calling for the restoration of constituional protections.

So you have to choose.

Are you for the war or against it?

Are you in favor of the Constitutuion or against it?

Words ain't action.

[rick]

Words ain't action.


That's not really much of a refutation on your part.

[rick]

Finally, 'Bree sent me a nice PM politely calling me out on me calling conservatives, racists.

She had a point, and I think I should quickly clarify.

I do not believe that most conservatives are actually racist.

In my opinion racism is not nearly the issue inside the US that it was even a decade ago, and most educated people know better than to fall for that kind of stupidity.

However, I do certainly believe that if a person is a racist, they are more likely to be a conservative.

It might seem like a small difference, but I want to make clear that my view is not all encompassing.

[LtMarvel]

Okay, Paul, pure facts:

Bill Clinton lied under oath, and conspired with others to commit perjury in a civil case involving him. For this he was put through an impeachment trial, lost a default judgment, and surrendered his law license. He has confessed to committing this crime, a felony in most states.

Nixon was driven from the White House by Democrats and Republicans who accused him of lying. He resigned rather than face the charges.

Clinton faced the charges and was excused by the Democrats and some Republicans in the Senate.

Do ya suppose that maybe, just maybe if he had either resigned or been removed from office there might have been some traction among the American public with various charges that Bush lied?

Or do ya suppose the American people just said, well, they all do it and they all protect one another and it's all just partisan politics so who cares?
Let's not forget the circumstances, either. The case was funded by political enemies of Clinton, just before the time to file ran out. At one point in the trial, the Clinton side got a summary judgement and the case was thrown out. Why did the judge do that?

The judge ruled, supposing everything the their side stated was true, that there was no crime.

So we are talking about a case brought against a sitting president by political enemies in which there was no crime. This was simply a meritless lawsuit brought up to attack a political opponent, nothing else.

[Samurai]

For the record I do not think that Dazz is a racist in any way shape or form.

But he should be deeply ashamed of himself anyway.

He is voting against his best interest for what extremely foolish reasons.

First off, while he is not a racist, Dazz has shown an interesting form of sexism with his reasoning on why Sen. Obama won the nomination. Apparently in Dazz’s version of America, the only reason Obama won was because of his genitalia.

It apparently is not possible that the majority of Democratic primary voters voted for the Illinois Senator because they liked what he had to say and were inspired by the man saying it. Instead they just hate women and are afraid to see them in power.

That kind of view is just as foolish as assuming that Clintons supporters backed her for no other reason than that she wasn’t the black guy.

As it stands I am not really willing to spend too much more time trying to convince him of the self-destructive nature of his intention to vote third party, however I am also not even for a minute going to back away from stating that letting his pique keep him for voting for a candidate that shares his views, he is in fact supporting everything evil and vile that the Republicans have done to this country over the last eight years.

Simply put, Dazz or any other Clinton supporter who doesn’t vote for the Democratic candidate in the Fall is voting to hurt their nation. They are being bad Americans and they are doing it out of spite.

If Sen. Clinton had won I would be saying the same thing to the more hardcore Obama supporters out there.

In the end it doesn’t matter if Obama or Clinton won the nomination.

It really and truly doesn’t.

Both were inspirational, poised, professional and revolutionary choices for the nomination and both were deserving of a win.

But which one of them won is nothing more than a bit of political minutia.

What matters, in fact, all that matters, is that the American people recover this nation from a semi-dictatorship, restore the constitutional rights of all citizens, and to get our kids out of an endless war that has cost the US more than 4000 lives and the people of Iraq, almost a million.

If the Republican candidate wins in November we are guarantied at least another four years of American kids getting killed or wounded and the continued shredding of our constitutional rights here at home.

Any of you Clinton voters go for the Republican or a third party candidate, you are betraying Sen. Clinton, you are betraying the United States of America during one of its times of greatest needs, and you are betraying yourself.

This is too important to be polite about and this is too important to be nice about.


Rick, you know I like you, but this is really over the top and flat out insulting. Obama is the one who would appoint SC judges all too eager to shread the Constitution in the name of activism. Obama is a danger to this country's future and well being with his naive, ill-conceived policies and foolish rhetoric.

McCain is hardly my first choice, as you know. I strongly disagree with him on at least half his policies. But I will certainly rest easier with a President McCain than a President Obama, and bide my time until we can get a better candidate next time. This country can't afford to take a chance on an inexperienced and naive man like Obama, with numerous highly questionable ties and policies that make no sense at all (when he bothers to state anything more specific than "Change!", that is).

There is NOTHING "evil, foolish, or traitorous" about voting for McCain. If you want to debate McCain's policies, by all means do so. I'll probably agree some of the time there. But attacking anyone and everyone who simply doesn't vote Obama is wrong, and needs to stop.

[Samurai]

Finally, 'Bree sent me a nice PM politely calling me out on me calling conservatives, racists.

She had a point, and I think I should quickly clarify.

I do not believe that most conservatives are actually racist.

In my opinion racism is not nearly the issue inside the US that it was even a decade ago, and most educated people know better than to fall for that kind of stupidity.

However, I do certainly believe that if a person is a racist, they are more likely to be a conservative.

It might seem like a small difference, but I want to make clear that my view is not all encompassing.

I disagree. Supporting institutionalized racism and set-asides in the form of Affirmative Action IS racism, and that is mostly on the left.

Hating Jews and calling for the destruction of Israel, and carrying signs saying "We are all Hezbullah now" IS racism, and that is mostly on the left.

Pandering to minority groups with welfare and handouts while keeping them from succeeding and outgrowing the victim mentality IS racism, and it's mostly on the left.

Keeping minority kids in substandard schools by constantly opposing school vouchers IS racism, and it comes mostly from the left.

I see FAR, FAR more racism from the left than the right nowadays, and the only reason you don't is because you've probably excluded every form of racism but old southern rednecks flying a Confederate flag.

[Samurai]

Once again, Obama backtracks from a statement made just the day before... when he said "Jerusalem must remain undivided" at the AIPAC speech, it seems he actually didn't really mean that the city shouldn't be split into an Israeli section and a Palestinian section...

He was trying to have his cake and eat it too, as he has all along. Say 2 different things, and then each side believes "Hey, Obama agrees with me, I'll vote for him!"

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1212659672984&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[Kyuubi]

The reason Obama will win the election: He's a better Pokemon!



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v333/overt/polotics/1212732367993.gif

[bfrank]

But seriously, y'all, for a lot of you.... if you reflect what he represents, I want no part of it.

That's cool....dazzler's support of the hills made sure my vote was going to Obama.....

Ding dong, and all that.....

[the4thpip]

You believe that Obama's gonna 'save us all and make everything all right again?'

I call bullshit on that. He won't. Hillary wouldn't have. McCain won't either.

We have to WIN these things, not vote for someone in a nice suit to make everything better.
Who's gonna win this election? The corporate interests that pay for the dog & pony show.

You are going to carry the guilt that every Bush and Nader voter from 2000 and 2004 is carrying today. Shared responsibility for countless deaths and continued destruction of the planet at breakneck speed as well as erosion of citizen's rights.

I have no doubt that you will be in denial of that guilt, though.

Because you will probably now say it would not have made a difference if Gore had won, either, aren't you?

[section 8]

Finally, 'Bree sent me a nice PM politely calling me out on me calling conservatives, racists.

She had a point, and I think I should quickly clarify.

I do not believe that most conservatives are actually racist.

In my opinion racism is not nearly the issue inside the US that it was even a decade ago, and most educated people know better than to fall for that kind of stupidity.

However, I do certainly believe that if a person is a racist, they are more likely to be a conservative.

It might seem like a small difference, but I want to make clear that my view is not all encompassing.

so not all conservatives are racist, but all racists are conservative?

[section 8]

You are going to carry the guilt that every Bush and Nader voter from 2000 and 2004 is carrying today. Shared responsibility for countless deaths and continued destruction of the planet at breakneck speed as well as erosion of citizen's rights.

I have no doubt that you will be in denial of that guilt, though.

Because you will probably now say it would not have made a difference if Gore had won, either, aren't you?

yes shame on you for wanting to vote as you see fit.

shame on you for lacking the gullibility to believe that a one term senator will bring Messianic hope to the White House.

And for not doing so, you are surely as damned as the souls who did not vote the same way i wanted them to last time.

All of whom are no doubt suicidal with guilt over events they could not possibly see coming.

and if they arent they are in denial.

Shame

(this is sarcasm in case you aren't sure)

[the4thpip]

John Bolton shows how awful Obama is on foreign policy
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-bolton5-2008jun05,0,5282011.story

John Bolton made terrorist threats against the UN and was then made US ambassador by Bush.

I like his X-Men backups, but the guy is crazy and dangerous. And his hairpiece is a Skrull.

[Corrina]

not stupid
careless, selfish, lazy, and ignorant, but not stupid

Or, you know, too busy trying to get a paycheck and too tired at the end of the day to read all the news sites.

[Agent Helix]

Christ almighty there's some reactionary bullshit going on in this thread from every angle.

[KevinTBrown]

so not all conservatives are racist, but all racists are conservative?


He said, "they are more likely to be a conservative."

You may want to check out this site before responding next time: http://www.rif.org/

[Pink Bat Maxine]

That's not really much of a refutation on your part.

Actually it is. Just, you know. Concise.

To elaborate: You believe what the candidates say is just they're going to do. I don't. When you take their words with a grain of salt, the either/or imperative disappears.

[Agent Helix]

And now all the posts are invisible.

[rick]

Actually it is. Just, you know. Concise.

To elaborate: You believe what the candidates say is just they're going to do. I don't. When you take their words with a grain of salt, the either/or imperative disappears.

If you consider them to all be lying, why bother to vote in the first place?

[Infra-Man]

Or, you know, too busy trying to get a paycheck and too tired at the end of the day to read all the news sites.

And that becomes another issue that makes me have a problem with the underlying thesis of that book I mentioned.

People don't pay attention or don't become informed for a number of reasons (whether willfully or circumstantially). It makes me wonder about the responsibility of informing oneself and the access people have to information, namely whether or not it is incumbent on an individual to inform oneself in a democratic/representative government and if there is a minimum level of information people should at least strive for if they have the resources to obtain information.

Surely it's not expected that everyone read everything since that's an impossibility even for hardcore political junkies. There's a sense where this information is filtered down through intermediaries, whether they be television, the radio, magazines, or political blogs, the last of which are one of the worst sources for information since so many of them wear partisan blinders about the face and obvious bias on the sleeve.

And while there is an legitimate issue with the state of reportage, it makes me wonder if there is a minimum amount of self-informing (for a lack of a better word) that people should engage in. We can't expect everyone to know the nuances of Sunni and Shiite relations in Iraq, but should we at least expect them to understand that tensions between various religious factions is one of the reasons for strife? We can't expect everyone to know about the history of political corruption, genocide, and human rights abuses throughout Sudan, but should we at least expect people to know that something isn't right in Darfur? Or, in the case of the current presidential election, we can't expect everyone to know every policy stance of each candidate, but should we at least expect people to know that Obama isn't a Muslim?

And to what extent are people consciously ignoring information and to what extent are they unable to get that information and to what extent are they being willingly or unwillingly manipulated by the disseminaters of that information?

EDIT:
And I'd also add to the last string of rhetorical questions, to what extent do people have the ability to cut through the spin and the bullshit of pundits and commentators? And to the extent that we are bombarded with sound bites and talking points, how sincere is the information that people are consuming, embracing, believing, and reiterating--in other words, how many average people just spout off talking points because they believe them and how many spout them off because it's a way to spout off predigested information without the need to think critically of that information?

[rick]

yes shame on you for wanting to vote as you see fit.

shame on you for lacking the gullibility to believe that a one term senator will bring Messianic hope to the White House.

And for not doing so, you are surely as damned as the souls who did not vote the same way i wanted them to last time.

All of whom are no doubt suicidal with guilt over events they could not possibly see coming.

and if they arent they are in denial.

Shame

(this is sarcasm in case you aren't sure)

I know you want this all to sound like bombast, but all you have to do is look at the actions taken by the United States over the last eight years and it becomes very clear that you have the choice of supporting the war or ending it.

You have the coice of defending the constitution or betraying it.

So yeah, shame on you.

[Corrina]

I don't think doing back-breaking work day after day completely excuses a person from being informed politically.

However, knowing that the ignorance comes from overwork and being beat down (which is actually somewhat similar to what Obama was trying to say, badly) gives a better idea of how to reach them.

The first and most obvious would be "Is this what your children's lives should be?" And then offer a way out. I'm the first one on both sides of my family, as far back as we can go, who went to college and graduated. And I worked thirty hours a week and went to college, plus knit together some loans and grants.

The thing is, the reaction most politicians get in these areas is "all talk, no action, no matter who it is, they don't change my life." That's why Clinton's emphasis on education and the future speaks to them--which, btw, is one of the issues that W. used in his campaign that attracted the same voters. (Of course, W.'s attempt didn't succeed...)

So I think the lack of knowledge is twofold: disgust & feeling disenfranchised by the political process, and their lack of knowledge--most due to circumstances and not ignorance.

I'd argue that the same issues and the same language that Obama used to good effect in Chicago to reach inner-city voters would work well with these voters. But Obama, as Dazzler suggested, has to go talk to *them*, not at or about them.

Btw, I noticed Caroline Kennedy is on Obama's vice-presidential search team. That's...an interesting choice. She's never been heavily involved in politics before this, save for her work as a tireless fundraiser for NYC schools. Sounds like she might be part of an Obama administration.

[Charles RB]

This is directed mainly at Dazz (who I hope sees this...), but anyone can obviously answer: How do you feel about Obama possibly offering to pay Clinton's $20 million campaign debt?

I feel it's a political gesture and one that wastes $20 million he should be spending on his presidential campaign against McCain.

Interesting how Steele and his communications manager were the only ones who ever saw those flying cookies.

They were ninja cookies.

to get our kids out of an endless war that has cost the US more than 4000 lives and the people of Iraq, almost a million.

Would Clinton have gotten them out if she won? I didn't see any sign from here she would, though I might've missed something. (I also didn't see her as inspirational or professional, but some of that was subjective I admit)


Tell me, then, oh wise one. What ARE my political interests that I'm supposedly voting against?

Well, you said you'd vote for McCain if not for Iraq; McCain is not only opposed to gay marriage, he's opposed to civil unions (this came up in the Gay Marriage thread of Doom). Since that's an issue that's important to you, that would indeed be voting against your political interest.

What's the big policy divergence between Obama and Clinton that's got you against wanting him in anyway?

[Charles RB]

If the election were held tomorrow, though, I wouldn't vote for him. Part of the reason is that the kinda rhetoric by his supporters is so outrageous, monolithic, and lacking in any desire to understand the viewpoint of another that it's tainted my opinion of the man.

You're not voting for or against his supporters.

Not that I'm personally bothered about third-party voters - the party's meant to convince you to vote for it, you don't owe it. I saw "you MUST vote Kerry or you're a Bad American" all over the place in 2004 and he lost - and not because of third parties. The implication here seems to be the Democrats are so weak, so incompetent, that they literally cannot win unless third party voters go with them out of a sense of obligation.

And if they are they'll lose anyway. So I don't give a monkeys. You could use the same "you MUST choice This or This ONLY" rhetoric about any election, for fuck's sake.

Obama is the one who would appoint SC judges all too eager to shread the Constitution in the name of activism.

Oh? Name what they're going to change, besides potentially gay marriage.

(when he bothers to state anything more specific than "Change!", that is).

His website and literature states things in detail. It is not hard to find this.

You are going to carry the guilt that every Bush and Nader voter from 2000 and 2004 is carrying today.

I'd have no guilt if I was a 2000 Nader voter. It was Gore's job to convince me to vote for him and that he wasn't basically the same as Bush (a widespread view at the time at least over here).

[the4thpip]

yes shame on you for wanting to vote as you see fit.

shame on you for lacking the gullibility to believe that a one term senator will bring Messianic hope to the White House.

And for not doing so, you are surely as damned as the souls who did not vote the same way i wanted them to last time.

All of whom are no doubt suicidal with guilt over events they could not possibly see coming.

and if they arent they are in denial.

Shame

(this is sarcasm in case you aren't sure)

The shame is not the issue. The responsibility is.

Sarcasm does not relieve you of your responsibility, as little as it washes off blood or removes shackles.

[the4thpip]

Actually it is. Just, you know. Concise.

To elaborate: You believe what the candidates say is just they're going to do. I don't. When you take their words with a grain of salt, the either/or imperative disappears.

Extreme cynicism is the ultimate condescension.

[Infra-Man]

I don't think doing back-breaking work day after day completely excuses a person from being informed politically.

However, knowing that the ignorance comes from overwork and being beat down (which is actually somewhat similar to what Obama was trying to say, badly) gives a better idea of how to reach them.

The first and most obvious would be "Is this what your children's lives should be?" And then offer a way out. I'm the first one on both sides of my family, as far back as we can go, who went to college and graduated. And I worked thirty hours a week and went to college, plus knit together some loans and grants.

The thing is, the reaction most politicians get in these areas is "all talk, no action, no matter who it is, they don't change my life." That's why Clinton's emphasis on education and the future speaks to them--which, btw, is one of the issues that W. used in his campaign that attracted the same voters. (Of course, W.'s attempt didn't succeed...)

So I think the lack of knowledge is twofold: disgust & feeling disenfranchised by the political process, and their lack of knowledge--most due to circumstances and not ignorance.

I'd argue that the same issues and the same language that Obama used to good effect in Chicago to reach inner-city voters would work well with these voters. But Obama, as Dazzler suggested, has to go talk to *them*, not at or about them.

Btw, I noticed Caroline Kennedy is on Obama's vice-presidential search team. That's...an interesting choice. She's never been heavily involved in politics before this, save for her work as a tireless fundraiser for NYC schools. Sounds like she might be part of an Obama administration.

