Yes, we can.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Change will not come if we wait for some other person, or if we wait for some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. ~Barack Obama


Yes, I'm fired up about Obama. :) If you feel the same way, this thread is for you. According to the Super Tuesday poll (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showthread.php?t=7423), we have more than a few supporters here. (May I say, I'm calling the State of LoT's Democratic Primary results - Obama wins with 77%. Now how does our state divvy up delegates?)

So, now it's on to other states. Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington are up next. Sitting here twiddling my thumbs, I realized I needed to do something to help, even though the action is far from me.

Obama's site (http://www.barackobama.com/index.php) has the goods, of course. Ways you can help:
Donate. (https://donate.barackobama.com/page/contribute/yeswecan?source=mainnav) I did.
Urge Edwards to endorse Obama. (http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/organizing/4r5yg)
Make phone calls (http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/phonebankmap) to the states that are coming up. There are ways to do this online, and there are phonebank parties IRL. In Santa Ana they're calling Washington state tonight. I have to admit that I'm not a fan of this strategy, but it's there if you want to go for that.
Volunteer. (http://action.barackobama.com/page/s/volunteer) I put my name in, and I'll keep an eye on local events - I'd like to help fundraise, if possible.

Yeah, I'm not exactly an activist, which is why I encourage Obama supporters to do just a little something. Our little something makes a difference.

:cool:

[Alex]

Not that it diminishes a great line but I found this history (http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008/02/06/whose-line-is-it-anyway.aspx) of "we are the ones we've been waiting for" interesting.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Interesting indeed. And still a great rallying cry. Thanks for the info.

[innerSpaceman]

I am inspired by Obama's speeches.


Alas, that doesn't do it for me anymore. I remember when I, and most of the country I daresay, was inspired and hopified by the speeches of a far less known presidential candidate by the name of Bill Clinton.

His words filled me with spirit, and trust and joy ... and he came through on none of it.


Even so, he did less actual harm than ... hmm, perhaps only one or two other presidents in my entire 48 year life. But his words were naught but empty promises that either could not be fulfilled or were never intended to be.



Fool me once, and all that. But Obama has to do a whole lot more than give an uplifiting speech and demonstrate a good heart. I believe he has one of those, but it's not enough to earn my wholehearted support.


That said, if he's the nominee ... I will still be pretty pleased.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

FWIW - "fool me once" only works as a saying if you're referring to the same person. The phrase you're looking for is "once burned, twice shy."

I was burned before, I've been shy since, but this time is different for me.

[innerSpaceman]

Well, give us some specifics about what inspires you and why.


You've never burned me, CP ... so I can be inspired by your insprirations, and susceptible to your contageous enthusiasms.

[blueerica]

Haha, I liked this from the Slate page that was linked via Alex:

"Tell yo mama to vote fo obama!"

[sleepyjeff]

"Can" Obama answer some of these questions?



Sen. Obama, this question is about global warming, something about which you urge extreme action to fight. You criticize President Bush for going to war in Iraq, even though all 16 intelligence agencies felt with "high confidence" that Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of WMDs. Critics of Bush say he "cherry-picked" the intelligence. Hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists consider concerns about global warming overblown. Isn't there far more dissent among credible scientists about global warming than there was among American intelligence analysts about Iraq? If so, as to the studies on global warming, why can't you be accused of cherry-picking?

Sen. Obama, you once said you understand why senators voted for the Iraq war, admitted that you were "not privy to Senate intelligence reports," that it "was a tough question and a tough call" for the senators, and that you "didn't know" how you would have voted had you been in the Senate. And over a year after the war began, you said, "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." How, then, can you say that you consistently opposed the war from the start?


Sen. Obama, if elected, you promised to raise minimum wage every single year. But isn't it true that most economists — 90 percent, according to one survey — believe that raising minimum wages increases unemployment and decreases job opportunities for the most unskilled workers? What makes you right, and the majority of economists wrong?

~Larry Elder http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder020708.php3

[SacTown Chronic]

Lol....The Iraq vs. global warming.

[Gemini Cricket]

I've liked Obama since his speech four years ago at the DNC. (I believe it was four years ago.)
And seeing that he went to Punahou High School speaks very highly to me. (All the hot guys in HI went there.)
:)

If he gets the nom, he has my vote.

So very curious to know who he'd pick as a VP...

[Ghoulish Delight]

The first is a straw man question, conflating two entirely separate issues and using false analogy. Not even worth responding to.

The third is a single issue I may disagree with Obama on.

As to the second, he said he didn't know what he would do if he were in the senate because he didn't have the information they have. Umm, that's a "duh" statement. No one knows what they would do in a radically different position than they were in. However in the very next sentence he reaffirmed that with the knowledge he did have he would still have voted against it. As for the "not much different from Bush's position" quote, that had to do with going forward from that point. What's done can't be undone, he was simply saying that now that we've made the mistake of going in and destabilizing the country, he considers it our responsibility to stabilize it. And before you can say, "But, he wants a timetable!" I (and he) would argue that the best way to motivate Iraqis to start governing themselves is to let them know that we aren't going to be around to babysit them forever.

[innerSpaceman]

So sleepyjeff ... were those questions actually posed to the candidate (i.e., are his answers available)? Or are they hypothetically asked questions?


I think they are good questions. What did Obama say? Did he refuse to answer? Or were they never asked of him?

[LSPoorEeyorick]

I've liked Obama since his speech four years ago at the DNC.

Precisely, me too. I was definitely planning to campaign for whoever gets the nom, because pre-nom campaigning has broken my heart in the past. But I'll consider it.

[sleepyjeff]

So sleepyjeff ... were those questions actually posed to the candidate (i.e., are his answers available)? Or are they hypothetically asked questions?


I think they are good questions. What did Obama say? Did he refuse to answer? Or were they never asked of him?


They were among a list of questions a pundit by the name of Larry Elder wished that moderators would ask Senators Clinton and Obama.


http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/elder020708.php3

As far as I know they have not been answered although GD did a pretty good job.

[Not Afraid]

I'm not going to do any campaigning until we have a nom.

[Isaac]

I'm not really impressed w/ Obama but even if he wins, I will be happy, if for no other reason, because Bush will FINALLY be out of office.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

For once, I'm hoping I am contagious. (This post may be jumbled, but it's heartfelt. Sorry about the rambling.)

To start - I read Audacity of Hope (http://www.amazon.com/Audacity-Hope-Thoughts-Reclaiming-American/dp/0307237702/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202513428&sr=8-1) and it really impressed me. He is an amazing writer. His arguments are logical, concise, and persuasive. There are certainly points that we do not agree on, but even on those points, his stances do not piss me off, which is rare. I recommend it, just for a good read and an interesting perspective.

In general, his attitude inspires me. The way he inspires other people inspires me. I can't imagine what it would be like to be in his staff, his cabinet. Inspiration of this magnitude can move moutains. He's an orator in a style I think we haven't seen in decades. I know full well that when we elect a President we are really electing an Administration. I believe that he is the kind of inspiring leader that a good Administration requires.

I love his unique perspective. He's lived here and in other countries. He was raised mostly by his mother and grandparents and now does right by his kids to break the cycle. Much of the book is his ruminations on his worries about spending enough time with his family, providing enough support for his wife. He worked his way through college. He's dealt with discrimination and setbacks. He freely admits to large mistakes he's made (such as running a disastrous campaign against an incumbent dem in Illinois). Even in describing the things he's done, he does not come across as boastful - instead, he interjects how he's been lucky and blessed.

After I got about half way through the book I realized what seemed so refreshing. There was a whole section regarding why the public doesn't trust politicians, and why politicians become so unworthy of trust. He breaks down all the reasons why they do what they do, all the pressures, all the quirks of the type of person that gets involved. He tells stories of how he found himself in these bizarre situations and how they made him feel. It was very meta, very observant, and seemed very honest. Again, worth a read.

He's anti-lobbyist (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/). IMHO, "lobbyist" is one of the dirtiest words in our political language. He has not taken a dime from them (and still manages to have plenty of funds, imagine that). He spearheaded reform in both Springfield and Washington. There's a lot in his plan regarding transparency, and a lot in his book regarding his distaste for the bullsh!t that goes on. He wants to reinstate PAYGO, which he has always supported.

Yes, it is important to me that Obama did not support starting the war. It is also important that he recognize that he doesn't know what he would have done, had he been in the Senate at that time. The book was printed in early 2006, and in it he said that he would support a timetable to get us out of Iraq....by end of 2006.

As has been said countless times - Barack and Hillary are similar in many issue respects. This is why, for me, character counts. People came out of the woodwork to vote for him. He is a uniter. His record is clear, and he comes with no baggage. We have such a huge oppportunity to wipe the slate clean, to start fresh!

If we miss this chance, I will be heartbroken, as LSPE put it. The idea that we can put off this wonderful option for 8 years, and risk losing it entirely, is ridiculous to me, but as the electorate has let me down in the past, I'm ready for that possibility. Thing is, he's winning (http://origin.barackobama.com/resultscenter/). He has more delegates than Hillary, and got the majority in twice as many states as she has.

I'm sure I've got more to say. Check out Barack's plan (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf) while I marshall more thoughts.

[Gemini Cricket]

It's exciting to see someone fired up over a candidate like CP is about Obama and BDBopper is about Huckabee.
:)

[Not Afraid]

Thing is, he's winning (http://origin.barackobama.com/resultscenter/). He has more delegates than Hillary.......


Not according to today's NY Times. (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html)

Clinton: 912
Obama: 741

I know delegate counts can be wonky, so feel free to tell me the NY Times is wrong.

CNN's numbers (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/)- slightly different but Clinton still leads.

[Alex]

Both CNN and NY Times includes their estimates of superdelegates who can change their vote on any whim and many will certainly do so (in either direction) if a clear winner starts to emerge (so they don't burn themselves with the new leader of the party).

On actual pledged delegates CNN still has Clinton ahead by a few delegates. They were talking about this on All Things Considered yesterday and the guy said that at this point even pledged delegates all still essentially guesses since many states have not yet completed their district counts that are too close to call and the caucus states have only done the first rounds and haven't actually elected state delegates yet.

So, Clinton is ahead on most counts but they're tied within the margin of error for anybody.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

That's including the super-delegates. Pledged? It's 840 to 831 in favor of Hilary. But that's not that much.

[wendybeth]

Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton were in town today. Wonder if they ran into each other?
The commercials wooing Washington state have begun as well. Glad I don't watch much TV. I'm settled on Obama, but if Hillary wins the nomination I don't know what I'm going to do. Try as I might, I just can't warm up to her at all.

[Not Afraid]

Isn't your primary very soon?

[Gemini Cricket]

Do you think Obama would ever concede to being Clinton's VP or vice versa?

[Not Afraid]

I think Edwards would be a likely VP choice for either Obama or Clinton.

[€uroMeinke]

Heh Obama reminds me of Clinton more than Hillary Clinton does - but for what it's worth never felt betrayed by Bill, the places he yielded to the republicans matched my own leanings well. I'm hopefull that if he's elected he'll use his honeymoon period well and not waste it like Bill and Hillary did on some impossible ideal like health care.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Interesting, Hillary's site doesn't have numbers that I could find.

[Morrigoon]

Interestingly I'm also a little on the Obama bandwagon. I can't see myself actually campaigning for a democrat, but when it comes down to it, he has a fair shot at being my first ever vote for a democrat for president.

...And I hate Hillary. Fair or not, I just have never, ever liked her.

The jury's out on McCain for me. If Obama wins, he'll probably get my vote. If Hillary wins, it's a toss-up between McCain or whoever the Libertarians nominate.

