Speech tonight.
But she is refusing to concede and give up her delegates. What is she going to demand? [}:)] If she had any honor, she would pledge her delegates to Obama and announce her support for his candidacy.
This allows her to drop her staff but for all intensive purposes stay in the race. . . just in case.
Obama's move.
Good news for Dems!
Now Hillary has just denied the AP report of her concession speech.
I'm telling you, this would make an awesome TV miniseries!
Don't get caught up in her inability to let it go..... http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/06/lipstick-on-a-pig.php
He's come undone.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/bill-clinton-purdhum-a-sl_b_104771.html
Congrats FOTD. Your man is the candidate.
Hillary is still holding back her delegates to negotiate with but he's got it.
This is a historic moment for the USA.
While I do not support this particular candidate, I admire his achievement.
AP tally: Obama effectively clinches nomination
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D912O5FG0&show_article=1
Even if Obama gets only 33% of the vote tonight in all districts, he wins. So I guess to a Clinton supporter, it still isn't over. They could still get 64% of the vote, have him assassinated, appeal the bylaws committee, or litigate.
I bet she abdicates her thrown tonight. Otherwise the Clinton's have lost all credibility and can no longer try to frame it as "fighting for the people." The victory party in NYC will be called off due to sniper fire.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Congrats FOTD. Your man is the candidate.
Hillary is still holding back her delegates to negotiate with but he's got it.
This is a historic moment for the USA.
While I do not support this particular candidate, I admire his achievement.
He's not MY man....he's America's next Prez.
HIS long strange trip continues.....
Phase 2.....America recaptures the World's admiration.
Why? Because he's a socialist?
Checklist for winning the admiration of the "world":
1. Activism in socialist organizations in college...check.
2. Close friendships with socialist professors in college...check.
3. Belonging to a church espousing "black liberation" socialist theologies...check.
I see exactly what you mean.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Why? Because he's a socialist?
Checklist for winning the admiration of the "world":
1. Activism in socialist organizations in college...check.
2. Close friendships with socialist professors in college...check.
3. Belonging to a church espousing "black liberation" socialist theologies...check.
I see exactly what you mean.
Ip....I don't think your pointy darts are going to deflate ObamaNation....not after having 8 years of a facist imbecile and his neo con puppeteers.
Educated Americans won't be fooled again by false swiftboat imagery.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
While I do not support this particular candidate, I admire his achievement.
Something everyone should think of come November [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Why? Because he's a socialist?
Checklist for winning the admiration of the "world":
1. Activism in socialist organizations in college...check.
2. Close friendships with socialist professors in college...check.
3. Belonging to a church espousing "black liberation" socialist theologies...check.
I see exactly what you mean.
You know, it's been a looooong time since I've heard anyone throw around "socialist professors and college organizations". I'm definitely digging that whole retro smear angle you're working. Though my question to you is, do you think drawing that deeply from the well is going to pay off for your party in the general? Maybe I'm just not feeling the fear of commies as deeply as I should, because really, those are some hilarious statements.
FOTD, only 20% of the U.S. has as much as a bachelors degree. Don't let your optimism overshadow your good sense.
Okay, Mr. Obama, When you can really say you are the winner, please remember it is the responsibility of the winner to be gracious and generous and to extend an olive branch to his opponents.
Thanks Homey. I'll keep that in mayan.
Don't you know by now that Obama is not the type to kick someone when they are down IF they are a fellow democrat.
Dubya/McCain is another type of down all together.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Why? Because he's a socialist?
Checklist for winning the admiration of the "world":
1. Activism in socialist organizations in college...check.
2. Close friendships with socialist professors in college...check.
3. Belonging to a church espousing "black liberation" socialist theologies...check.
I see exactly what you mean.
IPLAW gives the cartoon Republican argument... check.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Okay, Mr. Obama, When you can really say you are the winner, please remember it is the responsibility of the winner to be gracious and generous and to extend an olive branch to his opponents.
Watch his speech tonight. (//%22http://www.breitbart.tv/html/106843.html%22) He spends a lot of time speaking about that.
Let's also hope, in the name of conciliation, that Mrs. Clinton decides to stand down honorably and support the winning candidate.
Obama was incredibly gracious to Hillary last night. He was gracious when he didn't push the 50/50 split for Michigan (which he had the votes for) over the weekend. Obama is showing what it takes to be a good leader, and how to allow your opponent the opportunity to exit with dignity. I still have faith that Hillary will do that.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Okay, Mr. Obama, When you can really say you are the winner, please remember it is the responsibility of the winner to be gracious and generous and to extend an olive branch to his opponents.
What has he been doing for the last week? He constantly talks about what a great person Clinton is, how she ran a great race and is a strong leader. He has lavished praise on her.
What you
really mean is Obama needs to pay her off to go away or she will destroy him and the party. A VP nod, cabinet position, judicial appointment, or some perky ambassadorship - something Obama can promise from the federal coffers to the Clinton's. Or maybe an outright bribe, just give her $20,000,000 to cancel out her debt and go away.
I imagine that's what you actually want to see extended. Not an olive branch in terms of kind words and high praise.
Great Washington Post article:
In Defeat, Clinton Graciously Pretends to Win (//%22http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/03/AR2008060303568_pf.html%22)
quote:
FOTD/AOX wrote
[George Bush is a ] facist imbecile...
That was great on so many levels:
1) "Facist" is spelled fascist.