That's actually a good point about outreach as information--if you can demonstrate how an issue affects someone personally (whether through family or friends or their own interests), it's more likely that they'll pay attention to some extent and it's more likely they'll keep up with that issue.

[Crowley]

For the record I do not think that Dazz is a racist in any way shape or form.

But he should be deeply ashamed of himself anyway.

He is voting against his best interest for what extremely foolish reasons.

First off, while he is not a racist, Dazz has shown an interesting form of sexism with his reasoning on why Sen. Obama won the nomination. Apparently in Dazz’s version of America, the only reason Obama won was because of his genitalia.

It apparently is not possible that the majority of Democratic primary voters voted for the Illinois Senator because they liked what he had to say and were inspired by the man saying it. Instead they just hate women and are afraid to see them in power.

That kind of view is just as foolish as assuming that Clintons supporters backed her for no other reason than that she wasn’t the black guy.

As it stands I am not really willing to spend too much more time trying to convince him of the self-destructive nature of his intention to vote third party, however I am also not even for a minute going to back away from stating that letting his pique keep him for voting for a candidate that shares his views, he is in fact supporting everything evil and vile that the Republicans have done to this country over the last eight years.

Simply put, Dazz or any other Clinton supporter who doesn’t vote for the Democratic candidate in the Fall is voting to hurt their nation. They are being bad Americans and they are doing it out of spite.

If Sen. Clinton had won I would be saying the same thing to the more hardcore Obama supporters out there.

In the end it doesn’t matter if Obama or Clinton won the nomination.

It really and truly doesn’t.

Both were inspirational, poised, professional and revolutionary choices for the nomination and both were deserving of a win.

But which one of them won is nothing more than a bit of political minutia.

What matters, in fact, all that matters, is that the American people recover this nation from a semi-dictatorship, restore the constitutional rights of all citizens, and to get our kids out of an endless war that has cost the US more than 4000 lives and the people of Iraq, almost a million.

If the Republican candidate wins in November we are guarantied at least another four years of American kids getting killed or wounded and the continued shredding of our constitutional rights here at home.

Any of you Clinton voters go for the Republican or a third party candidate, you are betraying Sen. Clinton, you are betraying the United States of America during one of its times of greatest needs, and you are betraying yourself.

This is too important to be polite about and this is too important to be nice about.
I couldn't agree more.

[Buzz Dixon]

so not all conservatives are racist, but all racists are conservative?No, a significant number are crazy liberal cat ladies (and we've got the video to prove it!).

[the4thpip]

No, a significant number are crazy liberal cat ladies (and we've got the video to prove it!).

Who do we know this woman is a liberal again? She might be just this side of Joe Lieberman.

[Buzz Dixon]

Let's not forget the circumstances, either. The case was funded by political enemies of Clinton, just before the time to file ran out. At one point in the trial, the Clinton side got a summary judgement and the case was thrown out. Why did the judge do that?

The judge ruled, supposing everything the their side stated was true, that there was no crime.

So we are talking about a case brought against a sitting president by political enemies in which there was no crime. This was simply a meritless lawsuit brought up to attack a political opponent, nothing else.If it's okay for President #42 to lie under oath and suborn perjury to protect himself from embarrassment and avoid losing a lawsuit, then why is it not okay for President #43 to lie if he says he's doing it to protect the United States? Who has the better motive? If you're going to forgive the one you have to forgive the other since one acted on purely selfish motives and the other acted in a desire to benefit the country.

[Buzz Dixon]

And now all the posts are invisible.Lucky you.:wink:

[the4thpip]

If it's okay for President #42 to lie under oath and suborn perjury to protect himself from embarrassment and avoid losing a lawsuit, then why is it not okay for President #43 to lie if he says he's doing it to protect the United States? Who has the better motive? If you're going to forgive the one you have to forgive the other since one acted on purely selfish motives and the other acted in a desire to benefit the country.

Wow, that is more twisted than the twistingest Bavarian pretzel I've ever seen.

[Dazzler]

I couldn't agree more.

Then you're just as guilty of being as bad as the Republicans have been for the last eight years. There's not a damn thing that rick said that Karl Rove, Anne Coulter, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, or George Bush haven't said themselves about the Democrats who refused to support THEM for whatever reasons. Seriously? "Agree with us and go along with our point of view or you're destroying America!"?
Grow up indeed.

If that's the way you guys are gonna operate now, then I can't say that I'm at all sad about getting as far away from you people as I can.

--Dazz

[Stressfactor]

Look, in the interest of some peace, let's be fair here.....

Obama has made some mistakes in his campaign.

Hillary has made some mistakes in her campaign.

McCain has made some mistakes in his campaign.

All have made mistakes at one time or another in their time in office. They are human and if the perfect human being has been created today someone show them to me. This run for the candidacy alone has not, truly, allowed us to get to know the candidates all that well I don't think. I'd like to give them all a chance to amend or atone for their mistakes (and really, what kind of a people would we be if we didn't give people a chance to fix what they have done wrong. To PROVE they can do the job we are considering HIRING them for).

Dazz and others have their reasons for not liking Obama, for not liking the decisions he has made so far but, with the UTMOST respect, I would like them to consider at least listening to the man between now and November.

I'm not going to lay a bunch of bullcrap out here because I, myself, am not convinced (although I am more likely to simply NOT vote for President rather than voting third party but that's just me) YET. But I intend to stop and I intend to listen and I intend to give the candidates a chance to SHOW ME (I'm from Missouri).

I would, again, RESPECTFULLY, request that ALL herein keep an open mind and give the candidates a chance to SHOW if they're willing to amend their mistakes. We have between now and November to make up our minds... there IS NO NEED TO RUSH TO MAKE JUDGEMENTS. The day to decide is in November and on that day each person enters their voting booth with their own mind, their own thoughts, their own beliefs and their own conscience.

All I'm saying is.... Stop. Look. Listen. In the intervening months. Give EVERYONE a chance to fix what is wrong or dig themselves a deeper hole.

[Buzz Dixon]

I read Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/) and one of his readers posted the following:

"As a member of the Baby Boomer generation, I confess a certain sadness at the prospect of Obama as President. But not because I won't vote for him; I very well may. But consider. We have had two members of my generation as President; after a President Obama, I suspect that we will not have another. And what do we see?

"Two men who have embodied the worst of our generation.

"First, a man who refused to take responsibility for himself, and acted like the rules did not apply to him. Pretty much the epitome of the left's attitude in the late 1960s. Followed by a man who also refused to take responsibility, and acted like a stereotypical frat boy who never grew up.

"In reality, there were a lot of us who were responsible adults. But apparently that was not the route to the Presidency. When history looks at us, there will be a tendency to take our generation's Presidents as a proxy for us all. God, how I wish it were not so! But there you have it."

File this under: One More Reason To Vote For Obama

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/a-boomer-lament.html

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Who do we know this woman is a liberal again? She might be just this side of Joe Lieberman.

The Clintons have always been Moderates, and Bill's terms were marked with myriad appeasements of Big Business/Free Traders, Military Contractors, Lobbyists concerned, and the right-wing-dominated Congress. Eisenhower was farther to the left than them, literally--even called himself a 'Militant Liberal', and was directly involved in passing the first civil rights legislation in a very long time. Eisenhower was a Republican--back when the odds of being a liberal in the Republican Party were better than in the Dems. Bill caught more shit from the ACLU than Reagan or Bush Senior combined. .Liberal, my ass.

Somebody listens to too much Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

[Kevinroc]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/06/mccain-supports-bushs-war_n_105610.html

McCain supports Bush's warrantless wiretaps.

[Dreadstar]

McCain supports Bush's warrantless wiretaps.

I don't think "supports" is the proper word to use there. I think it adds spin and is leading.

But I damn betcha no one from the anti-McCain camp will complain.

[Kevinroc]

I don't think "supports" is the proper word to use there. I think it adds spin and is leading.

But I damn betcha no one from the anti-McCain camp will complain.

What word would you use?

[Dreadstar]

What word would you use?

I wouldn't use a single word, I'd go for the full context.

[Kevinroc]

I wouldn't use a single word, I'd go for the full context.

And what, in your mind, is the full context of McCain wanting to continue Bush's warrentless wiretaps?

[Dreadstar]

And what, in your mind, is the full context of McCain wanting to continue Bush's warrentless wiretaps?

Where does it say that he's "wanting to continue" them? All I see is that he thinks they were lawful. Which might be right or might be wrong.

[Briareos]

On the note of people commenting about the working-class/average voter and notions of elitism (whether perceived or genuine), I saw a review on Salon for the forthcoming book Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter.

Seems intentionally incendiary given the provocative title and the jacket description:



Don't know if I necessarily agree with the idea that the people are stupid (though it seems like there are a bunch of rubes out there), but I think many people just don't pay attention.

I'm kind of curious about how this book will attempt to prove its thesis. I'll probably flip through it at the store and see what it's like.

You know I'm ok with that. I want a country where the government has so little control over people's lives (except in a few cases) that it doesn't really matter who controls it. Everyone talks about these countries with massive percentage of voter turnout. Usually in these countries the losers of those elections tend to end up on milk cartons or enslaved to the winning side.

[Briareos]

Interesting how Steele and his communications manager were the only ones who ever saw those flying cookies.


The debate moderator didn't see any and the events center operations manager in charge of cleaning the venue up reported no cookies afterwards.

Funny how that works.


Well this person did:

http://www.nationalcenter.org/2005/11/michael-steele-oreo-incident.html

Oh and AP reporter Tom Stuckey...

[Briareos]

whoops double post..

[Paul McEnery]

I wouldn't use a single word, I'd go for the full context.

I completely agree.

Which is why I clicked through to the full story:

Mr. McCain believes that “neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin wrote.

So "supports" is correct.

And actually, it's way worse than that, because apparently the real bad guys are the ACLU and "trial lawyers".

Isn't it funny how lawyers fighting for our civil liberties instantly become "trial lawyers"?

[Tetsuo_man]

The Clintons have always been Moderates, and Bill's terms were marked with myriad appeasements of Big Business/Free Traders, Military Contractors, Lobbyists concerned, and the right-wing-dominated Congress. Eisenhower was farther to the left than them, literally--even called himself a 'Militant Liberal', and was directly involved in passing the first civil rights legislation in a very long time. Eisenhower was a Republican--back when the odds of being a liberal in the Republican Party were better than in the Dems. Bill caught more shit from the ACLU than Reagan or Bush Senior combined. .Liberal, my ass.

Somebody listens to too much Rush Limbaugh and Fox News.

Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

[Crowley]

Then you're just as guilty of being as bad as the Republicans have been for the last eight years. There's not a damn thing that rick said that Karl Rove, Anne Coulter, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, or George Bush haven't said themselves about the Democrats who refused to support THEM for whatever reasons. Seriously? "Agree with us and go along with our point of view or you're destroying America!"?
Grow up indeed.

If that's the way you guys are gonna operate now, then I can't say that I'm at all sad about getting as far away from you people as I can.

--Dazz
:rolleyes:

that's not actually what's being said... and I'd waste my time on a response... but you'll not read it and just parrot the same non response you gave Rick.

So instead I'll offer this... I can respect McCain voters for choosing him because they think he aligns with there views... I can understand that.

I just can't get behind poor decision making based on irrationality... which so far seems to be where yourself, Harriet Christian and a few others fall. So hey, maybe take some time to cool down and reconsider your position at some point and come to some kind of rational decision.

[FalconX2000]

After reviewing Dazzler's previous posts, I have apologised to him/her over PM for saying he/she threatened to vote for McCain. I must have gotten mixed up with another poster, though the decision for anyone supporting Hillary not to vote for Obama is either misinformed or spiteful remains fact in my eyes. Fortunately, Crowley seems to be cleaning house quite well without me.



On a seperate note, this is fucking awesome.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91226631

[Charles RB]

After reviewing Dazzler's previous posts, I have apologised to him/her over PM for saying he/she threatened to vote for McCain. I must have gotten mixed up with another poster

He says he would do so if not for McCain's Iraq stance:


Well, if it weren't for his support of the continuation of the Iraq War, i WOULD vote McCain. I'm more on the conservative side of the spectrum anyway, at least economically if not socially.

Hence me asking him why he'd do that when McCain is against both gay marriage and civil unions, things Dazzler has argued strongly in favour of.

[kingdom2000]

To know McCains stance on things just remember one word:

McBush

[Michael P]

To know McCains stance on things just remember one word:

McBush

"Is this a pretzel I see before me?"

[Infra-Man]

You know I'm ok with that. I want a country where the government has so little control over people's lives (except in a few cases) that it doesn't really matter who controls it. Everyone talks about these countries with massive percentage of voter turnout. Usually in these countries the losers of those elections tend to end up on milk cartons or enslaved to the winning side.

I think the idea of a country where the government exercises as little control over the citizenry as possible is difficult, particularly for large populations and particularly in the modern age. There is a lot of reliance on the government for certain basic services (e.g., utilities, road services, etc.). Though maybe I'm a bit unclear. What exactly do you mean by "control"?

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Extreme cynicism is the ultimate condescension.

What's the logic there?

[Paul McEnery]

What's the logic there?

I think that's pretty obvious.

One part "I know better than you do", one part passive-aggression, one part inaccountability, and you get a lovely condescension cocktail.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I think that's pretty obvious.

One part "I know better than you do", one part passive-aggression, one part inaccountability, and you get a lovely condescension cocktail.

Wow.

Reaching.

Where does the 'I know better than you do' come in? You know, as distinguished from any other opinion, political or otherwise? Where does the passive aggression come in? Where does the inaccountability come in?

Cynicism doesn't imply any of these things.

[Dazzler]

:rolleyes:

that's not actually what's being said... and I'd waste my time on a response... but you'll not read it and just parrot the same non response you gave Rick.

So instead I'll offer this... I can respect McCain voters for choosing him because they think he aligns with there views... I can understand that.

I just can't get behind poor decision making based on irrationality... which so far seems to be where yourself, Harriet Christian and a few others fall. So hey, maybe take some time to cool down and reconsider your position at some point and come to some kind of rational decision.

That was PRECISELY what was said. Doesn't matter how you spin it, Crowley. It doesn't get much plainer than "Vote this way or you're a BAAAAD AMERICAN!"
Which is also precisely what Republicans have been doing for eight years now under the justification of "staving off dire times and consequences." Remember people being coerced into voting for a trumped up war on the basis of fear of being branded a BAD AMERICAN? Well, I'm not voting for someone I don't support because someone brands that decision as being the moral equivalent of murder and treason.
Well, apparently, the times now are so unbelievably dire that Democrats, who've been under that gun of throwing around accusations of treason and unpatriotism for a while now find it completely okay to do now that the shoes on the other foot.

Apparently it's true that there aren't any differences in Democrats and Republicans.

--Dazz

[Pink Bat Maxine]

That was PRECISELY what was said. Doesn't matter how you spin it, Crowley. It doesn't get much plainer than "Vote this way or you're a BAAAAD AMERICAN!"
Which is also precisely what Republicans have been doing for eight years now under the justification of "staving off dire times and consequences." Remember people being coerced into voting for a trumped up war on the basis of fear of being branded a BAD AMERICAN? Well, I'm not voting for someone I don't support because someone brands that decision as being the moral equivalent of murder and treason.
Well, apparently, the times now are so unbelievably dire that Democrats, who've been under that gun of throwing around accusations of treason and unpatriotism for a while now find it completely okay to do now that the shoes on the other foot.

Apparently it's true that there aren't any differences in Democrats and Republicans.

--Dazz

Yeah. The 'If you're not voting Obama you're betraying America' is positively Coultieresque.

[Dazzler]

After reviewing Dazzler's previous posts, I have apologised to him/her over PM for saying he/she threatened to vote for McCain. I must have gotten mixed up with another poster, though the decision for anyone supporting Hillary not to vote for Obama is either misinformed or spiteful remains fact in my eyes. Fortunately, Crowley seems to be cleaning house quite well without me.


Well, that's appreciated, albeit I'm not asking for your blessing for anything i've done. I disagree with your analysis, but that's not something that I care to try to change.

--Dazz

[Paul McEnery]

Wow.

Reaching.

Where does the 'I know better than you do' come in? You know, as distinguished from any other opinion, political or otherwise? Where does the passive aggression come in? Where does the inaccountability come in?

Cynicism doesn't imply any of these things.

I'm staggered. I really am.

I swear. This week you'd deny that water is wet.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

I'm staggered. I really am.

I swear. This week you'd deny that water is wet.

Your logic is impeccable.

You know, for being pulled out of your ass.

Disagreeing with Paul McEnery is not the same as denying that water is wet. Sorry. Your words aren't THAT tautological.

[Dazzler]

He says he would do so if not for McCain's Iraq stance:



Hence me asking him why he'd do that when McCain is against both gay marriage and civil unions, things Dazzler has argued strongly in favour of.
Yes, and there are a lot of people I WOULD vote for, if it weren't for any number of reasons.
I'd vote for Abraham Lincoln if he weren't dead and I'd vote for Mickey Mouse if he weren't a cartoon character.

I do wish everyone would quit thrusting this gay rights thing in my face. This may come as a surprise, but it's not the top spot on my personal interests checklist.
It might not even be in the top ten since I find it completely laughable that anyone would even dream that any of the big three candidates this season were going to seriously overhaul the system of gay rights. None of them.


--Dazz

[Pink Bat Maxine]

That was PRECISELY what was said. Doesn't matter how you spin it, Crowley. It doesn't get much plainer than "Vote this way or you're a BAAAAD AMERICAN!"

Simply put, Dazz or any other Clinton supporter who doesn’t vote for the Democratic candidate in the Fall is voting to hurt their nation. They are being bad Americans and they are doing it out of spite.

