BS: Voting for Hillary?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 10:50 AM

The Tony Rezko trial might help Hillary just by being out there!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 05:53 AM

Nope - 200

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 12:47 AM

The kind of experience Rumsfeld or Cheney have we don't want in the White House. They're too corrupt for words.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 12:36 AM

I think McCain does.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 12:32 AM

None of 'em have the amount of experience of a Rumsfeld or a Cheney.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 09:54 PM

Sounds like she has what it takes for the job!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 09:52 PM

She had an even better quote..that McCain brought all sorts of experience, she brougth all sorts of experience (did you hear what the Irish Nobel?? Prize winner said about her involvement in the Irish Peace Process?) and Obama brought a speech from 2002. I will give it to her..that is a good line. Nasty, and enobling/enabling our enemies but a good line. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Don Firth
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 09:31 PM

Just a vagrant thought from another thread:

CLICKY.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 09:21 PM

Thanks, Amos. I am starting to feel a little bit of the fyre I used to have, back when I posted the first Bushwhacked thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 09:18 PM

I am delighted to hear it, Kat. Goddess bless your efforts!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: katlaughing
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 08:51 PM

She has any thought I may have had about voting for her. Despite what my sisters said of hearing her in person, I am dismayed and pissed:


David Bromwich Sat Mar 8, 2:42 PM ET

Last week saw an event in our politics so giddy that we have yet to absorb its implications. Hillary Clinton, flush from her "comeback" in Ohio, told reporters that John McCain inspired her confidence on foreign policy; McCain had certainly "crossed the commander-in-chief threshold." She herself had crossed it, too, she said; but as for Barack Obama, "you'll have to ask Senator Obama" whether he is really prepared to serve as commander-in-chief.

Talk about giving McCain ammunition against Obama. She broke a cardinal rule (I know others have done so in the past. They also lost my vote.) I will do everything I cna to make sure Obama wins.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 04:45 PM

That's the speech in which she also said:

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

[snip]

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. [snip]

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

She may have believed Bush's nonsense about what he really wanted to do and about Saddam, but she had reservations. Her huge mistake was in taking Bush at his word. A lot of people did that, didn't they?

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Thanks for the link, PDQ. It is good to keep things in context, no?

SRSR

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 04:28 PM

Yes...and your point is?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: pdq
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 01:07 PM

That whole speach can be found...

                         right here

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Mar 08 - 11:19 AM

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 11:06 PM

No, I think they're made of sterner stuff than that, Amos. I expect another conflict along the lines of "Bleeding Kansas", only with far better weaponry this time. We should check with Rapaire on that.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 10:16 PM

Roll over and play dead.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 09:53 PM

What will Idaho do when all of Wyoming arrives?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 08:52 PM

LOL....Sometimes the best ones are the simplest and most obvious.....Thanks Bruce..I needed that!

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 08:51 PM

Absolutely not. It's not about wanting to lead the country for these folks. It's about winning the various elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 08:48 PM

I assure you, my life will be quite ruined unless they send Barak at once to the White House. He won't take any interest in politics then, will he?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 08:25 PM

And he's moving it to Idaho.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 08:22 PM

And?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 08:14 PM

Obama took Wyoming.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 02:21 PM

Hillary's noms to the Supreme Court would likely be far superior to McCain's, so I don't have a clue as to what Amos is on about.

Maybe she could actually get another woman or two in there before Ruth Ginsburg croaks.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 05:23 PM

Colbert on the Protect America Act, well worth watching.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 05:00 PM

The Texas results from the caucus meetings aren't "supressed," they don't need to be turned in or reported until Mar. 29 when the state senate district meetings take place. Wade Goodwin did a good discussion of that on Morning Edition this week. I think this is the story (I dug out the link but didn't listen to it just now. Goodwin is a correspondent based in Dallas who has been doing many of these stories).

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 04:42 PM

Would you expect Hillary's appointments to differ from Obamas?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:09 PM

Or Hillary either.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 12:48 PM

When you bring up the subject of the Supreme Court, however, a doubt if you could find one who would want McCain making those appointments.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 10:55 AM

Any predictions about whether the present Obama supporters will be willing to vote for Hillary or vice versa are pointless speculation. How can we know what they will do?    There's too much water yet to go under the bridge to be able to say what they will do. You'll just have to wait and see. Much can change between now and November.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 07:55 AM

I've seen a lot of passionate debate about issues that matter in the Dem primaries. Nothing below the belt--especially the supposedly 'racist' comments by the Clintons the Obama camp benefited by when playing the race card just before South Carolina.

But you know, both sides seemed to have pulled back their surrogates, and all has been fine since.

