BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....

Subject: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 08:13 PM

We4ll, well, well...

The ol' gal has cracked...

Yeah, in Twxas today she had a complete melt down ovetr an Obama mail-out that went out a couple weeks ago... Problem is that the things that Obama said in it were factually correct...

So Hillary says today that, in essence, she had enough of treating Obama with kids gloves and that she is going to whup up on him in next weeks debate???

What, 19 deabtes down and now she is gonna whup him???

I think that the Clintons are desperate... You have Bill yelling at people... You have Hillary yelling at people...

What next??? Chelsea screaming???

No, better yet... Dig up their dead dog, Buddy, and have hinm bite someone...

Man, geeze oh, Pete???

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 08:16 PM

Oh, just what the forum needs, another let's drink the Obama Kool Aid and sing Kumbayah together thread.

I understand there is now therapy available for those suffering from this heartbreaking delusional disorder, also known as the Obama Messiah complex.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Alice
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 08:22 PM

Bill and Hillary yelling? What's new about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Sorcha
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 08:25 PM

Haven't seen it. What happened?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Sorcha
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 08:32 PM

Never mind, I found it.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 08:37 PM

My, my aren't the Mudcat censors busy this week.

One has to wonder what is so awful about my opinions that they cause the Mudcat censors such great offense.

Agreed, GUEST,Guest. The post was within bounds of the rules and I have undeleted it. There was no personal attack involved. Mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:01 PM

I expect you couched your dissent in virulent ad hominem remarks, dripping with hateful sarcasms, Gigi. That's what usually gets trimmed out around here, and I think you know that perfectly well. You don't have a very strong stomach for disagreement yourself -- you accuse those who see differently of drinking Kool Aid, being deluded, being over-sensitive, being stupid, herd-beasts who just aren't intelligent enough to see the REAL scene as you are privileged to do. And of course, they are also guilty of arrogance.

Seems to me your accusations are just revelations of your own core self-doubts.


Cheer up -- you can outgrow this.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:05 PM

Actually not, Amos. But nice try.

This week, I was also censored for having dared express a list of movies I'd seen recently in the "Seen any good movies lately" thread.

That is the level someone here is stooping to, in order to silence me.

I'm playing by the rules as well as anyone else is. So why the double standard? It isn't like I'm pulling a Martin Gibson here, or even a Gargoyle. So this whole game is pretty damn hypocritical.

And you know, other people here watch my innocuous posts get disappeared by the Mudcat censors, and say nothing. I suppose out of fear they will be next.

Yeah, Mudcat is a downright Republican Rovian kinda place these days.

Agreed, GUEST,Guest. The post was within bounds of the rules and I have undeleted it. There was no personal attack involved. Mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:26 PM

Well, wouldya PM me the list? I am always interested in good movies.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:34 PM

PM??...PM?? why sure...I'll bet he'll join just to do that!

(You sure you were censored,GG? Posts get lost. I'm surprised that anyone's movie list would be censored.)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:46 PM

Nope, it posted. And then, within about 10 minutes, it was censored, just like the ones in the movie thread.

But hey--I'm quite certain all you members like things just this way. You were the ones cheering on all the changes that led to censorship by the moderators, after all.

Hear no dissent from Mudcat group think, see no dissent from Mudcat Group Think, tolerate no dissent from Mudcat Group Think.

It's the Mudcat Golden Rule.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Sorcha
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:50 PM

So, who ARE you really, Guest Guest? I mean I know a Mr. Guest, but he uses a handle here....and He isn't YOU, I know. Let us know how you really feel, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Melissa
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:51 PM

Would it be possible for you to make broader sweeping statements/judgements?

This thread is about Buddy..not you, gg.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Don Firth
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 10:42 PM

"Mudcat group think."

That's really stupid, GiGi. There is a great diversity of opinion among the people who frequent this place. But if a few people don't agree with you that Ralph Nader walks on water and can save the country and therefore we should all vote for him, then it's "Mudcat group think."

Jayzuz, GiGi, get a life!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Amos
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 10:50 PM

Putting all the Sturm und Drang to one side, she says Barack's fliers painted her in a false light. He says the fliers were factual. Seems to me it would be simple enough to sort out what he said in the fliers and whether or not it was true. For example, he accused her of voting to support the war in Iraq without reading the intell brief dissenting from the WMD story. She said very few Senators read the intell brief -- preferring to attend an oral brief (much less information).. Is that an answer? No. Is it a dodge? Perhaps. If she did not read it AND she voted for the war (which at the time she did) then the statement is true. This is simple propositional logic, and has nothing to do with histrionics.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Janie
Date: 23 Feb 08 - 11:10 PM

Bobert, I just looked at the video, though I had read the news report this morning.