[snip]

Any of you Clinton voters go for the Republican or a third party candidate, you are betraying Sen. Clinton, you are betraying the United States of America during one of its times of greatest needs, and you are betraying yourself.


Yep. Ann Coultier all the way. She's calling and wants her right-wing rhetoric back.

[Paul McEnery]

Yes, and there are a lot of people I WOULD vote for, if it weren't for any number of reasons.
I'd vote for Abraham Lincoln if he weren't dead and I'd vote for Mickey Mouse if he weren't a cartoon character.

I do wish everyone would quit thrusting this gay rights thing in my face. This may come as a surprise, but it's not the top spot on my personal interests checklist.
It might not even be in the top ten since I find it completely laughable that anyone would even dream that any of the big three candidates this season were going to seriously overhaul the system of gay rights. None of them.


--Dazz

Which overlooks the fact that McCain would actually throw spanners in the works of any improvements anyone tried to make.

[Sabrinaset]

Finally, 'Bree sent me a nice PM politely calling me out on me calling conservatives, racists.

I got your PM back, and thanks! It's all settled.

I see FAR, FAR more racism from the left than the right nowadays, and the only reason you don't is because you've probably excluded every form of racism but old southern rednecks flying a Confederate flag.

Uh, Sam ... I strongly disagree. I don't think there's far more liberal whackjobs out there than conservative ... I'd say the percentages on both sides are about even, actually. There must be something about politics that drives people off the charts. Why can't people be sane and normal ... like me? :tongue:

I do wish everyone would quit thrusting this gay rights thing in my face. This may come as a surprise, but it's not the top spot on my personal interests checklist. It might not even be in the top ten since I find it completely laughable that anyone would even dream that any of the big three candidates this season were going to seriously overhaul the system of gay rights.

I agree with you here (although gay rights is in my top five) but your last sentence is spot-on.

[Crowley]

That was PRECISELY what was said. Doesn't matter how you spin it, Crowley. It doesn't get much plainer than "Vote this way or you're a BAAAAD AMERICAN!"
Which is also precisely what Republicans have been doing for eight years now under the justification of "staving off dire times and consequences." Remember people being coerced into voting for a trumped up war on the basis of fear of being branded a BAD AMERICAN? Well, I'm not voting for someone I don't support because someone brands that decision as being the moral equivalent of murder and treason.
Well, apparently, the times now are so unbelievably dire that Democrats, who've been under that gun of throwing around accusations of treason and unpatriotism for a while now find it completely okay to do now that the shoes on the other foot.

Apparently it's true that there aren't any differences in Democrats and Republicans.

--Dazz
yet again you miss the point entirely.

[Corrina]

Well, it is the same tactic as the Republicans. If you're not for us, you're a bad American.

Rick & others think they're right to say it, because Bush & the Republicans have abused the Constitution.

But the Republicans thought they were right to say it because they viewed the terrorist as the greater, immediate threat, to life & limb. (Not all of them, surely some of them had ulterior motives, but some believed that.)

It's a really old debate, btw. I just got done reading Joseph Ellis' short book of essay, Founding Brothers, and that issue comes up there as well, about what it means to be an American and what is "anti-American."

Jefferson partly won, with the Bill of Rights, but lost partly because he became President and then expanded executive power; something that he and his supporters tore into John Adams for doing as contrary to the ideals of the American Revolution.

I personally think the Republicans have bent the Constitution into a pretzel and wouldn't support them because of it. But others may look back into history and see other Constitutional abuses by great Presidents (Lincoln, Roosevelt) and conclude that the Constitution will be fine in the long run, and put other issues at the top most.

I vehemently disagree. As vehemently as I can. I see stirrings of the Roman Republic turning into the Roman Empire. But that just makes my opponents wrong, not anti-American. :)

[Crowley]

Yeah. The 'If you're not voting Obama you're betraying America' is positively Coultieresque.
Coulter doesn't have an "I" in it and while she may have said many rotten things... Bush's line was "your either with us or against us." I don't recall it as part of her particular repertoire.

But that's not what I'm saying and maybe others will agree.

Here's the logic:

> = vote for

Republicans > Whoever the front runner is (McCain)

some Hillary supporters > the front runner (but only if it's Hillary)
Hillary herself > Obama
Bill Clinton > Obama
Scott McClellan > might vote for Obama

Obama supporters > the front runner (regardless of who it is, but probably with plenty of bitching and whackjobs would would refuse)

Look whether you like it or not 2 political parties run in the US... I can at very least respect someone with strong convictions who believes that McCain is the guy, but I can't understand a emotional reactionary decision that has virtually no basis in any type of long considered thoughtful analysis... furthermore, what would Hillary herself say? If you have been a Hillary Supporter do you think she wants you to vote against the man she'll run with or endorse?

THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

Furthermore, if you vote third party or McCain... then you're either wanting or enabling more wars to continue. It's not a pretty statement but it's true.

I leave you with this:

http://www.warrenellis.com/?p=5995
Two excerpts:
When, on my mailing list some months ago, I expressed a preference for Barack Obama in the Democratic selection process, I received an email which read, ”Oh, I see. You’d support a black man but not a white woman.”

That kind of fucked-up paralogia seemed to infect the entire Clinton campaign, reaching its perverse crescendo when she trumpeted her support among uneducated white folks. Her press ops, as one wag pointed out, stopped just short of her being photographed taking a shit in an outhouse.
I imagine the Republican machine isn’t completely happy today. They have the ”experience” card, but they really wanted Hillary Clinton. They’ve been waiting for Hillary Clinton. They know how to run against her. Some of them have been licking their lips in anticipation of the most sickening public political evisceration in decades. Remember when Hillary declared she and Bill were under siege by a massive right-wing conspiracy? A UK newspaper did some digging, and found it. Interviewed them and everything. And those people didn’t suddenly go out and get hobbies. Obama is a different animal, and harder to run against in many ways.

I like what I know of Barack Obama. I’m glad it’s him. I have concerns — about the strength and breadth of his platform, and, frankly, about his safety, in a country where supporting a black man over a white woman is apparently worth confronting someone in email over — and I distrust the messianic Obamania I see here and there. I understand the sentiment and its roots, but I don’t like it: it invites the universe to fuck with your life. But, from my perspective over here in Britain, he has something America needs in a leader right now.

It would also be nice, really, if Americans abroad could have some dignity and respect returned to them.

[Crowley]

Well, it is the same tactic as the Republicans. If you're not for us, you're a bad American.

Rick & others think they're right to say it, because Bush & the Republicans have abused the Constitution.

But the Republicans thought they were right to say it because they viewed the terrorist as the greater, immediate threat, to life & limb. (Not all of them, surely some of them had ulterior motives, but some believed that.)

It's a really old debate, btw. I just got done reading Joseph Ellis' short book of essay, Founding Brothers, and that issue comes up there as well, about what it means to be an American and what is "anti-American."

Jefferson partly won, with the Bill of Rights, but lost partly because he became President and then expanded executive power; something that he and his supporters tore into John Adams for doing as contrary to the ideals of the American Revolution.

I personally think the Republicans have bent the Constitution into a pretzel and wouldn't support them because of it. But others may look back into history and see other Constitutional abuses by great Presidents (Lincoln, Roosevelt) and conclude that the Constitution will be fine in the long run, and put other issues at the top most.

I vehemently disagree. As vehemently as I can. I see stirrings of the Roman Republic turning into the Roman Empire. But that just makes my opponents wrong, not anti-American. :)
Just to state my opinion again.

I don't care if you decide to vote differently then I... I'm just bugged when it's an irrational or uniformed decision.

point of further clarification: I'm non partisan. Never have been a Democrat. Was a Republican throughout 04-06.

[Infra-Man]

I'm curious about how time, the debates, and Hillary and Bill acting as surrogates on Obama's behalf will affect some of the divisions within in the Democratic party. Five months is a lot of time for sour grapes to hang on a vine; who knows, some may sweeten come November.

If things can't be mended by the dem's convention, it ain't going to look good, but that's still three months away and anything can happen.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm curious about how time, the debates, and Hillary and Bill acting as surrogates on Obama's behalf will affect some of the divisions within in the Democratic party. Five months is a lot of time for sour grapes to hang on a vine; who knows, some may sweeten come November.

If things can't be mended by the dem's convention, it ain't going to look good, but that's still three months away and anything can happen.

Well, it looks like Hillary's gotten over herself at last. I mean, it has to suck to have done this well and yet it still isn't enough. It's like she had four aces showing, but Obama had a pocket straight flush. Bugger.

But yeah, what did everyone think she was going to do. Spend yet another four years in the Senate in opposition? Whee-bloody-ha! Nope, she'll be on the team of the guy who has almost exactly the same policies as her. This is not exactly shocking.

[Major Comma]

It will be interesting to see if anyone considers it being a bad american to not vote for Obama after his first term.

[Briareos]

Great analysis of Obama's speach on tuesday.

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/06/the_7_dumbest_moments_from_bar.php

[Corrina]

Hillary's going to play ball because it's in her best interest to do so. I think you're right, Paul. Bugger. She just needed a couple of days to suck it up. And that's okay, really. Obama was smart to give her those couple of days. That impresses me, actually.

If she had nothing to lose, she might not. But she's got a lot to lose. She still has a lot of support with voters and in the party, she can be valuable to Obama in the rest of the campaigning (Bill too), and she has a safe Senate seat from which to build a power base. Not President, but still a lot of power.

All she has to do is look at Ted Kennedy as an example of what kind of power she can have in the Senate.

And for all that Bill is seen as a negative, I'm convinced that if he could have run for President in 2000, he would have won, even after the impeachment. He's never going to convince the people who hate him but he's got a ton of voters who like him. In short, he's an asset far more than he's a drawback on the campaign trail.

ETA: One reason to put Hillary on the ticket if you're Obama is to bring her on board, instead of worrying about whether she'll run against you in four years, if you screw up. If she's your VP, she'll have to run again with you in four years. Well, okay, maybe not. She could resign as VP and run against Obama. But it would possibly be less likely. That old 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer..." stuff.

Or not.

[Charles RB]

Yes, and there are a lot of people I WOULD vote for, if it weren't for any number of reasons.

But why cite that specific person, and why only bring up Iraq as a reason when he wants to take away the rights you were aggressively arguing in favour of just last month? That's the bit throwing me. That's why I "threw it in your face" - you were vocal enough that I naturally assumed that it was a big deal for you. Yet you don't bring it up as a reason against voting for a guy who's against the rights you were aggressively in favour of?

I find it completely laughable that anyone would even dream that any of the big three candidates this season were going to seriously overhaul the system of gay rights.

He's stated he's against civil unions. He'd like them off the table. This was brought up several times back in the thread. There's no reason to believe he wouldn't have an amendment to prevent gay marriage either, since he's outspoken against that!

You think it's "completely laughable" he'd do what he said he'd like to do, if in power and able to do it? Really?

[Crowley]

Great analysis of Obama's speach on tuesday.

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2008/06/the_7_dumbest_moments_from_bar.php

if by "great analysis" you mean "hollow" and "wafer thin,"

[Dazzler]

But why cite that specific person, and why only bring up Iraq as a reason when he wants to take away the rights you were aggressively arguing in favour of just last month? That's the bit throwing me. That's why I "threw it in your face" - you were vocal enough that I naturally assumed that it was a big deal for you. Yet you don't bring it up as a reason against voting for a guy who's against the rights you were aggressively in favour of?
Personally, it is a big deal. I'll fight for it until my dying day if I really have to. But it's not the most pressing and important issue facing the United States these days in terms of getting the country back on its feet. While I think gay rights do effect everyone in the long run in terms of making the country more truly equal, i think there are other issues that need to be addressed so that the part that Barack Obama is right about (namely, that exhausted Americans don't feel like they have much power to affect their government), doesn't influence that battle any more than it already has and the issue can be approached without that sense of disenfranchisement that comes with it.


He's stated he's against civil unions. He'd like them off the table. This was brought up several times back in the thread. There's no reason to believe he wouldn't have an amendment to prevent gay marriage either, since he's outspoken against that!
Yes, and I'm not voting for him. Whether or not you believe voting third party is handing a vote to McCain, is another story.

You think it's "completely laughable" he'd do what he said he'd like to do, if in power and able to do it? Really?
Yes, I do. I think that's putting too much faith to do the revolutionary (something Barack Obama has been stratospherically built up to be) from someone who actually reads in those terms like a more traditional Democrat. There's nothing revolutionary or unheard of in his stance on gay rights. It's been said before. But he's also the same ole "man and woman =marriage" type. He hasn't done anything proactive on the issue, except co-sponsor a very general hate crime act that happened to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Otherwise, all we know is what he says he believes. And words are not the same as action.
I don't believe ANY candidate, including Hillary, would make gay rights a true priority in their presidency once they were elected. As we all know, in every campaign, promises are made left and right that never seem to pan out to be "logistically possible".

--Dazz

[Charles RB]

if by "great analysis" you mean "hollow" and "wafer thin,"

Wafer thin and hollow? Jesus. :eek:

[rick]

Then you're just as guilty of being as bad as the Republicans have been for the last eight years. There's not a damn thing that rick said that Karl Rove, Anne Coulter, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice, or George Bush haven't said themselves about the Democrats who refused to support THEM for whatever reasons. Seriously? "Agree with us and go along with our point of view or you're destroying America!"?
Grow up indeed.

If that's the way you guys are gonna operate now, then I can't say that I'm at all sad about getting as far away from you people as I can.

--Dazz


Well you know Dazz, there's the fact that Bush and company have done great damage to the country and have treated the constitution like it was nothing.

You being in a snit about Obama winning the nomination didn't change that reality now did it?

So yeah, grow up.

You are either for the war or against it.

You are either for the constitution or against it.

There is no middle ground and you should be smart enough to recognize it.

[Dazzler]

yet again you miss the point entirely.

And you miss mine.

However you want to look at it, claiming anyone, whatever their reasons for not voting for Obama, whether you find them irrational or stupid or whatever, is a treasonous Bad American for not going along with it is lazy. You want people to be on your side, then you need to do something other than shame and scare tactics.

To me, it just seems like you guys have become exactly what you have claimed for 8 years to be appalled by. You justify the ends by the means and where does that leave you? With a win in your column and the people you strong armed into going along with you are going to be more bitter than ever.

--Dazz

[Charles RB]

Personally, it is a big deal. I'll fight for it until my dying day if I really have to. But it's not the most pressing and important issue facing the United States these days in terms of getting the country back on its feet.

So I'm clear on this - it is important to you, but you're willing to sacrifice it (lose the recent gains, face potential amendments against marriage & unions) to the extent you will indeed have to fight to the dying day if sacrificing this will, in your opinion, get larger issues sorted?


Yes, I do.

I find that completely laughable - McCain's opposed to gay marriage & civil unions, he can get support from swathes of the country & distract them from real issues with this, and if he's in he will have the power to make those amendments. And you think he won't? Why, is he going to forget he wants to do this? He's actually just lying to get support off the religious right and will happily ignore the issue after?

I think that's putting too much faith to do the revolutionary (something Barack Obama has been stratospherically built up to be) from someone who actually reads in those terms like a more traditional Democrat. There's nothing revolutionary or unheard of in his stance on gay rights.

I don't know why you're bringing up Obama and unions/marriage here. The question was about McCain, wasn't it?

[rick]

That was PRECISELY what was said. Doesn't matter how you spin it, Crowley. It doesn't get much plainer than "Vote this way or you're a BAAAAD AMERICAN!"



To help this conversation along, that is exactly what I am saying.

You are either in favor of the constitution or you are not.

You are either for the war or you aren't.

If you are for the war and don't think that the laws this nation is based on matter, then vote for anyone but the Democratic candidate. If you are against the war and in favor of our laws and freedoms being preserved than you really don't have any choice this election but to vote for the Democratic cadidate.

Your choice is to vote for everything America should be against or everything America should be for.

So yeah, if you vote to keep killing Ameircan kids and for the continued destruction of our personal liberties, you are a bad American.


Are you going to be a bad American Dazz?

[rick]

Yep. Ann Coultier all the way. She's calling and wants her right-wing rhetoric back.


Hey Maxine, you can throw away your vote and betray your nation if you want.

But some of us would like to have a country where people aren't dragged off in the middle of the night.


Sorry, we're just funny that way.

[Dazzler]

So I'm clear on this - it is important to you, but you're willing to sacrifice it (lose the recent gains, face potential amendments against marriage & unions) to the extent you will indeed have to fight to the dying day if sacrificing this will, in your opinion, get larger issues sorted?



I find that completely laughable - McCain's opposed to gay marriage & civil unions, he can get support from swathes of the country & distract them from real issues with this, and if he's in he will have the power to make those amendments. And you think he won't? Why, is he going to forget he wants to do this? He's actually just lying to get support off the religious right and will happily ignore the issue after?



I don't know why you're bringing up Obama and unions/marriage here. The question was about McCain, wasn't it?
I don't know why you're bring up McCain in regards to gay rights. Or gay rights at all. Is it because it's supposed to be my top priority because I'm gay? I'm sorry, no snark here, but I'm not sure why you're asking.

EDIT: Sorry, I thought that last question you asked was about Obama. My bad. But a little clarification beyond "he" would have helped.

--Dazz

[Buzz Dixon]

ETA: One reason to put Hillary on the ticket if you're Obama is to bring her on board, instead of worrying about whether she'll run against you in four years, if you screw up. If she's your VP, she'll have to run again with you in four years. Well, okay, maybe not. She could resign as VP and run against Obama. But it would possibly be less likely. That old 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer..." stuff. If Obama has screwed up that badly it will be a Regan-Carter scenario and no Democrat will win.

Obama can't have Hillary on the ticket 'cuz he realizes this election is all about change and Hillary branded herself as "experience" which in today's political landscape means "same-old-same-old".