But I have to admit, Obama's speeches are... REALLY good.

[Prudence]

The democratic party in Washington State is determining its nominee through the caucuses held tomorrow (saturday) - so the primary vote on Tuesday is meaningless on that side. (Hence the "caucus for Hillary" ads that have been running all day.)

[Gemini Cricket]

Compared to Bush, they are all good speakers. That will be one refreshing thing to come. The person who will be representing our country will be easier to listen to than Bush.

[Ghoulish Delight]

By endorsing neither, Edwards is obviously trying to position himself to be the eventual winner's VP. I agree with an earlier post elsewhere that Richardson makes a lot more sense as a VP choice for either. Edwards just isn't distinct enough to add anything to the ticket.

[€uroMeinke]

No - sorry, I have a hard time listening to Hillary

[Gemini Cricket]

No - sorry, I have a hard time listening to Hillary
Compared to Bush, she's much more tolerable.
Her voice does bug sometimes.

[mousepod]

By endorsing neither, Edwards is obviously trying to position himself to be the eventual winner's VP. I agree with an earlier post elsewhere that Richardson makes a lot more sense as a VP choice for either. Edwards just isn't distinct enough to add anything to the ticket.

I doubt he winds up on the ticket. I'm betting he's hedging his bets until he can back the winner - then he'll probably get Attorney General or some other equally powerful cabinet post.

[Morrigoon]

Freaking suck-up. Worst part is, barring some mega huge scandal that nobody is going to waste funds digging up now, he'll probably succeed.

[blueerica]

Well, in terms of VP, they both definitely need someone from the south. I am not as sure that Bill Richardson is Captain Awesome here, at least not any more than Edwards. Edwards also has an incredible amount of face time and exposure, which is to his benefit. Not to say that Richardson hasn't done a lot, he certainly has. I just think that Obama and Hillary wouldn't require a governor of New Mexico to pull any votes from the Southwest.

That's just my thoughts - I haven't listened to any punditry on that.

[scaeagles]

Edwards makes me vomit, more so than Hillary. The man is a smarmy condescending multi-millionaire poverty pimp hypocrite.

There is nothing wrong with money, but the whole "two Americas" coming from his mouth is really, really sickening.

[JWBear]

Compared to Bush, she's much more tolerable.
Her voice does bug sometimes.

I've heard it compared to the Martians in Mars Attacks!.

[Jazzman]

I also really like Obama and I've been following him as well since his great speech at the DNC, but one thing worries me. He reminds me a lot of the star college freshman athlete who explodes on the scene, racks up numbers and glory and decides to go pro right away only to wash out and realize that he should have taken advantage of his college years since there really is something to this "experience" thing. If he waited until 2012 I think he'd ride all the way to the White House with little opposition, but this early in his career it's a bit of a stretch, in my opinion. Either way, he's a man I do admire and I'd vote him in any day over Bull Dog Clinton or virtually any Republican. Should be an interesting election.

[Alex]

Sure, but sometimes you get a Kobe Bryant (I'm talking about basketball talent at the top level not his qualities as a human being).

I can understand where he's coming from. I'm sure it was a very attractive idea to just wait for the next chance, but there's no guarantee the next chance will be there (look at the front runners from 2000 who probably figured they'd just have to wait through the Bush years and get take their turn). If he stood aside and Clinton won then he wouldn't be looking at 2012 but rather 2016 who knows how the world and the competition will change by then. Plus, while the Republicans have a history of sticking with a politician through several election cycles the Democrats seem much more fickle in that regard.

[sleepyjeff]

Plus, 4 - 8 more years would force him to actually vote on things that could come back to bite him come the next election.

One of the reasons so many people like him, aside from being able to speak so elequently, is that he hasn't angered too many people yet. That would change if he spent another 8 years in the Senate.

[scaeagles]

Indeed.

It is exceptionally easy to talk about change. There are many eloquent and inspiring speech makers in the the world. I want to know how he's going to change things, with specifics of tax policy or health care or foreign policy.

When someone starts to do that and their plans can be analyzed by economists or foreign policy experts or whomever it can become less inspiring. The whole call for "change" in and of itself is not impressive, particularly with such an unpopular President and legislative branch. The plans for change are what is needed to impress me.

[mousepod]

Vice-President Richardson would be nice.

[Bornieo: Fully Loaded]

I like President Bornieo

[tracilicious]

I'm super bummed that I didn't get to go and vote Obama in the AZ primaries. I'm registered independent, and it turns out that you have to be registered democrat to vote in the dem primaries. Um...I'm new to this whole politics thing. :blush:

[scaeagles]

AZ is now looking at passing open primary laws. I think this is stupid. Why should someone be allowed to vote for and assist in deciding the Republican nominee is if they are not a Republican?

[FEJ]

A good mashup of the Yes.We.Can (http://www.dipdive.com/) speech.
Also I was able to procure a few of these a week or so ago from a friend who had them printed by Shepard:
http://www.fejsez.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/median561007682-390952-2887.jpg

[wendybeth]

Well, I'm pleased to say that Washington went for Obama- so far Hillary is trailing considerably.

[Kevy Baby]

I like President BornieoYou would get my vote

[Alex]

While I would have certain preferences for a vice president the actual person chosen plays maybe a 1% role in who I'll vote for come the general election.

[Scrooge McSam]

Edwards makes me vomit, more so than Hillary. The man is a smarmy condescending multi-millionaire poverty pimp hypocrite.

There is nothing wrong with money, but the whole "two Americas" coming from his mouth is really, really sickening.


I think I'm gonna write in Edwards.

[tracilicious]

AZ is now looking at passing open primary laws. I think this is stupid. Why should someone be allowed to vote for and assist in deciding the Republican nominee is if they are not a Republican?

I would like open primaries so that as an Independent, I can vote for whomever I choose.

[€uroMeinke]

Indeed.

It is exceptionally easy to talk about change. There are many eloquent and inspiring speech makers in the the world. I want to know how he's going to change things, with specifics of tax policy or health care or foreign policy.

Maybe it was the whole Clinton Health Care thing - but I find it laughable when Presidential candidates get into details when the fact is the brightest ideas in the world will never make it through congress.

[scaeagles]

I would like open primaries so that as an Independent, I can vote for whomever I choose.

That's what the general is for. The primaries are for the members of political parties to chose who best represents their platform as a party to run in the general election. Someone not registered as a Republican, quite frankly, has no business participating in the Republican primary.

[innerSpaceman]

but there's no guarantee the next chance will be there (look at the front runners from 2000 who probably figured they'd just have to wait through the Bush years and get take their turn).

You mean like McCain. :p

[innerSpaceman]

The whole call for "change" in and of itself is not impressive, particularly with such an unpopular President and legislative branch. The plans for change are what is needed to impress me.

OH MY GOD, I agree with scaeagles on something politcal. Someone shoot me!

[Alex]

You mean like McCain. :p

Yes, if McCain is now a Democrat which is what I was, unclearly, talking about. But yeah, 2000 wasn't the best example since that year both parties had heir designates (Bush and Gore). Though on the Dem side none of the three people (Gore, Bradley, Wellstone) who even tried made an attempt this time around (Wellstone, being dead, was an extreme longshot).

But even from 2004. John Edwards was the only one of the several Democrats who made serious bids for the nomination that was able to justify another attempt in 2008. Wesley Clark, Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman

[Motorboat Cruiser]

OH MY GOD, I agree with scaeagles on something politcal. Someone shoot me!

Bang.

[blueerica]

That's what the general is for. The primaries are for the members of political parties to chose who best represents their platform as a party to run in the general election. Someone not registered as a Republican, quite frankly, has no business participating in the Republican primary.

I actually don't care either way, but, wouldn't the Repubs and Dems want to have a better idea where the swing votes would go? I always thought that somehow identifying where the Independent vote went within the primary (without breaching anonymity) would be pretty informative on who stood the best change of grabbing the swing votes, and knowing what issues were important to them...

[scaeagles]

OH MY GOD, I agree with scaeagles on something politcal. Someone shoot me!

Thinking of turning the gun on myself, actually.

[JWBear]

Apropos of nothing... But, I had a dream last night that my father was an ex-president.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Indeed.

It is exceptionally easy to talk about change. There are many eloquent and inspiring speech makers in the the world. I want to know how he's going to change things, with specifics of tax policy or health care or foreign policy.

When someone starts to do that and their plans can be analyzed by economists or foreign policy experts or whomever it can become less inspiring. The whole call for "change" in and of itself is not impressive, particularly with such an unpopular President and legislative branch. The plans for change are what is needed to impress me.OH MY GOD, I agree with scaeagles on something politcal. Someone shoot me!

Thinking of turning the gun on myself, actually.I'll shoot both of you, since I linked to Obama's plan (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf) in my last post. Shockingly, it isn't just him saying "change" over and over. :) I found it much more detailed than Hillary's site.

I like President BornieoI'd vote for President Bornieo, the Love Bug. <imagines Bornieo stepping off a campaign plane, waving at the press, with the Love Bug theme blaring>

A good mashup of the Yes.We.Can (http://www.dipdive.com/) speech.
Also I was able to procure a few of these a week or so ago from a friend who had them printed by Shepard:
http://www.fejsez.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/median561007682-390952-2887.jpgI saw one of these posted at a house near mousepod's place last night. Dig.

That's what the general is for. The primaries are for the members of political parties to chose who best represents their platform as a party to run in the general election. Someone not registered as a Republican, quite frankly, has no business participating in the Republican primary.I agree with this, even as I felt frustrated at my inability to vote on Super Tuesday. This is not about electing someone, it's about choosing who runs for election. I wouldn't want other people messing with my party either.

Let me just say that the results from Saturday are so exciting. Many thanks to Wendybeth for pulling in Washington for us. :D I heard spin beforehand saying WA was Hillary country, but, um, not so much.

I can't believe the convention isn't until August.

[Morrigoon]

Okay, am I the only one who thinks this about that slogan?

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b321/morrigoon/random/barackthebuilder.jpg

[scaeagles]

Visible mojo to Morrigoon for a good laugh.

[scaeagles]

I'll shoot both of you, since I linked to Obama's plan (http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf) in my last post.


Frankly, CP, it's all the same stuff. Truely. "Eliminate tax cuts for the wealthy and give more to the middle class." How does he define the middle class and the wealthy? Is he someone like Gore, who believes that someone who make 250K/year is a millionaire in 4 years?

"Eliminate wasteful spending." OK. I'm all for that. What programs? What's he going to do to stop wasteful spending in education? It sounds from reading his stuff that he plans on a whole lot more money for education.

With most of the things I've read on his site, it basically says tax the wealthy more so we have money to improve the things that are important. He says the tax cuts for the wealthy have cost the country 2.3 trillion dollars, but tax revenues have increased.

Sorry. I do think he's a decent guy - unlike Hillary and McCain - but it's nothing different than the same old same old.

[Alex]

And with Maine, Obama makes it a clean sweep of the weekend. None of the four states was closer than 19 points and two were northern states.

With the caveat as always that the delegates still have a lot of guesswork in them, even including super delegates CNN now has Obama within 30 of Clinton at 1,148 to 1,121 (and Obama ahead 986 to 924 in pledged delegates).

At this point, so long as Obama can keep Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania from being blowouts in favor of Clinton, I think things are good for him to go into the convention with a pledged delegate lead. Since Bill Clinton is a superdelegate they better get to work on switching his vote.

[lashbear]

Hillary's prettier.

...and you'd get two presidents for the price of one.

