BS: Voting for Hillary?

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.