[Charles RB]

I don't know why you're bring up McCain in regards to gay rights. Or gay rights at all. Is it because it's supposed to be my top priority because I'm gay? I'm sorry, no snark here, but I'm not sure why you're asking.

Because it seemed to be an issue you did hold as a big priority based on your massive vocal argy-bargy over it, and McCain is against what you argued in favour of & he openly wants to get rid of it - yet you only bring up Iraq as a reason not to vote for him. The contrast was confusing.

I did say most of this already.

EDIT: Sorry, I thought that last question you asked was about Obama. My bad. But a little clarification beyond "he" would have helped.

I figured it was clear from the context, as I'd been talking about McCain for the first half of that post.

[Dazzler]

Because it seemed to be an issue you did hold as a big priority based on your massive vocal argy-bargy over it, and McCain is against what you argued in favour of & he openly wants to get rid of it - yet you only bring up Iraq as a reason not to vote for him. The contrast was confusing.
I brought up Iraq because it's his cause celebre. It's without question that he isn't in favor of anything gay. I didn't bring it up because I don't think ANY of the candidates would do anything any that respect of real value.
And to answer the underlying question: I think there are things that, yes, I would sacrifice some ground on gay rights to get a hold on. I don't believe that that undervalues the gay rights thing at all. I just think that it's something that, in the scheme of things, isn't as important as issues that can blanket affect everyone in a much more personal and ground-level way to all Americans. Something that gay rights doesn't exactly, even if it does make the country more truly egalitarian and despite some people who would like to think that gay rights advancements could damage them personally.

Is my omission of gay rights as the reason not to vote for McCain really troubling you that much?

--Dazz

[Crowley]

Hey Maxine, you can throw away your vote and betray your nation if you want.

But some of us would like to have a country where people aren't dragged off in the middle of the night.


Sorry, we're just funny that way.

Yeah I'm just a sucker for the whole Habeas Corpus thing... but I guess some people aren't...

You justify the ends by the means and where does that leave you?

Uh... isn't that what YOU'RE doing?

Aren't you saying "my candidate didn't win so fuck the vote?"

There really isn't a CLEARER example of ends justifying means.

[KevinTBrown]

Here's an piece in today's Chicago Sun-Times comparing 3 of the key differences between Obama and McCain: http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/991538,CST-EDT-edit06.article

[Dazzler]

Uh... isn't that what YOU'RE doing?

Aren't you saying "my candidate didn't win so fuck the vote?"

There really isn't a CLEARER example of ends justifying means.

That's not even an example of ends justifying the means. There's no actual ends there to justify the non-means that also aren't there.

And no, that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying "I supported Hillary strongly, I think Barack Obama couldn't do the job, so I'm looking at my third option." Me personally, I may throw a couple of "fucks" in there, because that's my personal style, but that's the gist of it.

And ends justifying the means reads more like, "We want Obama to win because we think he's the best candidate, and we'll threaten anyone who thinks otherwise with accusations of treason until they do. That way, whether or not we won with the open hand or the closed fist, we still won."

--Dazz

[Crowley]

Obama's words about Clinton from his last speech:

That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.

We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning—even in the face of tough odds—is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as first lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency—an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

There are those who say that this primary has somehow left us weaker and more divided. Well I say that because of this primary, there are millions of Americans who have cast their ballot for the very first time. There are independents and Republicans who understand that this election isn't just about the party in charge of Washington, it's about the need to change Washington. There are young people, and African Americans, and Latinos, and women of all ages who have voted in numbers that have broken records and inspired a nation.

All of you chose to support a candidate you believe in deeply. But at the end of the day, we aren't the reason you came out and waited in lines that stretched block after block to make your voice heard. You didn't do that because of me or Senator Clinton or anyone else. You did it because you know in your hearts that at this moment—a moment that will define a generation—we cannot afford to keep doing what we've been doing. We owe our children a better future. We owe our country a better future. And for all those who dream of that future tonight, I say—let us begin the work together. Let us unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.

[Charles RB]

Is my omission of gay rights as the reason not to vote for McCain really troubling you that much?

I already covered that it was causing confusion and why. In the post you just quoted.

[Dazzler]

I already covered that it was causing confusion and why. In the post you just quoted.

I know. It just strikes me as odd that you would be concerned enough to take the time to be confused.

--Dazz

[Charles RB]

Obama's words about Clinton from his last speech:

That is surprising, as I was assuming what got her up in the morning and fuelled her campaign was a personal desire to have power.

[Crowley]

That's not even an example of ends justifying the means. There's no actual ends there to justify the non-means that also aren't there.

And no, that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying "I supported Hillary strongly, I think Barack Obama couldn't do the job, so I'm looking at my third option." Me personally, I may throw a couple of "fucks" in there, because that's my personal style, but that's the gist of it.

And ends justifying the means reads more like, "We want Obama to win because we think he's the best candidate, and we'll threaten anyone who thinks otherwise with accusations of treason until they do. That way, whether or not we won with the open hand or the closed fist, we still won."

--Dazz

Who's threatening? Who said anything about treason? Good god, hyperbole much?

Look, you've been very against Obama since the day you started a thread about much you dislike him... your ends were "Hillary has to be the nominee" so now that hasn't happened the means you're using to justify it are "Obama supporters pissed me off, so I have to vote third party."

eh whatevs... third party candidates are listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2008

enjoy.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Coulter doesn't have an "I" in it and while she may have said many rotten things... Bush's line was "your either with us or against us." I don't recall it as part of her particular repertoire.

Honestly, I don't pay enough attention to the woman to know the spelling of her name, let alone the correct pronunciation.
(Also, I'm an abysmal speller. Oops!)

However, she has consistently called liberals traitors. Hell, she wrote a book where the assertion was in the title! So, yeah; it's the same rhetoric, whether it's her asking ‘Are liberals traitors? Or just stupid?’ or someone here stating that 'If you don't vote the way I think you should, you're betraying the United States of America'.

[Dazzler]

Who's threatening? Who said anything about treason? Good god, hyperbole much?
You know that big post that you loved so much from rick...the one he just owned up to saying EXACTLY as being you either vote Obama or you're a bad American? Yeah, that's where all this came into play. What do you think Betraying America and voting to condone murder MEANS Crowley? That's almost the prime definition of treason. That's not semantics at work.

Look, you've been very against Obama since the day you started a thread about much you dislike him... your ends were "Hillary has to be the nominee" so now that hasn't happened the means you're using to justify it are "Obama supporters pissed me off, so I have to vote third party."
Just to be clear, that's still not even a "ends justifying the means" situation. That's, well, I don't know what that is. If you're going to use that example, stick with your tested "sore loser" analogy.

eh whatevs... third party candidates are listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2008

enjoy.
Thank you!

--Dazz

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Who's threatening? Who said anything about treason? Good god, hyperbole much?

Hey Maxine, you can throw away your vote and betray your nation if you want.

But some of us would like to have a country where people aren't dragged off in the middle of the night.


Sorry, we're just funny that way.

You could parse the difference between 'Treason' and 'Betraying your country', but that would be beside the point.

So the answer is, Rick, at the very least, is saying that.

Which is fine, but let's acknowledge that the rhetoric is out there and not pretend it isn't.

[Crowley]

Honestly, I don't pay enough attention to the woman to know the spelling of her name, let alone the correct pronunciation.
(Also, I'm an abysmal speller. Oops!)

However, she has consistently called liberals traitors. Hell, she wrote a book where the assertion was in the title! So, yeah; it's the same rhetoric, whether it's her asking ‘Are liberals traitors? Or just stupid?’ or someone here stating that 'If you don't vote the way I think you should, you're betraying the United States of America'.

You know expressing the opinion that people are making poor decisions and calling people traitors are VERY different things right? Never once did Rick or I call Dazz or yourself a traitor... so let's drop that bit of BS, shall we?

And as a side note Coulter says of the 9-11 widows in that book “I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' deaths so much.”

So maybe, just maybe... it'd be a decent idea to do a touch of research before equating your fellow posters with people who you "don't pay enough attention to."

Just a thought.

[Paul McEnery]

You know that big post that you loved so much from rick...the one he just owned up to saying EXACTLY as being you either vote Obama or you're a bad American? Yeah, that's where all this came into play. What do you think Betraying America and voting to condone murder MEANS Crowley? That's almost the prime definition of treason. That's not semantics at work.

Yeah, but I think many of us are in agreement that the current administration has betrayed America, and probably in the criminal sense. And that McCain intends to continue with the current administration's policies.

So it ain't that much of a leap.

[Dazzler]

You know expressing the opinion that people are making poor decisions and calling people traitors are VERY different things right? Never once did Rick or I call Dazz or yourself a traitor... so let's drop that bit of BS, shall we?
.
Once again, Crowley. It has been suggested that people who don't vote Obama are betraying the United States. Betrayal is the action of traitors. Traitors are guilty of treason. Treason is the crime of betrayal.

--Dazz

[Pink Bat Maxine]

You know expressing the opinion that people are making poor decisions and calling people traitors are VERY different things right? Never once did Rick or I call Dazz or yourself a traitor... so let's drop that bit of BS, shall we?

So you want to parse down the difference between 'You are betraying your nation' and 'you are a traitor'? I'm game. What's the difference as you see it?

[Dazzler]

So you want to parse down the difference between 'You are betraying your nation' and 'you are a traitor'? I'm game. What's the difference as you see it?

Owning and not owning a dictionary.

--Dazz

[Paul McEnery]

And no, that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm saying "I supported Hillary strongly, I think Barack Obama couldn't do the job, so I'm looking at my third option." Me personally, I may throw a couple of "fucks" in there, because that's my personal style, but that's the gist of it.

Well yeah, but that's the bit that's utterly confusing. I can see thinking Obama is a weaker candidate than Clinton, and I've thought that myself, though I've since warmed to the guy.

But thinking he can't do the job is, to my way of thinking, a bit odd, since he seems like an eminently capable man, and one whom I imagine will surround himself with talented people -- one of whom will be Clinton.

So I don't really see the objection.

[Crowley]

You could parse the difference between 'Treason' and 'Betraying your country', but that would be beside the point.

So the answer is, Rick, at the very least, is saying that.

Which is fine, but let's acknowledge that the rhetoric is out there and not pretend it isn't.

You know that big post that you loved so much from rick...the one he just owned up to saying EXACTLY as being you either vote Obama or you're a bad American? Yeah, that's where all this came into play. What do you think Betraying America and voting to condone murder MEANS Crowley? That's almost the prime definition of treason. That's not semantics at work.
I typed out a big response to you both... but at this point it doesn't matter.
Hyperbole and spin ahoy.

Look buying clothes at Wal-Mart might be putting money towards sweatshops.
That might not be my intention and it might not be pleasant for people to raise issue with me on that... but I'm still guilty of putting that money into the sweatshop.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Owning and not owning a dictionary.

--Dazz

No, I'm actually interested in this as a serious question.

[Royal]

Once again, Crowley. It has been suggested that people who don't vote Obama are betraying the United States. Betrayal is the action of traitors. Traitors are guilty of treason. Treason is the crime of betrayal.

--Dazz

What can I say? I'm not a team player.

[Crowley]

So you want to parse down the difference between 'You are betraying your nation' and 'you are a traitor'? I'm game. What's the difference as you see it?

Once again, Crowley. It has been suggested that people who don't vote Obama are betraying the United States. Betrayal is the action of traitors. Traitors are guilty of treason. Treason is the crime of betrayal.

--Dazz
Owning and not owning a dictionary.

--Dazz


Here you are:
trea·son –noun
1. the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign.
2. a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state.
proper treason is an attempt to overthrow the government.
be·tray –verb (used with object)
1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country.
2. to be unfaithful in guarding, maintaining, or fulfilling: to betray a trust.
3. to disappoint the hopes or expectations of; be disloyal to: to betray one's friends.
4. to reveal or disclose in violation of confidence: to betray a secret.
5. to reveal unconsciously (something one would preferably conceal): Her nervousness betrays her insecurity.
6. to show or exhibit; reveal; disclose: an unfeeling remark that betrays his lack of concern.
7. to deceive, misguide, or corrupt: a young lawyer betrayed by political ambitions into irreparable folly.
8. to seduce and desert.
the definition as used by myself in this thread is in bold.

Let me know where to ship the dictionary to.

[Dazzler]

Well yeah, but that's the bit that's utterly confusing. I can see thinking Obama is a weaker candidate than Clinton, and I've thought that myself, though I've since warmed to the guy.

But thinking he can't do the job is, to my way of thinking, a bit odd, since he seems like an eminently capable man, and one whom I imagine will surround himself with talented people -- one of whom will be Clinton.

So I don't really see the objection.
I know myself. I know that between now and November that I could warm to the man, too. Right now, I'm closed to that idea, but I'm also mercurial. So, that much I'll concede.

What I've seen from Obama isn't that he's an incompotent. I don't think he's incompotent. What *I* get from him and his campaign is that he's the equivalent of a resume-padder that is hoping to score big by spinning comparatively minor credentials into being a candidate for the CEO. I'm not sure if that started from him or his supporters, although I'm thinking that it was probably his supporters. I don't relish the idea of placing this idealistic image of him as the revolutionary change-bringer when there's nothing of actual practical value that show me that he could logistically and realistically bring about the amount of change on a national or global scale that has to come to be expected from him based on what he's actually done.

I'm skeptical about supposedly Hillary and Obama being essentially the same in terms of ideals and, since we're in this giant time of need (as everyone suggests), to defeat the Republicans so we can get the country back to its feet (remember, supposedly, now, Hillary would have been the same as Obama in that respect) WHY did Obama (being the altruistic agent of change and hope for America he is) choose NOW to enter the race so late and divide the party? He's young. He may have the guts. But I would have voted for him without question in four to eight years when he would have more accountable experience and the race wasn't so dire. hell, him as Hillary's VP from the outset instead of bothering with the race that has come down to a pissing match would have been a definite vote for me.

I'm also skeptical about him and his camp spinning Clinton into a total psycho bitch with dollar signs in her eyes up until her conceit a couple of days ago when the wheels suddenly started saying that she's sure spunky! and Dang it if she and Obama aren't almost exactly alike anyway. How could she have been the mother of all monster private interest whores two months ago and the same as Obama now that the time has come for her supporters to turn around and support Obama. I find THAT confusing. And it doesn't instill trust or the sense of idealism that Obama is wanting to project.
If the reports of Hillary are true, and she is a power hungry cad, then I would have respected Obama much more had he said screw it, I don't want her to even be considered as my VP, because my ideals dictate that I go with someone closer to my own interests.
To me, that lip service, retroactive kissy-kissy, and offers to pay off her debts smack ONLY of politcal maneuvering designed to get the Hillary supporters on his side. And THAT smacks of just more of the same when it comes to politicians. Back scratching and favors for favors. There's nothing revolutionary about that.
If we're going for the same ole-same ole, I'd much rather go with the person who I believe could effectively utilize that political greasiness into something that does something good for the country.

--Dazz

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Here you are:

proper treason is an attempt to overthrow the government.

the definition as used by myself in this thread is in bold.

Let me know where to ship the dictionary to.

Okay. You're cherry picking definitions here. The first (therefore, primary) states:

"1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country."

Seeing that Rick invoked the image of "being dragged out in the middle of the night", the meaning's pretty clear.

But, y'know? I think accusing someone of BETRAYING their country by the act of exercising their constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choice sucks, by any of the possible definitions of the word. I can't imagine anything further from the American ideal that that sentiment.

[Crowley]

Okay. You're cherry picking definitions here. The first (therefore, primary) states:

"1. to deliver or expose to an enemy by treachery or disloyalty: Benedict Arnold betrayed his country."

The first definition does not exclude nor nullify the other 7 uses.

[Dazzler]

Here you are:

proper treason is an attempt to overthrow the government.
Which, by the definition laid out here, voting third party or anyone but Barack Obama would be tantamount to allowing the government to be overthrown. Let's not play that game. That's what was being said.

the definition as used by myself in this thread is in bold.

Let me know where to ship the dictionary to.
What's your address again?

--Dazz

[Crowley]

Which, by the definition laid out here, voting third party or anyone but Barack Obama would be tantamount to allowing the government to be overthrown. Let's not play that game. That's what was being said.
you realize that makes no goddamn sense right? The government would be overthrown by whom?

What's your address again?

--Dazz
That's your best comeback?
Do you need me to define "address" too? It also have multiple syllables and definitions.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Oh, never mind, Dazz: You call me Ethel, and I'll call you Julius. :tongue:

[Dazzler]

That's your best comeback?
Do you need me to define "address" too? It also have multiple syllables and definitions.

Well, the definition might have grammar in it. So, well, you'd be hard pressed, love.

let's not do this. It's stupid.

If this conversation is going to come right down to THIS, well there's absolutely no hope in November.

--Dazz

[Dazzler]

Oh, never mind, Dazz: You call me Ethel, and I'll call you Julius. :tongue:

Okay, Ethel. Let's go get a banana split.

--Julius

[Corrina]

That is surprising, as I was assuming what got her up in the morning and fuelled her campaign was a personal desire to have power.

No, I think what gets her up in the morning is her conviction that she is the one best suited to put this power to work.

A fine line, yes, but she's pretty much stuck to certain political issues all her life. It's enough of a pattern that I have to say she believes in universal health care. She just thinks she can use that belief to also leverage power.

ETA: One of the reasons the founders of America didn't address the slavery issue is because they believed they had a choice: the Republic or push the states who wanted to keep slaves on the issue. They punted, believing the issue could be addressed later, when the Republic was stronger. They were so afraid of how divisive the issue was, they even shut down debate on the issue for years in the Congress.

Now, we can argue whether that was right or wrong until Doomsday, I just bring it up because I think that's the kind of calculation that some gay rights supporters can make if they think McCain or a third party candidate might be better for the country aside from gay rights. In other words, what's best for the country may be to have someone who can get other issues because they're more of a priority.

