BS: Edwards for VP after all?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 May 08 - 04:11 PM

"trampling on people's rights". Interesting. Hillary's campaign chairman said in January the primary season would be for 17 states--til she finished off Obama on "Super Tuesday". That was fine with him--and her.   But it seems that would have trampled on the rights of the other 33 states. But that was the plan. Too bad it didn't work.

The "people" in MI and FL whose rights are allegedly being trampled could have put pressure on their state parties not to move up their primary days. But, being big, important states, they assumed that everything would turn out to their satisfaction, regardless of their flouting the expressed will of the DNC.

And in fact they will have delegations--but it may be 50/50 or something similar.

If the DNC gives in to the wishes of FL and MI Hillary voters on this, there is absolutely nothing to prevent complete chaos next time--when all the states, knowing there is no real punishment, try to push to the start of the primary season. And the DNC knows this.

It might make a fun spectacle for people outside the US to watch--but may not be the best way to actually run Democratic primaries.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 May 08 - 04:15 PM

He is currently trying to convince everyone that the race is over in order to avoid facing the voters in those two states.

As Democratic candidate for president he would automatically have to face the voters in those two states, as well as in all the other states. And that is what he is aiming to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 05:02 PM

Jim,

We all express silly opinions from time to time. The art is in being able to acknowledge them. Predicting Obama's national defeat this early in the game is extremely presumptuous, in light of the polls and his success as a campaigner.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:06 PM

Amos:
    You almost came back with an answer free of insults.
      Almost.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: irishenglish
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:10 PM

Ok, so thats $50 on McCain. How many states will he win Jim so I can go double or nothing?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:12 PM

People who have such sensitive egos they cannot stand any criticism would be advised to try a different thread--or perhaps to get off Mudcat once in a while and be productive.

Obviously this is just a general statement--no particular people in mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:15 PM

Good luck. I can't even get him to bet a nickel on whether Hillary will run as an independent. I say she will not.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: irishenglish
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:16 PM

Damn, and I was going to buy that new ivory backscratcher.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:17 PM

Some people are so insulting towards others that I don't bother to read their submissions. I scan over them once in a while but that's about it.
Ron Davies comes to mind but there are others.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: irishenglish
Date: 22 May 08 - 06:25 PM

Jim your beef with other people on here is one thing, but don't be expecting to let off the hook when you claim it's a plain fact Obama will not win the presidency. He MAY win, he MAY lose, that's a plain fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 08:24 PM

Jim:

When I said "presumptuous" I meant it in a nice way.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 08:50 PM

"He MAY win, he MAY lose, that's a plain fact."
Sure. That's a certainty.

Amos:
When you said "We all express silly opinions from time to time." you meant that in a nice way?
That stuff gets in the way. No need for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 09:12 PM

Well, Jim, I'll lower the epŽe if you'll turn down the snidely whiplash. Because this is a two-way street.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: DougR
Date: 23 May 08 - 01:20 AM

I sincerely hope Obama selects Edwards has his VP candidate.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 23 May 08 - 01:31 AM

Thank You.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:13 AM

"He MAY win, he MAY lose, that's a plain fact."
Sure. That's a certainty.

Not so. He could get shot or have a heart attack. Or even, stretching the possibilities a bit, Clinton could win the nomination.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: bobad
Date: 23 May 08 - 10:27 AM

"While Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and her advisers insist that she is determined to win the Democratic nomination, friends of the couple say that former President Bill Clinton, for one, has begun privately contemplating a different outcome for her: As Senator Barack Obama's running mate.

    The reports about Mr. Clinton's musings surface as the Obama camp has quietly begun the process of searching for a partner on the Democratic ticket."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/23/us/politics/23veep.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 May 08 - 08:24 PM

Gee, Jim, what made you think the reference to sensitive egos had anything to do with you?   I mentioned no names.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: frogprince
Date: 23 May 08 - 11:34 PM

I'm a little late getting to this but:
"Actually, not that it matters in the slightest but Obama is actually a Muslim.
He may reject it for the rest of his life and that's his choice but according to their laws he is one of them"
Jim, you might consider going to the "effective arguments" thread and checking out the links on logical fallacies.

