I tried not to post, but I can't help it. 36-39. GAH!!!
What gets me angry is that it only happened because more older female voters turned out then expected, and old females tend to vote for Clinton. I find that extremely disturbing, because they are voting not so much on the issues as they are on the fact that she too is an older female. Voting based on gender is entirely antithetical to any sense of feminism and equality: preference and exclusion become equivalent. I hate that there are so many people who don't watch the debates, don't read the platforms, don't examine records and don't think about the issues- instead they pick somebody by false values such as "we need a woman president." We need more younger, informed voters to counteract the effect of the old ppl, and I don't care how that sounds.
Clinton just voted for what is essentially a war in Iran. When Mike Gavel called her up on it, she cackled. She has also CONSISTENTLY voted against funding for renewable resource programs. There are countless reasons why Clinton is not, in my opinion, the best person to lead this country (I've written about them in my blog). She's also not a very nice person (my favorite example: http://youtube.com/watch?v=0Q3tjgaCBCU ). Have we all forgotten her derogatory impression of a southerner? And those fake tears she gave yesterday for sympathy votes! She plays dirty and for some reason, we allow it. The other night when she tried to paint Obama as a flipflopper (she admires Bush's tactics enough to use them herself, it seems), he calmly replied that they were not there to distort each other's records, and that shut her up. He's honest, clear and clean, the only candidate so far not to use third party money.
Let's face it: her best offering to the American ppl is her husband. He's the only reason she's in this race; if someone who wasn't Mrs. Clinton had her record, I doubt she would enjoy the same reception. When she said, "I've already made change. I've been making change for 35 years," her eyes bulging, she didn't even make sense. All she did is prove she's part of the old gaurd, the same old people who've been running things all these years and destroying everything they can. Do we really want 24 years of either a Bush or a Clinton? How is a dynasty at all a real democracy? Can we PLEASE get rid of the same old people and try something new? She feels entitled because she's Mrs. Clinton and it un-nerves me.
Well, onto Michigan, Nevada and SC...
...my "let's discuss" turned into something else, but I meant to say, "let's discuss," lol
Full Version: The Nominations
I was really moved by Obama's speech. I'm probably going with him, but I don't mind Hillary so much. I voted for her in the NY Senate race 8 years ago (oh holy hell am I that old?), and I did have the opportunity to hear her speak and meet her in college (Adam *still* teases me about what I said to her).
I guess the way I feel about it is that there are some very positive things that can be said here:
1) The first two major votes this year have been won by an african-american and a woman, respectively. Huge.
2) The voter turnouts have been RECORD SETTING. And how can that be bad for democracy? People are going to the polls! That's a truly wonderful thing.
3) At least she's not a misogynistic non-christian hater (like MANY of the presidential candidates).
4) It's not over until it's over. Bill didn't win New Hampshire. A victory there doesn't mean a damn thing, other than the media coverage a winner there gets.
I hope some of this makes you feel at least a little better, my dear Sally. I was thinking of you tonight. :hug:
I guess the way I feel about it is that there are some very positive things that can be said here:
1) The first two major votes this year have been won by an african-american and a woman, respectively. Huge.
2) The voter turnouts have been RECORD SETTING. And how can that be bad for democracy? People are going to the polls! That's a truly wonderful thing.
3) At least she's not a misogynistic non-christian hater (like MANY of the presidential candidates).
4) It's not over until it's over. Bill didn't win New Hampshire. A victory there doesn't mean a damn thing, other than the media coverage a winner there gets.
I hope some of this makes you feel at least a little better, my dear Sally. I was thinking of you tonight. :hug:
QUOTE (DJRose @ Jan 9 2008, 12:08 AM) 
2) The voter turnouts have been RECORD SETTING. And how can that be bad for democracy? People are going to the polls! That's a truly wonderful thing.
That's true, and you're right, that should be inspiring- but it's sad that there weren't as many young people voting in NH. I mean, youth has this picture of the hippie or the rogue liberal or something, but they really aren't. There's so much apathy..it's frustrating and alarming and depressing. One of my friends insists that there's no point in caring.
QUOTE
4) It's not over until it's over. Bill didn't win New Hampshire. A victory there doesn't mean a damn thing, other than the media coverage a winner there gets.
I hope some of this makes you feel at least a little better, my dear Sally. I was thinking of you tonight. :hug:
I hope some of this makes you feel at least a little better, my dear Sally. I was thinking of you tonight. :hug:
I didn't know that! That makes me feel so much better! I can't tell you how happy you've made me
Thank you!!! Love you!!!
QUOTE (Tabetha @ Jan 9 2008, 01:21 AM)
That's true, and you're right, that should be inspiring- but it's sad that there weren't as many young people voting in NH. I mean, youth has this picture of the hippie or the rogue liberal or something, but they really aren't. There's so much apathy..it's frustrating and alarming and depressing. One of my friends insists that there's no point in caring.
I didn't know that! That makes me feel so much better! I can't tell you how happy you've made me
Thank you!!! Love you!!!
I didn't know that! That makes me feel so much better! I can't tell you how happy you've made me
Thank you!!! Love you!!!
You know I have to go back to Adam on this because I'm not 100% sure, but I thought the young vote *was* very active thus far. I really don't know for sure though, so I don't want to say "oh yeah" when really it wasn't.
I'm mostly glad I could make you feel better. You're too sweet to worry this much so early in the game.
As far as I know, the news was saying there was a high youth turnout in Iowa but not as much in NH.
Thank you, Rachie. I really appreciate everything you've said. You're so wonderful- I imagine you with flowers in your hair, because you're so lovely and sweet. kisses!
Thank you, Rachie. I really appreciate everything you've said. You're so wonderful- I imagine you with flowers in your hair, because you're so lovely and sweet. kisses!
And now I've got that "If you're going to San Francisco" song stuck in my head, LOL! :-D
AHHH
Sally, I feel your pain. I really wanted (and thought) that Obama was going to win. And I pretty much have all the same complaints that you have about Hillary. And the same things to be said for Obama. We pretty much feel the same way haha
How come the polls said that Obama had a 10% advantage over Hillary, and then she ends up winning? How does that happen??
Come on Obama, you can do it! hahah
Sally, I feel your pain. I really wanted (and thought) that Obama was going to win. And I pretty much have all the same complaints that you have about Hillary. And the same things to be said for Obama. We pretty much feel the same way haha
How come the polls said that Obama had a 10% advantage over Hillary, and then she ends up winning? How does that happen??
Come on Obama, you can do it! hahah
QUOTE (porifera @ Jan 9 2008, 05:39 PM)
AHHH
Sally, I feel your pain. I really wanted (and thought) that Obama was going to win. And I pretty much have all the same complaints that you have about Hillary. And the same things to be said for Obama. We pretty much feel the same way haha
Come on Obama, you can do it! hahah
Sally, I feel your pain. I really wanted (and thought) that Obama was going to win. And I pretty much have all the same complaints that you have about Hillary. And the same things to be said for Obama. We pretty much feel the same way haha
Come on Obama, you can do it! hahah
We're Obama buddies! High five!
QUOTE
How come the polls said that Obama had a 10% advantage over Hillary, and then she ends up winning? How does that happen??
Yeeeeah! I mean, he totally was ahead! I guess I can't say if this is right, but the news all day here has been basically saying that it was because of her crying. She showed emotion and so older female voters responded.
If that's right, then that's sick. I mean, she showed no emotion when her husband was cheating on her in front of the whole world, but all of a sudden when it's convenient to get sympathy votes, she can show emotion.
QUOTE (Tabetha @ Jan 9 2008, 06:10 PM)
We're Obama buddies! High five!
O ya!!! Ya, Obama buddies! Great minds do think alike
QUOTE
If that's right, then that's sick. I mean, she showed no emotion when her husband was cheating on her in front of the whole world, but all of a sudden when it's convenient to get sympathy votes, she can show emotion.
That's a really good point. I totally think the crying thing got her sympathy votes. And she says that's it's just so hard some days to get out of bed? Give me a break. She doesn't do things, she has people to do it. It's not like she's some mother who has to take care of her kid and come home after working to make dinner for her family. I sure she has staff people that do everything for her. If campaigning is that hard for you, then you shouldn't be running. If she can't handle campaigning then how will she ever be able to run the country?
