Yes, we can.
 

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, 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 has the goods, of course. Ways you can help:

• Donate. I did.
• Urge Edwards to endorse Obama.
• Make phone calls 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. 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:

Not that it diminishes a great line but I found this history of "we are the ones we've been waiting for" interesting.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

"Can" Obama answer some of these questions?

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

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...

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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. 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. 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 while I marshall more thoughts.

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

Not according to today's NY Times.

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 - slightly different but Clinton still leads.

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.

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

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.

Isn't your primary very soon?

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Vice-President Richardson would be nice.

I like President Bornieo

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:

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?

A good mashup of the Yes.We.Can 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:

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

You would get my vote

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.

I think I'm gonna write in Edwards.

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

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.

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.

You mean like McCain. :p

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

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

Bang.

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...

Thinking of turning the gun on myself, actually.

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

I'll shoot both of you, since I linked to Obama's plan 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'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>

I saw one of these posted at a house near mousepod's place last night. Dig.

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.

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

Visible mojo to Morrigoon for a good laugh.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

;)

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

Yup - and he sorely disappointed.

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".

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I have two separate opinions:

1. Hillary Clinton would be a bad leader of this country
2. Barrack Obama might be a good leader of the country

Neither 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I was responding more on the divisiveness issue rather than semantics. See the parts of the original quote that I have highlighted.

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.

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

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.

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.

Very true.

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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...

All this talk about immigration, schools, etc. is interesting, but how does he feel about bacon?

Mmmm bacon....

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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, 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.

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 ...

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.

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

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.

Which are you more likely to achieve?

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

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



:evil:

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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 ****.

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.

THANK YOU!!!!!!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

"Lawyer" is not that dirty a word.

Yes it is.

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 !!

Yes it is! ;)

Thank you, SacTown!

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.

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

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:



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 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.

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.

Zing!

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?

I know it when I see it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

My dislike for her personality has nothing to do with where her politics lie.

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.

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. :)

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.

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.

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 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...

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.

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 ;)

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

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

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

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

Chet Roosevelt:eek:

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.

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.

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).

How dare you!

I'm not sure how it detroys our culture.

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.

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.

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 (I'm assuming it's a silk screen or offset litho?)

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.

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?


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?

The link won't load. I suspect they have a server that can't handle the load.

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.

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

Millard Fillmore should have had a dynasty.

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.

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

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

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.

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;)

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.

How about "Triumph of the Will?"

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.

Or "Triumph of the Wii?"

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.

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

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.

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.

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.
.

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. ;)

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.

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?)

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

Maybe we should just have one giant thread.

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.

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

Saucer of cream, table for one...

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

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!

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").

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Only goods with perfectly inelastic demand curves is this true.

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.

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.

Then you disagree with the generally accepted rules of economics.

reference

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.

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.

Wiki again

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%

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

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."

It means it was superseded by

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.

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 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 with an average household income 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.

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.

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

Well, I wish you would learn how to use them and stop breaking them.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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!!!!!!!!!!

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:)

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.

Visible mojo for Leo

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:

You hou
 

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 .

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.

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw

So she was proud to be an American as a child, went to Harvard and until just recently was not proud to be an American???

What about that troubles you?

I'm not proud to be an American.

Seems like a patently silly thing to be proud of. Kind of like being proud I have a nose.

If it isn't obvious than I am afraid I am even more troubled.

K Den... Good luck working through that.

I think there's a difference between saying you don't feel blessed (or lucky) to be an American and saying that you feel that this country has fallen short of its ideals (whatever you believe them to be). After all, wasn't the entire Reagan revolution about restoring pride in America?

In large part "pride" is linked to how others regard you.


Based on my experience, it was during the Regan Administration that people in our allied countries (UK, France, etc...) began to question our national policies and grumble about them. Bush the senior ushered in the era of open dissent, Clinton ratcheted the rhetoric down a few notches and turned the focus to simply laughing at the President (what is is, etc...) while Bush the junior put us over the top in terms of both hatred of America and making a laughingstock of the office of the President abroad.

Nothing to do with this thread, but I completely disagree about "pride"

It's got nothing to do with how others regard you. By definition, it's how you regard yourself. Whether you choose to base your self-regard on how others regard you is optional. But the word refers only to self-regard.

I was discussing "National pride" not personal. However in either case I think how my friends feel about me and my actions is very directly tied to my own sense of pride. If all my friends think I'm acting like a petulant child then my pride suffers.

Using an internal gauge separate from the outside world seems less like pride and more like Ego.

That's what my heart yearns for now - love and pride.
That's what my heart yearns for now - love and pride.

Start your journey early or maybe later
get your boots on

Look for rainbows
it's cloudy

Take your hairdryer
blow them all away.