2) A fascist believes the State is more important than all else, usually accompanied by a socialist agenda. One would expect a push to nationalize or further control industry while proclaiming it for the good of the people - not further deregulation.
Think "big brother needs to take this from you for your own good." Be it your rights, freedoms, or wealth. Bush's intrusion into some rights is certainly a step towards fascism, but so is higher taxation (more state control of wealth), socialism, gun control and many other policies you advocate. So I wouldn't throw the word around so lightly.
3) Imbecile refers to an adult with the mental age of 3-7 years old. Which clearly does not apply here. But if you were just trying to degrade him go for idiot, it is the mental state of a 2 year old.
But what's funny, is you incorrectly spell fascist while using the word in too broad of a connotation and then call the subject mentally retarded. Isn't that great?
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Why? Because he's a socialist?
Checklist for winning the admiration of the "world":
1. Activism in socialist organizations in college...check.
2. Close friendships with socialist professors in college...check.
3. Belonging to a church espousing "black liberation" socialist theologies...check.
I see exactly what you mean.
You know, it's been a looooong time since I've heard anyone throw around "socialist professors and college organizations". I'm definitely digging that whole retro smear angle you're working. Though my question to you is, do you think drawing that deeply from the well is going to pay off for your party in the general? Maybe I'm just not feeling the fear of commies as deeply as I should, because really, those are some hilarious statements.
Shows a consistent pattern of socialist leanings starting from his early days that continue on to this day. His ideas regarding redistribution of wealth, increased taxes, etc., are directly tied to the people this man has chosen to surround himself with his entire life. Show me your friends and I'll show you your future.
Maybe if he wore a Santa suit I would trust him more.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Why? Because he's a socialist?
Checklist for winning the admiration of the "world":
1. Activism in socialist organizations in college...check.
2. Close friendships with socialist professors in college...check.
3. Belonging to a church espousing "black liberation" socialist theologies...check.
I see exactly what you mean.
You know, it's been a looooong time since I've heard anyone throw around "socialist professors and college organizations". I'm definitely digging that whole retro smear angle you're working. Though my question to you is, do you think drawing that deeply from the well is going to pay off for your party in the general? Maybe I'm just not feeling the fear of commies as deeply as I should, because really, those are some hilarious statements.
Shows a consistent pattern of socialist leanings starting from his early days that continue on to this day. His ideas regarding redistribution of wealth, increased taxes, etc., are directly tied to the people this man has chosen to surround himself with his entire life. Show me your friends and I'll show you your future.
Maybe if he wore a Santa suit I would trust him more.
No no, what I'm saying is that socialism is totally antique. That it's still the ideology you're teeing up against shows more about you than your targets. You're
still fighting the ideological wars of the 50's and 60's.
It's cute, really.
Tell that to Communist China. Their economy is expected to swamp ours by about 2050. This is the Chinese Century and they are still communists.
I agree. The socialism argument nowadays, as Conan would say, dissipates like a fart in the wind.
The U.S. already has large portions of "socialism" already in the system, such as highways, water and sewer service, police and fire departments, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, to name a few.
You could eliminate all those programs in the guise of eliminating "socialism." But the repercussions to many, many people in our country would be grave.
Just sayin'.
Wow, no love lost by the UK Guardian on the Clinton's now. Basically, Obama was gracious in victory and Hillary was shamefully rude and pompous in defeat:
quote:
The lead story tonight - my "lede," as we spell it here - should have been about the remarkable fact that a black man has been nominated by a major party to lead a developed Western nation for the first time in the history of the world. A man - in whose lifetime people with his shade of skin were denied the right to vote and to use public accommodations - who is now on the cusp of the presidency. It says something good about America, and I would like to have been able to dwell on it.
But no. Once again, it's all about Hillary Clinton, who delivered the most abrasive, self-absorbed, selfish, delusional, emasculating and extortionate political speech I've heard in a long time. And I've left out some adjectives, just to be polite.
Here's an interesting point for you. Barack Obama's speech, which featured a long and gracious nod to Clinton toward the beginning, was posted on various websites as early as 8:10pm East coast time. That means that Clinton - who didn't start speaking until 9:31pm, noticeably missing her introductory cue - and her staff had more than an hour to read Obama's speech and see that he was going to be more than kind to her.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2008/06/no_shame_no_gain.html
Ouch.
More and more people are turning on her. The conventional wisdom says that she had a better shot at the VP if she DIDNT throw down the gauntlet. Bah. Anyway, that was one of the harsher pieces I have read in a major source overseas...
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Obama was incredibly gracious to Hillary last night. He was gracious when he didn't push the 50/50 split for Michigan (which he had the votes for) over the weekend. Obama is showing what it takes to be a good leader, and how to allow your opponent the opportunity to exit with dignity. I still have faith that Hillary will do that.
It was interesting to listen to the talking heads acknowledge Obama's apparent victory last night. Each and every one of them used the occasion to talk about Obama as a symbol of Black progress -- period. There was no discussion about Obama's plan for the U.S. There was no discussion about Obama as an individual. Literally every comment revolved around how far Blacks have come in the U.S. and how good it made everyone feel.
After listening to Obama this past year I still have no sense of what Obama the individual is planning to do other than end the war and shoot for watered down Universal Healthcare.
But the truth is once he is president Obama will be very much an individual with his own unique agenda that has very little or nothing to do with being a symbol of Black progress. After one year in the public eye, he is still a big surprise package.
