 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse....
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Bobert Date: 23 Feb 08 - 08:13 PM We4ll, well, well... The ol' gal has cracked... Yeah, in Twxas today she had a complete melt down ovetr an Obama mail-out that went out a couple weeks ago... Problem is that the things that Obama said in it were factually correct... So Hillary says today that, in essence, she had enough of treating Obama with kids gloves and that she is going to whup up on him in next weeks debate??? What, 19 deabtes down and now she is gonna whup him??? I think that the Clintons are desperate... You have Bill yelling at people... You have Hillary yelling at people... What next??? Chelsea screaming??? No, better yet... Dig up their dead dog, Buddy, and have hinm bite someone... Man, geeze oh, Pete??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 23 Feb 08 - 08:16 PM Oh, just what the forum needs, another let's drink the Obama Kool Aid and sing Kumbayah together thread. I understand there is now therapy available for those suffering from this heartbreaking delusional disorder, also known as the Obama Messiah complex. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Alice Date: 23 Feb 08 - 08:22 PM Bill and Hillary yelling? What's new about that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Sorcha Date: 23 Feb 08 - 08:25 PM Haven't seen it. What happened? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Sorcha Date: 23 Feb 08 - 08:32 PM Never mind, I found it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 23 Feb 08 - 08:37 PM My, my aren't the Mudcat censors busy this week. One has to wonder what is so awful about my opinions that they cause the Mudcat censors such great offense. Agreed, GUEST,Guest. The post was within bounds of the rules and I have undeleted it. There was no personal attack involved. Mudelf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:01 PM I expect you couched your dissent in virulent ad hominem remarks, dripping with hateful sarcasms, Gigi. That's what usually gets trimmed out around here, and I think you know that perfectly well. You don't have a very strong stomach for disagreement yourself -- you accuse those who see differently of drinking Kool Aid, being deluded, being over-sensitive, being stupid, herd-beasts who just aren't intelligent enough to see the REAL scene as you are privileged to do. And of course, they are also guilty of arrogance. Seems to me your accusations are just revelations of your own core self-doubts. Cheer up -- you can outgrow this. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:05 PM Actually not, Amos. But nice try. This week, I was also censored for having dared express a list of movies I'd seen recently in the "Seen any good movies lately" thread. That is the level someone here is stooping to, in order to silence me. I'm playing by the rules as well as anyone else is. So why the double standard? It isn't like I'm pulling a Martin Gibson here, or even a Gargoyle. So this whole game is pretty damn hypocritical. And you know, other people here watch my innocuous posts get disappeared by the Mudcat censors, and say nothing. I suppose out of fear they will be next. Yeah, Mudcat is a downright Republican Rovian kinda place these days. Agreed, GUEST,Guest. The post was within bounds of the rules and I have undeleted it. There was no personal attack involved. Mudelf |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:26 PM Well, wouldya PM me the list? I am always interested in good movies. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Bill D Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:34 PM PM??...PM?? why sure...I'll bet he'll join just to do that! (You sure you were censored,GG? Posts get lost. I'm surprised that anyone's movie list would be censored.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:46 PM Nope, it posted. And then, within about 10 minutes, it was censored, just like the ones in the movie thread. But hey--I'm quite certain all you members like things just this way. You were the ones cheering on all the changes that led to censorship by the moderators, after all. Hear no dissent from Mudcat group think, see no dissent from Mudcat Group Think, tolerate no dissent from Mudcat Group Think. It's the Mudcat Golden Rule. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Sorcha Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:50 PM So, who ARE you really, Guest Guest? I mean I know a Mr. Guest, but he uses a handle here....and He isn't YOU, I know. Let us know how you really feel, eh? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Melissa Date: 23 Feb 08 - 09:51 PM Would it be possible for you to make broader sweeping statements/judgements? This thread is about Buddy..not you, gg. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Don Firth Date: 23 Feb 08 - 10:42 PM "Mudcat group think." That's really stupid, GiGi. There is a great diversity of opinion among the people who frequent this place. But if a few people don't agree with you that Ralph Nader walks on water and can save the country and therefore we should all vote for him, then it's "Mudcat group think." Jayzuz, GiGi, get a life!! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 23 Feb 08 - 10:50 PM Putting all the Sturm und Drang to one side, she says Barack's fliers painted her in a false light. He says the fliers were factual. Seems to me it would be simple enough to sort out what he said in the fliers and whether or not it was true. For example, he accused her of voting to support the war in Iraq without reading the intell brief dissenting from the WMD story. She said very few Senators read the intell brief -- preferring to attend an oral brief (much less information).. Is that an answer? No. Is it a dodge? Perhaps. If she did not read it AND she voted for the war (which at the time she did) then the statement is true. This is simple propositional logic, and has nothing to do with histrionics. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Janie Date: 23 Feb 08 - 11:10 PM Bobert, I just looked at the video, though I had read the news report this morning. Vehement? Yes. Blowing her fuse? No. Irritated? Yes. Visibly angry? I don't think so. I don't think that strong an adjective would have been applied to all the headlines had it been a male candidate speaking with the degree of emotion she exhibited. I hear a lot of Dems say they think Clinton makes too many people mad to be as electable as Obama. They may be right - I'm still pondering that one. And there are a number of reasons given about why it may be that she makes people mad. The more I watch, listen, and read, however, I think the main reason she makes people mad is because many Americans react that way to a powerful, assertive female. I am tending to think, more and more, that Obama's race is no deterent to his electability, because he behaves, speaks, and sounds like any well-educated, powerful and poised White man. I think White Americans don't really identify him with the dominant African-American culture of the USA. If he were the same person he is, with the same history, same positions, etc., etc, except that he had dark skin, more negroid features, a "Black" accent, and that wonderful, oratorical style of so many Black leaders who have come from behind the pulpit, enough of the White majority would be threatened and alienated that they wouldn't begin to think of voting for him. If Clinton was just exactly as she is, including her speech, delivery, positions, etc., but were a light-skinned Black woman, people would tend to get even more pissed with her. If she were dark-skinned and otherwise had the accent and personal rhetorical style of the dominant African-American culture, then she would REALLY evoke fear and anger in the majority White voting population. I'm offering an opinion based on observation, not a value judgement. I'm curious about what the reactions of people to these two candidates suggest about the current attitudes within our society regarding race and gender. Nor am I saying this because I have decided to support Clinton. As I become more informed, I am not enthusiastic about either candidate, although, given the alternatives, I will gladly campaign for, and vote for either one in the general election. At this point, however, when I try to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each against the other, I find the scales pretty much balance. I watched the ABC video. According to the ABC commentator, Obama's flyers are in fact, misleading. They leave out the half of the information that maks clear what her positions on these issues really are. (big surprise - it is a campaign, and campaigns always do their best to distort the facts.) It is why I am rarely interested in the campaign propaganda of one candidate about other candidates - and struggle to try to read between the lines of what they say about their own positions. What ever is being said in a campaign is so completely full of spin that it should never be accepted at face value. For me, the campaigns always destroy my trust and belief in the integrity of any major candidate. It isn't possible to have integrity and behave ethically and be politically successful. Yeck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:21 AM Yeck, is right, Janie. I predicted Obama's aura, no matter how energized, will have some streaks in it before November. He has entered a machine that ages people and ten times normal rate and eats their consciences up with slow torture. I wish him well, because I think he is a genuinely decent man with a compelling idea of what we could become. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:31 AM It is the same scary scenario as 2004, IMO, when everyone--but especially the anti-war majority of the Democratic party, silently lined up behind Kerry like automatons, and pulled the lever. Anybody But Bush is now Anybody But McCain. My greatest fear is history will repeat itself, and it will be yet another 8 years of Republican war mongering, which will result in our nation being completely bankrupted by the successive corporate Republicrat regimes. This may well happen with or without Obama as the candidate. But there is als a possibility, if the backlash gets serious, you will see a whole lot of folks in Texas and Ohio swing back to Clinton the known quantity on March 4th. And then all this "Obama is a shoe-in" talk will have been all wrong again too. The problem is still that the Democrats, including Obama, don't stand for anything identifiable that will truly change people's lives. That is where Obama sounds like an empty suit. He keeps talking about changing politics, not people's lives in authentic and meaningful ways. And he is now deeply in debt to the corporate masters financing his campaign too, don't forget. Why people think he is progressive, I'll never know. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:50 AM That's a well thought out post in a number of ways, Janie, and I agree with a great deal of it. However, here's the interesting thing...to me. You said that "Obama's race is no deterent to his electability, because he behaves, speaks, and sounds like any well-educated, powerful and poised White man. I think White Americans don't really identify him with the dominant African-American culture of the USA. If he were the same person he is, with the same history, same positions, etc., etc, except that he had dark skin, more negroid features, a "Black" accent, and that wonderful, oratorical style of so many Black leaders who have come from behind the pulpit, enough of the White majority would be threatened and alienated that they wouldn't begin to think of voting for him." Okay, here's the way I would put it. He doesn't sound like a well-educated, powerful and poised White man. He sounds like a well-educated, powerful and poised person, period. And that's GOOD. Do you remember the way Sydney Poitier sounded in the splendid movie "In the Heat of the Night"? He sounded like a well-educated, confident, poised person. He didn't sound Black or White. He could have been any color. He was just articulate, well spoken, and thoroughly impressive. I remember a lot of Black people back then who were like that...I knew some personally...but how many of those Black people do I see on American television nowadays? Almost none! No, I see the stereotypical TV Blacks jumpin' and yellin' and jivin' and practically turning themselves inside out showin' everyone how BLACK "they is". Gimme a break! It's damn silly. What I mostly see on American television nowadays is this ridiculously exaggerated way of speaking and acting that has been aggressively marketed as a walking cliche of the supposed "Afro-American" in movies and TV since roughly the late 60's. It's mouthy, loud, crude, often very arrogant, ignorant-sounding and obnoxious behaviour for the most part, and it does no good service to Black people at all, in my opinion. It's a way of ghetto-izing Black people and separating them from everybody else. I went out for a while with a woman from the UK who happened to be Black. She didn't sound like an "African-American" as I see depicted on the usual TV shows. Nope, not at all. She had taken on none of the cliche mannerisms seen on American TV. She sounded like any other English middle-class person, well-spoken, articulate, polite...just as articulate as Sydney Poitier or Mr Obama. She had grace and elegance. So do Obama and Poitier. So you're right that because Obama doesn't sound "Black" (in strictly the present American cultural terms ONLY...and they are pretty gross)...yeah, because of that he doesn't scare the White mainstream. Well, maybe it would be nice for a change for Black folks in North America to have more role models like that who don't pander to the ridiculously exaggerated supposedly "Black" stereotypes that have been foisted on Americans now by about 4 decades of relentless TV and media marketing...the ludicrous characters like you see on all the sitcoms...trying so damn hard to be "Black" that it has to be seen to be believed. Does anyone ever try that hard to be "White"? Or "Asian"? I sure hope not. It would really be something weird to see, I must say. I'd rather see someone who just acts like an intelligent person and you could shut your eyes and hear them speak...and you would have no idea WHAT race they belonged to. That would be a big step forward, seems to me. A racial group does not build itself a stronger identity by turning itself into a completely exaggerated stereotype. As for the Black preacher style of oratory you allude to...it can have its charms, yes, Martin Luther King did well with it, and so have some others...but I would suggest that a White politician employing that kind of dramatic speaking approach would also scare off and alienate a lot of voters. You bet. Obama doesn't sound like he belongs to any specific race. He just sounds like a smart, capable, confident human being. Would a Native American (Amerindian) speaker sound better if he did public speaking in an exaggeratedly LOW, DEEP voice, used expressions like "heap good", "paleface", and "ugh" frequently sprinkled through his dialogue and had a bunch of typically Native moves and poses to dazzle the audience with so as to make sure they NOTICE at all times that he's a Native American and proud of it? NO. He'd sound ridiculous. He'd be turning himself into a stereotype. Obama is not stereotypical. He's not a poster boy for his own racial identity...and I say, that's GOOD. It suggests strongly that he can think outside the box of racial identity altogether. If so, he has great possibilities, because we all need to think outside of those boxes a whole lot more. We need to learn to think outside the box of our gender...our race...our culture...our nationality...and even our species, if we are to become all that we can be, and truly be free. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Don Firth Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:55 AM Progressive? I never really considered Obama progressive. The one real progressive in the race got ignored, shouldered aside, and eventually dumped. That doesn't mean I'm going to vote Republican, however. Or for Ralph Nader! If Nader announces his candidacy on "Meet the Press" tomorrow morning, there will be great rejoicing among the Republicans. I consider Obama the best of a lot ranging from totally unacceptable up just so-so. But that's not saying a helluva lot! Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Janie Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:00 AM The best political defense the American people have against corporate interests in the general election, under our present system of financing campaigns, is a high voter turn-out and a clear voter mandate for the winner. And this needs to happen over the course of at least two presidential elections. Will that happen? Who knows? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:05 AM And, GG - Well, it'll either be a Democrat or a Republican that gets elected, right? There's no other way, because the USA media won't give real coverage to anyone else, and the USA financial backers won't fund anyone else. So either way...you lose. What's worse? Obama? Or Hillary Clinton? Or McCain? You'll get more war, in all likelihood, regardless. I hope I'm wrong about that...we'll see. And what would happen if they didn't all "line up in lockstep" to stop McCain? What difference would that make? How about if they all just stopped caring and didn't vote at all? (I mean the people you don't agree with here...) A Republican or a Democrat would STILL get elected, and they basically serve the main machine, you know...the one that has all the money. So what do you want people to do? There IS no one people can vote for, come election day, who isn't deeply beholden to the machine. If there was, you wouldn't have heard much about him or her during the campaign, and you wouldn't have seen him or her at too many debates either, would you? It's a closed shop. The machine picks who you get to vote for on election day (two choices)...and then you vote...or you don't. That part's up to you. Either way, the machine gets one of its people elected. That's how it works. You are never going to perfect the imperfections of contemporary society, GG...that's just too big, and it's not what you're really here for. You are here simply to perfect yourself (gradually). That's my opinion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Little Hawk Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:12 AM "The one real progressive in the race got ignored, shouldered aside, and eventually dumped." Yep. The machine didn't approve of him. People like that have virtually no chance at all