How is this possible?
I thought only repubs and condervatives talked about people this way.
[size=7]Or thats what the libs want us to believe.[/size]
nimh
No I am serious and not joking ,
In a complete about face, DNC Chairman Howard Dean pledges to seat Florida's convention delegates. So for those of you keeping score at home, it's now Clinton with 1686 and Obama with 1662.
That is of course IF She gets to keep all of the delegates she won in Florida...
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/state/content/state/epaper/2008/04/03/m1a_dems_0402.html
(snip)
Quote:Wexler said two plans appeared to be the focus of attention.
One would give Clinton a margin of 19 delegates by allocating half of the delegates based on the Jan. 29 primary. The other half would be split evenly between the two.
The second idea would give Clinton a margin of six delegates. That plan would allocate partial votes to half of the delegates based on the statewide results. The other half would receive partial votes based on election results in each congressional district.
Obama leads Clinton by roughly 130 delegates.
(snip)
Quote:Clinton would gain delegates under the two plans Wexler identified, but not as many as she would if the full delegation was seated based on the primary, which she won by 17 points. Clinton has maintained that the full delegation should be seated.
For Obama, even a partial vote for the state's delegation would mean conceding some of his lead in the total delegate count with 10 primary contests remaining. The next primary is April 22 in Pennsylvania.
So if Florida is seated, the whole problem is HOW are they going to be seated.
It seems to me that the actual vote count from the primary should be the one that counts.
Unless they want to change the rules in the middle of the game.
I don't think that's going to get much play. **** like that happens -- it was a hearsay story and she presented it that way. It's not like she claimed to have first hand knowledge.
Yeah, it happens all the time.
Your reply makes me think of how we were treated to all kinds of articles during Bill Clinton's terms, in regard to how lying was an art to be admired, and perhaps even good for the soul. I think the Clintons are so used to making stuff up, embellishing stories out of almost nothing, that this kind of stuff is nothing new. The only difference now is the press is supporting Obama to such an extent that Clinton doesn't get as easy of a pass. But this is their mode of operation and always has been. I agree this story is mild compared to many, but it is still a fabrication from hearsay that has almost none of the details correct. But her intentions are so good, sob sob.
FreeDuck wrote:I don't think that's going to get much play. **** like that happens -- it was a hearsay story and she presented it that way. It's not like she claimed to have first hand knowledge.
She claimed it was a basis for formulating national policy on health care.
Should fictitious accounts be our rationale for nationalizing large sectors of the private economy?
Remember, Hilly/Billy's 1st attempt at health care policy in 1993 carried criminal penalties for those who went outside the system , i.e. if I want to pay for a doctor visit out of my own pocket.
Wake up Duck.
real life wrote:FreeDuck wrote:I don't think that's going to get much play. **** like that happens -- it was a hearsay story and she presented it that way. It's not like she claimed to have first hand knowledge.
She claimed it was a basis for formulating national policy on health care.
How could it have been when her health plan was published last year and she heard this story in Ohio during the primary race there?
Quote:Should fictitious accounts be our rationale for nationalizing large sectors of the private economy?
Remember, Hilly/Billy's 1st attempt at health care policy in 1993 carried criminal penalties for those who went outside the system , i.e. if I want to pay for a doctor visit out of my own pocket.
Wake up Duck.
I'm wide awake as regards Hillary Clinton, so spare me the condescending bit. There is a difference between lying ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman, there was sniper fire, I was privately against NAFTA, etc...) and retelling a story you heard on the campaign trail that turns out not to be 100% accurate. These things are trivial.
okie wrote:Yeah, it happens all the time.
Your reply makes me think of how we were treated to all kinds of articles during Bill Clinton's terms, in regard to how lying was an art to be admired, and perhaps even good for the soul. I think the Clintons are so used to making stuff up, embellishing stories out of almost nothing, that this kind of stuff is nothing new. The only difference now is the press is supporting Obama to such an extent that Clinton doesn't get as easy of a pass. But this is their mode of operation and always has been. I agree this story is mild compared to many, but it is still a fabrication from hearsay that has almost none of the details correct. But her intentions are so good, sob sob.