Vehement? Yes. Blowing her fuse? No.

Irritated? Yes. Visibly angry? I don't think so. I don't think that strong an adjective would have been applied to all the headlines had it been a male candidate speaking with the degree of emotion she exhibited.

I hear a lot of Dems say they think Clinton makes too many people mad to be as electable as Obama. They may be right - I'm still pondering that one. And there are a number of reasons given about why it may be that she makes people mad. The more I watch, listen, and read, however, I think the main reason she makes people mad is because many Americans react that way to a powerful, assertive female.

I am tending to think, more and more, that Obama's race is no deterent to his electability, because he behaves, speaks, and sounds like any well-educated, powerful and poised White man. I think White Americans don't really identify him with the dominant African-American culture of the USA.   If he were the same person he is, with the same history, same positions, etc., etc, except that he had dark skin, more negroid features, a "Black" accent, and that wonderful, oratorical style of so many Black leaders who have come from behind the pulpit, enough of the White majority would be threatened and alienated that they wouldn't begin to think of voting for him.

If Clinton was just exactly as she is, including her speech, delivery, positions, etc., but were a light-skinned Black woman, people would tend to get even more pissed with her. If she were dark-skinned and otherwise had the accent and personal rhetorical style of the dominant African-American culture, then she would REALLY evoke fear and anger in the majority White voting population.

I'm offering an opinion based on observation, not a value judgement. I'm curious about what the reactions of people to these two candidates suggest about the current attitudes within our society regarding race and gender.

Nor am I saying this because I have decided to support Clinton. As I become more informed, I am not enthusiastic about either candidate, although, given the alternatives, I will gladly campaign for, and vote for either one in the general election. At this point, however, when I try to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each against the other, I find the scales pretty much balance.

I watched the ABC video. According to the ABC commentator, Obama's flyers are in fact, misleading. They leave out the half of the information that maks clear what her positions on these issues really are. (big surprise - it is a campaign, and campaigns always do their best to distort the facts.) It is why I am rarely interested in the campaign propaganda of one candidate about other candidates - and struggle to try to read between the lines of what they say about their own positions. What ever is being said in a campaign is so completely full of spin that it should never be accepted at face value.

For me, the campaigns always destroy my trust and belief in the integrity of any major candidate. It isn't possible to have integrity and behave ethically and be politically successful.

Yeck.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:21 AM

Yeck, is right, Janie.

I predicted Obama's aura, no matter how energized, will have some streaks in it before November. He has entered a machine that ages people and ten times normal rate and eats their consciences up with slow torture. I wish him well, because I think he is a genuinely decent man with a compelling idea of what we could become.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:31 AM

It is the same scary scenario as 2004, IMO, when everyone--but especially the anti-war majority of the Democratic party, silently lined up behind Kerry like automatons, and pulled the lever.

Anybody But Bush is now Anybody But McCain.

My greatest fear is history will repeat itself, and it will be yet another 8 years of Republican war mongering, which will result in our nation being completely bankrupted by the successive corporate Republicrat regimes.

This may well happen with or without Obama as the candidate. But there is als a possibility, if the backlash gets serious, you will see a whole lot of folks in Texas and Ohio swing back to Clinton the known quantity on March 4th. And then all this "Obama is a shoe-in" talk will have been all wrong again too.

The problem is still that the Democrats, including Obama, don't stand for anything identifiable that will truly change people's lives. That is where Obama sounds like an empty suit. He keeps talking about changing politics, not people's lives in authentic and meaningful ways.

And he is now deeply in debt to the corporate masters financing his campaign too, don't forget.

Why people think he is progressive, I'll never know.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:50 AM

That's a well thought out post in a number of ways, Janie, and I agree with a great deal of it.

However, here's the interesting thing...to me. You said that "Obama's race is no deterent to his electability, because he behaves, speaks, and sounds like any well-educated, powerful and poised White man. I think White Americans don't really identify him with the dominant African-American culture of the USA.   If he were the same person he is, with the same history, same positions, etc., etc, except that he had dark skin, more negroid features, a "Black" accent, and that wonderful, oratorical style of so many Black leaders who have come from behind the pulpit, enough of the White majority would be threatened and alienated that they wouldn't begin to think of voting for him."

