BS: Voting for Hillary?

Subject: BS: Voting for Hilary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 09:10 PM

For the life of me, I can't recall one single person in this forum saying they were going for Clinton.

Surely there must be at least one or two?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hilary?
From: pdq
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 09:30 PM

My dog is going for The Hillary, but he does have a bladder problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hilary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 09:32 PM

I would happily vote for Hillary, but I'm registered Green, so they won't let me.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hilary?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 09:33 PM

I have said several times I would not be unhappy with her...as it happens, I am about 52-48 in favor of Obama....but when I went to the voting place, I had not decided till the last minute.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hilary?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 09:38 PM

I'll vote for her if she divorces Bill. I like her, but can't abide him. She was de facto Vice President during his eight years, and he'd be the same during her term if she were elected. I've had enough of him.

I'm not a misogynist. I'm more than ready for a female US president, just not for Hillary to be the one. If Madeleine Albright weren't constitutionally unable to run (she was been born in Czechoslavakia and immigrated as a child), I'd vote for her in a second.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hilary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 10:04 PM

A much better choice than that empty suit who has mastered the oratorical feat of spellbinding the people while saying nothing.

But in our divided country, McCain probably will be the next president.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hilary?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 10:04 PM

Gigi-

It's unclear to me whom you're referring to. Who is "Hilary"?

When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles,
Scream and shout!

Cheerily,
Chraley noble

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hilary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 10:11 PM

Pretty much my whole family supports her, but none of them went to caucus on Feb 5. Except my husband, who caucused for Edwards, even though he had dropped out.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hilary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 10:31 PM

But if your family would have been college students, and would have been able to skip English Comp. in order to go, they'd have probably all been there.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hilary?
From: Greg B
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 10:40 PM

As a candidate, Ms. Rodham-Clinton has the Clinton baggage--- her
elect-ability is interfered with by her Clinton-ism.

But---- I thought Monica Lewinski was de facto "vice" President
in that administration. Only difference between her and the present
VP is that she was the recipient of the shot-in-the-face.

One of Obama's strengths is, oddly enough, his ABSENCE of a record.
There is much less to attack him on.

I don't think it's clear that McCain will be the 'uniter.' Especially
in the presence of a charismatic character like Obama.

John McCain wouldn't be the worst of disasters--- I don't agree with
him on the exit strategy for the war, but it seems to me that Clinton
does, and doesn't care to admit it.

What he brings, which Dubya lacks, is judgement (vs. ego). He's
earned his stripes--- as a pilot and as a POW. He's not going to
panic; he'll be a steady grandfather who's seen it all.

To me the key moment was when, right after 9/11, he was guest on
the 'Tonight' show with Crosby, Stills, and Nash. CSN got up and
sang 'Daylight Again' then joined McCain on the couch. Serious
discussion ensued. Finally David Crosby said 'You know, while you
were over serving your country in the Hanoi Hilton, we were over
here serving our country by trying to get you home.' McCain sort
of choked up and said, very quietly, "Thank you."

So an Obama vs. McCain race strikes me as sort of a win-win. I don't
intend to vote for McCain, but I won't panic if he wins.

I do think that an Obama/Edwards ticket would combine the pizazz
and mass appeal of Obama with the moderating influence, wisdom,
and experience of Edwards (like Cheney but not evil) that would
be an incredible leadership team.

I'm at a loss for who McCain should pick, though I fear it might
be Condie Rice, who's a wolf in sheep's clothing if ever I've seen
one.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hilary?
From: pdq
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 10:46 PM

Nice post, Greg B.

I love Crosby, Stills & Nash, but will be voting for McCain. For sure.

You are correct about his choice of a running mate. It is the most important choice to be made in this entire presidential contest.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hilary?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 11:27 PM

I voted for Hillary. I haven't always trusted her husband - but when Hillary speaks, she makes sense. Some may think she has betrayed the liberals, but I think of her as a sensible liberal. If she's given half a chance, her agenda may work, and we may accomplish something more than rhetoric for a change.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 11:29 PM

never in a million years. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 11:30 PM

I think she's the country's best hope.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 26 Feb 08 - 11:40 PM

...for what, exactly?

I actually think she should be in the government advisory circle.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 12:36 AM

On the News Hour tonight they spoke with several journalists from Texas, including Bob Ray Sanders from the Star-Telegram in Fort Worth. He pointed out that since so many republicans figure McCain is assured the nomination that they're crossing lines (you can in Texas primaries) and voting for Obama to prevent Hillary from getting the nomination. It's a stinky thing to do, but legal. I threatened to do it when Bush was running, but there weren't enough of us that it would have made a difference.

So, despite the intent of the Democrats who want Hillary in office, the guile of the native Republicans may defeat that wish.

SRS (who did go to early voting and did vote for Hillary)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 12:40 AM

She is one strong lady.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 02:17 AM

I'm with Joe O, so's my family of 4. Joe have you been talking with my kids again? Joe have you been talking with my wife again? Speak up Joe, are you talking to me?
Hey Joe see you the end of August or early Sept, unless you're aout of town.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 07:46 AM

I'll likely vote for Nader now that he is in, unless something better comes along. If I vote at all for president. I am ambivalent about this year's election, and not thrilled about any of the candidates, as usual.

My partner is leaning Nader, but undecided still.

Daughter will soon be home from NC for spring break. She had been for Edwards, went to SC the night of the primary to check out the Obamamania, and was underwhelmed by it. Don't know who she will vote for--if she has her act together well enough to remember to get her absentee ballot.

I think the lesser of two evils between Obama and Clinton is probably Clinton, but not by much. I dislike both of them--I see them both as Republicans in Democrat clothes. And Obama, an empty suit of clothes at that. Just what stellar accomplishments has he achieved again?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 08:44 AM

"many republicans figure McCain is assured the nomination that they're crossing lines (you can in Texas primaries) and voting for Obama to prevent Hillary from getting the nomination."


                     Probably because they realize they can easily beat Obama in the general election.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 08:55 AM

Bingo, Riginslinger. The reason why the anti-Hilary rhetoric is so intense on the Republican side is because her husband has been the only Dem they couldn't defeat since god left for Chicago.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 09:06 AM

And that's why I can't figure out the Dem party to save my life. They keep voting for the guy that makes them feel good, instead of the candidate who can win. They keep doing that because of the grip of the corporate wing on the party, of course, who locked the progressives out of the party in the Reagan era, and hasn't let us back in since.

And then blamed progressives for 'losing' the White House to Bush/Cheney when they refused to vote for the corporate candidates shoved down their throats.

Not a winning strategy, but at least it gives them the perks of being corporate politicians, eh?

But I'm hoping a rebellion is setting in. We do seem to be on threshold of a huge anti-Republican wave. Here in Minnesota it happened when the MN Congress was able to override the Republican 'No New Taxes' governor's veto on the first transportation legislation in over 20 years to raise the gas tax. Now, the reason why they were able to do that in a Congress where the House isn't able to easily override a veto, is undoubtedly the sentiment afoot after the 35W bridge collapse. But people are actually fed up with the crumbling infrastructure & Republican unwillingness to take care of the state's business.

The Republican party's response was to fire the six Republican legislators who voted against the governor--who is co-chair of the McCain campaign, and is being touted as a finalist in McCain's VP list.

So, I think Americans are tiring of the 'no new taxes' crap, especially when they see no benefits themselves from the Republican tax cuts for the wealthy in recent years. Everybody sees their world falling apart when it comes to infrastructure. To cost of higher education for their kids, for health care, and sees we keep falling further and further behind in K12 education compared to the rest of the 1st world.

And the deficits. Oh man, what a health and environmental hangover from buying cheap Chinese shit nobody needs at Walmart prices is coming.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 10:08 AM

GG - I've come to suspect it's the caucus system.
Iowa spun out two wing-nuts, one for the Republicans and one for the Dems. The Reps. managed to sideline their wing-nut, but not without losing Romney. The Dems seem destined to stick themselves with their's, just like then did with Kerry in 2004.

                  When you look at the results of later caucuses, the pattern becomes more obvious. It wounds the Dems. worse than it wounds the Reps.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 10:19 AM

Jaded, cynical, and fundamentally apathetic and bitter.

The ground truth is people are backing Obama because he has the energy they believe is necessary to shape the nation uip for the future, and the will to face up to the fact that fundamental changes are needed. Barack Obama is not a wing-nut, Rig, no matter how biliously yoou say it. He's a smart and capable human being. We need smart and capable human beings leading our government; putting a stupid and incompetent one in charge obviosuly does not work, as demosntrated between 2000 and 2008.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 10:30 AM

I guess my point is, when the opposition puts up a candidate who is unelectable, people will vote for "stupid" because they feel like that' their only option.

                   I don't think Kerry was stupid, though I'd certainly agree with you on GWB. I don't think Obama is stupid at all. I just think he has electability issues that are going to be hard to overcome.

                   I do think Huckabee is a wing-nut, and the sooner he's off the stage the better off everybody will be.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 12:08 PM

What electability issues?

I promise you, the November votes will demonstrate his "electability" is not a problem.

Guest -- posts get deleted when they are posted anonymously. Ther eis one guest here you regularly posts as "Guest, Guest", whom we call Gigi. If that is you, then use your full name (Guest Guest) and your posts will probably stop disappearing, unless you go off your meds.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 12:12 PM

I flatly don't believe that...unless your posts had other things in them, such as personal attacks....next time you post one, save a copy and send it to ME...oh, I forgot...you can't be bothered with the perks which would allow you to be a real part of the system.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 12:31 PM

"What electability issues?"


               I think he smoked the south in the primaries because he's seen as black. I think he'll lose the south in the general election because he's seen as black.

               I think he'll lose in the general in Texas and a lot of rural and midwest states because he's seen as Muslim. That leaves him the northeast and the far west to carry the country.

               I don't think he can do it. Of course a lot depends on what happens with the economy between now and the election. If it gets so bad anyone from the opposing party could win, he might pull it off.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 12:53 PM

I don't see Obama's being black as an issue, except in small, backward pockets of the south, and a few tiny enclaves, such as those in northern Idaho and eastern Oregon. And about the same number of people, probably even the same people, would not vote for Hillary because she's a woman. It's a wash.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 01:04 PM

Big parts of the world don't see Obama as being black, that's the irony of all of this as we discuss it here. He is mixed-race, he grew up in a place and manner not typical of the experience of many African Americans with slave ancestors. Look at some of the commentary out of Africa. Interesting. They see a race between a man and a woman who are pretty evenly situated race-wise.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 01:24 PM

SRS - I certainly agree that the way Americans see race doesn't make a lot of sense, but the people who seem to be more worldly about it don't vote here.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 02:04 PM

ANyone who sees him as a Muslim is walking in a troubled sleep, Rig.

I am not saying your prediction could not come true, but how does that reflect on the quality of the voters?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 02:42 PM

Amos - It reflects on the quality of education in America. There seem to be great hordes of people out there who have not been instructed in the process of ingesting and assessing information. When they grow up, they become voters.

                         I'm not saying I like it; I'm just saying that's the way it seems to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 03:12 PM

It's all guesswork anyway. Even if the public opinion polls seem to suggest answers, people don't necessarily tell the truth about those kind of issues.

Speculating about whether more people are going to be swayed by Obama's colour of by Clinton's sex, and deciding whom to back on that basis, is a bit futile. Better to make the judgement on the basis of which one of them would make a better president, or whom you would prefer to see elected. (Not necessarily the same thing.)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 04:44 PM

A lot of the Southeast seems to be leaning towards McCain. With scads of inlaws in Georgia, I keep getting those emails about Obama's Muslim identity. Many also object to Hillary because of Bill's little lapse, not so much because of her record.
Race, unfortunately, is still a big but unadmitted factor.
I think Hillary would have a chance against McCain- but in a contest with McCain, I see Obama fizzling like a punctured balloon.

Canadians can't help but take sides, the U. S. is the elephant that determines much of what happens to the Canadian mouse. Also, with cable, TV in the cities is mostly U. S., at least here in Alberta. CNN rules, as the English would say.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 07:18 PM

What I have read, not really searched for, just happened on, is that they tremendously interested in this in Africa and understand the significance...they have a beer named after him. There was also a very moving story about a Palestinian who was in tears when he heard his middle name was Hussein and felt a strong connection there. As in King Hussein of Jordan. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 07:20 PM

Somehow, I don't think the Palestinian story will help him much at the polls.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 07:29 PM

Nor would the cricketing association, I imagine.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 07:37 PM

Would I vote for Hillary???

Depends what she was is running for...

Ms. Cranky??? Sure, she has my vote...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 07:54 PM

Digression-
Hussein was the name of the grandson of Mohammad and became a very common Muslim surname. It is meaningless with regard to relationships (except within a closely related group (e. g. Hashemite Kings of Jordan, Almanach de Gotha). A news reporter often seen on BBC is Michal Hussein, whose family is from Pakistan.

Because Obama's father was Muslim, he is regarded as Muslim by Muslims, regardless of his church selection. Bariki is Arabic, meaning blessing or blessed, modified in Swahili to Baraka; also a widespread name.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 08:02 PM

It looks like Obama is quite capable of dealing with Old John McWar, Q. I wouldn't underestimate him.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 10:35 PM

That comment column on CNN that you linked didn't paint a very good picture for either Obama or Clinton.
"According to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, McCain would be in tight races with either..." [candidate].
"McCain is statistically tied with Obama, 44 percent to 42 percent, and ahead of Clinton by six points, 46 percent to 40 percent." Considering electoral vote disposition, McCain would win over Obama.

"The poll also showed McCain with a 61 percent approval rating, a number higher than both Clinton's and Obama's in past polls."
"The Arizona senator holds a clear advantage on dealing with the war in Iraq, according to the poll, and holds a nine point advantage on economic issues over Obama ..."

"Quite capable?" Hmmm. A lot of people don't think so.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: goatfell
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 07:39 AM

if i was american I would vote for her but I'm then I'm a Scot

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 07:53 AM

I don't think anyone is underestimating Obama's ability to win. What I may be underestimating is his ability to govern effectively.

But that's what voting is all about. It is always a crap shoot at that level of power and money. Obama will make history all right. History as the candidate who vacuumed up more money than anyone in history.

And folks, that is a HUGE amount of money. Everyone should be deeply troubled by that, whether Obama is your guy or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 09:19 PM

GG - That's a really good point. No matter where an individual falls on the political scale, needing that much money to run for office is nothing short of obscene.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 08:36 AM

If I were there and eligible it would be a difficult call. I see Health as the most important issue, and the choice there is between the unenforceable and the unworkable. The only one who had it right was Kucinich. Billary is less worse.

But then there is the economy. The only way to get your economy right will be tax and spend to create domestic demand, and sort inflation later. Tax and spend could direct spending away from the places where money is hoovered up and sent to other countries as dividend, too. You desperately need that spend on infrastructure, if I read it right. You need proper unions and proper sanctions against criminal union-busters, and you need tougher competition law and cartel-busting. I don't think either candidate promises much, but there may be a smidgeon of a hope that Billary is less in the pocket of donors.

Then there's the war. De-invading may be the start of a path to reducing terrorism. You told us that about Northern Ireland and now we're telling you. You need to get out, but get out safely. McChips will keep you there for ever and probably start new wars, if allowed. I worry that Obama might make a grand gesture and leave you with another Saigon. So for me it's prudence Billary again.

Electoral reform - a desperate issue. Neither of them will do a damn thing.

At the end of the day, I'd feel that if someone has actually promised policies, there was a better chance of shaming them out of abandoning them, rather than one who simply promised a "better tomorrow". When was the last politician who promised a worse tomorrow? Was it Winston Churchill "I have nothing to offer you but blood, toil, tears, and sweat..."

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 10:18 AM

I would vote for Hillary over McCain. There might be a minute difference.
One big one is that I don't think Hillary would put us in Iran (but who knows?)

She has a public persona personality problem and this is the season for American Idol
politics. Issues get shoved out and placed in the rear of the warehouse to gather dust.

obama is a rock star. Hillary is the "bitch" of the day. It's all perception and what the media wants to show you.

I'm a Dennis Kucinich supporter but there was little chance for sanity in this election
process.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Voice of Truth
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 02:35 PM

HIllary is in my opinion more electible because 50% of the country (there abouts) is women. Women are going to be moved by her candidacy no matter what party they belong to. She also has more experience.

I agree with Rig that Obama has great issues that will prevent him from being elected by the majority of Americans- who will see him as too black, too liberal, too young, and not trustworthy when it comes to handling terrorism. I myself do NOT find him inspiring as a candidate,but my major issue is of complaints is with the Demorcats in general, who manage to put up candidates who will lose no matter how badly the opposing party has bungled the last administration. It's infuriating that they can never organize themselves into a viable alternative to the forty years we have had of increasingly conservative and right wing administrations. I am sure that Obama will not be elected if he becomes the candidate, and I think that people who are supporting him are in for a rude awakening.

btw, the sarcastic posters who say things like "unless you're off your meds" are one of the reasons I DO NOT give my real name on this site. As long as I agree with you, you're pleasant; when I give a thoughtful but alternative opinion, you're as nasty as the schoolyard bully. I don't think my posts have been deleted b/c I have said anything untoward; but because my statements don't fit in with love-blind Obama gushing that goes on in the general media and this site . I have seen vitriolic nonsense from many posters that have not been deleted, and I've seen MANY 'guests' spouting their opinions without censorship, but because I insist on speaking the truth (hence the new 'moniker'), my posts have been deleted.

And to those who standing in line to make further nasty remarks towards people who don't support Obama, I'd like to say that -for a so called liberal an progressive minded website, there's as much narrowmindedness, bullying and name calling going on here as fist fight on a FOX TV reality show.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 02:46 PM

VoT, your posts get deleted because you don't use a handle, let alone a consistent one. Now that you've chosen one you'll stay with, your posts will likely remain.

Gotta ask: "for a so called liberal an progressive minded website, " - who "so called" it that?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 02:52 PM

VoT, your opinion is of course your very own, but it is pretentius to call it Truth, unless you have some demonstrable inside track or hard data to offer.

The only way to get your economy right will be tax and spend to create domestic demand, and sort inflation later. Tax and spend could direct spending away from the places where money is hoovered up and sent to other countries as dividend, too. You desperately need that spend on infrastructure, if I read it right.

The issue is not whether to tax-and-spend. We already do that. The question is whether to spend on things that make thigns better, or on things that worsen the situations in play. Obama has as good a grasp on how to better the situation as anyone ont he field, and is also less scarred, stronger of character, and more conscious, IMHO, of the dynamics that make a difference in bettering the coutnry.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 02:56 PM

Gig,

You have done me a disservice. I did not say you were off your meds, I said that your posts would stop disappearing if you used a regular handle...unless you went off your meds, meaning unless you started indulguing in the really bitter, slashing invective to which you have been well known to resort in times past. Your bitterness is your business, of course, and I hope you outgrow it, but if you give it full vent in threads, you run the risk of overloading the safety valve and having your post disappear into cyberspace.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Voice of Truth
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 03:03 PM

Or one may think it is 'pretentius' to think you know what is best for our 'coutrnry' because you prefer Obama's untested promises over some other, more electable, candidates. (ones who can spell perhaps?)

There is one thing I do heartily agree with you about A, btw,and that is trying to find a candidate and administration that can spend money on the majority of PEOPLE of this country, instead of just the super rich and corporate interests. But a candidate who cannot get elected is not the one who can implement these reforms.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 03:13 PM

Who's 'Gig'? Methinks you've got this poster confused with someone else.

I don't have any problems with someone saying they're the 'Voice of Truth'. We all think we speak truth, and we want others to believe we are even when we're not. It's like using 'My Opinion' as a handle.

As to vitriol, I'm starting to believe that only people who thrive in it keep coming back to the political threads. It's nearly impossible to have a respectful debate, and it IS impossible to have a discussion without debate. Some people don't feel important unless they have enemies.

That, for me, is Hillary. Her whole campaign at present seems focused on Obama. It's not about what SHE will do or why SHE is the best choice. It's about what Obama will or won't do and why he isn't the best choice. This isn't very 'presidential' and it looks too much like she's sliding downhill and hanging on by teeth and fingernails.

As long as her campaign is about Obama, she's going to keep losing ground. I think vitriol is what people use when they lack anything of substance. It's what happens in campaigns and it's what happens in Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 03:16 PM

Of course, when someone's sleazy enough to rag on spelling errors, they may not be worth listening to...

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 03:48 PM

too young,

Teddy Roosevelt was 42 when he was sworn in. Kennedy was 43. Bill Clinton was 46.

If Obama gets elected he will be 47.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Wesley S
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 05:03 PM

Jeri - I agree. I think Hillary will start gaining some ground if she stops running against Obama and starts running against McCain. But I doubt that she will.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 05:15 PM

Wesley - I was thinking she would do better after Obama and McCain started cutting each other up, but after reading your posts, I think you and Jeri are right. She'd do better if she went after McCain and just kind of ignored Obama.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 05:33 PM

That, for me, is Hillary. Her whole campaign at present seems focused on Obama. It's not about what SHE will do or why SHE is the best choice.

That's just plain nonsense. The trick is to listen to Hillary, not the pundits who don't like Hillary. There has been a lot more substance in Hillary's discussions of issues, and on a whole they (Hillary and Barack) have done a remarkable job of keeping the attacks to a minimum. I haven't seen any of the nastiness like the republicans around the various Bush folks can conjure up.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 05:36 PM

Unless McCain hires Karl Rove, we probably won't see anything like the Bush campaign again. Hopefully!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 07:03 PM

I would tend to agree with Sage.

I do see more nastiness on this site from people who support Obama (like 'sleazy' namecalling for instance) than I actually hear from anything Hillary, or even Obama says. It's a debate. They're not going to sit down and talk Martha Stewart's tips on steaming asparagus.

However, I still think Obama has NO chance of winning the general election. I have had more than one post deleted for my opinions but that's it. Hillary has a chance. Obama supporters cannot bear to face the truth, but time will prove me out. I'm not saying it's anything I'm HAPPY about, just that Obama is a strongly flawed candidate. Unless there is a turnaround by next Tuesday,which seems unlikely but not impossible, we will have four more years of Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Feb 08 - 10:10 PM

Well, VOT--(perhaps you'd like to change that to MVA or OTV--just a few suggestions)-- of course, as you know, you can always help assure that outcome by voting for Nader. Which, somehow, I suspect is exactly what you will do. Then would follow 4 years of your whining about how, mirabile dictu, the election didn't turn out right.

Fortunately there are likely to be enough Democrats, independents, and moderate to liberal Republicans--especially those against the Iraq war--who will not follow you over the cliff, and therefore your Cassandra howlings will not be realized.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 09:20 AM

Oh good, the resident Obamamaniac has a new fear mongering ploy to pummel us into voting his way--Nader baiting. Talk about yer trolls.

Last night I was watching Moyers, and he had on that woman from Annenberg who looks like Trent Lott (sorry, I can't remember her name right now). She has been on the show a lot lately, and brings an interesting perspective to the table.

So, the thing she said Clinton was doing wrong was not creating a biography for herself the way McCain (proud soldier, humbled by the torture chamber, transformed into a feisty, lifelong public servant) and Obama (ironically, a nearly identical biography to Bill Clinton--raised by single mom, education lifted up our boat, opportunity to go for the lawyer big bucks, but chose public service instead).

Jamieson--that's her name--said Clinton is being far too secretive about her biography, and needs to prove her worth that way--Midwestern girl, blah blah--as well as focus it on strength (commander in chief) and female caring. She said she has done some of that in her advertising--the 'good listener' ads were mentioned. But she said she has really hurt herself by not providing the voters with an alternative bio/persona that counters the persona projected on her by her political enemies and critical pundits, which is practically everyone in MSM.

I thought that was very true. I still won't vote for any of them (McCain, Obama, or Clinton), precisely because I can't bring myself to pull the lever for any of their saber rattling 'policy driven' rants. Obama's propaganda is the most effective in MSM terms, and has brought out both foot soldiers and money from small donors in record breaking numbers--over a million web donors of less than $100 is what I heard last night). But it is going to be nigh on impossible to hold Obama accountable to such a nebulous constituency as the people who whip out credit cards and donate online, as their preferred form of political activism. We have no idea what that sort of 'activism' that will turn out to be in the long haul. And it seems more like online shopping for candidates, than any real activism.

Yes, I know--they will text connect you to the web meetups, blah blah blah and it isn't retail politics of the past anymore.

But what is this monster exactly--that vacuums up people's money, gets them into online forums and a small handful of them to retail politics sorts of 3D meetups organized w/text messaging? How solid is this block of voters, whoever they are?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 01:03 PM

"HIllary is in my opinion more electible because 50% of the country (there abouts) is women. Women are going to be moved by her candidacy no matter what party they belong to." - Voice of Truth

That is not true. Its conjecture and opinion but it is not true.

There are plenty of women who are deeply suspicious of other women. Its a long established pattern and women have a long way to go before those old patterns are erased. If, however, the entire population of the U.S. were highly educated, the story might be different. Sad to say, the uneducated and demoralized American public will vote for hope every time.

Which makes me wonder...

Could it be that the Republicans have thrown their weight behind Obama in an effort to allow McCain to run against Obama? McCain doesn't have a chance against Hillary but, chances are, he will be able to defeat Obama.

Just another scary thought...

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 01:19 PM

You have encompassed my thoughts about why Republicans want to run against Obama in the fall exactly, dianavan. And my thoughts about how easy it is to snooker the voting public with the Coke v Pepsi false choices.

Obama won't even commit to pulling out of Iraq, at this point. How is that different from McCain/Clinton, except by infintessimally small degrees?

How can that give anyone hope?

One thing Jamieson mentioned last night on Moyers has stuck w/me all day today. She talked about how soft support is for him in the sense that those who are voting for him now aren't true believers, and have many doubts about him, and a very large number of likely voters in the primaries (including Texas and Ohio) are still undecided. Many people who are voting for Obama are going for him at the last minute, as Zogby pointed out recently too.

Zogby also has pointed out that while Obama doesn't suffer what they call 'racial leaking' among the primary voters (this is the phenomenon where whites say they will vote for a black candidate to pollsters, but then switch to a white candidate in the general election) this year, which is actually unprecedented, they say it is far too early to tell if that will hold with general election voters.

Democratic party primary voters are, to no one's surprise, a tad more progressive than general election voters, so don't feel as uncomfortable voting for an African American candidate as they once did (for instance, for Jesse Jackson in 1988, when he had a real shot at the nomination).

In the general election, it is conventional wisdom (until the MSM went all Obamarama on us) that Clinton is the much stronger candidate in a general election, because of the sheer popularity of her husband among US general election voters. Why that argument has been shunted aside by the MSM is a great mystery though, isn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:02 PM

"Clinton is the much stronger candidate in a general election... Why that argument has been shunted aside by the MSM is a great mystery though, isn't it?"


                      Not really, they're part of the corporate hierachy who want to see a Republican in the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:10 PM

Except the money isn't following McCain. Which only makes me wonder more what Big Money Boys are up to this election, as they 'readjust' to post-Bush/Cheney, Inc.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:17 PM

I didn't vote for her. But there's not too much difference between them. They will both keep troops in Iraq. They both are financed by corporate money. They are both in bed with the insurance companies.

Hillary voted for the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment. In march, 2006, Obama campaigned for Joe Lieberman in Connecticut against Ned Lamont.

Chicago Tribune, July 27, 2004, Obama said: "There's not much difference between
my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference in my mind, is who's
in a position to execute."

He voted to confirm Condi Rice. He voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act.

He will add 100,000 combat troops to the military. (Anyone concerned about a draft?)

He flaked out on the Credit Card Bill.

Do you think we can depend on Hillary or Obama to continue the status quo in
politics today?

Yes we can.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:21 PM

I do not think Clinton's popularity (I mean Bill) is as wide and deep as it once was.

It remains to be seen who is "electable" between McCain and Obama. A lot of people are weary of the rich white cynic role played by the last four Prez's. Obama offers something different -- not a Coke versus Pepsi difference, either. That is just bitterness talking.

Hillary does not have what you might call "youth", and never really did. It is a broad term encompassing more than just cheerfulness. It comes with believing one is creating one's own future and wanting it to be something of pride and delight. And other qualities.

ANyway, it is going to be an interesting fight, because McCain has already demonstrated his capacity for sliming to win, as has Hilary. And, according to Hill's crew, Barack's campaign has also.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:27 PM

Interesting editorial from "New York Amsterdam News," (Harlem, "Part of the Black Press USA Network").

God's will be done
Wilbert A. Tatum, Publisher Emeritus and Chairman of the Board
2/1/2008

"Some days God is good to us. Sometimes he is even better. For instance, today, when God is good, he drops two men- one good and one flawed- out of the race who were on their way to becoming President of the United States. One was John Edwards, who could have made it, and the other was Rudolph Giuliani, who should never have been considered in the first place.
"John Edwards seemed to have been considered by many when he stopped in his tracks on his way to the Presidency and instead dropped out, leaving us with two candidates without an endorsement for either one.
"Under ordinary circumstances, that would be easy to settle. We would just toss a coin, designating one of each of these candidates for each side of the coin and deciding on the person whose coin side wound up in first place. Since we never had any good luck anyway, it leaves us in a dilemma because here God recommends no one as well. One could say with all candor, "Thank you, good buddy, for leaving us high and dry again."
"Although God may have believed that he left us high and dry, he did not. He left another begotten son about whom he was having problems and allowed us to choose one without the other because he respected his recommendations so much. God, in his most playful and delightful way, said in effect, for us to "choose for yourself, good buddy," and we did.
"Because God knew us and how fair we would be, God selected the one he thought would be less favorable to us, for in that way we would not be choosing God's favorite necessarily but that we would be choosing the person who is the better one for the job.
"Since we choose to follow God's lead, hallelujah, hallelujah, God's will be done. We have chosen. Sail on, Hillary."

http://www.amsterdamnews.org/news/Article/Article.asp?NewsID=85746&sID=16

The "New York Amsterdam News" is one of New York's largest and most influential black-owned business enterprises; first issued in 1909.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 02:52 PM

So Amos, if you don't like my Coke v Pepsi comments, why not address what Frank just said instead?

Some reason for focusing on my claims of Obama/Clinton comparisons instead of his?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:03 PM

"In march, 2006, Obama campaigned for Joe Lieberman in Connecticut against Ned Lamont."


                     He did? That's the first mention of that I've seen. If Hillary doesn't get the nomination, I think I'll just vote Green.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Alice
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:17 PM

The younger Democratic voters who seem to be very energized in this campaign, don't really remember much about Clinton. My son is 20, and he was a child when Clinton was president. They are relating to the moment, as the president they really know about is George Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:23 PM

Gigi:

It isn't always about you, ya know...



A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:27 PM

It is when you keep referring to me in your posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:32 PM

So, are leaning towards Cynthia McKinney then, Riginslinger? I just sent her $25 for her campaign.

I might vote for her too.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:42 PM

I don't know what to do. I just checked their list of candidates, and I see Ralph Nader is on their ballot. I thought he was running as an independant. There are others besides McKinney. She seems a little too self important to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:46 PM

I'd vote for Hillary in a minute. And if the nomination outcome is still in doubt when Indiana finally gets around to primary time, I will.

With me, Bill is not a drawback to Hillary. If he were eligible, I'd vote for him, despite his lack of sexual judgment, which merely follows in the great tradition of many past US presidents.

But, in case Obama gets the nomination, I'm quite content to vote for him.

Anything to get the Republicans (even including McCain, who is the best they have to offer right now) out of the White House.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 03:56 PM

Nader isn't running Green this time.

McKinney is the only Green candidate w/any chance of getting the nom at their convention this summer, because of her semi-national org. But she needs money. I sent her & the Greens money in the last month, because I figure they may yet have a shot at pulling 5% in a few states if she is on their ballot.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 04:33 PM

I didn't think Nader was running as a Green either, but when I googled the international web-site, his name was on the docket along with McKinney, and Kat Swift, and one or two others.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 04:36 PM

Somebody has it wrong at the international web site.

Nader is running indie.

Unless of course they draft him again in July at the Green party convention. Stranger things have happened, but I really don't know that he can win over the Greens who are still pissed at him from not running on their ticket in 2004. That was a nasty mess.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 01 Mar 08 - 05:53 PM

I would find it difficult to vote for Obama if he becomes the candidate.
He talks about how he didn't vote for the war in Iraq. Obviously he couldn't since the U. S. invaded abmost two years before he got to the Senate. He is as much a master of mis-direction as Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:15 PM

Q - All politicians and most business managers, bureacrats, etc. are masters of mis-direction. 'Truth' is no longer an American value and double-speak is the tool of the status quo. They indulge in deception and we accept it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 01:46 PM

Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 02:27 PM

Q:

He made a public speech against the war, when his successful campaign for the Senate could have been badly hurt by doing so.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Fortunato
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 03:14 PM

I intend to vote democratic. I don't give a damn who runs. The arrogance, avarice and warmongering of the current adminstration, as I perceive it makes no other choice possible for me.

I'd prefer Hillary of the two.

I think Capital hill will eat Obama's lunch, but it's not like I get a actual choice. Obama's smart but I don't think he's got the guts, and I know Hillary does.

cheers,
chance

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 05:41 PM

Capital hill will eat Obama's lunch, Is that supposed to be good for him or not? I mean, does it mean he will have to go hungry, or thay they will be eating out of his hand?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 06:08 PM

An old American expression, meaning that he will be gutted and left with nothing.

Hmmmn, 'left bereft' sounds more elegant.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 06:11 PM

It sure is interesting when the Democrats have to choose between 3-4 perfectly decent candidates...while the Republicans are dithering over which one is the lesser of several evils!

It is REALLY sad when the political game seems to require two decent candidates to take shots at each other and try to suggest that their opponent is somehow unworthy.

I say again...if Hillary manages to get the nomination, I'll be glad to vote for her: but since it seems like Obama is on track, I'll be happy to have HIM!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 07:13 PM

Bearing in mind historical refernces to Linford Christie's "lunchbox" it could be the other way round....

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 07:14 PM

Viva McCain!

(in Canada)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 07:21 PM

As I've said all along, the acid test for Barack Obama will be showing he has the fortitude to deal with the mud the Repubs will throw, intelligently, while still holding on to his genuine position (the center of the high road). I hope he has the shield power, because I really admire the guts he has shown taking on the presumed shoo-in candidate and coming up from behind on sheer guts, energy and intelligence. "Route all yer power ta the shields, Capn'!!!"



A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 08:32 PM

I would really, really, rather no vote for Hillary.

But I will do so against John McCain if the American public exercises its national blindspots to make it turn out that way.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 10:14 PM

Amos said:

"He made a public speech against the war, when his successful campaign for the Senate could have been badly hurt by doing so."

Are you kidding me?

Apparently you don't know much about Illinois politics in general, or Obama's Senate campaign in 2004 specifically.