Clinton even admitted that her "show of emotion" (aka turning on the waterworks) helped her to win the election. To be honest, the issue doesn't get a lot of coverage in the UK (for obvious reasons) so I'm definitely not as clued up as you - I'm doing my best lol - but from what I've seen Obama seems to be more principled and less into the adversarial politics than Clinton.
So Sally, vote on my behalf as well, OK?
What do you think of John Edwards? He's my favorite, partly because he was so against the Iraq war and partly because he seems more of a socialist than all the others, but he really hasn't got a chance. The US is too right wing for that. Argh.
So Sally, vote on my behalf as well, OK?
What do you think of John Edwards? He's my favorite, partly because he was so against the Iraq war and partly because he seems more of a socialist than all the others, but he really hasn't got a chance. The US is too right wing for that. Argh.
QUOTE (Electra @ Jan 16 2008, 09:38 AM)
What do you think of John Edwards? He's my favorite, partly because he was so against the Iraq war and partly because he seems more of a socialist than all the others, but he really hasn't got a chance. The US is too right wing for that. Argh.
I don't have any real issue with John Edwards, but I know some people from North Carolina (where he was senator) and they can't stand him. I tend to agree with them on most things, so I'm willing to take their word on things.
Btw, while I love Christopher Dodd, Joseph Lieberman makes me ashamed to be a Jew from Connecticut. Seriously.
QUOTE (Electra @ Jan 16 2008, 02:38 PM)
Clinton even admitted that her "show of emotion" (aka turning on the waterworks) helped her to win the election. To be honest, the issue doesn't get a lot of coverage in the UK (for obvious reasons) so I'm definitely not as clued up as you - I'm doing my best lol - but from what I've seen Obama seems to be more principled and less into the adversarial politics than Clinton.
So Sally, vote on my behalf as well, OK?
What do you think of John Edwards? He's my favorite, partly because he was so against the Iraq war and partly because he seems more of a socialist than all the others, but he really hasn't got a chance. The US is too right wing for that. Argh.
So Sally, vote on my behalf as well, OK?
What do you think of John Edwards? He's my favorite, partly because he was so against the Iraq war and partly because he seems more of a socialist than all the others, but he really hasn't got a chance. The US is too right wing for that. Argh.
seriously alie, watch the darn daily show with jon stewart on More4 at 8:30
it covers the election with hummour, its how i know far to much about the US elections
QUOTE
What do you think of John Edwards?
I like Edwards. He did vote for the Iraq war, actually, but he admits it was a mistake and he apologizes for his vote (unlike Clinton, who refuses to call it a mistake and even voted for what is essentially a war in Iran).
I think Obama is far superior to Edwards in many ways: For example, even tho he was so adamantly against it 4 years ago, Edwards has now given in and taken third party money, while Obama has so far refrained (though he plans to accept it if he gets the nomination, unless the republicans agree to also refrain). Moreover, while Edwards is against the Iraq war now, he wasn't from the beginning, whereas Obama absolutely was.
But on the whole I like Edwards, and I think an Obama-Edwards ticket would be fantastic.
I'm so mad!
Clinton is so [insert explitive- no, insert many explitives!] dirty!
Not only did she indulge in a TON of push polling- which is the dirtiest thing anyone can do- but criticizing Obama for praising Regan?!
Look. The Republican party was the party that freed the slaves. It was Abe Lincoln's party. A little later, the progressive views of the Republicans and the conservative views of the democrats were switched. And that shows us that it's not the party that matters so much as the person. If Reagan did some good and Obama praised him for it, I think that's admirable. Just because someone is a republican doesn't mean that person deserves to be punched in the face- whereas Clinton really does deserve to be punched in the face.
But you know what? Nevada is a republican state anyhow, so they probly won't support Clinton if she gets the nomination.
I'm just so mad that she won b/c of her dirty practices. She's disgusting!
Clinton is so [insert explitive- no, insert many explitives!] dirty!
Not only did she indulge in a TON of push polling- which is the dirtiest thing anyone can do- but criticizing Obama for praising Regan?!
Look. The Republican party was the party that freed the slaves. It was Abe Lincoln's party. A little later, the progressive views of the Republicans and the conservative views of the democrats were switched. And that shows us that it's not the party that matters so much as the person. If Reagan did some good and Obama praised him for it, I think that's admirable. Just because someone is a republican doesn't mean that person deserves to be punched in the face- whereas Clinton really does deserve to be punched in the face.
But you know what? Nevada is a republican state anyhow, so they probly won't support Clinton if she gets the nomination.
I'm just so mad that she won b/c of her dirty practices. She's disgusting!
^^Good for Obama looking past party lines to praise another politician for their accomplishments. I will not be very happy if Clinton gets the Democratic nomination in Arizona. I've never liked her. Our primary is in a few weeks. In AZ, you have to be either a Republican or a Democrat to vote in the primary. It's a closed system. So many independents have been re-registering so that they can vote in the primary. So strange, I don't remember that sort of system back East.
My friend made me feel a little better- he said only 10,000 ppl voted in Nevada, which is a paltry number. I hope he's right that today was meaningless.
Tempe, I'm not sure, but I think it differs by state, b/c NH had a lot of independents voting.
I'm glad you never liked her, Tempe! That makes me wanna hug you!
You and I can be Obama buddies, with Porifera and OK Go, lol.
And this is way off topic, but I just saw your profile pic and you look so pretty!
Tempe, I'm not sure, but I think it differs by state, b/c NH had a lot of independents voting.
I'm glad you never liked her, Tempe! That makes me wanna hug you!
You and I can be Obama buddies, with Porifera and OK Go, lol.
And this is way off topic, but I just saw your profile pic and you look so pretty!
Wow, Sally, I totally agree with everything you just said about Clinton criticizing Obama. Like, totally agree.
O ya, Tempe, be Obama buddies with us!
O ya, Tempe, be Obama buddies with us!
oh wow, I have the feeling I learn so much when I read in here. I watched loads of videos yesterday and the day before, as I'm having a presentation and in that focus on these elections and have picked out a few Hillary videos, that show just how false she is. I really really don't like her, and I think worse is her "crying"... I read that she had a kind of plan for that. The evening before this (was it?) debate she said that politicians really should not get too emotional, but that all former male presidents have shown emotion and maybe if she could show some feelings the voters would not think she's that cold calculated woman... and next day she sits there, teary eyes, talking about having hard times... I can't believe her!!
So, if I got to vote I'd also go for Obama, he seems so focused and sure about what he's saying without showing any false smiles and stays calm even though he gets critisized. Hillary totally loses it... I'm referring here to one of the debates, that Tabetha mentioned, where she says something about having change for the last 35 years. Here one can see her real face. I really really hope people are not voting because of gender, but I guess it's the easiest way for many people, they don't get informeed about content, they just claim to vote a woman because false feminism reasons.
Obama! ^^ yay
So, if I got to vote I'd also go for Obama, he seems so focused and sure about what he's saying without showing any false smiles and stays calm even though he gets critisized. Hillary totally loses it... I'm referring here to one of the debates, that Tabetha mentioned, where she says something about having change for the last 35 years. Here one can see her real face. I really really hope people are not voting because of gender, but I guess it's the easiest way for many people, they don't get informeed about content, they just claim to vote a woman because false feminism reasons.
Obama! ^^ yay
QUOTE (Tabetha @ Jan 19 2008, 09:59 PM)
Not only did she indulge in a TON of push polling- which is the dirtiest thing anyone can do- but criticizing Obama for praising Regan?!
Reagan was an asshole. I'm sorry, but he was. The Republican party has done things right in the past, as you mentioned, but Reagan is not an example of this. He had the country is a serious economic crisis due partially to his fiscal policy. We promoted a George Lucas type defensive missile system that would be used from space. He was certainly a fantastic speaker who knew how to appear competent, but when it came to actual policy-making, he was kind of backwards.
I didn't hear Hillary's argument against Obama's praise for Reagan. But really, I am all for embracing the other side, but there HAS to be a better example than Reagan.
Obama was NOT talking about Reagan's defensive missile system, nor was he talking about Reagan's fiscal policy. To say that Obama was somehow referring to the negative aspects of Reagan's term in office, that he was somehow praising bad things, is not even twisting his words- it's creating entirely new words that he never uttered. Which is exactly what Clinton was trying to do. Maybe Clinton didn't even hear what he actually said.
