Democratic National Convention '08

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

It might be the easy way out, but if any new administration would simply be guided by doing the exact opposite of what George Bush might have done, and spend 8 years undoing all of his misdeeds, I would consider that a damn successful presidency.

And I'd consider it a failure.

Undoing some of the damage is a part of what I want, but what I'm more interested in is repairing the damaged climate of "If you disagree with me you're my enemy" that LEAD to those failures. Clinton would not have been the President to do that. Even if she wanted to. She's just too polarizing a figure in the eyes of too much of this country. Her support came too much from polarized people on the left, and her detractors are made up of too many polarized people on the right. At least Obama's got a CHANCE, coming in with far less baggage (deserved or otherwise) than Clinton (no one can come in with zero baggage, of course).

[innerSpaceman]

Well, perhaps this is a topic best left for a different thread, but what are you hoping the Obama administation to achieve that would be entirely separate from a repudiation of Bush?


I haven't paid that much attention to his plans, frankly. And I'm going to miss his speech tomorrow (I'll be at Sleeping Beauty). Is he aiming for anything that can't be viewed as anti-Bush?

I don't think he's going in with the aim of being specifically anti-Bush, but since Bush was opposed to anything good, I'd have to consider anything good to be anti-Bush.

Perhaps it's just a matter of symantics.

[Strangler Lewis]

I think, by definition, the undoing of "misdeeds" is a good thing unless there are negative collateral consequences.

[Ghoulish Delight]

It's largely a bit of semantics and perception, and yes I agree that much of what I consider to be the good decisions he'll need to make are indeed the opposite of what Bush has done/McCain would do. But I think Obama will be able to do a much better job of framing those decisions as, "These are the correct decisions to put this country on a positive course for the future," instead of, "Bush was wrong, let's do it right!"

Yes, a semantic distinction, but an important one. As the last 8 years have shown, attitude and framing of communications are part and parcel to good leadership. I think Clinton would have a harder time of keeping her disdain for those that disagree with her from being noticed, and on top of that, remembering that partisan animosity requires 2 sides, the contingent of folks ready to loudly oppose anything she says or does is far more established than for Obama. You don't have to look any farther than scaeagles to see how ready, willing, and able her opponents are to smear her and her family at a moments notice. Not that there won't be a similar attempt against Obama, but those that would do that haven't had the years and years of material and practice they've had with Clinton. It's perhaps unfair to her as a candidate, but it is what it is and I am glad that we're not going to give that element fuel for the next 8 years.

[innerSpaceman]

Alas, while there would be too many people lined up to smear a Hillary president ... I fear there are too many people lined up to assassinate a Barack president.

[Alex]

Interesting political thriller. Black president, female vice president. President is assassinated shortly after taking office not because he's black but because the shooter wanted a female president.

[3894]

Originally Posted by Alex

Interesting political thriller. Black president, female vice president. President is assassinated shortly after taking office not because he's black but because the shooter wanted a female president.

Remember the RFK assassination gaffe/Freudian slip Sen. Clinton made in early June? That twist could make your thriller even more interesting.

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

This is a very liberal-leaning message board. I don't think there are many supporters of John McCain for president around here. Heheh, not even among our few Conservative members.

Yet no one personally insults the man by saying he became a U.S. Senator because people felt sorry for him being tortured as a Vietnam prisoner of war. Yet, from a certain and logical point of view, that's exactly what happened.

Being a torture victim may make you a martyr-like hero that inspires admiration, but it more likely inspires pity.

Yet, it would be rude to say the Senator was elected by the citizens of Arizona because of pity ... and in any case, he's gone on to do very good work for his constituents in that State and for America as a United States Senator.

When people don't accord Senator Clinton the same respect, it irks me. And she has also gone on to do good work for her constituents and for America. And so I take umbrage at the personal and disgustingly disrespectful insult.

I made my judgments about Hillary completely independent of:

1. Her gender
2. John McCain and his war injuries
3. Barrack Obama and his color

PART of the reason that I do not like Hillary is because I believe that without being married to a past president, she would be a complete unknown.

In my opinion, she has done very little actual good for this country. I completely disagree with her thoughts on how to improve health care and I disagree with a lot of her political positions. IMO, she is one of the bigger snakes in the grass in current politics.

I do not support McCain, but then I am not wild about Obama either. Just because I agree with Helen's sentiment about Hillary does not mean that I do so in spite of how McCain may or may not have been elected.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

I do not support McCain, but then I am not wild about Obama either. Just because I agree with Helen's sentiment about Hillary does not mean that I do so in spite of how McCain may or may not have been elected.

All fair and good, and my comment was not directed primarily at you because you did not make the original insult. But have you similarly insulted McCain because of how he attained power? Or is that a low-blow that you find Clinton deserving of in particular?

I understand you don't agree with her policies or accomplishments. That can be stated without personal insult. But Hillary having attained the public eye by being first lady is no more or less serendipitous than McCain attaining the public eye because he was a POW.

Again, I take umbrage only because I don't think we will be crass enough around here to insult McCain for similar circumstances.



By the way, the insult is less to her than to the people of my home State of New York, by implying they are sheep who had their own collective wool pulled over their eyes. I may not live there anymore, but once a New Yawker always a New Yawker ... and it's never wise to insult a New Yawker.

[Strangler Lewis]

Originally Posted by Alex

Interesting political thriller. Black president, female vice president. President is assassinated shortly after taking office not because he's black but because the shooter wanted a female president.

Some years ago, I wrote a screenplay that sets the Oedipus story in what was essentially the Clinton White House. The president puts out his eyes--or does he--in a gesture of fake contrition calculated to keep power. Ultimately, he kills himself when it's revealed that he has a black father because he feels the American public would never accept that.

I may have to dust it off if Obama loses.