« Religion and Politics | Main | Links With Your Coffee - Monday »
"We're electing a president we're not electing a cheer-leader."
Commenting Policy
note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.
Zaphod for President on:
Progressivism-Is-Cancer
Zaphod for President on:
Links With Your Coffee - Thursday
Andyo on:
Jude Law
Andyo on:
Links With Your Coffee - Friday
Jaunt on:
In Dodd We Trust
Cosy on:
The War on Facts
inwit on:
Happy St Patty's
Tim on:
Health-Con1 - The Mediscarening
Robinson on:
The 'Life of Brian' Debate
RedSeven on:
"Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!"- Glen Beck
jillbryant2003 on:
Capitalism 101
RedSeven on:
Links With Your Coffee - Tuesday
jonathan becker on:
Crumbums and Fatcats
RedSeven on:
The Complete Ferguson Fry Interview
RedSeven on:
The Internet: Where Religions Come to Die
Syngas on:
Slaughter Rule
schparrow on:
It's Pet Peeve Week!
jonathan becker on:
Becker's Bible Basics
RedSeven on:
The Low Anthem - Charlie Darwin (music video)
RedSeven on:
Rube Goldberg
Syngas on:
Be the Match
RedSeven on:
Placebo Effect Getting Stronger
bugjah on:
What are Syngas's beliefs on climate change
gypsy sister on:
Trouble in Euroland
Powered by Movable Type Pro
Copyright © 2002-2010 Norman Jenson
Comments
Oh, for the love of god.
How many Harvard law grad, constitutional law professors does it take to make a pyramid?
How much bullshit can you shovel before the smell never comes off?
Wow. Obama for president, first of all. By Gov. Rendell's own argument, Obama for president. We are not electing a cheerleader. A cheerleader? Fuck that, and pardon my French. Obama is a US Senator, and he can speak rings around this guy, and both Clintons combined. Cheerleader? Muslim? Hussein? Keep hurling the BS, it's only BS, it means nothing, and it's pathetic.
Their is a patrician, elitist, snobbish air to this anti-Obama salvo. Why is a good orator now a cheerleader? I dismiss this guy as a party hack acting on his political loyalties. Funny. Adlai Stevenson, who Rendell refers to here, in my estimation would be an Obama voter. Who knows. BUt someone tell me how Clinton, right wing pro war neocon Nafta voter, is a liberal. Give me an example? Don't say health care, please.
Ack, typos, sorry. This one pissed me right off. Nite.
Rendell might be right on the points he raised about people not wanting to vote for something than a white guy, but he doesn't support his point about Obama well. Both Obama and Clinton talk about policy and vision; both have little cheers (yes we can point point clap clap).
Talk about the vision you like, which candidate supports that vision, and how.
I don't really have a problem with him making the point that being a good speaker doesn't necessarily make him a good President. Sure he was a little belittling about it, but it seems odd to me that people are getting offended. O_O
He sounds like he wants what's best for America, and even if you don't agree with how/why, it seems like an overreaction to treat him as an enemy (which is how the above comments came across to me).
You would have to be a 'true believer' to find Ed Rendell's remarks offensive. He was respectful and he acknowledged Obama's strengths. He simply said his record wasn't long enough to be sure he could produce. The example of John Kennedy was telling. He said nothing about Hussein, and he said nothing about Muslims , and yet you include them in your rant. That is pathetic, that is bullshit, and you ought to be ashamed.
She's gotten some pretty good press all week, in response to her whining. That fits her well for Whiner-and-Chief. I can just imagine: "Ahmadinejad! You promised you would stop weaponizing uranium! These are sneaky tactics! And the Iranian press has not portrayed either the campaign I've failed to managed well, where I showed my skills as an executive, or the presidency I'm managing equally poorly, in a positive light!!! It's not fair, oh . Tell you what, I'll cry you river, and we can go salt-water rafting together down it in my pity boat! Oh boo hoo hoo!"