Besides, there's been too many male presidents - we need a female president.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Frankly, CP, it's all the same stuff. People always complain that presidents get into office and then can't fulfill promises beause they have to deal with congress. To me, if he gets too specific, he'll be even more damned. Appealing to the country at large also takes flexibility.

I know, it sounds wishy washy, but he's got to be electable.

[blueerica]

Well, he won a Grammy, let's see what else the boy can win.

;)

[innerSpaceman]

I have to agree with Lashbear. In voting for Hillary (with the caveat that I'm one of the ones who can stand her), I'm likely voting for the first woman president to set a precedent. To me, that's really the most important thing.

I frankly feel the president has so little impact on Domestic issues that it really doesn't much matter which one it is that's not George Bush ... and the rest of the world is going to fall quickly to hell with our without America's tremendous help.

[scaeagles]

People always complain that presidents get into office and then can't fulfill promises beause they have to deal with congress. To me, if he gets too specific, he'll be even more damned. Appealing to the country at large also takes flexibility.

I know, it sounds wishy washy, but he's got to be electable.

It seems, then, that your excitement isn't that he has new ideas or something that hasn't been offered by every other dem candidate, your excitement is for his oratory skills and presentation.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It seems, then, that your excitement isn't that he has new ideas or something that hasn't been offered by every other dem candidate, your excitement is for his oratory skills and presentation.
And his proven willingness to not act like a partisan wag and actually work with all his colleagues to get things done.

Like I said before, there isn't another human being in the world who's specific stances on issues and specific plans of actions are going to precisely match mine. Obama's are as close to mine as anyone's are going to get. That combined with the apparent qualities as a human being he has are more than enough for me.

[innerSpaceman]

I'm sorry, proven? Ok, please educate me, because I admit I haven't paid much attention to his political career. But on the face of it, he's been a Senator for 2 years, half of which time he's been pretty much absent whilst campaigning for president.

Exactly what has demonstrated his proven willingness to work with all his colleagues to get things done? What things? What colleagues?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Off the top of my head:

Ethics reforms
Energy policy
Illinois health care
He sponsored and received bipartisan support for SCHIP
The fact that the vast bulk of his fund raising for his campaign has been from inidivudal donors, keeping him unbeholden to party machinery.
The fact that he can talk about the ideas and people on "the other side" without demonizing them.

He's only been a US senator for 2 years, however he was an Illinois legislator for 8 years prior to that. He left there with a reputation for being non partisan (in Illinois for crying out loud) and has kept that in his short tenure on the national stage.

[Alex]

Well, he was an Illinois state senator for 8 years and had a long career of community activism before that.

I have no idea if his bipartisan-ship is shown from that time frame but my Chicago friends all feel that he did avoid the worst of the petty squabbling.

But I don't really care if he's bi-partisan. "Bi-partisan" as a political buzzword generally just means "I'm in the minority party but I want you to treat me as an equal anyway." I disagree with his policies and if elected I expected him to try an enact what he thinks is best with minimal consideration of my point of view.

However, based on what I've seen I do expect he'll be polite about it compared to the current behaviors on either side when in power.

But when offered one of these:

1. Stronger agreement policy-wise but I don't like the candidate.
2. Weak agreement policy-wise but I don't like the candidate even if for reasons completely unfair to that candidate.
3. Weak agreement policy-wise but despite myself I find the candidate inspiring.

I'm going to have to go with #3. #1 hasn't exactly worked out for me very well. I have no idea if Obama can accomplish those things he thinks he will try for. I have no idea if he'll be corrupted by the power and turn into a despised figure.

But I do know that Clinton's chances of achieving her policy goals aren't really any better than Obama's (and if hers improve with a sweeping Democratic victory in the Senate then so do his) and she's already most of the way down the path to power-corruption leading to hatred.

The process of wielding political power will probably quickly take the bloom off of Obama and he may end up being more Carter than FDR but I have to prefer the entity that may disappoint than the ones I know with certainty will disappoint.

[Not Afraid]

I think Obama talks a great talk. But, I have my doubts about if we can actually get things done. I think the chosen marketing slogan of "Yes we can" is telling in itself. It's almost as if he's trying to convince us that he can do something that is nearly impossible. I think he's setting us up for a big disappointment. It's naive notion that he's campaigning on.

[sleepyjeff]

I'd like to know just where Obama plans to be "bi-partisan" with the GOP if he becomes President......where will he part ways with most Democrats to reach accross the aisle so to speak?

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I'm in agreeance with GD, of course.

The other point that I made earlier is that I feel attitude is everything, and that his attitude is the type that engenders positivity and good works from those around him. I've had bosses that inspire people and bosses that make everyone walk on eggshells. Obama seems like the former, and Hillary seems like the latter.

I do think the closemindedness and angry defensivenessof Dubya have infected our social consciousness. The great thing about "Yes We Can" is that it is openended and means many different things.

When I hear "Yes We Can", it doesn't tell me that we can have free health care for everyone without tightening our belts, better education without pushing some buttons, or leave Iraq without massive work. What "Yes We Can" means to me is - we can be nice people. We can work on restoring our good name in the world. We can once again wield diplomacy and charity in meaningful ways. It will take a while, maybe decades. So perhaps it means Yes, We Can get our momentum in the right directions.

Yes, we can be a better nation, one step at a time. And electing a divisive bitch isn't going to help ;) Ok, yeah, just kidding.

Did Bill's use of "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow" give anyone wild expectations?

[Not Afraid]

Did Bill's use of "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow" give anyone wild expectations?

Yup - and he sorely disappointed.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'd like to know just where Obama plans to be "bi-partisan" with the GOP if he becomes President......where will he part ways with most Democrats to reach accross the aisle so to speak?I'm with Alex, I think the term "bipartisan" is misleading. What interests me about Obama is that he's remained non-partisan. He doesn't have an "us vs. them" attitude. Certainly most of what he wants to accomplish falls more in line with those on the left of the aisle, but he does not discount people simply because they are of a different party. Have you seen the flack he's (especially from Hillary and Bill) taken simply for saying a good word about Reagan? Heaven forbid. And all he praised Reagan on was for changing the course of a government that had been existing with little accountability. How DARE he!

But apparently some people are happier playing "us vs. them" and no one of "us" is ever allowed to say anything good about one of "them". I'm bloody sick of it, even if I'm on the same side of the aisle as "us".

[Kevy Baby]

The other point that I made earlier is that I feel attitude is everything, and that his attitude is the type that engenders positivity and good works from those around him. I've had bosses that inspire people and bosses that make everyone walk on eggshells. Obama seems like the former, and Hillary seems like the latter.I have to say that there is a lot of truth in this. Attitude alone will not create the change, but it certainly helps grease the skids quite a bit.

[Not Afraid]

But apparently some people are happier playing "us vs. them" and no one of "us" is ever allowed to say anything good about one of "them". I'm bloody sick of it, even if I'm on the same side of the aisle as "us".

So, the Obama = good vs Clinton = bitch is different how?

[scaeagles]

Interesting....I don't know how many are as old as I (I think I'm significantly older than GD and CP, but NA has me by quite a bit :D ), but it seems then that a lot of the excitement over Obama is pretty much the same as the excitement over Reagan in 1980.

[Morrigoon]

A president is only as good as the team they assemble. Despite what Gore may think, you can't micromanage an entire country. You HAVE to have a team, and you have to be able to lead that team. In the end, the TEAM is going to make or break the administration.

Hillary, well, we have a pretty good idea of the team she's likely to assemble because she's (kinda) been there before. And that's fine if we want same old, same old. But that's the "same old same old" that led to the tech bubble, which caused the current leader**** to try and recover the economy through housing, thus in a roundabout way leading to the current economic crisis.

OR,

We can go for someone who has proven himself to be a very charismatic leader - enough that several ex-republicans on this board are jumping on his bandwagon - and hope (yeah, hope) that he can assemble a different team, who will take the country in a different direction than before.

(And yes, I know the danger of charisma, let's not invoke Godwin's Law just to beat a dead horse)

[Ghoulish Delight]

I didn't use that word, so I won't defend it. But I will say that I don't really understand the comparison you're trying to draw. Liking one individual politician over another does not equate to partisanship. It si not the wholelsale dismisal of opposing ideas based on nothing but political affiliation. It's making a value judgement based on an individual's qualities, and it's an inherent necessity of electing an indivudal to office.

[Morrigoon]

Hmm... that starred word was supposed to say leadership... I'm guessing there was a (rather apropos) typo

[Not Afraid]

I didn't use that word, so I won't defend it. But I will say that I don't really understand the comparison you're trying to draw. Liking one individual politician over another does not equate to partisanship. It si not the wholelsale dismisal of opposing ideas based on nothing but political affiliation. It's making a value judgement based on an individual's qualities, and it's an inherent necessity of electing an indivudal to office.

There have been several examples in this thread of a a division within the Democratic party over how wonderful Obama is at the expense of Clinton. It's the same divisiveness that has been inherent in politics for a good long time and it doesn't represent ANY type of the change and good that it seems Obama is touting. It's the same old thing with new names.

At this point, with a race too close to call, ANY person who doesn't want McCain in office better start seeing the positive points of BOTH Clinton and Obama because it could easily be either one of them prepreseting the Dems in the election.

The Clinton bashing is just more of the same BS and doesn't represent any type of change that it seems Obama supporters are so excited about.

[Morrigoon]

But there's something to be said, in that vein, about electability.

I *won't* be voting for Clinton if she wins. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to turn around and vote for McCain, I'm totally undecided on that front right now, might vote for the Libertarian candidate just to make a point. But if Clinton is the nominee, this is one less swing voter to vote Dem. OTOH, I've decided if Obama gets the nod, I'll vote for him.

If Obama can pick up non-democrats, AND he can get the democrat vote, then he's more electable than Hillary.

[Not Afraid]

.

If Obama can pick up non-democrats, AND he can get the democrat vote, then he's more electable than Hillary.

Yes, but he has to be elected within his own party first. At this point, it isn't a done deal. And, continued bashing of Clinton isn't going to make it so without disgusting others.

[Kevy Baby]

There have been several examples in this thread of a a division within the Democratic party over how wonderful Obama is at the expense of Clinton. It's the same divisiveness that has been inherent in politics for a good long time and it doesn't represent ANY type of the change and good that it seems Obama is touting. It's the same old thing with new names.I have two separate opinions:


Hillary Clinton would be a bad leader of this country
Barrack Obama might be a good leader of the countryNeither is dependent on the other: it is not a "Vs." thing for me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I have two separate opinions:

Hillary Clinton would be a bad leader of this country
Barrack Obama might be a good leader of the countryNeither is dependent on the other: it is not a "Vs." thing for me.Yup. that's where I come from. I do not like Hillary as a Presidential candidate, and my dislike for McCain does not change that.

As I stated before, I sensed a general feeling of partisanship is what gave Hillary her last minute boost on Super Tuesday. The feeling of, "I like Obama better, but Hillary's going to be better at sticking it to the Republicans than Obama." I'm not interested in that.

I will vote for Hillary over McCain. In terms of what I think of them as politicians, they are equally distasteful, so it falls on with whom I agree on more issues and that's Hillary. But I would MUCH prefer not to have to make that choice.

[Not Afraid]

I have two separate opinions:
Hillary Clinton would be a bad leader of this country
Barrack Obama might be a good leader of the countryNeither is dependent on the other: it is not a "Vs." thing for me.

But, at the moment is IS a "vs" thing for the states that have yet to vote and delegates that have not decided as of yet. One will be the Dem nom and one will not.

We'll know soon enough who will get the nom. It may be Clinton. It may be Obama. Probably one will end up going against McCain.

I think people need to consider what they are going to do it it DOES come down to McCain and Clinton since that is a distinct possibility.