In you I've found a story I want to keep hearing.
In you I see all colours
not just black or white.
In you I find a reason and hope for all dreamers

You are my fill
you're my supply of love and pride.
That's what my heart yearns for now - love and pride. . . .

Knowing
sensing
seeing
eating
sleeping
that's just being.
Touching
testing
loving
wanting and taking

more love and more pride.
In you I've found a story I want to keep hearing. . . .

I'm taking it round the world - some love and pride.
That's what my heart yearns for now - love and pride. . . .
That's what my heart yeanis for now - love and pride. . . .

:D

And now back to your regularly scheduled thread...

How did a discussion of a group of lions come into this thread?

I am extremely proud to be a white American male. It took foresight and a lot of planning to get the conditions of my birth exactly as I wanted them.

I haven't been proud to be an American since 3/19/03.

Good one, Sac.:cheers:

If you can be proud to be an American in the face of all the awful things America has done in the past few years, THAT troubles me.

News flash: There are millions of people that feel exactly as she does and are poised and ready to pull that lever on Election Day. People are overwhelming tired with business as usual in this country and are finally starting to wake up and demand change.

I am proud to be an American, in spite of whatever has happened in the last few years. Why?

Because I live in a country where I can say that I don't like the government without fear of thugs knocking on my door in the middle of the night to drag me and my family away.

Because I live in a country where I am free to read anything I want without it being dictated by my government.

Because I live in a country that does not deny me access to certain parts of the internet.

Because I live in a country where I can have a say in who leads my country and who represents me in government. And while I am just one vote amongst millions, I still get to vote.

I would go on, but my time is limited.

Kevy you said it so well.

I would only add, speaking for myself, I am proud to be an American, but this does not mean I am proud of the current administration (or lots of things about past administrations).

I'm hopeful about the future, I have to be, I'm a glass half full person.

I would say I'm grateful and relieved for the things KB listed, but not necessarily proud. Things that make me proud are when people (and country) do good things, things that make me sit back and say "Oh, yeah- wtg!" I suppose I could find plenty to be proud of so far as my country, but in recent years I've been spending far more time cringing rather than glowing. I'm not alone, and tossing the tired old anti-patriotic mantle at people like me is not going to get anyone anywhere. It hasn't thus far, that's for certain.

To me, that's exactly like saying I'm proud to be a white American male because I was so talented in arranging it so.

Why be "proud" to have the rights that are inalienable?

Agreed with above. Mistaking pride for gratitude. Big difference. Pride should come from an active accomplishment of good things, not from innate states of existence.

I think the word you are looking for is "fortunate" or "lucky", and they are not synonymous with "pride". Pride is defined as: pleasure or satisfaction taken in something done by or belonging to oneself or believed to reflect credit upon oneself.

I'm not sure you did anything to earn the privilege to call yourself an American, you just got lucky enough to be born here. To me, it's like saying, I'm proud I won the lottery.

ETA: I see others beat me to the punch.

But there is cause for concern...

wikileaks.org <-- Can you get to that site? No. Your goverment has blocked it.

It isn't a word that has distinct lines in colloquial use.

What is gay "pride"? Black "pride"? Why would I say to Lani at the completion of a marathon "I'm proud of you"? I can be proud of my good works and charitable giving.

Do all of those have a common element or are they just the same word used for completely different things?

For me, the closest I can come to saying I'm "proud" to be an American is in the same sense of "gay" or "black" pride. Where the meaning isn't so much pride in an accomplishment but pride in the act of refusing to be ashamed of something over which you have no control.

While I wouldn't really say I'm "proud" of being an American, despite attempts by others to feel I should be, I am also not ashamed. I'm not happy with much about this country but I also think it is, overall, at least as good as anywhere else and in certain ways much better (and in certain ways worse).

And to an extent, we are all active participants of this grand thing that is the United States and therefore a certain sense of participatory pride seems appropriate but for that I tend to associate it with certain things. I'm proud of X policy or Y action (particularly if I was somehow involved just beyond being within the sphere of jurisdiction when it happened) but it still seems to me like a really odd construction to just be proud of being an American.

Like I said above, for me the formulation is too much like saying "I'm proud I have a nose." The "pride" I feel at being an American is, I imagine, the same pride I'd feel at being German if I had been born in Germany.

But it is interesting because Lani's relatives were one who were so disappointed in their born culture that they actively sought to leave it and made that commitment and very actively chose to become Americans. So she and I discuss this every year or so, whether her being "proud to be an American" has a very different qualitative element than when someone else says the same thing.

You and your tin foil hat. One can easily go to that site. Just click here: http://wikileaks.be/wiki/Wikileaks

Hey Mr. Head in the sand...

