Since almost everyone agrees that the race is pretty much over, I am curious what Hillary supporters think she should do next? Not for the short term, but the long term. Some think she should be on the ticket as vice president, but I am not so sure that is a good idea. I would still support it, but I have a feeling that is not what she would want, and I am not confident it would be a winning ticket. So what other position? Maybe Health & Human Services? Labor? I heard one suggestion that she should be considered for the next supreme court position, which I believe is a good idea. We need more women on the Supreme Court. I also think she would make an excellent Governor of New York.
I think that Obama should help her pay off her debt. After all, she made him a better candidate.
Pay off her debt? She and Slick made $110 million over the last few years...
I say she's offered some position, but declines and stays as Senator and makes a run in 2012. No hope for SCOUTS, I don't see her making it through a confirmation.
I have to admit things don't look so good for Clinton. I would say that at this point her best hope is for an Obama meltdown.
As a lifelong Democrat who has voted for every one of our nominees I have to say that I wish there was some place else I could go. The Republican Party does not offer a viable alternative.
I feel like my party is about to nominate another candidate that is too liberal to win in the general election.
If Clinton loses the primary the Clintons' grip on the party (since 92) will be done with. The party will belong to Obama and his Chicago friends and they will have to redefine the party.
If Obama wins the primary and loses in the general election a tremendous power vacuum will ensue and the party will have to reinvent itself from the bottom up.
I have had trouble with the left wing of our party for some time now and if there was a Centrist Party I would leave the Democrats and move to the Centrists. I suppose the best scenario for Democrats like me is that if Obama loses, the left wing of our party will be so thoroughly diminished that they will be marginalized for the foreseeable future.
There might be some justice in a Republican win and the Republicans getting to clean up their own mess, or not clean it up and assigned blame for their own sins.
Yesterday I heard Obama spin doctors saying that the White working class vote and the Latin vote (both of which have gone for Clinton) don't matter.
The day that my party adopts this view is the day I say goodbye to my lifelong association with the Democrats.
Obama supporters -- you are going to need a miracle with your coalition of Blacks, rich liberals, young folks, Independents and cross-over Republicans. It may have given you a slim lead in the Democrat primary but you don't have a prayer in h*** when it comes to the general election.
I would say last night was probably the real beginning of Obama's slow motion train wreck.
I am ashamed of the women that have not supported Ms. Clinton. But despite their lack of support, Ms. Clinton has earned a place in history. No woman has gone this far and she has made me proud to say I am her supporter.
HT, the problem with your analysis is that there are apperently more "rich liberals, young folks, Independents and cross-over Republicans" that are willing to vote for Obama than there are white-working class and Hispanics willing to vote for Clinton. By definition, wouldn't that imply that his numerical advantage would translate well to the General Election? Or are the white-working class and Hispanics Clinton claims somehow better than the supporters Obama claims?
See what I'm getting at?
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I have to admit things don't look so good for Clinton. I would say that at this point her best hope is for an Obama meltdown.
As a lifelong Democrat who has voted for every one of our nominees I have to say that I wish there was some place else I could go. The Republican Party does not offer a viable alternative.
I feel like my party is about to nominate another candidate that is too liberal to win in the general election.
If Clinton loses the primary the Clintons' grip on the party (since 92) will be done with. The party will belong to Obama and his Chicago friends and they will have to redefine the party.
If Obama wins the primary and loses in the general election a tremendous power vacuum will ensue and the party will have to reinvent itself from the bottom up.
I have had trouble with the left wing of our party for some time now and if there was a Centrist Party I would leave the Democrats and move to the Centrists. I suppose the best scenario for Democrats like me is that if Obama loses, the left wing of our party will be so thoroughly diminished that they will be marginalized for the foreseeable future.
There might be some justice in a Republican win and the Republicans getting to clean up their own mess, or not clean it up and assigned blame for their own sins.
Yesterday I heard Obama spin doctors saying that the White working class vote and the Latin vote (both of which have gone for Clinton) don't matter.
The day that my party adopts this view is the day I say goodbye to my lifelong association with the Democrats.
Obama supporters -- you are going to need a miracle with your coalition of Blacks, rich liberals, young folks, Independents and cross-over Republicans. It may have given you a slim lead in the Democrat primary but you don't have a prayer in h*** when it comes to the general election.
I would say last night was probably the real beginning of Obama's slow motion train wreck.
I am ashamed of the women that have not supported Ms. Clinton. But despite their lack of support, Ms. Clinton has earned a place in history. No woman has gone this far and she has made me proud to say I am her supporter.
I gave up on the Democrats when I was in College (thanks TU).
I gave up on the Republicans when I became truly educated in the real world.
As a libertarian I can find no fault with the philosophy. It affords me the liberty to be socially liberal, yet embrace logic when in comes to fiscal matters. Its principals are the basis of our constitution.
Here are the Five Simple Principals of Libertarianism
YOU OWN YOURSELF
First and foremost, libertarians believe in the principle of self-ownership. You own your own body and mind; no external power has the right to force you into the service of "society" or "mankind" or any other individual or group for any purpose, however noble. Slavery is wrong, period.
Because you own yourself, you are responsible for your own well-being. Others are not obligated to feed you, clothe you, or provide you with health care. Most of us choose to help one another voluntarily, for a variety of reasons -- and that's as it should be -- but "forced compassion" is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms.
THE RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE
Self-ownership implies the right to self-defense. Libertarians yield to no one in their support for our right as individuals to keep and bear arms. We only wish that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution said "The right to self-defense being inalienable..." instead of that stuff about a "well-regulated militia". Anyone who thinks that government -- any government -- has the right to disarm its citizens is NOT a libertarian!
NO "CRIMINAL POSSESSION" LAWS
In fact, libertarians believe that individuals have the right to own and use anything- gold, guns, marijuana, sexually explicit material- so long as they do not harm others through force or the threat of force. Laws criminalizing the simple possession of anything are tailor-made for police states; it is all too easy to plant a forbidden substance in someone's home, car or pocket. Libertarians are as tough on crime- real crime- as anyone. But criminal possession laws are an affront to liberty, whatever the rhetoric used to defend them.
NO TAXES ON PRODUCTIVITY
In an ideal world, there would be no taxation. All services would be paid for on an as-used basis. But in a less-than-ideal world, some services will be force-financed for the foreseeable future. However, not all taxes are equally deleterious, and the worst form of taxation is a tax on productivity -- i.e., an income tax -- and no libertarian supports this type of taxation.
What kind of taxation is least harmful? This is a topic still open for debate. My own preference is for a single tax on land. Is this "the" libertarian position on taxes? No. But all libertarians oppose any form of income tax.
A SOUND MONEY SYSTEM
The fifth and final key test of anyone's claim to being a libertarian is their support for an honest money system; i.e. one where the currency is backed by something of true value (usually gold or silver). Fiat money -- money with no backing, whose acceptance is mandated by the State -- is simply legalized counterfeiting and is one of the keys to expanding government power.
The five points enumerated here are not a complete, comprehensive prescription for freedom... but they would take us most of the way. A government which cannot conscript, confiscate, or counterfeit, and which imposes no criminal penalties for the mere possession and peaceful use of anything, is one that almost all libertarians would be comfortable with.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
HT, the problem with your analysis is that there are apperently more "rich liberals, young folks, Independents and cross-over Republicans" that are willing to vote for Obama than there are white-working class and Hispanics willing to vote for Clinton. By definition, wouldn't that imply that his numerical advantage would translate well to the General Election? Or are the white-working class and Hispanics Clinton claims somehow better than the supporters Obama claims?
See what I'm getting at?
You would know better than I would. Isn't White working class the largest demographic in the U.S.? Isn't the much coveted Latin vote coming from the largest minority in the United States? I've heard spin doctors say they are both crucial to a win in the general election.
Apparently there are more of both voting in the general election than in the Democratic primary.
My reference is memory of Liberal Democrats winning the primary and then bombing out in the general election. My party is home to a lot of former hopefuls that crashed and burned.
One thing about it, an Obama loss in November will transform my party. I wonder how it will look then?
What's next? Supreme Court.
After she wins the next primary by 20 points, I think Hillary's next job will be President of the United States.
She is ahead in West Virginia by 29 points.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
After she wins the next primary by 20 points, I think Hillary's next job will be President of the United States.
She is ahead in West Virginia by 29 points.
She will win West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico, but it will only award her 10 delegates net after losing Oregon, North Dakota, and Montana. I'm sorry RM, but she's done. Unless you intend to support her continued fight, now would be a good time to replace the Hillary signs on your office wall with Obama signs.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Unless you intend to support her continued fight, now would be a good time to replace the Hillary signs on your office wall with Obama signs.
I already have one of each at home. I plan to support the democrat in November.
Actually, the "gold standard" or any variant is not part of the Libertarian Party platform. Most notably because the impossibility of addressing the issue. The goal is a more stable and less manipulated monetary policy.
Sorry to go off on this tangent, but a brief refutation of the Gold Standard is in order:
1) First, it is not possible.
Annual Gold production peaked in 1999 at 83,591,941 Troy Ounces (OZ) - on today's market about $74 Billion dollars worth. The United States economy produces about $13.3 TRILLION per year (or 180 times annual gold production).