[innerSpaceman]

McCain is a man

Obama is a man

Clinton is a woman.


My decision is made. I hope the Dems don't take this opportunity away from me, my nation, and the world.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Why are so many people intent on making politics about a Clinton's genitals?

[Not Afraid]

Why are so many people calling Clinton a "female dog"?

[Morrigoon]

I don't bash Clinton because I like Obama. I bash Clinton because I hate her, and always have.

[Morrigoon]

McCain is a man

Obama is a man

Clinton is a woman.


My decision is made. I hope the Dems don't take this opportunity away from me, my nation, and the world.

Obama is black
Clinton is a woman

No matter WHICH candidate wins, this will be a historic election. Which opportunity did you think we'd be missing out on here?

[sleepyjeff]

What if?

What if Obama was a White Man?

What if McCain was a Black Woman?

What if Hillary was a Black Man?

What if Romney was a Baptist woman?


Would this affect your vote? Why?

[Alex]

Answers:

No. No. No. Perhaps.

Whys:

It's irrelevant. It's irrelevant. It's irrelevant. Religion is not irrelevant though it is not necessarily paramount.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Assuming (and with those variables, it's a stretch to assume this but...) all other things equal - none of those would change my vote.

[innerSpaceman]

Morrigoon, yes I've determined the precedent of a woman president is more important, imo, than the precedent of a black president.

And, for me personally, either a black or woman candidate would have to be significantly "worse" (again, according to my political principles) than the white male opposing candidate in order to lose my vote.


In other words, if Hilllary were a man and McCain were a woman, I would likely vote for McCain.

[Morrigoon]

Speaking as a woman, that's not how I'd like to be elected. I'd rather know that I got in on my own merit than on someone's charitable version of affirmative action.

[Alex]

You've already said that if it is McCain vs. Clinton that you'll give strong consideration to voting for him over her; it's an interesting triangle.

Clinton over Obama. Obama over McCain. McCain over Clinton. We can play rochambeau.

[Kevy Baby]

But, at the moment is IS a "vs" thing for the states that have yet to vote and delegates that have not decided as of yet. One will be the Dem nom and one will not.I was responding more on the divisiveness issue rather than semantics. See the parts of the original quote that I have highlighted.

There have been several examples in this thread of a a division within the Democratic party over how wonderful Obama is at the expense of Clinton. It's the same divisiveness that has been inherent in politics for a good long time and it doesn't represent ANY type of the change and good that it seems Obama is touting. It's the same old thing with new names.

<snip>

The Clinton bashing is just more of the same BS and doesn't represent any type of change that it seems Obama supporters are so excited about.I believe that, for the most part, Obama supporters are not doing the bashing. I believe that there are two separate and distinct groups:

Those who hate Billary (I am one of them)
Those who passionately support Obama (I am not necessarily one of them)Yes, there will be some crossover, but for the most part, Obama supporters appear to be staying away from the mudslinging.

I think people need to consider what they are going to do it it DOES come down to McCain and Clinton since that is a distinct possibility.This is a moot point until November. The issue at hand (for Dems) is Clinton or Obama.
____________________________

Morrigoon, yes I've determined the precedent of a woman president is more important, imo, than the precedent of a black president.

And, for me personally, either a black or woman candidate would have to be significantly "worse" (again, according to my political principles) than the white male opposing candidate in order to lose my vote.

In other words, if Hilllary were a man and McCain were a woman, I would likely vote for McCain.So you concede that you WOULD vote for a (in your eyes) lesser candidate JUST because that candidate were a woman and/or black? I'm not saying hugely less qualified, just a "little bit" less qualified.

That makes no sense to me.

[Not Afraid]

This is a moot point until November. The issue at hand (for Dems) is Clinton or Obama.


Well, June 7 is the last of the primary/caucus votes but we should have a better idea after March 4 when 444 delegates are decided. Of course, that still leaves about 600 odd delegates to make a decision and, in this seemingly close race, it might take Oregon or Montana (or, wouldn't it be funny if last to go Puerto Rico's 63 delegates made the call).

I've never watched the primaries this closely before. it's sort of fun.

[Kevy Baby]

Well, June 7 is the last of the primary/caucus votes but we should have a better idea after March 4 when 444 delegates are decided. Of course, that still leaves about 600 odd delegates to make a decision and, in this seemingly close race, it might take Oregon or Montana (or, wouldn't it be funny if last to go Puerto Rico's 63 delegates made the call).

I've never watched the primaries this closely before. it's sort of fun.We may have to wait until the end of August (August 25-28, 2008) for a final decision to be made at the DNC.

[Not Afraid]

Very true.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

It is very exciting to get to choose between a black person and a female person for the Democratic candidate. However, if you choose BECAUSE they are black or female, you are missing the point, IMHO.

I can't believe that my use of the word "bitch", followed by a winky smiley, would be the cause of such backlash, NA. Rest assured, I placed a winky there because I knew it was an over-the-top thing to say. I suppose I could have followed it up with "haha, isn't it crazy, I'm just kidding, how dare I, eh?" I thought the smiley made that obvious. Sorry to get your dander up over a dirty word.

Hey, if you want to call Obama an asshole, go right ahead. Oh wait, that wouldn't make anyone angry. It would be a non-sequitur, because no one ever claims he's an asshole. Hmm, interesting. ;) <winky smiley means this is supposed to be funny - Your Mileage May Vary>

For some reason you're interpreting enthusiasm for Obama and dislike for Clinton as divisiveness and bashing. I don't know why it would be so hard to accept that it could be, as Kevy similarly put it, enthusiasm and dislike.

I, and hundreds of thousands of disillusioned voters, haven't voted for a major candidate in well over a decade. I've had no reason to. Obama gives me a reason. I agree with Morrigoon - I wouldn't vote for Hillary this fall. Ok, maaaaybe if the race was really close in California....which it won't be.


Anyway - I, too, am having fun following the process. :)

[innerSpaceman]

My selection process doesn't have to make sense to you, Kevy. It's mine, not yours.

But I've said in one of these now nearly identical political threads that I believe the president has very limited impact on domestic policies, and that the world is going straight to hell with or without America's help.


I can honestly be happy with either Obama or Clinton. I think Obama's the nicer person. Clinton's the woman.

In my book, yes, for historical purposes, her gender is far more important than who's nice, or runs a more happy and even perhaps more productive administration.

Plus I've already said I believe Clinton might accomplish half of her less lofty goals, while I expect Obama to accomplish merely a tenth of his more lofty ones.

[Kevy Baby]

My selection process doesn't have to make sense to you, Kevy. It's mine, not yours.My "making no sense" comment was purely editorial. You are 100% correct that the decision is yours.

The questions were to make certain that I was not misunderstanding your position.

And I disagree with your position. I believe that the President DOES have enough impact on our country that I should be making a decision based on who would best serve our country.

[Alex]

I'd like to know just where Obama plans to be "bi-partisan" with the GOP if he becomes President......where will he part ways with most Democrats to reach accross the aisle so to speak?

Using the "give the other side what they want" definition of bipartisan, two examples would be his support of charter schools/school choice and earmarking reforms (of course, the earmarking reforms is only a Republican-sided issue right now because they're not the ones holding the purse strings).

[sleepyjeff]

Using the "give the other side what they want" definition of bipartisan, two examples would be his support of charter schools/school choice and earmarking reforms (of course, the earmarking reforms is only a Republican-sided issue right now because they're not the ones holding the purse strings).


I was not aware of his support for school choice......interesting.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Another interesting topic is immigration, his feelings seem to run more conservative on that one...when i have time later I'll look up links...

[DreadPirateRoberts]

All this talk about immigration, schools, etc. is interesting, but how does he feel about bacon (http://www.baconunwrapped.com/2007/12/presidential-candidates-on-bacon.html)?

[blueerica]

Mmmm bacon....

[blueerica]

Outside of bacon-y goodness, his position on school choice and earmarking were two of the things I appreciated about Obama, particularly school choice, reasons for which I won't go on about here.

[innerSpaceman]

And likely his conservative-leaning school choice and immigration policies are ones I would vehemently oppose.


Doesn't mean I can't support him. You'll likely find a dozen of Hillary's positions I can't agree with.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Early reports are that Obama's won Virginia. I guess MD and DC's polls are still open.

[Alex]

My understanding is that Obama was on board with the Bush-supported comprehensive immigration reform plan. Which is not a Republican supported program. That was an example of Bush going against his party, not so much Obama working against his.

But he has acknowledged in the past the obvious truth that widespread illegal immigration suppresses wages at the bottom of the jobs ladder and that this isn't good for poor blacks and recent legal immigrant communities.

[blueerica]

Early reports are that Obama's won Virginia. I guess MD and DC's polls are still open.

Har har.. I though I saw he won Vagina. Which he probably already has... just sayin'.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Create Secure Borders
Obama wants to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.

Improve Our Immigration System
Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.

Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.

Bring People Out of the Shadows
Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.

Work with Mexico
Obama believes we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration.

Barack Obama's Record
Crack Down on Employers: Obama championed a proposal to create a system so employers can verify that their employees are legally eligible to work in the U.S.
Fix the Bureaucracy: Obama joined Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair. Obama also introduced legislation that passed the Senate to improve the speed and accuracy of FBI background checks.
Respect Families: Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together.
This is an issue I am very much undecided on, but if I were forced to choose, this would be pretty close to my own tactics.

Obama is a Christian (http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php), and I do dig his take on liberal morality. The idea of being able to build a bridge so that religious people can be proud to be Democrats...it's another "idealistic" concept that can help us work towards reuniting this country.

If you're worried he's "too conservative", check out all of his other issues.

[innerSpaceman]

Thanks, CP. Keep the Obama info coming!


And 'natch he won Viriginia, Maryland and D.C. No surprises.


Clinton's got all her eggs in Texas and Ohio. Her voters are more poor, less educated.

It's ironic that so many states moved their priimaries up just so they wouldn't be completely unimportant ... and it turns out the last states to vote will be the most important.

Double ironic that, with each state primary and caucus counting like never before, and more Democrats thus participating in the primary election process than ever in history ... the decision may come down to the same old backroom convention politics as the primary system was designed to overthrow.


The more things change ...

[€uroMeinke]

Obama appeals to the young and the affluent, two groups I'd like to be a part of, so I'm leaning in his direction.

[sleepyjeff]

It's ironic that so many states moved their priimaries up just so they wouldn't be completely unimportant ... and it turns out the last states to vote will be the most important.

...

I know....I may have to change parties so my vote will be important for once;)

[innerSpaceman]

How funny. Even though i most identify with the young and the affluent, i'm lately considering working class and older Democrats as deserving underdogs in the political process.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Obama appeals to the young and the affluent, two groups I'd like to be a part of, so I'm leaning in his direction.
Which are you more likely to achieve?

[€uroMeinke]

Which are you more likely to achieve?


With the sale of my soul I get those plus one other attribute of my choosing

[CoasterMatt]

Instead of the word bitch, I think I'll use a visual for another word used to describe Hillary...

http://members.dslextreme.com/users/coastermatt/images/story.jpg

:evil:

[Not Afraid]

And, this is why this country is not ready for a female president. :rolleyes:

I was trying to think of another female world leader who was a "gentle flower of a woman". i went through quite a few...... Golda Maier, Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, Queen Victoria, Indira Gandhi, Catherine the greati .... I couldn't come up with one.

[BarTopDancer]

This country is ready for a female president that wouldn't lead us down further than we already are. Who doesn't have the reputation that Hillary has. What slander, horrible things did we hear about Margret Thatcher or Benazir Bhutto?

