BS: Edwards for VP after all?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:21 PM

Not exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 May 08 - 10:07 PM

"The quality of Rig's judgment is also well established."


                  As beyond reproach!

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 May 08 - 11:43 PM

Thank you, Jim, for your input. Be sure to vote at your local polling place for the person you feel is best qualified to be US president.   The quality of Rig's judgment is also well established.

Re: Hillary's position in the Democratic party: I don't think anybody alleged that she was the most powerful person in the party. But it's certainly true she is--at this point--it may well change soon--one of the most powerful people--not just powerful women-- in the party.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: balladeer
Date: 20 May 08 - 07:02 PM

I don't believe Fantasma or Ebbie meant to suggest Sen. Clinton is the most powerful Democrat, but rather one of the most powerful Democrats. The point is, power is power and strength is strength, and it seems to weaken those qualities if you attach the word "woman" to them, like saying, "She's a pretty good (fill in the blank) for a woman."

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 May 08 - 06:05 PM

"There is a vital difference between saying 'she is the most powerful woman in the party' or saying 'she is the most powerful person in the party'. In the first phrasing, one is saying that there are others - meaning men - in the party that are more powerful.

I wouldn't question the distinction being made there. But at this time it seems as if the truth is that while Hillary Clinton probably is indeed "the most powerful woman in the party", she is not "the most powerful person in the party'. Barack Obama has a better claim to that title, for the time being at any rate.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 20 May 08 - 02:23 AM

"Well, Fantasma, when Obama was choosing his religion as an adult, it looks to me like he made a pretty poor choice. If those are the kinds of choices he would make as president, the whole thing gets kind of scary."

Could have said it better myself!

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: balladeer
Date: 20 May 08 - 12:13 AM

Fascinating reading.
As a British-born Canadian and life-long student of US politics, I really appreciate the skill with language, breadth of knowledge, and acute political insight so many of you bring to this topic. I know I'm an outsider to your political process, but I do tons of research. For entertainment, I watch Wolf Blitzer daily (love Jack Cafferty) and to have any kind of voice, I maintain an episodic blog at MyBarackObama.com I think all of that qualifies me to have an opinion, which today is that Barack and John Edwards looked very good together on that stage - all kinds of young charismatic energy and enthusiasm - and pretty much intellectual equals. I'm glad the race issue has shown itself in the public debate so early, and I'm hoping John Edwards' presence in the campaign will help reassure the fearful that Barack is not a monster.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 May 08 - 10:12 PM

"The Music Man" Ron?

                Here's a man named Obama
                Whose name starts with "O"
                Which rhymes with Ho'
                Which stands for...

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 May 08 - 09:34 PM

Janet--


It's amazing how dealing with you reminds me of the "Music Man"

Are you sure you're not from Meredith Willson's 1912 Iowa? "There's an Iowa type, a special chip-on-the-shoulder attitude we've never been without--that we recall".

So it appears that Bobert--and by extension, Amos and I--were wrong in not designating Hillary one of the most powerful people in the Democratic party, not just one of the most powerful women in the party.

This has been explained to us calmly--and with humor!--by Ebbie.

But it's a measure of your hypersensitivity that Bobert's misstatement--and our defense of it----was immediately jumped on as a deliberate sexist slur.

Obviously in your world there's no such thing as an honest mistake on this topic. We're all brought to the guillotine before trial--and I get the impression that Madame Defarge is type-casting for you.

As I've said before, your dial is always set on "outrage".

Whereas a reasonable woman like Ebbie can easily and benevolently set us straight.

All your attitude does is give us great incentive to pull your chain--not that we'd ever stoop to such a thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 May 08 - 08:19 PM

Good point, McG... Faith is a personal thing...

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 May 08 - 08:17 PM

You don't become a Muslim by virtue of the fact that because one or both of your parents are Muslim, any more than you become a Christian by virtue of the fact that one or both of your parents are Christian. It's not a matter of genetics.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 May 08 - 07:01 PM

Eb,

I know **you** are not nuts... It's just the rest of the womenz that is...

Especially Fantz... Her wiring is so screwed up that it is most likely beyond fixing... Okay, may an entire new wiring harness but no splices here and there...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 19 May 08 - 05:57 PM

"Edwards has said for years he isn't interested in the AG spot. He wants a Cabinet post..."

Attorney General IS a Cabinet post, and generally considered one of the three or four most desirable or "highest ranking" among all such appointments ~ if not the very first.