All time global production of gold is estimate to be around 10 Billion OZ (enough to build a solid gold 1/3 scale model of the Washington Monument), or $8.7 Trillion US Dollars at todays value. $8.7 trillion in gold does not go very far in reality, it would have to increase exponentially to protect our currency. UNLESS, you only wanted to back printed currency - which is pretty irreverent in the modern world and would negate the primary stability argument of the Gold Standard.
Clearly these examples are over simplified, but there simply is not enough Gold to back the dollar. Adding platinum, silver, jewels and every other precious commodity still would not be enough. Pegged currencies simply do not allow the production of wealth as readily as fiat or floating currencies.
2) Deflation.
The result of any shift would be immediate inflation in the price of the spot commodity. The net result would be rampant deflation of the dollars in our hands as they would effectively buy less and less pegged resource in an exponential increase. Eventually settling somewhere around $175,000 per ounce (anyone want to buy my wedding band?) if we wanted to try to compute a matching ratio to todays money (which is realistically impossible, but as an aside).
Today, the average Tulsa house costs about 10.25 pounds of Gold.
3) Currency would still alter it's value
After the initial cluster of the cross over, the "value" of our now pegged currency would still fluctuate. As mining reserves are found or dwindle, if other countries went to or from the Gold standard, if Gold producing nations had political turmoil (most Gold production is in Africa), or if new uses for the commodity (Gold) is discovered we would suffer inflation or deflation.
Historically - bank runs, massive deflation (it ruined the Spanish Empire), as well as Great depressions were all a result of the Gold Standard. Look at the price of gold this decade for an example of fluctuations in commodities markets.
4) Transfer of wealth
In order to acquire and then sustain our Gold standard the United States would have to transfer out a vast amount of our wealth. In exchange for this huge investment of wealth to foreign nations we would have a shiny metal we hold on to. Instead of investing that money in infrastructure, education, or other wealth generating items we would buy a shiny metal and provide those items to foreign nations.
Furthermore, this process would continue so long as we wished to grow out economy. To avoid MASSIVE deflation we would have to consume large quantities of gold (many times more than world production actually) or stagnate our economy. Simply put, if the USA generated 10% surplus wealth this year our currency would deflate by 10%. Likewise, to sustain wealth distribution among population growth deflation would have to occur on a massive scale (300 million people with 300 million OZ of gold, 600 million people we each only get .5 OZ).
All the while this deflation over values the mining operations and shiny metals held by everyone else. Not sure how this would bennefit the United States.
CONVERSELY, by issuing dollars the US government is able to purchase real assets for the issuance of fictitious wealth. China holds $1 Trillion USD, from the issuance of which the United States has purchased a plethora of things. They have a note, we have assets. In THEORY we will pay them back and they will be able to garner assets, but even with interest we come out far ahead of where we would be if the same purchase was a pile of metal in a vault.
5) A useful commodity
Gold is a useful commodity. In electronics, in science, or just as decoration Gold serves useful purposes. Sitting in a government vault it serves no useful purpose but would cause the useful application to be prohibitively expensive.
6) Trade
If we pegged our currency we would be a potential trade disadvantage to other nations. If the price of Gold was high, the effect would be the same as having our currency high. Thus, in a global economy the primary players (banks, massive corporations, etc.) would still trade foreign currencies and float foreign notes as it benefited them. Essentially negating any perceived stability in a pegged currency.
6) No protection
The gold standard does not offer the protection we are looking for anyway. Remember, we were on the gold standard and it was removed. The same can happen again.
The ultimate protection of having Gold as a resource is in the possession of the shiny metal that other's want. It's value reliant on the fact that other's want it - which is the same as a fiat currency.
Under our current fiat/floating currency the value is pegged to demand. The more people that want the commodity and the scarcity of the supply determine the price in relation to similar worldwide products. The same as any other commodity.
EXCEPT, with currency it is subject to the whims of government. Instead of a mining strike or a release of bullion causing our currency to fluctuate, it is maneuvers by our government or other's lack of faith in our nation. We can vote a government out of office or over throw it completely, but we have no control over commodity prices nor any way to stabilize them.
- - -
The problem with the current system is a distrust of government. That's why floating currencies fail in crap-hole nations like Iran, Zimbabwe and North Korea. As the US government loses credibility and racks up financial uncertainty our commodity (the dollar) is falling. It is a function of the market, the market evaluating how we are doing - and I'm ok with that.
bah, I could ramble on. But you see what I'm getting at. It's not practical, beneficial, nor realistically possible. Keeping government small, efficient, and transparent as well as protecting our rights are far more important issues than trying to work out a mercantile system of currency pegging.
/ramble
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Unless you intend to support her continued fight, now would be a good time to replace the Hillary signs on your office wall with Obama signs.
I already have one of each at home. I plan to support the democrat in November.
Oh, so you are voting for McCain in November now?
There is no chance I will vote for McCain in November.
I will explain in depth over the next 6 months, probably daily.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
After she wins the next primary by 20 points, I think Hillary's next job will be President of the United States.
She is ahead in West Virginia by 29 points.
I appreciate your undying conviction in the face of utter doom, RM. Oregon will put Obama over the top. He needs less than 200 to give him the nomination. He got 4 more superdelegates today. Within two weeks, I predict he'll have more superdelegates than she. Many have already committed to backing whomever has the most pledged delegates--you can count those in Obama's camp now. Intrade dropped her from almost 20% to 8% after last night. Big time supporters, like George McGovern, are asking her to step aside. She ran a good campaign. But its time to move on.
Absent a meteor hitting Obama, she won't be running for president as the Democratic nominee--so what do you think she should do instead?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
There is no chance I will vote for McCain in November.
I will explain in depth over the next 6 months, probably daily.
Yeah, but you said you were voting for the "Democrat" dude.
Well, it must be over for Hillary. I notice that the stupid pop-up ads that come up on Yahoo are now saying:
"Who will you vote for? Obama or McCain."
"Tell us your answer and you get a free dinner at Applebee's" or some such crap.
You know your campaign's in trouble when Casale Media drops you from your rotation. [}:)]
You could see "it's over" written all over her face last night.
Thank God for the Clintons. If it wasn't for the Clintons my generation wouldn't know what a good economy was.
I hold the Obama supporters responsible for what is about to happen. As soon as Clinton is out of the way the destruction of Obama will begin in earnest.
Big change is in store for the Democrats. I'm afraid the first of the big change is not going to be pleasant.
quote:
Thank God for the Clintons. If it wasn't for the Clintons my generation wouldn't know what a good economy was.
Yeah. It was so great no one wants a second helping.
[xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
You could see "it's over" written all over her face last night.
Thank God for the Clintons. If it wasn't for the Clintons my generation wouldn't know what a good economy was.
I hold the Obama supporters responsible for what is about to happen. As soon as Clinton is out of the way the destruction of Obama will begin in earnest.
Big change is in store for the Democrats. I'm afraid the first of the big change is not going to be pleasant.
Oh yeah, that economy thing where all these internet start-ups in the SF Bay area had their values ridiculously inflated and the real estate market got way over-inflated at the same time out there. That Clinton economy that resulted in a lot of companies buckling under near the end of his administration. Same Clinton economy which brought us the hell to pay with the sub-prime mess.
You got lucky you got out of SF with your money HT, a lot of people didn't.
Hillary has a good job. She is a Senator from a very powerful state. That is the same job that McCain and Obama have.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Hillary has a good job. She is a Senator from a very powerful state. That is the same job that McCain and Obama have.
And she is very good at her job...much better at that than she would be as President, IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I hold the Obama supporters responsible for what is about to happen. As soon as Clinton is out of the way the destruction of Obama will begin in earnest.
Big change is in store for the Democrats. I'm afraid the first of the big change is not going to be pleasant.
Why the doom and gloom, HT? This season has been nothing but good for Democrats of every stripe and persuasion. Interest in the party is phenomenal, fundraising is breaking records right and left, and most importantly, there's a huge new generation of younger voters who are joining the Democratic party and re-energizing it.
Meanwhile our opponents this election aren't as well organized as they used to be: (//%22http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10138.html%22)
quote:
GOP leaders warn of election disaster
Shellshocked House Republicans got warnings from leaders past and present Tuesday: Your party's message isn't good enough to prevent disaster in November, and neither is the NRCC's money.
The double shot of bad news had one veteran Republican House member worrying aloud that the party's electoral woes — brought into sharp focus by Woody Jenkins' loss to Don Cazayoux in Louisiana on Saturday — have the House Republican Conference splitting apart in "everybody for himself" mode.
"There is an attitude that, 'I better watch out for myself, because nobody else is going to do it,'" the member said. "There are all these different factions out there, everyone is sniping at each other, and we have no real plan. We have a lot of people fighting to be the captain of the lifeboat instead of everybody pulling together."
Wevus, perhaps it's time for our elected officials in Washington to quit worrying about what the party is going to do for them, what they need to do to toe the party line, and start paying attention to what they are supposed to be doing for the well-being of their constituents.
I think articles like this are starting to pop up to deflect attention from the family in-fighting in the Democrat party right now. I do think Dems will have a strong showing in the fall, but it remains to be seen whether or not they can retain control of the house and Senate. A Pelosi and Reid-led Congress hasn't produced any substantive results, just as predicted.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
You could see "it's over" written all over her face last night.
Thank God for the Clintons. If it wasn't for the Clintons my generation wouldn't know what a good economy was.
