Kyfe wrote:

I hate this election cycle - usually I know who I want to vote against, but this time - they are all equally bad

I'm young and idealistic (gullible) enough to be pulling for (taken in by) Obama.

We'll see how that goes.

I found it strange that she left herself on the Michigan ballot.  With no delegates to win, there was little upside.  The downside was the possibility of losing the race to those voting against her who checked the "undecided" box.  Although it didn't happen, it was close enough for people to ask if she can really win a national election against white male.

phreddy wrote:

it was close enough for people to ask if she can really win a national election against white male.

It's not about beating a white male - it's about if Hillary as a person is electable.  Her resume is pretty contrived and the whole concept has a smell to it.

choad wrote:

Way it looks to me from here, we'll witness a record low voter turnout this election and alienation like we've never seen.

I was with ya up to there... but I beg to differ on that... I think you're gonna see record turnout, particularly amongst the independent and under-30 demographics.  IMHO it's gonna go heavily Democratic, pretty much regardless of who the Dem's choose.

phreddy wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

It's not about beating a white male - it's about if Hillary as a person is electable.  Her resume is pretty contrived and the whole concept has a smell to it.

I agree about the resume, but she does have a following (mainly women).  She is having problems beating a black man who has no experience.  I'm sorry, but race still matters, even among the Democrats.  She has zip support from white men, so I'm thinking she will be buried if she gets the nomination.  Some of us salivate at the thought.

Phred, I don't have anything to back my opinion up, but from personel observation I suspect that  Hillary hate is not as widespread as you ascribe it outside partisian republicans.

A large part of the population, and certainly many democrats, recognized Clinton deraingement syndromn when it appeared for the political machination that it is.

There is no doubt that she is part of the entrenched establishment and there is a long standing  leaning amongst party's voters to want to have a changing of the old guard. This competes with partisinship leanings and is often bent by candidates to sell us the same old thing in new packaging.

In the end, I predict that no matter who is chosen from amongst the horde of candidates Right or Left, and for all their talk change and the different policy planks, not much will actually change in the way our Government writes policy to conducts business as usual.

Last edited by Johnny Rotten (2008-01-16 15:42:14)

whosasailorthen wrote:

Name *anything* he has contributed to society... as senator, a bill he introduced and saw through to publication... an organisation he's run... anything?  Oh, yeah, a couple of books.

This goes well with an oft unproven theory between some (racist) friends and my (mostly unracist) self:

Name one country run by a black person that is doing well.

I still haven't been able to, and I guess it is partly because I'm too lazy to go beyond the obvious.  Shall the trend continue with Obama, it will only enforce my stereotypically inclined friends...

More than happy to be proven wrong on this one.

That was fascinating (no sarcasm).  I had never looked at it that way. 

I agree Obama is extremely charismatic but that's about all I know about him.  I know more about Clinton's positions, and her probable agenda should she ascend to the throne.  She's nowhere near as likeable as her hubby but I don't have a serious problem with her.

I was a Bill Richardson backer, even though I knew he wouldn't make it very far.  I hope he tries again.

Roger_That wrote:

whosasailorthen wrote:

Name *anything* he has contributed to society... as senator, a bill he introduced and saw through to publication... an organisation he's run... anything?  Oh, yeah, a couple of books.

This goes well with an oft unproven theory between some (racist) friends and my (mostly unracist) self:

Name one country run by a black person that is doing well.

I still haven't been able to, and I guess it is partly because I'm too lazy to go beyond the obvious.  Shall the trend continue with Obama, it will only enforce my stereotypically inclined friends...

More than happy to be proven wrong on this one.

Well, there's lots of descrimination everywhere, if you look for it. 

Speaking as a blonde man, can you name me 5 male leaders, of particular note, who are blonde?   

I'm betting the only ones you can name are ones who made it on their own, as entrepreneurs - like the guy from Virgin Air or Ted Turner, or indeed, myself.  But how about elected officials, heads of corporations, etc.?  How many blonde males (not gray or white-haired, mind you) are in those ranks?  Can you name 5?

It's pretty tough.   And for every 1 you name I can name 10 blacks, hispanics or women who made it to a similar position.

Descrimination is not reserved for those with skin pigmentation issues, folks.