He didn't risk squat in 2004 by being against the war. His 'opponent' (if you could call him that) was uber conservative Alan Keyes, who didn't even live in the state at the time he filed to run, and barely campaigned.

Obama won by a landslide, roughly a 75% to 25% landslide.

Badly hurt? The only way anyone could have badly hurt Obama in 2004 was to shoot him.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 10:18 PM

Why Riginslinger?

Because the media controls public perception or maybe because true believers still have faith in America the land of the free.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 10:34 PM

I guess I should have expounded. I meant, why do we accept it? Frankly, I think the American public has been dumbed down to the point they are not making carefully thought out decisions, but I'm sure there must be other reasons.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 11:11 PM

I guess I'm in a vindictive sort of mood, but I'd love it if Clinton were to sweep Ohio & Texas to get back in the game--just to piss off the pundits and Obama koolaid drinkers.

Kinda like a slap upside the head.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 11:34 PM

News Flash!

It's snowing in Texas. On my dafodills. Darn. It's supposed to freeze tonight but I haven't seen predictions of it sticking. Of course this is only one part of Texas, but it is probably the heaviest population area for the state (Dallas/Fort Worth).

I pick up my son at his Dad's house after school every day (he rides the school bus from there.) This 15-year-old is a bit of a wag. Apparently this afternoon he came rushing in to his father with the phone (and a twinkle in his eye) and announced "President Clinton wants to talk to you!"

I have had a half-dozen recorded-message calls today alone. The down-side of someone finally giving a rats ass about a Democratic vote in Texas.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Mar 08 - 11:55 PM

Here I was gonna offer that kwazy lady a nice cool drink, too; but not of she's gonna be in that kinda mood, no siree, Bob. That's kwazy talk!! ;>0


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 02:16 AM

I will be happy to vote for Senator Clinton if she gets the nomination. I like what she says and how she zeroes in on issues,

I'm hoping that Senator Obama gets the nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 09:56 AM

"Clinton had sounded like Old Politics, but Obama created a vision of New Politics. And the past several months have revolved around the choice he framed there that night. Some people are enthralled by the New Politics, and we see their vapors every day. Others think it is a mirage and a delusion. There's only one politics, and, tragically, it's the old kind, filled with conflict and bad choices.

Hillary Clinton has fought on with amazing resilience since then, and Tuesday night may well bring another surprise, but she's always been the moon to his suin."


A Defining Moment
         

By DAVID BROOKS
Published: March 4, 2008

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 10:12 AM

David Books, of course, is a die-hard Republican

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: EBarnacle
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 10:18 AM

This past Sunday, I took part in a phone bank for Obama. I did it because I was asked to participate. In this entire election cycle, I have been bombarded by e-mail from all of the Democratic candidates and their proxies.

The only one who did not ask me for money was Obama. When Move-On contacted me to take part, it was the first time that any of them or a PAC asked me to take part and not merely send money. Had Hillary asked me, I would have been equally happy to call for her. As others have said above, it's a coin toss.

I looked at the scripts supplied to the callers and created my own. What I did was remind people that there was a primary this Tuesday [today], advise them how to vote [including caucusing], the fact that this year their vote in the primary and caucus could help determine the presidency of The United States and, at the end, mention that the call was in support of the Obama campaign. The point is that the process is as important as the person in this case.

Afterward, in discussion, I found that I seemed to get fewer hangups than people who opened with mention of Sen. Obama or Move-On.

One of the things I have learned as a sales and marketing person is that it is important to engage the client on a positive basis before discussing a product or candidate. It takes a little longer but gets better results.

McCain is doing the Democrats a favor by attacking Obama. He is creating a "pre-debate" atmosphere and allowing Obama to look good by standing up to him. Obama is avoiding the mistake of earlier candidacies and responding immediately to attacks rather than ignoring them hoping that they will go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 09:55 PM

The reason the Obama people didn't ask for money is because they're swimming in money.
                In any event, Hillary won Rhode Island. It's a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 10:47 PM

Well, lotsa' folks in Ohio voted for Hillary. Matter of fact there are a number of counties where she got 75-80% of the vote. She held her own in the Cleveland/Akron area and lost in the Columbus and Cincy counties. She carried by a wide margin almost every rural county in the state.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 10:51 PM

So far the reports are just a few points apart.

FIngers crossed.

I hate horse races.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 11:04 PM

In Ohio it ain't a horse race at all. His strength was almost strictly with African-Americans in urban areas but even in Cleveland and Akron Clinton did well. He carried Cincy and Columbus.........In the Appalachian counties she was up 7 to 3 and even 8 to 2.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 11:05 PM

CNN is saying that Ohio has gone to Hill.

Hmmmph.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: catspaw49
Date: 04 Mar 08 - 11:14 PM

Not reading my posts are you Amos? He got his clock cleaned here although his people are spinning like a top on it. He won't carry Ohio in the Fall with the performance level he had today.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:03 AM

You Go, Girl!!!

At my caucus this evening (in a suburb of Fort Worth in Tarrant County, Texas) the dozen or so of us who turned up last time around were amazed at the turnout. Nearly 200 signed up for the caucus and they were tied down the middle until the last two came in to sign up, and tipped it to Hillary. But our precinct is split for the senate district convention--12 Obama and 12 Clinton. I'll go to the district as a delegate, but probably not beyond that, I don't have the time or the income.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:26 AM

"He won't carry Ohio in the fall...".   Not a good assumption. The Democrat--Hillary or Obama-- will probably get Ohio--as a state in economic distress--when it becomes plain that McCain has basically no prescription against economic depression.

The difference is that Obama--with his new voters, independents, and even some Republicans--- will put states into play that Democrats can rarely consider---and Hillary has no chance to do so.

Since it is already being said that her negative ad "3 AM" helped her, she will likely indulge in more negative ads--and directed against Obama they will do nothing but further poison the well she plans to drink from in the fall. If she thinks the Obama enthusiasm can be seamlessly switched over to her, after the amazingly despicable campaign she has run, and continues to run, she is living in a fool's paradise. Unsurprisingly.

Or perhaps Hillary supporters think it's just fine that, among many other delightful maneuvers, she let the last word on whether Obama is a Moslem be: No, "as far as I know".

By far the best thing she could do for the Democratic party is what she's guaranteed--especially now-- not to do:   drop out graciously, rather than cause a civil war.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:38 AM

She is sure doing a bit better than most predicted tonight, but he still seems to be holding a decent lead in delegates; and some of the final states to vote are expected to be heavy for him.
It STILL may go as far as April or to the convention.

Texas is pretty durn close, and Hillary needs more than 'close'.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 01:02 AM

People may think the happiest person today in the US is Hillary. Wrong. The happiest is probably Rush Limbaugh, with John McCain a close second.   (Rush was after all the one who counseled his "dittoheads" to vote for Hillary--to prolong the Democrats' agony and wind up possibly with Hillary--by far the weaker opponent for McCain--in the fall.) The longer the bloodletting, wasting of financial resources, and heightened bitterness within the Democratic party goes on, the better they like it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 01:12 AM

Ron,

Step away from the radio. Pull the plug on that airbag Rush. Don't let him inform your political leanings.

Since it is already being said that her negative ad "3 AM" helped her, she will likely indulge in more negative ads

You consider that ad "negative?" Not at all. You've picked up some political spin, someone trying to push the campaign into bloodletting territory. Negative is the Willie Horton ads and Swiftboat ads. The Karl Rove stuff. This has been a very civil race, and it can stay that way. There is room for the 3am ad.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 07:51 AM

SRS--

Take off your rose-colored glasses.   She is stating clearly in that ad that Obama does not have the experience and maturity to be commander in chief--just what she also says in speeches.   And exactly the tack McCain will take in the fall.   She is doing his dirty work for him---and she--and you---obviously don't care, since for you both her winning the nomination justifies anything.

So thanks to that attitude, the Democratic civil war, waste of resources, and bitterness goes on, and worsens.

While McCain has a free hand to raise money---and doesn't even need to campaign, since Hillary is fighting his battle for him.

And if you think Hillary's "experience"--supposedly-- is worth a plug nickel against that of McCain, you are living in a fool's paradise.

By the way, would you like to tell us how the heightened bitterness---since Hillary has now learned that negative ads against fellow Democrats work---will help unify the party?

Or perhaps you don't think Hillary will need Obama's legions in the fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 08:05 AM

And one more thing. Obama has not made one negative ad against Hillary. But the temptation---thanks to her tactics---to do so will now be growing.

And I'm sorry to tell you that she sure as hell is vulnerable.   Her tax returns, the little item of accepting money from a firm under suit for sexual harassment---over 100 women, Bill's dealings with various countries with wretched human rights and electoral freedom records--the list goes on.    (not even including all the old ones, which could be dredged up. And if he does this, he will heighten bitterness on the part of her partisans---like your good self?

And McCain can hardly wait to bring up the Woodstock museum---and the whole 60's and 90's list of problems.   The contrast between Hillary--the perfect seamy politician--and McCain's selfless service will play rather well, to say the least.

She already has close to half the country dead set against voting for her---and she's the best possible candidate to unite the fractious Republicans.

While Obama has far smaller negatives--and huge, enthusiastic support across the country that Hillary can only dream about.

Looking forward to hearing your specific answers to these points.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 08:11 AM

You aren't bitter or anything though, right Ron?

He he.

Certainly by recent standards (ie since Reagan beat Carter going negative), this has been an extremely clean and civil campaign.

There is nothing negative about pointing out your opponent's weak spots, Ron. Nothing.

Me thinks your koolaid just ain't as tasty today as it was yesterday.

My understanding is there are still about 170 delegates up in the air from yesterday (we should hear how they split later today), and they are separated by less than 100 delegates. Clinton doesn't have to pull back into the delegate count lead now, because she'll clean Obama's clock in Pennsylvania next month. Then it should pretty much be over, because it will become clear to everyone that Obama can't win the big states the Dems need to take in the fall to win.

Even Obama will have to wake up and smell that Sumatra java now.

Sorry boys, but it looks like your boy wasn't quite as wildly popular as we (including me after Feb 5th) first assumed.

So Amos and Ron, will either of you vote for Clinton in the fall?

Or aren't you really about what you say you are about (unity, and getting Bush leaguers out)?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 08:21 AM

Janet--

You've made it quite clear that you'll be voting for Nader--if you vote at all. Since the entire political system is rotten to the core.

If you don't think Obama will be a far stronger candidate than Hillary against McCain, you need to wake up.   Finally.

But obviously it's fine with you if McCain takes over--since the village must be destroyed in order to save it.

The best part of being a sour cynic is that you never have to be disappointed--and you must be overjoyed with all your wonderful opportunities for schadenfreude. Let me congratulate you.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 08:27 AM

The only one of the two of them who can beat McCain is finally gaining momentum.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 08:34 AM

With half the country already dead set against her before the campaign even starts. Anything you say, Rig. Could we have a bit of logic, please? Particularly in how she plans to have Obama's legions support her.

And in answer to an earlier question--yes I am dead serious in desire for unity---but Hillary brings the opposite.

And I am not alone--by a long shot--in feeling this way.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:00 AM

Ron, you keep saying 'half the country dead set against her' yet she has won, and pretty decisively for the most part, the states with the most voters.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me more people are voting for Clinton than Obama. You know, when you count the popular vote totals. Add 'em up, and you'll see.

I have never thought Obama would be able to beat McCain. Clinton proved Obama's vulnerability w/the 3 am ad. That was a risky thing to do, because had Obama beat Clinton, she would have handed the McCain camp a well established ad campaign to run against Obama.

At this point, there are two things it will prove nearly impossible for Obama to overcome: he hasn't won any of the big states, and he is already being perceived as weak on defense issues, and sadly, his stand on the war is probably hurting him with some militarist Dems.

Like it or not, the next prez will inherit a war, and be a war time president. Which is why Clinton is most likely to win the nod. She is perceived as the stronger of the two when it comes to the commander in chief thing.

The percentage of Repubs who despise Hilary isn't as large as you make it out to be Ron. There are plenty of moderate Repubs and lots of indies who will vote for her in the fall.

I just don't see McCain winning a soap box derby by then. I really don't. Unless there is another attack on the US before then--that is really the only thing that could put him in the White House. If the war worsens, but no attacks on US soil, there isn't any chance he can beat Clinton. The recession will see to that.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:07 AM

I think you might expand your view -- the last eleven primaries went to Obama, before Tuesday. Remember? THere aren't any big sweeps. The wins are more like 6- to 50 or thereabouts.

But it is a red-hot horserace. Obama still leads with the delegate count slightly at this point. But having let Hill grab back the momentum, he needs so explosive broken field running to steer things back.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:13 AM

"Could we have a bit of logic, please?"


                No, this is American politics, logic goes out the window.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:20 AM

So, he's gettin' voted for in some places and she in others. The news commentaries are about as exciting as colour commentary in sports. Yippee. The one question I have regarding McCain, Obama and Hillary is this: What exactly is gonna change?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:48 AM

The people will fancy an appearance of freedom; Illusion will be their native land................Jacques Ellul, "The Political Illusion"

While Janet and I disagree about many things, I think we might agree on what is really required in this country is a political revolution. Forty years ago I was introduced to the thoughts and writings of Jacques Ellul, a French Philosopher, Theologian, and Political Scientist. In the above quoted book as well as in his other works including things published in Katallagete. His well reasoned works stated that politics is a matter of methodology and once having established the method, it became self sustaining regardless of the characters playing the roles. The quick and easy translation is Tweedledum versus Tweedledee and feel free to switch them around at no cost or benefit. Elected officials are so co-opted (remember that word? Hackneyed and all but it fits here) by the time they reach certain levels, their rhetoric will always exceed their actions. The only fix for this is revolution.   

Sadly, it takes awhile.....but the movement is starting to grow as more and more see past the illusion. It won't happen simply by voting for a third party or Indie candidate. The system needs revamped and it will take numbers, not individuals to do it. I doubt it happens in my lifetime but maybe in my kids'.............

That said, looking at things in the classic 2 party way at this point.......I have listened at length to Obama and tried like hell to get behind him but just can't. The Clinton campaign gave him a few basic lobs and he failed to play them. There is no way this guy has the horsepower at this point to beat McCain. "3AM" was just basic old time stuff and he couldn't answer the call. If the Republican Party plays it their usual way they will take him to the Cleaners and he'll fold like cheap suit. The Clinton folks have experienced the wrath of the GOP and this time around they will have no problem in playing the game.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:08 PM

Well said, Spaw. I specially concur with your first half about the Frenchman, Ellul. I think that is absolutely correct. There is an inertia in most political systems that is almost immovable, short of a genuine revolution...a radical change in basic structure and procedures. Neither you nor I will live to see that happen in the USA, but it will come eventually.

As for your endless bleating about other people's lack of "logic", Ron...as if you and those who agree 100% with you about everything were its sole protectors in this world....(!)...

Codswallop.

People in a political debate all use logic, they use logic that supports their viewpoint, but very few of them ever have the slightest respect or time for anyone else's logic from an opposing viewpoint. They don't even hear it. They're too busy patting themselves on the back as they reread their last post and basking in their own supposed brilliance and sagacity...and you are about the most egregious example of that sort of hubris that I ever see on this forum.

I wish there was an exact doppelganger of you out there...only with diametrically opposing political views, a rabid Clinton-backer...call him "Don Ravies"...and the two of you could keep each other busy, insulting carping and sneering at each other's pathetic lack of logic and demanding proof of the other's assertions all the livelong day. That would be damn funny, and it would give the rest of us a little bit of a rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:23 PM

Carrying a state in a party primary is NOT equivalent to winning that state in the general election.

Hillary's 50-something to 40-something win in Ohio or Texas does NOT indicate that she'd take either state in November, nor even that she's be a better bet than Obama in a race against McCain.

The converse, of course, is true for Obama in the states where he beat Clinton by the usual 5-15%.

The primary voting will end up so close that the party pros ("superdelegates") will decide the outcome at the convention. They'll have a lot of conflicting opinions to ponder about relative electabiliity vs. McCain, which will be their overriding concern (and rightly so).

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:55 PM

Yep, may be an interesting convention.
And Michigan and Florida shall rise again.

The system needs a revamp to get rid of those stupid caucuses. Only secret ballots should be permitted in primaries and elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 12:58 PM

This just in (noonish, Wednesday):

There were 370 Democratic delegates at stake in Tuesday's contests, and nearly complete returns showed Clinton outpaced Obama in Ohio, 74-65, in Rhode Island, 13-8, and in the Texas primary, 65-61.

Obama won in Vermont, 9-6, and was ahead in the Texas caucuses, 30-27. Ten of the dozen that remained to be awarded were in Texas; the other two in Ohio.

So, Obama did well enough in the evening caucuses in Texas to very nearly make up for his loss in the daytime primary vote. Combining the results of the two Texas contests results in 65+27=92 for Clinton vs 61+30=91 for Obama, with 10 still undecided. Hardly momentous either way.

Overall delegate totals for the day: Clinton 74+13+61+6+27=181, Obama 65+8+61+9+30=173, 12 still undecided. Note that the undecided count is greater than the difference between the totals (12 vs 8).

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 01:00 PM

The one question I have regarding McCain, Obama and Hillary is this: What exactly is gonna change?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 01:01 PM

Sorry Poppa but in the case of Ohio I think you're wrong. Here's why.

Ohio still remains the last bastion of Taft Republicanism even after we finally ditched his grandkid as Governor....arguably one of the worst we have had and we've had some losers! There is a real disconnect at times that seems odd as we go for serious conservatives in some cases while electing guys like Howard Metzenbaum repeatedly. Its kind of nutso to figure out. But look at the primary results.

Obama took Dayton, Cincy, Columbus, and Toledo. He could not carry Cleveland and also failed in Akron and Youngstown. Many forget that Ohio has a large rural population which vote regularly and they went overwhelmingly for Hillary. She had the right message which was strong on the economy and the backing of John Glenn and the current governor, Ted Strickland, both very popular and respected folks. But if Hillary doesn't run, the rural vote will go to McCain if he has even a slightly good line. And much as I hate to say this about my home state, the black population in rural Ohio is virtually non-existent..............

At this time there is no way I can see Obama taking Ohio in the Fall. Things change and perhaps they will in this case.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 01:05 PM

BRUCE.....In answer to your question, read my 10:48 AM post.......What will change? Virtually nothing.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 01:08 PM

Just now did. Thanks, Spaw. Sorry I hadn't before.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 01:33 PM

Spaw, yer givin' me the impression that Ohio might have a pretty high per capita rating when it comes to the national "dumbass" standings. Is that right?

;-) (facetious question)

My concern is the same as the one Peace has voiced. Assuming that either Hillary, Obama, or McCain get elected....what exactly is going to change?

The public gave the Democrats a majority in Congress in 2006, and it was primarily so the Democrats could end the war. They made no effort whatsoever to do so.

I am very sceptical that that will change if a Democrat is elected president in 2008. (Mind you, I'd still prefer to see the Republicans out regardless. Boy, would I ever.)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: catspaw49
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 02:16 PM

Describe for me all the significant changes and what would be different if we had elected George Wallace in 1968. For the same reason that the Dems did not end the war in Iraq, Wallace would have done very little as President. This system doesn't allow for the greatness we all seek. Bush is pathetic but we're still here.......barely. Clinton did a great job on many issues but we're still fighting the same ones today. Bush made it worse but it was never really fixed. The war in Iraq isn't the thing......What is? All the candidates in play voted either for or to renew the Patriot Act.

Until there is a true representation of the people IN THIS DAY AND AGE and not by a method needed in the 18th Century, we're going to go along with less than we want and less than we need.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 02:38 PM

Who wants change? Most people are hotsy-totsy with the status quo.

A few wobblies from the past talk about power to the people but most of us know that would be a disaster.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 03:26 PM

"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.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 03:28 PM

Real 'victory' will come when we gain the wisdom to redefine 'success'.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 03:53 PM

"A few wobblies from the past talk about power to the people but..."

                        That's what we need. Bring back the Wobblies!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 04:03 PM

Is that post supposed to mean something?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 04:58 PM

Only if you're a fan of Big Bill Haywood and the IWW.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 05:00 PM

I'm a fan of Big Bill AND the IWW.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 05:15 PM

Rig..., my post was aimed at Peace, but-

Shhhh... I think Peace is going to sing a verse or two of Joe Hill.

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

Oh. Q, you seem confused. Let me help.

"Do the math" was my way of saying look at what you said and think about it. It doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. You are repeating the same lines others have repeated for centuries--old wisdom that makes no damned sense. There is a finite amount of natural resource, finite amount of land and potentially an infinite number of people. Now. DO THE MATH.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 05:38 PM

"...potentially an infinite number of people."

and, sadly, no particular control on the education, sanity or habits of all those people.
Since this thread is ostensibly about voting, my math says that the more people you have, the greater the chance of "old wisdom that makes no damned sense" getting embedded in the political process.
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.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 05:47 PM

Q,

I have the greatest respect for you as a researcher and folk historian. My apologies for yelling. And for getting snotty with you.

B

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 05:58 PM

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
Alive as you or me
Says I, "But Joe, you're ten years dead,"
"I never died," says he.
"I never died," says he.

"In Salt Lake, Joe," says I to him,
Him standing by my bed,
"They framed you on a murder charge,"
Says Joe, "But I ain't dead,"
Says Joe, "But I ain't dead."

"The copper bosses killed you, Joe,
They shot you, Joe," says I.
"Takes more than guns to kill a man,"
Says Joe, "I didn't die,"
Says Joe, "I didn't die."

And standing there as big as life
And smiling with his eyes
Says Joe, "What they forgot to kill
Went on to organize,
Went on to organize."

"Joe Hill ain't dead," he says to me,
"Joe Hill ain't never died.
Where working men are out on strike
Joe Hill is at their side,
Joe Hill is at their side."

From San Diego up to Maine,
In every mine and mill -
Where working men defend their rights
It's there you'll find Joe Hill.
It's there you'll find Joe Hill.

I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night,
Alive as you or me
Says I, "But Joe, you're ten years dead",
"I never died," says he.
"I never died," says he.


(1930 by) Alfred Hayes

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:21 PM

Wonderful! The copper bosses probably weren't as sneaky as the oil bosses, but then, they didn't have unlimited resources.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:24 PM

And that's just it. NO ONE has unlimited reserves. That includes this planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:32 PM

Obama sure seems to have unlimited reserves. I think I heard on the radio today he outspent Clinton 2 to 1 in Ohio & Texas, and still lost in both states.

Has anyone noticed how news outlets seem to be avoiding saying 'Obama lost'?

And it took my eyes awhile to adjust this morning as I kept reading down the list of Google News hits about the election before I sussed out Clinton had won in Texas & Ohio! I was like WTF? Who the hell won?

I had already enjoyed a leisurely pot of tea and had a shower before I even sat down to read the news!

Also, is anyone else getting really tired of the whining MSM wankers complaining about being bitch slapped on SNL for goin' all Obamagirl? Puhleez!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: van lingle
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 09:45 PM

Same on NPR, GG. It seemed like Clinton's wins were downplayed early this morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 05 Mar 08 - 10:25 PM

Okay, continuing the digression-
Two solutions (doing the 'math')
Limit reproduction by educative means, changing religious and social philosophies.
Population reduction by using positions of dominance to eliminate unnecessary populations, through sterilization, starvation, etc. (Hmmm, sort of unpopular).

I peeked at the platform of Kuchnich. Can't see that he recommended those measures. Without them his belt-tightening on energy and his green proposals would be little more than cosmetic.

Geothermal? Solar? Hydrogen? Large scale use and dissemination theoretically possible but expensive, energy-consuming, and the engineering knowledge is weak. A lot of research projects, Royal Dutch Shell and British Petroleum, Siemens, etc. to name a few (the purpose of corporations is to make money for stockholders (us), they are not irrevocably wedded to petroleum), but much lead time is needed to make them practical.

(Not much to do with this election)

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 07:51 PM

Like another BM? I see your point. . .

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Amos
Date: 07 Mar 08 - 02:09 PM

Or Hillary either.


A

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: 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: 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: 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: Peace
Date: 08 Mar 08 - 08:14 PM

Obama took Wyoming.

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 - 08:25 PM

And he's moving it to Idaho.

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 - 08:51 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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 - 04:28 PM

Yes...and your point is?


A

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 10 Mar 08 - 12:36 AM

I think McCain does.

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: Teribus
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 05:53 AM

Nope - 200

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: Peace
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 11:12 AM

One of the things that kinda shows this stuff for what it really is (the election 'process'): The possibility that they will 'join up' and become Pres/VP.

Does anyone know if Hillary or Obama have platforms (no, I don't mean heels)?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 11:40 AM

Yeah.

Obama's platform is "Vote for me. I'm a newcomer, a fresh new face, and I bring hope and optimism to a jaded system."

Hillary's platform is "Vote for me. I'm experienced and tough. I know exactly how the system works. A vote for me is a vote for someone who will get the job done."

Some platforms, eh? ;-)

Compare them to Dennis Kucinich, and then wonder where the real platforms have gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 11:42 AM

I keep trying to like Obama but I dunno' that Hillary doesn't have a point on his speeches. I mean he sounds good and all but does he really have it in him to make it work?   Its hard not to like stuff like this:

We Americans are a great and diverse people. We take full advantage of our right to develop wide-ranging interests and responsibilities. Yet we Americans have shared one thing in common: a belief in the greatness of our Country. We have dared to dream great dreams for our Nation. We have taken quite literally the promises of decency, equality, and freedom - of an honest and responsible government.

What has now become of these great dreams? That all Americans stand equal before the law? That we enjoy a right to pursue health, happiness and prosperity in privacy and safety? That government be controlled by its citizens and not the other way around ? That this Country set a standard within the community of nations of courage, compassion, integrity, and dedication to basic human rights and freedoms? Our commitment to these dreams has been sapped by debilitating compromise, acceptance of mediocrity, subservience to special interests, and an absence of executive vision and direction.

I tell you that their great dreams still live within the collective heart of this Nation. We have discovered that our trust has been betrayed. Our people are understandably concerned about this lack of competence and integrity. The root of the problem is not so much that our people have lost confidence in government, but that government has demonstrated time and again its lack of confidence in the people. Our political leaders have simply underestimated the innate quality of our people.


That sounds damn good and on target as well but can the man behind the speech get down and dirty and pull it off? In this case, he couldn't as the above words were not those of Barack Obama but Jimmy Carter. I loved the guy but sadly his lack of experience came to the fore. I still like Jimmy; he's the best damn former prez we ever had. Maybe Obama just sounds too good. I have a hard time trusting him.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 11:46 AM

That is a fascinating quote to read. Jimmy Carter went to Washington, figuring he could change things.

He found out differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 11:48 AM

At least Jimmy Carter tried!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: catspaw49
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 11:49 AM

LH......And Barack is so different?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 12:29 PM

Aw geeze, Pat, his motivational speeches and his programs are not conflated, fer cry-i! The fact that he CAN speak English in an enthusiastic and enthusing way gives him electable attributes Hillary can't touch, right there; in addition to that, he has a track record of making progress and getting people off their partisan stuck points. His policies are sensible, but above all, he has a policy of open communication and intelligence, rather than foolishness disguised as political meandering. Really, i think there is no comparison between them. I do not think she has the character he does, or the clarity of vision. While they both, in the nature of things, make compromises, hers are manipulative and his are sublimative and tend to be transcendent, in terms of unifying differing views.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 12:32 PM

If there is one issue that needs to be addressed in the USA (imo), it's that of health care. Where are H and O on that? And while I''m askin', M?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 12:34 PM

Peace:

There's a current article on this issue in the New York Times...hold on...here it is. An interesting read.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 12:46 PM

ANother sectiom of the times has a pie4ce on Hillasry's management style as reflected in the operation of her campaign. I was struck by the following wee excerpt:
\
"Mrs. Clinton showed a tendency toward an insular management style, relying on a coterie of aides who have worked for her for years, her aides and associates said. Her choice of lieutenants, and her insistence on staying with them even when friends urged her to shake things up, was blamed by some associates for the campaign's woes. Again and again, the senator was portrayed as a manager who valued loyalty and familiarity over experience and expertise.

Mrs. Clinton stood by Mr. Penn and Patti Solis Doyle, who was until last month her campaign manager, even as her campaign was at risk of letting Mr. Obama sew up the nomination. When some of her closest supporters pressed her to replace them, arguing that the two were clearly struggling with their jobs and had become divisive figures in the campaign, she responded by saying she would "think about it."

When Mrs. Clinton finally pushed out Ms. Solis Doyle, she chose Ms. Williams, like Ms. Solis Doyle, an old friend who had never before managed a presidential campaign. "

---

These personnel principles strike me as awfully similar to those embraced for so long by whoever that chimp guy was who hire Don Rumsfeld as DefSec and larded the Supreme Court with loyalists. And they stand in marked contrast to Obama's practice of finding thinkers who have long practice and insight into their areas of specialty.

Just a thought.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: katlaughing
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 12:48 PM

Don, good point. I will vote for her if it comes down to that, just to get a Dem in the WH, but she will never be my first choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 01:13 PM

Thanks, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 01:22 PM

Health Care a la Hillary.

Health Care a la Obama.

Health Care ooh la la McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 01:25 PM

One thing I would love to see (but won't): Candidates vow to accept only the health care of the 'poorest of the poor' in America. When they get elected, they renounce the health care they do have and become the people with the least health care in the nation. Anyone wanna bet things change a bit quicker than they do now?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Mar 08 - 01:33 PM

I'd like to see the PRince and the Pauper reenacted by Cheny and Bush taking the identities of a janitor and a fast-food cook for a month. About as likely, and it would be similarly educational to them.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 01:17 AM

I would like to see Bush play the Emperor in 'The Emperor's New Clothes'.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 10:35 AM

Frankly, I don't think Bush would be very attractive without clothes. Of course, he's not very attractive with clothes, but...

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Mar 08 - 11:37 AM

He's been doing that for years, Dinaavan!! :D

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 08:42 AM

There is someone who made the very same promises Obama is making now in his great speeches--George W. Bush.

Promised compassion, unity, bi-partisanship.

Look where that lead.

Nope, a candidate has to have a lot more going than great rhetorical style for me to vote for them.

They have to have a record, and Obama's is pretty lightweight. Combine that with the money thing, and he will never win me over as a candidate.

Now, if he wins the White House and doesn't squander it the way Jimmy Carter did, I'll happily eat those words. But even if he wins the presidency, I'm not expecting much in the way of change from the current status quo. Mostly, a little less conservative judges. That's about it. Because when you read the fine print with Obama, you find he isn't really proposing much in the way of change to the US government. He is extremely ambitious for himself, but how that translates to the public welfare we should all be extremely cautious and skeptical about, especially in the wake of Bush Clinton Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:03 AM

Cautious. Skeptical. Careful. Don't do anything rash. Remember how disappointing things can be. Maintain the shields, the cynicism, the constant process of nullifying. Avoid, at all costs, risking pain. Think everything through several times; doubt yourself, as much as you doubt those others, remembering that at least you are being rigorous with yourself. Trust no-one, expect nothing, and do not ever substitute hope for a cold pessimism. That way, you will not be disappointed; you will be safe. Put your faith in the jade, not the gem. Careful. Be cautious. Be skeptical. If it looks good, remember it is probably untrue. Above all, doubt.

---

The wonderful thing about life is that it turns out very much in accord with your expectations.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:08 AM

From the Gospel of Bob:

Johnny's in the basement
Mixing up the medicine
I'm on the pavement
Thinking about the government
The man in the trench coat
Badge out, laid off
Says he's got a bad cough
Wants to get it paid off
Look out kid
It's somethin' you did
God knows when
But you're doin' it again
You better duck down the alley way
Lookin' for a new friend
The man in the coon-skin cap
In the big pen
Wants eleven dollar bills
You only got ten

Maggie comes fleet foot
Face full of black soot
Talkin' that the heat put
Plants in the bed but
The phone's tapped anyway
Maggie says that many say
They must bust in early May
Orders from the D. A.
Look out kid
Don't matter what you did
Walk on your tip toes
Don't try "No Doz"
Better stay away from those
That carry around a fire hose
Keep a clean nose
Watch the plain clothes
You don't need a weather man
To know which way the wind blows

Get sick, get well
Hang around a ink well
Ring bell, hard to tell
If anything is goin' to sell
Try hard, get barred
Get back, write braille
Get jailed, jump bail
Join the army, if you fail
Look out kid
You're gonna get hit
But users, cheaters
Six-time losers
Hang around the theaters
Girl by the whirlpool
Lookin' for a new fool
Don't follow leaders
Watch the parkin' meters

Ah get born, keep warm
Short pants, romance, learn to dance
Get dressed, get blessed
Try to be a success
Please her, please him, buy gifts
Don't steal, don't lift
Twenty years of schoolin'
And they put you on the day shift
Look out kid
They keep it all hid
Better jump down a manhole
Light yourself a candle
Don't wear sandals
Try to avoid the scandals
Don't wanna be a bum
You better chew gum
The pump don't work
'Cause the vandals took the handles

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 11:44 AM

Entiely too optimistic, that feller. He doesn't understand how bitter disappointment and loss can be. The only answer is seriousness, doubt, caution and gimlet-eyed cynicism.




A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 01:52 PM

According to Joan Baez, Dylan had a pretty dark view of things, but he believed in individual freedom and had a strong instinct to support the underdog. She was the one with the great optimistic beliefs in the possibility of achieving a positive transformation of society through collective action. He was the one he felt you could not change the way things were in society, you could only live out your own individual destiny as best you were able.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: katlaughing
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 02:12 PM

Amos, your 1103a posting is one of the best I've ever read by you. What do ya think might happen if all those folks started singing "Always keep on the sunnyside?" and really practised being positive and hopeful, believing that a new day really IS a new day and CAN be different from the last day?

This guy is doing some interesting research on our brains and how what we do can effect them, so much: Dr. Amen.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Mar 08 - 09:43 PM

I'm beginning to think the folks who are worried that the Democratic Party is starting to come apart are making a lot of good sense. If something isn't done to end this primary, one side or the other is either not going to vote, or they'll be so pissed off they'll vote for the other side.
                I think they're right when they say, "It's time to end this thing."

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:03 AM

Tonight, as promised, Keith Olbermann attacked Senator Hillary Clinton in a ten-minute "Special Comment," saying that he was not endorsing Barack Obama but that "events insist" that he speak and stand against her "tepid response" to the controversial remarks of Geraldine Ferraro wherein she said that Obama wouldn't have been as successful if he were not black. Last night Olbermann decried the statements as "clearly racist"; tonight, he followed up with a doozy in which he accused her of "campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican." In so doing, said Olbermann — in letting the opportunity to forcefully oppose Ferraro's comments pass her by — Olbermann said that Clinton had "missed a critical opportunity to do what was right."