I hold the Obama supporters responsible for what is about to happen. As soon as Clinton is out of the way the destruction of Obama will begin in earnest.
Big change is in store for the Democrats. I'm afraid the first of the big change is not going to be pleasant.
Oh yeah, that economy thing where all these internet start-ups in the SF Bay area had their values ridiculously inflated and the real estate market got way over-inflated at the same time out there. That Clinton economy that resulted in a lot of companies buckling under near the end of his administration. Same Clinton economy which brought us the hell to pay with the sub-prime mess.
You got lucky you got out of SF with your money HT, a lot of people didn't.
Subprime mess came as a result of the artificially low interest rates of 2001 to 2005. The fraud occurred the most during the period where Greenspan quickly raised interest rates before he left his position (2005 mostly). Poor Bernanke just inherited the mess.
The Subprimes and the ARMs were abused the most when the lenders realized the game was already over (Greenspan was already in the middle of raising rates at a very fast and systematic clip). Greedy crooked lenders and market manipulation (The Fed) both share the blame here.
Clinton having something to do with the subprime crisis? LOL. Partisan hacks make me sick on both sides of the fight.
The correlation of Federal Reserve behavior and the ruling presidential administration isn't 100% clear to me, but the suspicious signs are there. My suspicion is that the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve were working together a lot more intimately than previous administrations. As soon as Bush took office, interest rates started going down to artificially pump up the economy so things looked better than they really are. Greenspan held those rates down just long enough to have things looking good for the 2004 elections. As soon as that goal was accomplished, he had to raise rates as quickly as possible to counteract the fact that they were held down way too low for way too long. The prosperity was fake. And it only effected those at the top who would benefit from the cheap and available new money. The sharp rise from late 2004 to early 2006 was the reason for the crisis we are in right now.
Is it just me or does it sound like HT has been listening to Rush Limbagh lately?
HT:quote:
Obama supporters -- you are going to need a miracle with your coalition of Blacks, rich liberals, young folks, Independents and cross-over Republicans. It may have given you a slim lead in the Democrat primary but you don't have a prayer in h*** when it comes to the general election.
RUSH:quote:
He can get effete snobs, he can get wealthy academics, he can get the young, and he can get the black vote, but Democrats do not win with that."
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
You could see "it's over" written all over her face last night.
Thank God for the Clintons. If it wasn't for the Clintons my generation wouldn't know what a good economy was.
I hold the Obama supporters responsible for what is about to happen. As soon as Clinton is out of the way the destruction of Obama will begin in earnest.
Big change is in store for the Democrats. I'm afraid the first of the big change is not going to be pleasant.
Oh yeah, that economy thing where all these internet start-ups in the SF Bay area had their values ridiculously inflated and the real estate market got way over-inflated at the same time out there. That Clinton economy that resulted in a lot of companies buckling under near the end of his administration. Same Clinton economy which brought us the hell to pay with the sub-prime mess.
You got lucky you got out of SF with your money HT, a lot of people didn't.
Subprime mess came as a result of the artificially low interest rates of 2001 to 2005. The fraud occurred the most during the period where Greenspan quickly raised interest rates before he left his position (2005 mostly). Poor Bernanke just inherited the mess.
The Subprimes and the ARMs were abused the most when the lenders realized the game was already over (Greenspan was already in the middle of raising rates at a very fast and systematic clip). Greedy crooked lenders and market manipulation (The Fed) both share the blame here.
Clinton having something to do with the subprime crisis? LOL. Partisan hacks make me sick on both sides of the fight.
The correlation of Federal Reserve behavior and the ruling presidential administration isn't 100% clear to me, but the suspicious signs are there. My suspicion is that the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve were working together a lot more intimately than previous administrations. As soon as Bush took office, interest rates started going down to artificially pump up the economy so things looked better than they really are. Greenspan held those rates down just long enough to have things looking good for the 2004 elections. As soon as that goal was accomplished, he had to raise rates as quickly as possible to counteract the fact that they were held down way too low for way too long. The prosperity was fake. And it only effected those at the top who would benefit from the cheap and available new money. The sharp rise from late 2004 to early 2006 was the reason for the crisis we are in right now.
Statistically, subprime mortgage lending went from 5% of total lending to 13% from '94 to '00, all under Clinton. It went up another 7% to grand total of 20% in 2006 under Bush.
Dick Called it last time, now he writes:
Article from The Hill this morning.
Dick Morris
OK, so Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is staying in the presidential race despite losing among elected delegates, facing a slimming lead among superdelegates, losing the popular vote and behind by 2-to-1 in the number of states carried. She slogs on, hoping against hope for a sudden turnaround in the race.
Apart from the psychological reasons for her stubbornness, is there a more subtle political calculation going on?
Is she continuing her race so as to have a platform from which to continue to bash Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in the hopes of so damaging him that he can't win the general election? Is she doing this to keep her options alive for the 2012 presidential race?
Hillary is obviously entitled to keep running until Obama has secured the votes necessary for the nomination, and it is certainly understandable that she would want to run until the last popular vote is counted. But must she run a negative, slash-and-burn campaign? Must she use her time on the platform and on television to belittle, mock, deride and try to destroy the man who will eventually be the candidate of her own party?
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) felt similarly justified in staying in the race for the Republican nomination until Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reached the majority threshold required for nomination. He contested the Texas primary vigorously, even though his earlier losses in South Carolina and Florida made it most unlikely that he could win the nomination. But he chose to run a positive campaign. He didn't knock McCain. He just articulated the case for his own candidacy.
But Hillary won't avail herself of that option because it does not serve her long-term fallback position: a shot at the nomination in 2012. If Obama is elected this year, he will seek reelection in 2012 and Hillary would have to face taking on an incumbent in a primary in her own party if she wanted to run, a daunting task. But if McCain wins, the nomination in 2012 will be open. And it might be worth having. McCain will be 76 years old and the Republican Party will have been in power for 12 years. Not since FDR and Truman has a party lasted that long in power. When the Republicans tried to do so, in 1992, they fell flat on their face.
Hillary is using white, blue-collar fears of Barack Obama to try to stop him from getting nominated or elected.
She is playing on his "elitism" by hammering him on blue-collar issues and is mincing no words in painting him as a stranger to blue-collar white America.
Hillary is attracting the votes of cops, firefighters, construction workers, union members. Are they in love with Hillary? They can't stand her. But they are terrified of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers and the various influences to which Obama seems to be subject. By playing on those fears, Hillary is undermining Obama's ability to get elected.
This is not a byproduct of her continued candidacy — it is the goal. She, the consummate realist, must know that she has no practical shot at the nomination herself after her numbing loss in North Carolina and her paper-thin margin in Indiana. But she welcomes the opportunity an ongoing candidacy offers to bash Obama and to drive a wedge between him and the voters he must have to beat McCain.
The question is how long Democratic primary voters and the party leadership let her go on hitting their ultimate nominee. Will they bring Hillary up short and speak out about the harm she is doing to their party's prospects by way of her refusal to recognize reality?
Hillary doesn't have to pull out. She is entitled to run in the remaining states. But she should curtail her negative campaign and adopt the Huckabee strategy: Maximize your own vote share, but don't beat up the party's nominee. Unless, of course, that is her goal all along.
Here's my take.
Presidents have much less to do with the economy than you think. An elephant in the White House would have seen the economy boom in the 1990's after Al Gore invented the Internet and it's commercial potential began to be realized. Whenever an entirely new market opens up, good times roll... then they retract back to normal levels.
During this period, new federal mandates on homeownership went into effect that rated banks on "how well" they did making bad risk loans. Banks were expected to carry a certain portfolio of loans to bad customers to encourage home ownership. Coupled with a housing bubble and a stock bubble recognized by the mid 1990's the stage was well set for problems.
Going into GW the markets were already crashing and the "surplus" of the Clinton years never materialized as spending caught up and receipts declined. 9/11 had no real economic effect but it heralded a loss of confidence and a death knell to the remaining phantom stocks (no profits, no assets, no IP, yet worth $500million on paper and/or retarded PEs). The resulting war and associated expense further hindered the situation (and is).
The federal reserve, for it's part - had little choice but to cut rates following 9/11 to avoid a stag or deflationary situation, when the dust settle rates HAD to rise to give room to drop them if the need occurred (it did and is). Lenders took advantage of this to prop up the what-should-have-been failing housing market and rack up a few extra bucks in fees. The spiral of housing increases at +20% yearly in some markets simply could not be sustained under any market condition (100 year average is like +3%).
Now our currency is devalued as questions about our diplomatic hegemony as well as long term ability to pay the national debt are raised. Interest rates are falling to shore up a borrowing addicted nation (personal and national finances, and I share your concerns about the Fed playing a political role). And those that were greedy enough to stay in the housing game are taking a beating (lenders who made bad loans, those who purchased commodities they didn't understand, and buyers who should have known they couldn't afford a $250K house on $40K a year).
I was hoping the card house would fall a bit more to actually teach some lessons. But consumer borrowing is back up, Bush and the Congress handed out billions to bail banks out (rebates), and soon people who shouldn't be able to afford their homes will be subsidized by the government (which will subsidize banks who made bad loans and those who purchased commodities they didn't understand).