Okay, here's the way I would put it. He doesn't sound like a well-educated, powerful and poised White man. He sounds like a well-educated, powerful and poised person, period. And that's GOOD.

Do you remember the way Sydney Poitier sounded in the splendid movie "In the Heat of the Night"? He sounded like a well-educated, confident, poised person. He didn't sound Black or White. He could have been any color. He was just articulate, well spoken, and thoroughly impressive. I remember a lot of Black people back then who were like that...I knew some personally...but how many of those Black people do I see on American television nowadays? Almost none! No, I see the stereotypical TV Blacks jumpin' and yellin' and jivin' and practically turning themselves inside out showin' everyone how BLACK "they is". Gimme a break! It's damn silly.

What I mostly see on American television nowadays is this ridiculously exaggerated way of speaking and acting that has been aggressively marketed as a walking cliche of the supposed "Afro-American" in movies and TV since roughly the late 60's. It's mouthy, loud, crude, often very arrogant, ignorant-sounding and obnoxious behaviour for the most part, and it does no good service to Black people at all, in my opinion. It's a way of ghetto-izing Black people and separating them from everybody else.

I went out for a while with a woman from the UK who happened to be Black. She didn't sound like an "African-American" as I see depicted on the usual TV shows. Nope, not at all. She had taken on none of the cliche mannerisms seen on American TV. She sounded like any other English middle-class person, well-spoken, articulate, polite...just as articulate as Sydney Poitier or Mr Obama. She had grace and elegance. So do Obama and Poitier.

So you're right that because Obama doesn't sound "Black" (in strictly the present American cultural terms ONLY...and they are pretty gross)...yeah, because of that he doesn't scare the White mainstream.

Well, maybe it would be nice for a change for Black folks in North America to have more role models like that who don't pander to the ridiculously exaggerated supposedly "Black" stereotypes that have been foisted on Americans now by about 4 decades of relentless TV and media marketing...the ludicrous characters like you see on all the sitcoms...trying so damn hard to be "Black" that it has to be seen to be believed. Does anyone ever try that hard to be "White"? Or "Asian"? I sure hope not. It would really be something weird to see, I must say.

I'd rather see someone who just acts like an intelligent person and you could shut your eyes and hear them speak...and you would have no idea WHAT race they belonged to. That would be a big step forward, seems to me.

A racial group does not build itself a stronger identity by turning itself into a completely exaggerated stereotype.

As for the Black preacher style of oratory you allude to...it can have its charms, yes, Martin Luther King did well with it, and so have some others...but I would suggest that a White politician employing that kind of dramatic speaking approach would also scare off and alienate a lot of voters. You bet.

Obama doesn't sound like he belongs to any specific race. He just sounds like a smart, capable, confident human being.

Would a Native American (Amerindian) speaker sound better if he did public speaking in an exaggeratedly LOW, DEEP voice, used expressions like "heap good", "paleface", and "ugh" frequently sprinkled through his dialogue and had a bunch of typically Native moves and poses to dazzle the audience with so as to make sure they NOTICE at all times that he's a Native American and proud of it?

NO. He'd sound ridiculous. He'd be turning himself into a stereotype.

Obama is not stereotypical. He's not a poster boy for his own racial identity...and I say, that's GOOD. It suggests strongly that he can think outside the box of racial identity altogether. If so, he has great possibilities, because we all need to think outside of those boxes a whole lot more.

We need to learn to think outside the box of our gender...our race...our culture...our nationality...and even our species, if we are to become all that we can be, and truly be free.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:55 AM

Progressive? I never really considered Obama progressive. The one real progressive in the race got ignored, shouldered aside, and eventually dumped.

That doesn't mean I'm going to vote Republican, however.

Or for Ralph Nader! If Nader announces his candidacy on "Meet the Press" tomorrow morning, there will be great rejoicing among the Republicans.

I consider Obama the best of a lot ranging from totally unacceptable up just so-so. But that's not saying a helluva lot!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Janie
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:00 AM

The best political defense the American people have against corporate interests in the general election, under our present system of financing campaigns, is a high voter turn-out and a clear voter mandate for the winner.   And this needs to happen over the course of at least two presidential elections. Will that happen?

Who knows?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:05 AM

And, GG - Well, it'll either be a Democrat or a Republican that gets elected, right? There's no other way, because the USA media won't give real coverage to anyone else, and the USA financial backers won't fund anyone else.