Geraldine Ferraro has stood by her comments and denied that they were racist, saying on "NBC Nightly News" tonight that they were response to a specific question about why this election was special, and saying that it was the Obama campaign that was playing "this type of a race card." (See related video here.)

Olbermann chose to frame his comment in terms of bad choices on the part of Senator Clinton, stopping short of calling her inherently racist, instead casting the matter in terms of her receiving bad advice from the "tone deaf" and "arrogant" members of her campaign ("they are killing your chances of becoming president...[and] slowly killing the chances for any democrat to become president"). He characterized Ferraro's remarks as "a blind accusation of sexism and dismissing Senator Obama's campaign as some equal opportunity stunt," and decried her comments both in this instance and historically, pointing to the "cheap, ignorant vile racism that underlines them."

He also blamed her advisers for not pushing her to repudiate those comments immediately — unlike the remark by Obama advisor Samantha Power, who had called Clinton a "monster" and who was "gone by sunrise" from the Obama campaign. Olbermann specifically fingered (but did not name) Clinton campaign manager Maggie Williams, saying that instead of repudiating Ferraro's words — "words that should make any Democrat retch" — she was instead "letting her campaign manager bend them beyond all recognition into Sentaor Obama's fault...thus giving Ferraro nearly a week to [send the dialogue] back into the vocabulary of David Duke."

"Do you not see, Senator?" Olbermann asked. "Senator Clinton, this is not a campaign strategy. This is a suicide pact."...

(See KO's rant here.)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:07 AM

"
Text size – + Multiple mea culpas for Clinton
Email|Link|Comments (0) Posted by Foon Rhee, deputy national political editor March 13, 2008 10:21 AM
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa.

An unusually contrite Hillary Clinton apologized Wednesday night to leaders of 200 black community newspapers for any offense caused by her husband's comments comparing Barack Obama's victory in the South Carolina primary to Jesse Jackson's in 1984 and 1988 -- remarks widely criticized as belittling Obama's accomplishments.

Clinton told the National Newspaper Publishers Association that "I certainly do repudiate it and I regret deeply" remarks by Geraldine Ferraro, who caused an uproar by suggesting that Obama would not be where he is in the Democratic presidential race if he were a white man or a woman of any color. Ferraro, the first woman on a major party presidential ticket when she was the 1984 vice presidential nominee, stepped down from Clinton's national finance committee on Wednesday, but not before angrily accusing the Obama campaign of calling her racist.

And Clinton said she was sorry, on behalf of the entire federal government, for the mishandling of Hurricane Katrina. "I've said it publicly, and I say it privately: I apologize, and I am embarrassed that our government so mistreated our fellow citizens ... It was a national disgrace," she said, according to the Associated Press account of the meeting in Washington.

The black community newspapers are influential among African-American voters, a core constituency in the Democratic Party. Clinton enjoyed strong support from black voters in early polls last year, but after Obama won the Iowa caucuses in January and emerged as a serious contender, the vast majority of African-African voters have supported Obama in primaries and caucuses. In Mississippi on Tuesday, more than 90 percent voted for him, according to exit polls. "

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:15 AM

I don't think any of this is helpful. They are now engaged in a campaign to elect McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:03 PM

Rig:

WHich "they" is that?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:12 PM

Obama and Hillary. I think Howard Dean and Richardson and Al Gore and a bunch of party elders need to stop this food fight before these guys destroy themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 12:49 PM

I think Hillary apologizing is just good sense. Obama did not hesitate to apoliogize for Smantha POwer's little slip.

I think up to a point the comparing and contrasting of these candidates is healthy, especially since one of them will be taking on the bestial backstabbers of the right wing, and their mindless runamok menials, the people who slather sarcasm and drool investive as a sunsittute for communication, and who think fear and hatred are jolly good fare for poltiical discourse.

But beyond that point, I share your concern that too much of the snipery and yappery of the media-inspired head-banging could put serious friction into the Democratic drivetrain.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 06:30 PM

A series on Hillary and her Xenophobia which is of interest.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 09:30 PM

The article doesn't seem to address my concept of xenophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:24 PM

OK then. Disregard it,

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:33 PM

FOX news is of the opinion that she simply can't win from delegates and superdelegates combined.

Of course, her campaign staff are raising the notion that she could beat McCain and he could not, but I find that meretricious, myself.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 10:39 PM

But not perspicacious, mellifluous, or serendipitous?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Mar 08 - 11:30 PM

Just thinking-wishous.

Geez this is getting to be a quagmire. It had been going on too long before the Iowa and New Hampshire events. Now it's torturous.

They all three went back to work in the senate today. Maybe they'll stay and work for a few weeks, let things blow over.

Nah.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:02 AM

Maybe it's time to reelect Al Gore. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Mar 08 - 12:15 AM

I don't think he's running. But Obama was having a long talk with him last week, I hear. D'ye think he'd go for Veep again?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 12:58 PM

AN analysis of Hillary's consensual posture on the Iraq War is of interest.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 01:06 PM

The really good news is, since the preacher Wright's views have become televised, Hillary has been gaining by leaps and bounds in the polls. All the Clinton campaign needs to do now, is research what Wright has said over the last 20 years that Obama has been going there, and then leak it out over the course of the next 5 weeks until Pennsylvania votes.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 01:08 PM

That is not really good news; and I am not sure it is even true.

Obama just picked up another clutch of delegates, increasing his lead.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 01:09 PM

Why, by the waym are you supporting a religious test for public office, Rig?

Don't like the Constitution>?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 01:46 PM

"Why, by the way, are you supporting a religious test for public office, Rig?"


                   I'm not, really. I've said all along, though, that I thought religion was going to decide the outcome of this thing, and not race. At the time I was thinking that ethe horrible swiftboaters were going to pain Obama as a Muslim in the general election. It didn't occurr to me that other Democrats would try to paint him as a buffoon in the primary.

                   Frankly, I think the world would be a much better place if people would just recognize religion for what it is, in which case, I think it would simply go away.

                   Some of the things that Wright said go way outside of what is normally considered religious context, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 11:21 PM

Rig--

As CEO of Smears R Us, you are sworn to never give any evidence of your smears. I understand that.   But we also know how seriously to take the products of your Drivel Unlimited subsidiary, which you must think is a hot seller at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Mar 08 - 11:31 PM

I will take from your comments, Ron, that you didn't expect the Republicans to try to paint Obama as a Muslim, in spite of the fact that they've already started doing that.

             And that you don't think the things Revernend Wright said go outside what is normally considered religious context.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 12:44 PM

"The very same issue came up with Bill and Hillary Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Chelsea Clinton called Jesse Jackson and asked him to come give spiritual guidance to the family. He ultimately became the Clinton family's spiritual adviser, ministering to Hillary, Bill and Chelsea, and at Hillary's urging developed a special counseling relationship with their daughter. Shortly after the Lewinsky story broke Jackson met with the three Clintons at the White House. They reportedly prayed and hugged one another under Jackson's spiritual guidance.

The night before Bill Clinton was to testify before the grand jury about Monica Lewinsky, the president called Jackson and asked him to come watch the Super Bowl with him. At first Jackson begged off, citing a previous engagement, then heeded his wife's advice. According to Jackson "My wife said, 'your first obligation is ministerial. It is morally right.'" And he was later quoted as saying that "The relationship between a prophet and a president, the priest and the president is a sacred one." Jackson gave Hillary Clinton a framed photograph of himself with Chelsea, which Hillary Clinton hung in her bedroom.

The Clintons did not repudiate Jackson for his earlier comments about Jews, calling them "Hymie's" and referring to New York as "Hymietown." Nor did they repudiate him for recognizing the PLO or Yasser Arafat, or for embracing Arafat and Syrian Preisdent Hafez Assad, or for accepting Arab money for two of his organizations. (In fact, Hillary Clinton was roundly criticized by her New York constituents for embracing Arafat's wife at a meeting.)

Later it was revealed that while Jesse Jackson was acting as the Clinton's spiritual adviser during this troubled time, he was having an affair with a California State University professor Karin Stanford, a former staffer, and fathered her child. According to Stanford, Jackson tried to keep it quiet by asking her to sign a confidentiality agreement and by paying money to her from his charity organizations, hardly visiting the child at all. "An angry Stanford remarked later that "black religious leaders and congregations prayed for him (Jackson) and his 'family' but not for our daughter (Ashley) and me." She then said, "Coming at a time when (former) President Bill Clinton was being crucified for lying about his affair with a White House intern, my partner was praised by the media for his honesty."

I'm sure Hillary Clinton does not support Jackson's remarks about Jews, his relationship with the PLO or his having a child by a woman other than his wife. But clearly he was able to help her at a time, as she has admitted, of the greatest crisis of her life.

This is all by way of saying that one can get solace and support from others who are mortal and human and who make mistakes like everyone else. One can repudiate their behavior but not the people themselves."

(WaPo writer Sally Quinn)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 09:29 PM

Rig--

No, you are incorrect. I expect all sorts of slime in the campaign. But you are contributing nothing to the discussion that we didn't already know. (Situation normal)

And, as always, you are just about a perfect negative indicator--(hope you know what that means).

At any rate, it's interesting, since Hillary's support is growing by "leaps and bounds", that there seems to be precisely zero evidence of that. For instance, the Iowa results over the weekend--after the revelations about "God damn America" etc ,resulted in more support for Obama than for Hillary.   Gee, I wonder if the "leaps and bounds" isn't, as usual, your wonderfully fertile imagination.

Your fantasy life is really quite impressive.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 09:52 PM

Nothing goes outside what is normally considered religious context, Rinslinger! ;-) Religion is supposed to be (and I mean in its own opinion it is) an all-embracing matter that applies to every possible circumstance and subject that can occur in life.

Did you think it was just about prayer, saints, priests, and ceremonies? By no means. It is also about morality, customs, business, money, philosophy, psychology, law, etc...

Only in a dictatorship that practices various forms of government-sponsored thought control are religious persons forbidden from publicly discussing whatever darned subject they want to.

(that dictatorship can, of course, be a religiously dominated one itself...or it might be an atheistically-dominated one as in Mao's China...or it might be any other possible combination of such values)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 07:53 AM

"Did you think it was just about prayer, saints, priests, and ceremonies?"

                      Actually, LH, I thought it was all about buffoonery.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Joe_F
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 09:45 PM

I am willing to listen to evidence to the contrary, but my null hypothesis (my mind was warped by reading _War and Peace_ at a tender age) is that the individual who happens to be president is so much in the power of his or her sources of advice & information that it scarcely matters who he or she is. What matters is the gang surrounds the president; and for me, getting the present gang out is of immensely greater importance than any of the stigmata of any of the candidates. The fact that neither of the leading candidates takes that attitude is, for me, a reason to disrespect both. What would bring me out cheering would be for them to get together with their advisers and decide, as dispassionately as possible, who (one of the two, or someone else) has the best chance of winning, and back that one.

As it is, I had to make that decision myself (unqualified as I am to do so), and so I voted for Clinton, with the idea that more yahoos despise blacks than despise women, and even the latter can view her as a stand-in for Bill. (It is notable that even in the peasant countries a president's widow can sometimes get elected.)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 09:48 PM

JoeF--

I hope if/when it comes to the showdown between McCain and Obama, you will not go so far as to vote for McCain.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 08 - 09:48 AM

Clinton Quiet About Own Radical Ties
Faulting of Obama Called Hypocritical

When Hillary Rodham Clinton questioned rival Barack Obama's ties to 1960s radicals, her comments baffled two retired Bay Area lawyers who knew Clinton in the summer of 1971 when she worked as an intern at a left-wing law firm in Oakland, Calif., that defended communists and Black Panthers.


"She's a hypocrite," Doris B. Walker, 89, who was a member of the American Communist Party, said in an interview last week. "She had to know who we were and what kinds of cases we were handling. We had a very left-wing reputation, including civil rights, constitutional law, racist problems."

Malcolm Burnstein, 74, a partner at the firm who worked closely with Clinton during her internship, said he was traveling in Pennsylvania in April when Clinton attacked Obama for his past interactions with William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, members of Students for a Democratic Society who went on to found the bomb-making Weather Underground.

"Given her background, it was quite hypocritical," Burnstein said. "I almost called the Philadelphia Inquirer. I saw what she and her campaign were saying about Ayers and I thought, 'Well, if you're going to talk about that totally bit of irrelevant nonsense, I'll talk about your career with us.' "

In her campaign for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Clinton has said little about her experiences in the tumultuous late 1960s and early 1970s, including her involvement with student protests and her brief internship at the law firm, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein. She has said she worked on a child custody case, although former partners recall her likely involvement in conscientious objector cases and a legal challenge to a university loyalty oath.

But her decision to target Obama's radical connections has spurred criticism from some former protest movement leaders who say she has opened her own associations to scrutiny.
...

WaPo

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 May 08 - 10:27 PM

Here in Oregon, we're proud of everybody who votes for Hillary.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 08 - 10:41 AM

Way I hear it, folks in Oregon are pretty proud of voting for Obama, too.

Rig, I swan, you say the most disjointed things sometimes!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 May 08 - 11:27 AM

We're just so proud to be here, like Mini Pearl.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 May 08 - 04:37 PM

Keep in mind, Rig- the region in which you live is not actually indicative of Oregon as a whole. IMO

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 May 08 - 05:17 PM

It's indicative of way Oregon should be!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 08 - 08:42 PM

Ooooh!! Judgmental!!!!



A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 May 08 - 09:34 PM

Anyway, Hillary showed 'em in Kentucky!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 08 - 09:45 PM

As Maine goes, good Rig, so goes the nation.

I am afraid the good lady hs flown her last flag.

I hope.

She will continue to pretend that Florida did not disqualify its voters, and make a fuss about it. Some accommodation will have to be reached but I would hope it would only be after equal campaign exposure for all concerned. People seem to forget that both candidates agreed not to campaign there, and Obama honored that commitment while Hillary broke it. Strikes me as a shoddy basis for asserting superiority.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 May 08 - 10:00 PM

The folks who were dissed by Obama in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West Virginia and Michigan will vote for McCain in November, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 20 May 08 - 10:23 PM

ANd those who have been inspired, woken up, energized, enthused and made hopeful bout maybe possibly changing things for the better in every state will back Barack.

McCain's draw from the people you describe will be negligible.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 May 08 - 10:59 PM

Rig, that's not the Oregon I respect and trust. Southern Oregon is a world of its own.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 May 08 - 12:14 AM

Per AOL: with 50% precincts reporting, Obama takes Oregon 58% to 42%. As expected. So they split the 2 states. Hillary gets KY, Obama gets OR--sorry, Rig.

And nothing has changed Obama's steady progress to the nomination. He gets the majority of delegates, as he had planned.

Then comes the reconciliation with Hillary's wing of the party--particularly with anybody sensible enough to want to prevent McCain from picking any Supreme Court justices. Which should be the overwhelming majority of Hillary's supporters.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: M.Ted
Date: 21 May 08 - 12:48 AM

No question that Obama and Hilary are going to make up, but it is yet to be seen whether the Mudcat Obama brigade are going to extend a hand of friendship--Amos will, of course--

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 May 08 - 01:25 AM

M'siew, at the end of the test on that other thread I was startled to see that, percentage wise, Obama and Clinton were at equal ranks to my way of thinkin'. I guess I shouldn't hve been surprised because there is no doubt in my mind that if Senator Clinton took the nomination I would support her.

I support them for different reasons: Obama to me represents hope and a fresh eye, Clinton, it appears to me, could get things done even if I might not approve of her tactics. Either way this nation would gain.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:14 AM

If Obama failed to win the nomination, I would do what I could to back Hillary in 2008. I seriously doubt this will happen.

Time and again, my support of a candidate has been dismissed as wild-eyed, kool-aid drinking, naive, gullible, deluded, and other things much less flattering.

SO let me go on record here as saying that these descriptiors are unmitigated horse manure, biorne from small-spirited bitterness, or some other psychological aberration on the part of the name callers.

I am not insensitive to McCains occasional virtues, and I see Ms. Clintons several advantages.

I have selected Mister Obama as my enthusiastic choice for specific reasons: he demonstrates industry, a competent management style, a greater willingness to communicate openly and frankly than other candidates, a demonstrated preference for honesty over manipulation, a higher level of intelligence and a stronger sense of ethics than other candidates, in my assessment.

I do not agree with every proposal he has made, but what is far more important is that he has demonstrated that he thinks before he nmakes them. He is canny enough to survive in the mad world of politics, but is constantly, it seems to me, seekign to minimize the impact this has on his integrity.

For the most part his platform and his vision are appealing, but far more important is his track record in getting things done in a transpartisan manner.   

There are several other reasons I support him. But the point I want to emphasize is that none of them have to do with being a true believer, a lack of analysis, or turning a blind eye to his flaws. They do not rest on hypnotic obsession, as some have implied, nor on adulation, nor on blind optimism.

I just think he's a better choice, for good and sufficient reason.

That's all there is to it.

Snarky cynical, passive-aggressive, snide or apathetic insinuations to the contrary are directed to the door on the right which leads to the Self-Fucking workroom.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 21 May 08 - 02:59 PM

You wouldn't know from the press coverage that the media favourite lost Kentucky by a whopping 35%.
No-one but his opponent seems to be questioning his electability despite running up these numbers in consecutive weeks.
Instead, just like West Virginia, those who didn't vote for Obama are bigots!
Alarm bells should be ringing loud and clear.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 May 08 - 03:48 PM

Jim - I agree. It amazes me that these results are being ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 04:39 PM

They are not being ignored; they give us all nightmares to think the Bright Hope for a more intelligent future could be derailed by the least-educated souls among us. Fortunately, they do not, at this late date, much shift the continental drift which is carrying the day for Obama's nomination.

I would be curious to see a state-by-state breakdown of Hillary voters sorted by those who voted for Bush and those who did not.
It would be an interesting statistic.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 May 08 - 04:53 PM

Oh, piffle! Nothing is being 'ignored'! Everyone knew that Kentucky was going to be lopsided for Clinton. Each candidate has strength & support in different areas.

Kentucky will 'probably' vote Republican in Nov. no matter who the Democrats nominate.

Even though the Republicans have the burden of 8 years of lying, scandals, exorbitant spending on a war that never should have been, and total disdain for the average American and his problems, they will once again try pandering to gun owners, Bible pounders, racists, and every other special interest group they can find! And they will GET many.....folks who would vote Republican if his horns & tail were showing!

But a lot of swing voters are tired of the crap Bush has spewed, and which McCain is not doing anything to disavow. Already, Democrats are winning small victories in areas where they didn't stand a chance 10 years ago....even some Rupublicans have had enough!

It sure will be interesting,

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 21 May 08 - 04:58 PM

Amos asks the key question above. I suspect that Hillary is being kept alive by Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos".

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 07:56 PM

"When I wrote this morning about Hillary ClintonÕs master plan to do everything she could to undermine the candidacy of Barack Obama, I had no idea how soon that might come to fruition. As it turns out it took less than 24 hours.

In a speech in Boca Raton, as reported by Politico today, she made some ridiculous statements comparing her attempt to win the Democratic nomination to the struggle of the abolitionists and the suffragettes. She also made a not-so-thinly-veiled threat about the possible political consequences to the Democrats of not seating the Florida and Michigan delegations.

Here is what she said:

"There's a reason why so many have fought so hard and sacrificed so much. It's because they knew that to be a citizen of this country is to have the right and responsibility to help shape its future. Not just to have your voice heard but to have it count. People have fought hard because they knew their vote was at stake and so was their children's futures.

Those people, she said "refused to accept their assigned place as second-class citizens. Men and women who saw America not as it was, but as it could and should be, and committed themselves to extending the frontiers of our democracy. The abolitionists and all who fought to end slavery and ensure freedom came with the full right of citizenship. The tenacious women and a few brave men who gathered at the Seneca Falls convention back in 1848 to demand the right to vote.

Because of those who have come before, Sen. Obama and I have and so many of you have this precious right today. Because of all that has been done, we are in this historic presidential election. And I believe that both Sen. Obama and myself have an obligation as potential Democratic nominees - in fact we all have an obligation as Democrats - to carry on this legacy and ensure that in our nominating process, every voice is heard and every single vote is counted."

Then came the kicker. Her warning of the price that might be paid if the DNC does not seat the Florida and Michigan delegations according to her wishes:

"If we fail to do so, I worry that we will pay not only a moral cost, but a political cost as well," she said. "We know the road to a Democratic White House runs right through Florida and Michigan. If we care about winning those states in November, we need to count your votes now. If Democrats send a message that we don't fully value your votes, we know Sen. McCain and the Republicans will be more than happy to have them. The Republicans will make a simple and compelling argument: why should Florida and Michigan voters trust the Democratic Party to look out for you when they won't even listen to you."

I donÕt know about you, but that sounds to me like Hillary is encouraging Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan to vote for John McCain if she isnÕt handed the nomination. Watch your back Barack, itÕs only just begun."

(Houston Chronicle)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 21 May 08 - 08:32 PM

You know.... many things happen during a campaign and the media chooses what to ignore and what to emphasise based on what the bosses tell them to do.
That's how Bush got to serve two full terms, why you are in Afghanistan & Iraq and are now setting your sites on Iran.
The unfortunate truth however is that when you leave an actual physical trail like the butterfly tabs in Florida then you leave something that the voters will remember for the rest of that individual's term.
Most people still believe that George Bush won by cheating the voters.
So now you have a candidate who did very well in the beginning and is now seriously hurting in some areas but you are not concerned.
Last week he lost by 41% in one State & this week by 35% in another and somehow those who did not vote for him are to be put down as being either unintelligent or racists.
Each time a serious flaw in this candidate has surfaced, the media has played with it for a little while before finally declaring it "Out of bounds" and putting it to rest.
Reverend Wright (remember him?) is a perfect example of this. He has told you what Mr. Obama is. You have no excuse for ignoring it but you do.
Not only do you ignore it but you chastise anyone who brings it up as though it's somehow unfair to hold the black candidate up to the same scrutiny as the whites.
You can't even bring yourselves to use his middle name.
When this individual falls from the pedestal which you have placed him on and when many more Americans, Iranians, Iraqis and whichever other nationalities you choose to attack, suffer because of his lack of experience or hidden agenda, there will be a long trail of misdeeds by this man, starting with his run for Senator that many of us will point to and say once again "You were told and should have known".

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 21 May 08 - 08:51 PM

Jim:

I m sorry, but that is complete, unmitigated crap. The Reverend Wright has told you all 'bout who he himself is and nothing about who Obama is. Obama made the differences crystal clear in his repudiation of Wright's controversial opinions, and finally his repudiation of Wright himself. The question is why you choose not to understand, or believe, what he has said about the issue. For you to presume to know a different version of the truth about Obama's degree of influence by Wright than what Obama tells you himself -- to know Obama's secret self better than he himself does -- is the extreme of presumption and arrogance.

Because you are not operating on actual insight. You are operating on the intentionally stirred up blind emotional buttons that were pushed by Hannity and Co when they deliberately took Wright's videos and foreshortened them out of all context to make them look as wicked as they possibly could. And, like a good viewer, you accepted that as a real perspective on the man and have stuck with that moment of instilled fear ever since.
This is essentially a work of emotional fraud. Why buy it? And once you know what it is, why keep it?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 May 08 - 10:00 PM

"So now you have a candidate who did very well in the beginning and is now seriously hurting in some areas but you are not concerned."


               Many of us are concerned, Jim, and that's why Hillary's prospects are picking up. In the beginning, nobody knew him and they flocked to him because a blank page looked better than GWB to them.
               I suspect deep thinking Americans should be looking into some things like, what did Tony Rezko have to do with getting Obama started? Who was it that published and promoted his books, and why? Who stands to gain if he is actually elected? Does he have connections with the Israel lobby, other lobbies?

               The Republicans won't look into connections to AIPAC, but I anticipate they'll look into everything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:07 PM

More drivel. If anybody thinks the Republicans will "look into" Obama, they would look into Hillary at least as hard--and there's always new stuff to explore with the Clintons--check the Paul trial, the uranium deal, the firing of Hillary by her first supervisor, during Watergate for unethical behavior. etc,etc. ad nauseam.

And on top of this she starts with over half the electorate dead set against voting for her.

For a lot of people--especially, but not only, Republicans--just the Clinton name is enough to get them to the polls to keep the Clintons out of the White House again.

And as I've said more than once, the revolting--and needlessly divisive-- campaign she has run, ably assisted by her newly clueless spouse, has recruited yet more people--including an amazing number of women--particularly young women--to the Clinton-loathing camp.

The Democrats are far better off with Obama as the standard-bearer.

And so far, nobody has come up with any evidence--as opposed to innuendo--that this is not so.

I've read postings on MSNBC etc by a striking number of people who say they supported the Clintons to the hilt in the 90's, voted for Bill twice----but now, after Hillary's campaign, would never vote for a Clinton for anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:22 PM

"You can't even bring yourselves to use his middle name." Jim Lad

That is such utter baloney. How many times do you use your middle name? Do you know John McCain's middle name? Or even Senator Clinton's? Or Bill Clinton's? Mike Huckabee's? Mitt Romney's? Ron Paul's?

snort

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 02:33 AM

I don't have a middle name.
I'm working class.
I frequently use my wife and children's' middle names.
The last time I suggested that there was nothing wrong with using Obama's middle name, I received a very nasty pm from one of you.
Odd that!

On the Hillary running as an independent thing... Last night, Bill Clinton took the first step towards this on his wife's behalf when he offhandedly criticized the Democratic party as he walked past some journalists.
He criticized their lack of concern for democracy regarding Michigan and Florida as well as hinting about the bending of rules by the higher ups to favour Obama.
You will see this begin to snowball by the end of May at which time Hillary will hint that she is considering running as an Independent in response to public pressure.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 May 08 - 02:54 AM

Betcha not.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 04:34 AM

Oh yeah?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 22 May 08 - 08:55 AM

It is highly entertaining, in a pathetic sort of way, that folks here can't hear you Jim Lad.

Fingers in their ears, screaming "lalalalalalala" is how they "refect".

"Reverend Wright (remember him?) is a perfect example of this. He has told you what Mr. Obama is. You have no excuse for ignoring it but you do."

So true. He said it succinctly, in a single sentence. "He is a politician. He says what he has to say to get elected."

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 22 May 08 - 08:59 AM

GUEST,Guest, it appears you've not been reading the posts before you comment. You said:

for the life of me, I can't recall one single person in this forum saying they were going for Clinton.

Either not reading or having defective memory.

In at least three threads I've made it clear that I believe Senator Clinton is the preferable candidate for nomination, and would, if elected, make a terrific president. I've also made clear that if Obama gets the nod I'd be quite satisfied to vote for him.

Either one is way, way, way better than Bush III McCain.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 May 08 - 09:06 AM

"I don't have a middle name.
I'm working class."

I do have a middle name.

That makes me an elitist, no doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 11:56 AM

Nope!
But I was half serious about that.
Middle names for boys were regarded as pretentious in the poor district where I was raised.
Calling myself "Working Class" was a bit of a step up for me and I felt a little twinge of guilt using that term.
We were always poor & occasionally hungry.
Folks in those settings often resent efforts by others to rise above it.
Those with more ambition did their best to give their children the best start that they possibly could and a token like a middle name cost nothing but would always be there.
The Irish did and still do give their children English names but call them by their Irish equivalents as a way to hide their status later in life.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 12:58 PM

Jim Lad:

No, there is nothing wrong with using Barack Obama's middle name, unless you are doing it for the underhanded purposes of making the listener associate his name with that of someone else. You wouldn't want to induce that kind of illogical, push-button thinking on people, would you?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:23 PM

"Clinton did not always feel so strongly. In the early days of the campaign she said Michigan would not count.

"It's clear," Clinton told New Hampshire Public Radio in the fall, "this election [Michigan is] having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot." " ABC News.

The article goes on to say:

"After Tuesday's primaries in Kentucky and Oregon, Obama gained a majority of the available pledged delegates, a symbolic milestone that may influence many of the undecided superdelegates both candidates need to secure the nomination.

ABC News has crunched the numbers and even with Michigan and Florida included Obama has a significant lead in delegates.

Related
McCain Veepstakes: Who Will Win the Prize?Obama Wins Ore., Looks to General ElectionWATCH: Kennedy: A Beacon for the Nation"In the total universe of delegates, there are 311 outstanding: 217 of those are as of yet uncommitted superdelegates, 94 are thus far unallocated pledged delegates from last night's contest in Oregon and the upcoming three contests in Puerto Rico, South Dakota and Montana," wrote David Chalian, ABC News political director.

Clinton needs 84 percent of all the remaining delegates -- pledged and superdelegates -- to hit 2,026, the magic number needed to lock up the nomination.

Obama needs just 23 percent of all the remaining delegates to hit 2,026. With the current rules for delegate math against her, Clinton has pushed to increase the overall delegate total needed to win up to 2,210, or to instead consider using the popular vote as a metric.


Obama leads in the popular vote if Michigan and Florida are excluded from the count. He also leads in popular votes if Florida is added.

Clinton, however, has more popular votes if all the states, including Michigan and Florida, are included in the total.

But Obama did not campaign in Michigan and his name was removed from the ballot before the race.

The Democratic Party would not be convening a meeting to resolve the issue if not for Clinton, said ABC News consultant Matthew Dowd.

"The DNC [Democratic National Committee] is considering changing the rules, and they wouldn't be changing the rules unless she wanted them to meet and discuss it. She obviously wants to see the rules changed. Her staff should have set up a campaign that worked within the confines of the current rules," he said. "It is as if Barack Obama is on the 99-yard line and in the final moments of the game Clinton wants the football field extended from 100 to 120 yards." "

---

The essence of the business is that for a variety of reasons, Hillary Clinton is trying to get the DNC to change the rules she previously agreed to, primarily because she does not like the score. She offers terrific explanations as to why this is a good thing, but if she were operating on such deep, true, American principles, she might have said something at the time, when losing the selection process was not obvious. At least, that would have seemed more consistent.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:51 PM

"No, there is nothing wrong with using Barack Obama's middle name, unless you are doing it for the underhanded purposes of making the listener associate his name with that of someone else. You wouldn't want to induce that kind of illogical, push-button thinking on people, would you?"

That statement speaks for itself.


Then argues with the conclusion!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:52 PM

None of it matters, really. Obama will be next President of the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:57 PM

Maybe.
I hope not.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:57 PM

When I was in grade school, there was a girl named Butz. We **all** knew when her name was being said because it was simply her name, and when it was being said as an insult. JimLad would have known also. but perhaps he has forgotten grade school tactics. Or maybe he remembers them very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 02:07 PM

Tia!
Stop it.
I'm discussing politics.
I have no idea what it is that you are trying to do other than insult me and at this point, I don't care.
Just stop with the insults.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 May 08 - 02:43 PM

Yes, we are discussing politics. And it is a currently popular political trick to use someone's name as an insult, and then claim "but that's their name!" We all did this as children, so we all know what is really being said. Many object to the gratuitious use of Obama's middle name of Hussein (there, I said it) because we know what is *really* being said, and that is this: "See, he must be a muslim and/or an enemy of America, because he has an Arab name, and it is the same name as the dictator that we convinced you would wipe us all out with anthrax and a mushroom cloud."

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 May 08 - 03:36 PM

No, I think he'll just turn Reverend Wright loose on us.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 04:51 PM

You two are clowns. Can you not make a straight staement on the issues and facts of the matter?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:07 PM

Interesting that the same people who are constantly bringing up Rev. Wright are also constantly jumping on any possible means to claim Obama is a Moslem.

Trying to do both at the same time--when they actually obviously contradict each other--tends to support the idea that the Obama critics doing this are:

1) so abysmally ignorant that they don't realize that if he is a Christian and attends the church formerly headed by Rev. Wright he cannot also be a Moslem or

2) so desperate in the grand Hillary "kitchen sink" tradition, that they don't care they are making complete fools of themselves.

I wonder which it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:13 PM

"You two are clowns."

I'm growing tired of this.

Amos:
    Either debate the facts without the insults or do some gardening. Remarks like the one quoted above are absolutely pointless. Some of the others posting here are so insulting that I don't even bother to read them. You may have some legitimate arguments to make but I'll never know if every single posting starts with an insult.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:37 PM

"You two are clowns. Can you not make a straight staement on the issues and facts of the matter?"


                Amos - Did you really want an answer to this?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:41 PM

"...they don't realize that if he is a Christian and attends the church formerly headed by Rev. Wright he cannot also be a Moslem..."


                  So when he (they) is palling around with Louis Farrakhan, which is it? Or maybe he's bi-religious!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 08:23 PM

Rig:

That's a pretty torrid insinuation. Have you any evidence whatsoever that Mister Obama "pals around" (whatever that is supposed to insinuate) with Mister Farrakhan?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 May 08 - 09:47 PM

Not really, but Reverend Wright did, and the Trinity Church honored Farrakhan, and Obama managed to drag himself to services there for 20 years.

                     Frankly, though, I don't see Farrakhan in the same dark light that some others do. In his position, I might have happily followed in his footsteps.

                     I guess I see him as a bruised person more than a bad person. The mention of his name, though, sure winds up the media.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 11:33 PM

Yeah. But it is awfully far fetched to color Wright with Farrakhan' s brush on such insufficient data, and it is far-fetched to the point of madness to then try to paint Obama with the borrowed colors you stuck on Wright.    If you have to draw such long bows, maybe the shot is not worth taking.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 May 08 - 01:08 AM

And anybody who wants to attack somebody on the basis of support for Farrakhan should not forget to include Gov. Rendell, one of Hillary's strongest stalwarts, who praised Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam to the skies in a 1997 speech.

And if you want to talk about Ayers, please be sure to also mention Hillary's strong support for Black Panthers in the 1960's. And that was not just accepting support from a person who had been a violent radical decades ago--that was supporting them while they were actually violent.

And while you're at it, you could look into Hillary's representation of Communists at the same time--some of whom are now not happy that Hillary refuses to acknowledge this.

Look, if you play the "guilt by association" game, nobody gets away free.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 May 08 - 10:04 AM

"...you could look into Hillary's representation of Communists at the same time..."


                         I would think this would be a plus!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 08 - 07:33 PM

It's Official: Hillary Clinton Is Insane
Posted 5/23/2008 5:12 PM CDT in The Houston Chronicle

Write down the date, May 23, 2008Ðthe day Hillary Clinton lost her mind. The pressure of the race and the thought of not getting the Democratic nomination has driven the poor woman stark, raving mad.

In a meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader newspaper editorial board Mrs. Clinton said this:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out."

So she has to hang around just in case Barack Obama gets shot? I tell you, the lady has completely taken leave of her senses.

The video hasnÕt hit You Tube yet, but you can see it here.

Here is the Clinton campaignÕs attempt at defending her remarks:

"She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 as historic examples of the nominating process going well into the summer. Any reading into beyond that would be inaccurate," responded Clinton campaign spokesperson Mo Elleithee."