Sure it is carpetbagging, but did Hillary really reside anywhere after getting the boot from the Whitehouse? If you had an ambition to be POTUS or as second choice a powerfull player in Congress, what would you have done? Run for senate in  Arkensas? With its small population that had shifted to the Republicans. Everyone knew she had undeclared future presidential ambitions and to accomplish that within 12 years she had to show a competent Democratic track record in Congress or as Gov of a large Democratic State. heck if we hadn't just elected our own bitches here she may have filled the CA seats.  On the other hand if it wasn't for the carpetbagging choices of the GOP in selecting my favorite republican, Alan Keyes, we probably wouldn't have caught Obama fevor so soon.



I was concerned that she had traded on her name rather then job experience to win the Senate seat, but her effectiveness as a politician for NY has shown that she had gained practical experience from being a pant wearer in the family business. She did honor her promiss not to bale on her NY seat during her first term.

Last edited by Johnny Rotten (2008-01-16 21:22:49)

Johnny Rotten wrote:

I was concerned that she had traded on her name rather then job experience to win the Senate seat, but her effectiveness as a politician for NY has shown that she had gained practical experience from being a pant wearer in the family business.

Really?  What wonderous things did she accomplish for the grateful citizens of new York?

Johnny Rotten wrote:

Phred, I don't have anything to back my opinion up, but from personel observation I suspect that  Hillary hate is not as widespread as you ascribe it outside partisian republicans.

Way back in March there was an interesting poll done by Harris Interactive.  The question that they asked that most people don't ask is, "who would you refuse to vote for?"  In that poll about 50% of people stated that they would refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton.  The number is probably lower now that the Republican candidate pool has been revealed more clearly to the public, but I still tend to think that if Clinton becomes the Democratic Party's candidate the race will be closer than it would if Obama wins.

Just a few interesting tidbits I came across when cleaning out my files on the 'puter tonight... as this is a political thread, I'll throw them in here and see what stinks sticks.... all refer to the ex-Mr. Hussain....

Letter to President Clinton dated October 9th, 1999, signed by the following Senators:
Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerry:

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the US Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."

From Senator Joe Biden, August 4, 2002:

"This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world, and this is a guy who is in every way possible seeking weapons of mass destruction."

From Senator Chuck Schumer, October 10, 2002:

"It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states."

From Senator Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002:

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

That is all.
(Oh, was it my turn to stir the pot?)

Last edited by whosasailorthen (2008-01-17 00:53:28)

Johnny Rotten wrote:

Sure it is carpetbagging, but did Hillary really reside anywhere after getting the boot from the Whitehouse?

Oh, my. Two insults in one sentence, three if you count Hillary. White House is two words and I must take serious exception to the derision associated with carpet baggers. My kin always traveled with proper baggage, though they did make their fortune in New Orleans during "The War". What,  hundreds of so-called Southerners didn't cash in on the recent Katrina troubles engineered for their purposes by the Army Corp? Exploiting the weak and vulnerable is this great nation's defining character.

Long live the sacred memory of General Butler!

George Orr wrote:

That was fascinating. I had never looked at it that way.

As you've mentioned, I have my occasional uses.

George Orr wrote:

I agree Obama is extremely charismatic but that's about all I know about him.

And therein lies the problem. I think that's about all anybody knows about him. Even if he was forthright and assertive about any social or political issue, it would still remain little more than personal opinion, or possibly an enlightened observation. I will give the man all the credit in the world for charm and intelligence, but you can't invent experience. That's why his opponents of both parties have little to assail him with and why he, himself, is distracting us with the flying doves of peace and the fluffy bunnies of hope. It's a magic trick.

As unpalatable as I often find Clinton, she's neither as ghoulish as CEO Mittens nor as 'religiopathic' as Huckles. 9IU11ANI is a broken record with a demagnetized moral compass (just ask Donna Hanover). Edwards, as I thought the first time around, is just a milquetoast. I don't think I'd want him as a bank teller, let alone have him to manage what is sure to be the greatest economic catastrophe in our nation's history. McCain may well be trying to fly under the radar until Super Tuesday, but I don't think he could win against any of the Dems. He bores the crap out of me more than Edwards, and I lost interest in anything good in him after his repeated suckings-up to Bush. Ironically, if I lean a little to my right (no pun intended), I can see one of his apartments in Phoenix.

pALEPHx wrote:

George Orr wrote:

I agree Obama is extremely charismatic but that's about all I know about him.