Geraldine F. was right on target when she said we were buying into a concept with Obama. The concept is the symbol of Black progress in the U.S.
I hope we get lucky and find something wonderful in the surprise package. But frankly, I'm uncomfortable with the risk.
Oh, and just a little warning, we better see Clinton offered the vice presidency or we'll risk losing something bigger than the election.
HT, probably the best post I've ever read of yours.
Something tells me Hillary has more than delegates to try and leverage the VP position. The rumor has been circulating for weekst the Clinton's have something pretty nasty on Obama and they've been trying to figure out the smartest way to use it. Granted rumors, but the Clintons do have a history of character assassination of their rivals.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Wow, no love lost by the UK Guardian on the Clinton's now. Basically, Obama was gracious in victory and Hillary was shamefully rude and pompous in defeat:
quote:
The lead story tonight - my "lede," as we spell it here - should have been about the remarkable fact that a black man has been nominated by a major party to lead a developed Western nation for the first time in the history of the world. A man - in whose lifetime people with his shade of skin were denied the right to vote and to use public accommodations - who is now on the cusp of the presidency. It says something good about America, and I would like to have been able to dwell on it.
But no. Once again, it's all about Hillary Clinton, who delivered the most abrasive, self-absorbed, selfish, delusional, emasculating and extortionate political speech I've heard in a long time. And I've left out some adjectives, just to be polite.
Here's an interesting point for you. Barack Obama's speech, which featured a long and gracious nod to Clinton toward the beginning, was posted on various websites as early as 8:10pm East coast time. That means that Clinton - who didn't start speaking until 9:31pm, noticeably missing her introductory cue - and her staff had more than an hour to read Obama's speech and see that he was going to be more than kind to her.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2008/06/no_shame_no_gain.html
Ouch.
More and more people are turning on her. The conventional wisdom says that she had a better shot at the VP if she DIDNT throw down the gauntlet. Bah. Anyway, that was one of the harsher pieces I have read in a major source overseas...
Rude and Pompous in Defeat? She was extremely generous to and supportive of Obama. There was nothing rude in her speech. Unless of course you believe that women should defer to men.
You just can't deal with a woman that presents herself as an equal to male leadership.
The party does not need Hillary or Bill. The party will survive. Not only that, the new dmocrats will spread their net and they will be the one's convincing the Clinton faction to vote against what has transpired over the last 8 years. The technological magic that got Obama here will be stepped up to reveal an honest issue oriented campaign.
Hillary's manipulations seem to be geared to 2012. I am beggining to think Hillary is negotiating for money and not the veep position. Being the first to predict Hill as a potential Obama Supreme nominee, I now withdraw that possibility. She'll be relgated to a Senator. Nothing more.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The party does not need Hillary or Bill. The party will survive. Not only that, the new dmocrats will spread their net and they will be the one's convincing the Clinton faction to vote against what has transpired over the last 8 years. The technological magic that got Obama here will be stepped up to reveal an honest issue oriented campaign.
Hillary's manipulations seem to be geared to 2012. I am beggining to think Hillary is negotiating for money and not the veep position. Being the first to predict Hill as a potential Obama Supreme nominee, I now withdraw that possibility. She'll be relgated to a Senator. Nothing more.
Oh so now we can lampoon "neo-libs". Remember where you first saw this folks.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The party does not need Hillary or Bill. The party will survive. Not only that, the new dmocrats will spread their net and they will be the one's convincing the Clinton faction to vote against what has transpired over the last 8 years. The technological magic that got Obama here will be stepped up to reveal an honest issue oriented campaign.
Hillary's manipulations seem to be geared to 2012. I am beggining to think Hillary is negotiating for money and not the veep position. Being the first to predict Hill as a potential Obama Supreme nominee, I now withdraw that possibility. She'll be relgated to a Senator. Nothing more.
Right. And mean and evil politics doesn't exist anymore. Isn't that what you said earlier?
Fortunately for us, Obama seems to be a little more on the ball than you are.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The party does not need Hillary or Bill. The party will survive. Not only that, the new dmocrats will spread their net and they will be the one's convincing the Clinton faction to vote against what has transpired over the last 8 years. The technological magic that got Obama here will be stepped up to reveal an honest issue oriented campaign.
Hillary's manipulations seem to be geared to 2012. I am beggining to think Hillary is negotiating for money and not the veep position. Being the first to predict Hill as a potential Obama Supreme nominee, I now withdraw that possibility. She'll be relgated to a Senator. Nothing more.
Right. And mean and evil politics doesn't exist anymore. Isn't that what you said earlier?
Fortunately for us, Obama seems to be a little more on the ball than you are.
Nope. That's NOT what I said.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The party does not need Hillary or Bill. The party will survive. Not only that, the new dmocrats will spread their net and they will be the one's convincing the Clinton faction to vote against what has transpired over the last 8 years. The technological magic that got Obama here will be stepped up to reveal an honest issue oriented campaign.
Hillary's manipulations seem to be geared to 2012. I am beggining to think Hillary is negotiating for money and not the veep position. Being the first to predict Hill as a potential Obama Supreme nominee, I now withdraw that possibility. She'll be relgated to a Senator. Nothing more.
Oh so now we can lampoon "neo-libs". Remember where you first saw this folks.
Just because the new dems are technologically advanced, where do you get the connection to "liberals"? That's you saying that I said that.... I did not. Many of the Obama voters this time around will be fiscal conservatives.