So either way...you lose. What's worse? Obama? Or Hillary Clinton? Or McCain? You'll get more war, in all likelihood, regardless. I hope I'm wrong about that...we'll see.

And what would happen if they didn't all "line up in lockstep" to stop McCain? What difference would that make? How about if they all just stopped caring and didn't vote at all? (I mean the people you don't agree with here...) A Republican or a Democrat would STILL get elected, and they basically serve the main machine, you know...the one that has all the money.

So what do you want people to do? There IS no one people can vote for, come election day, who isn't deeply beholden to the machine. If there was, you wouldn't have heard much about him or her during the campaign, and you wouldn't have seen him or her at too many debates either, would you? It's a closed shop. The machine picks who you get to vote for on election day (two choices)...and then you vote...or you don't. That part's up to you. Either way, the machine gets one of its people elected. That's how it works.

You are never going to perfect the imperfections of contemporary society, GG...that's just too big, and it's not what you're really here for. You are here simply to perfect yourself (gradually). That's my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:12 AM

"The one real progressive in the race got ignored, shouldered aside, and eventually dumped."

Yep. The machine didn't approve of him. People like that have virtually no chance at all of becoming a party's official presidential candidate, because they are anathema to the system...and the media will not give them fair or equal coverage. They will be ignored, laughed at, and censored...as was the case with Kucinich. The system is right now pouring many millions of dollars into an effort in Cleveland to make sure he does not get elected to Congress again. He was quite an embarassment to the system's election process during the past year, so they've decided he's got to go.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Azizi
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:12 AM

Janie,

I'm writing in response to your 23 Feb 08 - 11:10 PM post that included the statement that you think that "Obama's race is no deterent to his electability, because he behaves, speaks, and sounds like any well-educated, powerful and poised White man." You also wrote that you "think White Americans don't really identify him [Obama] with the dominant African-American culture of the USA."

Janie, your comments sadden me. I wonder what people who say that Obama is acceptable to them because he doesn't speak or act like a "real" Black person think "speaking Black" really is. And I wonder what those people {whether they themselves are Black or they are non-Black} think that "acting Black" really is.

Janie, I also wonder what you mean by the "dominant African American culture" and how you or other people would describe that culture.
I get the sense that the description would not be positive.

And let me emphatically say Janie that I'm not calling you a racist. I've come to know you over time as a result of reading your posts and exchanging posts with you on this public forum and via private messages. I know that you aren't racist. But if even you accept that viewpoint about race that you articulated in those comments about the acceptability of Barack Obama, as well as your supposition about a lighter skinned Hillary Clinton versus a darker skinned Hillary Clinton, then we're even further from the end goal of a time when race and skin color doesn't matter than I thought we were.

I'll end as I began. Janie, your comments sadden me.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:32 AM

How the hell does this get so twisted? The point of the Clinton and Obama campaigns and the fact that they are real candidates with a high likelihood of winning, is exactly that the race and gender are only historical in that they are the first with any real chance of winning. No one speaks for me, or I suspect, most Americans. It is why I found NOW's comments on Ted Kennedy so disturbing, in accusing him of betrayal. The fight has always been about eliminating skin color and gender as a criteria. The struggle has been to get the United States of America to stop limiting the use of its brain trust to the less than half of the population that is male and white.

I am sure that Obama makes it easy for white America to vote for him, for the reasons that Janie laid out. But that isn't the main reason, or even a major reason, IMO. He makes it easy because he raises hopes, and articulates the same message Bobby Kennedy did all those years ago when he said, "Some people see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say why not?" I just have more faith in the voter than others, I guess.

I think we need to quit holding these two fine candidates to such standards. Hillary is lashing out because she needs to recapture her momentum. I am sure she will slip. I am sure Obama will as well. That is the nature of the beast. But if we continue to cannibalize ourselves, and forget that the goal is to change the very dangerous course that the good ship USA is on, we will have doomed our children and ourselves to a very ugly future.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Azizi
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:36 AM

Little Hawk, I've just read your comments about this subject. Let me say this-I recognize that you probably mean well. But still....

I found it interesting, Little Hawk, that your list of descriptors of television images that "ghetto-ized" Black people included "often very arrogant". Is "arrogant" the politically correct way of saying "uppidity"?

How often have you read that Barack Obama is too arrogant? And what are these people really saying?