I suspect the numbers of those who she complains about wanting to drive her out of the race might just be increasing by the minute.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 23 May 08 - 08:56 PM

Well, Clinton's remarks about the Robert Kennedy assassination were probably not the best rationale for not dropping out of the Democratic Primary. She really should be astute enough to realize that words that come out of her mouth before a group of journalists might be noted.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:00 PM

The last major poll of US voters should a HUGE majority preferred Clinton remain in the race until the end.

So why do some people have such a big problem with her staying in?

Last I heard, it was still a free country.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:21 PM

After the last remarks about RFK's assassination being a good reason for her to stay in the race through June, she ought to be yanked right out. Or swamped by superdelegates--before the convention. As usual, she apologizes after the idea is big news again.

She seems to hit a new low every day.

There are already scads of women writing on MSNBC etc., pointing out that Hillary is the worst possible role model for their daughters--and that's before this latest remark.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:23 PM

Keith Olbermann just read her the riot act over her remarks....my TV screen sizzled.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:42 PM

Considering the issues that have apparently risen to the top of the cess pool of horse race reporting today, I'd say all politicos, including and especially those at Mudcat, need to take the long weekend off.

Because any semblance of rational and objective perspective among you lot evaporated at least a month or so ago.

Do yourselves and the world a favor, and turn off your election mode for the next 3 days.

I dare ya.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:57 PM

I just heard what she said as "apology".   Revolting--as Keith Olberman says, that was no apology to the person most affected--Obama.

She should be yanked out of the contest tomorrow by the DNC. Since that's not going to happen, the superdelegates can at least swamp her--that would do the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 May 08 - 10:00 PM

And perhaps the author of "turn your election mode off" can look in the mirror while making that brilliant suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 08 - 12:17 AM

She's seemed so confident for a while now that something tragic is going to happen to Obama, I sometimes find myself wondering if maybe she's got a little something up her sleeve.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 24 May 08 - 03:04 AM

She said nothing wrong.
I find this whole episode to be media contrived and nearly impossible for even the most die hard Obama fans to accept.
So now she can't mention Robert Kennedy's name without it being some kind of a death wish on Obama?
Guess the Kennedys are just one more taboo subject for Hillary who happens to be a lifelong friend of the family.
I'll be looking for one of the Kennedys to put a stop to this nonsense.
I'm seriously starting to worry for your country.
You usually wait for the inauguration before deifying your president and that's bad enough but to do this with someone who is not even the nominee is just downright scary.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 24 May 08 - 04:12 AM

From the New York Times...

"Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, defended her remarks in a telephone interview Friday evening. "I've heard her make that argument before," Mr. Kennedy said, speaking on his cell phone as he drove to the family compound in Hyannis for the holiday weekend. "It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign."
Mr. Kennedy said he has been traveling and had not seen the video or read Mrs. Clinton's comments, but said his support of Mrs. Clinton has not wavered."

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 24 May 08 - 08:16 AM

Interesting.

So, the son of Bobby Kennedy doesn't take any offense whatsoever, yet the MSM punditry and Obamamaniacs make a huge issue of her remarks on an extremely slow news Friday of a long holiday weekend.

Imagine that.

Time for a time out kiddies!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 24 May 08 - 08:59 AM

Most likely Clinton was simply pointing out that other major candidates, including Bobby Kennedy, were still competing in the Democratic Primaries in June, and mentioned "assassination" parenthetically. It was still a serious blunder, and she certainly regrets it both personally and for those whom it might offend.

I'm also sure that the issue is considered more seriously because we are all haunted by the threat of assassination in this country. Lord knows how many "nuts" are fantasizing about it, and who knows what public remark might actually trigger their interest.

No, I don't think it's time for a "time out." It's time to get serious, and get back to work.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 24 May 08 - 11:48 AM

Right, we couldn't do what the candidates are doing, and actually take the holiday weekend off, what with the primaries winding down, the nomination in the bag for McCain and Obama, and three months until the conventions.

Much to much mud wrestling to do over the next leader of the free world, and it just can't wait another minute.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 08 - 01:27 PM

Because she omitted a simple phrase ("...while he was running in a primary as late as June in 1964") it seriously skewed what she was talking about, and a first blush sounded completely non-sequitur and off-the-wall. But, it wasn't all that serious a gaffe. She was trying to state an historical precedent, and she muffed it verbally, but it's no BFD. She's nowhere near as loopy as it may have sounded at first.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 May 08 - 02:52 PM

.........good grief!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 24 May 08 - 05:32 PM

Hillary is dishonest. She is trying to cheat her way into the presidency by denying that she agreed not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Even Ickes has said that she wants to change the rules because she is behind. The idea that she gets 100% of Floridian or Michigan votes is totally absurd.

She dismisses Obama's caucuses as well. She is not ahead in the popular vote since Michigan and Florida have not completed a voting process. She is attempting to steal the election in much the same way as George Bush did in Florida with his outlaws that stopped the vote by elbowing Obama out of the race in these two states.

It is totally reprehensible. Either you play by the rules or you get out.

It's time for Hillary to leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 24 May 08 - 06:31 PM

The candidates had to accept those rules if they wanted to run.
The voters however are free to do as they please.
They chose, in record numbers, to thumb their noses at the party elite and exercise the right to vote in their party.
Now: I have noticed that a few of these threads have been closed and one guest has been given a time out.
So I ask one last time.
Stop the insults and stick to the topic.
(That includes accusing Hillary Clinton of calling for the assassination of Senator Obama. If you can't see the obvious flaw in that logic then you really are too far gone to be discussing politics in a rational way.)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 08 - 06:47 PM

They chose, in record numbers, to thumb their noses at the party elite and exercise the right to vote in their party.

Only the Hillary voters had a chance to do this in Michigan, since Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. Hillary seems to think that only people who vote for her have a right to have their votes counted.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: folk1e
Date: 24 May 08 - 07:10 PM

Hey .... it worked for GWB!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 24 May 08 - 07:48 PM

I wouldn't know if they did but at least Amos is trying to reign it in a bit.
Ron worries me though.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:02 PM

That includes accusing Hillary Clinton of calling for the assassination of Senator Obama.

I haven't accused anyone of anything. I said that her behavior makes me wonder about it as a possibility. And it does. I'm not going to pretend otherwise just to please you.

I don't believe for one minute that she made that comment innocently. There are numerous examples of things that have caused the primaries to continue until June other than that one, but she keeps invoking that one event, over and over, to the exclusion of almost all of the others. The most charitable interpretation I can think of to put on this behavior of hers is that she is trying to scare Obama's family into convincing him to drop out. But I still consider the other to be a possibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:15 PM

That includes accusing Hillary Clinton of calling for the assassination of Senator Obama. If you can't see the obvious flaw in that logic then you really are too far gone to be discussing politics in a rational way.

I agree with Jim Lad.

I don't believe for one minute that she made that comment innocently. There are numerous examples of things that have caused the primaries to continue until June other than that one, but she keeps invoking that one event, over and over, to the exclusion of almost all of the others.

So you're going to keep up this insane rant and shut down this thread also? Who keeps "invoking this one event?" It isn't Hillary, it's you.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:40 PM

That's a good point, Fantasma, if it hadn't been for Hillary's comments, all those brainless journalists would be in Arizona covering McCain's BBQ.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:51 PM

I've been asked to allow this subject to fade away by an Obama supporter. I don't have a problem with that. However, I note that it's not opinions like those I've expressed in this thread that get threads shut down. It's people who make personal attacks on other thread participants who get threads closed down. I have not made any personal attacks on anyone in this thread, so I think it's Stilly River Sage who is trying to get the thread closed down.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 08 - 10:04 PM

Heh. I think I'll amend my last post. It appears that that one was closed because of opinions rather than personal attacks. I didn't realize it was a part of Mudcat policy to close threads that contained opinions that the moderators don't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 08:40 AM

Welcome to freedom of the press in America. The Mainstream Media continually herds public opinion around to its own purpose. That's why we have troops in Iraq and the candidates we have in the final rounds of voting.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 10:08 AM

I am not sure that is fair.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 10:12 AM

To whom?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 May 08 - 10:31 AM

Yet again--some people never learn--the "mainstream media" does not exist. Media are more fragmented than ever.

Sorry if that doesn't fit the chosen conspiracy theory for this topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 11:11 AM

I think there is, in fact, a central current in TV and news outlets, which multiply the impact of illogical, but electrifying, propositions when they are floated by one or another dark corner. The Wright story is a classic example; its proper perspective and importance would have made it little more than a side-show or a footnote; because of the dark twisting imposed on it by Hannity and Co., it became an important controversy, and eventually became doubled and echoed and bruited about so frequently that it became a hologramic meme of huge proportions, sufficient to sway national history. This is absurd n the face of it. But it is the nature of the beast when the ideals of the Fourth Estate get sold down the river of tawdry commercial success. And, in parallel, used as a lever against the informed conscience of Americans, rather than a means to fulfill the democratic equation properly.

If your remarks were aimed at Joe Offer's thread control, Rig, they were profoundly unfair (not to mention unkind) to Mister Offer and his volunteer office.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 12:43 PM

Here's a counter-opinion concerning Hillary's historical perspective on late nominations:

"In the days since Hillary ClintonÕs monumental gaffe in South Dakota in which she referenced the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, many have defended her statement, saying she was merely citing historical perspective as a reason to stay in the race. Since in the same remarks she made a point of BillÕs 1992 run for the presidency as an example of a contest that was not decided until June, I thought it might be a good idea to look back at the 1992 Democratic Primary and see what actually happened.

As usual with the Clintons, you have to parse every word to get to the meaning of what they say. Hillary said that Bill didnÕt win the nomination until the June primary in California. Technically thatÕs true, but it all depends on what the definition of "win" is.

In 1992, there were 3 major contenders for the nominationÐBill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, former Senator from Massachusetts, and Jerry Brown, former Governor of California. Tsongas won in New Hampshire with Clinton finishing second. Bill Clinton won nearly all the Super Tuesday primaries, making him the front-runner for the nomination. Jerry Brown then upset Clinton in Connecticut and Colorado.

On March 17, Tsongas dropped out after finishing a distant third behind Clinton and Brown in Michigan. On April 7, Brown lost to Clinton in Wisconsin and New York and was never a serious contender after that. Clinton defeated Brown in California in June to clinch the nomination, which by that time was a foregone conclusion.

To get a further perspective on the race that was really a no-contest after Super Tuesday, the final delegate count was Clinton 3372, Jerry Brown 596, Paul Tsongas 289. Clinton won primaries in 39 states compared to 6 for Tsongas and 3 for Brown. Hardly the nail-biter that Hillary would have us believe. But much like the sniper fire incident in Bosnia, HillaryÕs memory gets a little fuzzy when it comes to historical facts.

If she wanted to cite a primary race that was decided late she could have used 1976, when Carter didnÕt clinch the nomination until after he won Ohio on June 8, or 1984 when MondaleÕs victory in New Jersey on June 5 gave him the victory in his primary battle with Gary Hart. Both of these are more recent examples than Bobby Kennedy in 1968.

What does all this mean? It tells me that Hillary Clinton is nearly as bad a student of history as she is a presidential candidate."

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 12:50 PM

Keith Olberman's outrage about Hillary's remarks referencing assassination is palpable and white-hot.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 01:18 PM

"If your remarks were aimed at Joe Offer's thread control, Rig,..."

                            They weren't!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 01:19 PM

"...the "mainstream media" does not exist."


                      Ron - You live in a dream world!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 01:20 PM

Keith Olberman is a perfect example of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 08 - 01:26 PM

Joe didn't close the other thread, and he said in the thread that he didn't necessarily agree with it having been closed. Someone else closed it because of opinions they didn't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 May 08 - 01:41 PM

I believe in facts, logic, and sources. Somebody who seems to believe in none of the above is unlikely to be able to recognize when another poster is living in a "dream world".

The problem with talking about "mainstream media" is that it's in the eye of the beholder--and any beholder, by the very choice of what that person cites as "mainstream media", shows his or her lack of objectivity--and is likely to pick media which support the poster's own point.   Therefore it's a meaningless term.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:25 PM

"'by the very choice of what that person cites as "mainstream media", shows his or her lack of objectivity--and is likely to pick media which support the poster's own point.   Therefore it's a meaningless term.'"

                   Some people call it the "mainstream media," others call it the "corporate media," and David Duke calls it the "Jewish dominated media."

                              But whatever you call it, it has an agenda and people react to it like sheep. If you really look into things, Ron, I think you'll see there isn't a lot of difference between Keith Olberman and Bill O'Reilly. They set up a lively dialogue to make you think there's a difference, but it really only reflects the very shallow difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:26 PM

"Joe didn't close the other thread, and he said in the thread that he didn't necessarily agree with it having been closed. Someone else closed it because of opinions they didn't like."


                   So, who closed it, the CIA?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:34 PM

The only similarity between the two just mentioned is that each is very sure he is correct.

As usual, the point alleged by the poster is unproven and/or meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:52 PM

"The only similarity between the two just mentioned is that each is very sure he is correct. As usual, the point alleged by the poster is unproven and/or meaningless."



                So, by the process of elimination, Ron Davies has finally concluded that David Duke is right. Maybe that explains your disconnect with the "mainstream media, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: RABBIMIKE
Date: 25 May 08 - 10:24 PM

I think Billery would be a disaster but at least she would appoint Supreme Court Justeses who would not be desasters! I prefer Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 11:48 PM

Via Daily Kos:
INDIANAPOLIS, IN - Today at the Indianapolis 500, Danica Patrick, IndyCar's premiere female driver, insisted that she would keep driving around the track affectionately known as the Brickyard even if she lost today's race.

"You can't win it unless you are in it," she said. When questioned on what was the point of driving around a track after you've lost the race, Danica responded, "Well, see the race isn't over until all the cars cross the track at 550 mile." Then she insisted that the Indianapolis 500 was actually the Indy 550, according to crew chief Terry McAuliffe's own map of the racetrack.

"You know a lot of people want me to get out of the race," Danica Patrick said. "I can't really figure it out. I don't know why... In 1995 Jacques Villeneuve didn't win until the last lap of the race, and in 1974 Swede Savage died before he could finish the race. So I couldn't answer -- Couldn't tell you why people want me to get out."

Danica Patrick refused to answer speculation that she would be joining Team Alegre - MYDD Racing next year.

http://www.americablog.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 May 08 - 01:06 AM

So, who closed it, the CIA?

LOL... Probably.

;-P

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 08 - 09:54 AM

"But whatever you call it (Mainstream Media), it has an agenda and people react to it like sheep. If you really look into things, Ron, I think you'll see there isn't a lot of difference between Keith Olberman and Bill O'Reilly. They set up a lively dialogue to make you think there's a difference, but it really only reflects the very shallow difference between Democrats and Republicans.

RIGHT!!!!! That is exactly the problem. The MSM keeps the public in a predictably sheeplike condition just as you have stated, Riginslinger. They set up supposed sets of opposites which are really so near to each other that it's a joke...and that is supposed to be an alternative???

This is plain to most people outside the USA, but the majority Americans aren't aware of it. They get fooled into the notion that the Dems and Reps are actually a legitimate choice between 2 points of view! Yikes. Those parties would both be considered right of center in most western democracies, they would both be considered very anti-socialist, very pro free market and in league with corporate policy, very pro-imperialist in their approach to foreign relations and American wars overseas.

What a farce. There is no real legitimate choice between opposing viewpoints in American politics. There's a duopoly of the corporate right that dominates the entire political agenda through two faces...the Democrats and the Republicans. The duopoly rules no matter who gets elected.

That doesn't change the fact, of course, that one candidate is sometimes a bit better or worse than the other...but it's still largely a phony exercise calculated to deceive the American voting public, to keep them in a sheeplike condition, and the MSM is the vehicle for marketing that phony exercise.

It's like Orwell's 1984...only it is done through extreme capitalism rather than dour socialism.

As in 1984 a war has been created which has no real identifiable enemy and no really achievable end. This permits the system to have an endless war, an ongoing crisis, and a reason to continue lessening civil liberties and tightening the screws. If you want a war that never ends, it's simple: create a fictional enemy who is supposedly "everywhere", but who cannot be found (Osama and Al Queda). Use that fictional enemy as an excuse to make war in whatever part of the world you wish to. Use it as an excuse to intervene in other lands where there are resources you want. Use it as an excuse to spy on your own population, increase police powers, and reduce civil rights.

It works like a charm. The best Osama is an Osama who can never be found. The best Al Queda is an Al Queda that doesn't really exist in truth, therefore can never be destroyed.

And the corporate weapons and money machine rolls merrily on...building more of its WMDs.

They themselves are everything they say that their "enemy" is. They are the enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 May 08 - 11:32 AM

LH - I agree with everything you say. It is surprising that more people can't see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 May 08 - 12:03 PM

Oh joy, more conspiracy theory advocates.

How can intelligent, well-read, articulate people still be so enthusiastic for such shallow, simplistic interpretations of politics and economics?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 26 May 08 - 12:08 PM

If the Canadian Main Stream Media had suggested that one Canadian Politician would like to see his rival dead, a civil action suit against that media outlet would have been almost immediate.
I am extremely perplexed by the fact that this is going on and even more so, by the fact that some seem to believe it.
All this despite the fact that the candidate never even hinted at such a thing.
Even more worrisome is the fact that politicians are using this story to suit their agendas.
Out & out character assassination.
It is beyond belief.
This is the same blind following that took you into Iraq and the same Main Stream Media spinning the yarn.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 May 08 - 12:10 PM

...because 'one generalized theory' is then all they need. It absolves them of having to look at the details of each issue & development individually. Just plug in "Oh, it makes little difference, because nothing ever changes...etc." and sit back and look smug.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 May 08 - 12:13 PM

"How can intelligent, well-read, articulate people still be so enthusiastic for such shallow, simplistic interpretations of politics and economics?"


                  Where is your evidence, Ron. Name the source. Time and place, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 12:16 PM

Jim Lad:

I don't know which politicians, but what Obama said was that the remark about RFK was an understandable mistake.

It was others who are not politicians, notably Keith Olbermann, who were outraged at her invocation of such a nightmare, even if it was a slipup on her part. It in no way reveals that she wants Obama dead (although I am sure there have been moments). What t DOES reveal is that she is tone deaf, which I think may be important.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 May 08 - 12:33 PM

Mudcat, this thread

25 May 9:52 PM
26 May 9:54   AM
26 May 11:32 AM

The task of filling up the blanks I'd rather leave to you-- to quote an apt commentator.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 May 08 - 12:36 PM

And 25 May 9:25 PM. Among many others-to say the least.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 26 May 08 - 01:06 PM

Amos: "....what Obama said was that the remark about RFK was an understandable mistake."

And therein lies the problem.
There was no mistake.
Only the twisted interpretation by the media.
By calling it a mistake, Obama is using it to his advantage.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 01:56 PM

Oh, please, Jim.

It was, in fact, untactful, and tone-deaf. There was definitely a bad choice of words there.

While I find it less offensive than Olberman did, you can see why it was a mistake by listening to his chastisement of Senator Clinton for her choice of words.

If she had only wanted to make the point of seasons she could have said "RFK was winning the primary in June." and let it go at that.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 May 08 - 03:16 PM

Not good enough, Ron. You need a source owned by one of the co-conspiritors, like Rupert Murdoch. He's got a lot of them, though they don't disagree with each other much. We need mainstream sources, not opinion.

                   Be specific.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 26 May 08 - 03:22 PM

I'll have to disagree on that one, Amos but I think you can see where I'm going with this.
Two candidates, in the same party have been so polarised by the media that people are now willing to believe that one wants the other dead.
Doesn't that scare you?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 08 - 03:49 PM

Ron, you are a complacent conventional liberal-minded person, with all the right liberal ideas and rhetoric, intelligent, articulate, well-educated, and with excellent ideals and intentions (I would assume). But you are living inside a once democratic society that has been quietly mutating into a fascist militaristic state for decades...one little step at a time. It happens quite gradually, so most people don't notice it while it's happening. They continue to believe that things are "normal", just as they did once in Germany.

You are in the same position as a conventional, liberal-minded German in the late 30's...not seeing what is going on around you for what it truly is. You're oblivious to it. Or you're in denial...but I think it's more like being just plain unaware of what is really afoot.

This is happening in both the UK and the USA. It's even worse in the UK which now has more surveillance cameras watching its ordinary public than any other nation in the world and more draconian laws. It is happening (to a considerably lesser extent) in Canada. It is happening also to a lesser extent in Australia. The English-speaking countries of the world are turning themselves slowly into an Imperial coalition that bears extremely close parallels to the Axis in WWII and with the same basic intentions: conquest and world domination by the Anglo nations.

It's being done through the mechanisms of aggressive capitalism and corporate marketing and corporate mass media, tied to military supremacy.

It's not a conspiracy, it's a policy, and it's one that is becoming dead obvious to people not hypnotized by their romantic notions of a past democracy that is becoming just a memory.

How can something be a conspiracy when it's plainly happening right out in the open??? ;-)

Much of the world is aware of what's afoot. Russia and China certainly are. The Arabs are. Most of the Third World knows it. But what can they do? The USA, whose imperial military is the point and shaft of the spear, has enough firepower to devastate any other power on Earth if it wants to. No one can risk what it would entail to openly confront this new Axis...so the world watches in increasing concern, waits, and prepares for the worst.

Putin has not been fooled. The Russians are doing what they can to restore at least their ability to defend themselves adequately enough to deter further attempts to gut their nation.

The Chinese have not been fooled, but I think they are confident of their own strength, because they have economic clout which the USA cannot afford to have turned against it. And the Chinese have a longterm view. They think ahead by a hundred years.

You're part of the great new burgeoning fascist order in the world, Ron. You just don't know it yet. They may even find you useful if things move really fast. Pray that they don't move that fast. If they move slowly enough, you and I will have passed on before things reach a point of absolute crisis in our societies, and we will be lucky enough to be spared something similiar to what millions of essentially good and decent Germans, Japanese, and Italians went through after 1939. (I mean the ordinary citizenry. They didn't believe it could happen there either, but it did.)

Our Anglo governments, Ron, are the fascists of the world today and they are on the march. Their token "Jews and Communists" to be slaughtered for the imperial program are, right now, the Islamic people. After that, whoever else can be found and scapegoated will do. Excuses have been already found for entirely illegal wars of choice, wars that were not a legitimate response to any real threat or attack from abroad by any sovereign nation. Excuses will be found for further such wars...as in Iran or Syria. At some point the house of cards will fall down, just as it did for Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini. The shit, as they say, will hit the fan.

The world as a whole simply cannot suffer indefinitely the kind of criminal liars and thieves who are presently dictating your national policy and that of the UK and launching these criminal wars. They will fall in the end.

Remember what I said. It's not a conspiracy, it's a policy. To be a conspiracy, it would have to be hidden, and it is not being hidden at all. It's happening right there in front of the eyes of the world, for anyone to see who has his own eyes reasonably open and who is not blinded by past assumptions about his own culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 03:50 PM

Hell, no. I've wanted a certain "successful" candidate dead a hundred times since he set out to ruin the country.

I agree completely that the media fabrication of controversy is a bad thing. It is neither good for the individuals nor for the party, nor for the process, nor the nation.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 May 08 - 04:18 PM

" corporate mass media, aggressive capitalism, military supremacy". Round up the usual suspects.

Sounds like Bill D has it right.   But the only other question is why intelligent, well-read, articulate people just don't want to think--just want to squeeze all economic and political phenomena into the same straitjacket. Can intelligent, well-read, articulate people also be intellectually lazy? It seems so.





To address also those people at the other end of the spectrum--in no danger of being thought well-read and articulate:   I've explained more than once that Rupert Murdoch taking over the WSJ has so far meant no change whatsoever in the standard of coverage by reporters---the highest standard in the world.

And if anybody feels that any bit of news I have cited from the WSJ is inaccurate, please specify.

And as I've noted before, I'd be happy to hear anybody else's preferred source of information. So far, nobody has volunteered one.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 May 08 - 04:45 PM

What I don't understand, Little Hawk, is how you and Rig & other dilettantes can 'see' this growing threat so clearly while trained professional observers (some of whom are actually not cowed or employed or deceived by Big Money or clever lobbyists or lulled by cushy jobs) are unaware of the menace!
Many of us in the US are keenly aware of the changes wrought since Reagan began dismantling some of the institutions that kept a measure of sanity in our structure & policies...and that a few years of Clinton didn't repair enough, though fiscal sanity was temporarily restored.
   The increase in registration and involvement of Democrats this year indicated that Bush and the Republicans pushed their luck WAY too far with lies, scandals and disregard for the plight of the average man.
Barack Obama, if he is elected, will have a HUGE task to steer this country back to a sane path...but he is saying many of the right things so far...(and NOT saying some of the things that would get him reviled by many special interest groups).

   We Americans who see all these things are not stupid and KNOW that all is not well...but neither are we going to bite on wild theories like we "are living inside a once democratic society that has been quietly mutating into a fascist militaristic state for decades.."!!!
Can you imagine a political candidate running on THAT scare tactic? He'd be laughed off the stage. And YOU should re-examine what specific indications you 'think' you see to give you such a distorted, generalized view of what is merely a swing to conservatism fueled by world events and a batch of lucky, but ultimately incompetent, idiots.

I hope I live for ANOTHER 10 years of Mudcat debates so I can point and say "see?"!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Convidado
Date: 26 May 08 - 07:42 PM

"...nothing ever changes...etc." and sit back and look smug"

There is a third way, though.

Put your energy into changing the system.

Why do so many insist that playing along with the system while it degrades further and further with each election cycle, is the most morally righteous thing to do?

While sitting back and saying "you can't fight city hall"?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 08 - 07:45 PM

Of course a political candidate can't say those things I say, Bill. He has to avoid saying things that scare people too much or are too far outside their normal boundaries and assumptions. He has to aim for the mainstream center of popular opinion to form an effective and winning coalition. He has to say what will get him elected...unless he is Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul, in which case he dares to say some of the things that will quite definitely not get him elected, because they are a little too close to the bone for middle America to hear without getting terribly, terribly nervous. Those guys dare to do that because they are genuinely men of principle, first and foremost, and will not yield on a point of principle. Such men get short shrift from the political system and are almost never elected. They're considered too dangerous.

Obama is doing what he needs to do to get elected. That's very sensible on his part. If I were there, I would cross my fingers, hope for the best, and vote for Obama. Whether he will live up to your or my hopes is yet to be seen (if he wins at all), but we might as well give it a chance, right?

It's the only reachable chance there is at this point, as far as I can see, because America would never elect a Dennis Kucinich or a Ron Paul. No way that can happen.

Bill, if I were running for office in the USA...I would definitely not say the radical things I am saying here! ;-D I'm not that foolish, believe me. But due to the fact that I am a completely free man, and beholden to no one, and needing to curry no one's favor, and not needing to protect my professional ass in any way, I can say exactly what I think. I would be quite careful what I said (and didn't say) if I were a politician. One has to walk a very delicate line somewhere halfway between the whole truth, and what most people are willing to hear. That's one of the miserable things about being a politician. You have to please far too many people all the time!!! It muzzles a person to a great extent, although he can count, of course, on at least being listened to when he talks. ;-) I can't count on that, and I know it. But then, I never expected differently in that regard. No sweat.

There are many, many people around the world who see it as I do, including some very well trained professional observers. Some of them are politicians too. They (the politicians) aren't saying it openly...it would raise far too many diplomatic hackles...but they know it. The USA/UK alliance is the world's most ambitious and dangerous rogue military/political force in the world at present. They are committing naked aggression on the most feeble of trumped-up excuses. They are planning further such aggression, in my opinion. They are going where they ought not to go and flouting international law in an outrageous fashion. They are war criminals on a grand scale. They are doing it because they believe no one can stop them. They have become a law unto themselves. They are a wolf of war pretending to be a lamb of democracy.

And will most of their citizens be fooled by the same old rhetoric? Yes. Most Germans were. Most Italians were. Most Japanese were. People WANT to believe in their country and what it is doing, and that is why they can easily be fooled into supporting a war of aggression.

It always works that way. Most people just naturally will back the home team. "My country right or wrong." I don't back the home team when I know it's wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 26 May 08 - 07:53 PM

Sorry, folks to drift a tad but the thread got closed about Hillary's "assasination" remarks... Yeah, I was one of the few Obama supporters to qucikly see that it wasn't the Obama camp that brought this thing up and I am glad that Obama said that he didn't doubt Hillary's innocence... And I don't doubt it either...

But, with that said, where McMedia been when the Clintons have made one personal attack after another against Obama??? Yeah, where was this level of righteous indignation when Hillary said that McCain was better prepared to be president???

It's about time that McMedia got its collective head outta the Clinton's posteriors but the damgae has been done... McMedia got the conflict they wanted but they did not serve the American people well with their not so subtle pass to the Clintons...

Now back to the debate on the demise of the USA...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 08 - 07:59 PM

I wouldn't characterize it as "the demise of the USA", Bobert. Germany and Japan are still around and are still great nations. Russia is still around and is still a great nation, despite the fall of the Soviet Union. The USA will still be around after this present corrupt imperial order has been quashed too. I am sure of that. Great nations survive their temporary descents into periods of aggressive and irresponsible militarism, and they rebuild themselves into great nations again.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 May 08 - 08:08 PM

Bill D - I don't know what you're reading into the comments. I think there are very few people who think there are organizations around plotting to do one thing or another to the disadvantage of the American public.
                        What I do think is happening is the ongoing goal of corporate entities to generate profit. When we had people like Henry Ford and Thomas Edison heading up these corporations, they identified themselves as Americans and made profitable moves that would help the country as they grew.
                        That's not the case anymore, and it certainly isn't the case with the mass media--including publishin, entertainment, news, and other types of communication. So if it's profitable for them to sit on some piece of information, or maybe misrepresent it, they will happily do it for the sake of generating profit. After all, they don't owe America or the American public anything--why shouldn't they.
                        We've seen a number of these kinds of cases exposed. Why would you think there aren't other cases that escaped detection?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 26 May 08 - 08:46 PM

"I think there are very few people who think there are organizations around plotting to do one thing or another to the disadvantage of the American public."
You don't really need a lot of such people, as long as they're the ones in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 May 08 - 08:51 PM

Specifics, please. Even at the risk of getting you thrown out of Conspiracy Theorists International--I'm sure you wouldn't mind for the sake of enlightening us.

Seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for amorphous all-encompassing accusations. Did I say sloppy half-baked Marxism? Not I.

I'm just asking for a few actual facts. Surely that's not too much to want. There must be some actual evidence behind the wonderfully entertaining rants.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 May 08 - 08:52 PM

Not aimed at you Dick, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 May 08 - 09:02 PM

So generating profit is now suspect. But it was fine when that well-known anti-Semite Mr. Ford was in charge at Ford, since he was American.

But now that it's Daimler-Chrysler, ( I think Ford is still headed by an American) the world is coming to an end soon.

I wonder if the brilliant poster whose thoughts along those lines we just heard objects to Honda, Nissan etc. setting up plants in the US and offering Americans jobs.

Nothing like a bit of feeble Marxism mixed up with ill-informed xenophobia to liven up a discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 09:13 PM

Ron:

You sound exasperated, my friend. Why not go into the hills for a few days, give yourself a welcome break from battling dross?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 08 - 09:20 PM

He'd be even more irritated if he had another Ron Davies debating against him in similar fashion and demanding he that "prove" every single assertion, statement, theory, and conjecture, and hectoring him constantly to provide "evidence", as if either one of them really was willing to spend all that time and effort on behalf of the other one just to satisfy the perenially unsatisfiable...and as if anything useful at all would be accomplished in the fruitless attempt to do so. Ha! ;-) But it would be fun for the rest of us to watch them, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 09:38 PM

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton is talking as if the battle over seating disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan at the Democratic National Convention is the greatest crisis for democracy since the 2000 Florida recount.

Her rhetoric flies in the face of intensive efforts by members of the party's rules committee to settle the delegate battle with a compromise that would likely guarantee the nomination for Barack Obama. Ending the struggle quickly depends on whether the rules committee's peacemakers succeed in their work.

Clinton's chances of winning are slim, partly because some of her own supporters believe the contest is over. They see the clash over Michigan and Florida as futile for Clinton and destructive to the party.


As a result, officials close to the controversy say that even if the 13 members of the rules committee who support Clinton stick with her, they would likely be outvoted by the eight members loyal to Obama who would join the seven neutral members in favoring a compromise.

The most likely deal would seat the full Michigan and Florida delegations but give each delegate half a vote. This would be in line with party rules, and with how Republicans dealt with the two contested states.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 May 08 - 09:42 PM

Hillary is doing every last thing possible. I would have expected nothing less. I don't think she ever thought she could lose this thing. The Clintons were cruising to a coronation...that's what they thought. 8 more years of Hill and Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 May 08 - 09:52 PM

It looks like the people she hired made a lot of mistakes, and of course, she hired the people, but who could blame her for playing it out to the end?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 09:57 PM

She's quite within her rights. The question is whether she is playing for the best result for the nation and the national Dem party, by exercising that right.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 May 08 - 10:04 PM

It seems to me like the Democratic Party made more mistakes than she did, so it's hard to feel sorry for them. And I don't think she's hurting the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 May 08 - 11:53 PM

So what's the answer to the earlier point? Do the people so alarmed at multinationals resent Nissan, Honda, etc. setting up plants in the US and offering Americans jobs?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 May 08 - 12:18 AM

The question is whether she is playing for the best result for the nation and the national Dem party, by exercising that right.

The press and the public are fickle. They're hold onto meaningless stories forever and let big ones slide, no problem. As far as this race, in the fashion of past political races, once there is a candidate all of the stuff from before will be history (or herstory).

The folks who offer counsel on the front page that she should quit before she is ready are out of line. It's her race and her decision.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 27 May 08 - 02:09 AM

Have any of you thought for a moment that she might just win?
The race is not over & the one who keeps looking over his shoulder has won 2 out of the last 5 primaries.
There's a lot more to it than math.
But here's a thing.
Wouldn't you like to have this lady in your corner when the odds are against you?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 27 May 08 - 02:40 AM

Wouldn't you like to have this lady in your corner when the odds are against you?

No!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 27 May 08 - 07:13 AM

It was only a matter of time until the nut jobs took Hillary's offhand and decidedly non-sinister slip seriously. Where is the outrage over *this* exchange on (no surprise) FOX News?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0

Not only does she call Obama "Osama", she then actually suggests killing both of them.

And then laughs.

Disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 May 08 - 07:36 AM

Well, another 8 super-delegates went with Obama yesterday leaving him 50 total delegates shy of the nomination...

I'm beginning to wonder if after he gets to the magic number required for nomination if Hillary will then show somw grace and quit???

Either way, I'm with CarolC... I don't want her in my corner... She, IMO, is downright mean...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 May 08 - 10:08 AM

I disagree, but then, none of them is stupid like the current guy.