I don't think I made any representations as to her intentions. But someone did clearly tell her this story, she didn't make it up. And no, lying is not an art to be admired. You'll note that her honesty deficit is one of the things that makes me unable to vote for her.
FreeDuck wrote:These things are trivial.
Yes, but only if you have some kind of understanding of the principals of objectivity and fair play. The moron who you directed this comment to has no such understanding.
This particular story also seems to be less made-up than originally thought:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Clinton-Hospital-Fact-Check.html
So now maybe only 80% made up instead of 95%? We need to celebrate her relative honesty, shes improving, yay.
Except that she didn't make it up.
(Bear may find the idea that FreeDuck and I are Hillary apologists rather entertaining...)
This was written by an unnamed contributer to Joan Walsh's blog - she is a black Obama supporter from Kentucky:
Instead of beginning with analysis, let's begin with some sad facts; When Kentucky Representative Ben Chandler endorsed Barack Obama, over 500 phone calls flooded his office, the vast majority of them using the word "nigger."
Chandler's aides (who were white) went home shaken, crying, in utter disbelief. They didn't think racism still existed.
Now. Sugarcoat it all you want. Call it "Appalachian culture" call it whatever you want, but make no mistake about it, it is racism.
I'm from Kentucky, and I'm black, and can tell you that perhaps it was "culture" when I went to a semi-nerdy mock-government camp in Frankfort, KY, assigned to a hotel room with 4 white girls, and it was assumed we'd all split beds. There were 2 queen size beds. ALL four of them chose to sleep in one bed, rather than to sleep in the bed in which I slept. Perhaps that was just their "culture?"
And that instance was just something off the top of my head ...
Why are we skirting around this issue? Why are we coming up with excuses? It seems as though people are more afraid of being called racist than they are afraid of actually being racist.
Obviously not every Appalachian white person who votes for Clinton is racist, but enough (21 percent) admitted that race mattered to them in their selection of a candidate to bode poorly for the non-white candidate -- no matter the bona fides.
When that is the case, how can you tell Obama that it's his problem -- as an earlier poster noted, no matter what he does, the goalposts change -- he's smart and successful translates into "uppity;" he's the underdog translates into "he's incompetent." They will not be happy until he does the cakewalk for them and grins like Jolson.
Thus Hillary's use of code phrases -- designed to be direct and easily understood by those with animosity towards blacks, resentful of blacks, distrustful of blacks -- those who are ... let's face it -- racists.
Dee Davis says Obama should have visited rural voters more. Why? So that he can change the mind of the Marietta, GA man who portrayed Obama as Curious George? So he can expose his two daughters to possible death threats, so they can witness the panoply of black lawn jockeys? I wish I were merely some Hollywood elite,"deriding" these people; no, I'm just someone who grew up around them, and I knew years ago what those Chandler aides just found out this month: racism is alive and well in "the hills."
I realize ahead of time anecdotal 'evidence' can only be taken with a grain of salt and looked at with the agenda with the person giving the anecdotal 'evidence'.
Have said that
I live in kentucky as I said probably too many times before, not only that but I live in a part of kentucky Paul Harvey once said if you want to get away with murder go
there. I can tell you that I know there is still prejidicial sentiments alive and well in Kentucky to say the least. Most of the those who feel this way are really open and proud of those sentiments and feel it is matter of pride to be that way. As a result there is a mistrust and the prejidcial feelings on the part of the blacks towards whites.
I don't think it is too far out there to be at least concerned about the extra safety Obama should he become president. Having said I don't think that is a reason to give in and give up even if in the end the worst should happen. I imagine Obama has considered the risk.