In other words, Obama wants us to unify, to be Americans rather than Democrats and Republicans. That's all that he was saying- that it's important to unify parties. What he admired about Reagan was his ability to transcend party lines and unify the American people (he won 48/50 = 96%: polarizing party was a non-issue). Maybe Clinton should work on her English comprehension skills, or at least listen to what he actually said. Excuse the sarcasm, but I can't respect someone as politically dirty as Clinton.
Clinton jumping up and down to distort his words as soon as she hears "Reagan" is childish. Obama does not aim to lead democrats- he aims to lead the United States, one nation, one people, one shared ideal of freedom. Clinton, on the other hand, exacerbates the division between parties; she'd go four years fighting Republicans whereas Obama would unify- not to mention that she's corrupt and doesn't mind war.
QUOTE
I didn’t’ say I liked Ronald Reagan’s policies. What I said was that was the kind of working majority we need to form in order to move a progressive agenda forward. So when I see, you know, Senator Clinton or President Clinton distort my words, say somehow that I was saying Republican (sic) the only ones who had good ideas since 1980 – then that is not a way to move the debate forward. That is not a way to help the American people. And I am not running for president just to become president – I’m running to help the American people and move the debate forward. I’m not willing to say or do anything just to win an election, because when you start operating that way, you lose the trust of the American people and we need trust if we’re going to build the kind of country that all of us want for our children and our grandchildren.
...Reagan...was able to tap into the discontent of the American people and he was able to get Democrats to vote Republican – they were called Reagan Democrats. We as Democrats right now, should tap into the discontent of Republicans. I want some Obama Republicans!
...Reagan...was able to tap into the discontent of the American people and he was able to get Democrats to vote Republican – they were called Reagan Democrats. We as Democrats right now, should tap into the discontent of Republicans. I want some Obama Republicans!
In other words, Obama wants us to unify, to be Americans rather than Democrats and Republicans. That's all that he was saying- that it's important to unify parties. What he admired about Reagan was his ability to transcend party lines and unify the American people (he won 48/50 = 96%: polarizing party was a non-issue). Maybe Clinton should work on her English comprehension skills, or at least listen to what he actually said. Excuse the sarcasm, but I can't respect someone as politically dirty as Clinton.
Clinton jumping up and down to distort his words as soon as she hears "Reagan" is childish. Obama does not aim to lead democrats- he aims to lead the United States, one nation, one people, one shared ideal of freedom. Clinton, on the other hand, exacerbates the division between parties; she'd go four years fighting Republicans whereas Obama would unify- not to mention that she's corrupt and doesn't mind war.
Sally, I love your downright, hmm how should i say....hatred, for Hillary. And I'm glad that you also see that she's dirty and unfair. Thank you.
I don't care if Reagan was a unifier. He was a mediocre president who knew how to talk. I'd rather have someone slightly more controversial who knew how to get things done than someone who is a good talker but doesn't know how to make or execute policies.
I see Obama's point as a unifier, but he needs to find someone who knew how to talk AND get things done.
I see Obama's point as a unifier, but he needs to find someone who knew how to talk AND get things done.
QUOTE (tonetoile @ Jan 21 2008, 12:04 PM)
I don't care if Reagan was a unifier. He was a mediocre president who knew how to talk. I'd rather have someone slightly more controversial who knew how to get things done than someone who is a good talker but doesn't know how to make or execute policies.
I see Obama's point as a unifier, but he needs to find someone who knew how to talk AND get things done.
I see Obama's point as a unifier, but he needs to find someone who knew how to talk AND get things done.
As I said, Reagan "getting things done" is irrelevant and completely out of context. It's like if I asked you for an example of something yellow, and you said "banana" and I said, "A banana is not a good example because it doesn't make a good vehicle. You should've said 'taxi.'"
A banana is unquestionably yellow, just as Reagan unquestionably unified parties. In contrast, for the past 8 years this nation has been split down the line into red state- blue state instead of one whole United States. We're like two different peoples right now, Republican versus Democrat, Red versus Blue. Whatever happened to "one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all"? Look further back than Bush: we were still divided. Bill Clinton is famous for his clashes with a republican congress. I say let's have a country that debates issues and makes progress rather than deadlocking legislation purely because of party lines. Let's have diversity and exchange of views that compromises rather than a kind of "you're a different party, omg" hatred, and really, discrimination.
Maybe Clinton should get over herself and get over the fact that Reagan was a republican and admit that he did transcend party lines; let's not deny that a banana is yellow because the context of transporation allows us to distort words dirty-politician-style.
We're arguing two completely different things. You are arguing for a unifier (what is that mean anyway? Politics were unified post-9/11. I mean, 77 votes yes for the War in Iraq. Post-9/11, I remember walking down the hallways of my school and seeing American flags everywhere. Wasn't that unification too? We're in another traumatic event. The US is slowly but surely loosing grip on its place as world hegemon and the economy has surely been in a better state. Of course, it's nowhere near the effect of 9/11, but it's still something where people are looking for a solution, something to make them feel better).
My argument is that, yes, Obama was misquoted by Clinton, but arguing for a unifier is like arguing for freedom. It's a great concept, a great word, but what is it? Bill Clinton may have had clashes with the Republican congress, but his era was one of budget surplus, (attempted) reform on the health care system, and initiated welfare reforms. Surely, he wasn't a perfect president (ex. refusing to do more for gays in the armed services besides "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), but he definitely had his points. He may not have been a unifier in the same way Reagan was, but he was still a rather good president.
I don't even know who I'm voting for yet (Kucinich 2008!!), but when it comes down to the line, I will always vote for concrete policy (especially those to aid those who need the most aid) over "unification." In the long run, as great as it would be to think otherwise, you can't please everyone forever.
My argument is that, yes, Obama was misquoted by Clinton, but arguing for a unifier is like arguing for freedom. It's a great concept, a great word, but what is it? Bill Clinton may have had clashes with the Republican congress, but his era was one of budget surplus, (attempted) reform on the health care system, and initiated welfare reforms. Surely, he wasn't a perfect president (ex. refusing to do more for gays in the armed services besides "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"), but he definitely had his points. He may not have been a unifier in the same way Reagan was, but he was still a rather good president.
I don't even know who I'm voting for yet (Kucinich 2008!!), but when it comes down to the line, I will always vote for concrete policy (especially those to aid those who need the most aid) over "unification." In the long run, as great as it would be to think otherwise, you can't please everyone forever.
QUOTE (tonetoile @ Jan 21 2008, 12:50 PM)
You are arguing for a unifier...
My argument is that, yes, Obama was misquoted by Clinton, but arguing for a unifier is like arguing for freedom. ...
I don't even know who I'm voting for yet (Kucinich 2008!!), but when it comes down to the line, I will always vote for concrete policy (especially those to aid those who need the most aid) over "unification." In the long run, as great as it would be to think otherwise, you can't please everyone forever.
My argument is that, yes, Obama was misquoted by Clinton, but arguing for a unifier is like arguing for freedom. ...
I don't even know who I'm voting for yet (Kucinich 2008!!), but when it comes down to the line, I will always vote for concrete policy (especially those to aid those who need the most aid) over "unification." In the long run, as great as it would be to think otherwise, you can't please everyone forever.
This is where things are shaky in what we're discussing. I'm *not* arguing for "unifier over person of policy," which is what you're saying I'm arguing for- and Obama is *not* a person of "unity over policy," which is what you're implying he is. Never ever did Obama say he was. Obama simply mentioned that reaching out to Republicans is needed in order to win the election. In addition to the abstract "unity is good," the statement that the vote of Republicans is needed to win is a very logical statement. Of course republican votes are needed!!! In a 2-party 50-50 nation, you need some republicans to look past party lines and vote democrat, or else we'll have a 51-49 Bush-Gore situation all over again. Refuting that is like refuting that 1+1 =2.
Now, just saying that 1+1=2 doesn't mean you don't care that 5*3=15. Just because Obama said unity is needed doesn't mean he said unity supersedes policy. Obama isn't going to leave out policy for unity, or leave out unity for policy. He's not stupid and he doesn't only care about 1 thing. He cares, as matter of fact, about many more things than Clinton does. He's policy plans are sound and innovative- please do read his platform, for nowhere does he say "unity over policy." Also look at her dirty tactics, from false tears, third party money, distorting words, and pushing polls (which are illegal in some states) to playing the gender card in moments of weakness.