Your government, without opposing testimony, ordered an ISP to block all access to a web site and prevented it from moving the domain name to another server. Sure in this case there happen to be foreign mirrors. What if it happened to LoT because some foreign government got pissy about a post?

If you're OK with that then I guess it's my Tin hat VS your blind faith.

Sorry, I disagree with all of you.

I AM proud.

I am proud because I actively participate in keeping all of the things I said in my post alive and well. Democracy does not continue to exist simply because it is my inalienable right. It continues to exist because I (and you) actively keep it alive. Whether we do that by complaining about or congratulating our current leadership, we still accomplish the same goal.

Yes, I am proud to be an American.

I hate to quibble with Alex (wait ... no i don't), but pride in refusing to do something is active pride. Refusal and acting upon that refusal is an activity that can be viewed, if one chooses, as an accomplishment.


As Alex pointed out, "Black Pride" and "Gay Pride" does not mean sitting around feeling darned good to be colored and/or queer, and so pleased that you arranged to be born that way.

Without reading the entire history of the whys and whatfors, I cannot argue with nor corroborate the claims. And I have no intention to. No system is perfect: you will find holes in it.

Besides, the site was taken down because they were posting BANKING DOCUMENTS with personal information. From what I can read of the one story, it appears that these documents were obtained illegally (they were not public documents). The site refused to take down the illegally acquired documents, so the court was not only right in allowing this site from being taken down but was (IMO) obligated top do so.

I may be reading a little more into the article than is actually there, but I feel confident that I am pretty close.

I am grateful to have been born in a country to which we have many of the freedoms that Kevy outlined for us. I am ashamed of the actions of our government and some of our population at home and abroad.

Here's how my thinking has changed over the years:

At 17 I received Canadian citizenship (I have dual). I didn't want it, didn't see any reason to have it, I was American, period. I have no identification with Canada other than my mom being born there. Mom's reasoning (foresight?) was that some day I may want to get a Canadian passport, it maybe safer traveling to Europe with it. Maybe one day I'd want to move there, etc...

Fast forward about 10 years (or 3 years ago). I am glad I have an option to get a Canadian passport. American's aren't looked that fondly upon overseas these days. I am glad I am able to move there without much hassle if I wanted to (I don't). Will I get a Canadian passport? Considering I am going to get an American one in a few days, probably not. But I am grateful to have the opportunity to do so if I wanted.

I am ashamed of our national reputation overseas. I am ashamed of what our government has done in and to Iraq. I am ashamed that freedoms have been eroded away at home. I am ashamed of how my countrymen act overseas. The sense of entitlement that this country has as a whole makes me nauseous. Am I going to move? No. If I were I would have done it already.

I am grateful to live in a nation that allows me to be ashamed of its governments actions. I hope we begin to do good, that our entitlement goes away and this country again becomes somewhere to be proud to be a part of.

Exactly what Michelle Obama was trying to say.

Not sure if that was directed at my post, but if it was, I haven't even watched the video. youtube is blocked at work.

Yes, it was, and, unfortunately, she did not similarly expand on her comments, but, as I said before, I assume she meant something along those lines.

Oh ok. I'll watch it tonight.

I can emigrate to Sweden if I want to.

They've got ice bars, and Balder (the best damned wooden rollercoaster on the face of the Earth).

But I'm proud to stay in America, with the occasional jaunt elsewhere.

I am proud to be an American.

I do not like everything our government does.

I am proud of my son. I am not proud that it is a constant battle to get him to study his spelling words until 8pm on the night before his spelling test.

I don't carewhat the rest of the world thinks about us. Most of the world is ruled by thugs, dictators, or socialists. I doubt the French really care what we think of France. I doubt the Saudis really care about what we think of Saudi Arabia. I doubt the Chinese really care about what we think about China. Why do we care? But if we do, it sure looks as if Africa loves Bush and America right now. Does that change anyone's opinion of Bush? I doubt it.

I am fortunate to have been born here in the U.S. of A. I am proud to be a part of the processes that keep our country free and strong.

And I'd mojo Kevy if I could. But I can't. So major freakin' visible mojo for him.

Exactly what Michelle Obama was trying to say.

Yes, but was she trying to say it in HD?

A couple of observations from the Wisconsin primary:

• Wisconsin affirms the Iowa results: Obama does appeal and can lead an overwhelmingly white population. When the talking heads say that Hillary's constituency is "working class", that's code for "Archie Bunker racists". Wisconsin is full to the brim with people who proved yesterday that we have moved beyond the color barrier.

• A large part of Hillary's constituency is said to be women 50 and older. I am 50 and received a couple of pro-Obama phone calls from live women. I received only recorded phone messages from the Hillary camp, including one in a man's voice from my former union, the American Federation of Teachers. Based on this, Obama's organization is smarter than Hillary's.