[Sabrinaset]

Okay, Ethel. Let's go get a banana split.

--Julius

Double entendre sense ... tingling!

[Crowley]

Seeing that Rick invoked the image of "being dragged out in the middle of the night", the meaning's pretty clear.

But, y'know? I think accusing someone of BETRAYING their country by the act of exercising their constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choice sucks, by any of the possible definitions of the word. I can't imagine anything further from the American ideal that that sentiment.

I can't imagine what Rick's exact definition, but this is an America with black sites, NSA wiretapping, suspended Habeas Corpus, Gitmo, etc... it was betrayed long ago by many people who've ignored the Constitution consistently and yet were elected into office.

People who voted FOR segregation betrayed America... voting is not an inherently good and benevolent act, but it certainly can be and I don't put voting for McCain or a third party as treason. Betraying the ideals of the Constitution and the ideals of America? Yeah, absolutely.

Adding more to the death toll in Iraq and enabling an impending war with Iran? Yes.

[Dazzler]

Double entendre sense ... tingling!

Oh damn. Even when it's not going in that direction, it's going in that direction.

*shame*

--Dazz

[Crowley]

Well, the definition might have grammar in it. So, well, you'd be hard pressed, love.
--Dazz

Well played. :smile:

[Dazzler]

Well played. :smile:

*bow to you sir*

--Dazz

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Double entendre sense ... tingling!

ickickickickickickicktakeitbackick

[KevinTBrown]

In case this was missed before amongst all the "definitions":

Here's an piece in today's Chicago Sun-Times comparing 3 of the key differences between Obama and McCain: http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/991538,CST-EDT-edit06.article

[Stressfactor]

Can we AT LEAST celebrate this.... This afternoon, while running an errand, I was listening to Juan Williams on NPR and one of the things he said was that, between Obama succeeding and Hillary running as well he (Williams) has been hearing a lot of talk of hope out of the Black community. Not hope about the country's future but about people's own, personal futures.

He said that a lot of people in the Black community had believed themselves basically limited -- they had seen an ultimate ceiling above which they believed they would NEVER rise. Now, thanks to both Obama and Hillary Black men and women believe that they CAN get above it. There is HOPE that, ultimately, nothing is impossible for them.

We've still got a long way to go as a nation but, damnit, we've FINALLY come this far! I don't really give a damn about the rest of it -- this year this country broke TWO stupid barriers that have stood for too long.

[Corrina]

I don't think the female barrier is broken yet. But I think Hillary helped. A lot.

When Caroline Kennedy endorsed Obama, she said it was because the kids she worked with on a daily basis (mostly in the NYC public school system) looked at Obama and thought "if *he* can do it, then I have hope that *I* can do X."

I think that factor is very, very real and it's to be celebrated.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Can we AT LEAST celebrate this.... This afternoon, while running an errand, I was listening to Juan Williams on NPR and one of the things he said was that, between Obama succeeding and Hillary running as well he (Williams) has been hearing a lot of talk of hope out of the Black community. Not hope about the country's future but about people's own, personal futures.

He said that a lot of people in the Black community had believed themselves basically limited -- they had seen an ultimate ceiling above which they believed they would NEVER rise. Now, thanks to both Obama and Hillary Black men and women believe that they CAN get above it. There is HOPE that, ultimately, nothing is impossible for them.

We've still got a long way to go as a nation but, damnit, we've FINALLY come this far! I don't really give a damn about the rest of it -- this year this country broke TWO stupid barriers that have stood for too long.

Pretty cool.

But still, after all that's been said here, I'm in a pretty foul mood. :mad:

[Dazzler]

In case this was missed before amongst all the "definitions":
In terms of Iraq, Obama is still saying that America will have to help the Iraqis self-govern. that's still going to require a presence of Americans and American troops to make it happen. Troop withdrawal in a combat capacity is one thing, but having an American presence in Iraq is not going to be a peaceful process. Establishing a successful framework for government isn't something that can take under a year and then we're out. How long does he expect the United States to stay in iraq in ANY capacity?

Also, his position on Afghanistan seems very, very vague with the "finishing up" without actually saying that a combat presence would be leaving. It seems more like he's actually planning on leaving troops there to continue "fighting terror."

Isn't that just a rose by another name?

--Dazz

[FalconX2000]

As he has stated, within 16 months all combat troops would be withdrawn. He has only advocated a troop presence in the region, not specifically in Iraq itself. It could be in Isreal, Kuwait, whereever. Beyond that the only troops in Iraq would be those used to protect the charity workers.

Afghanistan is nowhere near stable. It's the kind of place where search and destroy would have a very big effect, if there were enough resources to do it.

[Infra-Man]

Apropos of the direction of this thread, I saw this posted on the SF Chronicle's blog.

Hillary's supporters to Obama: ''Continued scorn will not get my vote'' (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=27135)

I zeroed in on one bit of the post regarding the email from Billi L. Bromer

Full email in quoted text, bolded emphasis mine

I am one of those 'upset' Hillary supporters who is clinging to Hillary.com during my 'mourning and grieving' process. The media, the pundits, the politicians, and even the two remaining candidates are talking about me and my vote in November. But the story about Hillary supporters is incomplete.

The most simple -- but woefully incorrect -- way to address the topic of the displaced, diehard Hillary women supporters is to lump us all together.

We came to Hillary for different reasons and we are clinging to Hillary for different reasons.

Some of us are pretty strong feminists and we absolutely love the fact that Hillary represents all facets of the very best of women -- smart, tough, soft, protective, devious, tender, assertive compassionate (should I go on?)

Some of us have been more moderate (sensible) Democrats and we absolutely love the fact that she doesn't represent the more liberal/progressive lean the party seems to be taking.

Some of us just do not like Obama and we are NOT racists for not liking him. We see him as arrogant and smug and he just does not 'inspire' us.

We are homeless now and we are desperately seeking a home. We feel we have been ''abused'' by the Obama campaign and by the Democratic party.

Why would we go back to our abusers, especially when they continue to minimize our thoughts and feelings? The feminist in some of us certainly trumps any party loyalty we may have had and actually trumps any views we may have on Roe v. Wade or Iraq.

The more the party tells us how ''silly'' or ''stupid'' we are to ever consider supporting McCain, the more we become convinced of how we are not silly or stupid.

There is a message to be taken from this.

Continued scorn for Senator Clinton or my support for her is clearly not the way to get my vote. Continued pressure on Senator Clinton to get us into the fold is not the way to get my vote.

Obama himself needs to get my vote!

Continued denial by the party that half its voters just don't like their candidate is not the way to get my vote.

Any suggestion that I am bitter, delusional, should get over it because I lost, in mourning, desperate, or otherwise inadequate is not the way to get my vote.

What is the way to get my vote?

I don't know but, for me, it's not by making Hillary VP. For others, it seems to be.

Will it take sensitivity and outreach from Obama for me? A double team effort? Nah! I have no interest in seeing or listening to Obama.

Outreach from Hillary? Sure! But would it be with freedom for her to address women's concerns about sexism? I don't think so because the party wants me to just ''unite'' and forget how divided it really is.

Just like the superdelegate ''drip, drip, drip'' to Obama, there seems to be a ''drip, drip, drip'' of Hillary voters away from him. Understanding us may be the first way to stop the flow.
Thank you for listening.

Billi L. Bromer
Augusta, Georgia

So if you assert that "Obama himself" needs to get your vote and also assert that you "have no interest in seeing or listening to Obama," how can he get your vote? Why even assert that Obama himself needs to get your vote when what it will really take Hillary's ability to address sexism freely and openly to possibly get your vote?

I usually don't try to get so Spock-eared about things like this, but the illusion of an olive branch always bugs me. i don't dig the facade of false acquiescence or pretend open mindedness.

[Dazzler]

As he has stated, within 16 months all combat troops would be withdrawn. He has only advocated a troop presence in the region, not specifically in Iraq itself. It could be in Isreal, Kuwait, whereever. Beyond that the only troops in Iraq would be those used to protect the charity workers.
I don't see the difference. That looks like "We're taking out of harms way the combat troops that protect the American rehabilitation teams (corporate interests) and we're sending in troops to harm's way to protect the American rehabilitation teams (doubtfully charity)."
The American reasons for being there may be different, but the Iraqi reasons for aggression won't. American troops are American troops. It will still be the same combat, just under different pretenses.

Afghanistan is nowhere near stable. It's the kind of place where search and destroy would have a very big effect, if there were enough resources to do it.
Isn't that the whole she-bang that started this kerfuffle? Sending American troops to beat around the bushes in Afghanistan to maybe or maybe not find something?

--Dazz

[Buzz Dixon]

To me, that lip service, retroactive kissy-kissy, and offers to pay off her debts smack ONLY of politcal maneuvering designed to get the Hillary supporters on his side. And THAT smacks of just more of the same when it comes to politicians.http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/05/following_obama_dnc_announces.html

"The Democratic National Committee will no longer accept contributions from registered federal lobbyists or political action committees, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign announced.

"The move signals that Obama is beginning to assert himself as party leader, now that he has secured the nomination, and will seek to assure that the broader party machinery "conforms to all of his standards of openness and transparency," said campaign spokeswoman Linda Douglass.

Obama also is expected to overhaul the DNC staff in coming weeks, including by dispatching one of his senior strategists, Paul Tewes, to run the organization. DNC chairman Howard Dean will remain in place."

[Infra-Man]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/05/following_obama_dnc_announces.html

"The Democratic National Committee will no longer accept contributions from registered federal lobbyists or political action committees, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign announced.

"The move signals that Obama is beginning to assert himself as party leader, now that he has secured the nomination, and will seek to assure that the broader party machinery "conforms to all of his standards of openness and transparency," said campaign spokeswoman Linda Douglass.

Obama also is expected to overhaul the DNC staff in coming weeks, including by dispatching one of his senior strategists, Paul Tewes, to run the organization. DNC chairman Howard Dean will remain in place."

*ahem* That news is rockin' like Dokken.

[Crowley]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/06/05/following_obama_dnc_announces.html

"The Democratic National Committee will no longer accept contributions from registered federal lobbyists or political action committees, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign announced.

"The move signals that Obama is beginning to assert himself as party leader, now that he has secured the nomination, and will seek to assure that the broader party machinery "conforms to all of his standards of openness and transparency," said campaign spokeswoman Linda Douglass.

Obama also is expected to overhaul the DNC staff in coming weeks, including by dispatching one of his senior strategists, Paul Tewes, to run the organization. DNC chairman Howard Dean will remain in place."

gotta love that he's ACTUALLY DOING what McCain pretended to do.

[Sabrinaset]

Apropos of the direction of this thread, I saw this posted on the SF Chronicle's blog.

This is ... weird.

I am one of those 'upset' Hillary supporters who is clinging to Hillary.com during my 'mourning and grieving' process.

Good grief! Hill lost and this character is acting like someone died!

Some of us are pretty strong feminists and we absolutely love the fact that Hillary represents all facets of the very best of women -- smart, tough, soft, protective, devious, tender, assertive compassionate (should I go on?)

Yes, you should! :biggrin: I dunno, when I think Hillary, soft and tender are not high on the list!

We are homeless now and we are desperately seeking a home. We feel we have been ''abused'' by the Obama campaign and by the Democratic party ... Why would we go back to our abusers, especially when they continue to minimize our thoughts and feelings?

Is ... is this character actually comparing the fact that Obama won to spousal abuse? :eek: And you know ... I'm pretty sure the Deaniacs didn't feel homeless when he dropped out of the race against Kerry.

Any suggestion that I am bitter, delusional,

Perish the thought!

[CutterMike]

Okay -- having now caught up on this little angst-fest:

Rick: I'm sorry but, while I agree with your premises that the last (almost) eight years have seen more damage done to the image of America overseas, the rights of Americans at home, and the safety of Americans everywhere, I disagree with your conclusion that -- as you actively stated -- not voting for Obama is being a bad American.

Because I believe that not voting your CONSCIENCE is being a bad American.

Do I believe that four years of John McCain would be bad for the America that I want us to be...? Yes, absolutely.

Do I believe that Barack Obama is the best chance that we have to get a president that might be able to start moving us back to the America that I want us to be...? Yes, absolutely.

Do I believe that browbeating people into believing and acting as I do is ethically or morally justified...? No, I absolutely do not.

The rhetoric that you are using IS Coulteresque and IS pretty offensive. Question to consider: Having set up the "...either for the Constitution or against it..." argument as the only two possible options (ignoring that everyone from the ACLU to George W., himself, claims to be "for the Constitution") in what way does being a "bad American" differ from being a "traitor"? ("If you are not Caesar's friend... then what are you?")

If you want to convince people that electing Obama is the best thing for the country, then work at CONVINCING them, rather than shouting them down. That way lies Republicanism!:tongue:

To convince someone, you need to know what they WANT ("Never appeal to a man's 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.” -- Robert A. Heinlein), which brings us to:

Crowley: I think that the reason that you can't convince Dazzler that Obama MIGHT be best able to meet his needs is that he hasn't told you what those needs ARE. He mentioned some of the things that AREN'T in his top-ten most important issues, and not what ones ARE, leaving you trying to fight with one foot up in the air, rather than with both feet planted.

This is not to say that Dazz owes anybody any explanation of why he refuses to vote for Obama... He really doesn't. If he felt insulted because Obama said something badly, that he feels was a slight on his family and friends, that is his right. Whether any of us thinks that that is a valid reason to withhold his vote is immaterial because -- A: that may only be the final, proximate impetus for the decision, and not the underlying one(s), and -- B: it's HIS vote, not ours, to use as his mind, heart, and conscience directs.

OTOH:

Dazzler: If you could, and would, explain what your actual wish-list for a presidential candidate is, and where Obama fails your litmus test, it would, possibly, make it easier to talk and see whether anyone has anything that you might not have considered in reaching your decision. Again, as I said above; you owe nobody any explanation for your decision. It just seems so strange that, where Clinton and Obama DO share so many goals, you seem to wholeheartedly support the one and find SOMETHING completely unpalateable about the other.

Again -- no obligation, it just puzzles me.

And a final note to all, FWIW: Sam and Bri must find this whole"You're Un-American!", "No, you're Un-American!", "Well, you were Un-American-er FIRST!" scene hilarious and satisfying confirmation of their every opinion.

I'm just sayin', is all...!

[Dazzler]

You know Sabrina, the woman does have a point about one thing:

outreach from Hillary to quell any unresolved concerns would have a tremendous affect on some voters, rather than simply being expected to tow the party line without question.

It's not wise to pooh-pooh her on the basis of hysteria.

--Dazz

[Sabrinaset]

You know Sabrina, the woman does have a point about one thing:

outreach from Hillary to quell any unresolved concerns would have a tremendous affect on some voters, rather than simply being expected to tow the party line without question.

It's not wise to pooh-pooh her on the basis of hysteria.

--Dazz

Well, I agree that some outreach from *both* sides would be a nice thing, you're absolutely right about that ...

...but on the OTHER hand, the Democratic party and Obama ... abusers? Feelings of homelessness? Feelings of mourning? I dunno ... you don't think the poster is going a tad over the top?

I mean, when I found the Republican Party I belonged to wasn't the party I thought it was, I didn't waste time bemoaning my fate and feeling homeless, I just moved out to another home.

[section 8]

In terms of Iraq, Obama is still saying that America will have to help the Iraqis self-govern. that's still going to require a presence of Americans and American troops to make it happen. Troop withdrawal in a combat capacity is one thing, but having an American presence in Iraq is not going to be a peaceful process. Establishing a successful framework for government isn't something that can take under a year and then we're out. How long does he expect the United States to stay in iraq in ANY capacity?


the problem in Iraq is a very simple and basic one, you cant back down from a fight once the fight has already been picked. That's asking for MORE trouble. and is a sign of weakness.

Make no mistake I was not in favor of this war, but now that we ARE there, to up and leave now would be irresponsible.

Also, his position on Afghanistan seems very, very vague with the "finishing up" without actually saying that a combat presence would be leaving. It seems more like he's actually planning on leaving troops there to continue "fighting terror."

Isn't that just a rose by another name?

--Dazz

Of corse it is Vague the mans entire platform is vague.

Hell he only promises "change" tho no one knows what he plans to Change, how he plans to change it , or even if said "change" will be for the better.

[Michael P]

It's not wise to pooh-pooh her on the basis of hysteria.

--Dazz

If a person is hysterical (and the woman who wrote that piece clearly is), then it's absolutely wise to "pooh-pooh" her on the basis of hysteria.

[Dazzler]

Well, I agree that some outreach from *both* sides would be a nice thing, you're absolutely right about that ...
That's basically the gist of what I meant.

...but on the OTHER hand, the Democratic party and Obama ... abusers? Feelings of homelessness? Feelings of mourning? I dunno ... you don't think the poster is going a tad over the top?
LOL!
Oh, I do think she was going a bit over the top. That's true. But what she was saying, while being a little dramatic, still had some merit plugged in there.

I mean, when I found the Republican Party I belonged to wasn't the party I thought it was, I didn't waste time bemoaning my fate and feeling homeless, I just moved out to another home.
Bad American.

--Dazz

[rick]

Rick: I'm sorry but, while I agree with your premises that the last (almost) eight years have seen more damage done to the image of America overseas, the rights of Americans at home, and the safety of Americans everywhere, I disagree with your conclusion that -- as you actively stated -- not voting for Obama is being a bad American.



Mike you might be missing my point.

This is not about voting for Obama.

If Clinton won the nomination I would be saying the same things.

This is about recapturing our nation from what can only be defined as evil men.

Four years ago I went a little insane and ended up getting banned from CBR for a couple of years.

The reason I went nuts is that I was sitting here at my desk in Colorado pretty much yelling at the top of my lungs, that if the Republicans won four more years in office the war would go on, more innocents would die and back at home our rights as citizens under the constitution would continue to be whittled away. And anyone who helped keep the administration in office was as responsible for what was going to happen as the President himself.

