BS: Edwards for VP after all?

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: 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 - 10:41 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: 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 - 10:59 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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,mg
Date: 19 May 08 - 01:19 PM

Women can be wasps too. mg

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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:19 PM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 21 May 08 - 11:21 PM

Not exactly.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:22 PM

Actually it's very similar to the peace of God--it passeth all understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 May 08 - 11:23 PM

Rig is at least American and has a stake in this. Misinformed or not. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 02:40 AM

So, discussions about the Democratic primaries are now restricted to Americans unless, like Bruce and some others, you happen to favour Obama.
More rule changes to benefit your Messiah.
Boy!
Didn't see that one coming.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 May 08 - 02:54 AM

Messiah, my left foot. You seem to understand scarcely any part of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 04:43 AM

That's Obama talk for "You seem to disagree with me" but milder than most.
Going through the various blog sites, there seems to be the never ending cycle of Clinton & McCain supporters as well as some undecideds & independents, warning the Obama supporters that they are being conned while the Obama supporters hurl back insults and call their "Rivals" names.
Not much substance to their arguments at all only the willingness to trample on the rights of others as a means to an end.
The exact opposite of what the man preaches.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 22 May 08 - 07:53 AM

More than a bit of xenophobia showing, Ms Ebbie.

Tsk tsk.

I think the Pit Bulls for Obama are very, very insecure human beings, who feel the need to attack anyone who dares criticize their preferred candidate because their egos are so tied into the choices they make.

Those who are the absolute worst Pit Bulls for Obama see their candidate simply as an extension of themselves, of their own ego, hence the bizarre need to "defend" Obama, even though he has already bagged the nomination.

It isn't normal behavior. The vast majority of people would never go to these lengths to "defend" a politician of any stripe, even if they think well of that politician. In 3D life, one might get fed up with someone repeatedly trashing a politician they admire, and speak up and defend that politician. But the dynamics of these forums are different.

If the Pit Bull faction here wasn't in attack mode, then they couldn't keep playing their game, over and over and over in all these political threads that have the same dynamic (drive the dissenters out of our "thread territory") unfolding day after day.

Because it appears most of them either spend a lot of time here at work or don't have jobs, they apparently don't have a whole lot else going on.

"The exact opposite of what the man preaches."

Not only is that one of the many ironies of all this, but it speaks volumes to me of what types of people Obama is attracting. Dividers, not uniters.

If Obama was the real deal, that wouldn't be the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 10:04 AM

Nasty, Jim Lad.

Specifically, whose rights have you seen trampled here at Mudcat?

You have been repatedly called out, as has Fantasma, for speaking from spite and hate instead of facts and issues.

Your tone of condescending sarcasm, your insistence on conflating things that don't conflate, and speaking in dire or condemning generalizations -- these are the things you get called for.

If you have specific issues with Obama, I'd be glad to hear and discuss them. But put your slime gun away, first.

And if you cannot speak to facts and issues, then I think it would be reasonable for you not to tangle in threads which are meant for that purpose.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 11:44 AM

Good Lord, Amos!
Look at what you just wrote.
You start with...... "Specifically, whose rights have you seen trampled here at Mudcat?"
Then follow it up with a string of insults.
But here is your most astounding statement.... "If you have specific issues with Obama, I'd be glad to hear and discuss them."

We've been throwing facts at you for months and met with nothing but insults, to the point that most have given up and gone away.
You remain blind to the facts.

The people of Michigan and Florida have already voted.
There is no way to not count those votes as cast without trampling on peoples rights.
Counting them in a way to ensure that your candidate wins is not any kind of a democratic solution.
You are trampling on peoples rights when you go along with this no matter what kind of mental gymnastics you use to justify it.
Obama took his name out of the race in Michigan. That was a very stupid choice on his part.
He is currently trying to convince everyone that the race is over in order to avoid facing the voters in those two states.
His role in that process has ensured that he can never win the presidency.
That's a plain fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: irishenglish
Date: 22 May 08 - 11:49 AM

His role in that process has ensured that he can never win the presidency.
That's a plain fact.

Wow, did I miss election day? Seems like someone knows the results before the rest of us. Who should I put my money on Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 22 May 08 - 11:56 AM

"Obama took his name out of the race in Michigan. That was a very stupid choice on his part."

That was following the rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 12:20 PM

Not so.
Not campaigning in those states was following the rules.
Obama broke that rule in Florida by running T.V. ads.

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 12:56 PM

Jim:

He ran one ad in Flordia as part of a multistate buy, for which he got an exception tot he ruling, as I understand.

As to your other almost facts:

The people of Michigan and Florida have already voted.
There is no way to not count those votes as cast without trampling on peoples rights.

You are conflating the primary process, which is designed by the rule-makers of the various parties, with the constitutional rights to vote in an election. They are not, first of all, a consitutional right, as the general election votes are. I hope the difference is plain. THis is not choosing who gets elected, but who the party wants to put up as a candidate.


Counting them in a way to ensure that your candidate wins is not any kind of a democratic solution.

Seems to me counting them in states where one of the candidates wasn't on the ballot, and another where he did not campaign, except for the incidental ad mentioned above, is not exactly democratic process at work either. Hillary entered the race with a lot more bias due to prior exposure working in her favor. Fair? Not.

You are trampling on peoples rights when you go along with this no matter what kind of mental gymnastics you use to justify it.

The right to vote in the Democratic Party selection process is not a poeple's right, but a conventional courtesy. You may not realize it but the decision gets made at the Convention, by the processes defined by the DNC, not by a process defined by law. I do agree the residents of FL and MI should have been allowed by their states to participate, but they were disqualified by their states, not by either party or any candidate.

Obama took his name out of the race in Michigan. That was a very stupid choice on his part.

It was consistent with the rulings made and the agreements made at the time. The question is not why he did so, but why Hillary did not.


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

You haven't heard what he has been stating. IF the rulings of the Democratic Party who govern this process have bearing, his statement that he has won over 50% of the available vote-based delegates is correct. Obviously if the party changers the rules, as Hillary would strongly prefer, then the score changes. Under the present agreements, the statement he made is correct.

His role in that process has ensured that he can never win the presidency.

This is not a fact, but a silly opinion. HIS role was to cooperate with the rules set by the party. HIS role was to play fair. The process that resulted in FL and MI primaries being disqualified was not his role, but that of the state government who scheduled the primary, or the state party, I am not sure which. Do you know? Why do you think he had a role in it?

Subject: RE: BS: Edwards for VP after all?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 22 May 08 - 01:55 PM

Ah yes!
The rule makers.
What about the party faithful who have watched their party being hijacked by a bunch of students who may or may not bother to vote twice in one year?

Amos!
Again, please try to answer folks without using insulting adjectives.
Come on!
You lose every time you do that.