Also, I have to say that the "unity" that followed 9/11 was kind of scary. It was very much Rusty Ross's "just put another American flag on the bumper of your escalade." (That song made me love Rusty even more) Sticking flags all over the place doesn't make you patriotic or mean you understand democracy. In fact, it was during this period of zealous attitude that many Arabs and Muslims were the victims of hate crimes by Americans. If unity has to come from war or tragedy, it's not real unity and we have a big problem.
And now I think I've written too much and I really should get go study...I love debating with you and sorry if I sound pushy...I need to get over my forum addiction. um, in conclusion, Clinton is a dirty member of the old gaurde.
Hah, you know I always appreciate your input. I felt the same way about post-9/11 unity. It was debilitating in many ways; an excuse to exert "superiority" in the name of "patriotism."
It is true that reaching out to Republicans is needed to win the election, I think I just react badly to mention of Reagan, regardless of the context.
It is true that reaching out to Republicans is needed to win the election, I think I just react badly to mention of Reagan, regardless of the context.
QUOTE (tonetoile @ Jan 21 2008, 08:37 PM)
It is true that reaching out to Republicans is needed to win the election, I think I just react badly to mention of Reagan, regardless of the context.
I started growling slightly at the mention of Reagan, too, lol - he was great friends with our ex-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a woman who I despise more than any other human being I can think of at the moment. She was considered a unifier too, until she actually got into power. Disgusting woman.
Anyway, the point I was actually going to make was about needing Republican votes in order to win - do you?? Don't you have 'floating voters' in the states? Over here, there are some hardcore Labour supporters, some hardcore Conservatives, and then the in-betweens who make up their mind based on the individual policies and people. Those are the ones who are the most targeted in Britain. Don't you have that?
QUOTE (Electra @ Jan 22 2008, 12:36 PM)
Anyway, the point I was actually going to make was about needing Republican votes in order to win - do you?? Don't you have 'floating voters' in the states? Over here, there are some hardcore Labour supporters, some hardcore Conservatives, and then the in-betweens who make up their mind based on the individual policies and people. Those are the ones who are the most targeted in Britain. Don't you have that?
We do, just not enough of them these days. Politics in the US has been very polarized the last few years, and frankly with the last two elections having been as close as they were, it's more and more important to win by a larger margin.
Somewhat unrelated to previous discussion:
The one thing that really gets me about Obama is his similarity to Deval Patrick, the new(-ish) governor of Massachusetts. Their campaigns have incredible similarities, and their public images, and their backgrounds (african american, opportunity for good education, on to Harvard law, etc.), even their power to convince voters with pure rhetoric.
Now, I was all for Patrick when he ran, but then again, he was running against Kerry Healey, Romney's lieutenant governor...*shudder*... it wasn't exactly a choice. I did really like him, though.
The thing is, I haven't been able to keep up with Patrick's actions as governor, so I don't know how he's done as a newcomer, etc. If I had more confidence in Patrick, more knowledge that Patrick has been a decent governor so far, and that his actions in power haven't really gone against his campaign...
If I just knew how well Patrick has done in office, then I would be SO much more confident in Obama as a candidate and as a future president. Because I seriously want to believe in him.
I mean, it could change my whole view of the election if I had proof that Obama could (or couldn't) succeed to an acceptable degree- not that I can vote in the primary(3 months!!), but still.
I dunno, maybe Sally will be able to help me with this, being another Massachusetts(-ian?-er? you know what I mean...)
anyways, since I can't vote in the Massachusetts primary, I'm finding it hard to really get interested in this part of the election process. I feel like once I'm able to vote, in the big election in November, my choice will pretty much have been made for me.
The one thing that really gets me about Obama is his similarity to Deval Patrick, the new(-ish) governor of Massachusetts. Their campaigns have incredible similarities, and their public images, and their backgrounds (african american, opportunity for good education, on to Harvard law, etc.), even their power to convince voters with pure rhetoric.
Now, I was all for Patrick when he ran, but then again, he was running against Kerry Healey, Romney's lieutenant governor...*shudder*... it wasn't exactly a choice. I did really like him, though.
The thing is, I haven't been able to keep up with Patrick's actions as governor, so I don't know how he's done as a newcomer, etc. If I had more confidence in Patrick, more knowledge that Patrick has been a decent governor so far, and that his actions in power haven't really gone against his campaign...
If I just knew how well Patrick has done in office, then I would be SO much more confident in Obama as a candidate and as a future president. Because I seriously want to believe in him.
I mean, it could change my whole view of the election if I had proof that Obama could (or couldn't) succeed to an acceptable degree- not that I can vote in the primary(3 months!!), but still.
I dunno, maybe Sally will be able to help me with this, being another Massachusetts(-ian?-er? you know what I mean...)
anyways, since I can't vote in the Massachusetts primary, I'm finding it hard to really get interested in this part of the election process. I feel like once I'm able to vote, in the big election in November, my choice will pretty much have been made for me.
QUOTE (Electra @ Jan 22 2008, 12:36 PM)
I started growling slightly at the mention of Reagan, too, lol - he was great friends with our ex-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a woman who I despise more than any other human being I can think of at the moment. She was considered a unifier too, until she actually got into power. Disgusting woman.
sorry for the double post, but I wanted to comment that my mom has made sure to let me know that I am most definitely NOT named after Margaret Thatcher, ever since before I knew or cared who Margaret Thatcher was (aka since I was like, five)
(and yes, my given name is Margaret, I go by Meg, etc. etc.)
So, we share a name, but it's purely a very bad coincidence.
That'll show Thatcher.
(sorry, I'm quoting that episode of Buzzcocks again)
(sorry, I'm quoting that episode of Buzzcocks again)
ooo, a chance to talk about Deval Patrick. I'm very proud of being born and and raised in Massachusetts- I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. We are the most progressive state in the country, and Deval Patrick perfectly embodies our ideals. (I'm sorry- that came out sounding conceited. I can't help it tho, Mass is great...ugh, sorry, sorry, erase all that).
He is the only black governor in the United States, and the second in the entire history of the nation. But to get away from the race issue, Patrick is simply an amazing person and governor- the best we've had in a long time- maybe ever.
First off, he supports same-sex marriage whole-heartedly. He was actually at the head of the gay pride parade. He understands that nobody should ever be alienated or refused a right, and he recognizes that the government has no place in personal or religious matters: he is truly a great man. Because of him, we are and continue to be the only state in the country with same-sex marriage. Some people tried to change this, but Patrick wouldn't let them.
The two issues that best identify Deval are crime and education. Deval seems to have made ending crime and violence his number one priority. It's what he's been working hard at almost since he took office. I have to applaud him for that; I actually never go to Dorchester or JP because they're so dangerous. I'm really, really glad he's focusing on this issue.
The other thing that has attention is education. Even today on wbur, his new education spending plan was discussed.
The only thing that Patrick has done that has been criticized is that he bought expensive drapes for his office, using tax money. He realized, though, that he ought not to have done this, so he paid for it with his own money and put the drape money back in the state tithe. But, to be honest, I can't blame him. Nobody's perfect, and fancy drapes are hardly the worst sin one can commit.
But- I really don't think Patrick is at all a reflection of Obama, or vice versa. There's nothing to say is similar, other than being black and Harvard-educated, and that is nothing at all. There aren't any real points of comparison. Even career wise, there just isn't anything analogous: Patrick was an attorney while Obama was a city organizer before he became senator. And, a senator and governor have different responsibilities, so policies don't apply for comparison. I guess it could be said but that both are progressive democrats, but that's a vague statement. They're both extraordinary ppl, but they don't have much to do with each other.
In conclusion: vote for Obama.
Wait, no, I want to end a post Tempe/Tim style: That is all for now!
He is the only black governor in the United States, and the second in the entire history of the nation. But to get away from the race issue, Patrick is simply an amazing person and governor- the best we've had in a long time- maybe ever.
First off, he supports same-sex marriage whole-heartedly. He was actually at the head of the gay pride parade. He understands that nobody should ever be alienated or refused a right, and he recognizes that the government has no place in personal or religious matters: he is truly a great man. Because of him, we are and continue to be the only state in the country with same-sex marriage. Some people tried to change this, but Patrick wouldn't let them.
The two issues that best identify Deval are crime and education. Deval seems to have made ending crime and violence his number one priority. It's what he's been working hard at almost since he took office. I have to applaud him for that; I actually never go to Dorchester or JP because they're so dangerous. I'm really, really glad he's focusing on this issue.