I was loud, rude, self-righteous and obnoxious.

But Mike, I was also 100% right.

Four years later and 3000 more dead Americans and God only knows how many dead Iraqis.

Citizens being spied on, arrested without a warrant, held without charges and in some cases tortured, while an out of control Executive branch literally declares itself above the law.

Maybe I should be nice and polite and do my best to stroke everyone’s feelings and just try to nudge them into doing the right thing.

But so far, that trick hasn’t worked and because of this I am not going to hold back.

I know I keep writing about being for the war or against it, and being for the constitution or against it, and hey it might sound like a lame slogan, but it’s also the real life, actual stakes of this election.

If you are against the war, then doing anything that will help the Republicans get elected, including wasting your vote on a third party is going to do just the opposite of what you believe. Because simply put, if the Republicans win, the war goes on indefinitely.

If you believe in your rights and the rights of your fellow citizens as explained in the US Constitution, then once again, doing anything that will help the Republicans win, including voting for a third party, you are not doing anything to protect the constitution or your rights under it.

Like it or not, you can’t enable the action of evil men without being complicit in that evil.

And that really is the choice we are looking at as Americans in this election.

Do you support evil or do you take a stand against it.

Are you going to be a good American or a bad one?

Hell, we’re all comicbook geeks around here. I would think that the answer was obvious.

[Dazzler]

the problem in Iraq is a very simple and basic one, you cant back down from a fight once the fight has already been picked. That's asking for MORE trouble. and is a sign of weakness.

Make no mistake I was not in favor of this war, but now that we ARE there, to up and leave now would be irresponsible.
I'd disagree.

And we DID step in a pile of dog poop. But the best way to rectify the stepping in dog poop is to remove your foot from the pile before more gets on you. Something I don't think is going to happen as smoothly as everyone hopes it will.

Of corse it is Vague the mans entire platform is vague.

Hell he only promises "change" tho no one knows what he plans to Change, how he plans to change it , or even if said "change" will be for the better.

LOL!
Hey, nobody may know, but it IS Change we can Believe in.

--Dazz

[Dazzler]

OTOH:

Dazzler: If you could, and would, explain what your actual wish-list for a presidential candidate is, and where Obama fails your litmus test, it would, possibly, make it easier to talk and see whether anyone has anything that you might not have considered in reaching your decision. Again, as I said above; you owe nobody any explanation for your decision. It just seems so strange that, where Clinton and Obama DO share so many goals, you seem to wholeheartedly support the one and find SOMETHING completely unpalateable about the other.

Again -- no obligation, it just puzzles me.

EDIT: Sorry, Mike, i promise I'll try to formulate an answer to this, but unfortunately this had private information in it that I'm not actually too keen on sharing in retrospect.


--Dazz

[rick]

But, y'know? I think accusing someone of BETRAYING their country by the act of exercising their constitutional right to vote for the candidate of their choice sucks, by any of the possible definitions of the word. I can't imagine anything further from the American ideal that that sentiment.


If the person you vote for supports criminal and just plain unconstitutional behavior, and you are aware that they are doing it, then guess what, you are betraying your country.

[Crowley]

the problem in Iraq is a very simple and basic one,
No actually it's not... and that's why we're in trouble

You cant back down from a fight once the fight has already been picked. That's asking for MORE trouble. and is a sign of weakness.
Make no mistake I was not in favor of this war, but now that we ARE there, to up and leave now would be irresponsible.
Who are we fighting in Iraq? Who did we pick the fight with?
What are the objectives of the enemy combatants in Iraq?

answer those three simple questions.
Of corse it is Vague the mans entire platform is vague.
Hell he only promises "change" tho no one knows what he plans to Change, how he plans to change it , or even if said "change" will be for the better.
I do. All you have to do is read and do a little research or download a PDF.

[section 8]

Who are we fighting in Iraq? Who did we pick the fight with?
What are the objectives of the enemy combatants in Iraq?

answer those three simple questions.


1) A Combination of Religious Fanatics all of whom seek to control Iraq, and Purge the earth of each other. ( because thats what they believe God wants)

2) Originally Sadaam, ( because Dub'ya wanted to show up Daddy) but over time other enemies have surfaced

3) To drive us out, so that they may establish thier own Regimes, and carry out their own nefarious plans of Genocide and other crimes against humanity un bothered, ( so far Blue eyes in Baghdad is the only thing stopping them, or even slowing them down.) not to mention Turkey and Iran who will no doubt Decend upon an unocupied Iraq like Vultures on a corpse.

This war has become Vietnam all over again only Version 2.0
Pulling out of Irag would have far more dire consequences than 'Nam ever did

[Pink Bat Maxine]

If the person you vote for supports criminal and just plain unconstitutional behavior, and you are aware that they are doing it, then guess what, you are betraying your country.

Have a lollipop.

http://www.mtcnet.net/~hoekstra/images/lollipop.png

[rick]

Have a lollipop.

http://www.mtcnet.net/~hoekstra/images/lollipop.png



I don't know, my mom always warned me about taking candy from ladies.

[Nick Soapdish]

IWHY did Obama (being the altruistic agent of change and hope for America he is) choose NOW to enter the race so late and divide the party?

I'm ignoring the rest of the post. I disagree with most of it, but don't feel like arguing the points..

But this one really caught my eye because I thought that the election campaigning has been interminably long as it is.

Obama entered the race in February of last year - nearly a whole year before the first primary. And also about two weeks after Hillary entered.

And your response sort of ties into one of the things that has irritated me about a lot of Hillary supporters and a lot of the media coverage, especially the early coverage. She's been the presumptive nominee since before she even entered the race and a lot of people seem to have taken it as her right.

It's not.

As long as the Democratic Party is sticking with the primary system, we still get to vote and sometimes, we won't take the candidate that the establishment wants us to. I can understand that it's tough adjusting since it seemed like it was in the bag for over a year - until Super Tuesday, but that apparent sense of entitlement from many of her supporters wasn't doing her any favors.

[Sabrinaset]

I was looking for a particular McCain cartoon, but found another one which I thought was pretty apropos for posting on CBR ...

http://www.politickernv.com/files/politickernv/images/BoltNV033108.preview.jpg

[Dazzler]

As long as the Democratic Party is sticking with the primary system, we still get to vote and sometimes, we won't take the candidate that the establishment wants us to. I can understand that it's tough adjusting since it seemed like it was in the bag for over a year - until Super Tuesday, but that apparent sense of entitlement from many of her supporters wasn't doing her any favors.
Which could most definitely be said to apply to Obama in the last few months as well.
There certainly was a sense of entitlement that pervaded his campaign amidst the media and his supporters. That's no less irritating since HE became the candidate the "establishment" wanted the voters to take. He got considerably more flattering coverage with considerably more flattering vocabulary peppered liberally with a sense of it being a matter of technicality that he was the nominee.

I don't see how it's less of a faux pas for Obama supporters to use that irritation at Hillary's supporters as ammunition than it is the other way around.

--Dazz

[Crowley]

1) A Combination of Religious Fanatics all of whom seek to control Iraq, and Purge the earth of each other. ( because thats what they believe God wants)

2) Originally Sadaam, ( because Dub'ya wanted to show up Daddy) but over time other enemies have surfaced

3) To drive us out, so that they may establish thier own Regimes, and carry out their own nefarious plans of Genocide and other crimes against humanity un bothered, ( so far Blue eyes in Baghdad is the only thing stopping them, or even slowing them down.) not to mention Turkey and Iran who will no doubt Decend upon an unocupied Iraq like Vultures on a corpse.

This war has become Vietnam all over again only Version 2.0
Pulling out of Irag would have far more dire consequences than 'Nam ever did
Has our occupation made things better in that region or worse? and who's planning genocide?

[ShaunN]

Sorry, haven't been following this whole thread, but isn't it absolutely obvious by now that Bush (and the people around him) are criminals? One of the interesting things about the Bush years is that they have proved to be both revealing and destructive of many of the myths on which the American Republic was built. More than anything, this has hurt America's standing in the world - why follow an American model when it's absolutely clear that the model doesn't work in the US?

Consider all the failures: the Congress failed dismally in its duty to act as a check on executive power and, instead, became (and remains) complicit in the abuse of power. The executive has run amok, spying on its own people and making torture and murder elements of official state policy. The myth that the US has a "free press" has also been exposed - instead, it has a media which willingly follows the dictates of the state. And none of this even begins to get at the many international laws that Bush and his cronies have broken. Quite honestly, these people should be on trial in the International Criminal Court. Heck, they should be on trial in the US. (And I'm not even going to comment on the unbelievable damage done to the US image by the sheer incompetence of the Iraqi occupation. Corruption and nepotism have ruled the day in the US for the past 8 years and the Iraqi "reconstruction" is the sterling example of that. )

On a slightly different topic, does anyone have any comments on Obama's gaffe regarding Jerusalem? I don't know what the man was thinking, and I really wish someone could explain this bizarre need on the part of US politicians to pander to the most extreme fringe of the Jewish/Christian Zionist communities. These people aren't going to vote for Obama anyway, so why does he bother and why does he embarrass himself in trying?

Here is a link to a NYT article on this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/us/politics/07obama.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1212814959-hKaIkgUzwOTICRwgSkAnbA

Sincerely,

Shaun

[section 8]

Has our occupation made things better in that region or worse? and who's planning genocide?

Better for some, but in many ways Worse, but we can hardly change the past.

We need to focus on untangling this knot rather than getting frusterated, throwing it on the ground and, saying "Fuck it, it's not my problem"
because it IS our problem, and if we leave it will be again.

Specifically? i can't say, i haven't sat in on the meetings.but many religious sects in the area feel they'd be better rid of all others. i'm

sure the Kurds could tell you it's a real possibility.

[section 8]

Sorry, haven't been following this whole thread, but isn't it absolutely obvious by now that Bush (and the people around him) are criminals?

it is to me,

[Nick Soapdish]

Which could most definitely be said to apply to Obama in the last few months as well.
There certainly was a sense of entitlement that pervaded his campaign amidst the media and his supporters. That's no less irritating since HE became the candidate the "establishment" wanted the voters to take. He got considerably more flattering coverage with considerably more flattering vocabulary peppered liberally with a sense of it being a matter of technicality that he was the nominee.

I don't see how it's less of a faux pas for Obama supporters to use that irritation at Hillary's supporters as ammunition than it is the other way around.

--Dazz

I'm not sure if he was the candidate that the "establishment" wanted him to take. When did he finally take a majority of superdelegates?

And two more points ...

1) When (after Texas and Ohio), it requires Hillary to take about 75% of the vote in the remaining primaries in order to win (assuming superdelegates break even), is it really a stretch to be saying that he's probably going to win?

2) It's a faux pas for supporters for both candidates.

Obviously, I think that it can be less of one for Obama supporters since I think that they had a pretty good argument for their case. Plus, they've been doing it for only a few months as opposed to over a year (but they've cleverly chosen the months close to the election.)

And over those last few months, many (no, I don't mean a majority, but the ones that manage to find their way to the interviews) still seem to think that Hillary is the rightful candidate and that it's being (and now, has been) stolen from her. There have also been a lot of polls and statements from Hillary herself that her supporters would support her or no one (or even worse, McCain). I expect that it's just because it was a close and hard-fought race and that people will come to grips with their disappointment, but it seems to spin off of that entitlement.

[CutterMike]

(...)
If you are against the war, then doing anything that will help the Republicans get elected, including wasting your vote on a third party is going to do just the opposite of what you believe. Because simply put, if the Republicans win, the war goes on indefinitely.

If you believe in your rights and the rights of your fellow citizens as explained in the US Constitution, then once again, doing anything that will help the Republicans win, including voting for a third party, you are not doing anything to protect the constitution or your rights under it
(...)


Personally, I feel that the way to get things back on track is for people to convince their Congress-Critters to grow something resembling a spine, since Dubya didn't do *ALL* of this on his lonesome.

Anytime you hear somebody complain about a pothole, or the lousy schools, ask them if THEIR EMPLOYEES IN CONGRESS voted to cut funding for infrastructure repairs.

Anytime someone bitches about how long they had to stand in line at the airport, shoes in hand, ask them if THEIR EMPLOYEES IN CONGRESS approved establishing the TSA.

Anytime someone grumbles about his taxes, ask if THEIR EMPLOYEES IN CONGRESS voted for the tax cuts that primarily benefitted the people making ten times what he probably makes.

As Wendell Phillips said:

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty—power is ever stealing from the many to the few…. The hand entrusted with power becomes … the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted Agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity. (Emphases, mine.)

I think that you're putting too much emphasis on the election of one (admittedly, very powerful) man, and not enough on relentlessly enforcing accountability on the other 500+ who were, arguably, equally complicit in putting us into the state that we're in.

[LtMarvel]

I'd have no guilt if I was a 2000 Nader voter. It was Gore's job to convince me to vote for him and that he wasn't basically the same as Bush (a widespread view at the time at least over here).

You should feel the guilt. You failed to recogonize the danger that is GW Bush with the title POTUS.

[LtMarvel]

If it's okay for President #42 to lie under oath and suborn perjury to protect himself from embarrassment and avoid losing a lawsuit, then why is it not okay for President #43 to lie if he says he's doing it to protect the United States? Who has the better motive? If you're going to forgive the one you have to forgive the other since one acted on purely selfish motives and the other acted in a desire to benefit the country.
#42 lied in a meritless lawsuit brought up via political enemies.

#43 lied to lead us into a needless war.

Which one hurt the United States of America?

[section 8]

#42 lied in a meritless lawsuit brought up via political enemies.

#43 lied to lead us into a needless war.

Which one hurt the United States of America?

Both are good examples of conduct unbecoming of a comander in chief.

But Clinton WAS impeached.

[LtMarvel]

I was looking for a particular McCain cartoon, but found another one which I thought was pretty apropos for posting on CBR ...

http://www.politickernv.com/files/politickernv/images/BoltNV033108.preview.jpg
If only McCain could always move like that; he would never have been a POW.

[section 8]

If only McCain could always move like that; he would never have been a POW.

ok i gotta call you on that one, it was in poor tastes.

[Crowley]

Better for some, but in many ways Worse, but we can hardly change the past.

We need to focus on untangling this knot rather than getting frusterated, throwing it on the ground and, saying "Fuck it, it's not my problem"
because it IS our problem, and if we leave it will be again.

Specifically? i can't say, i haven't sat in on the meetings.but many religious sects in the area feel they'd be better rid of all others. i'm

sure the Kurds could tell you it's a real possibility.

Our occupation has worsened things... but I think withdrawal is the only option because the reason the IEDs are going off is primarily because they want us to withdraw our forces.

Several of the regional militias are waiting for the US to exit so they can then attack the next group they want out of their country... Al Quaida.

Beyond that I don't see a genocide occurring... though it's certainly a possibility, but most books written by strategists predicted this sectarian violence long before we entered the war.

Our best bet is to withdraw from Iraq and focusing on exterminating the Taliban that has reformed in Afghanistan and killing OBL in Pakistan with the help of Iran, Pakistan and combined UN forces special ops.

[rick]

I think that you're putting too much emphasis on the election of one (admittedly, very powerful) man, and not enough on relentlessly enforcing accountability on the other 500+ who were, arguably, equally complicit in putting us into the state that we're in.


Not at all.

I'm all in favor of the Democrats expanding their control of the Congress as well.

However, keep in mind that over the last eight years it has most definitly been the Executive that has called the shots.

So sure, more or less replace a big hunk of the Congress, but you need to change the Executive to make any lasting change.

[Crowley]

Which could most definitely be said to apply to Obama in the last few months as well.
There certainly was a sense of entitlement that pervaded his campaign amidst the media and his supporters. That's no less irritating since HE became the candidate the "establishment" wanted the voters to take. He got considerably more flattering coverage with considerably more flattering vocabulary peppered liberally with a sense of it being a matter of technicality that he was the nominee.

I don't see how it's less of a faux pas for Obama supporters to use that irritation at Hillary's supporters as ammunition than it is the other way around.

--Dazz

The math was on his side as was the money... if anything the fact that the media continued to pay attention at all to Hillary is because her last name is Clinton.

I told you back in March that she had no chance in hell...because of the numbers.
Obama outmaneuvered her, and it became statistically impossible for her to win.

me looking into the crystal ball in March:
I don't get Hillary trying to split the party.

At this point she can't win... the math just isn't there.

She'd have to get all the remaining SuperDelegates to go against the will of the people, which won't happen... and she'd have to get at least 80 percent of the vote in ALL of the remaining states.

She needs to hang it up now.

no,no,no... it's not that it doesn't look like she can win... it's that she can't win period. It's only possible if all the remaining Superdelegates go to her (which won't happen)

[section 8]

i agree that the UN should be brought in, but it would be irresponsible to leave it ALL to them since WE made the mess.

whatsmore if we are seen to be Forced out, if other nations see us give in to the insurgents, it sends a very clear message, "terrorism works. attack the US enough times and they will eventually give up and go home."

We will be less respected by our allies, and less feared by our enemies.

personally, i do not want to allow that

[Dazzler]

The math was on his side as was the money... if anything the fact that the media continued to pay attention at all to Hillary is because her last name is Clinton.

I told you back in March that she had no chance in hell...because of the numbers.
Obama outmaneuvered her, and it became statistically impossible for her to win.

me looking into the crystal ball in March:
So you're the next best thing to Miss Cleo.

--Dazz

[Samurai]

Okay -- having now caught up on this little angst-fest:

Rick: I'm sorry but, while I agree with your premises that the last (almost) eight years have seen more damage done to the image of America overseas, the rights of Americans at home, and the safety of Americans everywhere, I disagree with your conclusion that -- as you actively stated -- not voting for Obama is being a bad American.