Hillary has a reputation that precedes her, and it's not a good one.

[Alex]

I'd really prefer to see people not consider Clinton the best choice to run the country without that making it ok to call her bitch and ****, even in jest, any more than the same decision about Obama would make it ok to break out the ******s and porch monkeys followed by winks.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Visible Alex mojo. Hear, hear.

And I'm pretty sure some terrible things were said about Bhutto by those who didn't like her.

[BarTopDancer]

I didn't mean to imply that it's ok to call Hillary a bitch or any other names, nor is it ok to slander. I was trying to convey that I think this country is ready for a woman president, but that woman is not Hillary.

[Alex]

I know, I've made the same decision. I'm not in any way saying I have a problem with not wanting Clinton to be president.

But I think I've heard Clinton referred to as a bitch about a dozen times today (here's (http://crackle.com/c/Penn_Says/Penn_Says-Hillary_Clinton_Joke_Predicts_the_Future/2180807/#ml=o%3D15%26fx%3D%26fc%3D52) Penn Gillette talking about a joke he found a bit offensive as he was telling -- or so he says -- that went over huge and he feels shows how the country will vote) and the post above wasn't the first ****.

[cirquelover]

You mean being a voter in Oregon might actually count this year!! Wow, usually everything's decided before we ever get to give our opinions. Of course we're still 3 months off, so I'll wait and see.

[Not Afraid]

I'd really prefer to see people not consider Clinton the best choice to run the country without that making it ok to call her bitch and ****, even in jest, any more than the same decision about Obama would make it ok to break out the ******s and porch monkeys followed by winks.

THANK YOU!!!!!!

(Were you in bed with us last night? You distilled the conversation into one strong drink.)

[CoasterMatt]

Visible Alex mojo. Hear, hear.

And I'm pretty sure some terrible things were said about Bhutto by those who didn't like her.

I've got pictures of posters put up by people who didn't like Bhutto- far worse things were said about her.

Just to clarify, I don't like Hillary, but I wouldn't describe her as anything more than a very driven person- not at all in the realm of what I use 'bitch' for.

Not to derail the thread too much, but I've heard several black coworkers say that they won't vote for Obama, because he's not black enough. What a weird world.

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

This thread inspired me to add a signature to my post. Not out of any disrespect, mind. I just rewatched the episode recently, is all.

[Snowflake]

I didn't mean to imply that it's ok to call Hillary a bitch or any other names, nor is it ok to slander. I was trying to convey that I think this country is ready for a woman president, but that woman is not Hillary.

Well it sure is not Condi, either.

Of the current female politicos I can think of, not one comes to mind as someone I'd vote for as president.

I still keep wondering, what is the big issue that america has, why does it have to be am issue race or gender? I do not mean to derail this excellent thread begging the question. I think I am just naive, plain and simple.

[Ghoulish Delight]

There's a catch-22 for female politicians. The only ones that stand a chance of getting elected to office are ones that present themselves as "strong women", go out of their way to show that they have a strong attitude to "stand up to the men". Which then, as they get more national exposure, opens them up to the "bitch" label.

[innerSpaceman]

I happen to think gender is the most important issue in this election.


In the grand scheme of things, I think it's much more important that a woman be elected to the highest position of power and status in the world.

If that women is up to the task and acceptable to those who elect her, I consider that more important than just about any other issue. And if she is elected by a diverse people, then likely she would address many of the other pressing issues as well.

[Kevy Baby]

I happen to think ability is the most important issue in this election, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

In the grand scheme of things, I think it's much more important that a person who is capable of doing the job be elected to the highest position of power and status in the world.

If that person is up to the task and acceptable to those who elect him or her, I consider that more important than just about any other issue. And if she or he is elected by a diverse people, then likely he or she would address many of the other pressing issues as well.

[blueerica]

You know, I'm not a fan of Hillary. I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over who wins the Dem nomination. But, I think it's rather ridiculous that this conversation has gone on this far on the basis of gender or race. Okay... I get it... can we get over those issues and get into some other ones? If that's the basis you're voting on someone for, then fine, cool, whatever. And for everyone else, if that's the basis they're voting on, then just be fine, cool, whatever... and move on. Because minds just aren't going to be changed over something as huge and polarizing as that. Please. For the sake of humanity!

Not that anyone else will. Guaranteed the pundits will keep going on and on and on and on about the same retarded issue of gender or race until the decision has been made.

[SacTown Chronic]

It could be that a perjorative like 'dickhead' is usually gender-specific for males we don't like and 'bitch' is gender-specific for females we don't like. Thus, McCain is a dickhead and Hillary is a bitch in the uncivilized world of politics. Maybe it's not any deeper than that.


For the record, I'll take dickhead McCain over bitch Hillary, but my preference is for the ****** Obama.

[blueerica]

OK, I literally choked on my water... I wish I could have been cool and spit, but I didn't feel like cleaning my desk. Well done, STC, well done...

[Strangler Lewis]

For the record, I'll take dickhead McCain over bitch Hillary, but my preference is for the ****** Obama.

"Lawyer" is not that dirty a word.

[Kevy Baby]

"Lawyer" is not that dirty a word.Yes it is.

[lashbear]

I happen to think gender is the most important issue in this election.
.
I still agree on that one. - it's interesting to see that Oprah's choice of Candidate confirms that she don't want no woman in this [your] country to be near as powerful as her !!

[Chernabog]

Yes it is.

Yes it is! ;)

[Eliza Hodgkins 1812]

Thank you, SacTown!

[lashbear]

I happen to think ability is the most important issue in this election, regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

In the grand scheme of things, I think it's much more important that a person who is capable of doing the job be elected to the highest position of power and status in the world..
Just let me slip a song in here....

I remind them on their own behalf
To think of celebrated heads of state
Or specially great communicators
Did they have brains or knowledge?
Don't make me laugh!

They were popular! Please -
It's all about popular!
It's not about aptitude
It's the way you're viewed
So it's very shrewd to be
Very very popular like me!

Folks is like that.

[Chernabog]

Just let me slip a song in here....

I have this image of you in a blonde wig with pointy pink slippers now. THANKS! :D

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Thanks, CP. Keep the Obama info coming!Ok, umm....<pages through large reference book>....he.....has a penis. At least, that's what most pundits believe. I guess for some that's a deal breaker.




Anyway - a good bit of info for the moment:
The Problem: The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership. On challenges ranging from terrorism to disease, nuclear weapons to climate change, we cannot make progress unless we can draw on strong international support.

Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.





I was trying to think of another female world leader who was a "gentle flower of a woman". i went through quite a few...... Golda Maier, Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto, Queen Victoria, Indira Gandhi, Catherine the greati .... I couldn't come up with one.Don't even try to convince me that Golda Meir or Margaret Thatcher were bitches. I do know a thing or two about them. Yes, Margo may have been hard, and Golda was outspoken. They were both strong people, but when I say "bitch", I don't mean a strong person, of course. I mean a bitch.

I'd really prefer to see people not consider Clinton the best choice to run the country without that making it ok to call her bitch and ****, even in jest, any more than the same decision about Obama would make it ok to break out the ******s and porch monkeys followed by winks.I guess I missed that moment when "bitch" crossed over into the territory of "porch monkey". Calling someone names due to their genetic makeup is a totally different deal than calling them names because of their attitude and actions.

"Oh, but bitch is a FEMALE put down", you say. To me, I could as easily call her a sanctimonious asshole, but that's a lot more to say, and I'm not sure I'm spelling it right.

[scaeagles]

I see Obama as being a naive when it comes to foreign policy. While I believe that most Americans want to sit down and chat about things, this is not the case with many cultures, where posturing is as important as what is said. How many wars have had peace talks where it took longer to discuss the size and shape of the table than it did to actaully come to terms once there?

It isn't even an issue of talking with a leader. It's an issue of giving them legitimacy. Why do you suppose so many Middle Eastern countries refuse to even recognize Israel?

Even when we do sit down and talk, it doesn't mean a good outcome. Look at our current relationship with Russia. Putin and Bush get along personally, and theytalk, but Russia has immense opposition to the missile shield, and they are providing Iran with nuclear material and technology against what most of the world would seem to think is a good idea. It is straining relations no matter how much we talk about it.

This isn't just the Bush-Cheney approach - it is the approach of previous Presidents as well, and more common than uncommon. Would the Cuban Missile Crisis have played differently today? Why didn't Kennedy just talk to Castro and Kruschev instead of taking such a risky action? The examples are limitless. While I don't really like what I think Obama would do domestically, I truly fear his inexperience and direction in foreign policy, because he seems to think these leaders we "don't like" want to talk to us rationally with goals of compromise in mind. North Korea got their nukes in just that way with Clinton. These dictators are not to be trusted.

[SacTown Chronic]

Ok, umm....<pages through large reference book>....he.....has a penis. At least, that's what most pundits believe. I guess for some that's a deal breaker.Zing!

[Alex]

Calling someone names due to their genetic makeup is a totally different deal than calling them names because of their attitude and actions.

"Oh, but bitch is a FEMALE put down", you say. To me, I could as easily call her a sanctimonious asshole, but that's a lot more to say, and I'm not sure I'm spelling it right.


Well, even if you're calling her names because of her attitude the names you're choosing are because of her genetic make-up.

By why is it necessary to call her names of any type? Why can't you just not like her. "I don't like her personality." "I don't like the way he behaves." Maybe you apply a rigorous screening process to who you're willing to use the word on but based on my experience of hearing the word (and the much more worse, so far as most people feel, ****) over the last few days it is simply how people refer to women they don't like.

As NA said above, there is something discordant about simultaneously praising Obama as someone who creates an atmosphere of positivity and can work across acrimonious divides while taking the person who only slightly disagrees with him and going straight to pretty harsh name calling.

I know nobody is likely to believe me but when I made my post I was not particularly thinking of you, though your comment was in the general mix. I honestly did not recall that you had used a wink smiley until I just now went back to look at what you had specifically said. Pretty much it was just a response to the fact that over the last week it seems to have become broadly ok for everybody to use derogatory female slurs when referring to her and I'd really rather, if changing the tone and atmosphere is something to be desired that we all just disagree with those we disagree with and keep any of the, frankly stupid, name calling out of it.

But I am curious since you say you use it with very specific meaning but I have no idea what you specifically mean by it: what are the qualifications that make Clinton a bitch?

[Kevy Baby]

...what are the qualifications that make Clinton a bitch?I know it when I see it.

[scaeagles]

Is everyone forgetting that CP was....um....joking? The little smiley and all?

Perhaps this is something similar to how black men can call each other the N word but no one else can? Don't know - just throwing it out. Perhaps this is where the conversation has moved, but I just don't want CP to drop out of this thread, as I know she's gotten frustrated with political threads before.

[Alex]

Yes, and I wasn't talking specifically to her (though it really ended up looking like I was). More than anything what inspired my comment here was the **** and little evil grin smiley.

But she has now said that she wasn't really kidding that she does think Clinton is a bitch, so I am curious what qualifies her for that in her opinion.

[innerSpaceman]

scaeagles, are you discounting the value gained with our allies when we have all those unproductive talks with our enemies? In reading the Obama quote, it seemed to me that's the emphasis he was making.

[Alex]

Oh never mind. I don't need to pursue, I just don't understand the urge towards name calling and I've made that point.

[€uroMeinke]

I think it is interesting to deconstruct the language of the campaign - How we refer to Hillary by her first name and Obama by his last - the acceptable name calling.