ObamaRon keeps claiming the race is nasty, because that is what worked in Obama's favor in the lead up to Feb 5th. Voters wised up, listened to what was actually said, and decided the 'Clintons are racist' claims were bullshit. So that didn't work anymore.

But hats off to Obama, it gave him the BigMo for long enough to pull ahead of Clinton.

However, it does seem that Homey don't play dat tune in the bigger states w/diverse populations. It is a whole lot harder to play the race card the way Obama played it (I call it his Beauty & Barber Shop Strategy) in the early southern primaries, because the big urban centers with bazillions of voters (as opposed to much smaller, far less urban populations in the south) are too savvy to fall for that sort of crap.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 07:43 AM

"This strikes me as suppressed news."

          You could be right about that, Amos, but one of the reasons they might be reluctant to announce the totals is because they know they will immediately become engaged in a debate about allowing some people to vote twice. Because Texas hasn't been a player in a primary for so long, there procedures have never been publicly examined before. It's probably going to get pretty messy.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 01:57 AM

The civility demonstrated in this campaign is so much more apparent than we have seen in a couple of decades of previous campaigns.

There is always the jockeying for position, and it can get nasty at times. I don't like it when it does, but there has been such admirable restraint this time around that I can only presume that for Ron it is a case of "say it and make it so." You need more drama? Are you hoping that if, like Bush, you make a suggestion it will happen? ("Al Qaeda in Iraq"--Dubya's invention. He kept telling us it existed so they finally came along to fill the void.) Wait until after the conventions. I'm sure there will be some. But this hasn't been a negative season compared to anything that Cheney, the Bushes or Rove touched. There is simply no comparison.

And Ron, the stage we're at now, all will be forgotten as soon as there is a set candidate. It is like childbirth. You forget the pain pretty quickly. Nature intends it that way, or no woman would have more than one child. We gloss over the jockeying once the real race begins.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 11:27 PM

By the way -- does anyone have any insight into why, this long after the Texas caucuses, less than 50% of the precincts have reported in?

TX (C) 41%                         Obama 56%                   Clinton 44%

This strikes me as suppressed news.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 11:23 PM

Remains to be see, Rig. He may be far more resilient than you give him credit for. I already know he is more intelligent and capable than you give him credit for.

He's still the leader in this raise in spite of all the press noise about three states. (Don't forget Rhode Island).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 09:56 PM

Frankly, I think Hillary could switch Obama supporters easier than Obama could switch Hillary voters. I think Ohio proves that independents would go to Hillary sooner than Obama.
                  The other problem that Obama has is, in the south, where over 50% of the Democratic voters are black, Obama won easily. In a general election, he no longer enjoys those kinds of demographics.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 09:56 PM

I think you're right and I think they know it too. I suspect it is being hashed out in the backroom as we speak.

If you think that Obama supporters are only loyal to Obama, then I hope he is the president and I hope he asks Hillary to be his running mate because she is politically astute and has lots of friends in Washington.

I also think that it would work the other way around.

I wonder who the running mate will be?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 09:09 PM

Still waiting for anybody to tell me how Hillary, after a thoroughly revolting campaign---if anybody needs details, no problem, but we've discussed it more than once--is going to seamlessly switch the allegiance of Obama's supporters, especially the young, the newly registered and those who haven't voted for quite a while, over to herself.

Now let's have some creative theories.

Problem she has, as I've mentioned before, is that she has quite efficiently poisoned the well she intends to drink from in the fall.

She could possibly have won the campaign on merits--but she didn't really try. She, and Team Clinton in general, obviously doesn't care how she wins it-- starting with her slogan of "In It To Win It"--it often seems that's all she wants.   (Jan says she reminds her strongly of Margaret Thatcher---same eagerness to trample anybody in her way.) This has been noted by Obama supporters.

Their loyalty is to Obama and what he stands for--not to any generic Democrat--and you can bet, not to the person who has trashed him at every opportunity.   They feel no obligation to support the Democratic nominee, if that were to be Hillary. They won't vote for McCain, I would guess,--but you'll see the result in turnout--and in huge decline in willingness to stuff envelopes, ring doorbells etc--which they'd love to do for him.

Whereas it's obvious that her supporters would support him. Not only has he run a clean campaign--no great accomplishment when compared to her sordid approach--but her supporters will support the Democratic nominee regardless. And for good reason, from their perspective--one of their burning concerns is to keep a Republican from getting a chance to name any more Supreme Court justices.

So it really doesn't matter what Obama does that Hillary supporters don't like. If he is the nominee, they will support him. The converse, however, does not hold. Obama supporters want him--and only him.

And on top of that he will get support from far more independents--the fastest growing category--and even some Republicans---certainly any against the Iraq war.