And therein lies the problem. I think that's about all anybody knows about him. Even if he was forthright and assertive about any social or political issue, it would still remain little more than personal opinion, or possibly an enlightened observation. I will give the man all the credit in the world for charm and intelligence, but you can't invent experience. That's why his opponents of both parties have little to assail him with and why he, himself, is distracting us with the flying doves of peace and the fluffy bunnies of hope. It's a magic trick.

What?  No experience?  10 years as a Constitutional Law professor, 7 years in the Illinois Senate, and 2 years in the US Senate is plenty of experience to do the job.  He has more years of experience in politics than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, unless we're somehow elevating being First Lady to be on par with a Senate seat.

tojo2000 wrote:

choad wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

While I won't claim accuracy, I will claim that working in the Financial industry in Santa Monica does give me a broad, if twisted, representation.

You're kidding? The city whose nationally recognized motto is, "The home of the homeless"?

Are we talking about Santa Cruz?

No.  The People's Republic of Santa Monica.

choad wrote:

whosasailorthen wrote:

How many blonde males (not gray or white-haired, mind you) are in those ranks?

Yo, fnord! Where are you, Whitey?

I didn’t want to step in this as Sailor is having some sort of identity crisis and pity party about being blonde*.  This has overtones I would prefer not to deal with, but I wish for Sailor a satisfactory resolution.

*Females are blonde, males are blond.

tojo2000 wrote:

10 years as a Constitutional Law professor, 7 years in the Illinois Senate, and 2 years in the US Senate is plenty of experience to do the job. He has more years of experience in politics than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, unless we're somehow elevating being First Lady to be on par with a Senate seat.

I didn't say he had no experience but--not to offend all teachers, two of whom are my parents--to be a professor and to be in practice are two different things (I will not risk bringing up that old adage, making this more offensive, unintentionally). And yes, I suppose if you add his time at the state and federal levels of legislation, his nine beat Hillary's six. Presuming she sat there doing absolutely nothing between 1992 and 2000 (and the argument can certainly be made that she pretended not to see a few things during that period), then she also learned nothing about the operations of an effective presidency (we certainly won't be needing someone who could hit that ground running, right?). We can just forget her whole existence in Arkansas, if you'd like.

She is better connected, more experienced (in the sense of 'familiarity' if not chronological servitude), and accustomed to serving a far larger constituency. I'm not even that thrilled with her to be flogging for her here, but two years representing your state isn't enough. Is it really, for you? I'm not even sure six would be. I think Obama would make a terrific Veep (fat chance getting on the ticket with a woman), or a Cabinet-level position. I can't see him as a Chief-of-Staff; thus, not as President. His continued presence, however--in nearly any capacity--might go a long way toward repairing the damage already done to our Constitution.

pALEPHx wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

10 years as a Constitutional Law professor, 7 years in the Illinois Senate, and 2 years in the US Senate is plenty of experience to do the job. He has more years of experience in politics than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards, unless we're somehow elevating being First Lady to be on par with a Senate seat.

I didn't say he had no experience but--not to offend all teachers, two of whom are my parents--to be a professor and to be in practice are two different things (I will not risk bringing up that old adage, making this more offensive, unintentionally). And yes, I suppose if you add his time at the state and federal levels of legislation, his nine beat Hillary's six. Presuming she sat there doing absolutely nothing between 1992 and 2000 (and the argument can certainly be made that she pretended not to see a few things during that period), then she also learned nothing about the operations of an effective presidency (we certainly won't be needing someone who could hit that ground running, right?). We can just forget her whole existence in Arkansas, if you'd like.

She is better connected, more experienced (in the sense of 'familiarity' if not chronological servitude), and accustomed to serving a far larger constituency. I'm not even that thrilled with her to be flogging for her here, but two years representing your state isn't enough. Is it really, for you? I'm not even sure six would be. I think Obama would make a terrific Veep (fat chance getting on the ticket with a woman), or a Cabinet-level position. I can't see him as a Chief-of-Staff; thus, not as President. His continued presence, however--in nearly any capacity--might go a long way toward repairing the damage already done to our Constitution.