And as to "one of the most powerful women", sorry, Bobert, but Fantz does have a right to call you on that phrasing. Other feminists I've known would have called you on it too, but they would have smiled and made you squirm a little, not ranted at you. I once referred to a fellow student as "one of the brightest women in this class." I had no intention of implying that she was bright "for a woman", but I a couple of women promptly (without a bit of meanness) called me on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:14 AM

"Not merely is she one of the brightest people in the class, she is one of the brightest women in the class."

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: frogprince
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:33 AM

There ya go, Mcgrath; I should have told 'em that's what I meant! : )

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:55 AM

Okay, gang, that "womanz" thing is like beatin' a dead horse... When Ebbie sat me down in the corner fir a little quiet time I realized that I had mis-spoken... Big whup... I went thru this back in the 60's with this "person", Jessica, who beat me up over it over and over...

But back to Jim Lad's little swiftboating game... Better get used to it, folks... Ever hear of "American Survival, Inc."... Well, if not, you will... This is an anti-Obama 527 Swiftboat Liars for McCain think tank that is in the process of figuring out which lie to spend the 527 $$$ on...

Here are a few that are under consideration:

1. Obama was "mentored in high school by a member of the Soviet-controlled Communist Party"... Joe McCarthy would love that one..

2. "That he launched his Illinois state senate campaign in the home of a terrorist and a killer."

3. "That while serving as a state senator, he was a mamber of a socialist front group."

4. "That his affiliation are so didgey that he would have trouble getting a governemnt security clearance."

5. "That there is reason to doubt his loyalty to the United States."

This are just starters...

(Source: Washington Post, "Obama as You've Never Known Him!" by Dana Milbank, May 23)

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 May 08 - 10:48 AM

What's interesting is that there are any Mudcatters willing to spread this sort of garbage--and implying approval of parts of it themselves. So the question remains: are they racist or just abysmally ignorant?"

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 08 - 01:24 PM

The ability to think--to look at propositions and assess them for falsity,consistency, or hidden intent, among other things -- is not as common as the ability to sound off on a forum. They seem to be independent variables.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 24 May 08 - 05:29 PM

Ron,

There are only two kinds of folks who get into swiftboating... People who have financial interests and folks who are duped by folks with financial interests...

Which category Jim Lad falls into only he knows...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Stringsinger
Date: 24 May 08 - 05:46 PM

Hillary and McCain have literally no foreign policy experience since neither of them have a clue as to diplomacy. They are simplistic saber-rattlers. The Hanoi Hilton is not the best credential for foreign policy decisions. The question should be asked why he was there in the first place when Vietnam was such a fiasco? Comments about "obliteration" of Iran belies any sense of foreign policy expertise. Why is it that some Americans think they can bully their way into fostering their ideologies on other countries especially at the point of a gun or a bomb? This general deterioration of the analytic processes of the American public is the real enemy. "We have met the enemy and it is us"......Pogo (Walt Kelly)

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 May 08 - 05:36 PM

Actually the Pogo quote is "We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us." Or rather WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US" - the capital letters provide for an interesting ambiguity...

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 11:34 PM

I often reflect on what sort of mindsets and channels of thought were established in the early lives of McCain and Barack. McCain learned courage and military views; he learned persistence in the Hanoi Hilton, and survival; he came out with unknown scars in his body, heart and psyche. Small indicators -- such as his origination of the Bomb Iran joke and the speed with which he came up with the hundred years in Iraq remark (even though he played it down later) seem to point to the fact that he has a part of his mind firmly lodged in militarism.

Barack Obama had a very different exposure to life in his formative years. He was raised in a confluence of white, Buddhist, Muslim and other groups in Indonesia and Hawaii. He came of age in Chicago learning to hold his own on rough streets, but more important, to find common ground and build consensus. He is no shirker from confrontations, but he is not a militarist.