I understand the disdain, though I admire her for not wanting to stay home and bake cookies I see she has been demonized the same way Nancy Reagan was when we assumed she was really pulling the strings of government.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out when both sides only have one candidate and they actually differ from one another more significantly than by their DNA.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Aww, sweet of you, scaeagles. Even though I disagree with much of your statement on foreign policy above, you're still a gentleman. (Oops, I mean he's a nice person - I better be careful not to use gender specific descriptors.)

It isn't even an issue of talking with a leader. It's an issue of giving them legitimacy. Why do you suppose so many Middle Eastern countries refuse to even recognize Israel? Dropping ourselves down to the level of countries based on oppression and hatred is going to ruin our culture. We have lost moral ground, we have lost respect from other respectable countries, and we have lost respect for ourselves.

Even when we do sit down and talk, it doesn't mean a good outcome. Look at our current relationship with Russia. Putin and Bush get along personally, and theytalk, but Russia has immense opposition to the missile shield, and they are providing Iran with nuclear material and technology against what most of the world would seem to think is a good idea. It is straining relations no matter how much we talk about it.There are no guarantees in life. I don't think anyone would argue that things are worse now with Russia than they were during the Cold War.

This isn't just the Bush-Cheney approach - it is the approach of previous Presidents as well, and more common than uncommon. Would the Cuban Missile Crisis have played differently today? Why didn't Kennedy just talk to Castro and Kruschev instead of taking such a risky action? The examples are limitless. I could not begin to answer a historical puzzle such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I don't expect anyone else to either. I've seen what silence and dehumanizing the enemy can do. I am convinced that it is our responsibility to be as civil as we can, to be an example, to be proud of ourselves. Hence my sig line.

These dictators are not to be trusted.I'd never trust a dictator, which is why keeping tabs on what's really going on is just as vital as all the table talk.

As NA said above, there is something discordant about simultaneously praising Obama as someone who creates an atmosphere of positivity and can work across acrimonious divides while taking the person who only slightly disagrees with him and going straight to pretty harsh name calling. My dislike for her personality has nothing to do with where her politics lie.

I know nobody is likely to believe me but when I made my post I was not particularly thinking of you, though your comment was in the general mix. I honestly did not recall that you had used a wink smiley until I just now went back to look at what you had specifically said. Pretty much it was just a response to the fact that over the last week it seems to have become broadly ok for everybody to use derogatory female slurs when referring to her and I'd really rather, if changing the tone and atmosphere is something to be desired that we all just disagree with those we disagree with and keep any of the, frankly stupid, name calling out of it.To be honest I completely agree with you. I originally used the word with a wink because it was (obviously, at least to me) an over the top joke. The reason I came back and reacted to people giving me sh.t for using THE B WORD is that I found it interesting that people would think that I was discounting Clinton because she's a woman. I do not discount strong women. I do not use the word "bitch" for strong women. Perhaps people forget - I AM a woman. And yes, I do believe you, Alex. When you are speaking generally, you speak generally.

Although the original post was a joke, the more I discussed it here the more I realized that for me personally, I have no problem using the word for her.

But I am curious since you say you use it with very specific meaning but I have no idea what you specifically mean by it: what are the qualifications that make Clinton a bitch?Seriously, I just pulled up dictionary.com, and it seems pretty accurate to me: "a malicious, unpleasant, selfish person, esp. a woman. " Selfish and unpleasant, definitely. Malicious, eh, maybe I wouldn't go that far. Yeah, completely subjective, completely based on impressions. And I'm not alone.

In any case - points have been made all around. I'm up for ending name-calling. The irony of discussing being civil in our foreign policy dealings and defending calling someone a bitch in the same post is not lost on me. :)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Oh, and we refer to Clinton by her first name just as we are inclined to refer to Bush as Dubya.

[€uroMeinke]

Oh, and we refer to Clinton by her first name just as we are inclined to refer to Bush as Dubya.

Yeah, I used that excuse as well - but it's not like I called the other president Bill. As part of my PoMo convictions I see language shaping reality. I think up till now the conservatives have done a great job in controlling the language in their favor, convincing us that dems were "tax and spend" even when they were delivering surpluses.

I have noticed the Bitch term more liberally used in the last week and I have to wonder if it too marks a turning point in the democratic primary. Perhaps what is attractive about Obama is he's bringing a new vocabulary to the campaign, I admit it sways me as well.

Still I have to go back to what people are saying about Hillary how they chose to refer to her in person and in press and how you can see the subtle as well as obvious digs.

I heard an African American pundit on NPR exclaim when asked about Latin prejudice against blacks, that "they aren't racist, they just associate blacks with poverty." Indeed. So I wonder if we are similarly not sexist?

Perhaps we'd feel better if Hillary was more Elenore Roosevelt baking cookies for the troops and keeping her work behind the scenes.

[Alex]

I think part of the Hillary thing (and I've been very consciously working to call her Clinton) is that we grew used to her as first lady and using first names in reference to first ladies is pretty much standard. Part of that is probably paternalism, part of it is probably that considering their much more prominent spouses we need short hand for differentiating them.

And part of it is Clinton's marketing. She is very consciously marketing herself as Hillary and not Clinton. But of course, just because she markets herself that way does not excuse the press using her self-designated marketing term. This was brought home last Tuesday when MSNBC within seconds referred to Hillary and then Mr. Obama. I know it is harder for on air, off the cuff journalists to stick to editorial standards like at the NY Times but I'd like to see them try more.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Yeah, I used that excuse as well - but it's not like I called the other president Bill. No, you mistook my meaning. We call her Hillary because there's already been a well-known Clinton. We call him Dubya because there's already a well-known Bush.

Have I said "Enough with the dynasties" lately?

[Gemini Cricket]

I do find it weird that news reports include what Hillary is wearing or even what Pelosi is wearing from time to time.
I find that weird.
I mean, we never pondered about what kind of suits Bush wears...

[Alex]

I see comment on what Bush is wearing when it is something other than a suit ("dressed casually..." for example). But that is a great thing about male formal wear. Unless you're going for cutting edge, tie color is about the only thing to ever change.

[€uroMeinke]

No, you mistook my meaning. We call her Hillary because there's already been a well-known Clinton. We call him Dubya because there's already a well-known Bush.

Have I said "Enough with the dynasties" lately?

No, I really think that's a convenient excuse we tell ourselves - don't feel like doing an analysis but do you really think you say "Dubya" as much as you say "Hillary" - Myself, I could not answer that honestly in the affirmative, I suspect the same true for you.

But I'll leave it up to Kevy to do the statistical analysis ;)

[Not Afraid]

No, you mistook my meaning. We call her Hillary because there's already been a well-known Clinton. We call him Dubya because there's already a well-known Bush.

Have I said "Enough with the dynasties" lately?

No, we use Dubya when we're being demeaning.

As far as dynasties go, I'll take another Roosevelt - or two.

[Gemini Cricket]

As far as dynasties go, I preferred the Carringtons over the Colbys...

[€uroMeinke]

Ok my unscientific research using the LoT search tool his 51 instances of dubya to 328 instances of Bush versus 65 instances of Hillary to 144 instance of Clinton

[sleepyjeff]

As far as dynasties go, I'll take another Roosevelt - or two.

Chet Roosevelt:eek:

[cirquelover]

You know I'd never thought about it like that until you all brought it up but yes I say Hillary for her and usually Obama for him. I rarely say Hillary Clinton but have been known to say Barack, interesting.

[Strangler Lewis]

Hillary. Put it on a Vegas marquee, and you know who's headlining.

Actually, I think you have to go back to Jackie Kennedy to find a first lady who might have been commonly referred to by her first name alone, and I'm not sure the references were always positive. Similarly, when we refer to her as Hillary I think we are embracing a practice first started by Rush Limbaugh that was meant to be dismissive and rude. That is why I am somewhat troubled by Obama's informal use of her first name during debates. Yes, you can say he comes from a generation that no longer bothers with honorifics. Of course, he is a lawyer and a law school professor and honorifics are still used in those situations. Is a presidential debate any less formal?

I think we don't say "Barack" because we don't know him as well yet and because it is an unfamiliar name that does not roll off the tongue. Drawn out too long, it comes across as a sound effect for the conclusion to a long night of drinking.

[scaeagles]

scaeagles, are you discounting the value gained with our allies when we have all those unproductive talks with our enemies? In reading the Obama quote, it seemed to me that's the emphasis he was making.

That could be. However, international leadership and relations change all the time, even very recently. For example, recent elections in Australia and England - the two staunchest supporters of out policies - have put in power in the hands of leaders who want to move in a different direction. In France (and Germany to an extent), the exact opposite is true, as Sarkozy openly campaigned on a desire to work more with the US. Former Soviet satillite states, who 20 years ago were in opposition to everything we did, now are close allies.

Because of that, I can't stop to look at what sort of prestige we have in the world or what foreign leaders have to say about us. It changes all the time. With the cold war, we were covering the asses of Europe and of course they were going to support us because they needed us (France being the exception, as they even pulled out of NATO in the 80s for a while if I am recalling my history correctly).

[scaeagles]

Aww, sweet of you, scaeagles. Even though I disagree with much of your statement on foreign policy above, you're still a gentleman.

How dare you!

Dropping ourselves down to the level of countries based on oppression and hatred is going to ruin our culture.

I'm not sure how it detroys our culture.

I could not begin to answer a historical puzzle such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and I don't expect anyone else to either.

Yet we are expected to, without the benefit of hindsight and even less information available to us than there currently is on the CMC, solve the puzzle of Iran and terrorism and whatever else. On a side note, I recently watched a history channel special on how the real danger during the CMC was submarine based and how certain only recently declassified operations nearly led to major disaster.

[SacTown Chronic]

The banner on HiilaryClinton.com reads "Hillary for President". Barack Obama's web site says "Obama '08".



BarbaraBush.com declares, "I'm not a man!"*






*May not be true.

[Snowflake]

A good mashup of the Yes.We.Can (http://www.dipdive.com/) speech.
Also I was able to procure a few of these a week or so ago from a friend who had them printed by Shepard:
http://www.fejsez.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/median561007682-390952-2887.jpg

I really like this poster FEJ posted. If anyone wants a shot, they're offering 600 of them at some point today for $30. I can't seem to get the site to load, I expect the 600 will be gone in a nanosecond.

obama silk screen here (http://obeygiant.com/main.php/) (I'm assuming it's a silk screen or offset litho?)

[Strangler Lewis]

Nice but troubling rendering of him. Makes me want to buy war bonds, or sing The Internationale or dye my hair blonde and climb a mountain. I prefer my idols with clay feet, especially when they haven't done anything yet.

[BarTopDancer]

No, you mistook my meaning. We call her Hillary because there's already been a well-known Clinton. We call him Dubya because there's already a well-known Bush.

Have I said "Enough with the dynasties" lately?

I'm in line with CP on this. If Hillary becomes elected then it's going to be contextual President Clinton. Or it may be Hillary. Perhaps she's promoting her "first name basis" to appeal more reachable (like corporate management started doing during).

Also, it's not all that uncommon for men to call each other by their last names. Hey Obama, what's going on? But it's rare that a group of women do. And even if they did, "Hey Clinton, what's going on?" Which Clinton are they speaking to?


No, we use Dubya when we're being demeaning.

Speak for yourself please. Dubya is a nickname/identification. His middle name starts with W. His first and last name are the same as his fathers. "Did you hear what George Bush did?" "Did you hear what President Bush did"? In both cases it doesn't specify which one. "Did you hear what Dubya did?" How is the later automatically demeaning?

[Kevy Baby]

I really like this poster FEJ posted. If anyone wants a shot, they're offering 600 of them at some point today for $30. I can't seem to get the site to load, I expect the 600 will be gone in a nanosecond.

obama silk screen here (http://obeygiant.com/main.php/) (I'm assuming it's a silk screen or offset litho?)The link won't load. I suspect they have a server that can't handle the load.