There will have to be some higher math at party headquarters before all of this is over. The Dems have to take a long hard look at the states that will outright vote Republican and see what's left. The popular vote in a state that no Democrat can win (yes, like Texas, where I am) carries different weight in the ultimate selection process. Some altruism needs to be stirred into the decision process, though it's a scarce commodity right now.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 12:10 PM

"Have any of you thought for a moment that she might just win?"

Darned right I've thought of it, Jim Lad. Oh, yes! And I keep thinking of it, and it really worries me every time I do. ;-)

I will not count Hillary out until the day of the inauguration in 2009, and I am quite serious about that!

Why do I say that? Because the Clinton machine is one hell of a tough machine that believes it OWNS the Democratic Party's next term in the White House, and Hillary is one hell of a determined woman.

"Wouldn't you like to have this lady in your corner when the odds are against you?"

No......but I know what your point is. She's tough. Damn right she's tough! So was Margaret Thatcher. So is Condoleeza Rice. I don't, however, want any of them in my corner, because I trust neither their philosophies nor their hidden agendas. I'd rather have Dennis Kucinich or his wife in my corner. (no "nudge and wink" joke intended about his wife, by the way)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 27 May 08 - 01:54 PM

I don't think you can put Condoleeza Rice in the same category as the other women mentioned.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 May 08 - 04:34 PM

Perhaps not, but what I was saying she had in common with them was her toughness. She strikes me as a very tough customer.

There was once an amusing video on Youtube in which a cartoon Condoleeza and a cartoon Hillary were battling it out in various devious ways all over Washington, bombing each other from helicopters, etc.

It was called "Mean Girls".

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 28 May 08 - 01:11 AM

"Last August, when the DNC Rules Committee voted to strip Florida (and Michigan, if it persisted in clinging to its date) of its delegates, the Clinton delegates on the committee backed those sanctions. All 12 Clinton supporters on the committee supported the penalties. (The only member of the committee to vote against them was an Obama supporter from Florida.) Harold Ickes, a committee member, leading Clinton strategist and acknowledged master of the political game, said, "This committee feels very strongly that the rules ought to be enforced." Patty Solis Doyle, then Clinton's campaign manager, further affirmed the decision. "We believe Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina play a unique and special role in the nominating process," she said, referring to the four states that the committee authorized to hold the first contests. "And we believe the DNC's rules and its calendar provide the necessary structure to respect and honor that role. Thus, we will be signing the pledge to adhere to the DNC-approved nominating calendar."

Not a single Clinton campaign official or DNC Rules Committee member, much less the candidate herself, said at the time that the sanctions imposed on Florida or Michigan were in any way a patriarchal plot or an affront to democratic values. The threat that these rules posed to our fundamental beliefs was discovered only ex post facto -- the facto in question being Clinton's current need to seat the delegations whose seatings she had opposed when she thought she'd cruise to the nomination.

Clinton's supporters have every right to demonstrate on Saturday, of course. But their larger cause is neither democracy nor feminism; it's situational ethics. To insist otherwise is to degrade democracy and turn feminism into the last refuge of scoundrels."


Harold Meyerson, in the Washington Post

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: mg
Date: 28 May 08 - 02:25 AM

someone named Hilzoy said people were writing about her as though she were a bomb that needed to be carefully defused.

I pray she goes away, but don't think she will. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 May 08 - 10:41 AM

She will definitely not go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 May 08 - 09:17 PM

Nor should she!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 May 08 - 09:53 PM

However, if she has an iota of sense and any concern for her own political future--which may be already permanently sunk regarding the presidency--as soon as the last vote in the primaries is counted, she will immediately concede--no whining about the Rules Committee, etc. Then she will spend the months between now and November breaking her neck trying to get Obama elected.

That's the only way for her to try to salvage any good will at all in the party at large.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 May 08 - 09:57 PM

If I were Obama, I'd detail her and Bill to go back to KY, WV etc. and tell the folks there how Obama would be far better for them than McCain--and why.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 May 08 - 10:24 PM

But I'd have somebody I could trust accompany her and Bill--to make sure they were doing it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 08:40 AM

Hopefully she'll win South Dakota!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 May 08 - 09:18 AM

Some people (no names, of course) never learn.

1) South Dakota primary, even if Hillary won it, would not make the difference in delegates.

2) It seems likely she will lose it.

Also every day,, she and her team seem to throw more poison in the well they intend to drink from--as well as thoroughly destroying her own political future.   They obviously are not thinking.

No wonder she attracts certain people, who also don't think.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 May 08 - 09:59 AM

Most recent example of Hillary supporters not thinking is the planned protest in DC this weekend--which will do nothing but inflame the already high frustration and anger of her partisans--with no result.   But the Obama people are smart enough not to organize a counter-protest.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 May 08 - 10:33 AM

I agree with you, Ron, in that the Clintons are dangerously close to ruining their political careers... If they don't quit after Obama has the required delegates in his corner than whatever level of credibility they have will go down the tubes... Not to mention any level of trust that folks will have in them...

And, yes, I mean both of the Clintons...

They have one chance left to salvage their careers and that will occur in 6 days...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 10:36 AM

I can hardly wait for them to ruin their political careers, frankly. Go, Hill and Bill! Do it now.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:19 AM

Actually, why would they care? The best thing that can happen for the American people is for the Clintons to go off and form a competing party. That's the one last hope the people have driving a wedge between the two posturing parties they have now.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:56 AM

I'm all for that. :-) Then you'd have 3 posturing parties. The more the merrier, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 12:01 PM

Well, you might find there'd be less room for posturing, and one of them would actually be forced to do something.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:23 PM

With Social Conservatism & Social Liberalism there is room left for one party to go right down the middle.
Happens everywhere else and in all honesty the extreme leftists are usually the least successful.
People are more concerned with a government's refusal to take a higher moral ground on social issues than they are with "Government Interference" on the same issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:54 PM

HILLARY HAS GONE TOO FAR


She is calling for protesters to descend on the Democratic National meeting next week to demonstrate against (Obama) virtually any decision regarding the Florida and Michigan delegates.

The visuals that will be created will have a life of their own and further divide the party and this nation.
All the Republicans need to do is send a few goons to start a riot.


She was always a weasel but now her tactics are like the Bush tactics during the denied recount of Florid's 2000 votes.


Hillary said that the potential for a RFK disruption of the candidate race could change everything so why should she quit now.

She should quit and realize how ashamed she has made us.
If she has a conscience to be ashamed for her own behavior she should in fact apologize and then quit.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 01:57 PM

Hopefully she will win in Puerto Rico!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 02:22 PM

You're dreaming, Jim Lad. There IS no social liberalism in the USA, and no (major) party that represents any such platform. What you have is rabid bonehead conservatism not pretending to be any different...the Republicans....and rabid bonehead conservatism pretending that it's some kind of alternative to that...the Democrats. That's why the Democrats look so weak all the time...they're pretending not to be what they actually are...corporate servants of the military-industrial complex. The Republicans don't have that problem. They're right wing imperialist bastards, corporate servants of the military-industrial complex, and they are openly proud of it and don't try to hide it! ;-) The Democrats try to hide it. That doesn't work so well.

The rest of the world observes the farce in amazement, because you Americans just don't get it. Your parties are both highly conservative and militaristic. One of them pretends that it isn't, that's all. Much the same thing has happened in the UK since Tony Blair hijacked "New Labour" and took the country into an unprovoked war alongside America...but against the wishes of a great majority of UK citizens and in gross violation of international law.

The man who presented a genuinely liberal platform in your 2008 election was Dennis Kucinich. He had no hope of getting the Democratic nomination. He was deliberately shut out of several televised debates, but he'd have had no hope even if he'd been there. No one who is genuinely liberal in their policies has any hope of leading either the Democrats or the Republicans because they are both QUITE conservative and they are both utterly corrupt as well, and they serve the military-industrial complex which is NOT one bit liberal and never will be.

Like Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul also had the guts to speak in favour of demilitarizing America to a great extent and bringing American troops home from foreign lands, and returning to the original principles enshrined in your Constitution. Those two guys were the real alternative in the 2008 election...and neither one of them ever had a chance of being elected president, because the $ySStem (which owns the Mainstream Media) will simply not allow people like that to ever have a chance of being elected president.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 29 May 08 - 02:27 PM

That is the problem. I and many others believe that she is a sociopath. They do not feel shame. Their consciences are defective and some probably not there at all. Don't hold your breath. And why is this only becoming breathtakingly obvious to people now when it was in plain view throughout her 35 years of experience ready on day one? Hope and pray with all your might that they find a way to contain her and elect Obama. No VP never..mg

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:01 PM

Sorry. I thought the Democrats were pro abortion, pro gay marriage etc..
Hillary should be encouraging the demonstrations.
Anything short of counting every vote is just fixing it for Obama.
You know, from the outside looking in, this one doesn't pass the sniff test.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:19 PM

There's nothing sociopathic about Hillary. But this is the type of charge often leveled against women who break barriers. Even by women who are liberated themselves. It's one of those ingrained things people have to recognize and resist. Where a man is assertive, a woman called bitchy and overly aggressive.

It's time for change, and another man in the White House isn't enough change. With all due respect.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:21 PM

Jim Lad:

What part of the agreement endorsed by the Clinton organization to discipline the states who bolted fromt he party planning (by disavowing their delegates) do you not understand? What do you think would have led the Hillary group to endorse it at the time, and then leave their name on the ballots and now claim that the delegates should be awarded based on a race in which only one candidate was campaigning?

Hmmmmmm?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:25 PM

another man in the White House isn't enough change. With all due respect.


With all due respect, Mag, I think the change desired cannot be anchored to gender. Who cares what equipment the PResident has? No, the critical thing is how they think and what priciples they maintain.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:25 PM

It just simply makes good political sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:27 PM

There is a difference, and it is a necessary difference, needed for a long time now.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:44 PM

Jim Lad, there were always be frothy little divisive issues that are waved around to get people worked up, such as the abortion and gay marriage issues you alluded to. They are just the sprinkling on the cake and they are intended to snag the votes of certain special interest groups and manipulate people's emotions to vote for this or that candidate. They absorb the same kind of minds, I think, which can't wait for the next issue of People Magazine to come out.

The cake itself, however, is mainstream conservative policy backed by the military-industrial complex and BOTH the Democrats and Republicans are tied into it all the way. It's about BIG matters of great importance, like invading other countries, pandering to the pharmaceutical industry, pandering to the military industries, not providing your public with a universal health care system such as exists in most other modern western nations, determining national trade policy and energy policy, those sorts of things.

It's about dollars and cents and guns and butter, not your petty disagreements with other people about what constitutes "good morality" or "God's will" and what doesn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 29 May 08 - 03:56 PM

Being a sociopath is different than being powerful, bitchy or aggressive. You can be all of the above and not be a sociopath. You can be mean and nasty and not be one. There are plenty of powerful women whom I have not seen called sociopaths who have broken barriers...C. Rice, M. Albright, M. Robinson, I. Ghandi, etc. etc. It is not a huge jump say from Secretary of State to president of U.S. It will happen sooner or later that a women gets it. Just not this one, as I add my voice to the chorus of hope. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 29 May 08 - 04:13 PM

If it was Obama who had little or no chance of getting the nomination and he was threatening to hold demonstrations this weekend against Clinton he would need alot of secret service protection because you can bet that it would rile up some nutball who also happened to own a gun...

Not only that, if the roles were reversed, Obama would be getting alot more pressure to quit than Hillary is getting... Might of fact, I cannot see Hillary saying what Obama has said about respecting the other's choice to stay in the race...

While this is all very interesting to watch play out there is an aspect of it that is a tad sickening... Kinda like watching a snake eat a mouse...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 29 May 08 - 05:11 PM

The whole "Get out of the race" thing was an Obama tactic and has gone on for months.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 05:23 PM

How one sees Hillary OR Obama's behaviour is entirely dependent on one's prior prejudice for or against Hillary or Obama.

People will not own up to their own prejudices honestly. They're usually not even aware that they ARE prejudiced. (And I am not referring to racism when I say that...just to prejudice, period. Prejudice against a person's personality...not their race profile.)

Some people here decided from the getgo not to like Hillary. They will almost always find fault in what she says or does. Some people here decided from the getgo not to like Obama. They will almost always find fault in what he says or does.

They are not being objective about it, they're just harping on their emotional need to continue to attack somebody they decided not to like at some point in the past.

If the person they like did and said the very same kind of things as the person they don't like...the same things they object to when the person they don't like is doing them...they would applaud those things when done or said by the person they like.

It's funny. It's also rather sad. And 99% of people never even know that they are doing it.

That's why it mostly adds up to just a bunch of bellicose hot air from a bunch of people full of ill will against somebody...whether that somebody be Hillary, McCaine, Nader, Kucinich, or Obama.

And that's what's so ugly about the election campaign. And who panders to it? The mass media, both parties, and most of the politicians themselves. They who pander to it most shamelessly and blatantly are the worst of the lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Donuel
Date: 29 May 08 - 05:46 PM

The US may not be #1 as far as the health and education of its citizens are concerned but at least we are 75th.

YYYAAAAY were 75th were 75th were 75th were 75th were 75th god bless america

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:21 PM

"from the getgo...."

More drivel.

Some of us have not cared for Hillary for years--but for a very good reason. For us, the Iraq war is #1 issue. Hillary voted in favor of authorizing GWB to use force against Iraq. Lots of us knew it was a disastrous move--before the fact. She claims she didn't have enough information (among other flimsy excuses).

Fine. John Edwards also voted in favor of the force resolution.

But he soon realized he'd made a grievous error. And said so publicly.

It's been pulling teeth to get her to even come close to admitting what is obvious to us--(and now to Edwards and many others who voted in favor of the resolution). A resolution which has resulted in over 4,000 US deaths needlessly--and deaths of uncounted others.

Her stubbornness on this point, more than anything else, has caused her downfall. She forced the anti-war movement, which might well have been glad to support her--to find another home. When it came down to Obama and Hillary, no question who they would back.


But she's added to her problem in an amazing number of ways--and continues to do so.




I'd like to hear--anybody's-- similarly logical explanation of why he or she didn't like Obama from the start--the "getgo".

To compare the two is specious moral relativism. Again.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:23 PM

Jim:

Why do you say that in light of the fact that it was Barack who repeatedly said she had the right to run as long as she wanted to?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 May 08 - 11:41 PM

Why would you think I was talking about you, Ron? You have no need to take it personally.

I am simply observing the very common tendency of a great many people in this world (most people, in fact), which is that they speak primarily from their long established prejudices, which are very frequently partisan or nationalistic in nature, and that it colors the way they interpret what any politician does or says...and that they are accordingly far from fair or objective in their judgements of what the politician says or does.

I trust you can often see this dynamic at work in those with whom you disagree radically about politics? I bet you see it plain as day in that case! ;-)

Ever notice, for instance, how Riginslinger does that in regards to Obama? I know you have noticed it, Ron. It wouldn't matter what Obama said or did, he could do anything...Riginslinger would find a way to criticize it and it would be one more proof to him that Obama is no good as a Democratic candidate.

It's hilarious. It's tawdry. It's predictable. It's sad.

Now examine yourself for similar prejudicial tendencies. I would think that we all have them. Even maybe you! I examine myself for them frequently, and I know that I do things like that too sometimes. I become quite prejudiced and prejudging of this or that person of thing. I catch myself doing these things...and I laugh at my own frailty. Self-awareness, Ron, is something worth working on for anyone. It's way tougher than endlessly attacking the other guy.

One thing I love about Obama is that I have seen quite strong tendencies in him toward self-criticism and self-awareness. I see no such tendency in Hillary or McCain...but that might be because I'm prejudiced against them...or it might really be that they just ARE incapable of self-criticism.

I get tired of people who do nothing but ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK against other people. What they say strikes me as drivel. They're like a dog on a chain that barks and threatens. After awhile you just stop listeing to the dog, because it has nothing good to say.

The dog is not self-aware.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 30 May 08 - 03:20 AM

Obama doesn't get to say who runs.
His campaign started calling for Hillary to quit months ago.
It's their idea and a very dirty tactic.
The media (also part of his team) chimed in and for the most part has kept it going.
The man is a little too anxious about facing voters and has stood in the way of the folks in Michigan & Florida. He knows that he can never win either in a general election.
Tomorrow, he will try all he can to get enough super delegates to carry him over the finish line.
Problem is, super delegates can change their minds and until there is a final tally at the convention, the running totals don't count for much at all.
Now; How about that church of his?
Back in the news again.
The whole congregation up on their feet.
Mocking Hillary for feeling entitled because she's wh*te.
And the guy who's leading them on?
The same Catholic Priest who stood up for the good Reverend Wright on CNN right before he spoke to the press gallery.
Another good friend of Obama's.
If this doesn't make you nervous then I swear the man will be walking on water come Sunday.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 30 May 08 - 04:55 AM

"One thing I love about Obama is that I have seen quite strong tendencies in him toward self-criticism and self-awareness."

Hey Little Hawk!   Can I borrow your glasses?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 May 08 - 08:20 AM

"Riginslinger would find a way to criticize it and it would be one more proof to him that Obama is no good as a Democratic candidate."


                   I think things have gotten a little bent out of shape. The point I started out to make was that "I didn't think Obama could win as a Democratic candidate."

                   But people continue to ask, "What is it you don't like about him?" And, of course, one searches for answers. Obama started this campaign as a blank page, but recently some things have come up that concern me, and maybe others. If these things had been known going into Iowa, I think we would be in a very different place right now.

                  All of that having been said, I didn't mean to indicate that I thought Obama was "no good" as a candidate.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 09:51 AM

Jim Lad:

I suspect you are fuekling your fears and doubts with distorted information and bad calculations thereon. Your assertions are not borne out by facts. Possibly you are letting yourself get wound up by foaming newscasters? They do have that effect on one sometimes.


Q

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:28 AM

Point taken, Rig. I understand that your main concern is that Obama (presumably) can't win the election. I don't know whether you are correct on that or not. We'll see. If he runs in November, that is...it hasn't happened yet.

Jim Lad - I am willing to lend you my glasses if you are willing to travel to Ontario. I will lend them to you for a couple of hours, okay? Then you have to give them back. Deal? ;-) I'll even buy you a donut and coffee at Tim Hortons.

You'd be amazed by how "liberal" people are in Canada, compared to the USA. Heh! It would drive you right nuts. There isn't more than maybe 17% of our population that would vote Republican in your upcoming election if they had the chance. Hillary seems to be the most popular of the 3 main candidates up here, followed closely by Obama. McCain couldn't get elected to clean outhouses in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:33 AM

It is funny, in a sense, the differences that are found between the people who support Hillary as opposed to those who support Obama, when most of their stated objectives are so similar.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:55 AM

Well, yes, it is. One reason, of course, is the competitive flames stirred by news media whose revenues depend on putting up pictures of controversy, sex, and violence wherever possible. The other reason is that people form intuitive certainties about their candidates which in turn drive strong, deeply felt emotional responses when challenged even though for many it is not easy to articulate what the actual data are they were assimilating in their fast appraisal.

Obama's talent for well-formed rhetoric is an excellent example. It is easy, listneing to it, to conclude instinctively that the man is big-hearted, highly-principled, intelligent. But it might not be easy to point to whatr it was int he rhetoric that gave you that impression. This is why Hillary's larynx cost her some votes here and there -- under tension she gets into higher registers which makes her sound shrill.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: mg
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:57 AM

That priest was disgusting and does this church, and others who get political at the pulpit, have tax exempt status? If you want to have politicians preach, have them at the church basement for tea but I do not want to pay taxes to hear that sort of crap. First screachy priest I have ever heard and I hope I never hear another one. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 08 - 11:58 AM

I love that first paragraph you wrote, Amos. Right on.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 08 - 12:01 PM

Move to Canada, mg. ;-) You will be spared further such nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 30 May 08 - 12:29 PM

Little Hawk: I'm in Victoria.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 30 May 08 - 12:31 PM

But if I take you up on it I'm having a beer with Bruce on the way over.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 May 08 - 05:11 PM

Okay, Jim. ;-) I bet we'd get along better in 3D than we do on the Internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 30 May 08 - 05:47 PM

JimLad - You are listening to way too much Hannity.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 May 08 - 12:47 AM

"problem is, superdelegates can change their minds."

Yet more drivel.

You neglect to mention that they have absolutely no reason to switch to Hillary--why would they possibly want somebody who can't manage money, control her own mouth--it's not a question of surrogates--no surrogate mentioned possible assassination as a reason to stay in the race. Etc.

And they are thoroughly annoyed at her hypocrisy on the MI-FL issue. And her supporters' attempt to blackmail Nancy Pelosi by refusing contributions unless she gets her way.

And tomorrow in DC we'll see the finishing touches to her campaign when her supporters again make fools of themselves, this time protesting, and no doubt citing the Declaration of Independence, Selma, Zimbabwe, etc--thereby proving that, like Hillary, they believe in the "kitchen sink" approach--but not in sense and logic.

That spectacle is likely to push all the superdelegates that he needs over to Obama.

And as I mentioned earlier, Hillary has destroyed her own campaign quite handily--the worst error being to refuse to admit her mistake on the force authorization which led directly to the Iraq war.

And if any brilliant person would like to cite polls as indicating she has a better chance against McCain, it should be noted that many Obama supporters-- feeling generous, since it will never happen-- are willing to say they would vote for her if she were the nominee. But her supporters--yes, her bitter supporters--are not yet willing to reconcile themselves to her defeat--so they tell pollsters they will not vote for Obama. (Except in California, it seems, where her supporters are coming to recognize reality.)

But when it comes down in the fall to a choice between McCain--and his Supreme Court choices, attitude toward Roe v Wade, the Iraq war, health care reform etc.--and Obama, the vast majority of her supporters, despite what they may say now, will support Obama.

Which he has made easier by running a far more positive campaign than she even tried to do.

And as I also mentioned earlier, once you get into the guilt by association approach, nobody comes out clean. Sure as hell not Hillary--as we've already explored.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 31 May 08 - 12:48 AM

Hannity?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 31 May 08 - 12:49 AM

"in the race?"

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 31 May 08 - 08:28 AM

Well, well, well...

Ain't this a fine kettle of dead fish that the Clintons have stirred up??? If the rules committee comes up with a Clinton friendly delegate split in the Florida and/or Michagan primaries today, even if it's some thing like 75/25 in their favor, then the 25% will put Obama over the top???

Thems is just the facts as I see 'um...

But beyond the facts here is the more important questions of all the "ism's" that have been thrown around if the Dems have any chance of beating McCain... You know, if you are for Obama that makes you a sexist and if you are for Hillary that nmakes you a racist... This is how this campaign has played out... Okay, maybe neither camp wanted it to play out that way but that's the way it has evolved...

I'm for Obama and don't consider myself a sexist... I can think of a lot of women who I sould love to see as president... Actually, maybe I am a sexist because I think that women, in general, would do a much better job of working things out without thinking that going to war would be "kinda fun"... I'm sorry, but Hillary doesn't impress me as one of those women... When she said we could bomb Iran into oblivion, I think she meant it...

Herein lies the Dems, and most importantly Clinton's, biggest challenge: convoncing her supporters that all Obama supporters aren't sexist at all but maybe folks who support Obama for other reasons, not excluding his views on the war...

No matter, if things go as they should then Obama will be the presumptive Dem nominee by the end of the day...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 31 May 08 - 12:31 PM

Whole thing has been rigged by the Democrat insiders right from the start.
Many of you said this right in the beginning but that was before everyone became so entrenched in campaigning for the candidate of their choice.
Today, the party will divide the delegates in a way that will guarantee an Obama victory and that's okay because to give the advantage to Hillary would be somehow wrong?
Feel united yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 31 May 08 - 01:19 PM

It wouldn't be "somehow wrong". it would be mathematically wrong.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 May 08 - 02:26 PM

Jim, the entire election process in BOTH the Democratic and Republican Parties is normally rigged by political insiders from the start to the finish. That's how it works. ;-)

(The only part where it gets a little dicey is this: the insiders usually have some behind-the-scenes power struggles going on amongst themselves as to who wins the controlling hand in the great rigged agenda and that can complicate the issue considerably as to who finally comes out on top and determines the running of the next administration, but it WILL be a coalition of insiders who does, be assured. Yes, your shadowy overlords will still get to rule after they have fought it out in the backrooms amongst themselves.)

The job of the mass media is to get the public all enthused and all worked up about it regardless, and full of hope and glory, just so they get the idea that they still have some real input into what happens, and that they still have a genuine democracy.

Otherwise the general public might get the idea that they're completely powerless. And that could lead to sullenness, loss of confidence, bitterness, even despair. That would be bad for effective maintenance of the ongoing psychological fantasy that is normally referred to as "the American Dream".

The insiders work hard to maintain that fantasy, no matter what, because it is the thin curtain that hides their presence while they pull the political strings.

If Obama is an insider himself...or a tool of the insiders...he will do exactly what he's told to do after he's elected...if he's elected, that is. If he's not (an insider or their willing tool), then God help him.

As for Hill and Bill, I feel 100% certain they are insiders, and major ones at that. I have no doubt of it. And McCain? He's either an insider or he's a willing tool.

Just my opinion, of course. Opinions are free.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 09:30 AM

It seems like the process was a lot more "rigged" on them Democratic side than on the Republican side. On the Republican side, and group of zealots got together and launched Mike Huckabee in Iowa, the the remaining primaries eliminated him.
                   On the Democratic side, a group of zealots launched Obama, but the following contests were rigged as well, and he was in the driver's seat from that point forward.
                   The next time the Democrats do this, if their smart, they will set up their primary schedule to match the general election as closely as possible, i.e. winner take all contests, primaries instead of caucuses, and etc.
                   As an example, if Kentucky and West Virginia had been caucus states, Obama probably would have won them as well, and the press and the general public would have had no idea of the huge groundswell that was rising against him.
                   As it is, they've got another McGovern, Dukakis candidate who will certainly be swept away in the fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 12:01 PM

And somewhere off in Puerto Rico, the flames of democracy danced brightly in the wind only to sputter and die as the rain came in from the west.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 12:06 PM

This is a complete crock, Rig and Jim.

1. The flames of democracy are well and alive, thanks. The process is working.

2. It is underhanded to assume that enthusiasm is soley an indication of zealotry.

3. Rig, which contests exactly do you think were "rigged" and by whom and in what way? Or ar you just waving your arms?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 12:10 PM

Speaking of waving one's arms around...

If only we could get Foghorn Leghorn's take on the American election process in 2008. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 12:21 PM

The DNC did not want MI and FL to have their primaries early. They told them so. MI and FL went ahead anyway. They have now been punished--and I would bet will not try that stunt again any time soon. The 69-59 MI split was the proposal by the MI Democratic party itself--it originated with the MI Democratic party, not the Obama campaign. The FL decision--which netted Clinton more delegates-- was agreed to by all parties.

Re: MI: the Obama side had the votes on the committee to have insisted on an even split--64-64, but in the interests of party unity did not insist on this, instead settling for the 69-59 split. We see by their reaction to this generosity how interested some Clinton supporters are in party unity.

Had the committee not halved the votes for both states, it's likely chaos would have erupted in 2012, as every state jockeyed to be first in the calendar.

As usual, the critics cited by Amos continue their willful ignorance.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 07:28 PM

Amos - I don't mean the process was "rigged" in the sense that anyone knew in advance who would win, and who would lose. It was set up so that a certain type of candidate would win.

                   The caucuses are not democratic. A very small number of people determine the winner of the entire delegation of a state. But these people are slanted to a "type" of candidate. These are people who work against traditional democrats and for the benefit of minorities and administrative types. They want to elect people who think just like they do.

                   Then there is the way the delegates are portioned out. That works against the stronger candidate and in favor of a weaker candidate. And then there is the way the primaries are scheduled. It seems funny to me that Obama won so many primaries early on, and then lost so many primaries in the later going, but the later going was too late to save Hillary.

                   What probably puzzles me more than anything is Howard Dean. He was a victim of just this kind of thing in Iowa in 2004, and he didn't seem to try to do anything about it from his position as party chairman. Although, it could be that the process was over so quickly in 2004 that it wasn't nearly as obvious that time around.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 07:51 PM

Tne causcuses are undemocratic??? Yeah, but Rush Limbaugh gettin' his followers to fu*k with the Dem primary is??? Okay... Take 2 minutes to vote and an entire night to caucus...

But the caucus is undemocratic??? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm???

Where Obama did well is where he out-organized Clinton "opn the ground"... Clinton thought that this thing was gonna be a push=over and by the time she figured out that it wasn't the Obama folks had organized at the grassroots level that Clinton just couldn't match which of course brought...

...Mighty Bill to say thaty Obama was living in a dream world, and Mighty Hillary sayin' that McCain was better prepeared to the be president, and then the Mighty Avalanche of typical Rwpub attacks by the Clintons (McClntons) and McCain and McMedia ever since Iowa...

Yet Obama is still standing???

Hmmmmmmmmmm, Part B....

You folks who still hate Obama??? Fine... Don't vote for him... Go vote for McCain, or Paul or Barr or write in Donald Q. Duck... I couldn't give a ratys posterior... That is your choice...

But to come here and lay this blah, blah, blah about how Obama doersn't deserve this or that??? Save yer typin'... There is not one Obama supporter who wants of needs to hear yer weepin'...

You tried to fu*k it up and you you failed... Get over it!!!

If you wanta weep and accuse, do it before a mirror if it makes you feel better... We Obama supporters have had it just about up to "here" with yer theaterics...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 08:37 PM

First of all, primaries are a party process. This nation is not a pure democrac but what is called a representative democracy. This primary was the method by which one party or another selects its representative candidate.

Second of all, the Dem method, while a lot less decisive, is more "democratic" you will plainly agree than the system in which whoever wins a state takes all its delegates to the party convention.

Third of all, when the Democratic primary process is allowed to run normally, it is not a small number but the larger number who determines which candidate gets the larger proportion of delegates. Hell, even with the MI and FL disqualifications broought on by their State parties, Barack bent over backwards to be accomodating; if he had been as hard over as Hill was, he would have insisted on the rules staying put, and both states' delegates being disqualified, because that was the deal that was laid out in the first place. A deal, I will add, that was VEHEMENTLY supported by Terry McAuliffe and Hillary Clinton when they believed it was their natural contest, a shoo-in for them, and to their advantage to require a well-ordered natonal party rule. It was only when those rules revealed themselves to be disadvantageous to them, because Of Obama's better organized grass-roots movement, that they decided they would like to change the rules.

Sheeshe. My daughter played fairer than that when she was thirteen.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 01 Jun 08 - 09:01 PM

Exactly, Amos...

Obama and his supporters have done everything to make the Clintons feel better about this thing and now it is time for the Clintons to reciprocate... The attacks and suggestions that Obama won by cheating is cheap... I've had enough of it... KIt seems that the only thing that would make the Clintons happy would for Obama to be assasinated...

From here on it on the Clintons to "change" their MO... I've had enough of their righteous indignation... They lost... They need to show some class here...

That's MO...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 02:27 AM

So Hillary wins again by 36%.
Shouldn't you be concerned?
These are huge majorities for her and very late in the game.
Notwithstanding that all of her victories are unimportant for whatever reason or that those who don't vote for your man are racists and those who do vote for him are enlightened.
I get all that.
Heard it over & over.
Because it's happened over & over.
Been a long time now since this man looked like a winner.
He's sitting on 92% of the Black vote and no matter what the media says, that's just not right.
Doesn't sound balanced.
Not for a candidate who preaches unity.
She now has the majority vote & the least pledged delegates.
I know. That's fine too because Obama is your choice but 36%?
Again?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:02 AM

Jesse Ventura said it right, and the same thing I've said for years..There should be a box below all the names of the candidates on the ballots that reads 'None of the Above'...That shows a willingness to participate, but a 'no confidence vote' for the propped up shills'..come on folks....they all suck square eggs! None of them represent any of you, do they??..Now be honest!! Year after year, we all tend to vote for the 'lesser of two evils'..but in fact, we're still voting for evil, and someone who does NOT have any of our best interests at heart. Everyone of them is so far away from our constitution, that if they spouted their trash, when it was fresh in our founding fathers minds, they would have all been tried for treason!! I could go on. from what I know, but why bother? You either know this to be true, or you don't!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:19 AM

This 'election' calls to mind the words of Adlai Stevenson(ran for President four times, Eisenhower-Kennedy era), whose words are surely prophetic, and obvious, before our very eyes!! "By the time a man is nominated for President, he is no longer fit for the job!"

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Cecil
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:32 AM

By the way, for what its worth, Jesse Ventura appeared on Larry King Live. about a week ago, and during the show they had a poll. The question was, 'If Jesse Ventura ran for president, would you vote for him?' The results were, 88% said yes. So, 'Guest from Sanity', you might be more right on, than you even imagined!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:51 AM

I still think we have three good candidates, and I'd be happy with any of them. The only credible negative information I've heard is that Hillary and McCain tend to be grouchy, and Obama can be a little too glib (or well-spoken, depending on how you "spin" that).

I can live with those faults. For once, I don't think it's the "lesser of two evils" - I think it's a choice among three good candidates.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 04:03 AM

Come on, Joe..Be healed!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 07:24 AM

I wonder why "Sanity" sounds like Janet.

Re: topic

We don't really need a presidential candidate who's staying in the race hoping her opponent is assassinated.

Or one who's incapable of admitting she made a mistake--on an absolutely crucial issue--like authorizing an unnecessary war--panicked by a despicable propaganda campaign. Others made the same mistake but she stubbornly refused to acknowledge it.

We've already had a so-called leader for almost 8 years who makes no mistakes.

Another helping? No thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 07:42 AM

Bobert suggests Hillary needs to show some class here. Class?   The Clintons? That threatens to compete with "judgment" and GWB in the category of oxymoron of the century.

Tom Vilsack (former Iowa governor and a national co-chairman of Hillary's campaign) said Sunday:

"It does appear to be pretty clear that Senator Obama is going to be the nominee. After Tuesday's contests she needs to acknowledge he's going to be the nominee and quickly get behind him."

Her response: A somewhat questionable ad called "17 million" claiming she's received more primary votes than anybody else in a Democratic primary. I'm sure she and Rush are very proud of that. And of course she includes Michigan where her team alleges Obama received precisely zero votes.

It's Hillary Math in all its glory.

She has one more chance to start to redeem herself--to take Tom Vilsack's advice.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:04 AM

And of course Hillary Math also no doubt states that her campaign is now in great financial shape.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:34 AM

Well, she's right about Michigan! And I'd happily vote for Jesse Ventura too.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:49 AM

Janet, I believe, had some critical comments about Ventura as well while he was Governor of Minnesota.