The "experience" argument is bunk. Watching the 60 minutes piece on Ohio clued me in to why people buy it. One old lady said: "The economy was doing well when Bill was president, so if she has him as an advisor or cabinet member..." Um, yeah. We should vote on the basis of spouses who have experience the candidate herself lacks. That's what presidential politics is all about.
Yeah, you're right. It's as though HRC still can't believe she's losing to this guy--what? Someone I have 4 more years of national senate experience on, during which I made some pretty disastrous decisions, and 0 more years of legislative experience generally is beating--ME! The experience candidate! What? People aren't buying my vague sound bites about "mandates," and don't believe my claims that my opponent is vague? Didn't they see my fear-mongering commercial about a possible nuclear attack? They didn't appreciate my lining up with the Bush administration saber-rattling over Iran didn't convince them? (Clearly this shows I'm a "fighter"!!! The kind that will take the convenient vote, like waging illegal wars, when tough decisions come my way!) This is important experience--and the world is such a complicated place that only a liar like me can run it right.
Calling him a "cheerleader" is hardly respectful. And like most Clinton attacks, it goes after his strengths, rather than, say, his legislative record or policies.
Again: Clinton has 4 more years national legislative experience. Having been elected to the IL Senate in 1996, Obama has 4 more years of legislative experience generally. Is that a better reason to vote for him? No, the experience argument is crap, esp. when Clinton is allowed to cherry pick retrospectively what she did and didn't agree with in the Clinton Whitehouse.
Obama doesn't cherry pick what he did? You're kidding, right?
either candidate will not get the hick vote because hicks will not vote for a woman or a black man. (they are at least a century behind on most issues), so who cares about them? They are not going to be the deciding factor between Obama and Clinton.
As for that per capita comment at the end, I find it interesting that he mentions the issue of not investing in young people, but does not mention the "war" on drugs that has contributed to that 1 out of a 100 statistic. if not for the war on drugs all those people would not be in jail right now. Having worked defending people I cant say that something like 90% of those drug convictions are poor minorities, so when talking about that 1% we are really talking about something like 5% of the total african american population being in jail as I write this. peace
He doesn't use it as an argument for putatively superior "experience" --that's the point. He grants to Clinton that she can claim her first-lady experience as political "experience". But if the standard for claiming it in the case of successes is an outright identification with the Administration, then she cannot magically change those standards when it comes to the Administrations failures.
When Obama is challenged on his record, all he uses to defend it is the record itself. Not that he "voted for the credit card bill but hoped the bill wouldn't pass" (as HRC has done). Not does he make claims like HRC's nebulous claims that, in secret, behind closed doors, in a way no one will ever be able to verify, she disagreed with the Administration only in those cases where it now turns out to be political inconvenient.
I think in at least some of the cases where she said she disagreed with the Administration are verifiable apart from her claim, NAFTA for example. That said, you can if you are an Obama supporter say it is simply political convenience but then not offer evidence. That is also quite convenient.
Then there cases where Obama simply misstates the facts for example his claim that Robert Reich said his healthcare plan would cost less. It was pointed out by Factcheck.org that was false and yet come the next debate he used it again. Though perhaps he just found another economist that was willing to say what Reich had not.
1-in-100 Americans are in jail because of poor education? What? More Americans are attending college, or holding degrees, than ever before.
No, friends, the culprit is not education, the culprit is the drug war- one of the most racist pieces of class-warfare ever invented.
One dem candidate has acknowledged this, and has proposed an end to these draconian laws.
I would tell you which one, but then I would be accused of worshiping him again.
Fun fact: every single dem candidate currently running has used drugs. Only one has admitted to it. And yes, he inhaled. In my eyes, this is an asset, not weakness.
This is an excerpt from a series of comments that I made on the NAFTA thread. For the record, I am reposting them here:
I went to blogger's meeting yesterday. There were 8 people there. Very left. Two won't vote for Obama, two won't vote for Clinton, four would do both. It is too small a sample to draw any conclusions. However the other person who could not vote for Obama was a black lesbian, working class girl. What does that tell you? Oh I almost forgot the best part. Why? I am long-winded she was short and sweet. He's not a Democrat. Hello?