The other thing that has attention is education. Even today on wbur, his new education spending plan was discussed.
The only thing that Patrick has done that has been criticized is that he bought expensive drapes for his office, using tax money. He realized, though, that he ought not to have done this, so he paid for it with his own money and put the drape money back in the state tithe. But, to be honest, I can't blame him. Nobody's perfect, and fancy drapes are hardly the worst sin one can commit.
But- I really don't think Patrick is at all a reflection of Obama, or vice versa. There's nothing to say is similar, other than being black and Harvard-educated, and that is nothing at all. There aren't any real points of comparison. Even career wise, there just isn't anything analogous: Patrick was an attorney while Obama was a city organizer before he became senator. And, a senator and governor have different responsibilities, so policies don't apply for comparison. I guess it could be said but that both are progressive democrats, but that's a vague statement. They're both extraordinary ppl, but they don't have much to do with each other.
In conclusion: vote for Obama.
Wait, no, I want to end a post Tempe/Tim style: That is all for now!
Thank you for that, Sally!! I love our state as well and that's all very positive stuff.
see, the Phoenix
had an article this week about the similarities between Patrick and Obama, which is what got me thinking. Cause there is more than you think, Sally.
for example, their campaigns are/were both run on message of hope and change. ("together we can" I think was Patrick's campaign slogan...)
they're also both running as outsiders, the new wave of politician, etc., the opposites of their opponents- who represent the "old ways". (the young-er newcomers as opposed to the clintons and the republicans)
and some of their speeches and tactics are very similar, and they have the same media-consultant-people (this is what the Phoenix article was about, there were many examples)
oh, and the phoenix article also mentioned that they were sort of friends
^^ these were the most important similarities to me. Because a lot of the criticisms of Obama are his youth/newcomerness, and his inexperience, and his "outsider" sort of figure. In these terms, Governor Patrick is a good example that these things (inexperience and outsiderness) won't necessarily pose a problem.
which is really all I wanted to know.
I mean, I know a senator/president is a lot different than a governor, but it's still helpful to see an example of someone who has, so far, succeeded.
So thank you, Sally! you give me hope in the political process once again! or something like that...
and that's all very positive stuff.see, the Phoenix
had an article this week about the similarities between Patrick and Obama, which is what got me thinking. Cause there is more than you think, Sally.for example, their campaigns are/were both run on message of hope and change. ("together we can" I think was Patrick's campaign slogan...)
they're also both running as outsiders, the new wave of politician, etc., the opposites of their opponents- who represent the "old ways". (the young-er newcomers as opposed to the clintons and the republicans)
and some of their speeches and tactics are very similar, and they have the same media-consultant-people (this is what the Phoenix article was about, there were many examples)
oh, and the phoenix article also mentioned that they were sort of friends
^^ these were the most important similarities to me. Because a lot of the criticisms of Obama are his youth/newcomerness, and his inexperience, and his "outsider" sort of figure. In these terms, Governor Patrick is a good example that these things (inexperience and outsiderness) won't necessarily pose a problem.
which is really all I wanted to know.
I mean, I know a senator/president is a lot different than a governor, but it's still helpful to see an example of someone who has, so far, succeeded.
So thank you, Sally! you give me hope in the political process once again! or something like that...
QUOTE (thephantommilk @ Jan 23 2008, 11:51 PM)
Thank you for that, Sally!! I love our state as well and that's all very positive stuff.
see, the Phoenix had an article this week about the similarities between Patrick and Obama, which is what got me thinking. Cause there is more than you think, Sally.
for example, their campaigns are/were both run on message of hope and change. ("together we can" I think was Patrick's campaign slogan...)
they're also both running as outsiders, the new wave of politician, etc., the opposites of their opponents- who represent the "old ways". (the young-er newcomers as opposed to the clintons and the republicans)
and some of their speeches and tactics are very similar, and they have the same media-consultant-people (this is what the Phoenix article was about, there were many examples)
oh, and the phoenix article also mentioned that they were sort of friends
and that's all very positive stuff.see, the Phoenix
had an article this week about the similarities between Patrick and Obama, which is what got me thinking. Cause there is more than you think, Sally.for example, their campaigns are/were both run on message of hope and change. ("together we can" I think was Patrick's campaign slogan...)
they're also both running as outsiders, the new wave of politician, etc., the opposites of their opponents- who represent the "old ways". (the young-er newcomers as opposed to the clintons and the republicans)
and some of their speeches and tactics are very similar, and they have the same media-consultant-people (this is what the Phoenix article was about, there were many examples)
oh, and the phoenix article also mentioned that they were sort of friends
oh! I didn't even think about their consultant ppl or images- that's true! So thank you! I don't remember Patrick being very "change oriented," I think I felt more like it was somehow more issue-oriented than image, just because, like you said, it was mainly about whether or not we wanted Healy to continue what she was doing(while the presidential sadly seems to be more image). But I make no sense, actually, because that really meant new vs old.
I just realized how ironic- Healy = Clinton. And I mean, she had a TON of negative ads in this huge smear campaign, haha, just like Clinton is doing now.
QUOTE (thephantommilk @ Jan 23 2008, 05:10 AM)
sorry for the double post, but I wanted to comment that my mom has made sure to let me know that I am most definitely NOT named after Margaret Thatcher, ever since before I knew or cared who Margaret Thatcher was (aka since I was like, five)
(and yes, my given name is Margaret, I go by Meg, etc. etc.)
So, we share a name, but it's purely a very bad coincidence.
(and yes, my given name is Margaret, I go by Meg, etc. etc.)
So, we share a name, but it's purely a very bad coincidence.
Hahahahah, unlucky!
That's awesome of your mom to make it clear to you tho, lol, even when you were that little!
And Sally - today I was talking to a guy about the Democrat elections, and he outlined all his reasons for hoping that Hilary Clinton wins (more experience than Obama being the main one). So I countered with all my reasons for disliking her (I haven't quite got to your level of hatred!!!) and backing Obama, and by the end of our conversation he changed his mind and now supports Obama too.
You'd've been proud of me
Yay, Alice! That is very, very awesome.
Meg- I had to add tho, he's not really inexperienced, and Clinton isn't really experienced. I didn't write this, but I wish I did:
The Facts: Senator Barack Obama1996-2004 (Illinois State Senator)2005-2008 (United States Senator)12 Years of Elected Office Experience
Senator Hillary Clinton2001-2008 (United States Senator)7 Years of Elected Office Experience(FYI - George W. Bush had 6 years in office before the presidency)
Barack Obama is more experienced to be President of the United States.
35 - 7 = 28 years of zero elected office experience for Hillary Clinton. Again, what 35 years of experience is Hillary talking about? Here are the remaining 28 years - 8 Years (Lawyer)12 Years (First Lady of Arkansas)8 Years (First Lady of the U.S.)28 Years of Zero Elected Office Experience Since when is 20 years of being a first lady relevant experience for being president? FINAL ANALYSIS Senator Barack Obama, Not Only By Virtue Of His Character, Honesty, And Competence, But Also By Virtue Of His Experience, Is Clearly More Qualified To Be President Of The United States.
I have a few things to add to this already volatile thread. First, Bill Clinton should be ashamed of himself. It's one thing to support your wife and include her in in anecdotes of your own success- that's fine- but it's a completely different thing to smear and distort the record of her rival. Bill has become dirty, so dirty, in fact, that SC representative James Clyburn actually had to tell Bill to "chill." The next day, Bill was asked how he was, and he replied, "pretty chilled out." Bill's been a vicious attack dog and a convenient celebrity to hold down SC while his wife campaigns elsewhere. It's disconcerting that we can no longer tell which Clinton Obama is running against (conflict of interest, anyone?)
Second, there has been a vicious chainletter circulating inboxes lately, saying that Obama is a Muslim and a terrorist, and that he doesn't say the pledge of allegiance. It's disgusting that these lies got so big that Obama had to actually say they're not true. He often the leads the pledge in Congress and he's been attending the same Christian church for 20 years. He's Christian and always has been (and, really, why does it matter?) These lies were printed in the free rightwing paper here, and, it crushed me. Totally crushed me. I lost my faith; I was helpless. But, the next day, I felt better and decided I would do something about it, so I talked to a conductor on the MBTA. I told him that there were lies about Obama in yesterday's paper (I was really pathetic talking to him- I was nearly crying). He was a sweet man; he talked to me about how in life there is always going to be false information out there, and you have to learn what to trust. And I realized that if I really want to be a liberal, I have to support and understand the marketplace of ideas, and that means I have to accept even rightwing propaganda. So, I'm trying...It's hard...And even though he'll never seen this, I want to thank that MBTA conductor. You've taught me a lot.