Because I believe that not voting your CONSCIENCE is being a bad American.

Do I believe that four years of John McCain would be bad for the America that I want us to be...? Yes, absolutely.

Do I believe that Barack Obama is the best chance that we have to get a president that might be able to start moving us back to the America that I want us to be...? Yes, absolutely.

Do I believe that browbeating people into believing and acting as I do is ethically or morally justified...? No, I absolutely do not.

The rhetoric that you are using IS Coulteresque and IS pretty offensive. Question to consider: Having set up the "...either for the Constitution or against it..." argument as the only two possible options (ignoring that everyone from the ACLU to George W., himself, claims to be "for the Constitution") in what way does being a "bad American" differ from being a "traitor"? ("If you are not Caesar's friend... then what are you?")

If you want to convince people that electing Obama is the best thing for the country, then work at CONVINCING them, rather than shouting them down. That way lies Republicanism!:tongue:

To convince someone, you need to know what they WANT ("Never appeal to a man's 'better nature.' He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.” -- Robert A. Heinlein), which brings us to:

Crowley: I think that the reason that you can't convince Dazzler that Obama MIGHT be best able to meet his needs is that he hasn't told you what those needs ARE. He mentioned some of the things that AREN'T in his top-ten most important issues, and not what ones ARE, leaving you trying to fight with one foot up in the air, rather than with both feet planted.

This is not to say that Dazz owes anybody any explanation of why he refuses to vote for Obama... He really doesn't. If he felt insulted because Obama said something badly, that he feels was a slight on his family and friends, that is his right. Whether any of us thinks that that is a valid reason to withhold his vote is immaterial because -- A: that may only be the final, proximate impetus for the decision, and not the underlying one(s), and -- B: it's HIS vote, not ours, to use as his mind, heart, and conscience directs.

OTOH:

Dazzler: If you could, and would, explain what your actual wish-list for a presidential candidate is, and where Obama fails your litmus test, it would, possibly, make it easier to talk and see whether anyone has anything that you might not have considered in reaching your decision. Again, as I said above; you owe nobody any explanation for your decision. It just seems so strange that, where Clinton and Obama DO share so many goals, you seem to wholeheartedly support the one and find SOMETHING completely unpalateable about the other.

Again -- no obligation, it just puzzles me.

And a final note to all, FWIW: Sam and Bri must find this whole"You're Un-American!", "No, you're Un-American!", "Well, you were Un-American-er FIRST!" scene hilarious and satisfying confirmation of their every opinion.

I'm just sayin', is all...!

I already commented on this stuff earlier. I think it's sad, not hilarious, and I expect much better from Rick. (Did Paul hack his account or something? ;) )

It is a confirmation that the Democrats pull this orthodoxy of opinion at least as much as Republicans do, and Rick and I have talked about this before too. When Bush said "Either with us or against us", he was talking to the nations and organizations that hide, support, and aid terrorists. And the "us" he was referring to was not just all of America, but all freedom-loving people in the world. Trying to pretend he was speaking to voters about voting Republican or you're unAmerican is a complete twisting of history, hoping to convince the gullible, stupid, and people with poor memories that "they did it too" when in fact it was nothing of the sort. And if some of you took it to mean you were now the enemy, because you DO believe "America deserved it, and good on Al Queda for giving Uncle Sam a bloody nose", then yeah, you ARE unAmerican. But if that is your belief, you will take that as a compliment.

[Dazzler]

I already commented on this stuff earlier. I think it's sad, not hilarious, and I expect much better from Rick. (Did Paul hack his account or something? ;) )

It is a confirmation that the Democrats pull this orthodoxy of opinion at least as much as Republicans do, and Rick and I have talked about this before too. When Bush said "Either with us or against us", he was talking to the nations and organizations that hide, support, and aid terrorists. And the "us" he was referring to was not just all of America, but all freedom-loving people in the world. Trying to pretend he was speaking to voters about voting Republican or you're unAmerican is a complete twisting of history, hoping to convince the gullible, stupid, and people with poor memories that "they did it too" when in fact it was nothing of the sort. And if some of you took it to mean you were now the enemy, because you DO believe "America deserved it, and good on Al Queda for giving Uncle Sam a bloody nose", then yeah, you ARE unAmerican. But if that is your belief, you will take that as a compliment.

Sam, I don't know how to approach you. I'd like to comment on some of the things you say, but they seem just outside of my realm of reality.

I think we share a lot of basics, but we've obviously gone gonzo-style different timezones branching out from there.

--Dazz

[Crowley]

So you're the next best thing to Miss Cleo.

--Dazz

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/07/25/psychic.lawsuit/story.miss.cleo.jpg
"Ca' me naw fer ya free readin!"










Seriously... it was just projected math and running numbers (which I'm not good at... but Tim Russert is)

[Dazzler]

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/LAW/07/25/psychic.lawsuit/story.miss.cleo.jpg
"Ca' me naw fer ya free readin!"

Why is her catch phrase typed out even funnier than hearing her say it?



Seriously... it was just projected math and running numbers (which I'm not good at... but Tim Russert is)

Well. Not much I can say to that.

--Dazz

[Crowley]

Why is her catch phrase typed out even funnier than hearing her say it?
--Dazz

For me... growing up in Florida surrounded by real Cubans, Jamaicans, Haitians and other islanders etc... it's funny because of how BADLY put on it is.

[Dazzler]

For me... growing up in Florida surrounded by real Cubans, Jamaicans, Haitians and other islanders etc... it's funny because of how BADLY put on it is.

I've never met a Jamaican or Haitian in my life and I could tell you it's pretty bad.

I'm willing to bet Miss Cleo has never met one either.

--Dazz

[Samurai]

Sam, I don't know how to approach you. I'd like to comment on some of the things you say, but they seem just outside of my realm of reality.

I think we share a lot of basics, but we've obviously gone gonzo-style different timezones branching out from there.

--Dazz

Eh, just give it a try. If you treat me with respect, even when you completely disagree with what I have to say, then I will do the same for you. As the Pink Bat said a few pages ago, I don't try to attack people or insult them just because they happen to disagree with me. I try to discuss the issue, perhaps find common ground, or at the very least learn why you believe as you do and maybe share why I believe as I do.

Maybe we are so far apart that we are unintelligible to each other, but I'm certainly not willing to reach that conclusion yet. And I think we probably do share many of the basic goals, we perhaps just have different opinions on how best to reach them.

[Crowley]

From Hillary:
I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.

On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.

I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.

When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.

I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.

I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.

I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.

In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.

I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.

Sincerely,

Hillary Rodham Clinton

[Tages]

It's nice to see her edging a bit closer to saying the words "Obama won," I wonder if she ever actually will.

[Crowley]

She's endorsing him tomorrow and there's alot of VP talk right now... at very least I'm sure she'll score a sweet Cabinet position.

I'm very mixed on whether or not she should be veep... most analysts think it would be bad decision on Obama's part... I'm uncertain, I think she and Bill have alot to offer Obama.

[Crowley]

Just one last fairly meaningless comparison, check out the comments sections:

http://www.myspace.com/hillaryclinton

http://www.myspace.com/barackobama

In Obama's people are leaving personal messages, in Hillary's multiple people are telling her they've bought her as a pet.

[Stressfactor]

When it comes to Iraq and Afghanistan it's all about the carrot OR the stick. The military is the stick, the diplomatic corps is the carrot. Right now all Bush knows how to use is the stick -- he's bashing people with the stick left and right and threatening to bash others with the stick (and for the record, the stick is getting pretty worn out from all of this) and he's ignoring the carrot.

In fact, he's ignoring the carrot to the point where staffing and funding for the diplomatic corps is at its lowest point in decades. A LOT of people -- including some of Bush's OWN APPOINTEES keep saying that they could do a lot more in the Middle East if they just had the staffing and the funding for diplomacy ('cause no matter what other may say -- talk ain't cheap).

The clean-up in Iraq is going to HAVE to be about MORE than just troop withdrawls. If the US has a hope of not leaving that place in a mess then the diplomatic corps is going to have to be boosted so it can help step up to the plate.

I am so SICK UNTO DEATH of Bush's "War on Terror" (and look out, I'm going to get a little cussy here because this burns my buns) -- "Terrorism" is an IDEA, it is an IDEOLOGY. Sure, groups like Al-Quaeda espouse it but so do A LOT of other groups all over the world. At one point in time the IRA espoused it, so did the Libyans, etc. And, no matter what, you CANNOT stamp out an ideology by trying to kill or frighten those who believe in it! Do you want proof?

Ask how well trying to kill and destroy the Christians worked for the Romans

Ask how well Prohibition worked

Ask how well making abortion illegal worked.

Goddamnit all to hell YOU CAN'T KILL AN IDEA YOU FUCKING MORON! What you CAN do is change the situations that make those ideas so appealing to ordinary, non-loony people. You CAN help others find a middle ground and a peaceful solution. You CAN make it so that the vast majority of the native population will put pressure on their OWN radicals ON THEIR OWN because THEIR LIVES ARE GOOD, THEY ARE HAPPY, AND THE RADICALS WILL BE SEEN AS A THREAT TO THAT.

Will there always be loonies? Hell yes. We, ourselves are not without our loonies... Timothy McVeigh anyone? But you can reduce them, reduce their size, reduce their scope, reduce their influence, their importance, and their resources to harm others.

And for the record -- a lot of people have been talking about the "kids" killed in Iraq -- keep in mind folks, this war has already called up National Guard troops -- people we have sent middle aged, out-of-shape, weekend warriors into war -- Fuck people! In WW II and Vietnam the cut-off age for the draft was 35. And yet, we have sent quickly and sometimes poorly trained men and women in MIDDLE AGE with SPOUSES AND KIDS AT HOME into battle. Somehow, I don't think that was what they really signed up for when they joined the National Guard.

[Corrina]

Why would Hillary want a cabinet position where she can be fired and must take orders over a safe Senate seat where she has her own power? Granted, not as much as President, but still.....

[Buzz Dixon]

#42 lied in a meritless lawsuit brought up via political enemies.

#43 lied to lead us into a needless war.

Which one hurt the United States of America?Both, since excusing #42 for multiple felonies only sent a signal to #43 that he would not be held accountable.

Think about it: If the Senate had done its duty and removed #42 for lying under oath and suborning perjury, it would have set a standard that subsequent presidents would have been acutely aware of.

And as for the lawsuit itself, remember #42 wasn't being sued because he harassed Ms Jones, he was being sued because he refused to support her testimony that they had not had sex. #42 could have issued a statement saying he did not have sex with her but could not corroborate the other portions of her story, he could have refused to testify at all and would have received only an $80,000 judgment against him (the maximum allowed by Arkansas law in a default).

Instead, he chose to drag the whole country into his sociopathic psychodrama, dodging repeated attempts at an out of court settlement. The man clearly has mental and emotional problems, and the fact that Hillary supported in running for public office instead of getting him the professional help he so desperately needs is just one of many excellent reasons why she should never be president.

[Buzz Dixon]

YOU CAN'T KILL AN IDEATell that to the terrorists, that's what they're trying to do with their terrorism.

[Buzz Dixon]

Know what a Hillary Clinton presidency woulda been like?

Combine the worst aspects of Bill's presidency and Richard Nixon's.




Sumbody gimme an "Amen!"

[JamesRitcheyIII]

Tell that to the terrorists, that's what they're trying to do with their terrorism.

We missed--a million dead Iraqis can't be wrong. Hopefully, a few dozen were Terists, who were responsible for a few thousand.

You kill bad ideas with good ideas...The eastern and third world saw us as bullies before, and Iraq and Guantanamo have cemented that belief. Fear drives extremism--but if you back military strength WITH genuinely American ideas like honor, respect of other sovereignties and equal justice for all men, you can start to turn that around. Everybody in the east knows who Mossadegh was, what the CIA did to him, and the third world, who the IMF and World Bank are--and what they've done to their countries. We've had over half a century of a covert imperialism of short-sighted, radical self-interest.

[Major Comma]

I think Obama will most likely Nominate Hillary for the supreme court .

[Sabrinaset]

I think Obama should make Hillary our Ambassador to Bosnia.

[PatrickG]

Why would Hillary want a cabinet position where she can be fired and must take orders over a safe Senate seat where she has her own power? Granted, not as much as President, but still.....

Well, as I see it, it's practical executive experience for a later run while minimizing the collateral damage that Bill can do to her and Obama.

Also, the Veep slot is, aside from the profile it has, one of the most useless, non-influential spots in American politics unless the president dies or is incapacitated and if you become President that way, you're virtually guaranteed to have a crappy legacy.

She could be extremely influential in a spot like Health and Human Services.

Meanwhile, staying in the Senate is generally very difficult for an ex-presidential candidate. There's a lot of talk about how senators, in particular, are often shellshocked for months or years after a failed presidential bid. Other senators have an aversion to former presidential candidates, to some degree, and Hillary is already disliked by a lot of Democrats in congress, an effect multiplied by this election.

The DNC party establishment doesn't care for the Clintons and to some extent never has... but has given them the benefit of the doubt based on their pragmatic results. Bill and Hillary were tolerated because they could "seal the deal" with the American public.

Staying where she is, she actually loses ground. She's not going to be offered anything like majority leader.

Going to the VP slot, Bill becomes a HUGE liability for her and Obama. As-is, he's likely to emerge with a new sex scandal any day. Also, the VP has no real power, traditionally. It's the biggest joke in American politics and I've seen a number of national office holders say as much, citing that they would turn down a VP role.

There's been talk of a Supreme Court appointment for Hillary. THAT is something she's rumored to be interested in. Her age is not ideal for it but I think that would be the best outcome for her and the TRUE culmination of her career path and the experience she does have.

And a cabinet position would actually be the kind of real, tangible experience she's need to secure the White House or at least seriously push her agendas on issues like Healthcare.

I could see her either as Attorney General or Health and Human Services.

[Tetsuo_man]

I think hillary will try to replace harry reid as majority leader of the senate.

[Charles RB]

So if you assert that "Obama himself" needs to get your vote and also assert that you "have no interest in seeing or listening to Obama," how can he get your vote? Why even assert that Obama himself needs to get your vote when what it will really take Hillary's ability to address sexism freely and openly to possibly get your vote?

I have no idea.

Though after reading that, I also have no idea why the Democrat party would want her vote. It's someone bitterly screaming they're not bitter, comparing the loss of a candidate to domestic assault, outright admitting some of her mates are against Dem party policies ("oh noes, liberalism!"), and apparently the candidate's gender/feeling scorned trumps the fucking Iraq war.

"The Democratic National Committee will no longer accept contributions from registered federal lobbyists or political action committees, Sen. Barack Obama's campaign announced.

"The move signals that Obama is beginning to assert himself as party leader, now that he has secured the nomination, and will seek to assure that the broader party machinery "conforms to all of his standards of openness and transparency," said campaign spokeswoman Linda Douglass.

Oh YES! Rock on!


Hell he only promises "change" tho no one knows what he plans to Change, how he plans to change it , or even if said "change" will be for the better.

It can be found on the guy's website, and presumably campaign literature & some of his speeches.

[Charles RB]

Maybe I should be nice and polite and do my best to stroke everyone’s feelings and just try to nudge them into doing the right thing.

But so far, that trick hasn’t worked and because of this I am not going to hold back.

Not holding back isn't working either, and I don't recall it working back in 2004 either. I do recall it pissing people off (as it's done here) and make them dig in, the opposite result of what you were going for.


On a slightly different topic, does anyone have any comments on Obama's gaffe regarding Jerusalem? I don't know what the man was thinking

"Let's appeal to Voting Group X!"

It makes me sigh because he's talking about not only a city under dispute, but one in a foreign country - he has no control over its legal status anyway.

You should feel the guilt. You failed to recogonize the danger that is GW Bush with the title POTUS.

Neither did most people at that time - see aforementioned "assumption candidates were a lot similar". Hence, no guilt unless I actively have fucking ESP and can see visions of the future.


Our best bet is to withdraw from Iraq and focusing on exterminating the Taliban that has reformed in Afghanistan

That'd make us happy.

[Red Jack]

We missed--a million dead Iraqis can't be wrong. Hopefully, a few dozen were Terists, who were responsible for a few thousand.

You kill bad ideas with good ideas...The eastern and third world saw us as bullies before, and Iraq and Guantanamo have cemented that belief. Fear drives extremism--but if you back military strength WITH genuinely American ideas like honor, respect of other sovereignties and equal justice for all men, you can start to turn that around. Everybody in the east knows who Mossadegh was, what the CIA did to him, and the third world, who the IMF and World Bank are--and what they've done to their countries. We've had over half a century of a covert imperialism of short-sighted, radical self-interest.

QFT.

::back to lurking::

[Crowley]

Hillary dropped and endorsed Obama:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/25021292#25021292
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24993082/


"The way to continue our fight now to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our energy and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States," she said.

"Today as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary campaign he has won. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him and I ask of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me," the New York senator said.

"I honor her today for the valiant and historic campaign she has run," he said. "She shattered barriers on behalf of my daughters and women everywhere, who now know that there are no limits to their dreams. And she inspired millions with her strength, courage and unyielding commitment to the cause of working Americans."

[Charles RB]

I presume he's either exaggerating for effect or by "everywhere" he means "the US", as there've been female political leaders before.

[Paul McEnery]

I presume he's either exaggerating for effect or by "everywhere" he means "the US", as there've been female political leaders before.

Oh now. You know that America is the leader in all fights for freedom.

You'll be telling me there've been black leaders of nations next.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

The Democratic party strikes me as a party of enablers.

"If we lost your vote, it's YOUR fault for looking elsewhere for a candidate, rather than OUR fault for running a candidate who you don't have confidence in!"

2000 should have been a Gore slam-dunk. But he muffed it. Badly. People tend not to blame how a candidate running on a record of peace and prosperity lost to a failed buisnessman, cause.... hey it's not his fault! We have someone ELSE to blame it on; it's them damn Greens!