If I see people on the street with a button, I ask questions. I talk more with Clinton supporters than I do Obama supporters because they generally can't say anything. He's wonderful, the best thing since sliced cheese, change, you know the drill. Policy? Accomplishments? Nada. They talk in Messianic terms. JoAnn is the one really critical thinker that I have encountered. She knows her stuff. A few others too. That's cool.
Clinton supporters are far different. They point to accomplishments and failures. They talk about experience and values. About being Democrats. Not one Obama supporter has said this to me: I like Obama because he is a Democrat. Not one. That is so troubling that I can not even begin to tell you. What is he then?
Clinton supporters tend to be older, more women than men, the women very well dressed (in SF), party members, from all social classes and heavily gay (I live in the Castro so that is a factor). When I go to the Mission Dolores area, I see more Obama signs. The demographics are younger, less affluent, and not party members. Let me see which group is more fickle?
I find that remark to be sexist, quite frankly and that is one of my chief complaints against Obama supporters. Their language. Everything Mrs Clinton does is cast as some sort of emotional rant. Translation: she is an out of control woman.
I had this conservation today in the Castro with a woman in her 50s. She is appalled at Bill Maher, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews. Their comments are unacceptable. She mentioned some show I have never seen. Something about losing weight. One group of guys and one group of girls. Apparently the guys cry more but there is one girls who also girls. Not one of the guys is criticized only the girl.
Why is Hillary so popular with gay men? And Barack not so much? Could it be we aren't sexist? Are all heterosexual men about power and control. You keep on proving Canetti right.
I am going to share what one academic friend, a professor of history at Wake Forest, thinks of Obama.
and then he adds
And my former boss from Wall Street.
and if you look at the ethanol thread you'll discover his politics.
Go on TalkLeft or CorrenteWire, those are academics. Hear what they have to say. Big Tent Democrat is a "tepid" Obama supporter. Listen. Hear their concerns.
I'm sorry but you don't even see the sexism and misogynist comments you are uttering.
Experience is bunk? Are you serious? That is what life is. A sum of experiences.
Maybe I need to repeat this too:
We are experts of our own experience and Mrs. Clinton is simply older, wiser, more experienced, more adroit, more adaptable because actually we are at least adaptable in our 30s and 40s generally because in those years we have the burden of children. It is a sociological argument. So in addition to sexist, you are ageist?
Honestly stand back and read you are saying. Words matter. I can hardly wait to read the comments on Obama and Presidential History because that was a test of your thinking. The first part of the post was satire but I will bet the comments apart from Norm's mostly ignored the core of the piece which was the last the paragraph and the effusive praise for the man in my estimation was one the greatest President of the 19th Century. The others would be Jefferson and Jackson. My list does not include Lincoln.
Some historians admire Lincoln, no doubt, but they are also highly critical of him. He was authoritarian. He freed the slaves not because some deeply held desire to free them but as a weapon against the Confederacy. He allowed his generals, Sherman in particular to burn Georgia to the ground. That act was the single most devastating act of war in the entire 19th Century on the planet. Why did he burn Atlanta to the ground? Oh yeah to win an election. He was guilty of war crimes. Yeah he gave great speeches too.
He had a few qualities of note. Determination and he listened to his closest advisers and his Cabinet was a debating society. Meanwhile he shut down free speech and suspended habeus corpus. Riots in the streets quelled by troops. And Obama admires him. Why? So does Clinton? Why? The reasons are the difference.
The whole point of that post was to see how you thought about Presidents. Which ones you liked and why? Instead you likely attacked me. You get opportunities to formulate your thoughts and you pass them up.
The South is what the South is today for many reasons. Its Scot-Irish heritage, its legacy of slavery and discrimination but also because Lincoln burned it to the ground. Look at a picture of Richmond in 1865 and compare that to one of New York in 1865. Pietersburg nothing was left. The only major city in the South that emerged unscathed was New Orleans because the Union navy captured it. But its citizens were terrorized for 4 years. The Union blockade starved the Confederacy into submission. More Southerners died from starvation than they did from bullets. No different than the siege of Troy. Two wrongs do not make a right.