Hillary will bow out with a final flourish after the Tuesday primaries, committing herself to helping elect Obama. She won't like it but she's a player, and Secretary of Health and Welfare might make a fine consolation prize.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 09:34 AM

She did not win the popular vote; the term is defined in its full meaning by those votes in which voters chose between equally presented candidates, which was not the case in FL or MI because of party machinations. Absent those two distortions the numbers for the popular vote seem to favor Obama. Counting votes where the other guy didn't win seems a bit screwy to me.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 09:54 AM

Adlai Stevenson is one of my heroes and since I didn't think that phrase sounded like him I looked it up. Unless he later 'refined' it, here is what he actually said:

"I'm not an old, experienced hand at politics. But I am now seasoned enough to have learned that the hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning. "

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 10:56 AM

You're right, Charlie--it's time--actually past time--for Hillary to bow out with a gallant and generous concession speech.

We'll soon see if she cares at all about her own political future--which, if she doesn't do this, will be totally gone for anything beyond NY Senator.

Also, all the Hillary supporters moaning about the unfairness of the Michigan result over the weekend should note that the 69-59 settlement was proposed by a Clinton supporter and spoken for by another Clinton advocate.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:08 AM

"We'll soon see if she cares at all about her own political future--..."

                Unlike Barack Obama, she cares more about the country's future, which is why she is staying in.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:16 AM

So Obama now couldn't give a rat's posterior about the future of the country??? Hmmmmmmm??? I think it's a stretch to say that she cares more about the future of this country...

(But, Bobert, what about Rev. Wright???)

Oh yeah, I forgot that Rev. Wright = Braak Obama... lol...

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:17 AM

She really looks like she will be your next president.
May as well start flinging mud at her now.
Note: The Rezko jury has used every stalling tactic they can think of before Obama gets the nod.
Last week they called a halt to the proceedings when one of them spilled coffee on the verdict sheet.
The judge agreed to give them time off until Tuesday.
I swear to God. It's true.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:26 AM

So Hillary cares more about the country's future than Obama does? Interesting. That's the same argument we've heard from GWB regarding anybody who criticizes the war in Iraq.

Nothing like the good old patriotism smear, I always say.

That must be a perennial hot seller at Smears R Us.

The CEO certainly likes it.

I wonder where the evidence might be that Hillary cares more for the future of the US than Obama does.

Oh, sorry, evidence and facts are never offered at Smears R Us. I should have known.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:28 AM

"She really looks like..." . So, willful--and still abysmal-- ignorance is still in fashion, I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:33 AM

As you've demonstrated!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:50 AM

The remark, attributed to Stevenson, is accurate, and unfortunately, he was(is)right. As for the other, Obama and Hillary, are both just politicians, who do NOT embrace the constitution, as their guide to their positions, or moral compass. Just read their positions. Sorry, that some of you get your info from your local high school paper. When any elected official, takes their oath of office, they swear to uphold the constitution, not change it to fit their own ideology, which, with media support, is rammed down our throats, and is destructive, to both our will, as a democracy, and to the founding principles on which this country was founded. GWB, in my opinion, has committed perjury, as well, by not upholding the oath he took. We need another party, that has some credibility. Both the republicans and democrats are both too corrupted, and are re-actionary to the others nonsense. When was the last time either of these parties represented you, or the will of the majority??? Instead, we get their latest notion of how to 'remedy' the ills pushed forth by the other party of crooks, and buffoons. We have the best system on the planet, as far as governing, but it has been far too corrupted by both parties, all the while, leading us to a form of government so far removed from what we had, fought and died for, and worked hard to live within!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 12:13 PM

Interesting that one person uses facts and logic and another can't seem to muster anything but smears.

Still waiting for any response, based on logic and evidence, please, that the MI compromise 69-59, was not based on a proposal by a Hillary supporter. ( And that the FL compromise was supported by both sides at the weekend negotiations.)

Not to take away the right of other Hillary supporters to whine, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 12:19 PM

But it's certainly true the patriotism smear is a tried and true approach. Usually   used against moderates, liberals and Democrats--but not by other moderates, liberals or Democrats.

Usually used, in fact, by desperate yahoos-- and Rove, etc.

But perhaps the poster has some evidence that Hillary is more patriotic than Obama. It would be interesting to hear it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 12:21 PM

Of course, the mustering of smears is why Hillary supporters whine.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 12:43 PM

Ron Davies:
          You are the last one left on this thread who still uses name calling, insults and trashing instead of sound arguments.
How about it Ron?
Cut the trash talk and join in with the rest of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 01:21 PM

Now there's a sound bit of advice.

But will it be heeded?

Tune in shortly for the answer...

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 01:56 PM

Jim:

I dunno about name calling but your unfdounded assertions are slanderous and ill-conceived, absent facts in demonstration. That's awful close to name calling.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 02:29 PM

When any elected official, takes their oath of office, they swear to uphold the constitution, not change it to fit their own ideology...

With the implication that any attempt to change that constition must always have been subversive and shouldn't have been alloqwed to happen. Which would of course mean that neihter Obama nor Clinton could have even been candidates for election...

Interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 02:54 PM

It's a double-edged sword. On the one hand, tradition and precedent demand that the incoming president mouth his loyalty to the Constituion as a matter of formality (whether he really means it or not). It's a ceremonial act.

On the other hand, the Constitution is a valid set of safeguards to prevent the society being turned into some kind of dictatorship...providing the entire apparatus of the government at every level is genuinely serious and genuinely determined to honor the Constitution and apply it exactly as it was meant to be applied...

But are they? It would be naive to assume that they are. Once in government most people set about doing the various things they always wanted to do if in power...plus they have an eye on maintaining their job, getting approval of their higher-ups, making money, not getting in trouble, etc...

So self-interest gets in the way of total honesty and responsibility. That happens in any government.

The intentions of the people at the top of the hierarchy are vital, because those intentions filter down through all the other levels. If governmental leaders are acting in such a way as to betray the Constitution, then the rot will set in and it will work its way down level by level and the whole system will soon be badly compromised.

That is what has happened under a series of American administrations, but most notably of all under the Bush administration. The Bush administration has radically and fundamentally betrayed the American Constitution, so the President is in violation of his oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

(I might add, though, that the majority of American presidents have very probably at some time and in some way violated their sworn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. It's just that Mr Bush and Mr Cheney have been the worst yet in that respect, as far as I can see.)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:13 PM

" ..majority of American presidents have very probably at some time and in some way violated their sworn oaths to protect and defend the Constitution" LH

Breaking that vow is not that different from the vows we all make- and break. Intent beset by weakness is the operative word here. Making a vow in the full knowledge that deception and manipulation and plans are in opposition is cynical beyond any weakness.

"With the implication that any attempt to change that constition must always have been subversive and shouldn't have been alloqwed to happen. Which would of course mean that neihter Obama nor Clinton could have even been candidates for election..." McGrath

Kevin, I don't understand the statement. Would you elucidate?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 06:30 PM

Amos: If I could read your post and understand it, I'd answer it.
Migraine hangover, day 1.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 07:05 PM

Yes, you're quite right, Ebbie. It's like the vows we all make and break. "To err is human." It's only when our errors in that respect get to a really serious level that something has definitely got to be done about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 07:34 PM

Yeah, it's been more than a few years since I studied the Constitution but I can guarentee everyone that attacking Iraq ain't in there... So it is possible to uphold the Constitution without such an attack, unless of course, Iraq attacked us first... Then things get turned around...

(But, Bobert, Condi Rice said that if we didn't attack Iraq then Iraq would have mushroom clouds over US in 45 days... Like what was that all about???)

Danged if I know... Go ask her...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 07:54 PM

Constitution for the United States of America

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

(Click for the rest).


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:30 PM

And this part:

Article the eleventh [Amendment IX]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth [Amendment X]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:31 PM

What I meant was that the Constitution was written for a country in which there was no question of women or black people being able to stand for election. It needed a great deal of adjustment, and there's no reason to think that that process is finished. Not necessarily for the good, of course.

Changing the constitution, and seeking to change it is part of the constitution.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:45 PM

I named nobody. But some posters feel addressed, evidently.

It's interesting that none of the Hillary supporters have managed to come up with any evidence that Hillary is more patriotic than Obama. As I noted, that sort of accusation is usually made by desperate yahoos or members of the Rove team. I don't really think Mudcat posters are employed by Mr. Rove or his associates.

However, anybody who feels my statement is unfair can still provide the requested evidence that Obama is less patriotic than Hillary.

It should be easy--after all, I'm sure nobody on Mudcat would have made that charge without having solid evidence.

Waiting in eager anticipation.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 08:55 PM

The headline was about Sharapova at the French Open but would be perfect for Hillary too:

"Star Blows Huge Lead"

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 09:27 PM

To suggest that any candidate is less patriotic than another is asinine. It's mere innuendo and posturing of the most cynical sort. But that doesn't stop people in politics from doing so when they are pandering for votes. The Republicans, in particular, have been pulling that scam for as long as I can remember (they as if they had copyrighted the concept of patriotism!), although the Democrats also employ the same cynical tactic within their own ranks when they are infighting amongst one another.

Anyone who stoops to such a tactic would not get my vote if I were there to vote for him or her.

It's a contemptible way of scrounging for votes and disingenuously attacking the character of other candidates.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:31 PM

True patriotism...

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:31 PM

Ahh nevermind.

500

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 11:50 PM

Hey TIA, I think that was just a rather transparent gambit to snag #500. That you would stoop to such a thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 12:10 AM

Well...at least she hasn't questioned anyone's patriotism. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 01:17 AM

So, taking an oath is purely ceremonial??????Boy, tell that to the judge! Ask a service man's widow if it was ceremonial!..Or your wife!!..Maybe to Bill Clinton and his ilk!, or GWB as...well, you know the rest. Just ceremonial!!...Shows how far far we've slid from what we hold important, you know, like the truth, or honor, or like all of these ridiculous people that are running, who actually are lifted up, to be the best we have????!!!!....These cons are the best we have to choose from???? Everyone of them have a list of lies, documented, longer than this blog thread we're on...and that's no lie!! Fox news tells you who is honest???...Excu-u-u-se me!!...CNN?????, gag...msnbc???(well I do like Keith Obermann)..but come on....folks, wake up!!...All you have to do is scroll up and read the weak 'endorsements', and 'commitments' that any blogger has toward any candidate!..Its all weak. We really do not have a choice...and if I have to, and I can,produce a link where any one of these Bozos, are caught on camera lying obviously to the people..on camera!!..That's right, you people!!!...and you just gobble it up. Every one here, knows that at least two of the other candidates are just full of it, and guess what??...you're all right!!..anyway, I'm done, for now!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 01:30 AM

Jeez! I can't believe it, .. I'm waxing political!...I'd rather be composing in the studio, I've got REAL stuff to do!!..What about you??

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Slag
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 03:34 AM

My views? Oh, well I'm glad you asked. First off, If you didn't vote, you have nothing to say about it. You're not part of the process and your opinion doesn't matter. I've voted in every election so my opinion does matter.

Am I voting for Hillary? Well, seeing that the Republican Party no longer exists except in name only, I would vote for Hillary, if she gets the nod (which doesn't look to likely at this juncture). Why? Well I am very UNimpressed by the Bush acts, one and two. Hope faded early on as the little nut didn't fall very far from the tree. Nuts to them. As for John McCain, who is so very proud of his ability to "reach across the aisle" well Gee! I want to show him that I too, can reach across the aisle and I don't need his help to do it. I hope he gets the message and I hope any who might follow in his wake will also get the message.

If Obama gets the nod I'm voting for Spongebob Squarepants.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 09:07 AM

What?
Moi?
Coincidence, I assure you.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 09:41 AM

Vote??..of course vote! I'm just saying, give us a real candidate!..AS you stated, you are not voting for McCain or Ob-blab-o, because they suck!..That's not the same thing as voting FOR someone you think is good...you are just voting AGAINST those who you think are bad. Join the crowd of nearly everyone I've talked to!!! ..Voting for the lesser of two evils, as I stated before!!!...By the way, thank you very much, for illustrating my point, so clearly!! Now reflect..think about it...I'm not arguing with you, or any of you...just stating a common fact that has America sucked into this ridiculous debate(by design, btw)               
P.S. Now watch all the deluded start posting the wonderful propaganda they've swallowed. telling us why they love their 'candidate'..Spare us!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:25 AM

Here is the propaganda that I am swallowing:



"From: Joe Offer
Date: 02 Jun 08 - 03:51 AM

I still think we have three good candidates, and I'd be happy with any of them. The only credible negative information I've heard is that Hillary and McCain tend to be grouchy, and Obama can be a little too glib (or well-spoken, depending on how you "spin" that).

I can live with those faults. For once, I don't think it's the "lesser of two evils" - I think it's a choice among three good candidates.

-Joe Offer-"




I have a preference among the three, but any one of them is a quantum improvement.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 11:23 AM

"My views? Oh, well I'm glad you asked. First off, If you didn't vote, you have nothing to say about it. You're not part of the process and your opinion doesn't matter. I've voted in every election so my opinion does matter."

That's just flawed in so many ways.
We all matter.

Tonight or tomorrow, Obama will surely get the nod in what can only be described as "Affirmative Action" in action.
If Hillary doesn't run as an independent you will once again have a Republican president.
Someone (many) predicted at the beginning of this process, that by the time Hillary was finished with Obama there would be nothing left of him.
Well, whether it was Hillary or not the man has been in a coma for the last month and his campaign crew are dragging his limp body over the finish line.
He has the black vote all sewn up and that has been his final undoing.
As soon as Obama topped 90% of the black vote it was a signal to the rest of America that this ones about "Race".
That's one you can't win as a minority.
Think that's why they're called "Minorities".
Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 11:26 AM

Hillary is now preparing her "I give up" speech for tonight. She has said so many nice things about Obama (in the last couple of weeks, not before) and he about her that I wonder what her price is. My personal guess is being running mate which in my eyes might even be necessary for Obama to win in November against McCain. McCain in my eyes is the best candidate by far.... the Republicans have nominated as far as I can think back. (That still makes him third choice among the three left)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 11:37 AM

Jim Lad,
For a lot of us (and I do not mean Obama supporters) it is emphatically not about race. For you and the MSM, it seems to be exactly about race. I hope there are more of us than of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 11:43 AM

Jim:

He was not selected out of Affirmative Action, fer cry-i. Have you been under a rock all the last year? Sheesh, mon!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 12:31 PM

The concept of subtlety is lost on you, isn't it, "Guest from Sanity"? ;-) I get the impression you think only in terms of "all or nothing".

Whatever gave you the idea that I think it's allright for people in positions of responsibility to violate their solemn oaths? Go back and read it all over again. I think you are wasting a lot of excitement over a misunderstanding on your part.

However, I do share your disgust in how far society has fallen in terms of holding to any principles of honor and truthfullness in the political arena. Yes, indeed. It's become a pretty decadent situation.

The only politicians I saw out there running for president who really stood up seriously for the principles set out in the Constitution were Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. You see how far they got in the process.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 01:42 PM

You're right about that, LH, and given the chance I'd vote for either one of them, even if they do disagree on almost everything. Just the idea of having somebody in a position of leadership who is not afraid to demonstrate principal is refreshing.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:02 PM

Sorry, Wolfgang. We know that Democrats do not ever lie about these things...


updated 22 minutes ago


   Clinton not ready to concede race, her campaign chair says

Report that Clinton will concede "100 percent" incorrect, campaign chairman says

Congress' top black Democrat throws support to Obama

Democrats' primary season ends Tuesday, after 6 months and 61 contests

A rush of superdelegate endorsements could allow Obama to claim victory Tuesday

   
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Clinton's is "absolutely not" prepared to concede the race for the Democratic presidential nomination to Sen. Barack Obama, her campaign chairman said.


Sen. Hillary Clinton trails Obama by 159 delegates and is 201 delegates shy of capturing the nomination.

1 of 2 Terry McAuliffe rejected as "100 percent" incorrect an Associated Press report that Clinton is preparing to acknowledge that Obama has the delegates to win the nomination Tuesday night as the five-month Democratic primary process comes to a close.

Obama "doesn't have the numbers today, and until someone has the numbers the race goes on," McAuliffe told CNN.

Clinton continues to fight Obama in the Democratic primary season. Some 61 contests over six months will end Tuesday as Montana and South Dakota hold primaries. Watch McAuliffe say the 'race goes on' »

Only 31 pledged delegates are at stake in those two contests.

Obama on Tuesday had 2,083 delegates, just 35 delegates shy of the 2,118 needed to clinch the nomination, after a number of superdelegates announced their support for the senator from Illinois.

There are 193 superdelegates who have not backed a candidate.

Rep. James Clyburn, the No. 3 Democrat in the House and the highest ranking African-American in Congress, was among those superdelegates. Watch Clyburn endorse Obama

"I came to that decision because I do believe that he has elevated this campaign," Clyburn said. "He has energized our constituents. He is redrawing an electoral map for Democrats."

There are not enough pledged delegates at stake in Montana and South Dakota to put Obama over the top, but a rush of endorsements by the remaining undeclared "superdelegates" could allow him to claim victory when he takes the stage in Minnesota Tuesday evening.

Superdelegates are the approximate 825 Democratic governors, members of Congress, and party officials who each get to vote in the delegate nominating process. Around 200 of them have yet to endorse either Obama or Clinton.

In a bit of symbolism, Obama will spend Tuesday night at a rally at the Excel Energy Center in Saint Paul, Minnesota, the same arena which will house the 2008 Republican National Convention in September. Clinton will spend the night at an campaign event in New York City. What she will say is the question of the night. iReport.com: See what cartoonists think of the interminable race

Don't Miss
House whip throws support to Obama
Clinton claims victory in Puerto Rico
DNC decides on Florida, Michigan
Election Center 2008
Obama is looking more and more toward a likely general election matchup with John McCain, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee. And while not taking anything for granted, it appears he's starting to look at Clinton as less of a rival and more as an important ally who can help him win in November.

"We're getting very close to the number that will, that will give us the nomination and if we've hit that number on Tuesday night, then we will. We will announce that and I think even if we don't, this is the end of the primary season, and I think it's very important for us to focus on the clear contrast that's going to exist between Democrats and Republicans in this election," Obama said this weekend while campaigning in South Dakota.

"Sen. Clinton is an outstanding public servant, she has worked tirelessly on this campaign, she has been a great senator for the state of New York and she is going to be a great asset when we go into November to make sure that we defeat the Republicans," Obama said on the campaign trail Sunday in South Dakota, adding Monday in Michigan that "she and I will be working together." Watch Obama vow the party will come together after the primary »

Clinton's road to capturing the nomination is much longer and more difficult. She trails Obama by 166 delegates and is 201 delegates shy of capturing the nomination. Her main shot at winning now appears to depend on a mass wave of superdelegate support, which seems unlikely. See what's next for Clinton »

Clinton's been making the case for weeks now that she's ahead in the popular vote in the primaries and caucuses to date. Much of this argument hinges on how Michigan's disputed primary is counted. If Obama is awarded no votes, since his name wasn't on the ballot, Clinton leads by 194,000 in the popular vote count. If Obama is awarded the 40 percent who voted uncommitted in the primary, he's ahead of Clinton by 45,000 votes in the overall count. Watch Clinton outline her optimism »

"The Clinton campaign is making every effort to convince superdelegates she is the best qualified and most electable Democrat to take on John McCain in November. The problem for Clinton is that it seems a little bit too late for her argument to stick even if these superdelegates did embrace her assertion that she is the leader in the popular vote," said Mark Preston, CNN political editor.

CNN senior political correspondent Candy Crowley reported that "only a handful of people at the inner core of the Clinton campaign knows what she's thinking about doing when Tuesday's dust settles, adding that "those who have been with her since nearly the beginning are saying she will not push this into the convention. As one close Clinton supporter put it, she's acutely aware of her place in the party. She will not ruin the party."

Clinton scored a large victory Sunday in Puerto Rico's primary. It could be a different story in Montana, where Obama is ahead in the most recent polls. Obama campaigned in the state late last week, before stumping over the weekend in South Dakota. Clinton spent Monday in South Dakota. A new poll out Monday in that state puts Clinton up by double digits. But regardless of the results, Tuesday night is much more about the big picture than about who won which primary

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:50 PM

Guest Tia: "For you and the MSM, it seems to be exactly about race."

No Tia. I take my observations from the media. In no way do I happen to subscribe their beliefs.
They have given this man a huge pass on every difficult issue and forgiven him a seriously flawed past & present.
My observation is that those other than blacks will view this as an Affirmative Action "Pass" and feel terribly threatened by this.
The same would have been said had the media paved the way for Hillary and she received 92% of the Women's or Whites' votes.
I think we can agree that they didn't.
My opinions will never be formed out of regard for the colour of a person's skin.
That just won't happen.
There are far more qualities in an individual, worth noting.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 02:56 PM

I take my observations from the media

THis can be a serious mistake, too! :D

I think Barack Obama has been grilled and lambasted frequently by the media; I do not agree he has been given a pass.

What HAS happened is that people are arguing back against the madness of conflating pushbutton reactions, guilt by association, and the insertion of false data intot he picture.

You have yet to identify a specific dangerous link. He was embarassed by two preachers and has disowned them both. Yet people like you insist he had to be deeply tainted by them, which is presumptuous codswallop.

Oh, maybe the big thing he wasn't given a pass on was sticking a tiny metallic flag in his lapel? Or did you have some other specific complaint with some kind of substance to it?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 03:10 PM

"You have yet to identify a specific dangerous link."

That is one of the funniest wee statements on this thread.
Go back over the last 6 months and look at what people have told you.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 03:16 PM

As always, people's impressions of reality are mainly formed by their instinctive likes and dislikes. I have pointed this out before.

And yet, some people are somewhat objective...

I basically like Obama (as a person). I can't say what he would be like as a president or if he can win. I simply don't know.

I would say that he was given very gentle treatment by the media early in the campaign...probably because he was seen as the "underdog"...and they were way tougher on Hillary, because she was seen as unbeatable.

By about the middle of the campaign Obama started to get some very rough treatment by the media. That was partly because he was beginning NOT to look like the underdog, and partly because they were feeling rather guilty for their prior kindness to him and toughness on Hillary. ;-)

Then he made that great speech after the Wright fiasco, and the media decided that he was pretty cool after all. They got friendly again.

Then awhile after that began another period of rough media treatment for Obama...again, probably because Hillary was now starting to look like the underdog.

Now we're entering the phase where the media are getting a little sarcastic about Hillary not facing facts and bowing out, but they are also suggesting that Obama needs her help to win the election...

What does all that look like to me? It looks like a bunch of game-playing designed to pull public opinion first one way, then the other, like a soap opera.

And I think it's silly, frankly.

People should be elected on their policies, intelligence, and character, not on a bunch of hysterical innuendo about race issues and what their preacher said on some occasion when he was in a bad mood and went on a tirade.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 03:37 PM

"People should be elected on their policies, intelligence, and character"

There you go.
And no matter how many times that gets said, people walk all over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 03:54 PM

That affirmative action note was racist and hate speech if you ask me, not that you did. I believe that he is flawed seriously in international concerns, but as a domestic president, could possibly be the best one ever, if he doesn't screw up on the international situation. If someone is a Harvard lawyer, a state senator, a former Ilinois senator??, etc. how does affirmative action come into the picture at all? You certainly have offended my sense of decency, which might be a goal, and undoubtedly many other people's. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 08:13 PM

"That affirmative action note was racist and hate speech if you ask me"

Well I didn't!

The media helped him out because he's black.
The DNC fixed the vote for him because he's black.

If either had done the same for Hillary because she's a woman then that would have been affirmative action.

Stop with the racist stuff. You're beginning to sound like a preacher.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 08:29 PM

I can't believe this thread is still going on--and nothing has changed. It's fu#kin' aMAZing.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 08:47 PM

So, still no evidence that Obama is any less patriotic than Hillary. What a surprise. He is certainly less white than she is--but actually that's not the same thing--though some posters seem to think it is.

The current exchange reminds me of Mr. Cheney:    I'm not here to state that two of the Hillary supporters on Mudcat are pathetic creatures--addicted to smears, and abysmally ignorant, if not racist.   I can't say that.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 08:52 PM

"The media helped him out because he's black.
The DNC fixed the vote for him because he's black."

I would LOVE to see the proof for that allegation. Really would. Because it sure as hell sounds like bullshit to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 09:00 PM

I'm having a hard time determining whether people dislike Obama because he's Black, a man or gonna be the next President.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 09:04 PM

I doubt if people dislike Obama, they've just finally come to realize that Hillary would make a much better president.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 09:12 PM

Jim, you're one helluva fine singer, but when it comes to American politics, you don't know Shinola from the other stuff!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 09:58 PM

Hillary's conceded. Thank goodness that's over.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:04 PM

"The media helped him out because he's black.
The DNC fixed the vote for him because he's black."


That is a fucking racist statement. Spew away bucko. I am listening to nothing else you say. Oh, I'm sorry. Was that name calling? Jerk.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:09 PM

Nope. One more.

"If either had done the same for Hillary because she's a woman then that would have been affirmative action."

So, no matter who is the nominee, it is either racism or sexism.

You are an asshat.

Yup, that was name calling.

And, I'd do it again.

Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:10 PM

OOOOPS.

Wait!!!!!


McCain is the Republican nominee because of agism!!!!!!!

Damn, what a pickle.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:18 PM

Come on!
I don't have a racist bone in my body and those who know me, know that well.
Can't even discuss this without being called a racist.
That's exactly what happened to Hillary's campaign too.


"Hillary's conceded. Thank goodness that's over."
Don't know who you were listening to but it wasn't Hillary Clinton.

Looks like she's going to run as an independent.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:32 PM

Sorry, I only know you from your writings. And they are at odds with your assertions. Perhaps if we met in person, you could convince me otherwise. Let's look forward to that. Really (no sarcasm).

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:38 PM

"I am so proud we stayed the course together," she said to cheers. "I am committed to uniting our party so we move forward stronger and more ready than ever to take back the White House this November." Hillary Clinton, June 3, 2008

Oh, yeah. She certainly looks like she's going to run as an independent. Oh, sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:48 PM

This will clarify why people voted for him. If you have the eyes God gave a baby flounder, it will be obvious it was not reverse racism at work.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 10:56 PM

Ah well. It was nice while it lasted. It doesn't sound like she's going to run as an independent, though...

"I am so proud we stayed the course together," she said to cheers. "I am committed to uniting our party so we move forward stronger and more ready than ever to take back the White House this November"...

...On a conference call with other New York lawmakers, Clinton, a New York senator, said she was willing to become Obama's vice presidential nominee if it would help Democrats win the White House

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24953561/

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jun 08 - 11:16 PM

Maybe she will run as a Green or something, if he doesn't give her the VeePee spot. Of course, then he might end up like Vince Foster.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 12:15 AM

Oh, for cryin' out loud.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 12:27 AM

She's not getting any VP spot.
She was asked earlier today to let him make the offer and then decline.
That on top of the treatment she has received at the hands of his Church has her steaming.
Bill sounded off for her last night.
She said there was nothing wrong with his message but he has to watch his language.
You don't think that was planned?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 01:07 AM

I heard a major part of her speech, and it was fascinating. It would have been close to a perfect speech if she were the actual nominee.

She is not only still in--deep--denial---but she's encouraging her supporters to share the delusion.   Which is guaranteed to make the eventual comedown even harder for them to take.

Not the best way to unify the party behind Obama. And I'm sure he realizes this. Not much he can do about it right now, however.

As usual, her speech came down to:   me-me-me-me-me. Ambition unslaked--by a lot.

Hope he does not let himself be pressured by the e-mail campaign she just about requested to put herself on the ticket.

Bad mistake.

1) We should assume, I believe, that the vast majority of her supporters are thinking persons, capable of realizing what a McCain presidency would mean to them--and will therefore support Obama in the fall, regardless of what many may say now about jumping to McCain.

2) It's a 2-fer. With Hillary you get Bill--and therefore constant second-guessing from two people who each think they belong in the president's chair.

3) As we've noted before, having Hillary on the ticket--at all--is a real good way to unite an extremely fractious Republican party.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: mg
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 02:21 AM

If anyone was so stupid as to pretend to offer her the VP slot and expect her to decline it they deserve her as the albatross around the neck that she would be. I can't believe they could be that dumb but maybe so. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 03:24 AM

I think Bill has a life.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 03:33 AM

As per requested, Little Hawk, I re-read your post, and I stand corrected. That being said, Bush-Cheney, were in the same league, as Clinton during his term. Actually, not only are they in the same league, they are just more of the same person, with the same agendas...just extensions of the same agenda. It reminds me of being in the ring, with a boxer, who comes at you with a right..a left..another left, then a right....we in America have been battered by the same boxer, using both sides, and faking us out, while we are watching for the blow to come from 'the other side. We've been 'blind-sided', repeatedly, and every blow, right and left, has the agenda to strip us of our own sovereignty, while keeping us distracted from the real issue before us. Has anyone considered that the media, with their pundits, and speculations, right and left, has us focussed on all the emotionalized issues while the wheels just keep grinding us down? Splitting us apart, and giving us the illusion that there is a big difference between us, that matters more than that we are all sharing this land, trying to survive, have a normal life, raising our families....just like every one else????? Whether you are white, black, rich or poor, male, female young, old, of any descent, we all share two distinctive traits given to all living beings, whether it is an animal, plant, or an amoeba, we all have the will to survive, and reproduce! Anything that gets in the way of this,(the common denominator of all living creatures) is a form of death! So, in conclusion, let's all re-consider...'Do unto others, as you would have done unto you'....not divide and conquer!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Lansing
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 03:50 AM

guest from sanity,
   i just read your message, and read it several times, slowly, WOW!!! IT IS TRULY PROFOUND, and right on the mark! so often we forget! do you have a web page?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 04:22 AM

Nope, no web page. I just come in here, sometimes when I come upstairs from the studio, and check my mail. While I'm on I found this blog and thought I throw in my two cents in. This is the first time I have 'held forth', (Though I posted a few above), and I don't plan on posting much more. I was more interested in what musicians were talking about (more than politics). I personally don't know any of the people on here, though I found some interesting, well, enough to respond, anyway. I'm not much of a blogger, but upon reading some of these posts, I found that there are some of my musical brothers hurting, thats all. After all, being a musician is a gift, and politics can get in the way, of the things we need to focus in on, to use that gift clearly...I guess, unless you write political songs (which I don't). What I do know is, that people are tending not to trust one another, unless they share the same political view, and there is certainly a lot of fear and hostility in our country, which, as in music, gets in the way of us all using our gifts the way we fully can, no matter what field you're in. Anyway, God Bless, and keep you all!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 01:35 PM

"3) As we've noted before, having Hillary on the ticket--at all--is a real good way to unite an extremely fractious Republican party."


                   But it's the only way to unite the hopelessly divided Democratic Party.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 02:11 PM

"Guest from sanity", I agree with your post of 04 Jun 08 - 03:33 AM ...one hundred per cent! You have described the problem in a nutshell.

"they (Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush...next?) are just more of the same person, with the same agendas...just extensions of the same agenda. It reminds me of being in the ring, with a boxer, who comes at you with a right..a left..another left, then a right....we in America have been battered by the same boxer, using both sides, and faking us out, while we are watching for the blow to come from 'the other side. We've been 'blind-sided', repeatedly, and every blow, right and left, has the agenda to strip us of our own sovereignty, while keeping us distracted from the real issue before us. Has anyone considered that the media, with their pundits, and speculations, right and left, has us focussed on all the emotionalized issues while the wheels just keep grinding us down? Splitting us apart, and giving us the illusion that there is a big difference between us, that matters more than that we are all sharing this land, trying to survive, have a normal life, raising our families....just like every one else?????"

OH, YEAH! That is the truth, my friend. I sure am glad to hear someone else say it that clearly. The Democrats and Republicans are the two fists of the boxer you describe, and they do exactly as you say. The media is their handmaiden, keeping the game in play. "Divide and Conquer" is the name of the game.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 10:00 PM

Well, Little Hawk, I agree with you again. But do you think there is anything to be gained from siding with one American party over the other, or is the exercise totally pointless?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 10:23 PM

Riginslinger
   Being as Little Hawk was merely quoting(cut and pasting) me, I'll jump out there and reply, for him, as well as myself. As I posted earlier, BOTH parties have been corrupted!, and the ideals that they used to stand for have been co-opted by the agendas of those, who have no interest, whatsoever, in representing you, or the original intention of either party. Haven't you noticed, that within yourself, that we tend to 'agree' and go along with what someone proposes, or compromises for, rather, than having them (the party) actually representing the majority will of their constituents?? Too many times we end up having to just 'go along' with what they come up with....and usually, it has NOTHING to do with the principles or ideals of our constitution...but always a stretch! Slowly by slowly, our form of government is changing, without the will, nor consent of the people. ..and we just sit around, to argue the 'party line' Well, my dear friend, the party (both) are, and have been, out of line, for a long, long time. Now we debate issues, that are not realities, to principles, but rather 'trends' fashioned to fit the 'agndas' shaped though corruption. This has become so obvious, that most think it normal! You are told what to think, not 'how' to think!!..Remember, right wing and left wing are on the same bird..(and its not our eagle, either). Clear enough????

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 10:25 PM

As a superdelegate, I have switched my endorsement from ___________ to Guest from Sanity.    Oh crap, please don't wake me.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 10:53 PM

"(we) are told what to think, not 'how' to think!!..Remember, right wing and left wing are on the same bird..(and its not our eagle, either)"

Dead right. Right smack on target once again. I remember so well...that is exactly what pissed me off about the "social studies" (read: political indoctrination) classes I took in New York State in the 60s...and, for that matter, about almost ALL the stuff I was being taught in school.

I was not being taught HOW to think...I was being taught WHAT to think. That's what is always done in a controlled-from-the-top-down-by-an-elite-oligarchy type of society...what you might call a great totalitarian state in the making. They tell you WHAT to think about everything. You say it all back to them like a parrot, and they give you a good mark. You do this until you're an adult, and then maybe you get a job as another unthinking link in the many links of the great chains that bind you.

It all sounds a bit like Mordor to me, only not quite as obvious to the naked eye, that's all. It's Mordor under a clever marketing scheme with nice consumer goods to fill your house up with.

There was a time when people were thought how to think, but such times are rare in human history. There was a time like that once in Athens when teachers like Plato and Socrates were alive. To have a healthy and functioning democracy you need to teach your young people how to think independently. Then they can think for themselves.

I found out how to think for myself when I was a kid, but not in school!   No, I found out how to do that out at home, by reading hundreds of books and considering thousands of possible alternatives to the standard conformist "party line" I was being spoonfed by the ruling system in society, and I have never stopped questioning that party line most stringently.

Those 2 big political parties are a sick joke. Like "voice of Sanity" says, they are two wings on the same bird, and it's a vulture, or something worse than a vulture.