HT, I didn't say anything about Hillary having to bow to men? I didn't even imply it. But thanks for throwing ye' ole' sex card out on the table. Clearly I dislike her and think she can't do anything because she has a vagina. It's one of my main criteria for how I judge people.
My wife has a penis (that gave birth). That's how we get along so well as equals in our household. I'm impressed that you figured all that out based on the fact that I don't like Hillary Clinton (you didn't even know that I dislike other women to - Ann Coulter, some female comics, Nancy Pelosi, and Paris Hilton among them).
Please don't tell the female that owns the company I run, my wife, mother, or other females that have authority with or over me. They'd be pissed if they found out.
- - -
She said "he ran a good campaign" but did not congratulate him on his win that night, or over all. She then went on to imply that she won the popular vote (a dubious proposition and irrelevant) and certainly gave the impression that the fight was not over. That is in addition to basically trying to blackmail her way into the VP office.
Not congratulating him on his victory was rude. Pretending like she is still winning and can not be defeated is pompous. I, and most the rest of the world apperently, failed to see the graciousness towards Obama you are speaking of while you fail to see the brevity Obama is paying to Hillary constantly.
But that's just because "we believe that women should defer to men [and] just can't deal with a woman that presents herself as an equal to male leadership." I assume you hate blacks and heterosexual white males since you didn't vote for them.
Either that or you disagree with their politics and/or dislike them on some personal level. Maybe, just maybe, people have different opinions for reasons other than "they must be a bigot." Nah...
I notice this sarcasm throughout many of your threads..."Maybe, just maybe, people have different opinions for reasons other than "they must be a bigot." It's as though you think this is not a big deal.
"It's very simple," Mike Sims, director of News and Operations for CBSNews.com, told me. "We have our Rules of Engagement. They prohibit personal attacks, especially racist attacks. Stories about Obama have been problematic, and we won't tolerate it."
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/05/04/publiceye/entry2761854.shtml
Hate is a big deal even though some here are making lite of just that. The hood is coming off....
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
I notice this sarcasm throughout many of your threads..."Maybe, just maybe, people have different opinions for reasons other than "they must be a bigot." It's as though you think this is not a big deal.
"It's very simple," Mike Sims, director of News and Operations for CBSNews.com, told me. "We have our Rules of Engagement. They prohibit personal attacks, especially racist attacks. Stories about Obama have been problematic, and we won't tolerate it."
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/05/04/publiceye/entry2761854.shtml
Hate is a big deal even though some here are making lite of just that. The hood is coming off....
It's amazing to me that you can actually turn on your computer.
http://pabloonpolitics.com/mccain_welcomes_hillary.htm
Well, I can cut and paste.....
lol, this rocks. Ignoring the incoherency of the post:
So - because I don't like Hillary HT essentially calls me a sexist bigot.
Because I deny being a sexual bigot and hint that maybe I dislike her for other reasons, FOTD/AOX associates me with the KKK.
Therefor, I think I am forced to admit that I hate women, minorities, homosexuals, poor people, Jews, gentiles, and Illinois Nazis (that would be inclusive of everyone for the denser among us).
Of course I don't think this is a big deal. Someone called me sexist because I don't like Hillary Clinton. I don't like Kobe Bryant either, so I must be racist and not able to tolerate black men that are wealthier than I am. makes perfect sense, it's the only logical conclusion.
[edit]I added the parenthetical about it being all inclusive for fear that some might not know what a gentile is[/edit]
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Oh, and just a little warning, we better see Clinton offered the vice presidency or we'll risk losing something bigger than the election.
I've asked this before but didn't hear back from you, so I'll ask you again directly: do you think Hillary would be a good VP? Since President is off the table, is VP the next best use of her talents?
It's a bad choice, IMO. . . not because she's unqualified but because that's a step down for her. It acknowledges what she's done but doesn't help where she's going.
You seem to really want a lot of mea culpas and special considerations, as if he's done her wrong somehow. What's the deal?
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
lol, this rocks. Ignoring the incoherency of the post:
So - because I don't like Hillary HT essentially calls me a sexist bigot.
Because I deny being a sexual bigot and hint that maybe I dislike her for other reasons, FOTD/AOX associates me with the KKK.
Therefor, I think I am forced to admit that I hate women, minorities, homosexuals, poor people, Jews, gentiles, and Illinois Nazis (that would be inclusive of everyone for the denser among us).
Of course I don't think this is a big deal. Someone called me sexist because I don't like Hillary Clinton. I don't like Kobe Bryant either, so I must be racist and not able to tolerate black men that are wealthier than I am. makes perfect sense, it's the only logical conclusion.
[edit]I added the parenthetical about it being all inclusive for fear that some might not know what a gentile is[/edit]
Come on. We know what connotations deserve calling other's out on. Behave. Are you on your period today? You are not being gentile.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Oh, and just a little warning, we better see Clinton offered the vice presidency or we'll risk losing something bigger than the election.
I've asked this before but didn't hear back from you, so I'll ask you again directly: do you think Hillary would be a good VP? Since President is off the table, is VP the next best use of her talents?
It's a bad choice, IMO. . . not because she's unqualified but because that's a step down for her. It acknowledges what she's done but doesn't help where she's going.
You seem to really want a lot of mea culpas and special considerations, as if he's done her wrong somehow. What's the deal?