McCain learned the horrors of war first hand. Obama seems to me to understand them instinctively.

McCain is in the stage of life where his own mortality is a continuous whisper in his evenings. Obama is in the stride of his young manhood.

I think it will be a close race between them, but I believe the deep latent racism of some of the American people will be moved aside by the hopeful ajnti-racism of the youth vote. I believe McCain's inherent militarism will be rejected by those who have seen what5 a futile solution unnecessary war is.

So Rig, I think you are a tad off base.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 26 May 08 - 08:36 AM

I'm not sure what it is that I'm "off base" about, but I think the racism issue is worth looking at.

                   There are some people like Neo-Nazi's and Ku Klux Klan members and sympathizers who think one race of people are either superior or inferior to others. These people are obviously racist.
                   There are others who have been victims of programs like "affirmative action" and minority set-asides in contracting, who want to see those programs ended.

                   When a candidate announces that he/she wants to continue these minority based programs, and a voter votes against that candidate because the voter wants them ended, is that racism? I think the media will interpret those actions as racist, and that will skew the results for those of us who believe that it's not.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 May 08 - 11:42 AM

If anybody is against "affirmative action" it may be interesting to note that Obama has said that his own daughters should be in the general pool of applicants and not receive special consideration on the basis of "affirmative action". He may be moving towards a economics-based interpretation of this idea. We'll see what develops.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 26 May 08 - 11:53 AM

The deep latent racism of some classes of voters IS a factor, Rig, no mistake. I think, when I have had my coffee, that we have a chance of overturning it. To do so would(by electing Barack Obama) (in addition to being a politically Good Choice) also set a phenomenal precedent for the US.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 May 08 - 07:21 AM

That's precedent or president?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 27 May 08 - 08:31 AM

There are definately degrees of racism... It's not like a light switch where that it's all or nothing...

Yes, the KKKers certainly represent the the extreme... They have burned down hundreds of black churches, have lynched black folks in my life time, have shot and killed demonstrators in Greenville, N.C. in my life time, have killed civil rights leaders in my life time... This is extreme behavior...

Then there are folks not alot unlike the folks who live here in Page Co., Va., who accept black folks as long as black folks "act white" but will freely tell ya' that they won't vote a "colored man"...

I think it is important to be mindfull that generalizations are not part of the "solution set"...

Also, I have to agree with Amos in his observations about both McCain and Clinton... Each, with their campaign "styles", he telegraphed who they are are and how they might go about setting foriegn policy... Both seem to think military first, diplomacy when first fails... How that differs from the Bush foriegnpolicy escapes me...

Obama, on the other hand, has been "respectfull" of his adversaries... Respect, IMO, will get US further toward a sane foriegn policy than the current one of bluff, blunder and bombs...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 28 May 08 - 12:44 AM

Racism, sexism and ageism will all play out in this election.

If the American public can rise above those three types of discrimination, the best will be chosen. Unfortunately, most voters will see their choice as voting for a black man, a woman or a very, old man. I have problems with all three but Obama is by far the best hope, especially if he chooses the right V.P.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: mg
Date: 28 May 08 - 01:02 AM

Why do you say white, Buddist or Muslim? Whites can of course be either religion. It is an odd set of categories. It could be white, green or purple, which are colors, or Buddist, Muslim or Methodist, which are religions.

Also, Obama in many areas of the world would either be a patriarch or dead by now. He is middle-aged and certainly should not be considered young, except perhaps by the society for perpetual adolescence. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 May 08 - 05:27 PM

To be accurate that should of course have been "Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, agnostic, black, white and brown..."

I can't see why they keep on about Obama being over young for the job, when he would be older than either Kennedy or Bill Clinton were when they became president.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 May 08 - 09:16 PM

The medial community had not developed Viagra when Kennedy was in office, so he just seemed older at the time.