• Both my kids, 15 and 18, like Obama so much that they've canvassed for him in the snow. That's no joke when the temp is 10 degrees and you're trudging door-to-door for four hours. My kids' enthusiasm for this candidate trumps any vestigal feelings of old-school feminist loyalty I may have towards Hillary.

• Local Obama siting: he came to the YMCA in a nearby dinky rural town the other day to work out. It was all hush-hush and only known after the fact. We do have other private workout clubs but Obama worked out in a YMCA. Calculating or not, this resonates with the locals, many of whom have lost their jobs as paper mills close.

Oh, right, I started a thread for Obama enthusiasts. Forgot about that.

Helen, that's awesome about your kids. If I were their age I'd probably be doing the same (though I won't even compare weather conditions). I got an email from the Obama camp asking me to go to Texas to get out the vote. For a split second I considered it ;)

I am so glad to hear the returns from Wisconsin (yay Helen!) and Hawaii. A 17 point gap in WI, and a 52 point gap in HI (he is from there, after all).

:) :) :)

CP, are you suggesting that you don't want all aspects of Obama discussed here? If so, I'll step out, because i am not an Obama enthusiast.

But as that request hasn't been made yet....

I've been trying to really think about what bothers me about what Mrs. Obama said....she wasn't speaking off the cuff. It was a prepared comment. She had the time to review what she wanted to say and worded it this way anyway. This tells me that she isn't proud that we led the way to the fall of the Soviet Union - and if she doesn't believe it was because of the US and UK, that bothers me all the more. There are too many things the US does that are good to say she hasn't been proud of the US in her adult life. Unless she's only 20. Then I guess I could understand it a bit more.

With all due respect, scaeagles, it's not rocket science. Mrs. Obama is an African-American woman. She was talking about living people who've endured Jim Crow laws, who thought that they'd never, ever see an African-American run for president in their lifetime.

It's a squeeze into those pink, pointy-toed pumps, but put yourself in her shoes. It takes a hell of a lot of love for your country to let your spouse run for president. It takes triple that if he's a black man and triple- prime assassination target.

Edited to add: The extreme right wing's attacks on the patriotism of other Americans is beyond tiresome, beyond boring, and right into past-date garbage.

Sorry if I took away from your thread - it was not my intention. I tried to focus on responding to some things being said here and once it stopped; I stopped.

Sorry for the hijack.

I think the Clinton campaign is starting to sound desperate.

Maybe not, but they sure are interested in our election. They love to talk politics. Also, I think it's far more important to have a good foreign policy than saying he/she will fix the economy. In this age of global markets, there's not a lot a president can do to change things, but a bad foreign policy can do a lot of damage. Witness the past 8 years...

Not giving a crap about the rest of the world is an ignorant way to go about life.

I agree, JW- they are sounding a bit desperate. I hope things don't get too down and dirty; we really don't need any more mud-wallowing in this country. I keep hoping Obama doesn't rise to the bait and runs as clean a campaign as he can. Might be naive of me, but that's what I hope.

I join you in your naive hopes!

But if it comes down to Obama vs. McCain (which was my prediction a while back), I predict some ugly mudslinging from the extremist cons.

It was nice to see in McCain's speech last night that he has apparently endorsed Obama for the Democratic nomination.

I'll second your naive hopes and raise you a milkshake.

I think <Old English Font>There Will Be Mudslinging </Old English Font>

Hmmm....I dont recall Jim Crow laws during her adult life.....she said during her adult life. She has obviously been so downtrodden (I'm being sarcastic with that in case it didn't come across). She didn't say she didn't love her country. She said there was nothing in the last 26 years (she's 44) that she's been proud of. That's ridiculous and after thinking about it, I make no apology for calling her out about it. She said it twice during the day in two different locations. She meant exactly what she said.

And I'm not going to fall for the extreme right wing attack on Patriotism rhetoric. I did no such thing except to point out a major and world changing historical event. I didn't put words in her mouth.

So Steph, what's the foreign read on the election, then?

Mrs. Obama said, You can't see that she's talking about a political process that excluded African-Americans until recently????

But you continue to divorce her words from her context. It's shrill and it's dishonest.

I know I voted for Clinton (with no regrets). I know that I will support Obama should he get the nomination. But if he's the candidate, here's the kind of thing that will make me worried...

clip from Chris Matthews' Hardball.

Putting words in her mouth such as she's talking about Jim Crow laws - which most certainly were not in existance during her adult life - is completely in context and completely honest, then?