NO! NO! NO! The Clinton's are not going to play nice with the Obama's. Get it? It won't work. Would you play nice if your power was cut off by unproven newcomers?
quote:
We know what connotations deserve calling other's out on.
Leaving out the grammatical errors, is this even a complete sentence? Shadows...is that you in there?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
We know what connotations deserve calling other's out on.
Leaving out the grammatical errors, is this even a complete sentence? Shadows...is that you in there?
A gentile? Or just a dumb goy?
Really this has me confused. Why would Hillary want to be VP? The only thing I can comprehend is she was so impressed by how Cheney pulled the strings that she wants to outdo him. I don't see that happening judged by how he schooled her on how to win an election. It would be a cynical pr move imo. But maybe her troops will demand it.
I think she should trade her credit for something more valuable and useful. I could see her as Secretary of State? Maybe some sort of diplomatic role? Even a cabinet head. But VP is just not that great a position usually.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Oh, and just a little warning, we better see Clinton offered the vice presidency or we'll risk losing something bigger than the election.
Wow, that remark sounds like it could have come directly from HRC. What exactly are we risking? What does your threat exactly entail?
This attitude is the very reason Hillary cannot be close to the presidency. She cannot be seen to hold a knife to Obama's throat and get what she wants.
quote:
Originally posted by okiebybirth
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Oh, and just a little warning, we better see Clinton offered the vice presidency or we'll risk losing something bigger than the election.
Wow, that remark sounds like it could have come directly from HRC. What exactly are we risking? What does your threat exactly entail?
This attitude is the very reason Hillary cannot be close to the presidency. She cannot be seen to hold a knife to Obama's throat and get what she wants.
She already holds the knife. Masterfully!
She must claim the nomination during this cycle or next. As it seems she has no chance during this cycle she must make sure that Obama does not win the election. The VP position is the only thing that will keep her operatives from organizing the disintegration of support for Obama among her supporters.
It's clear that Obama cannot win without support from previous Clinton supporters. Bill has already said things that he cannot reverse, so he will not be on the campaign trail.
Hillary gave a crocodiles smile last night that Obama was clearly fearful of. For good reason.
(http://www.nydailynews.com/img/2008/06/04/amd_hillaryspeech_3.jpg)
"Obama was clearly fearful"?
Please back that up.
Hillary will concede on Friday.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The party does not need Hillary or Bill. The party will survive. Not only that, the new dmocrats will spread their net and they will be the one's convincing the Clinton faction to vote against what has transpired over the last 8 years. The technological magic that got Obama here will be stepped up to reveal an honest issue oriented campaign.
Hillary's manipulations seem to be geared to 2012. I am beggining to think Hillary is negotiating for money and not the veep position. Being the first to predict Hill as a potential Obama Supreme nominee, I now withdraw that possibility. She'll be relgated to a Senator. Nothing more.
Oh so now we can lampoon "neo-libs". Remember where you first saw this folks.
Just because the new dems are technologically advanced, where do you get the connection to "liberals"? That's you saying that I said that.... I did not. Many of the Obama voters this time around will be fiscal conservatives.
Fiscal conservatives aren't interested in the government monopolizing the rest of healthcare. The Feds have already managed to turn Medicare into a total cluster-**** and doctors are refusing medicare more and more. When the government starts dictating health care coverage and prices the patient loses.
McCain has pledged to sign no bills with earmarks. That's the kind of fiscal responsibility we need to demand of our next President.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Hillary will concede on Friday.
I think it's set for Saturday, RM. For those interested in hearing her. I am glad she is doing the right thing to unite the party.
As for the Vice Presidency, if after analysis he decides that she would be the best candidate, I hope he does choose her. But he needs to look at who will best help him get elected. He may need someone with more foreign policy experience. Or someone from the south. Or a governor, and not another senator. And he definitely has to choose someone who recognizes that he is on the top of the ticket. I don't know if she is going to be happy deferring to him. And I don't think demanding or threatening, as HT does, is a good way to start such a critical relationship as president/vice president. Still, I am sure she will be considered.
I hope Obama doesn't pick Hillary. I think there are better choices to complement him.
I hope he does include her in some capacity. She has many talents.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I hope Obama doesn't pick Hillary. I think there are better choices to complement him.
I hope he does include her in some capacity. She has many talents.
Well said.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Oh, and just a little warning, we better see Clinton offered the vice presidency or we'll risk losing something bigger than the election.
I've asked this before but didn't hear back from you, so I'll ask you again directly: do you think Hillary would be a good VP? Since President is off the table, is VP the next best use of her talents?
It's a bad choice, IMO. . . not because she's unqualified but because that's a step down for her. It acknowledges what she's done but doesn't help where she's going.
You seem to really want a lot of mea culpas and special considerations, as if he's done her wrong somehow. What's the deal?
We vs Us. Short answer. Yes, she would be great at riding shotgun. She would bring in the working class, Latin and women's vote. And it would prevent a split in the party.
Pmcalk, I didn't threaten. I warned. You know sort of like a mother cautioning her child. Every insult to Clinton is an insult to her supporters and there is something bigger than winning this election at stake.
Since Obama has not been nominated I can freely say that I believe McCain is likely to win this election, but by bringing Clinton onto the ticket it will avoid a split in the party.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
It was interesting to listen to the talking heads acknowledge Obama's apparent victory last night. Each and every one of them used the occasion to talk about Obama as a symbol of Black progress -- period. There was no discussion about Obama's plan for the U.S. There was no discussion about Obama as an individual. Literally every comment revolved around how far Blacks have come in the U.S. and how good it made everyone feel.