It has often been reserved for the President's closest personal ally, because when worse comes to worst, nothing is more important to the Prez and/or his policies than skilled legal representation at the very top of the Justice Department.

Bobby Kennedy as his older brother's AG is the most obvious example. I believe that several recent Presidents have installed their campaign managers as Attorney General.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 08 - 04:32 PM

Well, I think Hillary is the most influential woman in the Democratic party. I do not agree she is the most influential person in the party.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 19 May 08 - 04:28 PM

Sorry Bobert, but your phony down home persona playing doesn't cut it with me.

I think you are sexist jerk, period.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 May 08 - 04:19 PM

From my point of view, Bobert, that is entirely normal and to be expected. Men and women are very different (duh?) and as long as their strongest and most intimate desires are aimed at each other they will never understand each other (I think women understand men better than the reverse but that may be my 'womanhood' speaking *g*).

The people to whom those desires are not aimed are uncluttered and non-threatening and therefore more easily understood.

(So there. I am not nuts! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 May 08 - 04:08 PM

Well, I've lived with black folks and I've lived with womenz folks and will say that I feel I understand black men alot more than I understand womenz... Now I know ya'll try to be, ahhhhhh, normal but as much as I loves each an' every one of ya'll, you womenz is nuts...

(You can't say that, Boberdz...)

You gotta a better word fir 'um than spit it out...

That's my story an....

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 May 08 - 03:10 PM

Hey, Amos, yaluv, women(z) had a struggle to get to this day. 'Phrasing' was an important part of the struggle. Men, by and large, still don't quite understand that.

It's kind of like a White person trying to understand a Black person's view. With all the good will in the world, I still know that I will never truly grasp the Black person's struggle in a White world from childhood on. Slurs, offhand remarks, outright and blatant biases and putdowns, seeing one's child have to undergo those kinds of thoughtless but infurating things (like hearing 'No offense intended'. Ha!) while one is sensitized to it, perhaps overly so, and thus seeing malice where there is none - it's going to take a L O N G time before we can all relax. IMO

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 19 May 08 - 02:26 PM

Any human being can be neurotic on one or another issue, and when they are, everything about the issue gets blown into gargantuan scales of importance and meaning that they do not actually have int he broader perspective. The present snaffle over phrasing is a classic case in point.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 19 May 08 - 01:19 PM

Women can be wasps too. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 May 08 - 10:12 AM

Well, Fantasma, when Obama was choosing his religion as an adult, it looks to me like he made a pretty poor choice. If those are the kinds of choices he would make as president, the whole thing gets kind of scary.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 19 May 08 - 09:13 AM

His father is Muslim, but he was not raised by his father. His mother apparently is secular? Not sure, but I think that's what I heard. Obama, like many American adults, had the freedom to choose religion as an adult.

As it should be.

But then, I don't care about religion, except where it is linked to fanatacism, including and especially evangelism and proselytizing of any kind.

You want religion? Fine. But keep it to yourself.

That is my take on it, but clearly the easily manipulated American voters see it very differently.

I'm waiting for the day we elect our first secular president. Now THAT would show a sea change in politics. But a black guy and a white woman both acting like all the WASP politicians in history doesn't seem like change to me one iota.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 May 08 - 08:03 AM

"Actually, not that it matters in the slightest but Obama is actually a Muslim. He may reject it for the rest of his life and that's his choice but according to their laws he is one of them."



                     I didn't know that!

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 19 May 08 - 07:38 AM

Okay, I'll admit to being "neanderthal" when it comes to the womenz... I was brought up in a family where "we said grace and we said mam and if ya' ain't into that then...." Nevermind...

But accusing by good buds Amos and Ron of being neandertahal gets my dander up...

Hey, ain't the womenz in Congress have this little get together... You know, like a caucus 'er somethin' where they get together and discuss policies and "knit and quilt" (joke)... So to me the womenz see that there is a difference... Heck, if they wanted to not be seen as womenz then why do they put on makeup and wear purdy dresses??? Huh???

You don't see men Congress people waerin' makeup... Okay, maybe some do buit that's in the privacy of their own homes...

That's my point... Womenz want us to say stuff like "nice dress" and "oh, I like yer hair that way" on one hand but then when we make a distiction that a senator is a "womemz Senator" we gotta get the ***blast*** and have to write stupid stuff on the chalkboard a hunert times....