Notwithstanding that the margin of his victory should have been massive. Far beyond anyone's ability to touch.

But it's not his fault! It's them damn people who didn't stay on board, even if they couldn't believe in the man!

The Democratic Party doesn't have a right to my vote. They have a right to try to win it, as does the Republican Party and any other. In any given election they may do so. But I ain't gonna vote for them blindly. And they have some work to do between now and November, I'd say.

[Corrina]

Well, Gore did win the popular vote in Florida. If he'd called for a statewide recount rather than picking certain areas, maybe history would be different.

Not to mention if the Supreme Court justices had been appointed by Democrats rather than Republicans. Because when it all comes down to it, they pretty much broke along party lines.

But, anyway, nice words from Obama. And from Clinton. They're buds now, BFFs forever. :)

Seriously, though, if positions had been reversed, I think Obama's supporters would be resistant to Hillary at first too. To have a chance at history and fall just short is a bitter pill. I think they're both doing fine after a tough primary season.

Long way to November. Hard to predict what happens. McCain might put his foot in it, big time. Obama might (thought I doubt it.) And world events just might throw a monkey wrench into everything.

Re: Iraq. Yes, I'm convinced at this point that we have to pull out of Iraq, go back to Afghanistan and rebuild the place and finally root out or totally defang the Taliban and Osama. I think it would work because we do have strong local support (though it won't stay that way forever), a situation that doesn't exist in Iraq. Then, if we have the resources & they still need help & ask for help, we could do something for Iraq.

And a strong Afghanistan also acts as a deterrent to their neighbor, Iran.

[Infra-Man]

Interesting concession/suspension/endorsement today. The crowd seemed pretty lukewarm about anything concerning backing Obama, though they weren't as harsh as I thought they'd be.

This is ... weird.

Sadly, the content of that email reminds me of emails from my dad. It was uncanny.

Good grief! Hill lost and this character is acting like someone died!

[sic]

Is ... is this character actually comparing the fact that Obama won to spousal abuse? :eek: And you know ... I'm pretty sure the Deaniacs didn't feel homeless when he dropped out of the race against Kerry.

Yeah... the hyperbole in this email just makes her seem very irrational.

I have no idea.

Though after reading that, I also have no idea why the Democrat party would want her vote. It's someone bitterly screaming they're not bitter, comparing the loss of a candidate to domestic assault, outright admitting some of her mates are against Dem party policies ("oh noes, liberalism!"), and apparently the candidate's gender/feeling scorned trumps the fucking Iraq war.

Let alone scorn trumping reproductive rights (if that is among one of the voter's concerns) and possibly the person's economic interests.

The Democratic party strikes me as a party of enablers.

"If we lost your vote, it's YOUR fault for looking elsewhere for a candidate, rather than OUR fault for running a candidate who you don't have confidence in!"

2000 should have been a Gore slam-dunk. But he muffed it. Badly. People tend not to blame how a candidate running on a record of peace and prosperity lost to a failed buisnessman, cause.... hey it's not his fault! We have someone ELSE to blame it on; it's them damn Greens!

Notwithstanding that the margin of his victory should have been massive. Far beyond anyone's ability to touch.

But it's not his fault! It's them damn people who didn't stay on board, even if they couldn't believe in the man!

The Democratic Party doesn't have a right to my vote. They have a right to try to win it, as does the Republican Party and any other. In any given election they may do so. But I ain't gonna vote for them blindly. And they have some work to do between now and November, I'd say.

Gore ran a poor campaign, but given that he lost Florida by only 1500-something votes and Nader voters would have broken for Gore 2-to-1 (according to exit polling), Nader did cost Gore the election to some extent. I believe that New Hampshire could have possibly gone for Gore as well in 2000 had Nader not been running (if I remember the numbers right).

I remember reading in one three-panel strip of The Boondocks, there was a line about how we shouldn't be angry at the people people who voted for Nader but should instead be angry at the people dumb enough to vote for Bush. I agree, but I also realize that Nader's presence many made wonky in that election.

As someone who voted for Nader in 2000, I will freely admit that I was young, stupid, and didn't follow politics (though that would change as I scrutinized the Bush administration). I assumed that voting for Nader would be a lark to support a third party and that everyone else in the country would be smart enough to not vote for a guy pretending to be folksy, pretending to be country, and who spurns intellectualism despite going to an Ivy League school. I was wrong.

So, really, in the same way that Perot helped siphon off votes from Bush I and help Clinton win the 1992 election, so too did Nader siphon off votes from Gore and cost him the White House.



Now 2004, that was a total debacle. If 2000 was supposed to be a slam dunk, 2004 was supposed to be a slam dunk that breaks the fucking backboard and shorts out some arena lights. And they blew it. John Kerry, John Edwards, Bob Shrum, and Terry McAuliffe (then DNC chairman) just blew it. Of course, a part of the blame goes to the sinister machinations of Karl Rove and the similarly disreputable slime of the Swift Boaters and other 527s. But you know what? This loss was all the DNC's fault. They ran on a "But he's not Bush" platform and they got spanked.

[Charles RB]

Let alone scorn trumping reproductive rights (if that is among one of the voter's concerns)

It's generally part of feminism, isn't it?


Now 2004, that was a total debacle. If 2000 was supposed to be a slam dunk, 2004 was supposed to be a slam dunk that breaks the fucking backboard and shorts out some arena lights. And they blew it. John Kerry, John Edwards, Bob Shrum, and Terry McAuliffe (then DNC chairman) just blew it. Of course, a part of the blame goes to the sinister machinations of Karl Rove and the similarly disreputable slime of the Swift Boaters and other 527s. But you know what? This loss was all the DNC's fault. They ran on a "But he's not Bush" platform and they got spanked.

It was really embarrassing to watch, that one. I remember going to bed as the results were coming in and a hardcore Democrat was on AIM telling me "oh, it doesn't matter we lost State X, this is fine" - and what do I find when I've woken up, after how many fuck-ups Bush did?

(But it's all really the Green voter's fault!)

[Pink Bat Maxine]

Gore ran a poor campaign, but given that he lost Florida by only 1500-something votes and Nader voters would have broken for Gore 2-to-1 (according to exit polling), Nader did cost Gore the election to some extent. I believe that New Hampshire could have possibly gone for Gore as well in 2000 had Nader not been running (if I remember the numbers right).

I remember reading in one three-panel strip of The Boondocks, there was a line about how we shouldn't be angry at the people people who voted for Nader but should instead be angry at the people dumb enough to vote for Bush. I agree, but I also realize that Nader's presence many made wonky in that election.

As someone who voted for Nader in 2000, I will freely admit that I was young, stupid, and didn't follow politics (though that would change as I scrutinized the Bush administration). I assumed that voting for Nader would be a lark to support a third party and that everyone else in the country would be smart enough to not vote for a guy pretending to be folksy, pretending to be country, and who spurns intellectualism despite going to an Ivy League school. I was wrong.

So, really, in the same way that Perot helped siphon off votes from Bush I and help Clinton win the 1992 election, so too did Nader siphon off votes from Gore and cost him the White House.



Now 2004, that was a total debacle. If 2000 was supposed to be a slam dunk, 2004 was supposed to be a slam dunk that breaks the fucking backboard and shorts out some arena lights. And they blew it. John Kerry, John Edwards, Bob Shrum, and Terry McAuliffe (then DNC chairman) just blew it. Of course, a part of the blame goes to the sinister machinations of Karl Rove and the similarly disreputable slime of the Swift Boaters and other 527s. But you know what? This loss was all the DNC's fault. They ran on a "But he's not Bush" platform and they got spanked.

Yeah, but rather than just say 'Nader Bad', let's look at how and why there were people disenfranchised enough for Gore to lose them.... in indeed, they ever would have voted for Gore in the first place, which many say they would not have.

In other words, if I were a Democrat, I'd be thinking 'How can we do better?' rather than blaming other people. The election was theirs to win, and they didn't. They fucked up. And they can't lay their failures at other people's feet forever.

[Paul McEnery]

The Democratic party strikes me as a party of enablers.

"If we lost your vote, it's YOUR fault for looking elsewhere for a candidate, rather than OUR fault for running a candidate who you don't have confidence in!"

2000 should have been a Gore slam-dunk. But he muffed it. Badly. People tend not to blame how a candidate running on a record of peace and prosperity lost to a failed buisnessman, cause.... hey it's not his fault! We have someone ELSE to blame it on; it's them damn Greens!

Notwithstanding that the margin of his victory should have been massive. Far beyond anyone's ability to touch.

But it's not his fault! It's them damn people who didn't stay on board, even if they couldn't believe in the man!

The Democratic Party doesn't have a right to my vote. They have a right to try to win it, as does the Republican Party and any other. In any given election they may do so. But I ain't gonna vote for them blindly. And they have some work to do between now and November, I'd say.

I see that argument -- and I don't mean just you making it, because I've seen it around -- as an inverted entitlement.

Let's be sensitive to it. People got angry about Clinton because they thought she was acting as if she was entitled to their vote.

I call bullshit on that -- and if I've said something similar myself, I call bullshit on myself, too.

NOBODY is entitled to a vote, because a vote isn't something you CAN be entitled to. It's not like handing out gold stars to the top of the class -- where's my gold star; dammit, I got straight As!

You don't vote because someone has earned your support. You vote because, of all the real choices available to you, a certain candidate is least unlikely to do what you want them to.

(I started with "most likely", but a sense of pained realism overcame me.)

Projecting one's own sense of entitlement -- that if we were in that position, that's what we'd want, if we're honest with ourselves: Hey, I'm a good person, I'm smart, I want the right things, dammit, I'M entitled to be President -- does nothing to help us make a good decision.

If anything, it clouds our vision so we can't see the least worst tree for the forest.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

You don't vote because someone has earned your support. You vote because, of all the real choices available to you, a certain candidate is least unlikely to do what you want them to.

When you settle for the lesser of two evils, what you end up with is both lesser and evil.

It's because Americans as a whole have no imagination that things could be otherwise, that we're saddled with such terrible candidates, and terrible presidents.

The biggest tragedy is that the best we can do, as a nation, is to look for the guy liable to fuck up the least. That ain't gonna change overnight. I do hope it CAN change.

[Paul McEnery]

Yeah, but rather than just say 'Nader Bad', let's look at how and why there were people disenfranchised enough for Gore to lose them.... in indeed, they ever would have voted for Gore in the first place, which many say they would not have.

In other words, if I were a Democrat, I'd be thinking 'How can we do better?' rather than blaming other people. The election was theirs to win, and they didn't.

In my view of it, there were a few real factors that the Nader argument completely ignores.

1) The real Gore and the real Bush didn't appear until after the election. It seems to me that by, oh say, 2005 or so, 20/20 hindsight says "oh why didn't we vote for Gore?". And I imagine that's the majority opinion. Who knows? Maybe it isn't! But I think it is.

2) At the time, there didn't seem to be much difference between them. I wasn't horrified when Bush won. I wasn't horrified that Gore lost. Honestly, I didn't want a Gore presidency having followed his policies -- which seemed largely indistinguishable from Bush's. Oh how wrong I was.

3) Gore didn't want to win until he lost. And that's how he lost the election. He was only doing what Daddy wanted him to do, and the will wasn't there. If he'd wanted the nomination this year, it was his for the taking, I reckon (talking of entitlement!). The ticket I wanted to see was Gore/Obama. But Gore didn't want it.

4) I remember the moment when Gore lost the election. It was in the second debate, when he was totally out-humaned by Bush. Which leads us to 2004, and Bush outhumaned Kerry, too. Perhaps not the best strategy to run Kerry after all.

So on a technicality, maybe those Nader votes would have gone to Gore -- but to hell with it, Gore actually won Florida anyway, so how is that a real factor?

There are a lot of ways in which the election was Gore's to lose, and he found all of them. That's the only real issue on the table.

[Pink Bat Maxine]

So on a technicality, maybe those Nader votes would have gone to Gore -- but to hell with it, Gore actually won Florida anyway, so how is that a real factor?

There are a lot of ways in which the election was Gore's to lose, and he found all of them. That's the only real issue on the table.

Mark the calender: We agree!

[Buzz Dixon]

You kill bad ideas with good ideas.And you kill killers with other killers. If Wahabism was willing to confine itself to pure intellectual debates to win the hearts and minds of Islamic believers and convert others, that would be perfectly all right. The fact that Islamic terrorists willing to plant car bombs in markets crowded with women and children means they are beyond the pale and should be eliminated as swiftly as possible.

If we can catch 'em without killing 'em, fine. But if one encourages others to blow themselves up and kill innocent civilians to promote Wahabism, feign no surprise when the U.S. and/or the Israelis come a'calling.

Larry Niven's First Law of the Universe:
Don't throw crap at an armed man.

Larry Niven's Second Law of the Universe:
Don't stand next to someone throwing crap at an armed man.

[Buzz Dixon]

I think Obama will most likely Nominate Hillary for the supreme court .Never happen. Her husband was impeached and disbarred for lying under oath and suborning perjury, she defended him. They are married politically as well as legally.

If she had divorced him, perhaps.

[Buzz Dixon]

I think Obama should make Hillary our Ambassador to Bosnia....and we have a winner! :biggrin:

[Buzz Dixon]

I think hillary will try to replace harry reid as majority leader of the senate. Why not, she's already good practice with concession speeches.

[Infra-Man]

It's generally part of feminism, isn't it?

Yup, I'd think so, which is another reason why the person writing the email seemed completely irrational.

It was really embarrassing to watch, that one. I remember going to bed as the results were coming in and a hardcore Democrat was on AIM telling me "oh, it doesn't matter we lost State X, this is fine" - and what do I find when I've woken up, after how many fuck-ups Bush did?

(But it's all really the Green voter's fault!)

I remember seeing a show that night (Q and Not U w/ Ted Leo and the Pharmacists) that went from cool to ugly. Ohio returns looked bleaker and bleaker as the night went on, the sound guy (some douchebag in a Pantera shirt) called my friends and me "faggots" for trying to dance and at least have a good time, and my roommate and I got home and smoked cigarettes all night while watching the news.

I was talking to that old roommate about this election and we're both wondering how our election night will go this time around.


Yeah, but rather than just say 'Nader Bad', let's look at how and why there were people disenfranchised enough for Gore to lose them.... in indeed, they ever would have voted for Gore in the first place, which many say they would not have.

That I agree on. I'm assuming part of it came from Gore's inability to seem folksy and personable. I suspect Gore's ties to the Clinton administration may have also cost him, given that the Lewinsky thing probably kicked off a lot of moral outrage with the so-called "values voters." The rise of the Republican Congress under Gingrich may have also contributed to this. I don't remember the Congressional race at all, but did the Republicans gain additional seats in 2000?

In other words, if I were a Democrat, I'd be thinking 'How can we do better?' rather than blaming other people. The election was theirs to win, and they didn't.

Well, looking at 2000, 2004, and the mid-term success of 2006, the dems' rudimentary strategy for 2008 seems to be this:
Continue Howard Dean's 50-state strategy
Use the grassroots and netroots for fundraising and support while tapping big donors
Don't let the Republicans force the Democrats to take a defensive stance (this was Kerry's biggest problem, imo, apart from his complete lack of charisma--Kerry has a legislative branch personality, not an executive branch personality)
Win over independents and Republicans if possible while ensuring you don't lose any of your base (this will be key in the coming months)
Run on a message of changing Washington (worked for dems in 2006, it's Obama's slogan for 2008, and McCain has even taken up the "change" banner if his speech earlier in the week is of any indication)

[Buzz Dixon]

Well, Gore did win the popular vote in Florida. If he'd called for a statewide recount rather than picking certain areas, maybe history would be different.I'll give you a nickel for every official state sanctioned count that ever showed him in the lead in popular votes in Florida.

[Buzz Dixon]

If 2000 was supposed to be a slam dunk, 2004 was supposed to be a slam dunk that breaks the fucking backboard and shorts out some arena lights. And they blew it. John Kerry, John Edwards, Bob Shrum, and Terry McAuliffe (then DNC chairman) just blew it. Of course, a part of the blame goes to the sinister machinations of Karl Rove and the similarly disreputable slime of the Swift Boaters and other 527s. But you know what? This loss was all the DNC's fault. They ran on a "But he's not Bush" platform and they got spanked.Kerry tried to have it both ways, proudly proclaiming his vet status and yet not atoning for calling his fellow brothers-in-arms murderers and rapists 25+ years earlier. If he and the others did not expect payback for that, they were imbeciles of the lowest order.

[Infra-Man]

I'll give you a nickel for every official state sanctioned count that ever showed him in the lead in popular votes in Florida.

Are there any? I thought he came up just short in every one.

[Buzz Dixon]

Are there any? I thought he came up just short in every one.Preeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeecisely...

[Paul McEnery]

And you kill killers with other killers. If Wahabism was willing to confine itself to pure intellectual debates to win the hearts and minds of Islamic believers and convert others, that would be perfectly all right. The fact that Islamic terrorists willing to plant car bombs in markets crowded with women and children means they are beyond the pale and should be eliminated as swiftly as possible.

If we can catch 'em without killing 'em, fine. But if one encourages others to blow themselves up and kill innocent civilians to promote Wahabism, feign no surprise when the U.S. and/or the Israelis come a'calling.

Larry Niven's First Law of the Universe:
Don't throw crap at an armed man.

Larry Niven's Second Law of the Universe:
Don't stand next to someone throwing crap at an armed man.

Though of course Wahabism is far from the only armed man willing to kill civilians to get its way.

Perhaps we might want to divide the world less between the Israelis and the Americans on the one hand and the Muslims on the other. Perhaps we ought to divide the world into armed bastards who kill children to get their way, and the rest of us.

Because every time you say it's just the Wahabists, you're as good as pulling the trigger yourself.