Anyway, check this out, from The New York Times:
Meg- I had to add tho, he's not really inexperienced, and Clinton isn't really experienced. I didn't write this, but I wish I did:
The Facts: Senator Barack Obama1996-2004 (Illinois State Senator)2005-2008 (United States Senator)12 Years of Elected Office Experience
Senator Hillary Clinton2001-2008 (United States Senator)7 Years of Elected Office Experience(FYI - George W. Bush had 6 years in office before the presidency)
Barack Obama is more experienced to be President of the United States.
35 - 7 = 28 years of zero elected office experience for Hillary Clinton. Again, what 35 years of experience is Hillary talking about? Here are the remaining 28 years - 8 Years (Lawyer)12 Years (First Lady of Arkansas)8 Years (First Lady of the U.S.)28 Years of Zero Elected Office Experience Since when is 20 years of being a first lady relevant experience for being president? FINAL ANALYSIS Senator Barack Obama, Not Only By Virtue Of His Character, Honesty, And Competence, But Also By Virtue Of His Experience, Is Clearly More Qualified To Be President Of The United States.
I have a few things to add to this already volatile thread. First, Bill Clinton should be ashamed of himself. It's one thing to support your wife and include her in in anecdotes of your own success- that's fine- but it's a completely different thing to smear and distort the record of her rival. Bill has become dirty, so dirty, in fact, that SC representative James Clyburn actually had to tell Bill to "chill." The next day, Bill was asked how he was, and he replied, "pretty chilled out." Bill's been a vicious attack dog and a convenient celebrity to hold down SC while his wife campaigns elsewhere. It's disconcerting that we can no longer tell which Clinton Obama is running against (conflict of interest, anyone?)
Second, there has been a vicious chainletter circulating inboxes lately, saying that Obama is a Muslim and a terrorist, and that he doesn't say the pledge of allegiance. It's disgusting that these lies got so big that Obama had to actually say they're not true. He often the leads the pledge in Congress and he's been attending the same Christian church for 20 years. He's Christian and always has been (and, really, why does it matter?) These lies were printed in the free rightwing paper here, and, it crushed me. Totally crushed me. I lost my faith; I was helpless. But, the next day, I felt better and decided I would do something about it, so I talked to a conductor on the MBTA. I told him that there were lies about Obama in yesterday's paper (I was really pathetic talking to him- I was nearly crying). He was a sweet man; he talked to me about how in life there is always going to be false information out there, and you have to learn what to trust. And I realized that if I really want to be a liberal, I have to support and understand the marketplace of ideas, and that means I have to accept even rightwing propaganda. So, I'm trying...It's hard...And even though he'll never seen this, I want to thank that MBTA conductor. You've taught me a lot.
Anyway, check this out, from The New York Times:
QUOTE
Hillary, Barack, Experience
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: January 20, 2008
With all the sniping from the Clinton camp about whether Barack Obama has enough experience to make a strong president, consider another presidential candidate who was far more of a novice. He had the gall to run for president even though he had served a single undistinguished term in the House of Representatives, before being hounded back to his district.
That was Abraham Lincoln.
Another successful president scorned any need for years of apprenticeship in Washington, declaring, “The same old experience is not relevant.” He suggested that the most useful training comes not from hanging around the White House and Congress but rather from experience “rooted in the real lives of real people” so that “it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.”
That was Bill Clinton running in 1992 against George H. W. Bush, who was then trumpeting his own experience over the callow youth of Mr. Clinton. That year Mr. Bush aired a television commercial urging voters to keep America “in the hands of experience.”
It might seem obvious that long service in Washington is the best preparation for the White House, but on the contrary, one lesson of American history is that length of experience in national politics is an extremely poor predictor of presidential success.
Looking at the 19 presidents since 1900, three of the greatest were among those with the fewest years in electoral politics. Teddy Roosevelt had been a governor for two years and vice president for six months; Woodrow Wilson, a governor for just two years; and Franklin Roosevelt, a governor for four years. None ever served in Congress.
They all did have executive experience (as did Mr. Clinton), actually running something larger than a Senate office. Maybe that’s something voters should think about more: governors have often made better presidents than senators. But that’s not a good Democratic talking point, because the candidates with the greatest administrative experience by far are Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee.
Alternatively, look at the five presidents since 1900 with perhaps the most political experience when taking office: William McKinley, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush. They had great technical skills — but not one was among our very greatest presidents.
The point is not that experience is pointless but that it needn’t be in politics to be useful. John McCain’s years as a P.O.W. gave him an understanding of torture and a moral authority to discuss it that no amount of Senate hearings ever could have conferred.
In the same way, Mr. Obama’s years as an antipoverty organizer give him insights into one of our greatest challenges: how to end cycles of poverty. That front-line experience is one reason Mr. Obama not only favors government spending programs, like early-childhood education, but also cultural initiatives like promoting responsible fatherhood.
Then there’s Mr. Obama’s grade-school years in Indonesia. Our most serious mistakes in foreign policy, from Vietnam to Iraq, have been a blindness to other people’s nationalism and an inability to see ourselves as others see us. Mr. Obama seems to have absorbed an intuitive sensitivity to that problem. For starters, he understood back in 2002 that American troops would not be greeted in Iraq with flowers.
In politics, Mr. Obama’s preparation is indeed thin, though it’s more than Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledges. His seven years in the Illinois State Senate aren’t heavily scrutinized, but he scored significant achievements there: a law to videotape police interrogations in capital cases; an earned income tax credit to fight poverty; an expansion of early-childhood education.
Mrs. Clinton’s strength is her mastery of the details of domestic and foreign policy, unrivaled among the candidates; she speaks fluently about what to do in Pakistan, Iraq, Darfur. Mr. Obama’s strength is his vision and charisma and the possibility that his election would heal divisions at home and around the world. John Edwards’s strength is his common touch and his leadership among the candidates in establishing detailed positions on health care, poverty and foreign aid.
Those are the meaningful distinctions in the Democratic field, not Mrs. Clinton’s spurious claim to “35 years of experience.” The Democrats with the greatest Washington expertise — Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson — have already been driven from the race. And the presidential candidate left standing with the greatest experience by far is Mr. McCain; if Mrs. Clinton believes that’s the criterion for selecting the next president, she might consider backing him.
To put it another way, think which politician is most experienced today in the classic sense, and thus — according to the “experience” camp — best qualified to become the next president.
That’s Dick Cheney. And I rest my case.
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: January 20, 2008
With all the sniping from the Clinton camp about whether Barack Obama has enough experience to make a strong president, consider another presidential candidate who was far more of a novice. He had the gall to run for president even though he had served a single undistinguished term in the House of Representatives, before being hounded back to his district.
That was Abraham Lincoln.
Another successful president scorned any need for years of apprenticeship in Washington, declaring, “The same old experience is not relevant.” He suggested that the most useful training comes not from hanging around the White House and Congress but rather from experience “rooted in the real lives of real people” so that “it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.”
That was Bill Clinton running in 1992 against George H. W. Bush, who was then trumpeting his own experience over the callow youth of Mr. Clinton. That year Mr. Bush aired a television commercial urging voters to keep America “in the hands of experience.”
It might seem obvious that long service in Washington is the best preparation for the White House, but on the contrary, one lesson of American history is that length of experience in national politics is an extremely poor predictor of presidential success.
Looking at the 19 presidents since 1900, three of the greatest were among those with the fewest years in electoral politics. Teddy Roosevelt had been a governor for two years and vice president for six months; Woodrow Wilson, a governor for just two years; and Franklin Roosevelt, a governor for four years. None ever served in Congress.
They all did have executive experience (as did Mr. Clinton), actually running something larger than a Senate office. Maybe that’s something voters should think about more: governors have often made better presidents than senators. But that’s not a good Democratic talking point, because the candidates with the greatest administrative experience by far are Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee.
Alternatively, look at the five presidents since 1900 with perhaps the most political experience when taking office: William McKinley, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush. They had great technical skills — but not one was among our very greatest presidents.
The point is not that experience is pointless but that it needn’t be in politics to be useful. John McCain’s years as a P.O.W. gave him an understanding of torture and a moral authority to discuss it that no amount of Senate hearings ever could have conferred.