Is there any use in choosing between them, Riginslinger? Is the exercise totally pointless? You asked that. Well....I guess if it comes down to the point that there is no other chance of casting a vote that's going to accomplish anything, then one chooses between the Big Two. Or one doesn't. You have to follow your own best instincts on that. Yeah, I would choose between them at this point, but not with any huge expectations.

This time around I would vote for the Democrats. I know they are a corrupt party, I know they cannot be trusted at all when in office, but I would still vote for them this time because I could not stomach rewarding the similarly corrupt Republicans for the damage they have done in the past 8 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 04 Jun 08 - 11:01 PM

National Post

Clinton Likely to Suspend Bid on Friday

New York Times - 3 hours ago
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and MICHAEL LUO Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is moving to suspend her campaign and endorse Senator Barack Obama on Friday after Democratic members of Congress urged her on Wednesday to leave the race and allow the party to unite ...

Clinton Plans to Concede Race, Endorse Rival Obama Within Days

Bloomberg - 1 hour ago
By Kristin Jensen and Lorraine Woellert June 4 (Bloomberg) -- New York Senator Hillary Clinton is planning to concede the race for the Democratic presidential nomination and announce her support for Illinois Senator Barack Obama, her campaign said.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:23 AM

Hillary "would unite the Democratic party"?   What rock have you been living under since 2007. She had her chance to do so--in fact scads of chances, including direct invitations in debates--but would have had to start with admitting she was wrong to vote for the force authorization against Iraq in 2002. John Edwards did, as did many others.

That was her "original sin"--for which she needed to ask "absolution"--and never did. Failing that, she would never have united the Democratic party--or gotten the votes of many independents.

This refusal drove the anti-war wing of the Democratic party away from her. They needed another home--and when Hillary and Obama were the last candidates, no question where they would go. Not to Hillary.

Whether it's the arrogance of the unquestioned front-runner, conviction that she could run from the start as if in the general election (triangulation) , fear of being thought weak, or another reason-- her refusal to take responsibility for her part in the start of the Iraq war is her main problem--from which virtually all the others stem.

She had all the advantages--money, name recognition, support of the Democratic Establishment.

The nomination was hers to lose--and she lost it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Cecil
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:26 AM

I've been reading this thread, and am very struck with the brilliance, and articulation from some of you, especially Guest from Sanity, and Little Hawk. You guys blow me away! Keep posting. Right on, Tia, my vote goes to Guest of Sanity. Maybe Little Hawk would be his/her running mate!..Keep it up!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:39 AM

Amos--

That's great news. Then the question becomes what she will be willing to do to help ensure Obama's election. Lip service won't cut it.

As I said earlier, I'd send her and Bill back to KY, WV, etc. to tell her fans how and why Obama would be a much better choice than McCain for them.

But I'd also send somebody I could trust along with them--to make sure they did it right.

I don't have much use for Mr. Reagan. But he said one good thing: "Trust, but verify".

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:09 AM

I think the thing that may have hurt Hillary the most (other than her position and her record on the war) was her obvious sense of entitlement. She clearly thought from the beginning that there was simply no way she could not end up being the chosen Democratic candidate for president...and then the president. It was already a foregone conclusion in her mind, and that was pretty obvious. That annoyed a lot of people, and it turned a lot of potential support away from Hillary Clinton at various stages in the campaign. Then the Clintons pulled a few really dirty tricks on Obama...which naturally delighted people who wanted to see Obama go down...but it alienated a lot of other people at the same time, specially in the Black community. In the past the Clintons were always able to count on the support of the Black vote in America, but not this time. This was, I think, a most unexpected situation for Hillary to find herself in...so she turned to the other constituency where she was potentially strong: working class White democrats who would fear the Blacks as a united force and who would resent any candidate who they thought wasn't "one of them" (in whatever sense...class, attitude, intellectual credentials, race, etc).

The ironical thing is...Hillary and Bill are not "one of them" either, if you know what I mean. ;-) Hillary and Bill Clinton are just as much if not more people of the social elite as Barack Obama is...but they have posed themselves as heroes of working class America. Ha! That is amusing to me.

And it's interesting, because the White working class demographic they were aiming at pretty much bought it. That just goes to show, I guess, both the power of the media machine in general and the willingness of people to suspend reality and believe whatever they want to believe.

Wishful thinking.

Now the question is, how much of Obama's support will also turn out to be wishful thinking of a different sort? How will he address the tremendous hopes he has raised, if elected? How can he? I really don't know. I'm not sure one way or another about Obama's real values and intentions, though I do admire his speaking ability and his personal presentation a lot. He's a very fine orator.

If he gets elected...then we see. The proof is in the pudding.

One other comment. Hillary's speech on Tuesday night was one hell of a good speech. She was evasive, or coy, in that she never suggested conceding defeat to Obama despite the fact that it was basically inevitable...but just as a political speech, period, it was one hell of a good speech. I was surprised at how good it was.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:20 AM

Obama is coming from a deeper place than most politicians, and he has a keen sense of timing and a creative streak in defining his steps. This is going to be an interesting and exciting campaign and if he wins it, an interesting eight years.

May his shields stay strong.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:38 AM

Ok, ok, ok, now let's get the record straight. Cecil, its Guest FROM Sanity, not Guest OF Sanity. Jeez, I wouldn't want you to vote for the wrong guy, or leave a hanging participle or chad! And as so far as the headlines, yeah, maybe with Hillary(Hiltery) supporting O-blabbo, maybe she can do for him what Billy did for(to) her! And my Dearest, sweet Tia, I was thinking of reaching across, and waking you up, and, well.....but alas, I'll let you sleep...I'll be so lonely tonight, that I'll lay in bed, alone, fart, and pull the covers over my own head! And to Little Hawk, jeez, if this Hitlery thing is over, (which has yet to be seen, and still obscene) this blog thread will go the way of the whooping crane. Where do we go from here??......(still thinking about Tia)...hey....awwww, never mind.........

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:52 AM

Amos, Down deep O-blabbo is shallow. Just check his voting record, while 'representing' his state........if you can find one...Actually I have an interesting FACT about O-blabbo, but I best not post it, or the Clinton posse would come after me, and dear ladies and gentlemen, this would blow you AWAY!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 02:22 AM

"Guest from Sanity" When did you escape? lol

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 07:19 AM

As I said earlier, it's amazing how much "Sanity" sounds like Janet. I had thought it had been made very clear that every poster is only to take one name. I note "Fantasma" is also again with us. Wonder how that's been arranged. Just idle curiosity. No need to anybody to get her knickers in a twist.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 07:31 AM

"No need for anybody..."

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 08:00 AM

"O-blabbo," that describes him.

             I suspect that a lot of Democrats will vote for McCain this time around just for the purpose of giving Hillary another shot in 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 08:22 AM

Another poster with a wonderful track record.

I'm sure a lot of voters will vote for McCain--if they don't care about ending the Iraq war, separation of church and state, protecting Roe v Wade, or trying to do something about the disastrous Bush economy.

And therefore prefer the ostrich approach to politics.

Perhaps that describes the poster who made the remark about voting for McCain to give Hillary another chance in 2012.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 11:55 AM

Nope. I'm not Janet. and as so far as 'protecting Roe v. Wade...too bad your mother didn't take advantage of it, when she was pregnant with you! Funny how everybody who is 'so much for it', has already been born! Another sacred cow for the irresponsible way people have sex. Just remember, the Romans, how they would tickle their throats with a feather, so they could throw up, and eat more, at banquets. They even had separate rooms just for that activity. Rather decadent, wouldn't you say? Got news for you, ask any woman, about the psychological toll it takes upon them, to have an abortion. But of course, I'm sure you'd argue that having an abortion, (at our expense), is a good thing..be the first on your block to get one! Well, as long as we 'get' to pay for it, then I can damn well say, that I don't appreciate it! If you like it so much, just volunteer to pay for them, out of your private funds, rather than forcing us to pay for them. Go ahead, whip out your check book! And, by the way, McCain is certainly not the answer, either! Funny, how the federal government forces their employees to retire, at age 64, but then we get this action! The person to be wary of, is who they prop up for his running mate! Perhaps Condaleeza Rice, ..oh cool, that way they could pander to black and women voters, regardless if she was on the Board of Directors of, your friends,Exxon. Did you know that??? If O-blabbo was president, I guarantee you, that when you look back of the Bush presidency, it will look like the good ol' days..which it certainly is not! You need to really think deeper...you remember that, don't you...thinking?? Yes, dear brothers and sisters, we are in a pickle here. Perhaps there is still time an American candidate may emerge running not affiliated with either of the crowd of felons, that make our laws. By the way, accepting a bribe, (read: special interest 'lobbying') is still a felony. Now watch, Mr. Sensitive will be all pissy at me!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,JOYCE L KEERL
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:12 PM

I WILL VOTE FOR HILLARY IN NOVEMBER.
I WILL "NOT" VOTE SHOULD OBAMA BE THE NOMINEE!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:18 PM

Why did you put quotes around "not"? You make it look like you don't really mean it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:24 PM

That's a good idea, Joyce. If Hillary doesn't get the nod for VeePee, those of us who feel like we was robbed could just "write in" Hillary in the fall.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest form Sanity
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:27 PM

hey, Little Hawk, I salute you, nice to see you are on!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:34 PM

Hi! ;-) I can't stay away. It's become a behavioral addiction.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:35 PM

One thing for sure about Hitlery...I bet you there are no stains on HER dress!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:40 PM

Can we cut out the cutesy hitlery, et cetera, comments? You are over the age of 12, aren't you? If you are not, I apologize; it would be what I would expect from someone that age. sheesh

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 12:54 PM

Well, I guess the first amendment rights were replaced with 'Political Correctness'?? I was merely exercising my right of expressing MORAL CORRECTNESS!! Funny how our rights have been eroded, so subtly, and willingly. And as far as being 12??...careful, or I'll turn you over my knee!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:18 PM

Looks like those who wish to vote for Hillary will have to write in her name. It ain't gonna be on the ballot.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:21 PM

Same goes for Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:31 PM

Or George Bush for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:33 PM

Which gets us to another issue. How do you write in a candidate on an electronic voting machine?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:36 PM

Truthfully, I don't know if write-ins are even allowed in the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:38 PM

I should mention that I have voted for Fu Koff more than once. (In Canada.)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 01:45 PM

I can recall having room to write in candidates in the past. I can vaguely remember having done that at some time, though I think it was for a senator.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 02:04 PM

We get many slates at the provincial level where we have a half dozen candidates to choose from. Federally, there are about 40 parties, but only five or so ever have a serious shot at taking seats in the House of Commons.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 02:10 PM

There's the Christian Heritage Party...they run Biblicly inspired candidates here (in Ontario), and they usually get about 1/2 of one percent of the vote or something along that line.

There are a lot of small fringe parties in the USA too...but you'd never know it because the mass media only talks about the Democrats and the Republicans. That's because the same interests that own the Democrats and Republicans also own the mass media. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Peace
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 02:20 PM

I'm inclined to agree with that, LH.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 04:34 PM

Yes, completely!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 07:19 PM

"Political correctness" has nothing to do with it. Are you truly saying that Senator Hillary Clinton is like Adolf Hitler? Insanity must run in certain families.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jun 08 - 07:21 PM

Yes, we can write in someone's name. Don't forget to check the box next to the name, though. The name alone will not count.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 12:01 AM

My Dearest Sweet Ebbie,
   To answer your question, Hillary's agenda, as with O-blabbo's agenda, calls for nationalized health care, gun control, state controlled ..well, just about everything. These are socialist programs..you know as in the 'Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republic'. Under our constitution, it states that our rights are inalienable God given, that all me are created equal, etc. etc. In a Socialist state, the STATE gives you the right, and or permission to do as to what they will allow you to do, and or to re-disperse the wealth (incomes) of people who earn them as they see fit. in other words, a socialist government tells you that everything is from and for them. In a free society, we still have the freedom to choose, a course(self determination). Now, I admit, and argue that our freedoms are being eroded, one by one, so at this point, jumping into socialism, is not a far leap(thanks to the agendas of corrupt politicians), but it is still a leap into a form of government that is not what we are founded on. The fact we can say what we want to say on here, or anywhere, is a freedom we still enjoy(1st amendment). to have and bear arms(2nd) habeas corpus (4th, due process of law) those are our guaranteed freedoms(among others) that we still live under. In a socialist state run government, those are gone! Now, though you have a guarantee that you can say what you will, doesn't mean one may choose to do that, and that's ok, but to regulate that, and or forbidding political discussions, because you may criticize the state(which we ALL do), is NOT the society that America was ever about....but it would be, if we went socialist. Same as the right to bear arms, though I might not want to own a weapon, is my choice. Doesn't mean every one who has one is going to shoot someone, but you still have the right to own one. Just like because you have the freedom of speech, doesn't mean you can shoot your mouth off! The word Nazi, interpreted is national socialist party. Both hillary and O-blabbo, are two of the senates furthest leaning left(socialist) members. So, there you have the similarity. do you want the state to own and control everything??...or would you like to have a say in it????????

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 12:35 AM

Jeeze, Voice, you're lumping the Nazis together with all other forms of socialism, with communism as well, and then dumping the whole pot on Obama's head???? That's downright ludicrous.

1. National Socialism as practiced in German is different than the communism used in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

2. Both of the above are different than Marxism as theoretically conceived of by Mark.

3. All of the above are different in kind and degree than the blended social republics operating in some (for example) Scandinavian countries, where some social networks are in place but individual entrepreneurship and capitalism also thrive.

4. All of those are different from the somewhat socialized democratic republic we live in where, for example, the Federal government subsidizes farmers, railroads, Chrysler, and failed banks in order to keep the wheels going around, operates a Social Security system, and writes laws constraining businesses when they get TOO greedy.

All of these instances are somewhat "socialistic".

IF you have to shout "Wolf" every time a dog walks past, you're going run out of audience very soon.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 12:58 AM

....and that was the short version....Ebbie, you might be disappointed your candidate didn't win, but here is some thing to watch.... she was not as bright as purported to be       http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=101493

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 01:07 AM

Amos, Amos, Amos....I know the difference between the different forms of government control Do you??...btw its not Mark...its Marx
This country cannot afford to implement a socialist government, nor can it afford the Bozos we have now....We must return to the form that we had of democracy....no 'isms'
Given a choice..would you prefer to be controlled by Clinton, or O-blabbo?..with their ideologies???
Oh, yeah, I forgot...Its for the children.....yadda yadda yadda

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 01:21 AM

Guest (so far) from Sanity, there are people on this forum who are well able to set you straight on your many, many mistaken assumptions on socialism and for that matter, democracy.

For now, I'll just ask one question: What do you have against Social Security?

(By the way, *my* candidate is and has been for a long time Barack Obama. (and if you'd be so kind as to drop the childish and terribly far off the mark Blabbo thing I would aould think bettter of you. Do you denigrate everyone who is able to speak a coherent paragragh? It sure ain't Bush.)

I defend Senator Clinton when I perceive mistaken but honest views, or blatant untruths and ugliness.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 05:59 AM

Ebs,
I can't tell if you mean 'social society' as socially, or politically, but America, was not founded by or for socialists. If you'd like socialism, there are several socialist countries on this planet to 'vacation' in I suggest picking one, and go there. As so far as O-blabbo for a choice, that's your own choice, but don't tell me that you came to that decision, out of anything but his ability to give a glib speech, that has nothing more than emotional dribble. I think you are just on the 'fashionable' media driven trend that has great momentum, but so very little substance. Give me one..just one example of ANYTHING O-blabbo, has done, for his constituents, or an example of his record, that he has accomplished. You will find in your 'research' that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, to get that hot and bothered about, except his hot air rhetoric. and no, I'm not a Bush guy either. As stated above, in previous posts, it should be clear, by now, that all of the people running, are ...well just read it for yourself, and you will find that I'm certainly not alone. So if you want to drag me out on the carpet and scold me, then let's do it intelligently, and not based on some emotional flap. And by the way, if I want to call him O-blabbo, McLame, and Hitlery, I just damn well will, and can. As other previous posters have said, 'that aptly suits him. His voting record shows over 100 times, that he voted 'Present'! Sorry, I'd like to see a little better performance than that!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 07:56 AM

Heck, we've had socialism for the wealthy going back to the Reagan years... It has gotten progressively worse with each administration... Call is voodoo economics or trickle-down economics, it ain't working for the folks who, ahhhh, create the "wealth" that the wealthy disporportionately enjoy???

After 9/11 Bush gave the airlines $26B without any protest about "socialism"... That, BTW, is more than we spend for "No Child Left Behind"... Then when Bear-Sterns found it had made alot of bad investments, Bush gave them $25B??? No protest of "socialism" there either... How about the no-bid contracts to Halliburton, Blackwater, etc.??? No protest of "socialism" there...

But when a country that spends the highest percentage of its GNP on health care and is ranked 17th among develolped nations in health care says to itself, "Hey, this ain't workin", all of a sudden we hear these protests of "socialism"???

Seems purdy strange to me...

Me thinks the real O-blabbo in the equation is right here in Mudville o-blabbing away about a topic for which he or she has very little understanding...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 12:40 PM

Actually, Bobert,, I wholeheartedly agree with you, and even more so than you posted! I think the present candidate's only impetus, is the desperate hope, that we in America, feel, that something, someone, somewhere can deliver us out of the predicament we have found ourselves, due to decades of corrupt administrations, we have allowed to have in office. (see earlier, above posts, of mine). However, the present lot of candidates, are a sorry pack to pick from, and the enthusiasm behind them, is much like last year's enthusiasm, for Sanjaya, on American Idol. This is all being treated like a popularity contest, of whom appeals to who, for reasons altogether separate than that of being an American, patriotic, statesman. If you want to take these clowns seriously, well, be my guest. I prefer to demand a higher standard......yeah yeah yeah..just babbling on........(actually, I prefer to compose music, this blog thing is just a time filler, during the breaks I take, and it shocks me to see how ardently emphatic people get obsessed over nothing). These candidates suck!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 12:46 PM

Sanjaya? We remind you of those doting on Sanjaya? Please. Personally, I have never seen Sanjaya. Watching that kind of thing may be your idea of entertainment- don't foist it on us.

As for the candidates being a sorry pack: I beg to differ. I think that we ended up with a distinctive set of candidates and their differing values.

If you don't see any good in this, why not run for office yourself? A superlative candidacy, no doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 01:14 PM

GFS:

IF you actually came from "sanity", which is manifestly not the case, you would, for one thi9ng, not be so invested in bitter recriminations and slant, arm-waving, over-generalization on negative biases, and ad hominem sarcasms. For all your denial, the similarity between you and certain other chronic guests is remarkable.

Your opinion, like your rectal flap, is your own and welcome to it. But insisting others model theirs on it is self-defeating and a disservice tot he rest of the world.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 01:38 PM

Can't agree with you on the "socialism" bit, "Sanity". Every modern country has a great deal of socialism, because you cannot run a modern society without it. Most also have a great deal of capitalism. The two are not mutually exclusive, in fact they are natural partners, just like a man and a woman are, and the healthiest societies are those which balance the two in an equal fashion.

Socialism is not antithetical to the origins of America, because America had a number of socialist institutions right from its inception. Anything that is funded by taxes and employs individuals who are paid by the government is a socialist institution.

If you want pure capitalism you would have to go back to a medieval robber-baron system with the richest and most powerful robber-baron running everything with his stolen money and his hired gangs of mercenary killers to enforce his will. I don't think that's what you want! ;-)

And if you think socialism is by definition "godless", you are also in error. Some of the most notable founders of socialist theory were highly religious people and they saw socialism as a way of fullfilling Christ's message of mercy and kindness to the poor, as set out in the New Testament. In fact, you can make a strong case for Jesus as being a socialist in his own time, not a capitalist!

There are many different forms of socialism. The kind of socialism you fear is at one extreme authoritarian end of the spectrum, and it is not at all representative of socialism in democratic countries like the Scandinavian countries, Canada, Denmark, Holland, etc.

In short, it's a hysterical boogeyman that exists only in the minds of some Americans who frankly haven't got a clue what they're talking about when they talk about socialism.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jun 08 - 09:49 PM

"Heck, we've had socialism for the wealthy going back to the Reagan years..."

                   Yes, Bobert, I really think it was at that point that America walked off the cliff. I don't know if it can save itself, but I don't have much faith in the way we're going.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 01:25 AM

The biggest difference is, Little Hawk, and all others, when Jesus spoke of giving, it was from the compassion it comes from the heart, and in realizing that we are all of one, from God,'What you do to the least of them, you do unto me', is quite different to a system, where compulsory, wealth re-distribution, is forced upon it citizenry. American people, are by nature, rather generous people, and usually don't wish war, or cruelty on any other nation, on earth, and has usually donated to those in need, privately, even if we send aid, as a nation. I myself, have done this, as a private volunteer, and am playing,(free) for a benefit to raise money and food, for the needy, this August. This comes from the heart. This is also to alleviate the financial burdens foisted on us by our lovely corporate, owned government. Certain forms of socialism, when subscribed to, can be beneficial. Ones that are forced, and dictated to others,(even as a 'remedy' to offset the ills, brought by corruptness, are not so hip. That being said, still, all of the candidates, before us, in this election, do not represent anything we as Americans are about. They simply do not represent us, and I believe puppets, for something far darker.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Cecil
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 01:53 AM

'Guest from Sanity'   I've been fascinated by your posts. Everything from the profound, to satirical, some very witty, others, tongue in cheek, some well articulated, and some just plain brilliant, Some wander, but when I read those, I've noticed that those are the ones that follow a post, that another emotionalized poster attacks you. Then you right yourself, and blow us away again. Next, you keep referring to composing music, between posts. the fact you use the word 'compose', indicates, at least to me, that you are a more serious musician, then let's say some one merely in a band. Am I right?? Because all those things I listed above, tell me that you may be a composer of something more akin to major works? Not to mention, that this forum is mostly aimed at musicians. so, am I close?? Talk to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 01:55 AM

Yes, I agree that the American people are by nature rather generous people, and usually don't wish war or cruelty on any other nation on earth. This is also true of the ordinary people, the common citizenry, in a great many other countries, if not all of them. The trouble is that the government in the USA and most other countries (if not all of them) is not being controlled by the ordinary people, it's being controlled by special interests in the hands of an elite few.

In a case like that, unfortunately, neither socialism nor large scale corporate capitalism tend to be applied in a very humane or moral fashion...because being humane and moral is not the objective!

I agree that the candidates are mostly just puppets in service of something far darker...and that's been happening for quite a long time now.

I also agree that compulsory re-distribution of wealth should not be forced on a citizenry, and I'm not normally in favor of such stringent measures as that...although such things sometimes will happen in the wake of a great war or a revolution or a tremendous economic disaster when an old social order collapses completely.

What I am in favor of is a universal socialized health care system such as exists in Canada and pretty well every country in western Europe. It's there to ensure that everyone can afford necessary health care. It's not there to eliminate all other forms of alternative health care that one might opt for outside of that system. For instance, in Canada I can get basically free health care for anything provided through any private M.D. or any public hospital. I can also get a partial discount on chiropractic and many other conventional forms of health care, but only partial. I can, unfortunately, not get any government help with my dental bill...and for many people that's a BIG one! It's one bad flaw in our health insurance coverage which should be addressed.

Now, if I choose to go to a Naturopathic doctor...which I do as a matter of fact...I get no help from our health care system. Guess why. The M.D.'s are powerful as an organization and they and the drug companies had enough clout to ensure that only they would really be tied in with the universal health care system...so people would be "persuaded" to come to them rather than to a Naturopath because it's way cheaper! Clever move on their part.

I have discovered, however, that the Naturopath does me 50 times more good than the M.D.s ever did and gives me enough info about diet and lifestyle and stuff like that that I can fix my OWN health, rather than getting drugs from a doctor to suppress the symptoms and do nothing about the lifestyle. ;-)

So I don't mind paying the Naturopath. It's worth it.

Still, I strongly support Canada's socialist health care system. It hasn't helped me much, but it has helped a lot of other people who wouldn't dream of seeing anyone but their M.D.

I don't mind paying a portion of my taxes to maintain it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 02:54 AM

Any system, put in place, and run by those who are not trustworthy, nor represent the will of the people, should always be suspect. If you submit to someone or thing, for a blessing, and that someone or thing is corrupt, or evil, or controlled by a darker force or motive, you yourself become subject to its evil, and darkness. However, in times of great distress, is also the time that this earth has been blessed by some of the most beautiful works, in all the arts. Bach, Tolstoy, Tchaikovsky, the Beatles, Beethoven, etc. etc. all came into their own, by expressing the human spirit, emerging through the oppression of the human condition. My dear fellow bloggers, we are in perilous times, of which will be made manifest, before our eyes. I cannot be supportive of those who seek to bring that about, nor can I take joy, in the confusion, and damage I see by those who so willingly and gullabley lap it up. Such as I've seen here. And its sorta funny, though we may differ, just the mere fact that we communicate, and share thoughts, fears, laughter, anxiety, etc. etc. together on here,I can't help but relate to you all as dear to me.
Cecil, ..Art for therapy might be good therapy, but it might not be great art!....if thats what you are driving at. Rather, I answer back, interpreting the spirit I detect in the poster. If they are emotional about a subject, (confused)....my text may wander..but...they get it, when its right on...I, and we get precise. A friend, to whom I was sharing this thread with, upon reading it commented, that since 'Sanity' showed up, the tone became different, and less ado about nothing. 'At least they(we) are all thinking deeper about the resons of our choices', was the comment. So, Cecil, I've given you this as a clue to the process, to which I can relate to, when I compose. You tell me.
Little Hawk,.. Great to hear from you again. and btw, ..if it wasn't for the insurance lobbyists, bribing our 'representatives' health care would not have to be 'fixed' to be state owned and controlled....Hey, love ya'

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 03:00 AM

Oh, Little Hawk, it would be affordable too!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 11:33 AM

"will of the people", "gullabley" (sic)--

So, when all the cliches and buzzwords are out of the way, do you support Obama or not?

And if not, why not? Please try to avoid smears--we do in fact recognize them. And their use tells us clearly how seriously to take anything the poster says.

Do you support McCain in his chasing the pipe-dream of "victory" in Iraq? If you are against abortion rights, exactly why? Do you think the health insurance system should be totally overhauled or are you content with tax breaks and "portability" so all can in theory buy their own insurance--except of course for people with serious health problems?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 11:40 AM

You might be onto something there, "Sanity". ;-) Yes, I think it is the big insurance lobbyists, the professional medical associations, and Big Pharma (the pharmaceutical industry) that have created a situation where health care is way more expensive (and far less effective) than it ought to be...whether it's private health or done through the government plans. Big Pharma can't make much money if everybody gets well! It works better for them if everybody is chronically sick all the time with something or other...so why would they encourage people to adopt a better lifestyle, get more exercise, and stop eating processed garbage that makes them sick?

We've come a long way from the freedom and common sense and tried and true home remedies that governed people's lives on this continent several generations ago. We have surrendered our personal sovereignty to a bunch of high tech quacks, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 02:29 PM

To answer your questions first: I would rather vote for 'Honest John 'Fingers' McGrew', than even consider voting for O-blabbo. I wouldn't buy a used car from him, for the same reason, in fact, used car salesmen have a higher credibility rating than our present crowd of politicians(National poll has used car salesmen up 9 points over them). So when did he first compromise his beliefs? Was it when he distanced himself from the church(that one goes to worship God), because his pastor is seen ranting and raving about 'God Damn America'?? or is it because we was affiliated with radical left ('terrorist's) groups, (Ayers), is it because his voting record is nothing?(he only authored one bill, which he voted against?? Is it that they were never proud to be an American...till he won a few primaries??.... is it because he,in a speech wants to dismantle our military, and unilaterally end our nuclear weapons program?...and thats only part of the stuff reported. I don't know, seems like my kind of guy!
   As far as McCain, the waffle from Arizona?? An avid supporter of Bush?? Naw, I don't think so, for the obvious reasons..do need to enumerate those, too? We need someone who is truly outside the box, who has the balls to be not afraid of the muscle of the 'special interest'(predatory globalists), and smart enough to survive, who is truly American, in spirit, and not sold out. I can't say that about the present crowd..can you?????
   Little Hawk, I agree with you. Not only in the medical field, but in so many areas. Isn't it interesting that our 'economic stimulus' package, was 200 billion, and the big 5 oil companies profits for the last quarter, (when the package was announced) was 143 billion??? Billion!!! Come on, who greasin' who?? Just like enforcing the border laws we already have, the gun laws we already have, how about enforcing the anti monopoly laws, we already have?????? Instead, I'm sure they'll create new laws to remedy the problems we, as a people in this nation have that will further erode, and enslave us, while heaping more unchallenged power for themselves. I wouldn't say or feel this way, if their track record showed us anything different, but...it doesn't.
hey, you all have a great day!!......(unless of course you need to put gas in your car, ..or need to see a doctor?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 02:30 PM

....or need to put gas in your car, to see a doctor!!!!......in that case, you have my prayers!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 02:36 PM

What strange labels some GUESTs choose for themselves...

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 03:34 PM

I wonder how many people who say we are not a Socialist country would be willing to pay a toll for every road they travel on or would be willing to give up being able to depend on a local fire department to rescue them and their homes if they catch fire, or give up public libraries and parks, or give up having a local police department or even a military to protect them.

Actually, the people who founded this country were Socialists, because they got themselves together and formed a government, and they even said that the government had certain responsibilities, like issuing money, waging war, and collecting taxes to pay for these things. These are all examples of Socialism.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 04:02 PM

Carol, dear Carol, be healed! Tolls were originally used to pay for the road..(except the new super highway running from Mexico to Canada, Spain will get those monies) Libraries or funded by tax dollars, and private donations. Fire and police by state property taxes, parks by local taxes, user fees, lottery revenues, and donations, (unless it is a federal park). The founding fathers, collected their revenues, at that time, on tariffs(there was no income tax at that time. Postal service by stamps, and so on. The founding fathers were not socialists in the least, rather, the constitution was drafted to keep the central government limited, and out of the way of the freedoms fought and died for, to break from England, who indeed, taxed the colonies and interfered with their lives. The slogan used during the revolutionary war was, 'No taxation without representation'. Now, in light of all the taxes we pay, do you feel you are being truly represented????????? Anybody??????

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 04:17 PM

Not all roads were built originally with money from tolls. Many are payed for by the taxpayers. The road in front of my house, for instance. And the roads are maintained using taxpayer money.

All of the things I listed are examples of socialism. Any time money is taken from the citizens of a country in the form of taxes and is used collectively to pay for things that everyone has access to, that is socialism. It doesn't matter if it's federal, state, local, property, sales, or any other kind of taxes. It's all socialism.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Cecil
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 04:21 PM

No, to answer your question. Am still curious as to what kind of music you compose. Based on my observations, again, you must be on a roll. Your answers are once again clear, concise, and right on. This really makes me curious about your music!! I'll await your reply.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 04:26 PM

Constitution of the United States, Article. I., Section. 2...

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons

The "direct Taxes" mentioned above were to be in the form of property taxes and a head tax.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Zach
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 04:36 PM

Did any of you really honestly think that America would vote a woman into the White House ? Both candidates get my admiration, but Americans aren't ready for either just yet sadly.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:01 PM

Carol, Merely having a tax, to use for the common use of the citizenry, it not the same as having a socialistic form of government. I just went to another thread, about Israel, and Iran, and read your posts. You are certainly too astute,and intelligent, to make that that mistake, about socialism, and merely paying taxes for services rendered.yes, I agree that to a limited degree there were provisions to do that, but saying that socialism, is what the founding fathers had in mind, is like saying 95% of all forest fires are caused by trees!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:19 PM

Well, if there were no trees, it is a good bet there would not be many forest fires.

But why don't you guys define your terms. Obviously, the balance between individual determination and group determination is a sliding scale or spectrum. There seems to be a point of comfort in this country, a bit to the left of our present balance.

SHould the Space Program, in all its complexity and cost, be privatized? Where's the profit? How about the NEA with its grants for art? DARPA?   The Federal Parks? The highway system between states?

I don't think any of those would do well, in the hands of profit-driven private parties.

Social security seems to be well-received as a safety net for minimal support, as do Medicare and Medicaid.

Yet these are examples of a degree of socialism that in general are not qwell received by the strongly right-of-center crowd.

How about Pell grants? District and state funding of education? Aren't these "socialistic"?

Do they benefit society more than they detract?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:25 PM

To get back to the thread topic for a bit - I wonder how the people who have been so passionate for Clinton and against Obama feel when they see the target of their devotion praise the target of their vituperation to the skies and promise him every support.

The thing about politicians that people often fail to appreciate is that for them partisanship tends to be a role they slip into and out of.

It's a bit the same way with professional sport - players switch sides, and the fans feel cheated and angry.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:36 PM

Amos, If the space program was private, jeez, it might be more cost effective. But, all the programs you stated, are not the same as running the government. Do we really need all those programs just to hire people so that every service is provided by a federal employee??...so that the entire work force in America is a federal employee??? Do non-profit organizations do what they do to profit society for monetary gain, or just provide a service?..The key problem here is, somehow, people have gotten to think of 'profit' always equates to FINANCIAL profit. Some people what is profitable as more than monetary gain. Those are usually pretty dedicated people. "People have confused the pursuit of happiness with the pursuit of material gain"--Dalton Trumbo

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:38 PM

Sorry for the typo above..it should read 'TO some people, what is profitable is more than......."

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:40 PM

There are no governments that are purely socialistic and there are no governments that are purely capitalistic. All governments are a combination of both Socialism and Capitalism. The only difference is the amount of the two in relation to each other. In the US we not only have quite a lot of Socialism in our government institutions and services, but we also have Socialism in the way our money is allotted to many of our private institutions. The defense industry, for instance. The defense industry depends on taxpayer money for its survival, so the allocation of defense industry money is also socialistic. We are less socialist in terms of how well we take care of the needs of our citizens, but we are far more socialistic than any other country in the world when it comes to allocation of resources for our military-industrial complex.

The thing I notice about a lot of people who criticize socialism, is that they are happy to live with some degree of socialism in this country and in their lives, but they draw the line at that point at which they have what they want and/or need.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:42 PM

The factor that seems to underlie such programs is the notion that they are too large in scope, or too far-future in their profitability, to be viable for one individual or group to undertake them.

If the highway program were not coordinated by the central management, it would be a shambles-- the roads would change dramatically at every state or county line. Overcoming local arbitraries and greed and self-interests was hard enough even with the full leverage of Federalism behind it.

I think it is similar for other large-scale undertakings.