You win the war and then what happens, you rape the South again. You yank every penny out of the South. Ever wonder why they hate Yankees?
So what exactly do Clinton and Obama want to emulate about Lincoln? And in Obama's case JFK? JFK is more image than any thing else. Failure after failure internationally because he lacked experience though a few legacies of note: expansion of science, the Peace Corps, VISTA, Interstate expansion. The vision part. The experience part led to Vietnam and a 50 year dictatorship in Cuba. And those are the Presidents that Obama wants to emulate. Are you comfortable with that? I'm not.
You cannot fool a historian. We have seen it all before. So that lack of experience Obama has could prove fatal in Iraq. That worries me quite frankly. He talks judgment. Ok I do take him at his word, he won't get us into another war but does he have the expertise to extricate us from one? Getting out of a war is far tricker than getting into one. Experience matters. The vision thing great. What the Oprah Book Club goes national? Great! I love to read. I am not even quite sure what he means by vision other some bizarre love fest with the GOP. In his letter last week to the LGBT community, he told us that he wants equality and then in very next line goes but that he will listen to the other side. James Dobson? That is so vague it is obscene. I guess as always the LGBT community is the sacrificial lamb. A friend told me this:
Ouch! I agree with my friend from NC, Obama is a tool. When a black lesbian can't vote for him mother mary of jesus. You're dead in the water. He can't win. Which is probably a good thing because he is likely to make so many mistakes that he could set the Democratic Party back another generation. Ineffectual like Carter who too had vision.
For the record, Bush is not President. Cheney is. And Cheney knows what he is doing. It is one tact to take. There are others. I would take a different tact but Cheney may be proved right in the end. I may be wrong. Figure it out. Think. It is about oil. We have seen natural resource wars before. Cheney is doing what the Lydians did around 700 BC. It worked then. The problem is different because this war ain't about bronze. Cheney's strategy is arguably the best one to take. It has worked in the past.
You think you are seeing someone fresh and new. You're not. This is just the next Richard Nixon. Same personality traits, same language, same behaivour, same approach to politics. Call me when Watergate is over. I hope there is another Barbara Jordan waiting in the wings. Obama stands to make Bush look good. So maybe Bush is right after all. History will look kindly upon him.
Here's hoping for the Bradley Effect. Quite the statement to make. Unreal.
I just started reading a book on rhetoric and popular communication in the US so I can better understand what I am seeing because I just don't get it. You fuck up time after time after time. It is as if you want the worse candidate to win. Are you suicidal? The book is entitled Popular Stories and Promised Lands: Fan Cultures and Symbolic Pilgrimages by Roger Aden.
Opening line says it all:
It continues in the opening paragraph
In effect, you are a restless people. For heaven's sake settle down and think. The life you save may be your own.
Once again you are on a symbolic pilgrimage to nowhere. That is American social history. A people at war with themselves and who take it out on the rest of world. While Europe is building long-lasting social democracy, you are headed for civil war again and dissolution. This cannot last. You simply make very poor collective decisions.
Just tell me why you do it so I don't have to spend all night reading trying to understand the lunatics I live amongst. I am sorry if that offends you but anyone who throws away Mrs. Clinton is not rational.
Charles
Please read the posts on the NAFTA thread which offer why the corporations rule the roost in the US and how until you fix that problem you are headed for disaster. I am not kidding. If income distribution continues to widen, there is going to be blood on the street. I feel like it is Buenos Aires 1970. Roll the tanks three years from now.
You are headed in the wrong direction and instead of moving to the left with Edwards, you grab the center with Obama who represents the problem. The corporations win, you lose. You need to move to left quickly. Otherwise there will be nothing left. Pun intended.
Look Mrs Clinton is not perfect. She has warts but she has more experience. She is also slightly and I mean slightly more to the left than Obama. You FUCKED UP. You could have had Edwards or Kucinich. Now the best choice is Clinton.