In the same way, Mr. Obama’s years as an antipoverty organizer give him insights into one of our greatest challenges: how to end cycles of poverty. That front-line experience is one reason Mr. Obama not only favors government spending programs, like early-childhood education, but also cultural initiatives like promoting responsible fatherhood.
Then there’s Mr. Obama’s grade-school years in Indonesia. Our most serious mistakes in foreign policy, from Vietnam to Iraq, have been a blindness to other people’s nationalism and an inability to see ourselves as others see us. Mr. Obama seems to have absorbed an intuitive sensitivity to that problem. For starters, he understood back in 2002 that American troops would not be greeted in Iraq with flowers.
In politics, Mr. Obama’s preparation is indeed thin, though it’s more than Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledges. His seven years in the Illinois State Senate aren’t heavily scrutinized, but he scored significant achievements there: a law to videotape police interrogations in capital cases; an earned income tax credit to fight poverty; an expansion of early-childhood education.
Mrs. Clinton’s strength is her mastery of the details of domestic and foreign policy, unrivaled among the candidates; she speaks fluently about what to do in Pakistan, Iraq, Darfur. Mr. Obama’s strength is his vision and charisma and the possibility that his election would heal divisions at home and around the world. John Edwards’s strength is his common touch and his leadership among the candidates in establishing detailed positions on health care, poverty and foreign aid.
Those are the meaningful distinctions in the Democratic field, not Mrs. Clinton’s spurious claim to “35 years of experience.” The Democrats with the greatest Washington expertise — Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson — have already been driven from the race. And the presidential candidate left standing with the greatest experience by far is Mr. McCain; if Mrs. Clinton believes that’s the criterion for selecting the next president, she might consider backing him.
To put it another way, think which politician is most experienced today in the classic sense, and thus — according to the “experience” camp — best qualified to become the next president.
That’s Dick Cheney. And I rest my case.
lol, Rachel! The video of it is on yahoo. Hilarious!
Clinton has sort of apologized for Bill's lying and distorting Obama's record. Too little too late.
Please do read this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325670,00.html
It's about the real Bill, the explosive Bill, that we've just recently been exposed to.
I don't like how she said spouses would get carried away- I mean, neither Edwards's nor Obama's wives have taken it upon themselves to start a smear campaign. And um, he's the former president of the United States- he should know the difference b/t right and wrong by now.
Clinton has sort of apologized for Bill's lying and distorting Obama's record. Too little too late.
Please do read this: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,325670,00.html
It's about the real Bill, the explosive Bill, that we've just recently been exposed to.
I don't like how she said spouses would get carried away- I mean, neither Edwards's nor Obama's wives have taken it upon themselves to start a smear campaign. And um, he's the former president of the United States- he should know the difference b/t right and wrong by now.
YES!!!!!!!! OBAMA WON S.C.!!!!!!! AWESOME.
I guess Bill and Hillary's dirty tactics didn't work out...
I guess Bill and Hillary's dirty tactics didn't work out...
QUOTE (porifera @ Jan 26 2008, 07:23 PM)
YES!!!!!!!! OBAMA WON S.C.!!!!!!! AWESOME.
I guess Bill and Hillary's dirty tactics didn't work out...
I guess Bill and Hillary's dirty tactics didn't work out...
Yeah!
High-Five, my Obama buddy!
Hugs to the whole world!!!!!
Change really is possible!
YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
HIGH FIVE OBAMA BUDDY!!!!!!!
I knew he could do it.
HIGH FIVE OBAMA BUDDY!!!!!!!
I knew he could do it.
President JFK's daughter just endorsed Obama!!!!!!
A President like My Father:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion
A President like My Father:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion
QUOTE (Tabetha @ Jan 26 2008, 10:10 PM)
President JFK's daughter just endorsed Obama!!!!!!
A President like My Father:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion
A President like My Father:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/...tml?ref=opinion
Wow. I just read that to my mom and dad and Adam - we're all quite moved.
Oh, Rachel- that's so lovely and inspiring. I wish there were more ppl as thoughtful and engaging as you.
Senator Ted Kennedy is endorsing Obama tomorrow. This is wonderful and amazing; Senator Kennedy is very respected.
It's hard campaining sometimes. Sometimes I help people come to a decision by giving them more information, and that feels incredible. And I meet the nicest people, who tell me really interesting views and stories and thank me for doing what I'm doing as a volunteer. But some ppl are just plain rude and mean- I mean, they say horrible, nasty things. But today I tried imagining that Andy and Damian are going door-to-door at the exact moment I am, and making phone calls at the exact same moment I am, and giving out stickers at the exact same moment I am. This is silly, but it's fun to think about and helps not thinking about the mean ppl.
Senator Ted Kennedy is endorsing Obama tomorrow. This is wonderful and amazing; Senator Kennedy is very respected.
It's hard campaining sometimes. Sometimes I help people come to a decision by giving them more information, and that feels incredible. And I meet the nicest people, who tell me really interesting views and stories and thank me for doing what I'm doing as a volunteer. But some ppl are just plain rude and mean- I mean, they say horrible, nasty things. But today I tried imagining that Andy and Damian are going door-to-door at the exact moment I am, and making phone calls at the exact same moment I am, and giving out stickers at the exact same moment I am. This is silly, but it's fun to think about and helps not thinking about the mean ppl.
haha well Bostoners aren't known for our manners, really
if you came campaigning to my house, I'd be nice
seriously though, Sally, I think it's really cool that you're so involved in campaigning for what you believe in
oh, and Ted Kennedy's going for Obama as well?
nice.
if you came campaigning to my house, I'd be nice
seriously though, Sally, I think it's really cool that you're so involved in campaigning for what you believe in
oh, and Ted Kennedy's going for Obama as well?
nice.
Wow, Sally. You are too cool!
If I was up in Mass. I would TOTALLY help you campaign. Then we can both take on the mean, nasty, rude people! haha
And if you happen to be in NY at any time, find me, and we'll go Obama crazy! haha I really wish you can come to Barack Rock. You would totally enjoy it.
If I was up in Mass. I would TOTALLY help you campaign. Then we can both take on the mean, nasty, rude people! haha
And if you happen to be in NY at any time, find me, and we'll go Obama crazy! haha I really wish you can come to Barack Rock. You would totally enjoy it.
Alright, this is going to get me in deep shit I know, so let me preface this with a few thing:
1) I have not decided who I am going to vote for. I honestly have not been looking into this as much as I should and since Dennis Kucinich has dropped out. I'm a little lost. Let's all take a moment to honor Dennis Kucinich; he is a crazy, but someone has to be.
2) This is directed at NO ONE on the boards, at all. It is just a GENERAL complaint with the political race. You know that I respect your political views and it would be completely against my argument to criticize anyone for taking a stand in what they believe in.
OK? OK.
That being said, I'm currently undecided. That's fine. I have time to figure things out about which candidate I'm going to vote for in the primaries (assuming my absentee ballot comes on time). But I HATE that when I say that I think I might vote for Hillary that I'm bombarded by the fact that her campaign has been pegged as "uncool." It's not hip to like Hillary, despite the fact that her platform isn't half-bad. Sure, she's engaged in all the same political tactics as others, using emotion to get votes. But seriously, both sides are doing it, just is different ways. You don't think that appealing to the general feeling of malaise and disunity in the US by promoting oneself as the unifier might just be another way to appeal to emotion? Surely it's not "fighting back tears," but to say that it's not playing to emotion seems off to me. Plus, there's no way to argue against it. It feels that by saying that I'm just thinking about not voting for Obama, that I'm against unification of the US, which isn't true in the least.
Again, I am seriously considering voting for Obama and I'm sure that Hillary is toting out the same exact tactics. But seriously, I'm so tired of people avoiding talking about policy and instead relying on emotive but empty words. And, yes, it's nice to be on the board and have people give me concrete information about platforms. THAT'S helpful. However, when Hillary's name is booed at Obama rallies, JUST as Obama is booed at Hillary rallies, don't you think that's an indicator of something?
1) I have not decided who I am going to vote for. I honestly have not been looking into this as much as I should and since Dennis Kucinich has dropped out. I'm a little lost. Let's all take a moment to honor Dennis Kucinich; he is a crazy, but someone has to be.