The big question is, what kinds of nation-wide concerns and what degree of centralized coordination? I think barking about "-isms" is less profitable than a case by case examination of how the benefits balance against the drawbacks.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:46 PM

We know for a fact that the private sector health care industry in the US is far more expensive, and does a far worse job of delivering services to US citizens than the health care programs in the countries that have socialized medicine.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 05:53 PM

Amos..You hit on the crux of the matter....BALANCE....hats off to you!!Whenever, as history shows, the balance leans too far one side to the other, there is discontent, toward the places it brings us to, and the instigators and exploiters of pushing the center one side or the other, too far...but then again..history teaches us that man never learns from history!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,lansing
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:05 PM

hey carolc if you love socialism so much, get a government grant to buy yourself a ticket for a Carribean Cruise, jump ship and swim to Cuba.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,lansing
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:10 PM

then when you find out that its not all its cracked out to be, and you make a raft to get back home, maybe the coast guard will find you out in the water, and bring you home

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:12 PM

LMAO!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:12 PM

I think some people are confusing totalitarianism with Socialism. These are not the same thing at all. Socialism is an economic system, not a political system. Socialism is not inherently totalitarian. It is simply an economic system in which resources are provided by everyone for the benefit of everyone. Totalitarian governments can use Socialist economic systems, like the government of Cuba. But they can also use Capitalistic systems, like Iran under the Shah. But countries that are have a high degree of socialism in their economic systems can also be democratic, like some of the Scandinavian countries.

I don't choose to live in a totalitarian country (although we are moving in that direction here in this country). I prefer to live in a democratic country that has a healthy balance of Capitalism and Socialism.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:23 PM

I should clarify my last post. We are moving toward a totalitarian political system, with an economic system in which private industry and government are essentially joined together. This is known as Fascism.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 06:25 PM

There is no post from me anywhere in which I have indicated anything other than a preference for a combination of the two economic systems. Not in this thread or anywhere else.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 07:27 PM

I've been to Cuba, and there were a lot of things I really liked about it. I've met Cubans who were there before Castro's revolution and who are still there and who believe very much in what that revolution accmomplished and who are staying in Cuba because they believe in their society and support it.

One of them has visited Canada a couple of times now, and he did not seek refuge here. He went back to Cuba. ;-) He believes in the revolution and is proud of Cuba.

When you talk about the Cubans who are eager to get into the USA, just remember this: there are millions of Mexicans and other Latin Americans who are equally eager to get into the USA and who would also be trying to get to Florida on rafts if the Mexican border wasn't the more obvious and easy way to go. They all live in capitalist countries, and the poor in their countries are way worse off than the poor in Cuba.

None of them are under Castro's hand, but they are just as eager as many Cubans to get into the USA. Ask yourself why. It has little or nothing to do with fleeing socialism, it has mostly to do with their desire for the affluent North American lifestyle as compared to the poverty in Latin America.

If the Malaysians or the Indonesians were sitting where Cuba is...THEN you'd see a flood of boat people that would make your head swim! And they would not be fleeing socialism, they would be fleeing poverty in a capitalist society.

All of capitalist Latin America is suffering deep poverty, and people in ALL those countries would like to come to the USA and Canada if they could...just as much if not more than the Cubans.

That's the part you choose not to take note of when you rail against Cuba and talk about Cuban refugees. It's like you're blind in one eye and can't see out of the other.

Socialism is NOT an all-or-nothing proposition, and as Carol pointed out there is already a great deal of socialism in the USA (and in Canada and in every capitalist society)...she likes it that way, because it is desirable and necessary to have it that way...and THAT is why she has no reason to have to move from the USA to some other place such as Cuba...whether or NOT she likes socialism!

How stupid are you, lansing? Don't you know that your own society, like all modern societies that exist in the world today, already HAS socialism? Lots of socialism? And don't you know that without socialism you would have no police or armed forces or even any courts or government to defend your precious freedoms? You wouldn't have public schools either. You wouldn't have a whole lot of stuff you take for granted...but don't recognize AS socialism.

"Socialism" does not mean an authoritarian system or a dictatorship or anything like that. It simply means something that is financed by government money...not to make a profit, but to accomplish something that is deemed desirable or absolutely necessary...like public schools, law enforcement, a Congress, a courts and justice system, and a standing army, for example.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 08:59 PM

I suspect there are a lot of things about Cuba that the corporate press in America does not bring us.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jun 08 - 09:26 PM

That's putting it mildly, but there's no use talking to many Americans about it. They already figure they know all there is to know about it.

The amazing thing is that Cuba is the one country in Latin America that's been trade blockaded by the USA for almost 50 years now, and they are STILL able to provide better average per capita conditions for their own people than any of the others do, and that's without Russian economic help since 1989. I was down there in 2000. I liked it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 12:16 AM

Ah-hah! Very cool. I had heard some rumours about this through the fuel cell industry awhile back.

Indeed there are viable alternative power sources to oil just waiting...but they aren't being mass marketed yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 07:24 AM

....candidates before us in the election "do not represent us and I believe puppets for something far darker". Right. The classic amorphous but all-encompassing conspiracy theory"-- blissfully fact- and evidence- free, but neatly relieving the poster of any burden to think.

That theory is actually one of the greatest hits around here.

You'll fit in great.

So, welcome.

And those of us who actually don't mind thinking will know how seriously to take anything you say.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 08:35 AM

"'....candidates before us in the election "do not represent us and I believe puppets for something far darker'."


                Ron - Deal with reality here, Obama ended up with the nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 09:19 AM

As I said, another brilliant-- yet somehow fact-free --response.

Sure is a shame it's too much of a burden for some people to think--they prefer simple answers to all their problems. Just give them an all-powerful scapegoat.

If it's not Mexicans, it's religion, or " the media", etc. Anything but grappling with their own flaws.

No wonder propaganda is so successful.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 09:45 AM

Ron - The reality is, two people might grapple with the same problem, apply the same amount of diligent effort, and come to different conclusions. It happens all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 10:09 AM

The reality for some people is that they don't grapple at all--just look for someone else to blame.   I would say anybody who's forever moaning about religion, "the media", Mexicans, etc., fits that perfectly.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 02:02 PM

i think Ron gets his input from either the goldfish on his screensaver, or the hostess at his local starbucks. ...O-Blabbo, is just another shill....We can always forgive those who bore us..we can never forgive those who we bore! O-Blabbo, only has momentum from the propaganda machine...not from anything of his accomplishments..if you can find one. He is just a reasonably good orator....He easily inspires the simple minded, who of course, don't do their homework.McLame is just plain dishonest, and a waffle

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 06:51 PM

YOur vituperaive spirit is leaking through again, GFS-- I suspect it reflects badly on the accuracy of your handle. Mister Obama (to you) has earned his own momentum thorugh the exercise of actual skill--more than I can say in your case. If you have something constructive to offer, I would be delighted to find out what it could possibly be. This dedication to nullifying others does not become you, or anyone else.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 06:55 PM

Guest from Sanity (ha!) is under the impression that this is a blog. He's just getting his jollies.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 07:54 PM

I see in today's paper that some changes are taking place in Cuba - see here Sex-change operations offered for free

"Cuba has authorised sex-change operations and will offer them free for qualifying citizens, officials said.

The move is the latest in a series of changes implemented by President Raul Castro since he succeeded his elder brother, Fidel, in February. Raul Castro's daughter, Mariela, heads Cuba's National Centre for Sex Education, which strongly backs the new policy. "

Somehow I don't think that is what the Cuba lobby in the States is after. Adding insult to injury - not just Commies but now they're coming out as Liberals as well!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 09:16 PM

LOL! Well, I am surprised by that latest revelation. I doubt that many Cubans will take advantage of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 09:56 PM

As I saId: "puppets for something far darker". Do tell. I'm sure we'd all like to be entertained by the latest theory.

Let's hear about "something far darker". It's bound to at least bring us comic relief.

It's amazing the number of people commenting on the political threads who specialize in these wonderful theories explaining everything with one handy--and terribly threatening-- scapegoat--or perhaps 2 or 3--and neatly relieving the author of the theory in question of the terrible burden of thinking.

And they all seem to oppose Obama, also. It's only the people willing to support Obama who think at all, it seems. Wonder why that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jun 08 - 10:15 PM

Oh, dear! No, Ron. You're mistaken. A number of those who see "dark forces" at work behind the political system also support Mr Obama. People just aren't as conveniently stereotypical as you wish they were for the purposes of your arguments, Ron.

It would be convenient for you if everyone who disagreed with you on every single notable issue ALSO did not support Mr Obama...but, ALAS! It is not so. ;-) Many who disgree with you on some issue or another support Obama. Nor are all the people who disagree with you on this or that issue necessarily alike in a variety of other ways. Nor are they among the clinically insane, drooling morons, or paranoid lunatics that seem to dance around in your fantasies.

Nope. It ain't the glorious and rational you versus a monolithic horde of babbling idiots, the despicable and contemptible "them", Ron, them who are "all the same". LOL! I know it seems that way to you at times, but it just ain't.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 10:02 AM

"Let's hear about "something far darker". It's bound to at least bring us comic relief."



               Barak Obama is going to prove to be another politiacl fizzle. When it's all over we'll all be calling him Dukakis Dark.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 02:15 PM

"something far darker" Would that be Guinness?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 02:18 PM

RIg:

I think you are about 180 degrees out of whack on that prediction.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 02:52 PM

Amos and Rig? Just think how one of you is going to get to gloat when it's all over and say to the other, "See! I told you so!"

Me, I'm bettin' on Chongo. Not because I think he'll win, mind you, but just because it's the right thing to do. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 09:33 PM

Maybe I'll write in Kucinich; it's the right thing to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 09:58 PM

I must have missed something..Who is 'Chongo'? As for O-Blabbo's skills, they are only at yapping...still, tell me ONE, JUST ONE accomplishment, other than talking a good talk. Talk is cheap...(his campaign wasn't)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 10:07 PM

After you get past the first part...      http://youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=khuu-RhOBDU

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 10:44 PM

Those who see the amorphous all-powerful "dark forces" are indeed--at least on Mudcat- those who do not support Obama. Those who do support him are willing and able to think, do not eagerly search for scapegoats for every problem, and know that issues are much more complex than the first group believes. (No wonder one of his greatest strengths is among the highly educated.)

If this is not so, let's have some specific examples.

"Sanity"--a bit of a misnomer, to put it mildly--fits the comfortable simplistic approach to a T.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 11:01 PM

"(No wonder one of his greatest strengths is among the highly educated.)"


                Well, that seems to be the case, however there are different kinds of education, and while one is spending one's time researching European History, for instance, there are a number of other things that same individual might be missing out on.
                The composite of diverse experiences, one would think, should be the strength of Democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jun 08 - 11:53 PM

Oh, for pity's sake, Ron, stop trying to shoehorn people into these silly generalized sterotypical groups you make up to feed your political ill will...if you spent half the energy just discussing things and giving your own view of them instead of spending so much time attacking and belittling other people on these political threads, you'd be a lot less tiresome to listen to. You have no respect for anyone who don't agree with you on some political point or another, and you seem to think that's perfectly okay. It isn't okay. Stop and wonder why they should have any respect in return for you or pay any real attention to anything you say. I think Rig just talks back to you because it amuses him...

"Sanity"...didn't you know about Chongo? He's quite famous, he's from Chicago, and he's running for president...and I am not talking about Barack Obama! NO, I am talking about Chongo. Here's a video of him at The Monkey Bar a couple of years back in Chicago, cracking wise to the bartender. Chongo is the guy in the hat and sports coat. He's worked for years as a private detective in the Chicago area and wherever a case takes him. It's tough work and the pay is usually lousy, but Chongo loves it. He only decided to run for president because he felt it was time for a REAL change in Washington, not just a cosmetic one.

Chongo at The Monkey Bar

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 12:31 AM

Oh, ok, I watched your link. Thank you for sharing that. He makes a lot more sense than O-bongo (O-Blabbo). And Ron, the thing about pseudo intellectuals is, they are intensely boring. Amos, you had a good post a while back, but then,...even a broken clock is right twice a day. You'll all have to look to Little Hawk to explain that to you..I gotta get back to the studio.....

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:16 AM

GFS:

Stay up there a while longer, this time.

It won't do your music any good, but it will improve our lives over here.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:25 AM

How is it, that you can type, and suck your thumb at the same time??

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 09:44 AM

re Hillary- Today's washington Post:

Haters Without a Cause
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, June 10, 2008; Page A23

I have sometimes wondered what would happen if the good reverends of this Earth got their way and lust -- evil, sinful lust -- vanished overnight. I fear motels and hotels would close, florists and jewelers would seek Chapter XI, restaurants would shutter, celebrity magazines would fold, divorce lawyers would have to defend the innocent, and, in general, the economy would crash. Something like this is going to happen now that Hillary Clinton is out of the presidential race.

Clinton has been a one-woman industry. By my inexact count, more than 50 books have been published about her, many of them highly critical and some so purple as to be suitable as evidence at their authors' competency hearings. One is called "Why the Clintons Belong in Prison." Another is "Hillary Clinton Nude: Naked Ambition, Hillary Clinton and America's Demise," and yet another is "Hillary's Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House." My favorite, though, is "The Hillary Clinton Voodoo Kit: Stick It to Her Before She Sticks It to You!" -- both a doll and a book of suggested spells. Given her palpable mendacity and her diabolical powers ("Hillary's Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists"), it is either dumb luck or part of her long-range evil plan that she has lost the Democratic nomination. Time will tell.

In addition to these books about Clinton, there are plenty of others that are just critical in an ordinary sort of way. This is not to say that no one has written admiringly or fairly of Clinton, but the big bucks clearly went to those who wrote with a blowtorch. I sometimes imagine the same dozen or so people obsessively buying anti-Hillary books over and over again. Otherwise, you would be hard-pressed to explain why a woman so vile got something like 18 million votes in the Democratic nominating contest.


Books aside, a vast industry of bloggers and conventional old-timey columnists clearly felt compelled to write at least one Clinton column a week, usually in scorn and contempt. Foremost among these was Dick Morris, the political consultant who once worked for Bill Clinton and was pensioned off apparently without a pension. He writes about almost nothing else. What Morris will do now, I can't imagine -- possibly start a "Draft Hillary" movement.

Years from now, historians will ponder the attention accorded Hillary Clinton and possibly compare her to Eleanor Roosevelt, another presidential wife who was inordinately admired and inordinately scorned. Maybe some historians will note that both are women and that maybe, just maybe, women come in for a special sort of vituperation -- a kind of contemporary version of burning at the stake.

The same historians might note also that many of Clinton's most persistent critics were women, and I myself have heard some of them vow that they would sooner vote for John McCain than Hillary Clinton -- even though they disagree with McCain on almost every imaginable issue, save love of country.

Was it, these historians will wonder, that Clinton did not leave her husband after his interludes with that abiding cliche, a woman half his age? This, after all, is the supposed fear of yet another abiding cliche: women of a certain age. So it is bad practice, as well as awful deterrence, for her to publicly forgive him for doing the unforgivable. I offer this topic for future historians to study since I would not, on a dare, go near it.

As for me, I too have been critical of Clinton. My columns, of course, were a model of rational thought and cool analysis, and were based entirely on the issues, such as they were. For a number of reasons, I did not think she should be the Democratic nominee, but I often had more problems with her critics than I did with her. Some of them, clearly, needed to be medicated.

Now, though, an eerie silence has settled over the land. With Hillary Clinton out of the race, thousands of computer keyboards have been stilled, dozens of books have been abandoned in mid-chapter, and enormously influential bloggers, most of them unknown to me, have vanished from the Web. Some anti-Hillary obsessives (see the latest Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) must be feeling the sickening vertigo once experienced by Vaughn Meader, whose entire show business career was based on impersonating John F. Kennedy and who, in essence, died when Kennedy did.

It's over, ladies and gentlemen. Hillary Clinton lost. And so did you.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:00 AM

That's a good article and summation of the Obama vs Clinton primary season, beardedbruce. Thanks for posting it. This line resonates most for me:

"Maybe some historians will note that both are women and that maybe, just maybe, women come in for a special sort of vituperation -- a kind of contemporary version of burning at the stake."

I'm still waiting for Obama to denounce the sexist crap.

Oh wait, he never will because he has proven that dividing the Democratic party using sexism definitely worked to his advantage.

I believe misogyny is far healthier than racism in our nation.

That is, so long as we aren't talking women of color, like former Democrat Cynthia McKinney, who also was driven out into the wilderness by the establishment good ole boys and their female surrogates, and racists of all gender persuasions. But McKinney has been reviled for being female far more than she has for being African American.

Which is why I am thrilled to have her running for the Green nomination this year. Another establishment politician running *towards* the brave new world, rather than away from it, as Obama has and will continue to do.

As to remarks about those of us who choose not to vote for Obama being from the dark side--this article speaks to that sort of idiocy too, with this dead on the money put down:

"For a number of reasons, I did not think she should be the Democratic nominee, but I often had more problems with her critics than I did with her. Some of them, clearly, needed to be medicated."

Thanks again for posting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:14 AM

Frankly, I think the dark forces of evil wanted her eliminated from the Democratic nomination so another Republican could be elected to follow George W. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:18 AM

Well, thanks for your opinion, but it's just an opinion, and obviously from a Clinton supporter. As I've stated before, between Clinton, Obama and McCain, we have no real choice. Their pasts speak for themselves...not the wishful thinking, that they were something, or stood for something that they are not. As stated before, we need another candidate, out of the box, that represent the values that a lot of the country seems to want to compromise with,..just to elect the personality of their choice..but one who has the America that made us strong..and none of these put before us, are it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: pdq
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:25 AM

The American people are so sick of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton that we want to puke.

The only way to save the Democratic Party is to banish both of them for life. Write them and suggest it be done soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:32 AM

"Well, thanks for your opinion, but it's just an opinion, and obviously from a Clinton supporter."

To whom are you directing this comment, Guest from Sanity?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:47 AM

BTW, I am an American people, and I am so fed up with the Clintons, Obamas, and McCains I want to puke.

But is banishing them the answer? No. Is censoring them democratic? No.

Level the playing field, and let other citizen candidates participate in the presidential election process who can't compete on the corporate duopoly level. Then, and only then, do we stand a chance of taking our democracy back from the corporate candidacies of Clinton/Obama/McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:51 AM

A good theory, Fantz. Not yet part of the real world, but it would be a big improvement.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:49 AM

The article you provided is pretty amusing, BB! ;-) Yes, a lot of people don't have Hillary Clinton to write furious diatribes about now, and they must be feeling quite lost....kind of the way a lot of critics and columnists and political cartoonists and standup comedians felt the day or so after Nixon finally left office.

The end of an entire critical era! (sob)

Well, there is always the hope that Hillary will somehow confound them all and RETURN to the forefront, once again wielding a commanding control over the political process and threatening to turn the entire USA into a prison camp with secret underground torture facilities and other even more terrible stuff!

So, to those whose reason for living is to expose the incredible evil of Hillary Clinton I say, don't give up hope! She may be back for another round sooner than you think.

(And I say this even though I am one of those who doesn't trust Hillary any farther than I can throw a lead refrigerator...and yes, I do prefer Obama by quite some measure over her...still, BB, I think your article makes some rather amusing and apt points.)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:49 AM

Richard Cohen sure has changed his tune with regard to Hillary over the last several months. Here's something he had to say about her back in 2007...

This week Hillary Clinton announced her health care plan. Good for her. But you never had any doubt, did you, that she was going to have one -- and a plan for everything else. The issue with Hillary Clinton is not whether she's smart or experienced but whether she has -- how do we say this? -- the character to be president. Behind her, after all, trails the lingering vapor of all those gates: Travel, File, Whitewater, and other scandals to which she was a part only through marriage. In a hatless society, she is always wearing a question mark.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/hillary_missed_her_moveon_mome.html


Perhaps he just sees it as his duty to find a way to smear whoever is the Democratic nominee (when he wrote the above, he believed Hillary was going to be the nominee).

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:56 AM

Mandatory health care presided by HMO's does not solve the economic problem of providing care for everyone. Only Single-Payer on the order of Medicare will do this.
The rest is just political posturing by both candidates. Kucinich is the only candidate that
has suggested Single-Payer and he was put out of business by the insurance companies.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 01:39 PM

GfS.:

 
  
  ........................./´¯/) 
  ......................,/¯..// 
  ...................../..../ / 
  ............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸ 
  ........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\ 
  ........('(...´(..´......,~/'...') 
  .........\.................\/..../ 
  ..........''...\.......... _.·´ 
  ............\..............( 
  ..............\.............\ 
  

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 02:21 PM

Nader has been calling for a single payer system for far longer than Kucinich has been--the latter is a johnny come lately by comparison.

And CarolC, how do you, one of the staunchest advocates of a just and equitable solution to the Israeli/Palestinian war on Mudcat, square your voting for Obama with the stands he is taking in this regard?

I am referring to his most recent dance to the tune of the US Israeli lobby as his very first act as the Democratic party nominee?

I draw your attention to this article by my former US Senator Abourezk about it over at Counterpunch here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/abourezk06102008.html

Abourezk is a respected Middle East expert, so I'm curious to see what you have to say about his article.

I expect Bobert to deny that Obama has adopted/co-opted right wing Republican stands on many issues (like this one, the Cuban embargo, a pretty bogus "health care reform" plan, etc), because he refuses to examine Obama's stands on issues even when you put them directly under his nose. He is a robot clone like Ron Davies.

But you are not generally like that, so I can't help but wonder how you are coming to the conclusion that Obama deserves your support.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 02:44 PM

I would also like to report, in regards to the Abourezk article, that Abourezk was an Obama supporter until last Wednesday, I believe, when Obama spoke before AIPAC.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 07:16 PM

Electoral politics involves people posturing and bending the truth and frequently telling lies in order to get adopted as a candidate, and then in order to get elected - and of course also to get the financial backing they need, especially in the American system, where there is no cap on how much candidates can spend, and where TV time can be bought.

It's a mistake to put too much faith in anything candidates aiming to get elected say, whether that's stuff you welcome or stuff you deplore. Whatever happens all you can do is hope they are better than you fear, even if they won't be as good as you hope. Of course it's all very unsatisfactory and imperfect.

On balance it seems pretty likely that Obama is likely to be better than the only other candidate who could be elected.

Of course getting elected isn't the only game in town, and it's not the one that Nader is engaged in. That's what I meant by "candidates aiming to get elected", because that's not the only reason for standing in an election. For some candidates what is involved is different - they are out to use the electoral process to get people thinking about certain issues and certain changes, and building a movement of people who will keep on pushing for those changes, and bringing those issues into the forefront.

And the hope has to be that that is going to have an impact on how the actual people elected will behave and put constraints on how they act. There's a pincer movement involved - and people who are working outside the system and the people with essentially similar hopes and vision working inside the system need to recognise that they both have a part to play in that rather than kick hell out of each other.

A first past the post system does screw things up - unlike one where people rank candidates, which means that votes for a campaigning candidate without a hope of getting elected won't damage a perhaps second best but electable candidate's chances, as happened in the case of Gore. Of course that's not what you've got or are going to get in a hurry. But it's silly to work up hatreds over what are essentially transient tactical decisions.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 07:22 PM

Well said, McGrath.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 08:54 PM

Pdq and Fantasma got it right, so did some of the others, and whoever said not to count Hillary out was right too. She's a slimy little witch, that might wriggle her way back in..( I hope not) The Clinton's and Bush's have enjoyed their two family dynasty, wa-a-a-y too long!! McLame has so much dirt on him, he'll do whatever his blackmailer controllers want him to do or say. O-blah-blah, changes stripes every time his past was revealed(thanks to the Clinton machine)..no integrity there. I think I'd be interested(maybe)in a Barr-Ventura ticket, but don't know if that's even in the cards. As for Amos...hey, now all you need is some crayons..then you can color you pic showing your IQ

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 09:26 PM

GFS - Remember when Jesse Ventura quit the Perot party--United We Stand--or whatever it was, when Pat Buchanon snagged onto the right to run for president under it's banner?

                      I don't see him teaming up with Bob Barr.

                      I have a lot of respect for Jesse Ventura, and I would happily support him in any number of endeavors, but I'd have a real hard time getting behind Bob Barr.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:21 PM

Rig...Ventura can't get on the ballot. He also refused to run with McLame, when he was asked. Wanted nothing to do with the republican, or Democratic parties

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 10:38 PM

With regard to my position on the Middle East and Obama's stance on it, I square it by being aware that of the three candidates who were still in the race when I voted in the primary, I think he is the most likely to shake off the pro-apartheid lobby and do something different for a change. I'm not saying he will do it, but I think he's the most likely of the three. And I really, really don't want Hillary to be our next president.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:28 PM

From the point of view you express, Carol, I can see why you don't want Hillary to be president, but it was the Bush Administration that allowed itself to be lead down the primrose path by Wolfowitz and Pearle.
                        Do you thing McCain would be more objective than Bush?
                        I do agree that on this one issue, Obama probably offers America the best deal, but, of course, there are other issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jun 08 - 11:58 PM

Of all the issues there are, for me, Obama's the best candidate of the three. I'm still a Kucinich supporter, not an Obama supporter, but I still think I would like to see what Obama will do with the presidency. So I will probably vote for him in the general election.

I'm also not happy with the Clintons because a part of the reason Mr. Bill lied about how things transpired in the round of peace negotiations over which he presided, was to help Hillary get elected to Congress. A lot of people have died because of those lies. That's way too much history for me.

I think McCain would be less objective than Obama. McCain's got the right-wing Christian Zionists to answer to.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 03:30 AM

I really don't think McLame needs to worry who he should answer to,..he'll do exactly as he's told!!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 08:26 AM

"I'm also not happy with the Clintons because a part of the reason Mr. Bill lied about how things transpired in the round of peace negotiations over which he presided,..."


                      Carol - What are you referencing here?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 12:45 PM

I see it about the way Carol does. I'm still a Kucinich supporter also (and I applaud his efforts to impeach Bush and Cheney in Congress!), but Kucinich is no longer an official candidate for president. There's only Obama and McCain (and Nader). I would prefer to see Obama get the job than McCain, given that choice. I know Nader won't get the job, but I think it's fine that he's running. I hope he gets in the debates (but I very much doubt that he will).

And I can't vote in that election anyway, because I'm Canadian.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:20 PM

Near the end of the Clinton presidency, Clinton pushed for peace talks between Arafat and Barak. Arafat didn't want to engage in talks at the time, because there hadn't been sufficient time to do the groundwork for them. But Clinton insisted because he wanted to have a successful peace process as a part of his legacy. Arafat agreed on the condition that he would not be blamed if they didn't work out.

They went ahead with the process, in which proposals and counter-proposals were made. The process continued past the first round at Camp David, and were being conducted at Taba in Egypt. At that point, Arafat wanted the process to continue, but both Clinton and Barak were at the end of their terms in office, and the talks ended when Netanyahu was not willing to continue them when he replaced Barak.

Instead of telling the truth about how it happened, Clinton signed on to the Israeli propaganda in which Arafat was supposed to have "walked away" from the peace process, and he helped them to spread this lie. His doing so helped Hillary get elected to Congress.

This lie was the cause of a lot of deaths, because the peace movement in Israel became very discouraged when they were told that Arafat "walked away" from the peace process because he didn't really want peace, and a very large number of them abandoned the movement all together and became rather bitter about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:30 PM

Everything I heard indicated that Afafat did walk away from the negotiations.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:34 PM

That's the problem. They (presidents and national leaders) play politics. If the USA really wanted peace it could have easily avoided every single war it has been in since the end of the Korean conflict, because they have all been wars which were fought entirely at the convenience of the USA...and not because of any real threat posed to the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:34 PM

Of course. That's the propaganda they put out about it. He didn't walk away from the negotiations. He wanted them to continue, but as I said, Netanyahu didn't want anything to do with them when he took office. It was Netanyhu who walked away from them, not Arafat.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 04:45 PM

Well I simply don't understand why America feels like it has to keep involving itself in Israel's business, and like I've said before, I'm tired of paying for it.

                     LH - I'm not sure that the US had to involve itself in Korea either, for that matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 06:14 PM

Yeah...well, Korea's a hard call. The USA didn't have to involve itself there, true. But given the general circumstances at the time I think American involvement was virtually inevitable.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 06:19 PM

You've got to wonder if the US had kept its nose out of WWI what the world would look like today.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 06:22 PM

Velcome to der Eiffel Tour, mein herr.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 06:53 PM

Amos, Germany defeated France decisively in the Franco-Prussian war...and France remained France. They did not all start speaking German, and the Germans went home to Germany after receiving some concessions. ;-)

If Germany and Austria-Hungary had won the First World War (a bit unlikely, I think) it would not have changed the status of the Eiffel Tower one iota. There would have been some negotiation, some concessions made here and there in border regions such as Alsace-Lorraine, and Europe would have settled down into another lengthy interwar period as the various western nations quickly got things back to a state of normality. A French government would have fallen in the first postwar election and been replaced by a new one, and much soul-searching would have been done for a few years as the French argued about exactly what had gone wrong, but France would have remained, as ever, "La Belle France". England would have remained, as ever, the ruler of the oceans and the arbiter of her own destiny.

Germany's overseas ambitions in Africa and Asia would have been given a boost, and the Kaiser's monarchy would have remained in place.

You would never have seen the rise of the Nazis!!!!

Russia would have had its revolution in 1917, and the Germans and Austrians and the rest of western Europe would have eyed the Bolsheviks with the deepest suspicion from that point on, and the Russians would have been isolated in their Soviet enclave to the East...despised and blockaded by all the western powers.

Yes, it would have been a quite different world...and perhaps a more stable one in a number of respects than what did happen.

The great powers would have been Germany, the UK, and the USA...with France falling back a little in prestige, but still a major player with an extensive overseas empire.

And those various competing empires would, I am sure, have eventually stumbled into another great war...but with who on what side exactly? That's a little hard to say.

The Germans in 1914-18 were not monsters. They were highly intelligent and civilized people like any other people in Europe. If they had won WWI it would not have ended "life as we know it" in Europe or anywhere else. It would not have resulted in the destruction of any other great national culture in Europe or elsewhere. It would not have initiated some "reign of terror". It would simply have put Germany in a more favorable and prosperous position, relatively speaking, vis-a-vis the other great powers.

And competitive imperial struggles would have gone on between the great powers...as they always do.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 10:41 PM

You may well be right, meinherr Hawk. I am not qualified to try to extrapolate that scenario with any accuracy. It is exceedingly interesting to thik the change would have obviated the later ascent of National Socialism and the Fuerher.

It is when considering questions like this that I wish Asimov's psychohistorical analysis was a real subject.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jun 08 - 11:40 PM

Why isn't it. If an enterprising history professor really wanted to teach some aspect of an element of history, he/she could simply propose that some important detail of the past was changed--Napoleon wins at Waterloo, or something--and then challenge the class to hypothesize what the developments of that would be. It would seem to me that the students would have to do a lot more detailed research than they otherwise would have to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 12:58 AM

Would have should have could have....I think Little Hawk's analysis is very interesting. I don't think many people give it that much thought. I know that Germany's woe, brought on by the sanctions put upon it after WWI were the cause of their economic downturn, and the rise of Adolf, so Hawk's theory could very easily be correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 06:39 PM

Adolf Hitler himself would have been changed radically if Germany had won that war. He would have emerged from it as a minor war hero (he won some medals for courage under fire) from a victorious army in a victorious and stable and confident country. He would not have been carrying the deep hatreds, resentments, and bitter desire to get even that the defeat of Germany aroused in him...and the country around him would have been secure as well, not good ground for any kind of revolutionary political changes such as the Nazis.

So Hitler probably would have become a painter instead! ;-) (He had some reasonable talent in that respect, and an interest in painting as a career.) He would have lived a much happier and much less notable life in that case, and done no harm to anyone in all probability.

I think that on the whole Europe (and the world in general) (and the Jews!) would have been considerably better off if the Germans had won the First World War.

But it's only a hypothetical notion...

As to what would have happened if Napoleon had won at Waterloo? I'll tell you what would have happened. It would have gained L'Empereur a bit more glory and it would have temporarily created some considerable confusion in the fortunes of the British and Prussian armies....but it would probably only have staved off an inevitable French defeat by the united powers of western Europe for another 6 months or a year at most. The jig was up for Napoleon and France by 1815. They were growing very exhausted by the wars, and desperately short of manpower for their armies. Most of the veteran French soldiers had been decimated in the last 2 decades of campaigning and there was no one to replace them but raw young recruits, and not enough of them either. The British naval blockade was unbreakable. All the great powers of western Europe were united in their desire to crush Napoleon and end his reign...and the military forces they had at hand to do it were overwhelming, ultimately unstoppable by the much weaker French army.

So Napoleon would have had one more victory feather in his cap if he had won at Waterloo, and that's all. It would not have delayed his final defeat for long.

****

Here's another interesting possibility. What would have happened if Hitler had had a bit better grasp of reality and had not attacked Russia in 1941...and had attacked them at all, in fact...but had simply continued sensibly to deal with what was already on his plate...fighting the British Empire in western Europe and the Med? And furthermore, what if he had had enough sense NOT to declare war on the USA immediately after Pearl Harbour? Those changes in decision making could have had profound effects on history.

It would have been very good news for the Russians...and rather bad news for the English...but I don't think Hitler could ever have successfully invaded the UK regardless, so it would probably have eventually come down to a mutually negotiated end to hostilities between the western Allies and the Germans by '44 or '45.

And then another pause of some years to consolidate positions...before the next great power war.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 07:00 PM

"What would have happened if Hitler had had a bit better grasp of reality and had not attacked Russia in 1941..."


                   It seems like the die was cast, and that Russia would have attacked him. But what if he'd just consolidated his holdings earlier on. He probably could have held everything he had up until that point.

                   But what about using "what if(s)" to teach history?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 07:18 PM

I don't think the Russians would have attacked Nazi Germany. Stalin was very eager to avoid such a conflict, and was happy to supply the Nazis with everything they wanted through trade, as long as they left the Soviet Union alone.

In fact, Stalin was so eager not to fight the Germans that he simply ignored repeated warnings from the British that the Germans were planning an attack in the Spring of '41. And he turned a blind eye to German reconn. flights over Russian forward areas and other obvious signs that a German invasion was imminent.

He seems not to have wanted to even consider the awful thought of a fullscale war with the Germans and the losses that it might entail for his country.

This makes it seem quite unlikely to me that he would have initiated an attack on Hitler's "Fortress Europa".

***

A more likely scenario from the Russian point of view might have been another limited border war with the Japanese in the disputed Japanese-held areas at the north edges of China and Korea. The Japanese were eager to avoid just such a scenario, because they had had their fingers burned by the Russians in the last go-round in the late 30's. Zuikov was the Russian commander there, and he beat the Japanese badly in the ground fighting, although they did better in the air combat.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 07:30 PM

700!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jun 08 - 08:09 PM

Counterfactual/Virtual History - entertaining, but in principle impossible to reach any conclusions.
...............

I sometimes find it interesting to contemplate a counterfactual history in which the French won out in North America rather than the English. I incline to think it would have been a change for the better, both in regard to the subsequent history of Europe and other parts of the world. But who can ever tell

Of course if the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is true...