What are you trying to say? That Obama has no plans and Hillary's the one who knows everything... that couldn't be further from the truth... click on issues, then compare to Hillary's stuff... you'll find not alot of difference between the two of them on any issue...
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php
quote:
After listening to Obama this past year I still have no sense of what Obama the individual is planning to do other than end the war and shoot for watered down Universal Healthcare.
And your candidate would MANDATE coverage and has the medical lobby in her pocket. Obama's plans are close to HRC's, but he won't mandate that millions of likely younger Americans be forced to pay out the wazoo or face the consequences (fine?jail time?) to achieve "universal care"... Neither of their plans are going to be what we get, btw... there will be compromises, and if there are no compromises... well... you get the 90s, when Hillary Clinton's healthcare initiative went absolutely nowhere.
Do you have any memory of Hillarycare at all???
Others in that debate a the time wanted single payer. The Clintons' "watered down" proposal was "managed care" -- http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Hillary_Clinton_Health_Care.htm
In 1993, Hillary's Health Care Task Force was running into major obstacles. The first one was self-inflicted. Given Hillary's penchant for secrecy, doctors were shut out of the task force's deliberations, as were lobbyists and journalists. Behind closed doors, Hillary began working toward her vision: universal coverage, cost containment, more primary care physicians, managed competition, and global budgeting. In effect, Hillary was attempting to reform a system larger than the entire economy of Italy.
Hillary's 1993 plan for managed competition would band employers and employees into huge cooperatives with the bargaining power to challenge the insurance industry. It would force doctors, hospitals, and insurers to form partnerships in order to compete in offering the highest-quality health care at the lowest cost. The new competitive health marketplace would be overseen by a National Health Board.
quote:
But the truth is once he is president Obama will be very much an individual with his own unique agenda that has very little or nothing to do with being a symbol of Black progress. After one year in the public eye, he is still a big surprise package.
It'll be a nice surprise... but Hillary has to get off the stage so Obama can start to talk about issues... and go beyond responding to gender-based politics...
quote:
Geraldine F. was right on target when she said we were buying into a concept with Obama. The concept is the symbol of Black progress in the U.S.
No. Geraldine was talking about herself. She was a bad choice. Fritz-n-tits was one of the weakest tickets in Dem history. Thanks, HT... for taking up for a racist New Yorker...
"if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn't be in the race."-- Geraldine Ferraro, April 15, 1988
"Part of what I think Geraldine Ferraro is doing, and I respect the fact that she was a trailblazer, is to participate in the kind of slice and dice politics that's about race and about gender.... That's what Americans are tired of because they recognize that when we divide ourselves in that way we can't solve problems." Barack Obama, 2008
quote:
Oh, and just a little warning, we better see Clinton offered the vice presidency or we'll risk losing something bigger than the election.
She's polarized her supporters and is now making a power play for the VP and trying to address her campaign debts... but that will change once David Axelrod confronts the Clintons with the kind of vetting for the last 8 years that will be needed to make sure the Clintons' don't suck all the oxygen out of Obama's campaign.
I don't think the Obama campaign wants to deal with the stories of Bill Clinton's business dealings in Colombia, China, Kazakhstan, Dubai.... reminders of how Hillary Clinton's brothers, Tony and Hugh Rodham, lobbied the president on behalf of criminals who then received presidential pardons or a sentence commutation... or an expose on the shady dealings for donations to the Clinton Library???
quote:
I didn't threaten. I warned. You know sort of like a mother cautioning her child. Every insult to Clinton is an insult to her supporters and there is something bigger than winning this election at stake.
Great. Except I think her support among Reagan democrat blue collar workers isn't all that deep... in the 90s, I remember those types of "white folks" used to HATE her. And this year would rather have voted for John Edwards, but are scared of Barack Obama's name and are susceptible to voting for racist reasons and vile rumors about his religion...
I'd much rather see Obama fight for swing states in Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Virginia rather than pandering to voters in West Virginia and Ohio... the map needs to change.
"Some in the Clinton camp also noted a possible deal-breaker for a party-unity ticket: Bill Clinton may balk at releasing records of his business dealings and big donors to his presidential library...
A former president's global travels for his humanitarian foundation, speeches here and abroad for which he has received up to a quarter-million dollars, financial deals and everyday utterances could pose "a whole host" of conflicts with the policies of an Obama administration, Democrats say."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121262109484746703.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Other than the Republican Hate Machine, the biggest obstacle Obama faces now is getting the the votes of Clinton's half of the party.
And his best shot at winning is riding a wave of national revulsion over Baby Bush -- a vote "against" Baby Bush politics, not a vote "for" Obama.
I don't anticipate Obama having any real problem getting the Hillary supporters. His policies are similar and he will reach out to them.
McCain is in real trouble. Republican conservatives think he is too moderate, democrats think he is wrong on the war, and yound Americans think he is too old.
Even safe republican seats in the house and senate are in play this time. There is a backlash against how Bush has taken the republican party and it won't change between now and November.
I'm waiting for and haven't seen any significant outreach.
I did see that Obama is going to keep Dean in his current leadership position and I don't like that move.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Hillary will concede on Friday.
As for the Vice Presidency....
He may need someone with more foreign policy experience....