2) This is directed at NO ONE on the boards, at all. It is just a GENERAL complaint with the political race. You know that I respect your political views and it would be completely against my argument to criticize anyone for taking a stand in what they believe in.
OK? OK.
That being said, I'm currently undecided. That's fine. I have time to figure things out about which candidate I'm going to vote for in the primaries (assuming my absentee ballot comes on time). But I HATE that when I say that I think I might vote for Hillary that I'm bombarded by the fact that her campaign has been pegged as "uncool." It's not hip to like Hillary, despite the fact that her platform isn't half-bad. Sure, she's engaged in all the same political tactics as others, using emotion to get votes. But seriously, both sides are doing it, just is different ways. You don't think that appealing to the general feeling of malaise and disunity in the US by promoting oneself as the unifier might just be another way to appeal to emotion? Surely it's not "fighting back tears," but to say that it's not playing to emotion seems off to me. Plus, there's no way to argue against it. It feels that by saying that I'm just thinking about not voting for Obama, that I'm against unification of the US, which isn't true in the least.
Again, I am seriously considering voting for Obama and I'm sure that Hillary is toting out the same exact tactics. But seriously, I'm so tired of people avoiding talking about policy and instead relying on emotive but empty words. And, yes, it's nice to be on the board and have people give me concrete information about platforms. THAT'S helpful. However, when Hillary's name is booed at Obama rallies, JUST as Obama is booed at Hillary rallies, don't you think that's an indicator of something?
First of all, let me just say that I love your complete devotion to the Kucinich. Haha And yes, he was crazy, but in a good way? Probably...
And second, no one should harass you for your views and opinions on the topic. What I think is really cool about all the people here, is that we can have these political discussions and no one is getting blasted or completely criticized for their view.
And second, no one should harass you for your views and opinions on the topic. What I think is really cool about all the people here, is that we can have these political discussions and no one is getting blasted or completely criticized for their view.
Oh I know that, which is why I felt comfortable expressing my complaint here; it's more a comment on my dealings with acquaintances and whatnot.
My roommate and I seriously adored Kucinich. I'm pretty sure we watched the Kucinich on Colbert segment a few too many times. Sure, he wanted to replace the Pentagon with the "Department of Peace," but I genuinely think that he was such a crucial part to the democratic race simply since he could say things that no one else could (since I assume he realized that he probably wouldn't get the votes). I love him.
My roommate and I seriously adored Kucinich. I'm pretty sure we watched the Kucinich on Colbert segment a few too many times. Sure, he wanted to replace the Pentagon with the "Department of Peace," but I genuinely think that he was such a crucial part to the democratic race simply since he could say things that no one else could (since I assume he realized that he probably wouldn't get the votes). I love him.
aw, Tonetoil, that's awful. Coolness is not part of the equation, gah. People who do that- grrr. I hate when people don't look at the issues- I mean, it's like, this isn't a hipster contest or whatnot. Your opinion is your opinion: this isn't about trends but real responses to issues. I'm guilty of being pushy tho- sowwy. But that your acquaintances harass you b/c your opinion isn't "cool"- ugh, ugh, I'm sorry. You should tell them that telling ppl you're cool isn't cool.
My sister told me about this girl in her class believes that Obama was a Muslim who became Christian to run for president, that he lived in Iraq, that he's a terrorist, and that we don't know who he is. And when my sister was like, "um, I don't think your sources are accurate," the girl was like, "Yes, they are!" And my sister didn't want to argue b/c this girl is at the top of the class and is all, "I'm smarter than you."
I mean, Obama has been a senator for 12 years, he was born and always has been a Christian, he went to Harvard, and he wrote two books- TWO- about his life. He has laid his life out right there for ppl to scrutinize but instead of reading his books, reading his platform, watching the debates, and examining his record, ppl hear smear campaign rumors and eat them up. Suddenly Hillary is who you vote for if you're a feminist and Obama is who you vote for if you're a South Carolina black person. It's enough to make a person go absolutely mad. I talked to a guy who said, "This damn media should stop talking about race and report this as an ELECTION." He threw in a lot more "damns" and "hells" and I absolutely loved him.
And there have been ppl who flat out said to me that they're voting for Hillary b/c of her husband. So many ppl can't understand that we're electing the leader of a superpower here.
And this morning, I get on the subway, and there's more garbage in the republican paper about Obama. I really, really want to be a good person and a true liberal and accept and tolerate all ideas and publications- but no, what I honestly want to do is grab all of those pieces of trash propaganda and rip them up. The press has an obligation to tell the truth, so why are there nothing but lies and distortions in this paper? Everytime I see someone reading it, I want to tell them, "Those are lies!" But I can't- that would make me a crazy person screeching on the subway. But so what's left? How can a grassroots campaign possibly counter the machinery of right-wing propaganda?
ooo, how awesome would that be?! I'm mostly door-to-door in Cambridge, Alston and Brighton, but if I ever see you, eee! We should have hot chocolate!
oo, yes! We would be Bret and Jemaine team-worthy! And we'd have songs! I wish I could go- Obama fundraiser and OK Go? Why, that's a magic combination! Ta-dah!
But I'm so glad you're going! I can't wait to hear all about it! And piccies, please! It'll be fantastic!
And thanks, guys- you're so nice! I wouldn't say it's particularly admirable tho...It's just that he's a person of true goodness, virtue, honor and justice: he embodies everything we value. We need such an amazing leader; it's been a long time since someone of such truth and caring has entered our political arena. It hurts to think we could lose him. I only campaign b/c otherwise, I'd be overwhelmed by helplessness and afraid that dirty politics would prevail again.
My sister told me about this girl in her class believes that Obama was a Muslim who became Christian to run for president, that he lived in Iraq, that he's a terrorist, and that we don't know who he is. And when my sister was like, "um, I don't think your sources are accurate," the girl was like, "Yes, they are!" And my sister didn't want to argue b/c this girl is at the top of the class and is all, "I'm smarter than you."
I mean, Obama has been a senator for 12 years, he was born and always has been a Christian, he went to Harvard, and he wrote two books- TWO- about his life. He has laid his life out right there for ppl to scrutinize but instead of reading his books, reading his platform, watching the debates, and examining his record, ppl hear smear campaign rumors and eat them up. Suddenly Hillary is who you vote for if you're a feminist and Obama is who you vote for if you're a South Carolina black person. It's enough to make a person go absolutely mad. I talked to a guy who said, "This damn media should stop talking about race and report this as an ELECTION." He threw in a lot more "damns" and "hells" and I absolutely loved him.
And there have been ppl who flat out said to me that they're voting for Hillary b/c of her husband. So many ppl can't understand that we're electing the leader of a superpower here.
And this morning, I get on the subway, and there's more garbage in the republican paper about Obama. I really, really want to be a good person and a true liberal and accept and tolerate all ideas and publications- but no, what I honestly want to do is grab all of those pieces of trash propaganda and rip them up. The press has an obligation to tell the truth, so why are there nothing but lies and distortions in this paper? Everytime I see someone reading it, I want to tell them, "Those are lies!" But I can't- that would make me a crazy person screeching on the subway. But so what's left? How can a grassroots campaign possibly counter the machinery of right-wing propaganda?
QUOTE
if you came campaigning to my house, I'd be nice
ooo, how awesome would that be?! I'm mostly door-to-door in Cambridge, Alston and Brighton, but if I ever see you, eee! We should have hot chocolate!
QUOTE
If I was up in Mass. I would TOTALLY help you campaign. Then we can both take on the mean, nasty, rude people! haha
And if you happen to be in NY at any time, find me, and we'll go Obama crazy! haha I really wish you can come to Barack Rock. You would totally enjoy it.
And if you happen to be in NY at any time, find me, and we'll go Obama crazy! haha I really wish you can come to Barack Rock. You would totally enjoy it.
oo, yes! We would be Bret and Jemaine team-worthy! And we'd have songs! I wish I could go- Obama fundraiser and OK Go? Why, that's a magic combination! Ta-dah!
But I'm so glad you're going! I can't wait to hear all about it! And piccies, please! It'll be fantastic!
And thanks, guys- you're so nice! I wouldn't say it's particularly admirable tho...It's just that he's a person of true goodness, virtue, honor and justice: he embodies everything we value. We need such an amazing leader; it's been a long time since someone of such truth and caring has entered our political arena. It hurts to think we could lose him. I only campaign b/c otherwise, I'd be overwhelmed by helplessness and afraid that dirty politics would prevail again.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.