Also, isn't "mouthy, loud, crude,...ignorant-sounding and obnoxious behaviour for the most part", in the eye of the beholder? While I certainly think that some Black people and some non-Black people are too "mouthy, loud, crude,...ignorant-sounding and obnoxious", it's possible that we might not agree on who we would attribute those descriptors to. How about George W. Bush? Do you think he is crude, obnoxious, and ignorant sounding {if not mouthy and loud}? I certainly do.

Also, with regard to Barack Obama-I believe that there are certain Black speech aesthetics such as call & response chanting and colloquial expressions which originate in African American communities that can be found in Barack Obama's speeches. and I don't think this is put on. I think this is really how Obama talks and writes.

I'll end with these comments. I'm too full of-whatever-to write anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Janie
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:26 AM

Azizi & Little Hawk,

I'm going to try to respond to both of you, in part, in this post, and hope to come back tomorrow to address each of your posts more specifically.

When I used the phrase "dominant African American culture," and the term "White majority", I was speaking in very broad, general terms. I was speaking from the broad perspectives of sociology and social psychology. Not stereotyping - but generalizing in very, very broad, societal terms.

I also said I was offering an opinion based on observation, not a value judgement.
That does not mean I do not make personal value judgements. It means I set my own personal values and judgements aside to the extent I am able ( one can never completely do so, but one can be aware that one can never completely do so and attempt to compensate) , and pick up my my education, training and experience in sociology, psychology and social psychology to observe and describe what is, and to reach some glimmer of understanding of the whys and hows of what is in terms of what we know about how the mind works and about societal processes.

If the thread doesn't go on to the point that for me to come back to finish is meaningless, I'll try to come back tomorrow (today) to finish. But it's 3:22 am. and I am probably not very coherent, so I'm gonna say goodnight (or should it be "good morning?)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: goatfell
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 04:26 AM

I'm from Scotland and I hope that Hillary get's in because Barack Obama is a liar, and he uses other bits from others people speeches which as far as I know is a crime

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 05:17 AM

Well I did laugh at the comment by Amos, that Hillary preferred an oral brief to reading an intelligence brief.
That seems to be a Clinton family failing, preferring the oral to the alternative.

Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 08:27 AM

What? Buddy's dead? But they told me they'd only sent him off to live on a farm in the country....

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 08:44 AM

Azizi, it may be how he talks and writes, but I rather doubt that he was raised to talk and write like that.

Don't forget, he isn't doing his own speechwriting, as the gaffe w/the plagiarized speech showed. He was also arrogant about the speechwriting thing--which I'm sure lost him a few votes among people those things matter to. Now, I'm not among those who cares much about that issue, but I do care some. Not because of the cheating factor, but because it shows he plays loose and fast with rules of decorum that matter a lot, especially in terms of foreign diplomacy. We have very informal rules of etiquette in this country compared to many others. While I appreciate Obama not wanting to be condescending to other nations, in the eyes of many a political leader in other countries, not following protocol and decorum would be considered a huge diss. So as I listened to him in the debate, I thought to myself, why aren't his people reining him in on this stuff? He just comes off as not being very knowledgeable in the area of foreign affairs and diplomatic relations (which he isn't, clearly).

I had the same problem with his response to questions about opening relations with Cuba, where he said, in essence, he wouldn't follow those rules of diplomacy in his attempts to reach out to the so-called enemies of the US. It was such a sleazy answer, because he didn't say he would just end the embargo on day 1. He said he would meet with whomever replaces Castro.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: kendall
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:15 AM

Did you forget that what he said about words really mattering came directly from the man who first spoke about them to him for his use? He did not steal them, he did not cheat.
You may assume that his every word comes from speech writers, but Hillary has speech writers too, is it simply a matter of him having the better writers?
He strikes me as being intelligent and well spoken on his own. Those who can't stand "Uppity blacks" can can either grow up, or go to Hell.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:31 AM

Gigi:

In fact he does write most of his own speeches and your remark about the few phrases that he borrowed from a friend is just empty inflation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:34 AM

I agree, Capt'n.... The root word in "uppity" is "up"... Heck, the establishment has made a livin' off telling black folks to pull themselves "up" by their bootstraps even when many times there are no bootstraps...

So along comes Obama, does just that and now some want to paint him as "arrogant"???

Beam me up, Scotty...

B~

p.s. Like I said a long time ago, even if Nadar announces his candidacy today, I'm going to take a pass on voting for him this year if Obama gets the nomination... No0t to9o sure about Hillery the Hollower...

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:53 AM

Kendall, for the record, I agree with you. I don't believe he did steal or cheat, because his speechwriter is the same speechwriter who gave the words to the Massachusetts governor to use.