Then Obama is the new face of corporatism. You are being sold a candidate of corporations for corporations and controlled by corporations. Black is the new Big Blue.
You are being sold a candidate by David Axelrod and please don't respond until you know who that is.
Buy it now. The problem with your electoral campaigns is that they are not campaigns in the public square like we have them in Latin America or Europe. They are advertising campaigns run by Madison Avenue for Wall Street.
The biggest attribute to your one annual ritual are the ad campaigns run during the Super Bowl. You live breathe and sleep advertising.
When I worked at Goldman Sachs. Wanna know my job?
When will you listen to Main Street or Castro and 18th?
And now the gloves come off.
I'm getting sick to death of Barack and Hillary both.
Maybe a McCain administration -- 8 more years of war, torture, injustice and a further decline toward a police state -- will teach the American people an important lesson that evidently they have yet to learn.
And hey, Charles... whenever I post a particularly long comment here I feel a little sheepish, myself, because blog comment threads are ultimately a short-term, low-impact communication medium...
So, like, how much time and energy did those last few posts cost you...?
Adam,
I just don't get it. Your comments on the ethanol thread were nothing short of brilliant and then you come back to advocate for the one candidate that is more tied to corporations than any other. Obama has more corporate backing than McCain, than Huckabee, than Clinton. He is the new Bush cut in a Nixon cloth.
Like I said Black is the new Big Blue.
Michelle Obama's former employer:
Sidley Austin LLP, formerly known as Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, is one of the oldest law firms in the world. It is the sixth-largest U.S.-based corporate law firm with over 1,800 lawyers, annual revenues of more than one billion dollars, and offices in 16 cities worldwide. As of 2006, it was the 9th largest law firm in the world by revenue.
She served as a salaried board member of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. (NYSE: THS),[18] a major Wal-Mart supplier.
For pete's sake and mine, do a little work.
here's the cycle:
Follow the money. Corporations have to play the Wall Street game of beating earnings. That drives the stock price. Stock price drives CEO compensation. CEO need to cut costs or increase sales to grow and beat earnings. Sales are not really an option since they largely face saturated markets. That leaves costs. Their biggest cost is labour. Labour is cheaper in China. But tariffs protect against a flood of foreign imports. Political campaigns are expensive. To afford them, politicians sell their soul and their votes. Corporations (directly) contribute to both political parties and to candidates themselves. The more successful (and large) corporations look for comparative advantages. Corporations then tell their representatives their problems. Representatives then fix said problems with public policy at your expense.
I will give you concrete example. Home Depot secured a tariff reduction from 15% to 0% on ceiling fans made in China and only in China back in 2005. Coincidentally, the year before the CEO Nardelli made a $500,000 campaign contribution to the RNC. That little loophole provided an estimate $15 million profit for Home Depot on one product. Now multiple that by 100s of SKUs.
Lowe's had a sweet deal with Indonesian timber, a 50% to 10% tariff reduction. It is not a bribe but rather a quid quo pro. Yada Yada Yada.
Is this cycle not obvious to people?
And Obama is the candidate of the corporations. He is their anointed one.
The financial incentive for CEOs means that their own best choice means sending jobs overseas. That lowers the standard of living because service jobs don't pay what manufacturing jobs pay. On the other side of the coin you have Wal-Mart. It is worse than tornadoes. Ever been to the south eastern Kansas on the Oklahoma-Missouri border?
I have. Ghost town after ghost town. People live on the outskirts of the towns but the main street is all boarded up. The Wal-Mart draws people for 50 miles around each one. Wal-Mart's goal is to increase that density to one per 30 mile radius.