of becoming a party's official presidential candidate, because they are anathema to the system...and the media will not give them fair or equal coverage. They will be ignored, laughed at, and censored...as was the case with Kucinich. The system is right now pouring many millions of dollars into an effort in Cleveland to make sure he does not get elected to Congress again. He was quite an embarassment to the system's election process during the past year, so they've decided he's got to go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Azizi Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:12 AM Janie, I'm writing in response to your 23 Feb 08 - 11:10 PM post that included the statement that you think that "Obama's race is no deterent to his electability, because he behaves, speaks, and sounds like any well-educated, powerful and poised White man." You also wrote that you "think White Americans don't really identify him [Obama] with the dominant African-American culture of the USA." Janie, your comments sadden me. I wonder what people who say that Obama is acceptable to them because he doesn't speak or act like a "real" Black person think "speaking Black" really is. And I wonder what those people {whether they themselves are Black or they are non-Black} think that "acting Black" really is. Janie, I also wonder what you mean by the "dominant African American culture" and how you or other people would describe that culture. I get the sense that the description would not be positive. And let me emphatically say Janie that I'm not calling you a racist. I've come to know you over time as a result of reading your posts and exchanging posts with you on this public forum and via private messages. I know that you aren't racist. But if even you accept that viewpoint about race that you articulated in those comments about the acceptability of Barack Obama, as well as your supposition about a lighter skinned Hillary Clinton versus a darker skinned Hillary Clinton, then we're even further from the end goal of a time when race and skin color doesn't matter than I thought we were. I'll end as I began. Janie, your comments sadden me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Big Mick Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:32 AM How the hell does this get so twisted? The point of the Clinton and Obama campaigns and the fact that they are real candidates with a high likelihood of winning, is exactly that the race and gender are only historical in that they are the first with any real chance of winning. No one speaks for me, or I suspect, most Americans. It is why I found NOW's comments on Ted Kennedy so disturbing, in accusing him of betrayal. The fight has always been about eliminating skin color and gender as a criteria. The struggle has been to get the United States of America to stop limiting the use of its brain trust to the less than half of the population that is male and white. I am sure that Obama makes it easy for white America to vote for him, for the reasons that Janie laid out. But that isn't the main reason, or even a major reason, IMO. He makes it easy because he raises hopes, and articulates the same message Bobby Kennedy did all those years ago when he said, "Some people see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say why not?" I just have more faith in the voter than others, I guess. I think we need to quit holding these two fine candidates to such standards. Hillary is lashing out because she needs to recapture her momentum. I am sure she will slip. I am sure Obama will as well. That is the nature of the beast. But if we continue to cannibalize ourselves, and forget that the goal is to change the very dangerous course that the good ship USA is on, we will have doomed our children and ourselves to a very ugly future. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Azizi Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:36 AM Little Hawk, I've just read your comments about this subject. Let me say this-I recognize that you probably mean well. But still.... I found it interesting, Little Hawk, that your list of descriptors of television images that "ghetto-ized" Black people included "often very arrogant". Is "arrogant" the politically correct way of saying "uppidity"? How often have you read that Barack Obama is too arrogant? And what are these people really saying? Also, isn't "mouthy, loud, crude,...ignorant-sounding and obnoxious behaviour for the most part", in the eye of the beholder? While I certainly think that some Black people and some non-Black people are too "mouthy, loud, crude,...ignorant-sounding and obnoxious", it's possible that we might not agree on who we would attribute those descriptors to. How about George W. Bush? Do you think he is crude, obnoxious, and ignorant sounding {if not mouthy and loud}? I certainly do. Also, with regard to Barack Obama-I believe that there are certain Black speech aesthetics such as call & response chanting and colloquial expressions which originate in African American communities that can be found in Barack Obama's speeches. and I don't think this is put on. I think this is really how Obama talks and writes. I'll end with these comments. I'm too full of-whatever-to write anything else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Janie Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:26 AM Azizi & Little Hawk, I'm going to try to respond to both of you, in part, in this post, and hope to come back tomorrow to address each of your posts more specifically. When I used the phrase "dominant African American culture," and the term "White majority", I was speaking in very broad, general terms. I was speaking from the broad perspectives of sociology and social psychology. Not stereotyping - but generalizing in very, very broad, societal terms. I also said I was offering an opinion based on observation, not a value judgement. That does not mean I do not make personal value judgements. It means I set my own personal values and judgements aside to the extent I am able ( one can never completely do so, but one can be aware that one can never completely do so and attempt to compensate) , and pick up my my education, training and experience in sociology, psychology and social psychology to observe and describe what is, and to reach some glimmer of understanding of the whys and hows of what is in terms of what we know about how the mind works and about societal processes. If the thread doesn't go on to the point that for me to come back to finish is meaningless, I'll try to come back tomorrow (today) to finish. But it's 3:22 am. and I am probably not very coherent, so I'm gonna say goodnight (or should it be "good morning?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: goatfell Date: 24 Feb 08 - 04:26 AM I'm from Scotland and I hope that Hillary get's in because Barack Obama is a liar, and he uses other bits from others people speeches which as far as I know is a crime |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: John MacKenzie Date: 24 Feb 08 - 05:17 AM Well I did laugh at the comment by Amos, that Hillary preferred an oral brief to reading an intelligence brief. That seems to be a Clinton family failing, preferring the oral to the alternative. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Bee-dubya-ell Date: 24 Feb 08 - 08:27 AM What? Buddy's dead? But they told me they'd only sent him off to live on a farm in the country.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 24 Feb 08 - 08:44 AM Azizi, it may be how he talks and writes, but I rather doubt that he was raised to talk and write like that. Don't forget, he isn't doing his own speechwriting, as the gaffe w/the plagiarized speech showed. He was also arrogant about the speechwriting thing--which I'm sure lost him a few votes among people those things matter to. Now, I'm not among those who cares much about that issue, but I do care some. Not because of the cheating factor, but because it shows he plays loose and fast with rules of decorum that matter a lot, especially in terms of foreign diplomacy. We have very informal rules of etiquette in this country compared to many others. While I appreciate Obama not wanting to be condescending to other nations, in the eyes of many a political leader in other countries, not following protocol and decorum would be considered a huge diss. So as I listened to him in the debate, I thought to myself, why aren't his people reining him in on this stuff? He just comes off as not being very knowledgeable in the area of foreign affairs and diplomatic relations (which he isn't, clearly). I had the same problem with his response to questions about opening relations with Cuba, where he said, in essence, he wouldn't follow those rules of diplomacy in his attempts to reach out to the so-called enemies of the US. It was such a sleazy answer, because he didn't say he would just end the embargo on day 1. He said he would meet with whomever replaces Castro. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: kendall Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:15 AM Did you forget that what he said about words really mattering came directly from the man who first spoke about them to him for his use? He did not steal them, he did not cheat. You may assume that his every word comes from speech writers, but Hillary has speech writers too, is it simply a matter of him having the better writers? He strikes me as being intelligent and well spoken on his own. Those who can't stand "Uppity blacks" can can either grow up, or go to Hell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:31 AM Gigi: In fact he does write most of his own speeches and your remark about the few phrases that he borrowed from a friend is just empty inflation. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Bobert Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:34 AM I agree, Capt'n.... The root word in "uppity" is "up"... Heck, the establishment has made a livin' off telling black folks to pull themselves "up" by their bootstraps even when many times there are no bootstraps... So along comes Obama, does just that and now some want to paint him as "arrogant"??? Beam me up, Scotty... B~ p.s. Like I said a long time ago, even if Nadar announces his candidacy today, I'm going to take a pass on voting for him this year if Obama gets the nomination... No0t to9o sure about Hillery the Hollower... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:53 AM Kendall, for the record, I agree with you. I don't believe he did steal or cheat, because his speechwriter is the same speechwriter who gave the words to the Massachusetts governor to use. Technically, those are the speechwriter's words, not Obama's or Deval Patrick's words. It is the APPEARANCE of it that may end up mattering in the fall, if he becomes the nominee. Just like the Dem nominee will continue trying to use the McCain lobbyist thing against him in the fall. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 24 Feb 08 - 09:56 AM And BTW, the first thing Obama did was admit he should have cited Deval Patrick when he used the same words. Those are the rules of the speech making game, and he knows that. He did the right thing to come out right away and admit there was an error in him not making the attribution. But that doesn't mean his opposition--Clinton or McCain or the Republicans or the right wing media--will let it go. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 24 Feb 08 - 10:08 AM As for the Cuba position, I don't see anything sleazy about it. Two nations seeking to change a twenty-yar old, unprofitable relationship, need to talk. Unilateral "preemptive' policies in the absence of communication are just shortsighted. Ask W. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: John MacKenzie Date: 24 Feb 08 - 10:17 AM Yup, it's time the Mafia ruled Cuba again G |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,frayedknot4u Date: 24 Feb 08 - 10:23 AM Obama isn't change we can count on, it's change we can XEROX!! CLASSIC!!! I feel California Happy Cow Meditation is necessary at this point. Anybody got it? Mike |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Big Mick Date: 24 Feb 08 - 11:36 AM Tim Russert, on Meet The Press, showed two examples of Hillary doing precisely the same thing. She used almost exact quotes of her husbands speeches from years before, and John Edwards speeches from previous times. They were so close as to be damn near a quote. Later, on Chris Matthews, they played a clip of a Dana Carvey bit from SNL back in the GHWB days where he asked "Who do you want answering the phone at 3:00 AM..?". Again, so close as to be scary. This is a desperate grab that will not serve her well, in fact it will cost her votes. Her flip in the span of 3 days from being honored to be on the stage with Obama to her chastisement last night, again, will hurt her. In my political roles, I have had a bit closer exposure to her than many folks, and I must tell you she would be a wonderful President. But the thing that is so important right now, at this moment in the history of the grand experiment known as the United States of America, is to have a leader with a vision, one who inspires, one who makes us believe in things that never were. She is the technocratic visionary, and he is the visionary that brings a belief in what is possible. If he is nominated and elected, his vision will be realized so long as he surrounds himself with the best and brightest, and because folks believe in him and will support his goals. I am not sure the same can be said for Hillary. Should she prevail, I believe she will be fighting for every improvement, and doing it with a meat axe approach. And the beltway denizens know all about that stuff. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: kendall Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:09 PM When FDR entered the White House, he had no clue what to do or how to do it. What he did have was brains enough to bring in people who DID know.I see the same ability in Obama. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:22 PM A spicy comparison from Maureen Dowd. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Charley Noble Date: 24 Feb 08 - 12:56 PM Amos- I like the last point in the article, that snacks don't cut the mustard. I also agree that this thread is grossly mistitled. Clinton has replaced her "fuses" long ago with "circuit breakers." Cheerily, Charley Noble |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 24 Feb 08 - 01:38 PM Kendall: Well, and succinctly, said. Charlie: Glad to be of service. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:27 PM Comparing Obama to FDR is an apples/oranges comparison. Obama ain't no FDR, no matter how shiny and new, and feel good he might be. He ain't rich enough, white enough, or connected enough to be an FDR, for starters. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:56 PM Oh, bull. There are a number of attributes that are perfectly comparable that have nothing to do with rich, white or socially connected. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 24 Feb 08 - 03:59 PM Sure there are Amos. But we are talking about the corporate Democratic party here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Slag Date: 24 Feb 08 - 04:17 PM I just had to look, didn't I? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST Date: 24 Feb 08 - 05:23 PM Trojan Horse, GG... What, do you really think that the corporatists are gonna let a known anti-corporatist in??? Look what they did to Dennis Kucinich... Right now we have two proven corporatist workhorses in McWar and McClinton... And we have Obama... It's a no-brainer... Can I prove that Obama will be the Trojan Horse??? No, can you prove that Mc & Mc won't continue the sam old, same old since they have both pretty much promised to do so??? B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: kendall Date: 25 Feb 08 - 08:36 AM Those who tend to poo poo hope, as Hillary is doing, don't seem to realize that negative energy can only produce negative results. Think about it; for instance, if I gave up hope of ever being able to speak again, what's to stop me from checking out? To live in a world where there is no hope of improvement is the ultimate Hell. I've had some very low moments, feeling sorry for myself, pissed off at my fate, asking, "Why me"? etc. but hope always kicks in and I'm still doing all I can to get my voice back.Without hope, I might well have joined the choir invisible some time ago. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 25 Feb 08 - 09:04 AM But it is every bit as dangerous to put all your hopes in a single hope basket too. Hope should be broad and encompassing. I am not hopeful about any of the three corporate candidates, yet I have a tremendous amount of hope about the future, regardless of who wins in November. My hope doesn't hinge upon one candidate or one party winning in November, because I know that is a false reality, a false choice--it is all illusion, really. What we do in our daily lives--regardless of whom is selected by the ruling elite to serve their interests--doesn't dictate my level of hope or my level of despair. People need to learn to let go of that illusion. Bush/Cheney, Inc. doesn't have to hold that level of power over you, if you choose to not let it. Now, it is a far different story for the human beings living on the other end of his policies, to be sure. But that is a different kettle of fish. Clinton bombed the Balkans back to the Stone Age, let us not forget, and ignored the genocide in Rwanda. It was pretty dire for them, as it is for Iraqis right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,strad Date: 25 Feb 08 - 09:25 AM Unfortunately, we get the politicians we deserve. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 25 Feb 08 - 10:11 AM You speak well, Gigi. Generically, hope is like air -- when it gets soured, life gets a lot harder. But the source of hope is not external, just as you point out. Revitalizing hope on a national scale is, however, a very positive thibg to do, IMHO because it taps into suppressed potentials and energy and wakes them up some. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Peace Date: 25 Feb 08 - 10:14 AM "Hillary Blows a Fuse" Whew. Good to see the rest of your post, Bobert. Thought it was another oral sex scandal to do with the Clintons . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Feb 08 - 12:19 PM This stuff about "plagiarism" really is total crap. I am sure that essentially the same point, using essentially the same examples even, will have been made in conversations and discussions a myriad times. And I am quite sure that all of us who spend excessive time taking part in online discussions will use arguments and examples that we've picked up from other people along the way time and time again, without the need for obsessive attributions. There are two main reasons for putting a name to a quote. The main one is because it's a way of reinforcing what we are saying by bringing in a respected person as a kind of ally. The other reason as an act of courtesy towards someone who might see it as a slight to be quoted without attribution. But is there supposed to be some rigid rule that every time we use a quip or a neat phrase or a joke which someone else had used first - and probably didn't even make up themselves, we have to give chapter and verse? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Peace Date: 25 Feb 08 - 12:24 PM I only ever said one original thing in my life. If I have to attribute everything to someone else, the end notes will be copious. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 25 Feb 08 - 01:26 PM PEace: Man, you sure coulda fooled me!! LOL Um...which one was it??? A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Little Hawk Date: 25 Feb 08 - 01:58 PM It was an obscure comment he once made linking dachshunds with global warming. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Peace Date: 25 Feb 08 - 02:02 PM Thanks for jogging my memory. It was this: "Dogs are dogs; dachshunds are dachshunds; global worming is global warming." My life work in a nutshell. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Feb 08 - 02:06 PM If that crops up in an Obama speech without you getting a credit, you should definitely make a fuss about it, Peace. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 25 Feb 08 - 02:41 PM Or publically step forward and tell the folks you emailed it to him. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: kendall Date: 25 Feb 08 - 03:00 PM GUEST, what have you seen that makes you trash Obama like that? Facts,please, not opinions based on nothing. I believe that a vote for McCain is a vote for endless war and 4 more years of failed Bush policies. Why? because he said so himself. He said we could be in Iraq for another 100 years, and he is now supporting Bush's tax cut for the rich while the middle class sinks into poverty. So, what are your opinions based on? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Peace Date: 25 Feb 08 - 03:24 PM "Dogs are dogs; dachshunds are dachshunds; global wArming is global warming." So much for my life work . . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 25 Feb 08 - 03:46 PM Ah, man, dinna chafe or fasch thysel'...you'll get another one. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Bill D Date: 25 Feb 08 - 03:53 PM no, no...I think perhaps the globe might NEED to be wormed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 25 Feb 08 - 08:14 PM Us talking without quoting someone is one thing. It is another thing entirely when a presidential candidate does it, using the words of a living politician, even if they are best buds and share the same speechwriter. Obama admitted that--and apologized. But he didn't agree it rose to the level of plagairism. I think that satisfied most everyone. But if they make the same mistake a second time, he won't be cut any slack. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 25 Feb 08 - 08:28 PM "...another thing entirely" Seems much the same thing to me. If Obama felt it polite or prudent to apologise, fair enough. But there wasn't really anything that needed an apology - and I gather the other bloke said as much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 25 Feb 08 - 08:53 PM McGrath, now you just sound ignorant. All of Obama's speeches are being recorded and will become part of the nation's historic record in the Library of Congress. EVERYTHING candidates and their spouses say is a big deal. Plagairism, had the charge against him had merit, would likely have resulted in him needing to drop out of the race. Because you don't give a shit about it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things, just like the fact I don't give a shit about it doesn't matter in the big scheme of things. It matters to the people it matters to, and they are people well connected to power and privlege. It doesn't matter what the other bloke says in a case of plagairism. What matters is the act of committing it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: fumblefingers Date: 25 Feb 08 - 09:00 PM Obama has a gimmick going for him. He's half African. But he isn't a descendent of slaves. He doesn't have the accent of most native born blacks. He's well educated, speaks well, and doesn't seem to have the "them vs. us" baggage that so many so-called black leaders have. His record at the national level is very liberal, which probably suits most people who frequent this BS forum. He hasn't done much of anything and is for the most part, an unknown quantity. He speaks in generalizations and platitudes, which makes it difficult to discern what he intends to do should he become president. Apart from the promise to raise our taxes and come up with a new health system, his intentions are unclear. The three leading candidates are all US Senators. Senators are deal makers, not decision makers. None of them have any real managerial experience. The president's job isn't an entry level position and therefore I don't like any of them for the top job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Don Firth Date: 25 Feb 08 - 09:11 PM This whole "plagiarism" nonsense is a tornado in a teacup, and trying to make this big a deal out of it is just plain silly. Not to mention, downright petty. But then, that's the nature of politics, I guess. At least Karl Rove style politics. Notice a tiny piece of lint on a candidate's clothes. Pick it off, feed it steroids, then braid it into a noose and try to hang them with it. Don Firth |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Ron Davies Date: 25 Feb 08 - 11:41 PM I suspect that unfortunately Hillary's switch to angry partisan will actually help her. She couches it in terms of being willing to fight for the voter's interests, while implying that Obama will not. One of the talking heads over the weekend (I heard it on the radio) was counseling her to do exactly that--to change from an appeal to the voter to support her to a pledge that she would be a fighter on behalf of the voter. Voters like fighters--fighting for them. And Hillary can do this very effectively since voters also like simple answers--"universal health care--no exceptions" or "freeze on interest rates". Many will not stop to examine these slogans--Hillary's health care mandate means you must buy it even if you don't want it. And the freeze on interest rates may well make it hard to get mortgages. She believes in the KISS principle--and it works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Feb 08 - 12:16 PM What kind of Health Care scheme you actually get is surely going to be more dependent on what kind of Congress you get than on what kites the Presidential hopefuls have flown in the course of their campaigning. ............................. The fact that something is part of the historic record in the Library of Congress isn't in itself significant, unless the thing is significant in itself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: irishenglish Date: 26 Feb 08 - 12:50 PM Gigi-what I find funny about all of your posts on all of these political threads the last few days is that although well informed, you are very reactionary at the same time. This country has the attention span of a nanosecond. Hence Michelle Obamas verbal gaffe has been replaced by Hillary blowing a fuse, which was replaced by the plagiarism charge,which was replaced by Nader's impact, which was replaced by the turban controversy. If anyone but the muckrakers remember this in a week, I will be astounded! None of this stuff is really sticking on the national level because there is something new everyday, and there probably will be until March 4. By which point Nader will scratch his head and say...maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all this time. And previous posters suggesting that no matter how you spin the words, all 3 of the major candidates are following the same "mold" as to how to get elected is true. So the way I see it, we either need to get "close" to how we feel things should be personally and vote for that candidate, or not even bother because they all suck one way or another (Nader included). That to me would be the worst thing. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Bobert Date: 26 Feb 08 - 01:03 PM Well, well, well... If plagerism is the main concern here then folks better buckle their seatbelts 'cause it's gonna be a long campaign with only so many things to say... I mean, how many ways can one ask the American people if they are ready for another 100 years of occupying Iraq??? I mean, lets get real... These speeches are going to get more and more like "the same old tune, fiddle and guitar"... Everyone is borrowing stuff... It is rediculous to have every candidate interupt his or her speech with endless footnotes... Try somethin' else 'cause this dog won't hunt. B~.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Feb 08 - 01:15 PM Do politicians ever gives credit for the jokes they include in speeches? Or for that matter acknowledge the input from a speech writer? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: irishenglish Date: 26 Feb 08 - 01:24 PM If they did it would sound like an NPR discussion on the mating habits of a sand flea! Hillary-"What the real problem is....quoting my press secretaries wife's daughter's classmate from July 29, 2007 is...." No one has ever thought to discuss plagiarism in a spoken word speech before, the written word yes. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 26 Feb 08 - 01:25 PM Clinton's hopes to use Ohio as a firewall in her falling campaign suffered another blow today when former Cleveland Mayor Michael R. White, who had earlier backed Clinton, also endorsed Obama. "As an African American, I am proud to see Barack Obama make such an extraordinary effort to become the president of the United States," he wrote in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "But being black is not enough for me to vote against my friend. I am voting for Barack because he has rekindled my hope again through his experience, vision and leadership for change in a political system that has gone so awry." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: irishenglish Date: 26 Feb 08 - 01:31 PM Amos-thanks for that. A tough, gutsy decision no doubt, but what he has said is the reason I have been for Obama as well. My wife supports Clinton now, but as she said, this is an historic election, and whatever the outcome of the Democratic primaries, we will see something truly unique. That's not to forget about Geraldine Ferraro, but this is really something (as long as the Dems hold on of course!). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: irishenglish Date: 26 Feb 08 - 01:38 PM For the record I should say that in the early stages and up until he withdrew I was supprting Edwards. I figured Clinton and Obama were going to cancel each other out in a manner of speaking, and Edwards would be there waiting. Ah well, can't always be right! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Feb 08 - 01:48 PM From the Washington Post: Hillary's Diminishing Returns By Richard Cohen Tuesday, February 26, 2008; Page A17 There is dissension in the Hillary Clinton camp. Top aides have been in arguments, shouting back and forth about differences in strategy. Should Clinton come on strong? Should she go negative? Should she be upbeat and positive? Here's my answer: Stop campaigning. The evidence is overwhelming that since Super Tuesday, the minute that Clinton steps foot in a state, her numbers start to plummet. Of course, Barack Obama has something to do with it. He's a phenomenon, a political version of Roy Hobbs, "The Natural" of Bernard Malamud's wonderful novel, whose physical repose is TV perfect and who will, when the time comes, provide a jarring visual contrast to the much older John McCain. Obama is nearly as good as he thinks he is. So it could be that Clinton would lose the Democratic nomination even if she were a gifted politician. But she has no such gift. Her smile is strained. She is contained. She seems unknowable, and there is that melancholy Billie Holiday air about her -- all those songs about a suffering woman. Most of us would prefer Fleetwood Mac's "Don't Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)," the upbeat theme of Bill Clinton's first presidential campaign. It might seem surprising that Clinton has turned out to be something other than a brilliant campaigner. But consider her record. Back in 1999, she entered the New York Senate race in the manner of Marie Antoinette entering France -- to be ultimately crowned queen. When Clinton announced an interest in running, every other potential Democratic candidate -- Andrew Cuomo, Rep. Carolyn Maloney, even Al Sharpton -- took it as an order to vanish. The strongest of these, Rep. Nita Lowey, graciously stepped aside, as if Clinton was the real McCoy and a six-term member of Congress was an undeserving interloper. Back then, I wrote that there was "something wacky" about what was happening. Clinton, you might recall, was hardly a New Yorker. No matter. She had never won an election in her adult life. No matter. She was virtually inexperienced on her own. No matter. She was first and foremost the wife of Bill, and for party leaders and hypocritical feminists -- Lowey was a woman, too, for crying out loud -- she just had to be The One. With the Democratic senatorial nomination in hand, Clinton was set to go up against Rudy Giuliani. This would have been the great matchup between two suits inflated with little but name recognition, but it never came to pass. Giuliani withdrew on account of prostate cancer, and Clinton wound up facing . . . can you remember? It was Rick Lazio. Even so, Clinton did not win really big -- 55.3 percent of the vote. Not a landslide. Six years later, Clinton ran for reelection. Once again, she had no Democratic opponent, and in the general, she faced a Republican named John Spencer. He was little known before the election, hardly known during it and so forgotten afterward that I expect a segment of the show "Lost" to be devoted to him. Clinton won in a landslide, 67 percent of the vote. But just two years earlier, Sen. Charles Schumer (D) had gotten 71 percent of the vote -- and no one ever mentions him as a presidential candidate. In many ways Clinton is a remarkable woman, but she is not proving to be a remarkable politician. Big-money Democrats have been on the phone of late, and their conversations have been on how to get Clinton out of the race. Some of these Democrats were tepid Clinton backers to begin with, wishing to go with the presumed winner or responding to the soft extortion of Bill Clinton and his allies. But others were sincerely committed and now fear that the Clintons, she and he, will not know how to lose -- and will take the Democratic Party down with them. Politics can be ugly, not to mention sad. Broken dreams are strewn across the American landscape. Fred Thompson resigned from "Law & Order." Chris Dodd moved his family from Connecticut to Iowa just for the caucuses. Mitt Romney blew through a fortune. John Edwards campaigned through personal pain. The difference between a presidential candidate and a fool in love is only a matter of Secret Service protection. For Hillary Clinton, a loss has to be particularly tough. The presidency is not just the ultimate honor for her. It is, as others have suggested, a justification for all she has put up with. My cards are already on the table. I don't think that Clinton can win the nomination, but even if she does, I don't think she will win the general election. That would become apparent as she starts to campaign in states that have yet to see her. The harder she works, the worse she does. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: DougR Date: 26 Feb 08 - 08:04 PM Go Hillary! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Feb 08 - 08:10 PM That's always an ambiguous slogan.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Riginslinger Date: 26 Feb 08 - 09:59 PM Frankly, I just don't see how Obama can win in the general election. Rank and file voters vote for Hillary when given a chance. Caucuses have to go or we'll pertentually have a Republican president. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 26 Feb 08 - 10:17 PM Yeah, I didn't think Obama could be Clinton, but I was wrong about that. Obama might be able to win. If he does, he probably can't be worse than Bush. But I reserve the right to say he is worse than Bush if he actually turns out to be worse than Bush. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 26 Feb 08 - 10:28 PM I not only grant you that right, I reserve it for me as well!!! But ya know, I am seriously doubtful that could turn out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 27 Feb 08 - 08:37 AM Why would you think it isn't possible to a couple bad presidents in a row? I happen to think it is the only option available to us under the current system. Clinton, as a president, sucked. Bush I also sucked. Reagan was the last 'good president' in terms of what he accomplished, even though what he accomplished was an abomination when it came to civil rights in the US & human rights in the world, and sent us spiraling into the apocalyptic environmental scenario we are now facing, by gutting the EPA. Oh, and then there is that FCC thing... But the fact is, he accomplished all that. And an argument can be made that Bush/Cheney finished the job and sealed the deal. An argument can be made that Bush/Cheney have been extremely good at their jobs--they have railroaded Congress to get their initiatives passed more successfully than any administration since FDR put through the New Deal. Again, their policies have done more to destroy democracy at home and abroad than any president since I'm not really sure who with their Good Ole Texas imperialism and empire building, and draconian civil and human rights record. Not to mention, watching smugly while the environment goes up in flames. But hey--the Dems haven't done jack shit to counter any of that stuff, even when they had the opportunities to do it. So, in my estimation, if Obama sucks at the job of being president--which means forcing your policy initiatives through a dead on arrival Congress--we will just keep sinking into the abyss. We need an environmental crisi president, who will overturn all the bad civil & human rights legislation day one, and start to face reality instead of playing ideological politics with the fate of the planet. Nobody on the conventional political two party horizon will do that. Nobody. So just how do you expect things to be better because we have a Coke president instead of a Pepsi president? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: kendall Date: 27 Feb 08 - 09:04 AM So, vote for Nader. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 27 Feb 08 - 09:09 AM That's the plan, for now anyway. But that is a protest vote, aimed squarely at the loser Dems, telling them it is time for the progressives to take back the party and throw the DLC & corporate Democrat bums out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 27 Feb 08 - 10:24 AM I think Obama is as progressive as you can get into the job. THe system (and the country) has too much inertia to have a white-knight solution, carving the Gordian knot into smithereens with one heroic election. That's a fine dream but there are too many vectors and too much inertial drag to change things that way. The closest we have to a viable Trojan Horse is Barack Obama, and any vote in support of that is a bet on the improvement of the future -- even if it is not as fast an improvement as you would want to have in your dreams. In a world where millioons have to synchronize their dreams into action, or stagnate with the Republican alternative, the options are few and the path out is obvious. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Big Mick Date: 27 Feb 08 - 04:45 PM The key, Amos and Gigi, would be for Obama to initiate a change program that would show progress towards the goals needed, and in surrounding himself with the right cabinet, one that would be viewed as change agents for the working/middle class. Otherwise he ends up on the same pile with Carter. The problems confronting our country over the next 50 years are enormous. He must craft a policy with vision that folks can see, and feel committed to. Much like what Roosevelt did with his efforts. Our society is pretty cynical, which is why a guy like Obama is so necessary, but he must be bold. All the best, Mick |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Little Hawk Date: 27 Feb 08 - 05:07 PM Yes, he would have to be very bold. And he would then have to physically survive being that bold for the duration of his first term....a difficult proposition in these ruthless times, I think. If he has the guts and the will to do it though, I wish him the best of luck. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 27 Feb 08 - 05:49 PM Yes. ANd above all he must speak truth to power, and to the country; if he is perceived being duplicitous or tapdancing, he will probably alienate his own base as they gradually see politics as usual where they prayed for an agent of change. His reputation for saying the truth clearly is his most valuable asset, IMHO. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: GUEST,Guest Date: 28 Feb 08 - 07:50 AM He ain't speaking truth to power--he is speaking to his choir and his funders. Middle class voters with a lot to lose, and the corporados who rushed in the minute they smelled victory. Nearly every single person in the Obama inner circle are former Clinton policy hacks and appointees. Now, I might be cynical about the current crop of candidates, just like I was with the last crop. But at least I know my presidential election history. They blamed Wallace for nearly losing the election to Dewey (he pulled about as many votes as Nader did in 2000). Later Wallace turned away from the Progressive Party and denounced them as the cozy with the commies party. But at the time, he was definitely the most progressive candidate and on the right side of most issues of the time, like segregation and universal health care. It's important to remember too, I don't think I ever could have voted for the candidate who dropped the bomb. The only president to use weapons of mass destruction against humanity. The 'end the war' presidential solution we all fear a Republican might use, when the reality is, the only president who ever used it was a Democrat. So it isn't always just cynicism driving the decision making of people like me. Sometimes it is the knowledge that power corrupts far too easily. I think Obama is far more likely to succumb to that than Clinton. Which is why I think Clinton is the marginally better choice. But they are both so revolting to me I could never vote for either one of them. I don't do 'strategic' lesser of two evil voting. No matter what. I refuse to throw my vote away with my conscience, especially when it means it allows the politicians to throw out theirs in the exchange for my vote. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 28 Feb 08 - 11:16 AM power corrupts far too easily. I think Obama is far more likely to succumb to that than Clinton. Which is why I think Clinton is the marginally better choice. I admire your intense conscience, lady. My thought on the same question is that Clinton has already succumbed to the corruption of power, and has more to hide than Obama does. Power corrupts easily. Yet, we must have someone in power, clearly, under the present scheme. What's the antidote to corruption? Self knowledge, character, and an understanding of the insane consequences that stem from insane acts. IF those are the antidotes, seems to me Obama is better supplied with the anti-venom than Hillary is, especially because she has Bill the deal maker riding on her long coattails. This is not to say Obama is golden or bulletproof or saintly. I am sure he is none of those. But he strikes me as a person who values honesty, while Hillary, Bill and Bush all share (in my view) the sense of expedience as the senior good, a principle that leads to disaster and breeds blind spots like maggots on a dead civil-rights worker. A A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Bobert Date: 28 Feb 08 - 11:46 AM Half the battle in solving the massive problems that confront the US is ending partisan bickering... To that end, Obama appears to have a nack for turning confronttaion into cooperation... Hillary just can't get anything to stick to him... Nor will McWar... This is why Obama should win the nomination and win in Novemeber, as well... Even the Repubs understand that things have gotten purdy messed up under the stubborn and scretive Bush administartion and if these same Repubs don't play a little nicer then the voters are gonna put their party out to pasture... Not that the Dems have been different but the Dems are the ones gettin' ready to take the wheel and Obama can be a good role model for them... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: irishenglish Date: 28 Feb 08 - 11:49 AM Agreed Bobert! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 28 Feb 08 - 02:44 PM John McCain -- HOPE YOU CAN'T VOTE FOR. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 17 Apr 08 - 10:52 AM "During the past week, Sen. Hillary Clinton has presented herself as a working class populist, the politician in touch with small town sentiments, compared to the elitism of her opponent, Sen. Barack Obama. But a telling anecdote from her husband's administration shows Hillary Clinton's attitudes about the "lunch-bucket Democrats" are not exactly pristine. In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach. "Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them." The statement -- which author Benjamin Barber witnessed and wrote about in his book, "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House" -- was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats." It stands in stark contrast to the attitude the New York Democrat has recently taken on the campaign trail, in which she has presented herself as the one candidate who understands the working-class needs. "I don't think [Obama] really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you and not looks down on you," she said this week. But those who were at the event say the 1995 episode fits into her larger viewpoint. As Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship who was at the retreat, told The Huffington Post: "[Hillary Clinton] sees herself as the champion of the oppressed, but there is always a kind of good guy versus bad guy mentality. The comment before that was that 'the Reagan Democrats are our enemies and they weren't on our side,' and she was agreeing with that comment. She said we should write them off: screw them." ... (Huffington) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 17 Apr 08 - 11:04 AM "Let's stop pretending: it's over. Done. Nice run, but time to hit the showers. Last night's debate -- in which Clinton, to her credit, generally refrained from the kind of egregious negative campaigning her campaign focused on before the departure of Mark Penn -- eliminated any possible remaining doubt, not because Obama "won" but simply because he didn't destroy himself. Clinton's only real chance to win the nomination was for Obama to make a tremendous gaffe - so tremendous that he self-destructed and all the remaining Superdelegates turned to Clinton as the savior of the party - and the only place a hyper-intelligent guy like Obama would possibly slip up is in a highly public, unscripted setting like a debate. But he didn't slip up, and it's starting to look like there won't even be any more debates. At this point the entire endgame is predictable. Clinton, like a good chess player, can easily see that the remaining moves inevitably lead to checkmate; it's time for her to tip over her King and concede defeat. ..." M.S. Bellows in the Huffington Post, 4-16-08 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Bobert Date: 17 Apr 08 - 11:26 AM What the hey, 100... Obama/Richardson '08... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Ron Davies Date: 17 Apr 08 - 09:55 PM Right you are, Amos. I can just see the headline in the New York Post: "Hillary On Blue Collar Workers: Screw 'Em" Perfect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 20 Apr 08 - 07:48 PM The Clinton Chronicles present mind-numbing evidence concerning her "fully vetted" background. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 21 Apr 08 - 01:29 PM IGnore my previous post. I think, having looked into it a little further, that the "Clinton Chronicles" are pretty overdone, intentional defamation. While there may be grains of truth in the stories, it is impossible to sort out at this point, without investing a lot more time than I have, anyway. Der Spiegel remarks: "She's begun to look desperate -- at least as far as she's hurt her own poll numbers with a fake anecdote about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire in 1996, or with snide denunciations of MoveOn.org, the grassroots movement which has been a crucial source of support for Democrats in the last two elections. She claims MoveOn has intimidated her own supporters in early caucuses and primaries. Her latest campaign ad claims, "Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney energy bill that put $6 billion dollars in the pockets of big oil." There's no mention of the fact that the bill, which was supported by many Democrats in Congress, actually raised taxes for oil companies and promoted investment in renewable energies. Chop, Falsify, Spin Clinton is following a game plan that Republicans brought to perfection in campaigns against her (in her run for the Senate) and her husband Bill (during his time as president) -- chop, falsify and spin, until something falls apart. The latest example is Bill Ayers. In the '70s he belonged to a left-wing radical group, the Weather Underground. In those days Obama was just a child. Now Ayers is a professor at the University of Illinois, and in 1996 he threw a fundraising dinner for Obama's state senate campaign. The Clinton campaign has thrown the connection to a "radical" back in Obama's face. She has also accused him of "elitism" -- a label that sank John Kerry in 2004 -- after Obama said it was no surprise that after eight years of Bill Clinton, and eight years of George W. Bush (and 25 years of Rust-Belt unemployment (more...)), some "bitter" small-town Americans "cling" to religion and guns. At the same time, she made sure to be photographed downing beer and shots of whiskey in various places around Pennsylvania -- as if she were a woman of the people and not a multimillionaire...." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Donuel Date: 21 Apr 08 - 01:57 PM Bobert, kid gloves are a soft leather sometimes made from goats. Kid's gloves are tiny gloves made of thinsulate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Peace Date: 21 Apr 08 - 01:58 PM Saw the title of the thread and thought for a second she'd taken over where Monica left off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: jacqui.c Date: 21 Apr 08 - 02:27 PM Have you noticed that over the past few weeks the lady has been 'dressing down"? I think that this is a deliberate attempt to give the voters of Pennsylvania the idea that she really is 'one of them' and not a multi-millionairess whose normal wardrobe would probably cost more than a lot of the voters earn in a year. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Jack the Sailor Date: 21 Apr 08 - 04:38 PM Peace! That doesn't say much about Bill! Fuses are tiny! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 24 Apr 08 - 02:07 AM "...I was one of those people Barack accuses of being willing to settle. I even had framed a flattering autographed message from Hillary. But as the campaign has gone on and on, her signed portrait still leans against the wall in my study. I don't know where she belongs anymore. At least Hillary was a known quantity in my life. I knew of the danger of her becoming more and more hawkish as she tried to break the ultimate glass ceiling. I also knew that she could be forced to change course if public opinion was fiercely opposed to the war. And I knew she was familiar with radical social causes from her own life experience in the sixties. So my progressive task seemed clear: help build an antiwar force powerful enough to make it politically necessary to end the war. Been there, done that. And in the process, finally put a woman in the White House. A soothing bonus. But as the Obama campaign gained momentum, Hillary began morphing into the persona that has my pacifist wife screaming at the television set. Going negative doesn't begin to describe what has happened. Hillary is going over the edge. Even worse are the flacks she sends before the cameras on her behalf, like that Kiki person, who smirks and shakes her head at the camera every time she fields a question. Or the real carnivores, like Howard Wolfson, Lanny Davis and James Carville, whose sneering smugness prevents countless women like my wife from considering Hillary at all. To use the current terminology, Hillary people are bitter people, even more bitter than the white working-class voters Barack has talked about. Because they circle the wagons so tightly, they don't recognize how identical, self-reinforcing and out-of-touch they are. To take just one example, the imagined association between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers will suffice. Hillary is blind to her own roots in the sixties. In one college speech she spoke of ecstatic transcendence; in another, she said, "Our social indictment has broadened. Where once we exposed the quality of life in the world of the South and the ghettos, now we condemn the quality of work in factories and corporations. Where once we assaulted the exploitation of man, now we decry the destruction of nature as well. How much long can we let corporations run us?" She was in Chicago for three nights during the 1968 street confrontations. She chaired the 1970 Yale law school meeting where students voted to join a national student strike again an "unconscionable expansion of a war that should never have been waged." She was involved in the New Haven defense of Bobby Seale during his murder trial in 1970, as the lead scheduler of student monitors. She surely agreed with Yale president Kingman Brewster that a black revolutionary couldn't get a fair trial in America. She wrote that abused children were citizens with the same rights as their parents. Most significantly in terms of her recent attacks on Barack, after Yale law school, Hillary went to work for the left-wing Bay Area law firm of Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, which specialized in Black Panthers and West Coast labor leaders prosecuted for being communists. Two of the firm's partners, according to Treuhaft, were communists and the two others "tolerated communists". Then she went on to Washington to help impeach Richard Nixon, whose career was built on smearing and destroying the careers of people through vague insinuations about their backgrounds and associates. (All these citations can be found in Carl Bernstein's sympathetic 2007 Clinton biography, A Woman in Charge.) All these were honorable words and associations in my mind, but doesn't she see how the Hillary of today would accuse the Hillary of the sixties of associating with black revolutionaries who fought gun battles with police officers, and defending pro-communist lawyers who backed communists? Doesn't the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Hillary attacks today, represent the very essence of the black radicals Hillary was associating with in those days? And isn't the Hillary of today becoming the same kind of guilt-by-association insinuator as the Richard Nixon she worked to impeach? It is as if Hillary Clinton is engaged in a toxic transmission onto Barack Obama of every outrageous insult and accusation ever inflicted on her by the American right over the decades. She is running against what she might have become. Too much politics dries the soul of the idealist." Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream...Tom Hayden |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Riginslinger Date: 24 Apr 08 - 08:20 AM He should have never left Jane Fonda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 24 Apr 08 - 12:25 PM I am sure Hillary would make Jane scream too. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Riginslinger Date: 24 Apr 08 - 12:44 PM I don't think I'll touch that one! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Amos Date: 24 Apr 08 - 01:42 PM Hillary Makes Jon Stewart Laff--well worth watching. If only we were ALL good Republicans... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Hillary Blows a Fuse.... From: Leadbelly Date: 24 Apr 08 - 02:52 PM A horrible couple for to govern the US: Mr.(Dr.?) Bill Jekyll and Mrs. Hillary Hyde. What a nice feeling is coming on. Americans are a miracle to me. Do they ever learn, do they ever learn... |