Sheeeesshhhh, ya all...

"Woman Senator, Woman Senator, Woman Senator!!!"

Sorry, I gotta go to work now... You all have all day to put the blast on me but, hey, I earned it...

But leave poor ol' Ron and Amos outta it... It was all me idea and they din't have nuthin' to do wuith it...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 19 May 08 - 03:25 AM

Actually, not that it matters in the slightest but Obama is actually a Muslim.
He may reject it for the rest of his life and that's his choice but according to their laws he is one of them.
He's stuck with it.
Not his fault.


Or mine!

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 May 08 - 01:37 AM

Um, Bobert, Ron and Amos, I agree with Fantastic. Women, imo, see a vital difference between saying 'she is the most powerful woman in the party' or saying 'she is the most powerful person in the party'. In the first phrasing, one is saying that there are others - meaning men - in the party that are more powerful.

Ver stehen sie?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 May 08 - 11:54 PM

"Quite a few independents--and some Democrats--don't know Obama very well--witness the absurd number of supposedly educated people who still think he is a Moslem."


                      Ron - As you know I'm not an Obama fan, but the people who have described Obama as a Muslim to me might have a high school education at best. Most do not. The do vote though, and that's where I think you will see results like we witnessed in West Virginia.
                      If you don't think this is a positive deveopment, that's one place where we agree. The solution, I would suggest, is vastly improved education. I don't think we will get that from McCain. I don't think we will get that from Obama either.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 18 May 08 - 12:35 PM

"All identities are different. All similarities are identical. All differences are actually similarities."

Semantically it looks like F and B said pretty much the same hting to me. What part of Wonderland is this now, may I ask?



A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 12:03 PM

And as I thought, you're blowing smoke again. It's fairly obvious that you are the only woman on Mudcat who would ever object to Bobert's phrasing regarding Hillary's position in the Democratic party. Now I wonder why that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 12:00 PM

Ah, yes, one more thing, Janet. It's " 'affected' your reading ability", not "effected". You might want to consult a dictionary more often. Or at least proofread.

Don't thank me; I'm happy to help you.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 11:28 AM

Dear Ron Davies,

Yer fuuuunnnnneeeee when yer head explodes like that.

XOXOXO,

F

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 11:24 AM

Janet--

You are amazingly touchy this morning. Didn't get any sleep last night tossing and turning about Hillary?

Why is Hillary not "one of the most powerful Democratic Party women in the country"? If Bobert and I are sexist for endorsing that phrasing, please explain, from your position as a superior authority on sexism, exactly why.

If you don't, it will be obvious to all--not just us--that you are blowing smoke---again.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:59 AM

Not to worry Bobert, you and Ron have clearly been demonstrating your neanderthal credentials in the gender arena for quite some time now--long before Clinton got into the race, even.

So we don't exactly expect you to "get it".

hehehehe

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:51 AM

What, Hillary isn't a woman??? Well, well, well??? News to me...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:41 AM

Maybe the drugs have effected your reading ability, Ron? Or do you just need remedial help in understanding context?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:24 AM

Janet--

Uh, just how is that different from what Bobert just said?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:19 AM

And Bobert, your sexism is showing again. Hillary Clinton isn't just "one of the most powerful Democratic Party women in the country".

She is one of the most powerful Democrats in the Democratic Party in the country.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:04 AM

100!

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 10:03 AM

Edwards has said for years he isn't interested in the AG spot. He wants a Cabinet post or some special czar status--highest levels only.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Bobert
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:48 AM

First of all, folks, Hillary, like it or not, is one of the most powerful Democratic Party women in the country and she isn't abiout to throw that away... Especially in a year where the Democratic Party is poised to put a good size whup on the rival fraternity...

She has everything to gain politically here by being perceived as a team player in being very supportive of an Obama campaign... One rap on the Clintons that perhaps has been their undoing this year is that they paly hardball and if she can muster up some "grace" then maybe it in itself can chip away at her negatives...

This should be a no-brainer for her and Bill... And they have had time to figure it out so Bill's temper won't override common sense this time... Well, that at least is the "conventional wisdom"...

My own feeling is that having gione thru this campaign and lost is that the Clinton's will see that they really have it purdy good with her being a Senator from a big state and him being able to free-wheel... Yes, I am sure they are disappointed and somewhat embarrassed but they, IMO, will look back at this loss as a blessing...