I should add that Wal-Mart is the best company at taking out costs. They have an amazing supply chain and distribution system, they also hold the line against labour costs through a variety of schemes which I leave for another night, they also negotiate very tough deals from the consumer product companies (Clorox sells approx. 35% of its products through Wal-Mart; Wal-Mart says jump, Clorox says how high) but Wal-Mart is also the largest importer of goods from China in the world. That's because Wal-Mart's policies on driving costs out of the system is driving manufacturers to find ways to cut costs. What did I say above? Labour is their biggest costs. They thus need to off-shore production because with cheap oil it is easy to ship half way around the world given that salaries in China are about ten cents on the dollar versus US salaries.
Globalization is a race to the bottom. You are being dragged down by these factors. Wal-Mart devastates small businesses because they can't compete with the cost structure. Hence the ghost towns in southeastern Kansas and coming to a town near you. Just how stupid are Americans?
This is your choice: you can have cheap imports and no jobs (well $8/hr at retail) or you can have expensive domestic products and jobs. Pick one.
Japan has the highest cost of food in the world (one of). Why? To ensure that small towns have life.
European models are based on high taxation. 50% of income on average but free everything. You think Grover Norquist will allow that when he wants to drown government in a bath tub.
Latin America, if Chavez doesn't blow up to bits first, is experimenting with all sorts of new economic models.
The US is headed for 1870. You and the Russians. Why are you and the Russians always tied together? Ever wonder about that? Your empires expanded at the same time, you became superpowers at the same time and now you both seem to want unfettered unregulated markets. Billionaires rule. Whoo hoo!
Charles Lemos
It is possible, I have been hoping, to be an Obama supporter without being, somehow, stupid :-)
He's raised a lot of money through individual donations. Other than that, I'm not sure what the evidence for this is, other than
Which is guilt by association twice removed. Here is a specification by category of funds raised by the respective candidates, and their various sources: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp
This is leaving aside Bill's shady business dealings, for example, in the mining industry, and much else: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?scp=2&sq=Clinton%2C+mining&st=nyt
Is that the same guilt by association reason of which I just accused you? Nah, I can see where Obama's money is coming from. Clinton has not made public her tax return, and until then, we are left to wonder where she got the 3M in a tights spot to loan to her own campaign.
Speaking of Wal-Mart, HRC served as director of their board, a slightly more substantial role than that Michelle Obama, if you ask me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/us/politics/20walmart.html?scp=2&sq=Clinton%2C+Wal+Mart&st=nyt
I find this passage of great interest:
It seems to me that this remark crosses the line. There is nothing specifically feminine about whining. And I and others have also pointed instances that are, patently, whining, 'Oh you always ask me questions first,' 'Oh, maybe you should get a pillow for Obama,' 'Oh the press likes him better'. And that is whining.
This is typical: try and question the challengers intentions, and scrutinize them for political correctness. Then distort them in a way that pleases you and ignore the argument.
Bill Clinton, who was the third youngest president (behind JFK and Teddy Roosevelt), seemed to do a fine job--IMO--raising a child while beginning his presidency at age 46. (Obama is now 46, and will be 47 by next January)
Thanks for this place norm…I learn more here than all the television news programs combined.
I love Democrats!
Charles, I enjoy reading your posts (when I have time...), but some of your arguments above don't hold water. If you accuse Barack of being corporate because of his wife Michelle, well la di da, Bill played golf and socialized with Kenny boy of Enron. You do remember Enron?
And as pointed out, Hillary was on the executive board of Walmart, a company you rightly criticize. Gien your observation of the company's devastating effect on small town economies, how much of HRC's experience do you value? Arkansas is the Walmart home.
And your reasons for not supporting Obama in this particular thread? He's the new Nixxon, my professor said, a gay woman said she wouldn't vote for him...These don't add up to anything more than Rendell's lack of substance.
When I have more time (heading to a work meeting in 12 minutes and will be at it all day), I'll slog through other arguments.
And please consider the posts that have listed Obama's productivity and/or directed you to sources discussing/listing such activity when you take on his problems.
Charles Lemos,
I am amazed that you would make a comment about not wanting "to spend all night reading", though with all the long drawn out tirades that you have written against Obama on this blog. There are plenty of rational reasons for a responsible voter to choose to totally dismiss Hillary as a candidate, starting with her support of the Iraq war, and her affiliation with lobbyists, not to mention her inability to admit making mistakes and for not accepting responsibility for them(a very real problem that we are having with our current commander n thief as well).