I haven't looked through the past post past the page I am on, but I assume eveyone has heard by now the remarks by Hillary and assination remark. I go everyday to Jaun Cole to catch up on Iraq and other middle east news (one of the few places still talking about Iraq despite people from both sides still dying) and I agree him on this. I know not everybody agrees with him on many things nevertheless...
Quote:Saturday, May 24, 2008
Clinton Touches off National PTSD
Senator Clinton's reference to the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in June of 1968 does not seem to me consequential, for all the brouhaha it has provoked. She was just saying that many previous primaries have gone on into June, including that of Bobby Kennedy before he was cut down.
The idea that she was thinking of the possibility that her rival, Barack Obama, might meet a similar fate is absurd. But I saw pundits on cable t.v. intimating that it was plausible.
I fear she inadvertently stumbled into a hornet's nest, though.
Because fears for Obama's safety are widespread, and they are shared by Homeland Security, which gave him Secret Service protection 18 months ago.
It is well known that Colin Powell's wife did not let him run for president because she was afraid he would be assassinated. Imagine the power of that fear to shape American life. Imagine if Powell had run and won, forestalling W. from ever coming to power.
Former Republican presidential aspirant (and apparently huge tool) Mike Huckabee recently went so far as to joke about Obama being shot at. He was speaking at a National Rifle Association event:
' Huckabee made an off-color joke during his speech in Louisville, Kentucky, when a loud bang was heard off-stage. "That was Barack Obama," Huckabee quipped, "He Just tripped off a chair. He was getting ready to speak. Somebody aimed a gun at him and he
he dove for the floor." '
The shadow that falls on African-Americans who devote themselves to public service at the highest levels is that of Dr. Martin Luther King.
In evoking the tumultuous year of 1968, Clinton was trying to remind people of the long and divisive Democratic primary. But without meaning to, she reminded them of April 4, not June 5, of MLK along with RFK.
I don't think it is healthy that the information age causes such memes to circulate with such velocity that they are given far more significance than they deserve. Seeing Hillary abjectly and in a stunned voice apologize for any offense made me feel sorry for her. When you speak in public, you always risk misspeaking or having the audience misunderstand your intent. We make our presidential candidates speak constantly in public for 2 years straight, now. It is like a medieval form of torture. It is amazing that anyone runs this gauntlet.
Elections should be about issues, not about this sort of hothouse speculation about personalities.
But there is one sense in which her campaign, at least, bears some responsibility for her current straits. Clinton operatives behind the scenes have been smearing Obama as a Muslim, and it was they who dug up that photo of him in Kenyan clothes. Clinton even said Obama was not a Muslim "as far as I know." The malice demonstrated in those actions laid the groundwork for people to believe that Clinton was capable of such hostility toward Obama.
The incident, it seems to me, does tell us two other things.
The first is that the strategy of the Clinton camp, of continuing to campaign even after victory at the polls became numerically impossible--in hopes that Obama might stumble and alienate sufficient numbers of superdelegates--was not crazy. I don't approve of it, but that it could work or could have worked seems clear. It could easily have been Obama who stumbled yesterday. Ironically, it was Clinton.
The second thing the incident tells us is how traumatized the nation still is by those horrible killings 40 years ago, and how much unfinished business of healing those wounds there is. Hillary didn't mean to pick at the scab. But she did. And we bled a little, all over again.
http://www.juancole.com/2008/05/clinton-touches-off-national-ptsd.html
Unfortunately, it isn't about just a 40-year old memory.
White Supremacy Groups Threatened by Obama Candidacy
After reading that, read this for another perspective:
THE KENTUCKY HERITAGE OFBARACK OBAMA
Quote:Much has been made of the multi-cultural, ancestral heritage of Barack Obama.
Research to date has all but ignored the Kentucky heritage
of this candidate for the presidency of the United States.
Barack Obama's roots reach back into pioneer Kentucky,
as well as into the American Revolution.
Click the link above for the Kentucky connection.
Also, find his complete heritage
here.