Is Clinton to blame? Of course not. Though he put a few of the cards in place, he had the good sense to keep the internet unregulated which has had amazing results. Is Bush to blame? His war has spent tons of money, his diplomatic relations have been horrible, and he has encouraged the Congress to spend more (he signs the Medicare bill then balks at a few bridges) and hand out cash like they have the money to give - BUT, much of the runaway market and housing issues were outside the influence of government.
Basically, neither get credit for the economy nor fault for it faltering. But neither looked at the long term and did anything that would have been painful at the time to look out for the long term good.
Anyone else thing we should elect the aforementioned elephant to sit in the White House for 8 years and see if we can't do better in this country?
I would rather elect a donkey to sit in the White House.
If Hillary manages to steal the nomination, it will mark the end (or at least the beginning of the end) of the Democratic Party. Here is why I say this: the Obama campaign has energized the youth of this country, and the Democratic Party has many new supporters because of Barack. These young voters have spoken and they overwhelmingly support Obama. If the Dems thwart the will of the majority of the voters by installing Clinton as the nominee, these youth will feel betrayed by the party and will never, ever support it again. Some of them will switch to the GOP, some to third parties, but I predict the majority will just give up on politics. A Hillary nomination would satisfy the old guard types, but the youth is the future, and in 20 years many of the old guard will be gone and these same youth will be entering middle age. A Hillary nomination would be a huge slap in the face of the youth of America, and the end of the party.
Thanks YoungTulsan for countering Conan's Clinton economy argument.
It's been something to watch my party trade places with the Republicans over the past 27 years. Democrats really have become guardians of the status quo, representatives of the "silent majority" and fiscal conservatives. Bill Clinton made real what Republicans could only talk about: welfare reform, balanced budget, surplus, paying down the debt.
This happened through Clinton's leadership on very tough votes on balanced budgets that cost a lot of Democrats their political careers.
Clinton's incredible jobs creation did not hinge on the dot.com economy, but that "new" economy was doing quite well until Alan Greenspan raised interest rates repeatedly at a time when the vast majority of economists were saying there were no signs of inflation. Republican Greenspan created the dot.com bust. Greenspan hated the new economy from the beginning and he made sure to put a stop to it just in time for Bush.
Let's also not forget that Clinton signed into law the most significant wealth creation tool for the middle class since Lincoln's land grants: The $250,000 capital gains tax exclusion on the sale of your primary residence. This one act has put more wealth into the hands of the middle class than anything else that has transpired during my life.
When folks say that Clinton co-opted Republican issues they weren't kidding. He did what Republicans could only talk about. He was a social liberal and a fiscal conservative and he ruled from the center as Republicans went over the edge into the abyss.
Now, Conan you've heard my argument but you will continue to pretend you didn't because it doesn't advance your agenda.
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
If Hillary manages to steal the nomination, it will mark the end (or at least the beginning of the end) of the Democratic Party. Here is why I say this: the Obama campaign has energized the youth of this country, and the Democratic Party has many new supporters because of Barack. These young voters have spoken and they overwhelmingly support Obama. If the Dems thwart the will of the majority of the voters by installing Clinton as the nominee, these youth will feel betrayed by the party and will never, ever support it again. Some of them will switch to the GOP, some to third parties, but I predict the majority will just give up on politics. A Hillary nomination would satisfy the old guard types, but the youth is the future, and in 20 years many of the old guard will be gone and these same youth will be entering middle age. A Hillary nomination would be a huge slap in the face of the youth of America, and the end of the party.
Bugo, of course the Democrats want the youth vote but we have counted on it for the past two presidential elections and it didn't materialize. Old voters may not be as appealing in your eyes but they are dependable and they vote every election and they have something that is invaluable -- experience. The loss of the old regulars (who also have money) would be a much greater loss for the party.
Young folks, welcome aboard, get in line and start paying your dues and get ready for a bumpy ride.
Heh, was going to use a monkey as my animal but tried to avoid the negative connotation. I figured an elephant was fairly neutral, clearly I wasn't thinking of the connotation.
But a donkey would be just as good...
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Thanks YoungTulsan for countering Conan's Clinton economy argument.
It's been something to watch my party trade places with the Republicans over the past 27 years. Democrats really have become guardians of the status quo, representatives of the "silent majority" and fiscal conservatives. Bill Clinton made real what Republicans could only talk about: welfare reform, balanced budget, surplus, paying down the debt.
This happened through Clinton's leadership on very tough votes on balanced budgets that cost a lot of Democrats their political careers.
Clinton's incredible jobs creation did not hinge on the dot.com economy, but that "new" economy was doing quite well until Alan Greenspan raised interest rates repeatedly at a time when the vast majority of economists were saying there were no signs of inflation. Republican Greenspan created the dot.com bust. Greenspan hated the new economy from the beginning and he made sure to put a stop to it just in time for Bush.
Let's also not forget that Clinton signed into law the most significant wealth creation tool for the middle class since Lincoln's land grants: The $250,000 capital gains tax exclusion on the sale of your primary residence. This one act has put more wealth into the hands of the middle class than anything else that has transpired during my life.
When folks say that Clinton co-opted Republican issues they weren't kidding. He did what Republicans could only talk about. He was a social liberal and a fiscal conservative and he ruled from the center as Republicans went over the edge into the abyss.
Now, Conan you've heard my argument but you will continue to pretend you didn't because it doesn't advance your agenda.
Thanks for the laughs.
BTW, your party has moved on now I suggest you do the same. The love affair with the cult of Clinton is long gone. Most of the rest of your party has seen them for what they really are and they can't disassociate themselves fast enough.
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/8/124118/7190/790/511780
(Daily Kos...so CF, Iplaw etc ignore!)
Hillary's "white Americans" comment causing a quick firestorm (Updated x3)
It's comments like that one that might drive more supers toward Obama pretty quickly. Why? Because they know the math, but they don't want her to spend three weeks making a case that Obama can't win. It will only weaken him. Here's what Obama backer Chris Dodd said yesterday, per NBC's Ken Strickland. "You're going to be asking a bunch of people [in West Virginia] to vote against somebody who's likely to be your nominee a few weeks later? And turn around and ask the very same people a few weeks later to reverse themselves and now vote for [Obama] on election day?"
"I'd like to give a well-deserved shout-out to Rachel Maddow. On MSNBC's post-election coverage on Tuesday night, all the male commentators were gushing, some with their eyes welling up, over Hillary's election night speech, calling it "whi****l" and saying she was clearly going to end her campaign with "grace" and "dignity." But Maddow said she heard something completely different in Hillary's speech, and predicted that Clinton would continue her scorched-earth strategy. Maddow was roundly pooh-poohed by all the commentators, including KO, but it turns out, sadly, that she was spot on. It is beyond too late for Hillary to end her campaign with grace and dignity. "Sad" and "pathetic" is the best she can hope for now."
Bill Clinton is power crazy. That's all it is....
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Thanks YoungTulsan for countering Conan's Clinton economy argument.
It's been something to watch my party trade places with the Republicans over the past 27 years. Democrats really have become guardians of the status quo, representatives of the "silent majority" and fiscal conservatives. Bill Clinton made real what Republicans could only talk about: welfare reform, balanced budget, surplus, paying down the debt.
This happened through Clinton's leadership on very tough votes on balanced budgets that cost a lot of Democrats their political careers.
Clinton's incredible jobs creation did not hinge on the dot.com economy, but that "new" economy was doing quite well until Alan Greenspan raised interest rates repeatedly at a time when the vast majority of economists were saying there were no signs of inflation. Republican Greenspan created the dot.com bust. Greenspan hated the new economy from the beginning and he made sure to put a stop to it just in time for Bush.
Let's also not forget that Clinton signed into law the most significant wealth creation tool for the middle class since Lincoln's land grants: The $250,000 capital gains tax exclusion on the sale of your primary residence. This one act has put more wealth into the hands of the middle class than anything else that has transpired during my life.
When folks say that Clinton co-opted Republican issues they weren't kidding. He did what Republicans could only talk about. He was a social liberal and a fiscal conservative and he ruled from the center as Republicans went over the edge into the abyss.
Now, Conan you've heard my argument but you will continue to pretend you didn't because it doesn't advance your agenda.
Honestly HT, I have no agenda to advance other than some semblance of historical accuracy. I'll agree that along with a Republican Congress which showed much more restraint than they did under Bush, Clinton was a very good fiscal President in spite of conservative pundits constantly calling him a "tax & spend liberal."
The prosperity we experienced in Clinton's second term was in good part due to over-leveraged business hiring $80K/ year MBA's and engineers on borowed money from way overly-speculative IPO's and an over-leveraged real estate market in areas of the country to provide housing for these newly-minted yuppies.
Those were the knds of jobs we wanted to create to replace the ones we farmed out via NAFTA. Only problem is, pension funds were being leveraged in venture captial and IPO scams left and right. People were making money so long as fresh money kept coming into the ponzi scheme. Once the market leveled out, remember what happened to all the dot bombs and the real estate market out in the valley?
We had some of the largest corporate fraud investigations and corporate failures due to fraud since the Great Depression. Not saying it was all Clinton inititatives, but if people wish to claim that Clinton created a greater economy than Reagan or either Bush, a little historical exam is in order.
I'm in the crowd that believes a President doesn't make or break an economy all on his own. Policy, but more important, a message of confidence in the economy is how Presidents can bolster it.