For these reasons, if I were in charge of the Democratic national committee, the very next time Obama beats Hillary-- in any state--, I'd encourage lots of superdelegates to declare for him. And bring this bloodletting to an end.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 09:00 PM

Yeah, kind of like that. ;-) But I like the BMs better. They don't take nearly so long and they give me more of a sense of accomplishment and positive resolution when they're done.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 07:51 PM

Like another BM? I see your point. . .

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 04:42 PM

No, Stilly. ;-) What I recommend is, we all just do the best we can...so you cast the best vote you can come up with, and you help whoever's campaign you want to...but don't have unrealistic expectations about what's going to happen afterward, that's all. Whoever you elect will have to deal with the system...and the system weighs a hundred billion pounds. It doesn't move easily.

And remember with all trying situations the old phrase..."this too shall pass".

For example, I hate the thought of McCain getting elected. But if he does, I will roll my eyes in disgust...then think, "This too shall pass." And it will.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 04:36 PM

So, LH, think we ought to go back to letting the congress elect a president?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 09:04 AM

Bill D - "It seems to me that politics is becoming more & more a matter of how to get votes from the careless, ignorant and superstitious ....and those who are single issue voters... than of appeal to the folks who read, study and care."

Well, yes, of course. That's exactly the way it is, and it pretty well always has been so. It was that way back in the 1800s too. That's the standard political routine, Bill.

Those who read, study, and care comprise a rather small part of the population at any given time...besides which, you will find that those who read, study, and care do NOT all agree amongst themselves on what's the best thing to do either! As a matter of fact, you will find them backing or attacking just about every candidate who is out there, and arguing furiously amongst themselves as to why they are right and the other people who read, study, and care are wrong, dead wrong. ;-)

In the end it all becomes just a bit tragic and laughable, in a sad sort of way.

I don't expect politicians or the political process to solve my problems or save the world, and I know they're not going to. They never have in the past. They won't in the future. We'll muddle along from one thing to another, experience some disasters and some good times, and things will remain rather confused and imperfect from here till eternity. People, frankly, expect way too much from the political process. They are naive, like little children. They think that big "Mommy and Daddy" in Washington are going to straighten things all out somehow if they can just get the right Mommy and Daddy in office this time.

Good luck.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 08:51 AM

"He is re-building one facing the golf course that is a real doozy. So at the moment his capital is low but the property is large, so he is fulfilling the Lord's mandate by his actions."


                            Q - It's encouraging you were observant to insert the phrase "at the moment," because with George W. Bush still doing the lord's work in the White House, everything might fall out from under that guy at any given moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 12:57 AM

It seems to me that politics is becoming more & more a matter of how to get votes from the careless, ignorant and superstitious ....and those who are single issue voters... than of appeal to the folks who read, study and care.

Bill D, that needs to be etched in stone in a few places. Especially around Washington, D.C. and each state capitol.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 06 Mar 08 - 12:02 AM

Well, there are all the trappings at the Burj Al Arab- Twenty-four hour butler service to your suite, your own chauffeur-driven Rolls Royce, chef-prepared meals. An ideal place from which to increase your property and capital.

Dubai accommodations

The biblical injunction was go forth and multiply, but it amounts to the same thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 11:37 PM

I believe I heard that the Lord's mandate was simply this: Love one another (without prejudice), and behave accordingly. Be kind and generous to others. Forgive them. Do not judge others.

How does that fit into the ethic of endlessly increasing property and capital in order to be "successful"? When does one have "enough" under such a system?

If everyone succeeded in increasing their property and capital at this point it could only end in the utter ruination of the planet and the human species. It's the philosophy of a very stupid and greedy ape to call that "success", it's not something worthy of being called "human".

(My apologies, Chongo. I'm trying to talk to some humans here in terms they can understand quite clearly, so they'll get the point.)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:56 PM

Number 6, don't credit Peace with that truism- I done said it. But one may find it and similar statements in all of those get-rich books.

On a small scale, I have a neighbor who does it well. Four years ago he bought a house on a small lot for $110,000. Following the Lord's advice to go forth and increase, he has gone through three houses, increasing property and capital by gutting and rebuilding. He just sold the one he built across the street for 1.3 million. A more than ten-fold increase, which ain't bad. He is re-building one facing the golf course that is a real doozy. So at the moment his capital is low but the property is large, so he is fulfilling the Lord's mandate by his actions.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: number 6
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:28 PM

Peace says ""Even the so-called Communist regimes have learned that success depends on knowing how to obtain and increase property and capital."

Now, do the math on that."

I says ... "Bobert, can I borrow your sliderule for a bit?"


biLL