Well sure, her experience as a First Lady will help in some respects, but give me a break, it's not like she was sitting in the cabinet meetings taking notes.  And yes, I think devoting nine years of your life in government is enough experience to be considered for office as the Presdent of the United States, I think he knows more about the Constitution than probably anyone else running, which is going to be key in the next presidency, I think that not only is he naturally charismatic and diplomatic, but he has experience living in another country, which gives him a leg up when preparing to try to undo what George W. Bush has done for the past 7+ years, his record is much less hawkish, he has much less baggage going into the healthcare issue, and while his political contacts in Washington may not be as strong as Hillary Clinton's, he also hasn't built up the animosity with the minority party in Congress that she has and has more of a chance to push his policies through. 

Since you're the one who seems to think I'm setting the bar too low, though, what is it that you actually think he's lacking?  What is it that he doesn't have, other than some notion that somehow he'd learn the art of the presidency by osmosis if he stuck around longer?

fnord wrote:

choad wrote:

whosasailorthen wrote:

How many blonde males (not gray or white-haired, mind you) are in those ranks?

Yo, fnord! Where are you, Whitey?

I didn’t want to step in this as Sailor is having some sort of identity crisis and pity party about being blonde*.  This has overtones I would prefer not to deal with, but I wish for Sailor a satisfactory resolution.

*Females are blonde, males are blond.

Sorry to disappoint, but it's not a pity party, Fnord.  I'm quite happy with my blond(e) head - indeed, at least I still *have* all my hair.... besides, it matters little to me now - I've made my bucks and I'm a happy little camper at this point in my life.

I was just making a little observed point regarding descrimination - it happens in very subtle ways, and to folks who you'd otherwise think could never possibly face descrimination.  Like blond(e) men.

Oh, and I still have yet to have anyone take me up on the challenge......

whosasailorthen wrote:

fnord wrote:

choad wrote:

Yo, fnord! Where are you, Whitey?

I didn’t want to step in this as Sailor is having some sort of identity crisis and pity party about being blonde*.  This has overtones I would prefer not to deal with, but I wish for Sailor a satisfactory resolution.

*Females are blonde, males are blond.

Sorry to disappoint, but it's not a pity party, Fnord.  I'm quite happy with my blond(e) head - indeed, at least I still *have* all my hair.... besides, it matters little to me now - I've made my bucks and I'm a happy little camper at this point in my life.

I was just making a little observed point regarding descrimination - it happens in very subtle ways, and to folks who you'd otherwise think could never possibly face descrimination.  Like blond(e) men.

Oh, and I still have yet to have anyone take me up on the challenge......

I’ve seen many young men on their way up the political ladder who are blond.  Not many blond men become world leaders while their hair is still blond.  Since they are no longer considered blond in your book when their hair has turned grey, white, or has fallen out, it will be difficult to name five blond world leaders. Blond hair coloring looks fake and has a way of making an older man look like a nasty vicious screaming queen, so staying grey is seen as a more dignified option.

I have all of my hair and am still more or less blond.  I don’t think blond men per se are discriminated against, but thanks to Affirmative Action, there is discrimination against white men.  If you are talking about women preferring brunet men, it must be something you are doing.  There are many women who prefer or at least have no objection to blond men.

tojo2000 wrote:

What is it that he doesn't have, other than some notion that somehow he'd learn the art of the presidency by osmosis if he stuck around longer?

Experience in foreign affairs.  Then again, look at Bush's experience.

I am just going to exercise my right not to vote.  I hate everyone.

choad wrote:

Roger_That wrote:

I am just going to exercise my right not to vote.  I hate everyone.

Bless you. I feel exactly the same way.

In Australia, they force you to vote.  BF says now that he finally has the right not to vote, he's glad because he "couldn't be arsed about US Politics".

Hear, hear.

Roger_That wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

What is it that he doesn't have, other than some notion that somehow he'd learn the art of the presidency by osmosis if he stuck around longer?

Experience in foreign affairs.  Then again, look at Bush's experience.

I am just going to exercise my right not to vote.  I hate everyone.

Fair enough.  That's one place where having been a First Lady definitely gives Hillary Clinton a leg up.