I have no personal bone to pick with you, but if you are going to constantly harp on what a bust Reagan and the Bushes were, I think it only fair I show that Clinton doesn't get all the credit for his boom years either.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Bill Clinton made real what Republicans could only talk about: ... balanced budget, surplus, paying down the debt.
This happened through Clinton's leadership on very tough votes on balanced budgets that cost a lot of Democrats their political careers.
Clinton's incredible jobs creation did not hinge on the dot.com economy, but that "new" economy was doing quite well until Alan Greenspan raised interest rates repeatedly at a time when the vast majority of economists were saying there were no signs of inflation. Republican Greenspan created the dot.com bust. Greenspan hated the new economy from the beginning and he made sure to put a stop to it just in time for Bush.
I really tried to take politics out of the equation, but this is just not accurate:
Federal Deficit in 1992: $4,064,620,655,521.66
Federal Deficit in 1999: $5,674,178,209,886.86
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
Where was the surplus, the balanced budget, and the debt pay down you speak of?
And don't forget whatever fiscal credit/fault you want to give Clinton you need to give to the Republican Congress - who hold the purse strings (as seen by Bush spending). A President can not spend money, (s)he can make suggestions and threats and nothing more. CONGRESS spends money - which as you pointed out was reserved (though no surplus) with a Republican Congress and has been flying out the door with a Democratic Congress (though Bush has certainly done nothing to help and Clinton did agree to cutting spending). Just stating the facts.
Per the Federal Funds rate, the rate was raised both to fend off "inflationary pressures" and to cool down irrational exuberance. When the 1990's start to roar the funds rate was raised to 5-6%. When he gave the irrational exuberance speech it was pushed to 6.5%. When the bubble burst the rate free fell until they were forced to raise it (so they had somewhere to go if it faltered again).
So under your conspiracy theory, he "killed" the new economy in 1993 when he started raising rates. Too bad no one knew it at the time and continued to fuel the economy... and DAMN him for having 8.2% rates in Bush I just to ruin him.
[edit]Clinton did not urge over spending, an editing typo by deleting a line partially by mistake[/edit]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Bill Clinton made real what Republicans could only talk about: ... balanced budget, surplus, paying down the debt.
This happened through Clinton's leadership on very tough votes on balanced budgets that cost a lot of Democrats their political careers.
Clinton's incredible jobs creation did not hinge on the dot.com economy, but that "new" economy was doing quite well until Alan Greenspan raised interest rates repeatedly at a time when the vast majority of economists were saying there were no signs of inflation. Republican Greenspan created the dot.com bust. Greenspan hated the new economy from the beginning and he made sure to put a stop to it just in time for Bush.
I really tried to take politics out of the equation, but this is just not accurate:
Federal Deficit in 1992: $4,064,620,655,521.66
Federal Deficit in 1999: $5,674,178,209,886.86
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm
Where was the surplus, the balanced budget, and the debt pay down you speak of?
And don't forget whatever fiscal credit/fault you want to give Clinton you need to give to the Republican Congress - who hold the purse strings (as seen by Bush spending). A President can not spend money, (s)he can make suggestions and threats and nothing more. CONGRESS spends money - which as you pointed out was reserved (though no surplus) with a Republican Congress and has been flying out the door with a Democratic Congress (though Bush has certainly done nothing to help and Clinton did to urge over spending). Just stating the facts.
Per the Federal Funds rate, the rate was raised both to fend off "inflationary pressures" and to cool down irrational exuberance. When the 1990's start to roar the funds rate was raised to 5-6%. When he gave the irrational exuberance speech it was pushed to 6.5%. When the bubble burst the rate free fell until they were forced to raise it (so they had somewhere to go if it faltered again).
So under your conspiracy theory, he "killed" the new economy in 1993 when he started raising rates. Too bad no one knew it at the time and continued to fuel the economy... and DAMN him for having 8.2% rates in Bush I just to ruin him.
I seem to remember that Clinton refused to sign the "Balanced Budget" bill. Gingrich and the Republican congress threatened, and then shut down the federal government for 2 days before Clinton finally agreed to sign it.
Then two days later he made a speech where he uttered the famous line (with a thumb in the air)
"Working with members of Congress, we balanced the federal budget." and idiots all over the country ate it up!
I was angry! It was like he was saying "screw the informed, you are outnumbered by idiots and they love me!"
(http://bp2.blogger.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/R4Kvp48DQTI/AAAAAAAAA18/LhtRWbGsAC4/s400/ClintonThumb.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Bugo, of course the Democrats want the youth vote but we have counted on it for the past two presidential elections and it didn't materialize. Old voters may not be as appealing in your eyes but they are dependable and they vote every election and they have something that is invaluable -- experience. The loss of the old regulars (who also have money) would be a much greater loss for the
But in 20 years, many of these voters will be dead. The 18-40 year olds (or whatever the exact demographic is) who are joining the political process for the first time will have moved past the Democratic Party and onto either the GOP, third parties, or possible a party that replaces the Democratic Party on the national scene (don't laugh, the Whigs aren't laughing). In 20 years, these voters will be essential to winning the presidency, and all of them will remember how the Democratic party burned them, how they used them, how they said their voice doesn't matter. This generation does not forget this sort of thing. If Hillary does slither her way into the nomination, it could well be better for the party for the next 8 years or so, but after that it will be a steep decline for the party. The reason the Democrats are in as bad of shape as they are in and the reason that Bush is in office is because instead of planning for the future, they've been incredibly short-sighted(Lieberman as VP? What's up with that?) and failed to plan for the future. Hopefully the Dem leadership and the superdelegates realize this is a real possibility and they will nominate Barack Obama. And anyway, I didn't want to have to write in Mickey Mouse, which I will probably do if Slithery is nominated. Or I will hold my nose and vote for Grandpa McCain.
In 100 years, history books could very well point to Hillary Clinton as the person who destroyed the Democratic Party.
The same thing was said about McGovern, Carter, and Dukakis.....
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
In 100 years, history books could very well point to Hillary Clinton as the person who destroyed the Democratic Party.
That is the most outrageous thing I have read on this forum for months.
Slither her way to the nomination?
Please.
The youth vote has not been that influential in the recent past, there just werent enough of my kind, the Gen Xers to make a difference. But that is changing with the "coming online" of the "millineals". They are the next wave, the next baby boom generation and along with the gen-Xers will have just as much impact on things as the baby boomers did. They tend to be more liberal. Obama is speaking to them, their likes and dislikes, how they think. He may be too early though, just less than a third of this next generation are of voting age right now. This new generation is just gaining its voice. (I think a lot of them were for the river vote here, the "YP's". We even see it in some of the arguments on here, there are differences in just how people think and operate and what they value.) Hillary doesn't seem to know how to speak their language and connect with them. Even if she does plan on running again in the future, more of them will be able to vote and she has started pissing them off. About every 40 years we see a generation shift. We are juuust beginning to see the influence of this next group coming "online" (pardon the pun, but it does point to something of what they are about and how they are different). This next generation may not be able to swing the election this time around (like the river vote lol), but in the next 2 elections you will definitely see the shift. This is also the very group we still need to attract more of and keep here in Tulsa... Someone is going to have to pay the taxes and pay for all those retiring Baby Boomers and fill the jobs.
Whats going to be interesting to watch is how these millineals mature and become more sophisticated. (like the river vote which was something they wanted in general but was in reality a cumbersome and overly expensive idea). There is also the latino and black populations that we talk about, how will these large groups move things in the future and interact with the millineals? One thing to note though is that many groups that we delineate as being different now, women and men voters, white, black, latino... they all contain millineals and the millineals in these groups are more alike than different. They are more color blind, more accepting of different sexual orientation, men and women are equal, etc. Is going to be interesting to watch this group.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
After she wins the next primary by 20 points, I think Hillary's next job will be President of the United States.
She is ahead in West Virginia by 29 points.
She'd have to win 86% of the vote in the remaining six primaries to overtake Obama's lead in delegates...
But then again, she agreed to the rules months ago when her surrogates controlled the rules committee...
Per usual, a Clinton will twist the truth and literally SAY ANYTHING to get elected...
Let's call this the creep to veep.....
Anyway, she done him good in the long race.
"But there is a competing view that says that Mrs. Clinton, rather than being a spoiler, has in fact been an unwitting mentor to Mr. Obama, a teaching adversary who made him better. Could competing against Mrs. Clinton have improved Mr. Obama as a candidate in the same way that competing against Larry Bird and Magic Johnson in the 1980s made Isiah Thomas and Michael Jordan champions in the 1990s?"
YES!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/weekinreview/11leib.html?_r=1&ref=weekinreview&oref=slogin
"By contrast, Mr. Obama is now a better prepared and better defined candidate, and no doubt a stronger one, than he would have been without his rival. He went through 21 debates against a tough opponent, Mrs. Clinton, and improved steadily (with an exception in Philadelphia last month). He has made mistakes, but nothing fatal, and nothing he can't learn from."
The devil smells blood.....repug blood.
Hillary should win big on Tuesday in West Virginia. Some polls have her ahead by forty points. That would make it the biggest blowout of any of the states.
Why won't poor people in small towns vote for Obama? Why do people without a college education vote for Hillary over him?
Will these same people vote for McCain over him in the fall?
RM, Hillary does best among uneducated, poor, elderly white people.