BTW Just so you know, I will vote for Nader out of protest over voting for Hillary in a General election...MANY Americans will do the same. There's nothing "irrational" about it.
If all obama supporters are ignorant kids who don't understand what their candidate stand for other than "change", then all Hillary supporters are Old, white, rich guys/gals who don't agree with the Liberterianism of the Right, but don't really want anything in the political system to change.
This game is FUN.
Oh, and the whole "Obama is supported by corporations more than.. " arguement.. Why didn't you link any sources for that.. Oh yeah, because it's NOT TRUE
"That said, you can if you are an Obama supporter say it is simply political convenience but then not offer evidence. That is also quite convenient."
Agreed!
Perhaps within the context of his statements, but when pulled out and placed next to a post about the erroneous Muslim leanings of his Christian church, it makes for what is becoming a more despicable pattern.
Obama's speeches are modeled after civil rights advocates like MLK. He speaks in the same cadence and style that is common among most African American leaders. The continuing claims that his speeches are without substance when there has been a review that showed his speech has as many policy points as anyone elses, is sad. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-obama-speeches-analyzed-feb24,1,3150697.story
Calling a US senator with a distinguished career and education a cheerleader stinks. If someone was calling Hillary a Cheerleader, the sexism alarms would be going off left and right.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/03/hillary-obama-not-muslim_n_89546.html
Charles, 2,000 words or less please, some of us have jobs
What world do you live in? The Clintons are founders and boosters of the DLC. The right wing of the party. The DLC has pushed NAFTA and other pro-corporate policies.
Somehow Obama is more conservative then that? He must be a republican then.
"Maybe a McCain administration -- 8 more years of war, torture, injustice and a further decline toward a police state -- will teach the American people an important lesson that evidently they have yet to learn."
Hear hear!
One more reason to vote Nader. But I'm still getting a good vibe from Mr. O. Just as surely as I got a bad one from Colin Weasel, I mean Powell, leading up to the Iraq war, for which I was gung ho UNTIL MR. POWELL'S PRESENTATION TO THE U.N. There is no shame in a lefty, left-handed (or brained), sinisterdextrous/cerebrous, favoring their strong hand/mind, or in the following: I trust my feelings over my "retarded" intellect.
Beim Weg, blah blah blah blog blahs are setting in, ohne ummm, Umdenken.
How about an hour and a half talk with Obama and what he stands for, Healthcare, gun control, drug treatment rather than incrimination, and other "words". I hope this link works, if so it's the RealPlayer video link
If that doesn't work, cspan has it listed on it's front page of videos.
So, instead of electing a "cheer leader," we should elect a national Smear Monger?
I'm most concerned about the subtext of a superdelegate explaining that this is a "serious" choice, too serious to be left to the people to decide. He'd going to support Clinton regardless of the voters' preference -- because it's an important choice. Whether you think Obama or Clinton is the better choice, you should be concerned about an elite group of people (Bill Clinton is a superdelegate!) subverting the democratic process.
You believe the process for electing the delegates is democratic? Do you think the caucus process reflects the will of the people. Wasn't it Nevada where Hillary got more votes and fewer delegates. Or the fact that Independents and Republicans help to select the Democratic nominee even though among democratic voters Hillary has received more votes than Obama. Your lecture on democracy reeks of partisanship.
Gee, that looks like a personal attack Norm...
Caucuses are designed to reflect the will of the party activists. But delegates are proportionate to the vote in the last presidential election.
It is a democratic process. Just a different one. Much more democratic then the super delegates.
Furthermore, Norm:
Democrats hopping the fence for Reagan didn't make the man a liberal.
What is the evidence that Clinton can verify her claims about NAFTA? (I must have missed it).