I know exactly what she said. This is the first time in the last 26 years she's been proud of her country. I am taking nothing out of context whatsoever, while you are linking her words in some sort of odd spin to laws that have not existed during the time frame she references.

Put yourself in her shoes. She is talking about her own frame of reference. My advice is to attack Obama on more substantive grounds, if you disagree with him.

Well, according to the quote you gave she said this is the first time she is really proud of her country. Maybe she was just mildly proud the rest of the time. Or just passively proud.

I have pointed out disagreements. I do not regard them as attacks.

I didn't bring this up, and in fact, I didn't jump on it at all.

No need to go more into it. I simply commented on something being discussed but apparently struck a nerve.

How so?

Her entire life African-Americans have had the vote. They have limited themselves to one party who takes that for granted....whose fault is that?

Hispanics, by voting in both directions, have made themselves more powerfull......maybe there's a lesson there somewhere.

Only in this century*... remember that in the 1800s the Republicans were the more friendly party to them and the "solid south" was made up of people still flying the stars and bars.

(By "this century", I mean since 1900 or so)

You can extend that all the way up until the 1920's. The parties didn't start switching rolls in any meaningful way until the depression and The New Deal.

Theodore Rooseveldt was Republican, and many of his progressive causes and ideals would get him labled a liberal if he were alive today. (Just one example out of many.)

JFK was a Democrat, yet his tax policies would get him labeled as a tax cuts for the wealthy conservative if he were alive today.

Heh, good point

Let's Play Name that President....

Known for funny ways he pronounced certain words.

Used fathers influence to get into a certain branch of the Military.

Family was good friends to Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Won the Presidency by the narrowest of margins.

Launched an attack on a Country which had not attacked the US.

Expanded funding for education.

Made cutting taxes an administration priority.

His younger brother, often touted as a Presidential hopeful himself, was also very active in politics.

:eek:

Zachary Taylor?

McCarthy was, as is the wont of evil, really old.

sleepyjeff: ah yes, but only Kennedy would admit to being a doughnut :p

Funny, except that he said those words in Berlin....and in so doing never actually admited to being a doughnut(because citizens of Berlin, unlike most Germans, did not use the term Berliner when describing a doughnut)....they called them Pfannkuchens.

His VP and supporters can run under the slogan "You can do it, we can help."

Though I find it inspiring to see people so inspired, I think I grew jaded on politics after peaking too early. I was a strong Regan Republican through elementary school. Was ok on Bush the first (though I preferred Steve Forbes and Perot in subsequent elections) and eventually watched as the Republican party and the Democratic party merged yet still somehow hated each other.

All they want to do is raise my taxes, fund pork barrel projects, and take away my freedoms and rights. Thought I suppose they are divided on how and what they want to tax, what waste they want to fund and which freedoms they want to take away, but to me, it's really all the same.

Change? Change what exactly? I only want a President that will do two things:

• Let me keep my own money
• Let me keep my guns (or right to own them)

Outside of that, I guess I don't care too much anymore. The most powerful man (or woman) in the world really isn't all that powerful.

Tax the wealthy? What is wealthy? Regarding the recent tax cuts, some have said that wealthy = $100,000 a year. Hah! Please. Maybe in some rundown town of Hope, Arkansas, but not in SoCal. Of course geographical considerations are rarely taken into account.

Anyway, what was I talking about? Oh yeah. Jaded. Feel totally blah about the election still. Don't like the Republican candidate much though I guess his views correlate most with mine. Hillary seems evil. Obama is inspirational, of course I have seen lot's of inspirational speakers at my time at Fortune 500 companies. Not sure I would vote for any of them. That and I disagree with 70% of his views.

But, I have to vote cause well, I can't complain if I don't. And I will definitely want to complain about whichever of the 3 eventually takes the office. Full-well knowing that their impact is rather limited. Unless they try to take my guns or money. You bastards! Leave those money and gun caches were you found 'em.

It's your vote, but that seems as ridiculous to me as the women who voted for Clinton because he was "cute".

I'm offended that sexism or racism would factor into this election and voting for either simply because of gender or skin color does just that. Just the same as not voting for one of them due to their race or skin color.

Well, you just said above that the President does not have much power, and I agree. To me, it's a figurehead job. And so symboligy is an important element to me.

Who are these rich and big corporations exactly, and who do they employ? Is it all rich people that work for the rich corporations? Seems like that wouldn't really work. One would likely need to have middle class folks employed in a large corporation, but perhaps they exist just the same. If so, please post the top 5 so I can ready some resumes.

Thanks!

I was hoping someone was going to point that out. I was expecting it to be GD and expecting it to be done so in a harsh tone, but just happy that someone bothers reading my ramblings just the same. :)

If the president is just a figurehead then what is the point of hating the current one since he can't possibly be responsible for any of the things you hate?