West Virginia is among the most uneducated, poorest, oldest and whitest states in the Union. Of all the states, or even potential cities in the Union Hillary has been predicted to carry, this is it. And at the end of the blowout Hillary will still be down in every category you count.
If Kentucky voted tomorrow (instead of with Oregon) and she repeated the performance, she would still be down.
As it stands CI says Obama declares victory on the 20th. having clinched the popular vote & delegate lead. This will be the victory met with the most "buts" since it was Mission Accomplished in Iraq.
As for what happens in the GL, I don't know that I really care. I will again pick the best of a pair of unsatisfactory prospects it seems.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Hillary should win big on Tuesday in West Virginia. Some polls have her ahead by forty points. That would make it the biggest blowout of any of the states.
Why won't poor people in small towns vote for Obama? Why do people without a college education vote for Hillary over him?
Will these same people vote for McCain over him in the fall?
Give me a break.
West Virginny? Hell, it's inbred.
Let's let by gots be bye gots....
Neither of you gave me answer.
Why?
Why does Obama do so poorly in that demographic and Hillary do so well?
Hillary and Obama are both Ivy League lawyers, both are Senators from big states, and both are multi-millionaires.
Preface - I am making generalizations in an attempt to respond. Before you chastise these generalizations remember that I am trying to think of reasons why your generalization may prove valid. So I'm generalizing reasons for generalizations o voters...
Some reasons I can think of:
1) The devil you know: rural, poor, uneducated and elderly folk are generally not trusting of government. They know a Clinton and saw the country do well under him, so they trust her because they like Bill.
2) Rural, poor, uneducated, and elderly - Alex that would be, what are the groups that would stereotypically be least likely to vote for a "colored" man.
I'm not trying to make it about race, but certainly that is an accurate statement and does play a roll. Pretending race has nothing to do with it is as obtuse as pretending it has everything to do with it.
3) The demographics represented would be unimpressed by a smooth oratory style.
4) The prospect of "change" is generally not embraced.
5) Her name is Hillary, his is Barrack. As petty as that might sound, "Barrack Hussein Obama" is not a name that would resonate well in West Virginia. On a blank slate, just the two names next to each other... she'd win. (again, these are not THE reasons, you asked for ideas and I believe name plays a roll)
6) The rumor that he is Muslim persists. Such rumors might would be hard to dispel among good Christian folk that are poor, rural, uneducated, and/or elderly. As a friend of mine in Arkansas put it - "I know he said he is Christian, but I am not willing to take the chance that he is Muslim." Yes, people think like that.
7) Hillary is not a big State Senator who was a corporate attorney for super-mega-corp - she is a Southern Bell from good ole' Arkansas who faithfully supported her husband in times of trouble. Barrack Hussein Obama is from Indonesia and grew up in Hawaii before working for slumlords in Chicago. Or, at least that is the portrait the Clinton camp would like to paint in West Virginia.
8) Clinton seems more willing to pander - harsher protectionist talk, more handouts and tax breaks. Obama has walked the line on free-trade and blatantly turned down several handout proposals. Poor, uneducated, rural elderly white folk may want more handouts and stop 'dem people who took 'er jobs.
9) Patriotism and Religion. Poor, rural and elderly people also largely constitute religious followers. Obama's brand of religion now includes a strain of anti-Americanism. That probably doesn't go over well.
10) She has spent more time, more money, and has more paid staff in West Virginia than Obama (mirroring your point from last week).
- - -
So there are ten reasons I can think of off the top of my head. Together, they probably accurately reflect the trend we are seeing. It's hard to think of any other viable alternatives other than typical immeasurable reasons (I just don't trust him, she's a woman, I vote for the shorter candidate... whatever).
Each may effect the general election in a different manner or not play much of a roll at all (ie. is racial prejudice/untrust of Obama stronger than party/platform loyalty?).
Thanks, fodder.
I especially like the number seven. I will call it the "Stand By Your Man" or "Tammy Wynette" reason.
Funny, most of your reasons work well in Oklahoma and Arkansas, both states she won. It also fits Kentucky where she is favored next week.
But Hillary won in California, New York, Massachussetts, New Hampshire, etc.
Do you think there are enough of these uneducated and poor folk demographic in Massachussetts to explain why she won by 15% there?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Neither of you gave me answer.
Why?
Why does Obama do so poorly in that demographic and Hillary do so well?
Hillary and Obama are both Ivy League lawyers, both are Senators from big states, and both are multi-millionaires.
Look at how people on here divide up on issues. Me and DoubleA may both be democrats, but most of the time we could strangle each other. We have different perspectives on issues.
Though both Hillary and Obama are Ivy League lawyers, etc. they come off as being different types of people. I dont want to tread into steriotypes but Hillary comes off as being more like those who support here, same with Obama. The differences may be small, the way someone talks, carries themselves, even key words, issues, matters of focus, etc. And yes, even the black white thing. They may be of the same class, but Obama comes off in ways that connect more with middle to upper middle class, yp types.
I connect more with Obama and how he speaks and sees the world, but if Hillary got the nomination I would connect more with her and her take on the issues over Mc Cain.
I still run across people who think Obama is a Muslim. I wouldnt care if he was, but a lot of "good ol boys" probably wouldnt go for it. Hillary can bring on that blunt, good ol boy swagger and attitude. I was shocked just this weekend to hear my sister say she didnt like Obama because he was a Muslim, was brought up in a Muslim household and she had heard that he had apparently held his hand over a Koran during some swearing in ceremony. I didnt think that was true, and again, to me it wouldnt matter, so its not something I had researched to find out if it were true or not. But if my sister had somehow caught that impression, I can only imagine that others have it as well and have a negative view of it.
Look at the people that Bush connected with more. He acts like some Texas, every day good ol boy, but comes from a wealthy family. Remember how they painted Gore as being an "intellectual" as if its a bad thing that someone studied hard and learned something. Its not what you know, its how you say it. Interesting to see how Hillary works it, she is full of facts and sharp as an arrow,,, but she still doesnt come off as being an "intellectual". A lot of its all in the language and how one carries oneself,, and some of the issues and how those issues are presented and the direction they are approached. How the person thinks and plays the game. Do they come off as playing the game the way you do, or as I do?
I agree with a lot of what cannon fodder said. He just beat me to the punch and as usual is more methodical in his approach lol.
I think the Obama people about 16 months ago laid out a strategy. It started with, "we ain't winning these states so let's move on to a caucus approach and try to change the red states over to blue states. Look how late their primaries are."
America is a great country with many interesting colonies of folks with different mores. This song may give you perspective on what Obama had to overcome in the Kentucky/WVa. And yes, many communities in this great nation exist that have employed some of the same customs.
The song sez it all.....
Kentucky State Song lyrics
My Old Kentucky Home, Good-Night (1853)
Words & music by Stephen Collins Foster (1826-1864)
1.
The sun shines bright in the old Kentucky home,
'Tis summer, the darkies are gay,
The corn top's ripe and the meadows in the bloom,
While the birds make music all the day.
The young folks roll on the little cabin floor,
All merry, all happy and bright:
By'n by Hard Times comes a knocking at the door,
Then my old Kentucky Home, good night!
CHORUS
Weep no more, my lady,
Oh! weep no more to-day!
We will sing one song for the old Kentucky Home,
For the old Kentucky Home far away.
2.
They hunt no more for possum and the coon
On the meadow, the hill, and the shore,
They sing no more by the glimmer of the moon,
On the bench by the old cabin door.
The day goes by like a shadow o're the heart,
With sorrow where all was delight:
The time has come when the darkies have to part,
Then my old Kentucky Home, good-night!
(CHORUS)
3.
The head must bow and the back will have to bend,
Wherever the darkey may go:
A few more days, and the trouble all will end
In the field where the sugar-canes grow.
A few more days for to tote the weary load,
No matter, 'twill never be light,
A few more days till we totter on the road,
Then my old Kentucky Home, good-night!"
Stephen Foster was a classic American artist. The song provides the feeling of sorrow for the plight of slavery. Yet, the sense of cultural practices supports the 10 reasons CF states so well above.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I am ashamed of the women that have not supported Ms. Clinton. But despite their lack of support, Ms. Clinton has earned a place in history. No woman has gone this far and she has made me proud to say I am her supporter.
So you're advocating that voters should vote for a person based on gender alone? I know a large segment of her supporters are supporting her for no other reason, which is scary.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
After she wins the next primary by 20 points, I think Hillary's next job will be President of the United States.
She is ahead in West Virginia by 29 points.
After Richard Nixon is raised from the dead, I think his next job will be President of the US. IOW, it ain't likely to happen. Obama is in the lead and has more support. The only way Slithery can win if she cheats on a Bushian scale, or if something really bad happens to Obama.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
In 100 years, history books could very well point to Hillary Clinton as the person who destroyed the Democratic Party.
That is the most outrageous thing I have read on this forum for months.
Slither her way to the nomination?
Please.
Absolutely. She knows she can't win with the current rules, so she's trying to get them retroactively changed. She also has been trying to get PLEDGED Obama delegates to vote for her instead. She's a slimy as Karl Rove.