As for Edwards??? He did what he had to do... And none too soon... He probably has salvaged an opportunity to sevre in an Obama cabinet where I think he can be an effective Attorney General and restore some level of sanity to Justice...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:46 AM

And one more thing. Quite a few independents--and some Democrats--don't know Obama very well--witness the absurd number of supposedly educated people who still think he is a Moslem.

That's something he'll have to address, obviously. No reasonable observer of the political scene would deny this. But it's easily done. He's got plenty of time. And he'll do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:36 AM

Janet--

How about some facts and logic to contradict mine? Still having a problem with that?

The "Kool-Aid" metaphor is a bit tired. Don't you have a bit more imagination? I wonder if you'll still be using it at Obama's inauguration in January.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:24 AM

Yes Ron, I think you might have a drug problem. Or maybe there is something in that koolaid you're drinking you aren't aware of?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 09:22 AM

Actually I think Hillary has no chance to run in 2012. Obama will have two terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 May 08 - 08:57 AM

Jim Lad---

You're nothing if not stubborn--and ill-informed.

Would you care to take a small wager that Hillary--as she says herself over and over--will support the Democratic candidate in the fall--and not run as an independent?

And it's obvious why she will not run as an independent--she still thinks she can run in 2012 or 2016 as a Democrat. And in fact if she had bowed out gracefully and gallantly--throwing her support to Obama-- any number of times she had the chance to end on an up-note--most recently after her WV victory--she could have run in 2012 or 2016 ---and possibly won. But she's now blown her last chance. Even if she concedes after winning in KY this Tuesday, there is enough exasperation with her in the Democratic party that her presidential ambitions are dead for good.

But she doesn't realize this.

And, as I say, she has promised over and over to work her heart out for the Democratic candidate this fall. And that will be Obama.

I don't want to bankrupt you, so, how about a nickel--five cents? Hillary will not run as an independent. That's just your pipe-dream--who knows why. My guess is that it's because you just refuse to admit you're all wet--again. As I recall your first prediction was that it would be Hillary vs Romney. And Romney would win.

What a track record.

I'm sure I couldn't do any better in predicting Canadian politics. But at least I have sense enough not to try.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 18 May 08 - 08:27 AM

Jim Lad - All of that comes under the heading of "masterful plot development," and I'd love to see it work out that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 18 May 08 - 08:19 AM

From May 9th online issue of the Daily Telegraph:

Mr Obama, who is already developing his campaign against the Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, gave every indication that May 20 would prove a red letter day after nearly 16 months of campaigning.

"I think we [could] make a pretty strong claim that we have got the most runs and it's the ninth inning and we have won," he told NBC television, referring to the final phase of a baseball game.

"But, you know, I think it is also important for us to, if we win, do so in a way that brings the party together."

Privately Mr Obama's campaign staff insisted that some kind of declaration will be made on May 20, when 103 delegates are up for grabs.

By then, they fully expect him to have 1,627 pledged delegates – 51 per cent of those available.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 18 May 08 - 03:37 AM

"54% heard about Obama's March speech on race...."
Ah yes. The famous speech. That's the one where Obama chastised the whole country for misinterpreting Rev Wrights speech and being a bunch of bigots.
He even flung his granny off the train to make his point.
Then it turned out that everyone else was right and he was wrong.
Boy!
Didn't see that coming.
So he flung Wright off the train...
Don't think Obama wants to be remembered for his speech somehow.

Rig: Remember, John Edwards "Suspended" his bid for the presidency.

If Obama cannot find a way to make the numbers work for him by May 31st, he will probably declare his running mate.
Then, some time after September, when he is indicted, the running mate will take his place and Hillary is still on the outside looking in.
The Democrats are so finished with her.
Brings me right back to... Hillary will run as an independent.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 17 May 08 - 10:21 PM

The only people who are claiming he is "all set to declare victory on Tuesday" without the necessary delegate count are some parts the mainstream media and the tinfoil brigade. Not exactly robust sources, as we both know This is not an assertion he has made. So what are you beating on the gong about?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 17 May 08 - 08:51 PM

Or were you smoking something that made you conveniently forget for the purposes of this thread, that the Dem Party Rules and Bylaws Committee won't meet to decide the fate of those votes until May 31?

Just a trifling technicality I know, but shouldn't the Obama camp like wait until all the votes are counted or something before declaring victory by arbitrary mainstream media fiat?