Indeed, Alex. But I regard the President as much more than a figurehead. The power of the veto, submission of budgets, commander in chief, major director of foreign policy....these are all powerful things.

Burn!!!!

Fine !! Vote for Charlton Heston. :p

*waves Paw at NirvanaMan*

There are quite a few marting campaign slogans that could be absconded for use by politics. There's a reason they're both called campaigns - it's just a bunch of marketing (which is why I am also very jaded - I see the marketing as too obvious).

How about:

You're in good hands with Obama
Just do it.
We try harder
I'd rather fight than switch. (McCain, perhaps?)
We've come a long way, baby.
Try it, you'll like it.
Think outside the box

Or, "With a name like Clinton, it has to be good"

Since we've had any number of president-led military actions since World War II without a formal congressional declaration of war, I don't see how it can be said that the President is a figurehead.

As I've elaborated before, I think the figurehead status is in relation to domestic issues. Oh, I believe the Administration can have a big influence on Congress, and good use of the bully pulpit can be very powerful to the populace.


But I mostly think the power of the president lies in foreign affairs. So once I've determined that neither candidate A nor B will be Atilla the Hun, I don't much care which one wins. Hence, i pick the girl.

Eh, no worries. I knew when I started it that my "hey who digs Obama" thread would shortly become "let's post our disparate political views in a show of supposed debate but no one persuades anyone else" which I still dislike. Even as I am enthused about this race, I continue to stay out of political threads (oh wait, there's just one, and now this one, of course) so excuse me if I don't do much "debating".

News flash - one idiot didn't do his homework for a freakin' interview. :rolleyes:

I looked at the usual sources -Thomas etal - but I found this very cool site that compiles all sorts of data.

Clinton:Obama:The reason they did so "poorly" was due to being in the minority party. All of the site's wording aside - You mean to tell me that during all those years of experience, she didn't do much more than he did?

You're where I was after the Contract with America fell apart. All you can do is vote Libertarian, because they're the only ones that agree with you. Everyone else wants your money for one reason or another. Have fun, I know I did.

By "all those years of experience" you mean the 4 years Clinton was a Senat orbefore Obama became one?

Yes, I do. I'll say it again - You mean to tell me, with all those years of experience, she didn't do much more than he did?

You know, I have to say that nothing has turned me off from Obama more than the Hillary bashing that has taken place here. Change? What change? It's the same old BS. It make me glad I voted for Clinton - even if it was a difficult decision. Now, I'm pretty happy with my choice.

I voted for Obama. However, I can't say I'm moved by the excited people behind him. Reminds me of the Ross Perot phenomenon. In general, there are too many people in this country who can't be "energized" to vote unless their candidate is "the next big thing" or they're being asked to "throw the bums out" in some term limits vote. Yes, the Democrats and Republicans are too much alike, but there are meaningful differences. A Libertarian or a Green vote is just a lazy, whiny protest vote that, as we saw with Nader, can have damaging consequences.

Did you want to respond to the actual statistics I quoted, or did you want to repeat that you like Clinton? I already read that part a few posts ago. I fail to see how my post is bashing, I'm quoting statistics.

Wow. "Either yer Red or yer Blue, and if ya don't fit, yer a whiner and a troublemaker!" Oh yeah, Us vs. Them, that's always been the way to fixing things.

Purple and Proud

Neither.

Ok, 'splain yourself. I have to admit I didn't hear the speech.

So what exactly were you reacting to? Where's the bashing?

In his victory speech last night he made several statements against Obama but nothing against Clinton. So he was acting (or pretending to) on the assumption that Obama will be his opponent.

I am not concerned about how many bills were passed or cosponsored or whatever. I frankly don't understand why that's a measuring stick, but I prefer the mantra of that government is best that governs least.

I would argue that the candidacy of Perot had damaging consequences.

I tend to agree with McCain's assertion of "eloquent but empty". It's all hype and a packaged image designed, IMO, to hide his far left agenda and views. There isn't a dimes worth of difference between Clinton and Obama in terms of agenda. They'll go about it differently, but it's all the same in the end.

The sad reality is that it's every voter's duty to vote for the least worst candidate who stands a legitimate chance of winning. Voting for Perot in '92--which helped elect Clinton--was not a garbage vote the same way voting for Nader in 2000 or Perot in '96 was. It appeared for a while that Perot in '92 had, scarily, a chance to win.

Green and Libertarian candidates have effectively zero national profile. Nader, for all his good work, was a celebrity candidate. Unless someone who identifies as Green or Libertarian is willing to devote all their free time to building the profile of these parties in the public consciousness, simply pulling the lever for them every four years is whiny "throw the bums out" stuff and is no better than staying home.