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
The youth vote has not been that influential in the recent past, there just werent enough of my kind, the Gen Xers to make a difference. But that is changing with the "coming online" of the "millineals". They are the next wave, the next baby boom generation and along with the gen-Xers will have just as much impact on things as the baby boomers did. They tend to be more liberal. Obama is speaking to them, their likes and dislikes, how they think. He may be too early though, just less than a third of this next generation are of voting age right now. This new generation is just gaining its voice. (I think a lot of them were for the river vote here, the "YP's". We even see it in some of the arguments on here, there are differences in just how people think and operate and what they value.) Hillary doesn't seem to know how to speak their language and connect with them. Even if she does plan on running again in the future, more of them will be able to vote and she has started pissing them off. About every 40 years we see a generation shift. We are juuust beginning to see the influence of this next group coming "online" (pardon the pun, but it does point to something of what they are about and how they are different). This next generation may not be able to swing the election this time around (like the river vote lol), but in the next 2 elections you will definitely see the shift. This is also the very group we still need to attract more of and keep here in Tulsa... Someone is going to have to pay the taxes and pay for all those retiring Baby Boomers and fill the jobs.
This is why the Dems must not nominate Hillary. If they do go against the will of the voters, this will completely alienate the younger generation, and they will feel so betrayed by the Dem Party that they either go elsewhere or quit showing any interest in politics whatsoever.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Neither of you gave me answer.
Why?
Why does Obama do so poorly in that demographic and Hillary do so well?
Hillary and Obama are both Ivy League lawyers, both are Senators from big states, and both are multi-millionaires.
One reason is racism. A poll came out after the Penna primaries that said that around 20% of Clinton supporters voted for her becaue of race alone.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Thanks, fodder.
I especially like the number seven. I will call it the "Stand By Your Man" or "Tammy Wynette" reason.
Funny, most of your reasons work well in Oklahoma and Arkansas, both states she won. It also fits Kentucky where she is favored next week.
But Hillary won in California, New York, Massachussetts, New Hampshire, etc.
Do you think there are enough of these uneducated and poor folk demographic in Massachussetts to explain why she won by 15% there?
Obviously, she won her home state. But I think the reason she did so well in California and Massachusetts was because she organized there from the outset. You have probably read enough articles discussing how her strategy was to win the big states, and rest her laurels there. Since those states were much earlier in the race, she had much higher name recognition and better organization, and Obama had a higher lead to overcome. Plus, to some extent Edwards still factored into the race, especially in New Hampshire. Obama focused on those states that, while smaller, were ones he could more likely win. She won Massachusetts, but he won Connecticut, which has very similar demographics. By the time we got to other states later in the process, he was able to win other similar demographics. While she won New Hampshire b a few points, he won Vermont handily.
If the vote were held over today, I don't know that she would win Massachusetts, and I definitely think he would have a better shot at California. Which is why the order of the voting makes such a difference in outcome, and it's important for the states to stick to the rules.
I do not think the demographics in Mass./California or the other states she won are the same or close enough to WV to warrant a comparison of those reasons. I'm sure there are reasons in each state, but I don't really have time to figure it all out. Same with Obama on his states (why does he do well in Montana/Wyoming?).
Unless you think she can reverse the Super Delegate trend on the strength of the "but she won..." argument, it is an exercise in futility. I just don't see the DNC ousting the popular vote + delegate vote leader just to uphold the establishment candidate. "He got more votes, but can't win" just seems like an odd argument.
Recent MSM reports that if there were a new vote in Cali Obama would win by a large margin.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Thanks, fodder.
I especially like the number seven. I will call it the "Stand By Your Man" or "Tammy Wynette" reason.
Funny, most of your reasons work well in Oklahoma and Arkansas, both states she won. It also fits Kentucky where she is favored next week.
But Hillary won in California, New York, Massachussetts, New Hampshire, etc.
Do you think there are enough of these uneducated and poor folk demographic in Massachussetts to explain why she won by 15% there?
If the Democratic election is about race and gender identity politics, Hillary (and her hard-campaigning ex-president husband) wins. And she knows it. But her pandering campaign has to be careful how they use this cynical strategy because it makes her negatives go up... which could explain some of Bill Clinton's more inexplicable comments in South Carolina...
The key to Hillary (and Bill's) strategy has been to polarize Dem voters on the basis of race (dismissing Barack Obama as another Jesse Jackson)...
and gender (Hillary's latest quotations of Eleanor Roosevelt-- "A woman is like a tea bag. You never know how strong she is until she gets into hot water.")...
and of course, her testicular fortitude... [:o)]
... Hillary wins because of her gender in New Hampshire, Massachusetts and California... evidently, self-proclaimed feminists don't see the irony in her winning in large part because she was married to a former president and used that relationship as "experience"...
Barack Obama wins because of his ability to transcend race in Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Colorado, Idaho, Nebraska, Maine, Vermont...
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
The youth vote has not been that influential in the recent past, there just werent enough of my kind, the Gen Xers to make a difference. But that is changing with the "coming online" of the "millineals". They are the next wave, the next baby boom generation and along with the gen-Xers will have just as much impact on things as the baby boomers did. They tend to be more liberal. Obama is speaking to them, their likes and dislikes, how they think. He may be too early though, just less than a third of this next generation are of voting age right now. This new generation is just gaining its voice. (I think a lot of them were for the river vote here, the "YP's". We even see it in some of the arguments on here, there are differences in just how people think and operate and what they value.) Hillary doesn't seem to know how to speak their language and connect with them. Even if she does plan on running again in the future, more of them will be able to vote and she has started pissing them off. About every 40 years we see a generation shift. We are juuust beginning to see the influence of this next group coming "online" (pardon the pun, but it does point to something of what they are about and how they are different). This next generation may not be able to swing the election this time around (like the river vote lol), but in the next 2 elections you will definitely see the shift. This is also the very group we still need to attract more of and keep here in Tulsa... Someone is going to have to pay the taxes and pay for all those retiring Baby Boomers and fill the jobs.
This is why the Dems must not nominate Hillary. If they do go against the will of the voters, this will completely alienate the younger generation, and they will feel so betrayed by the Dem Party that they either go elsewhere or quit showing any interest in politics whatsoever.
Bugo, there aren't a whole lot of different places to go. I would guess that young folks will grow up to vote their pocketbooks. Now unless they are millionnaires, it would make a lot of sense for them to vote for the party that represents working people -- The Democrats.
Some day I'll have to tell you about the welcome my generation got in Chicago at the Democrat Convention in 1968. Somehow we kept participating in the process after that no so warm greeting.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Recent MSM reports that if there were a new vote in Cali Obama would win by a large margin.
That's because California is full of sheeple.
She's gonna sue the DNC under Constitutional Amendment 24. She's laid all of the groundwork.
Contending that, HAD Florida and Michigan abided by the DNC rules, an undue financial burden would have been levied on the state, that the voters would be expected to make up in increased taxes. Therefore the DNC rules were unconstitutional as they could represent a poll tax or other tax.
You watch it's coming!
After that She and Bill will probably just start their own political party. [;)]
^ Don't think that will work....
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
^ Don't think that will work....
It doesn't have to. In fact it will work better for her if she loses.
What she is going to do is position herself and "champion of the disenfranchised" and fracture the party. This will make Obama look like he is part of the "establishment" and weaken him.
There is really no other reason for her to continue to loan herself money to stay in, unless this is her plan. I agree that she will probably not be able to win, but the case has some merit, so she will be able to stall or delay the convention.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
The youth vote has not been that influential in the recent past, there just werent enough of my kind, the Gen Xers to make a difference. But that is changing with the "coming online" of the "millineals". They are the next wave, the next baby boom generation and along with the gen-Xers will have just as much impact on things as the baby boomers did. They tend to be more liberal. Obama is speaking to them, their likes and dislikes, how they think. He may be too early though, just less than a third of this next generation are of voting age right now. This new generation is just gaining its voice. (I think a lot of them were for the river vote here, the "YP's". We even see it in some of the arguments on here, there are differences in just how people think and operate and what they value.) Hillary doesn't seem to know how to speak their language and connect with them. Even if she does plan on running again in the future, more of them will be able to vote and she has started pissing them off. About every 40 years we see a generation shift. We are juuust beginning to see the influence of this next group coming "online" (pardon the pun, but it does point to something of what they are about and how they are different). This next generation may not be able to swing the election this time around (like the river vote lol), but in the next 2 elections you will definitely see the shift. This is also the very group we still need to attract more of and keep here in Tulsa... Someone is going to have to pay the taxes and pay for all those retiring Baby Boomers and fill the jobs.
This is why the Dems must not nominate Hillary. If they do go against the will of the voters, this will completely alienate the younger generation, and they will feel so betrayed by the Dem Party that they either go elsewhere or quit showing any interest in politics whatsoever.
Bugo, there aren't a whole lot of different places to go. I would guess that young folks will grow up to vote their pocketbooks. Now unless they are millionnaires, it would make a lot of sense for them to vote for the party that represents working people -- The Democrats.
Some day I'll have to tell you about the welcome my generation got in Chicago at the Democrat Convention in 1968. Somehow we kept participating in the process after that no so warm greeting.
It wouldn't make much sense for them to vote for a party that basically told then "your voice doesn't count" which would be what would happen if they installed Hillary instead of Obama. The younger generations are also much more cynical than the generation at the 1968 convention.