Richardson
Or someone from the south....
Okay, southwest, Richardson [;)]
Or a governor...
Richardson
And he definitely has to choose someone who recognizes that he is on the top of the ticket...
Richardson
Bill Richardson. And he's been the head of the DOE as well which would be some good experience to have on staff right now.
Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to have the mass appeal or overwhelming charisma. One thing he does have in his favor is he flipped to Obama real quick after terminating his own campaign at the risk of alienating the Clintons, so he's seen as an Obama loyalist.
Honestly, I thought he had the best experience and resume out of the entire GOP and Dem field this year and I think he would have been a good moderate.
Democrats seemed more interested in making history this time than selecting the best-suited candidate for these times.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I don't anticipate Obama having any real problem getting the Hillary supporters. His policies are similar and he will reach out to them.
McCain is in real trouble. Republican conservatives think he is too moderate, democrats think he is wrong on the war, and yound Americans think he is too old.
Even safe republican seats in the house and senate are in play this time. There is a backlash against how Bush has taken the republican party and it won't change between now and November.
I agree. In the end, Obama should be able to unite the party without much problem and Clinton will help him do it. She's still a team player, and still a Democrat.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I don't anticipate Obama having any real problem getting the Hillary supporters. His policies are similar and he will reach out to them.
McCain is in real trouble. Republican conservatives think he is too moderate, democrats think he is wrong on the war, and yound Americans think he is too old.
Even safe republican seats in the house and senate are in play this time. There is a backlash against how Bush has taken the republican party and it won't change between now and November.
I agree. In the end, Obama should be able to unite the party without much problem and Clinton will help him do it. She's still a team player, and still a Democrat.
Yeah, but don't you know she's pissed as all hell under all this. I think that's why she's waited all week to concede. I think they've been running their traps to see if there's any hope at all, and probably letting her cool down a bit.
I do give her props for not giving up easily, but honestly, I'm not so sure I'd care to have such a self-serving person as my running mate if I were BHO.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I'm waiting for and haven't seen any significant outreach.
I did see that Obama is going to keep Dean in his current leadership position and I don't like that move.
Seriously, man, he's talking about her glowingly at every speech he makes. Look around the web a bit and you'll find some great examples. (//%22http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91232535%22)
They've also met privately to discuss how to proceed. (//%22http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/clinton.obama.wrap/index.html%22) Which I personally would take as a pretty rock solid sign of outreach.
Is it that he's just not called you personally or what?
This subject is too serious to let the conversation descend into being cute.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I don't anticipate Obama having any real problem getting the Hillary supporters. His policies are similar and he will reach out to them.
McCain is in real trouble. Republican conservatives think he is too moderate, democrats think he is wrong on the war, and yound Americans think he is too old.
Even safe republican seats in the house and senate are in play this time. There is a backlash against how Bush has taken the republican party and it won't change between now and November.
I agree. In the end, Obama should be able to unite the party without much problem and Clinton will help him do it. She's still a team player, and still a Democrat.
Yeah, but don't you know she's pissed as all hell under all this. I think that's why she's waited all week to concede. I think they've been running their traps to see if there's any hope at all, and probably letting her cool down a bit.
I do give her props for not giving up easily, but honestly, I'm not so sure I'd care to have such a self-serving person as my running mate if I were BHO.
Somewhere -- and I don't know exactly where -- her tenacity jumped the shark. Turned from cool into not-so-cool. And yeah, you know she's pissed. She's used to fighting hard but she's also used to winning.
IMO, Obama's win is a strong signal to the old guard of the Dem party that new ideas will carry the day rather than the same old same old. Clinton fought hard but still fought conventionally. That may not be obvious to an outside looking in -- you're still gonna see Obama fight for some core Dem ideals, like universal healthcare, addressing global warming, ending the war in Iraq, etc -- but the methods of achieving that will be new, or at least all the old stuff will be rethought.
Obama's already decreed that both he and the DNC itself won't take lobbyist money through this election cycle. That's a pretty strong signal right there that the old ways won't remain unchallenged. The other part is keeping Dean on at the DNC. Dean's harshed on by old line Dems, but has undeniably expanded the reach of the DNC, and has successfully mounted challenges to Republicans in places that the old guard leadership had simply let slide in the past. And he's been willing to find Dems in unconventional places, including a slew of "fighting Dems," veterans and military men who've come back from Iraq and Afghanistan incensed by our foreign policy and who've signed up to run for office as Ds. Jim Webb is a great example, but definitely not the only one.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
This subject is too serious to let the conversation descend into being cute.
Who's being cute?
"Obama's already decreed that both he and the DNC itself won't take lobbyist money through this election cycle."
This move makes us feel good, but it puts us at a competitive disadvantage.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The party does not need Hillary or Bill. The party will survive. Not only that, the new dmocrats will spread their net and they will be the one's convincing the Clinton faction to vote against what has transpired over the last 8 years. The technological magic that got Obama here will be stepped up to reveal an honest issue oriented campaign.
Hillary's manipulations seem to be geared to 2012. I am beggining to think Hillary is negotiating for money and not the veep position. Being the first to predict Hill as a potential Obama Supreme nominee, I now withdraw that possibility. She'll be relgated to a Senator. Nothing more.
Right. And mean and evil politics doesn't exist anymore. Isn't that what you said earlier?
Fortunately for us, Obama seems to be a little more on the ball than you are.
Nope. That's NOT what I said.