I still believe that the majority of candidates from the DemocraticRepublicans are all the same and it doesn't matter much who wins. One side is good one way, one side is good the other way. Things have changed somewhat with the Bush administration so I'm thinking slightly differently, but in the long run they're two sides of the same coin.

It isn't my duty to do anything for or against the two corrupted useless parties that trade power every few years.

And yes, I'm aware Obama is a Democrat, and yes, I foolishly and idealistically have been caught up in his aura, and believe he may actually be different. Yes, you may point a finger at me if things go horribly wrong.

But I don't think they will....and even if they do, I think it would have been worse with any of the other candidates.

Fair enough. I'll admit, actually, that I was a very active Green member in college. I canvassed, I was vocal, I did my best to bring about change because I was disgusted in the two-party system and felt limited by their candidates. But when Gore lost (though, not in the states where I canvassed, heh) I changed my tune. My priorities changed. Because no, I don't see the two parties as identical. No parties, no candidates are ever going to match my beliefs 100%, but the Dems currently share my priorities of social programs and foreign policies and general liberal thought, while the Pubs rarely do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj4VK9wVAi0

Gotta love MSNBC;)

The more the Obama momentum picks up, the more I find it the most hollow, TV-centric, baseless "change" and "hope" substance-less but charming tripe-filled campaign.


It's begining to scare me that it's just going to be a jump-on-the-bandwagon ride to the presidency.

Wow! Wish Chris had that kind of fire in 2000 and 2004.

This might be a very different world.

Chris just does what Bill and Hillary tell him to.

Barack Obama's 2002 Iraq War speech.



And here is a rebuttal from Clinton and McCain






Quite frankly, that's all the substance I need.

Previously it seemed to me that Chris Matthews was practically wetting himself in excitement over Obama's ascendancy. I thought he was about to break out in tears after Obama's Iowa victory speech.

I found his "makes a chill run up my leg" comment to be a little creepy.

Actually, I supported Ross Perot because I liked what he had to say about his plans for the country. I liked the corporate approach, the pie charts, etc. I was sorely disappointed in him when he dropped out of the race because I thought he was on the right track.

I also don't think that voting Libertarian is a lazy whiny protest vote. I'm someone who would normally (and has in the past) vote for the Republican candidate. This time around, I may vote for the Democrat, and I may not, depending on the primary. But while I may or may not feel like "helping" the Democrat win (with the understanding that in a "decided" state like California my vote means very little anyway), I may also not feel like "helping" the Republican. By voting Libertarian, I can put the weight of my all-important "swing" vote behind what I believe in, because candidates who hope to gain my vote will have to appeal to that through their actions. The more of us who "throw away" our votes by voting for smaller parties, the more candidates will pay attention to that party's values in hopes of wooing us to vote for them.

The only way a person can get a politician's attention is through their vote. It is the politician's bread and butter. By being willing to vote for a team that cannot win rather than giving up and giving my vote to whoever I can settle for in the major parties, I make them work for my vote.

A public thank you to Sac for posting info. I'm beginning to wonder where all those LoT Obama voters went.

Regarding sound bites - they're sound bites. All sides have them. As always, you want facts, you have to read up on things.

Currently I'm an ABC voter (Anyone But Clinton) . Which puts me squarely in Obama's camp. As soon as the wicked witch of the east gets a little more cold water on her and Obama gets the nomination then it will be time to take a hard look at his youthful exuberance VS McCain's experience.

I also wonder how many of Obama's votes are from the ABC party and what will happen to them once Clinton is out of the race.

That's a good point, Moon. While there are the Obama groupies, there are also those that don't want Clinton to be the nominee.

Here's the problem: a vote for McCain is a vote for business as usual. Not that McCain is the same as Bush necessarily, but the party as a whole will view a vote for McCain as a vote for Republicans and a vote for continuing to do what they've been doing.

So maybe this year I'm an ABCotGOP

That can be said of any candidate. And some (I'd venture most, by virtue of party affiliation) would vote for Obama in a general election and some would vote for McCain. Likely balanced out by all of the "Anyone but Romney or Hucakbee" voters on the other side.

For what it's worth, Obama still holds a lead over McCain in national straw polls, while Clinton is now trailing.

i gotta admit: Clinton would bring out Republican voters, and Obama will not inspire that much vitriol. So far in the primaries, Democratic voters have vastly outnumbered Repulicans.

I'd hate to upset that particular apple cart. So on a strategical vote, I'd vote for Obama. On my equally non-substantive historical symbology vote, I'd vote for Clinton.

Many people will be voting for electoral strategy. Are those votes any more vapid than my gender-based vote?