Technically, those are the speechwriter's words, not Obama's or Deval Patrick's words.

It is the APPEARANCE of it that may end up mattering in the fall, if he becomes the nominee.

Just like the Dem nominee will continue trying to use the McCain lobbyist thing against him in the fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:56 AM

And BTW, the first thing Obama did was admit he should have cited Deval Patrick when he used the same words. Those are the rules of the speech making game, and he knows that. He did the right thing to come out right away and admit there was an error in him not making the attribution.

But that doesn't mean his opposition--Clinton or McCain or the Republicans or the right wing media--will let it go.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 10:08 AM

As for the Cuba position, I don't see anything sleazy about it. Two nations seeking to change a twenty-yar old, unprofitable relationship, need to talk. Unilateral "preemptive' policies in the absence of communication are just shortsighted. Ask W.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 10:17 AM

Yup, it's time the Mafia ruled Cuba again
G

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: GUEST,frayedknot4u
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 10:23 AM

Obama isn't change we can count on, it's change we can XEROX!!

CLASSIC!!!

I feel California Happy Cow Meditation is necessary at this point. Anybody got it?


Mike

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Big Mick
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 11:36 AM

Tim Russert, on Meet The Press, showed two examples of Hillary doing precisely the same thing. She used almost exact quotes of her husbands speeches from years before, and John Edwards speeches from previous times. They were so close as to be damn near a quote. Later, on Chris Matthews, they played a clip of a Dana Carvey bit from SNL back in the GHWB days where he asked "Who do you want answering the phone at 3:00 AM..?". Again, so close as to be scary.

This is a desperate grab that will not serve her well, in fact it will cost her votes. Her flip in the span of 3 days from being honored to be on the stage with Obama to her chastisement last night, again, will hurt her.

In my political roles, I have had a bit closer exposure to her than many folks, and I must tell you she would be a wonderful President. But the thing that is so important right now, at this moment in the history of the grand experiment known as the United States of America, is to have a leader with a vision, one who inspires, one who makes us believe in things that never were. She is the technocratic visionary, and he is the visionary that brings a belief in what is possible. If he is nominated and elected, his vision will be realized so long as he surrounds himself with the best and brightest, and because folks believe in him and will support his goals. I am not sure the same can be said for Hillary. Should she prevail, I believe she will be fighting for every improvement, and doing it with a meat axe approach. And the beltway denizens know all about that stuff.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: kendall
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:09 PM

When FDR entered the White House, he had no clue what to do or how to do it. What he did have was brains enough to bring in people who DID know.I see the same ability in Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:22 PM

A spicy comparison from Maureen Dowd.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Charley Noble
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:56 PM

Amos-

I like the last point in the article, that snacks don't cut the mustard.

I also agree that this thread is grossly mistitled. Clinton has replaced her "fuses" long ago with "circuit breakers."

Cheerily,
Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:38 PM

Kendall:

Well, and succinctly, said.


Charlie:

Glad to be of service.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:27 PM

Comparing Obama to FDR is an apples/oranges comparison.

Obama ain't no FDR, no matter how shiny and new, and feel good he might be.

He ain't rich enough, white enough, or connected enough to be an FDR, for starters.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Amos
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:56 PM

Oh, bull. There are a number of attributes that are perfectly comparable that have nothing to do with rich, white or socially connected.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:59 PM

Sure there are Amos. But we are talking about the corporate Democratic party here.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: Slag
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 04:17 PM

I just had to look, didn't I?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 08 - 05:23 PM

Trojan Horse, GG...

What, do you really think that the corporatists are gonna let a known anti-corporatist in???

Look what they did to Dennis Kucinich...

Right now we have two proven corporatist workhorses in McWar and McClinton... And we have Obama...

It's a no-brainer...

Can I prove that Obama will be the Trojan Horse??? No, can you prove that Mc & Mc won't continue the sam old, same old since they have both pretty much promised to do so???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
From: kendall
Date: 25 Feb 08 - 08:36 AM

Those who tend to poo poo hope, as Hillary is doing, don't seem to realize that negative energy can only produce negative results.
Think about it; for instance, if I gave up hope of ever being able to speak again, what's to stop me from checking out?

To live in a world where there is no hope of improvement is the ultimate Hell.
I've had some very low moments, feeling sorry for myself, pissed off at my fate, asking, "Why me"? etc. but hope always kicks in and I'm still doing all I can to get my voice back.Without hope, I might well have joined the choir invisible some time ago.