[Alex]

While taken on its own that poster of Obama is visually appealing I must admit I somewhat viscerally cringe at it because it brings to mind the Che iconography that so many idiots wear and old-style Soviet propaganda posters.

[JWBear]

As far as dynasties go, I'll take another Roosevelt - or two.

How about those Harrisons? Bennie for President! Woot, woot!

[Snowflake]

Millard Fillmore should have had a dynasty.

[€uroMeinke]

just to clarify, I find I'm more interested in the semiotics of the campaign than the actual politics.

Not sure if it was a campaign decission early on to use "Hillary" it certainly would be a strategy to make her more freindly and familiar - and even distinguish her from her Husband. But I notice her people now are using "Senator Clinton" - which makes sense if it's experience that she's selling. It's still a long way to November, but it seems in this respect she may have already lost in the language war as her symbols contradict one another.

On the other hand, I too wonder about what it says that a Russian Constructavist image of Obama is one we find so appealing - certainly the style has other contexts - but then again campaigns are propaganda wars and good symbology goes a long way.

[blueerica]

While taken on its own that poster of Obama is visually appealing I must admit I somewhat viscerally cringe at it because it brings to mind the Che iconography that so many idiots wear and old-style Soviet propaganda posters.

I agree. I hate the whole revolution-as-fashion-statement that the imagery brings about, at least for me.

[Strangler Lewis]

I guess I'll have to take a look at it again.

[Snowflake]

While taken on its own that poster of Obama is visually appealing I must admit I somewhat viscerally cringe at it because it brings to mind the Che iconography that so many idiots wear and old-style Soviet propaganda posters.


I guess that's why I do like it, it is very similar to an early Soviet style of poster (I do like the fim posters of the era in a similar style). It did not strike me as something to cringe about, but in retrospect, I guess it is distastful in that way. I looked at it and liked it as a piece of art.

Their website seems to have crashed from the thousands of people aiming to snatch one of the 600 posters offered today. Alas, not me.

[Strangler Lewis]

Hmm. Better take another look at it.

[cirquelover]

I guess I'll have to take a look at it again.

Hmm. Better take another look at it.


Ok so now that you've looked in retrospect twice, your public is awaiting your take on it;)

[Strangler Lewis]

Already taken. (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showpost.php?p=191997&postcount=181)

[Cadaverous Pallor]

The banner on HiilaryClinton.com reads "Hillary for President". Barack Obama's web site says "Obama '08".
Thanks for the clarification - visible mojo. Seems like that wraps that end up.

As for whether the poster evokes Soviet propaganda, my official response is, "oooookaaaaay." I'm not head over heels for the poster (I saw it previously and chose another avatar instead) but lordy, what a load of baggage to hook onto a poster with a picture of Obama's face in America's colors. Maybe I'm just not a student of Soviet propaganda.

[Strangler Lewis]

How about "Triumph of the Will?"

[Alex]

I think the stylistic connections between that poster and stereotypical communist/socialist propaganda is pretty striking (to me, other people will see or not see the same things).

Completely ignoring that political context it is a style I love. But considering that several people here see similarities I don't think it would be horribly uncommon and is probably not an association the campaign would want. Is this an official poster from them or did someone else make it?

I'm not even saying that was even the intent of the creator; and I'm definitely not saying it is a direct translation of Constructivism (thank Euro for putting the right word back in my head) to Obama but for me it creates the echoes.

http://www.ils.unc.edu/%7Egerogers/jomc222/images/lenin_poster.jpg

http://oregonstate.edu/freedomonthefence/sopoko-political1948.jpg

[Kevy Baby]

How about "Triumph of the Will?"Or "Triumph of the Wii?"

[Not Afraid]

As for whether the poster evokes Soviet propaganda, my official response is, "oooookaaaaay." I'm not head over heels for the poster (I saw it previously and chose another avatar instead) but lordy, what a load of baggage to hook onto a poster with a picture of Obama's face in America's colors. Maybe I'm just not a student of Soviet propaganda.

I would probably venture a guess that many people haven't a clue about the style influence of the Obama poster. We have people who haven't a clue about Huckabee's bible references, why would they know about art? Still, the poster is straight out of the school of political propaganda art, espec. Soviet. It's not really a load of baggage, it's just a fact.

[Ghoulish Delight]

To answer an earlier question, it was done by an artist outside of Obama's campaign, seemingly on their own volition.

[Not Afraid]

In many ways, the feeling behind the original style is generally similar to the rhetoric Obama is touting except the end goal is a bit different.




In the 1920s and 1930s poster illustrators used print and photography to ennoble popular causes. This modern ‘intelligentsia’ was infused with optimism and action for a new art of social commitment.
They saw themselves as the intellectual arm of the revolution, articulating the true voice of the proletariat. Tracing the heroic and tragic struggle of ‘the people’ from pioneering days to the present, they invented a new sense of history from below and of progress towards the destiny of communism.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Guess I'm just clueless on that front. If it is meant to invoke a communistic ethic, well, I'm not going to pitch a fit over it. Whatever works for whatever segments.

[Not Afraid]

This has led to some great conversations between Chris and I about symbology, communication and greater meanings behind such things. Since politics is really all about marketing anyways, it is profoundly interesting to me and with my background in art history and Chris' in communication we may just start another thread.

[Snowflake]

This has led to some great conversations between Chris and I about symbology, communication and greater meanings behind such things. Since politics is really all about marketing anyways, it is profoundly interesting to me and with my background in art history and Chris' in communication we may just start another thread.

Please do!

To echo Alex, it is a style I like. Of course, had I survived the Stalinist era, or had contact with my distant relatives who actually did (or didn't) I might feel differently.

This is much more in line with soviet era, rather than Nazi era posters, at least when it comes to Triumph of the Will.
http://www.geocities.com/~rudyfan/triumph.jpg.

I'm not looking at anything at the moment, but I think there were stylelistically similar "hopefull" and idealic posters extoling life in Germany as part of the propaganda of the Nazis. Anyway, I digress and do not mean to derail as my original intent was to let people know if there was abn interest in the interesting obama poster, where you might have a shot at getting one. I never did manage to get on to the site, so I missed my chance. If Obama does not win the nomination, then I may get lucky on ebay. ;)

[Strangler Lewis]

I'm not thinking about poster styles so much--though I think they are similar--as the convention of filming or viewing the subject from below to make it appear more powerful or heroic. Leni Riefenstahl did this regularly, whether the subject was blonde mountaineers or Hitler. The poster you attach uses the convention as do the Soviet posters Alex found. The Obama poster uses it as well.

[innerSpaceman]

...we may just start another thread.

Please do!


Oh yes, by all means. We need a Random Political Thoughs Part Five. :p




(um have you noticed that, no matter how these political threads start out, they end up all the same?)

[scaeagles]

It's all about conversation and where the thread takes you. The random threads, at least, allow for quick changes in direction.

[Kevy Baby]

Maybe we should just have one giant thread.

[scaeagles]

Iwas just at lunch and CNBC was on, and Obama's tax plans were outlined.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. It was ALL about raising everything under the sun. Corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, eliminating the Bush tax cuts, you name it.

While I wasn't horribly anti-Obama before and was simply a bit uneasy, now I am definitely anti-Obama.

[SacTown Chronic]

Too bad you can't vote for Bush again....maybe the third time would have been the charm.

[Morrigoon]

Saucer of cream, table for one...

[mousepod]

...my original intent was to let people know if there was abn interest in the interesting obama poster, where you might have a shot at getting one. I never did manage to get on to the site, so I missed my chance. If Obama does not win the nomination, then I may get lucky on ebay. ;)

They never showed up on the site yesterday. The site just went down for maintenance, so I'll bet they turn up any second...

You might still have a chance.

link (http://www.obeygiant.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=1)

[Snowflake]

They never showed up on the site yesterday. The site just went down for maintenance, so I'll bet they turn up any second...

You might still have a chance.

link (http://www.obeygiant.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=1)

Thanks MP.

I did a look on ebay, sheesh, the prices people are asking for this. For that kind of money screw Obama, I'd buy another Valentino poster!

[Ghoulish Delight]

Oh my god, scaeagles disagrees with a Democrat on economic policy!!?!! Stop the presses.

For the record, Obama and Clinton differ very little in their stated tax plans. So much so that Hillary's camp is calling Obama's plan "plagiarisms" (rest assured, that had it differed more, the criticism would have been that it was "naive").

[scaeagles]

I'm being mocked for expressing that I think his tax policy is scary????

Hillary has scared me without needing to know much about her specific policies that I don't know about. Obama as a person doesn't scare me me, but his policies are starting to more and more.

[Morrigoon]

I think they're just amused by their "not surprised"-ness. Because nobody expects that you would like a democrat's spending plan. Hey, you have every right to be freaked out by it, and you have a political history that indicates you would be.

[JWBear]

Well, somebody has to pay for Mr Bush's little war. Personally, I'd rather it be the rich and the big corporations than the poor and middle class.

[Kevy Baby]

I am going to have to do the research again (I think all the work I did last time was on Fab's board which crashed), but the wealthy ALREADY pay most of the taxes.

And why should "Big Corporations" be subject to higher tax rates? This has never made any sense to me. It will just drive more work (JOBS) overseas as well as other effects detrimental to the US Economy.

And the question that so far I have never been able to get anyone on this board to answer is: what is wealthy? Is the top 10% of wage earners consider wealthy? 5%? People who make over $100,000? $200,000? $1,000,000?

[scaeagles]

Big Corporations don't pay taxes. If big corporations are hit with a tax increase, it is simply passed along to the consumer.

Visibile mojo to Kevy. When the top 10% of the population pay 80% of the taxes (or whatever it is exactly), of course that's where the tax reductions go.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Big Corporations don't pay taxes. If big corporations are hit with a tax increase, it is simply passed along to the consumer.Only goods with perfectly inelastic demand curves is this true.

[Kevy Baby]

When the top 10% of the population pay 80% of the taxes (or whatever it is exactly), of course that's where the tax reductions go.If I recall correctly, it was a lower number than 10% that payed 80%. I gotta look it up again.

[Ghoulish Delight]

If I recall correctly, it was a lower number than 10% that payed 80%. I gotta look it up again.
Nope. The top 1% pays about 35% of taxes. The same top 1% owns about 35% of the wealth. Seems about right to me.

[Kevy Baby]

Only goods with perfectly inelastic demand curves is this true.I disagree. I think you would find that ultimately, almost all tax increases to corporations are passed on to the consumer.

And the funny thing about "Big Corporations" is that a good majority of the spoils goes to the common man. Most of the largest shareholders in large companies are mutual funds where you and I and other regular people have at least some of their retirement finds in. When Exxon/Mobile makes an "obscene" amount of money, that means that Joe Blow's pension just improved.

Also, Big Corporations typically employee a shytload of everyday people. Last I head, being employed is a good thing.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I disagree. I think you would find that ultimately, almost all tax increases to corporations are passed on to the consumer.
Then you disagree with the generally accepted rules of economics.

reference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_of_taxes_and_subsidies_on_price)

[Kevy Baby]

Nope. The top 1% pays about 35% of taxes. The same top 1% owns about 35% of the wealth. Seems about right to me.You are supporting SCAE and my argument: the wealthy pay the highest percentage of taxes.

Also, "The top 1% pays about 35% of taxes" does not preclude my (trying to remember) numbers. It is just a smaller sampling from a larger subset.

[Kevy Baby]

Then you disagree with the generally accepted rules of economics.Maybe so. I meant to add to my original post that the passing on may not be 1:1, but it will be significant.