Yes, you DID say it.
Here's what you wrote on 4-30-08 in Recycle Michael's thread "Obama throws paster under the bus." In your post on page one you state:
We are seeing the change we envision. Tolerance and acceptance can't come without the mean people kicking back over and over. Stay calm and don't panic. A new day is dawning. Have hope. This is what the year 08 is in politics....change.
The evil doers and mean people have had their day.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
"Obama's already decreed that both he and the DNC itself won't take lobbyist money through this election cycle."
This move makes us feel good, but it puts us at a competitive disadvantage.
He has raised plenty of money. His biggest expense was Hillary, and now that that's over he can focus on the real campaign.
Of course Hillary may be requesting his help in paying her debts. Kind of ironic. . . she brutally battered him and he may have to pay for the beating.
Ya gotta love politics!
Conan, I like Richardson too. That Southwest experience would be valuable since immigration issues are likely to be better understood by their leaders. Wouldn't hurt to have two minorities on a ticket. Now if one of them were of a different gender as well....
Fortunately, there will be a cooling off period till the convention so he can consider all these other qualified vp candidates. No use to expend much time on it now.
The no money from lobbyists policy sounds great, yet it still doesn't keep PAC, lobby, and any other term for special-interest money from being funneled through individuals.
It's a bold public image statement, yet he continues to raise money at a record pace, that's not simply all individuals emptying their savings accounts.
Waterboy- forgot about the immigration angle as well. Richardson fell on deaf ears. I really did feel he would have appeal to Republican voters. Too bad Richardson isn't female or at least a little more handsome. [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
The party does not need Hillary or Bill. The party will survive. Not only that, the new dmocrats will spread their net and they will be the one's convincing the Clinton faction to vote against what has transpired over the last 8 years. The technological magic that got Obama here will be stepped up to reveal an honest issue oriented campaign.
Hillary's manipulations seem to be geared to 2012. I am beggining to think Hillary is negotiating for money and not the veep position. Being the first to predict Hill as a potential Obama Supreme nominee, I now withdraw that possibility. She'll be relgated to a Senator. Nothing more.
Right. And mean and evil politics doesn't exist anymore. Isn't that what you said earlier?
Fortunately for us, Obama seems to be a little more on the ball than you are.
Nope. That's NOT what I said.
Yes, you DID say it.
Here's what you wrote on 4-30-08 in Recycle Michael's thread "Obama throws paster under the bus." In your post on page one you state:
We are seeing the change we envision. Tolerance and acceptance can't come without the mean people kicking back over and over. Stay calm and don't panic. A new day is dawning. Have hope. This is what the year 08 is in politics....change. The evil doers and mean people have had their day.
...."had their day" and "doesn't exist" are not synonymous.....good research though. Lots of waisted space and time, however.
Bush has had his day. Unfortunately, he still exists. Get it?
I think I made my point.
Mean and evil still exists and is good for another day, like somewhere around late October.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It's a bold public image statement, yet he continues to raise money at a record pace, that's not simply all individuals emptying their savings accounts.
Looking at his Open Secrets fundraising summary, (//%22http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=N00009638%22) it's pretty clear where his money is coming from: millions of individuals emptying their savings accounts, $100 at a time.
That's not to say that he's shunning ALL of Washington's kept money, but he's doing an excellent job of keeping much of it out.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It's a bold public image statement, yet he continues to raise money at a record pace, that's not simply all individuals emptying their savings accounts.
Looking at his Open Secrets fundraising summary, (//%22http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=N00009638%22) it's pretty clear where his money is coming from: millions of individuals emptying their savings accounts, $100 at a time.
That's not to say that he's shunning ALL of Washington's kept money, but he's doing an excellent job of keeping much of it out.
Looks clean on paper.
You will have to forgive years of developing cynicism on my part. No one rises to Presidential nominee without some quid-pro-quos.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It's a bold public image statement, yet he continues to raise money at a record pace, that's not simply all individuals emptying their savings accounts.
Looking at his Open Secrets fundraising summary, (//%22http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?id=N00009638%22) it's pretty clear where his money is coming from: millions of individuals emptying their savings accounts, $100 at a time.
That's not to say that he's shunning ALL of Washington's kept money, but he's doing an excellent job of keeping much of it out.
Looks clean on paper.
You will have to forgive years of developing cynicism on my part. No one rises to Presidential nominee without some quid-pro-quos.
Absolutely forgiven. And hey, I'm not so far gone as to think he hasn't made a bushelfull of promises and commitments to people to get things done. But hell. You're a sales guy, just like me. You know that the world runs on favors, kindnesses, and personal commitments. I'm not giving him a pass -- he's still a pol, and that's his currency, too -- but we all got to serve someone, as Mr. Dylan said, and much better to serve millions of small fry with their checkbooks in hand than the Five Cigar Smoking Guys in their Smoky Back Room.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
I'm waiting for and haven't seen any significant outreach.
I did see that Obama is going to keep Dean in his current leadership position and I don't like that move.
I don't think you'd acknowledge any kind of outreach unless he kissed all ten of her toes and handed her a scepter.
Your bitterness is obvious but don't you think she had something to do with losing the primary? There was a lot of mistakes she made that cost her the election. She had a HUGE advantage of name recognition going into Iowa, even running as the "inevitable" nominee. Of course there was sexism in this campaign, but there was also racism. It doesn't explain her not getting the nomination.