Agreed. I've always held that voting based on the pundit-defined notion of "electablilty" is not only patently lame, but ultimately self-sabotaging as it tends to lead to selecting the blandest candidate possible (John Kerry much?).

I'm still here, I'm just not much of a debater so I stay out of the way most of the time:blush:

Usually being from Oregon, your vote doesn't count in the primaries anyway. This year may actually be different though, we'll have to wait and see.

Gary is the one in our family who was a debater and follows all the politics of the day. Some days I'm so busy with Zach I'm lucky if I see a tv all day! LoT is my one vice and I try to get here most days. I like LoT better than politics!

I'm here. I am a LoT Obama voter because I like what he has to say and I am hopeful it is implemented. I am not an ABC or an Anti-Rep voter. I am an Obama voter.

Had I been able to, I would have voted for Obama in the primaries. Primarily because of the Democratic choices, I felt he had the best promise to lead our country.

But secondarily because I think Clinton is dangerous. (I wasn't really well versed on the rest of the Democratic candidates.)

With rare exceptions, I vote Democrat. Given the chance, I would have voted for Richardson in the primary. On merit alone, much as I like Obama, I probably would have preferred Clinton. Nonetheless, I believe, rightly or wrongly, that if she is the nominee, we'll be fighting the Viet Nam War all over again with McCain on one side and Hillary and Bill on the "hippie side" (with Cheney, Rove, Gingrich and, yes, W.) Not a recipe for success.

We don't get that with Obama. Of course, we might get something else. The right wing operatives might run "Harold, call me" ads featuring clips or parodies of "Blazing Saddles" or "Mandingo." We'll see.

What is implemented? Hope? Change? Promising everyone anything and everything under the sun?

Already getting left wing operatives at the NY Times hitting McCain. And I'm not even a McCain fan.

Another Obama voter here, but with the caveat that he wasn't my first choice.

So given a McCain / Obama choice what are you thinking about doing?

Getting out of Iraq for starters

Fixing our education system. Let's teach education to learn, not teach to a test that basically leaves kids without knowledge to succeed in life so schools can keep their funding.

Keeping Net Neutrality

Fixing our immigration system without screwing over our economy

These are the things I think can be done. These are the changes I hope are made. These are the things I believe, if they can be changed, it will be by him.

Then there is the whole gay marriage, stem cell research and abortion stance that is very important to me as well.

On stem cell research and abortion (quote is stem cell research, more info on his abortion stance at that same link:

You are speaking, sir, of journalists at the paper of record.

McCain cheated frequently on his first wife. Wouldn't surprise me if he cheated on his second. That it might be with a lobbyist suggests a particular lapse in judgment, but not enough for me to truly care.

It is obvious due to shrinking circulation that many people are losing respect for the poorly named paper of record.

Both sides deny. No evidence. No evidence of votes cast against principle to support her lobbying.

Good Lord. I don't even like McCain and I have to defend him from stupidity.

Because he'll leave screwing the economy to the other portions of his "plan".

I love how he claims to be able to provide "affordable" this or "affordable" that. How?

Much of these things are nothing new. Sorry, but they aren't. The only difference is he gives good speeches.

For the record - the Times' "story" on McCain is a joke. :rolleyes: What a load of heresay crap.

I'd like to think that was an intentional blending of hearsay and heresy.

If we tighten our boarders, the migrant farm workers, the people who do the grunt work most American's won't do for the pay will disappear. Like it or not, the pisspoor wages that undocumented workers are paid to work in fields keep the cost of our produce low. I believe that he will find a way to tighten our boarders without the ripple effect of higher wages paying to documented workers.

Ending the war will free up a few billion dollars.

They may be the same ideas and he may give good speeches, but I believe he is the only person running who I believe will do his damndest to try. He's the only one with a chance of nomination who hasn't been around the greenbelt a few dozen times and now has people with their hands out looking for their payback.

I think the thing that scares me the most about Obama is his talk. It's not that I don't like what he's saying, I just think he's going to end up in a classic over-promise and under-deliver situation. I've seen it too many times and I don't believe he CAN do it. I would rather the President be a little more realistic and not so pie in the sky.

I'm still waiting for the 61st Amendment to be passed.

I mostly like the idea of Iraq not becoming another Hundred Year's War. We all know how well that worked out for Europe.

It's Obama's idealism that I like. Sure, he may not get things done that he wants to do, but he's not the only ('Read my lips' ring a bell?) person to have ever made (gasp!) campaign promises that probably will never come to fruition. McCain, on the other hand, comes out as a tired, jaded old soldier- not that there's anything wrong with that, but hardly uplifting and inspirational.

But don't he and Clinton both essentially make all of the same promises? He just does it with better speeches.

Is it that you think she is more likely to deliver?