Also, the passing on may not be direct either. Big Company A gets hit with a 10% increase in their taxes which results in a 2% overall increase in bottom line costs (I am using hypothetical numbers here). They may only be able to pass on 1% (half the additional burden) on to consumers. Then they extract another .5% from their vendors who must then tighten their belts in the form of layoffs or other such economic impact, another .25% in the form of internal layoffs, and the last .25% in the form of lower dividends to their institutional stockholders (read: your and my retirement funds).

There you have it: all 2% of the increased tax burden passed on to the consumer.

[Ghoulish Delight]

You are supporting SCAE and my argument: the wealthy pay the highest percentage of taxes.

Also, "The top 1% pays about 35% of taxes" does not preclude my (trying to remember) numbers. It is just a smaller sampling from a larger subset.
Wiki again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth#In_the_United_States)

In the United States at the end of 2001, 10% of the population owned 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% controlled 38%. On the other hand, the bottom 40% owned less than 1% of the nation's wealth. In 2003, the most-earning 1% of the population in the United States, which has a system of progressive taxation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_taxation), paid over 34% of the nation's federal income tax; the most-earning 10% bore 66% of the total tax load; the top 25% of income earners paid 84% of the income taxes; and the upper half accounted for virtually the entire U.S. income tax revenue (nearly 97%).

So as I see it, with the top one percent controling 38% of the wealth but only paying 34% of the taxes (71%/66% for the top 10), the wealthiest are carrying a smaller tax burden by proportion than the tax brackets below them. They may account for a larger gross portion of the intake, however they are individually paying a smaller portion of their wealth than an individual in middle to lower class.

[Kevy Baby]

So as I see it, with the top one percent controling 38% of the wealth but only paying 34% of the taxes (71%/66% for the top 10), the wealthiest are carrying a smaller tax burden by proportion than the tax brackets below them. They may account for a larger gross portion of the intake, however they are individually paying a smaller portion of their wealth than an individual in middle to lower class.According to the numbers, the top 38% only paid 34%

The difference is not statistically relevant
The numbers are from two different years
The comparison is irrelevant because it compares wealth to income tax. We are taxed on our income, not our wealth.

[sleepyjeff]

What does this mean?

"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

[Alex]

It means it was superseded by

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[Alex]

And for the first 100 years of the country no income taxes were considered direct taxes and were therefore legal so long as they were geographically consistent. Then the Supreme Court changed the rules a bit in 1895 and ruled taxes on some incomes to be unconstitutional per the clause you cite since they were hidden direct taxes and not apportioned by population. This lead to the 16th Amendment making all income taxes specifically constitutional without population apportionment.

Note, though, that taxes on wage income have never in this country been unconstitutional as prior to the 16th Amendment they were allowed as indirect taxes. Which is why all those income tax avoiders who claim they don't have to pay because the 16th Amendment was never properly ratified are idiots. Even without the 16th Amendment most income taxes are legal and constitutional.

[Alex]

Interesting to note, also, that if we did go back in time and expand the definition so that all income taxes fell under the geographic apportionment, this would really screw the red states which tend to be poorer.

Just to use really rough figures, let's say the government wanted to collect $1 trillion in revenue from income taxes.

Based on population (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population) apportionment this would mean that Mississippi and Connecticut would each need to contribute approximately $10 billion (really, 0.95% and 1.15% but let's round off).

Mississippi has 1.12 million households (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/GRTTable?_bm=y&-_box_head_nbr=R1105&-ds_name=ACS_2004_EST_G00_&-format=US-30) with an average household income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States) of $34,000 for a total of $38.08 billion in income available for taxing.

Connecticut has 1.37 million households with an average household income of $60,500 for a total of $82.89 billion in income available for taxing.

So, for each state to contribute its $10 billion to the federal revenues, Mississippi income would be taxed at 26% and Connecticut income at 12%.

Let's go back to that method and see how quickly the fine people of Missisippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Utah, etc. suddenly realize that it would be a good idea to pass the 16th Amendment again.



Yes, I did just post three times in a row. I suck at the internets.

[JWBear]

....the wealthiest are carrying a smaller tax burden by proportion than the tax brackets below them. They may account for a larger gross portion of the intake, however they are individually paying a smaller portion of their wealth than an individual in middle to lower class.

We should raise taxes on the wealthy so that that are paying the same percentage of their wealth as everyone else. Poor rich people... Boo-hoo.....

[Alex]

We should raise taxes on the wealthy so that that are paying the same percentage of their wealth as everyone else. Poor rich people... Boo-hoo.....

I'm in favor of that. My sister pays 0% of her wealth in income taxes every year. I'd settle for that.

[€uroMeinke]

I don't see why there needs to be taxes at all, the government can just print more dollars and we all win

[Kevy Baby]

I suck at the internets.Well, I wish you would learn how to use them and stop breaking them.

We should raise taxes on the wealthy so that that are paying the same percentage of their wealth as everyone else. Poor rich people... Boo-hoo.....The reason you don't tax "wealth" is that this is income that was ALREADY taxed when it was earned.

And that is only presuming that it is cash. "Wealth" could also include fixed assets such as real estate, of which property taxes are paid on. If someone realizes capital gains from real estate, they are taxed on that.

Taxing wealth is double taxation. And the wealthy would not be the only ones subject to it.

[mousepod]

They never showed up on the site yesterday. The site just went down for maintenance, so I'll bet they turn up any second...

You might still have a chance.

link (http://www.obeygiant.com/store/index.php?main_page=index&cPath=1)

They're up now. One per customer. Less than $40 with tax and shipping.

[Snowflake]

They're up now. One per customer. Less than $40 with tax and shipping.

waiting for the page to load........:(

got as far as the cart, then bombed out

[scaeagles]

Amen, Kevy.

This is why I despise the inheritance tax. Already paid taxes on it once, why the hell should I pay to give it to my kids? My CEO stareted a company in his garage. He's now a multimillionaire. That's just great that he gets to give his hard earned money to the government when he dies instead of all of it to his kids.

All this goes away if we go to a comsumption tax and eliminate the income tax, but that's not going to happen. Too much power in the hands of congress writing tax law would be given back to the people.

[Morrigoon]

If he was smart he'd use his annual gifting allowance to pay into a permanent life insurance policy. They wouldn't be taxed on that. Hold the insurance under a trust and name the kids as the beneficiaries.

[innerSpaceman]

well, of course there are tons of ways for rich individuals and wealthy entities to avoid taxes.

But those hoops shouldn't have to be jumped thru. Of course, then, the economy of accountants, tax advisors and attorneys would suffer. So everything remains in place to grease the wheels of greasing the palms.

[scaeagles]

The man isn't stupid. He's a tax lawyer. Like ISM said, it's just wrong that he has to even consider those things.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I definitely won't argue re: inheritance tax (although I would point out that the more money you have the easier it is to shelter it from the inheritance tax as you can actually afford things like permanent life insurance and creating trusts).

[scaeagles]

Exactly, GD. This is another huge problem - the fact is that the wealthier you are the easier it is to pay less taxes. I'm all for closing loopholes. When Perot ran in 1992, I think it was revealed that his overall tax rate was something ridiculous around 6%. That is wrong. I will admit that I do like what Obama has said about off shore tax shelters.

I suppose the buggest problem I have with taxation - understanding fully that taxation is a necessary evil - is that it is always put into terms of "what will this cost the government" or "how will we replace the money lost in taxes". I have an idea - stop spending so much. It is never put in terms of "what will this cost the taxpayer" or "how will the taxpayer replace the money in increased taxation".

Consumers are expected to spend less when they have a reduction in income. I see no problem with the same expectation of the government. Everyone is amazed at the wasteful spending of the government and earmarks and whatever else. Public schools being built in the Phoenix area are simply palacial. Weight rooms that would embarrass small Universities. Two or sometimes even three gymasiums. The excesses are immense.

How is it even possible to look at a 3 TRILLION dollar budget that was just submitted and think it isn't enough? It's sickening, and GWB has completely dropped the ball in the area of controlling spending. I see Obama and Clinton propose even more - not that Republicans don't - and worry about that number going up and up and up. Sadly, it most likely will continue at an exponential rate no matter who is elected and no matter who controls congress.

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!

[sleepyjeff]

I don't see why there needs to be taxes at all, the government can just print more dollars and we all win

Exactly.....the reduced value of our dollar would in essence be our "tax". Simple, no forms to fill out and no way for the rich to avoid paying taxes:)

[Moonliner]

Exactly, GD. This is another huge problem - the fact is that the wealthier you are the easier it is to pay less taxes. I'm all for closing loopholes. When Perot ran in 1992, I think it was revealed that his overall tax rate was something ridiculous around 6%. That is wrong. I will admit that I do like what Obama has said about off shore tax shelters.

I suppose the buggest problem I have with taxation - understanding fully that taxation is a necessary evil - is that it is always put into terms of "what will this cost the government" or "how will we replace the money lost in taxes". I have an idea - stop spending so much. It is never put in terms of "what will this cost the taxpayer" or "how will the taxpayer replace the money in increased taxation".

Consumers are expected to spend less when they have a reduction in income. I see no problem with the same expectation of the government. Everyone is amazed at the wasteful spending of the government and earmarks and whatever else. Public schools being built in the Phoenix area are simply palacial. Weight rooms that would embarrass small Universities. Two or sometimes even three gymasiums. The excesses are immense.

How is it even possible to look at a 3 TRILLION dollar budget that was just submitted and think it isn't enough? It's sickening, and GWB has completely dropped the ball in the area of controlling spending. I see Obama and Clinton propose even more - not that Republicans don't - and worry about that number going up and up and up. Sadly, it most likely will continue at an exponential rate no matter who is elected and no matter who controls congress.

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!


And that's just the Feds. Now you need to add in all 50 State budgets. The excesses you mention primarily come from state budgets/taxes.

[Scrooge McSam]

I have an idea - stop spending so much.

Visible mojo for Leo

[lashbear]

Consumers are expected to spend less when they have a reduction in income. I see no problem with the same expectation of the government. Everyone is amazed at the wasteful spending of the government and earmarks and whatever else.
Just so you know, our newly elected Prime Minister has frozen all parliamentary incomes for a year, much to the horror of all his party and the opposition.

He's walking the talk. I love it. :snap:

[dlrp_bopazot]

hey hey i'm not complaining about the value of the Dollar because i enjoy being here and spending my High Value Euros .

But true when it is the reverse and you go to Europe Spend your Dollars . hum hum i understand .

Hey you guys have a very cheap Gas Compare to ours . Think about it we pay hum hum $10 a gallon compare to $2,9 here in Central Florida .

I dont have any preferences for any politician but i hope it ll reduce your gas prices and increase the minimum wage .

[scaeagles]

I am completely against raising the minimum wage, as are a large portion of economists.

It can not be any better explained as to why than here. (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2006/04/26/minimum_wage,_maximum_folly)

[wendybeth]

hey hey i'm not complaining about the value of the Dollar because i enjoy being here and spending my High Value Euros .

But true when it is the reverse and you go to Europe Spend your Dollars . hum hum i understand .

Hey you guys have a very cheap Gas Compare to ours . Think about it we pay hum hum $10 a gallon compare to $2,9 here in Central Florida .

I dont have any preferences for any politician but i hope it ll reduce your gas prices and increase the minimum wage .

Yes, our gas is cheaper- but our commutes are typically much, much longer than the average European's, and our transportation system is really lacking in most areas of the country. Of course, when Amtrak goes on strike our country is still able to function, so maybe that's not such a bad thing.:D