There is rarely ever such a thing as evidence for a lack of evidence. (Ex: Try "proving" to a theist that God does not exist). It is the person supporting a positive claim that must supply evidence. So let me make clear the standard I'm using: if the only evidence we have for some claim is Clinton's own avowal, and that avowal rests on repudiating a standard--such as identifying with an Administration--that in other cases she accepts, then I have no reason to take her at her word because she is not being consistent.
Other healthcare experts have claimed this. The best material I've read on this subject says that neither candidate has really provided enough detail to make sound fiscal projections. But you're right: he should have dropped the Reich point.
As far as I can recall, her evidence is that one of her friends agrees with her.
Yeah, sorry. I already knew that. I mean to say, "independent evidence," or "good evidence." (Which, I take it b.dewhirst, is what you are rightly pushing for). And there would be such evidence, perhaps, if the Clinton's made open the millions of documents from their time at the white House. Then the grounds for doubt that I have offered, that HRC's appeals to her "experience" rest on a double standard, would presumably be needless, because we could then see for ourselves what she did and didn't do.
"Oh, and the whole "Obama is supported by corporations more than.. " arguement.. Why didn't you link any sources for that.. Oh yeah, because it's NOT TRUE"
Damn straight.
We could even make a stronger argument, even if it turns out she was against it then...
If she was against it, why didn't it make any difference?
If she was for health care, how come we didn't get it?
If she failed on these issues before, why should she be allowed to fail again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DavidAxelrod(political_consultant)
And now I know who he is... so?
I actually know who that is without Wikipedia.
Charles, what does this mean to you?
In response to Charles who must need sleep
So is this the argument for who, McCain?
New rules for the site? Must be adequately educated by well dressed women and gays who live in Casto district to vote? Not sure I see the scandal. Seems he worked for your man Edwards. The NYT article on Axelrod says that Axelrod ls impressed by Lincoln, not to his policies, but due to him being savy politically.
re>in response to her whining. That fits her well for Whiner-and-Chief
Perhaps not exemplary discourse but no more than your.
I want to defend the whining comment a bit, I do not feel it is sexist, and i am an older white female. (like the SNL spot, a proud .... itch.) Hillary's campaign decided to take on the media. It sounded whiny, it was a bad move, it will not work against McCain. It shows a weakness of her campaign, that she is being advised to try that tack. I do not think it is her nature at all to be a whiner, I think she is a remarkably competent, and brilliant women.
There are a lot of allegations in your post that are very unsubstantiated. Obamas wife worked as a lawyer for a big firm? that means Obama is more corporate. What money are you talking about? Then this stuff on Nixon? Ok you don't like Obama, but what exactly are the comparisons to Nixon and stop quoting your professor?
Finally, does it matter that where i live, (canada) where we are generally more liberal, have universal health care, better social programs for the poor, better mental health care, less homelessness, and gay marriage, that Obama is favoured? (Democrats abroad canada massively in favour of the BO)? Would you accept that be a valid argument in favour of supporting Obama, Of course you wouldn't so consider that when you are quoting your friends.
Sorry i am sounding so annoyed, I have my opinions, they are based on considered thought, you also have yours, if you are a historian you would know that predictions are rarely accurate, they are only your opinion and best guesses.
Yeah, the Rendell wonk pissed me off too. Esp. using the incarceration issue to spout about education. Like it has been pointed out, having courageous political leadership to roll back mandatory minimums on non-violent drug offenses would have the biggest effect. >2/3 of our incarcerated are such persons - and apparently the argument that incarcerating them affects crime rates downstream is also hogwash.
http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/one_million/onemillionexec.html
So I'm afraid this tool of the right-wing dems has argued for Obama as well.
I am not surprised that even Obama would backpedal on this issue, though.
http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicleblog/2008/feb/01/nevermindbarackobamawantsto
Too bad Gravel's not running.
Ed Rendell reminded all of us that we Americans are voting for the Presidency, and not for Rockstar in Chief... of course, if I recall correctly, BILL CLINTON's most famous political stunt during his run for the presidency was an appearance with the Arsenio Hall band...
Post a comment