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
The youth vote has not been that influential in the recent past, there just werent enough of my kind, the Gen Xers to make a difference. But that is changing with the "coming online" of the "millineals". They are the next wave, the next baby boom generation and along with the gen-Xers will have just as much impact on things as the baby boomers did. They tend to be more liberal. Obama is speaking to them, their likes and dislikes, how they think. He may be too early though, just less than a third of this next generation are of voting age right now. This new generation is just gaining its voice. (I think a lot of them were for the river vote here, the "YP's". We even see it in some of the arguments on here, there are differences in just how people think and operate and what they value.) Hillary doesn't seem to know how to speak their language and connect with them. Even if she does plan on running again in the future, more of them will be able to vote and she has started pissing them off. About every 40 years we see a generation shift. We are juuust beginning to see the influence of this next group coming "online" (pardon the pun, but it does point to something of what they are about and how they are different). This next generation may not be able to swing the election this time around (like the river vote lol), but in the next 2 elections you will definitely see the shift. This is also the very group we still need to attract more of and keep here in Tulsa... Someone is going to have to pay the taxes and pay for all those retiring Baby Boomers and fill the jobs.
This is why the Dems must not nominate Hillary. If they do go against the will of the voters, this will completely alienate the younger generation, and they will feel so betrayed by the Dem Party that they either go elsewhere or quit showing any interest in politics whatsoever.
Bugo, there aren't a whole lot of different places to go. I would guess that young folks will grow up to vote their pocketbooks. Now unless they are millionnaires, it would make a lot of sense for them to vote for the party that represents working people -- The Democrats.
Some day I'll have to tell you about the welcome my generation got in Chicago at the Democrat Convention in 1968. Somehow we kept participating in the process after that no so warm greeting.
The younger generations are also much more cynical than the generation at the 1968 convention.
I'll give you some slack here. I don't know your generation that well. You obviously weren't around during the 68 convention and have no business judging their cynicism level either. It was remarkable at the time having been fueled by war, poverty, racism, crime, drugs and political intrigue.
Kind of interesting that most of the remarks about the Democratic primary on this forum are dominated by Independents, Libertarians and Republicans. Actually, not that interesting[;)], and representative of the city in general and not the rest of the country.
When you stop looking for the perfect fit for your beliefs Bugo, and commit to a political party of some sort your remarks will have more context. I don't even think Independent should be on the voter registration card. It should say Non Aligned or Uncommitted or Unable to Compromise.
Hill just announced that her campaign is $20 million in debt.
Her design is nearly complete!
(http://thebadplus.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/deathstar_2.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Hill just announced that her campaign is $20 million in debt.
Actually, they announced that it was $24mil in debt BEFORE Ohio and Pennsylvania. The talking heads were guessing the number is closer to $30 mil in debt today. That's serious money.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
The youth vote has not been that influential in the recent past, there just werent enough of my kind, the Gen Xers to make a difference. But that is changing with the "coming online" of the "millineals". They are the next wave, the next baby boom generation and along with the gen-Xers will have just as much impact on things as the baby boomers did. They tend to be more liberal. Obama is speaking to them, their likes and dislikes, how they think. He may be too early though, just less than a third of this next generation are of voting age right now. This new generation is just gaining its voice. (I think a lot of them were for the river vote here, the "YP's". We even see it in some of the arguments on here, there are differences in just how people think and operate and what they value.) Hillary doesn't seem to know how to speak their language and connect with them. Even if she does plan on running again in the future, more of them will be able to vote and she has started pissing them off. About every 40 years we see a generation shift. We are juuust beginning to see the influence of this next group coming "online" (pardon the pun, but it does point to something of what they are about and how they are different). This next generation may not be able to swing the election this time around (like the river vote lol), but in the next 2 elections you will definitely see the shift. This is also the very group we still need to attract more of and keep here in Tulsa... Someone is going to have to pay the taxes and pay for all those retiring Baby Boomers and fill the jobs.
This is why the Dems must not nominate Hillary. If they do go against the will of the voters, this will completely alienate the younger generation, and they will feel so betrayed by the Dem Party that they either go elsewhere or quit showing any interest in politics whatsoever.
Bugo, there aren't a whole lot of different places to go. I would guess that young folks will grow up to vote their pocketbooks. Now unless they are millionnaires, it would make a lot of sense for them to vote for the party that represents working people -- The Democrats.
Some day I'll have to tell you about the welcome my generation got in Chicago at the Democrat Convention in 1968. Somehow we kept participating in the process after that no so warm greeting.
The younger generations are also much more cynical than the generation at the 1968 convention.
I'll give you some slack here. I don't know your generation that well. You obviously weren't around during the 68 convention and have no business judging their cynicism level either. It was remarkable at the time having been fueled by war, poverty, racism, crime, drugs and political intrigue.
Kind of interesting that most of the remarks about the Democratic primary on this forum are dominated by Independents, Libertarians and Republicans. Actually, not that interesting[;)], and representative of the city in general and not the rest of the country.
When you stop looking for the perfect fit for your beliefs Bugo, and commit to a political party of some sort your remarks will have more context. I don't even think Independent should be on the voter registration card. It should say Non Aligned or Uncommitted or Unable to Compromise.
And maybe one day you will quit letting others think for you and start forming your own opinions. Groupthink is dangerous, whether it's political or religious.
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by bugo
quote:
Originally posted by TheArtist
The youth vote has not been that influential in the recent past, there just werent enough of my kind, the Gen Xers to make a difference. But that is changing with the "coming online" of the "millineals". They are the next wave, the next baby boom generation and along with the gen-Xers will have just as much impact on things as the baby boomers did. They tend to be more liberal. Obama is speaking to them, their likes and dislikes, how they think. He may be too early though, just less than a third of this next generation are of voting age right now. This new generation is just gaining its voice. (I think a lot of them were for the river vote here, the "YP's". We even see it in some of the arguments on here, there are differences in just how people think and operate and what they value.) Hillary doesn't seem to know how to speak their language and connect with them. Even if she does plan on running again in the future, more of them will be able to vote and she has started pissing them off. About every 40 years we see a generation shift. We are juuust beginning to see the influence of this next group coming "online" (pardon the pun, but it does point to something of what they are about and how they are different). This next generation may not be able to swing the election this time around (like the river vote lol), but in the next 2 elections you will definitely see the shift. This is also the very group we still need to attract more of and keep here in Tulsa... Someone is going to have to pay the taxes and pay for all those retiring Baby Boomers and fill the jobs.
This is why the Dems must not nominate Hillary. If they do go against the will of the voters, this will completely alienate the younger generation, and they will feel so betrayed by the Dem Party that they either go elsewhere or quit showing any interest in politics whatsoever.
Bugo, there aren't a whole lot of different places to go. I would guess that young folks will grow up to vote their pocketbooks. Now unless they are millionnaires, it would make a lot of sense for them to vote for the party that represents working people -- The Democrats.
Some day I'll have to tell you about the welcome my generation got in Chicago at the Democrat Convention in 1968. Somehow we kept participating in the process after that no so warm greeting.
The younger generations are also much more cynical than the generation at the 1968 convention.
I'll give you some slack here. I don't know your generation that well. You obviously weren't around during the 68 convention and have no business judging their cynicism level either. It was remarkable at the time having been fueled by war, poverty, racism, crime, drugs and political intrigue.
Kind of interesting that most of the remarks about the Democratic primary on this forum are dominated by Independents, Libertarians and Republicans. Actually, not that interesting[;)], and representative of the city in general and not the rest of the country.
When you stop looking for the perfect fit for your beliefs Bugo, and commit to a political party of some sort your remarks will have more context. I don't even think Independent should be on the voter registration card. It should say Non Aligned or Uncommitted or Unable to Compromise.
And maybe one day you will quit letting others think for you and start forming your own opinions. Groupthink is dangerous, whether it's political or religious.
So...that's why you live in a country that operates on philosophies assembled by a small group of 18th century aristocrats? Our constitution was the result of "groupthink". Apparently you are able to pick and choose which of their opinions you prefer otherwise you would be a Unitarian land owner whose wife and slaves could not vote.
I think that attitude is naive. Everybody is part of some group and they still manage to maintain individual opinions. Even conformist minded Republicans are able to think on their own and differ from the party line. People in that group even think of McCain as a rebel. When your thinking differs so vastly from your party affiliation, no one makes you stay in the group. Move to a new one or start your own or act to change the group.
Your group, Independents, somehow think they are not part of a group at all and are the only people able to form opinions based on their own unfettered intelligence. As though they are not influenced by the same world the rest of us live in. That hubris has elected the worst leaders we've had in my lifetime and allowed your group to escape responsibility for it.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
She's gonna sue the DNC under Constitutional Amendment 24. She's laid all of the groundwork.
Contending that, HAD Florida and Michigan abided by the DNC rules, an undue financial burden would have been levied on the state, that the voters would be expected to make up in increased taxes. Therefore the DNC rules were unconstitutional as they could represent a poll tax or other tax.
You watch it's coming!
After that She and Bill will probably just start their own political party. [;)]
Ok, I mentioned this a while back, but it looks like her plan is getting closer. This morning the FL governor stated "We will continue to fight against the disenfranchisement of Florida voters. This is not what our founding fathers intended!"
Sounds to me like more groundwork for a challenge on the constitutionality of the DNC's decision not to seat FL. Stay tuned for an announcement from Michigan. . .
Soon we will hear a report about major Democratic donors threatening to leave the party if FL and MI are not seated. I estimate this will happen in the next week.