Obama '08?

dyslexia wrote:

MM wrote:

Except when the right said anything, you defended him.

do you honestly think this is true? If so, you are indeed a fuc*king idiot.

Then I'm a fu*king idiot too, because MM is making a very valid point. The Blatham-blinders aren't a recent development. He's been wearing them for a decade and a half. The division of lefties around here didn't happen until the less partisan lefties took their blinders off. 3 months ago; no one on this site would think of accusing Nimh, let alone Soz, of drinking the Kool-Aid. Blatham wouldn't have accused me, let alone Nimh, of being a Dic. The A2K lefty club is as splintered as the Republican Party over the Clinton tactics… and you think noticing that makes MM an idiot. Sorry cowboy; that's BS.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

dyslexia wrote:

MM wrote:

Except when the right said anything, you defended him.

do you honestly think this is true? If so, you are indeed a fuc*king idiot.

Then I'm a fu*king idiot too, because MM is making a very valid point. The Blatham-blinders aren't a recent development. He's been wearing them for a decade and a half. The division of lefties around here didn't happen until the less partisan lefties took their blinders off. 3 months ago; no one on this site would think of accusing Nimh, let alone Soz, of drinking the Kool-Aid. Blatham wouldn't have accused me, let alone Nimh, of being a Dic. The A2K lefty club is as splintered as the Republican Party over the Clinton tactics… and you think noticing that makes MM an idiot. Sorry cowboy; that's BS.

The problem is in over-generalities. I didn't defend Clinton during the 90's, and I barely have afterwards; during the 90's I was too busy attacking him, as a stalwart young Republican.

Cycloptichorn

This is getting rather funny, in a sad sort of way.

If I'm reading all of you correctly, many of you are criticizing Bill for the exact ame thing the right was criticizing him for when he was president.
Except when the right said anything, you defended him.

Is the right right on the Clintons?
Hillary's campaign tactics are causing some liberals to turn against the couple.

Quote:

But the reality, however injust and ahistorical it might be, is that the meme of "the clintons are amoral, self-obsessed, dirty-fighters who'll do anything to win" may have won the day even among many liberals (and even if it is far more correctly understood as an exact projection of the people who set about the task of deligitimizing Clinton and his administration from the outset of his administration and running right through today).

You're serious?

You actually -- really-truly look in my eyes actually -- think that the Clintons have done nothing to garner the kind of criticism they've been getting from good liberals like me? That if I criticize things like Hillary's late-breaking concern for the good people of Michigan and Florida, I'm just a puppet jerking around on Kristol's strings?

I agree, FreeDuck.

A question for anyone who watched the SC victory speech... I put up two windows, the video of the speech and the transcript, and followed along pretty well once he got started. At the beginning, though, he has a bunch of thank-you's that aren't in the transcript. "Thank you South Carolina," I got, but there were a few more, and one seems to end in "Obama" and I'm wondering what that one is. ("Thank you for voting for Obama?" No. "Thank, you team Obama?" Something.)

Anyone know?

Thanks!

Please don't take that as simply and falsely dismissive of your views but rather as a realistic appraisal of how such preferences will color apprehension/perceptions. Just imagine, to the degree that it is possible to do so, another situation (which might well have happened) where Obama had decided not to run at all and you had found no candidate who comparably inspired you. In this little thought experiment, it seems probable that your perceptions of the Clinton campaign would be quite different.

I look at who is supporting a candidate as well - and Alan Dershowitz's support isn't a bonus in the minds of most Liberals, given his penchant for supporting torture and apologizing for every bad thing Israel has ever done.

That's the way I see it too; Hillary has been pulling too many BS in her campaign; those who support her thinks she's witty and strong, but those of us who are against her see her as someone who would do almost anything to win.

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's the way I see it too; Hillary has been pulling too many BS in her campaign; those who support her thinks she's witty and strong, but those of us who are against her see her as someone who would do almost anything to win.

CI:
You'll sing a different tune if Obama is President and carries out his plan to INCREASE the capital gains tax to 40%.

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's the way I see it too; Hillary has been pulling too many BS in her campaign; those who support her thinks she's witty and strong, but those of us who are against her see her as someone who would do almost anything to win.

CI:
You'll sing a different tune if Obama is President and carries out his plan to INCREASE the capital gains tax to 40%.

Hillary's Bipolar Disorder

I've always had grave concerns about Hillary's electoral chances, and the past couple of weeks have done nothing but depress me.

Hill has always been polarizing when it comes to the parties. Now, thanks to on-the-trail happenings, some of which aren't even really her fault, she has managed to split the electorate along both racial and gender lines.

The race business is a disgrace--and one that Hill has no one but her own team, and most specifically her own husband, to blame. [..]

The gender issue is more complicated. Post-Iowa, women got a bee in their bonnet about the way Hillary was being treated by male voters ("Iron my shirt!"), a mostly male commentariat (way to go Chris Matthews), and even some of her opponents. (The mind still reels at John Edwards's intimation that Hillary isn't tough enough to be POTUS.) In response, gals got fired up and went all out for Hill in both New Hampshire and Nevada. No one is suggesting these women would have voted for her if they didn't think she was otherwise qualified, but clearly there was a touch of Sisterhood helping drive turnout.

Which is great, right? Maybe. In the short term, it obviously seved Hillary well. But for every woman who pulled the lever for her, there was at least one man who saw the numbers, heard the analysis, and thought, "F>@%ing stupid women. I cannot believe they're screwing up this election with their gender-solidarity b.s." The result is a bunch of male voters even more annoyed by Hillary-a candidate who already had dangerously limited appeal for men.

And so the nation's most polarizing candidate continues her exercise in division. At some point, whether this is entirely-or even primarily--her fault ceases to matter. The mathematical problem is no less real.

--Michelle Cottle

Miller wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's the way I see it too; Hillary has been pulling too many BS in her campaign; those who support her thinks she's witty and strong, but those of us who are against her see her as someone who would do almost anything to win.

CI:
You'll sing a different tune if Obama is President and carries out his plan to INCREASE the capital gains tax to 40%.

What makes you think this? I'd be more than happy to pay our share of income tax to bring our government back into reality world; pay as you go. That means everybody pays their fair share; the rich pays more, because they can afford to pay more. The middle class and the poor pay less; because we need to reverse the damage Bush has done.

Bring it on~!

cicerone imposter wrote:

Miller wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's the way I see it too; Hillary has been pulling too many BS in her campaign; those who support her thinks she's witty and strong, but those of us who are against her see her as someone who would do almost anything to win.

CI:
You'll sing a different tune if Obama is President and carries out his plan to INCREASE the capital gains tax to 40%.

What makes you think this? I'd be more than happy to pay our share of income tax to bring our government back into reality world; pay as you go. That means everybody pays their fair share; the rich pays more, because they can afford to pay more. The middle class and the poor pay less; because we need to reverse the damage Bush has done.

Bring it on~!

If you approve of an increase to 40%, why have you lowered yourself to paying 15% or even less as your capital gains tax. If you want to pay more tax, I'm sure no one will want to stop you...
Pay AWAY!

Miller wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's the way I see it too; Hillary has been pulling too many BS in her campaign; those who support her thinks she's witty and strong, but those of us who are against her see her as someone who would do almost anything to win.

CI:
You'll sing a different tune if Obama is President and carries out his plan to INCREASE the capital gains tax to 40%.

What makes you think this? I'd be more than happy to pay our share of income tax to bring our government back into reality world; pay as you go. That means everybody pays their fair share; the rich pays more, because they can afford to pay more. The middle class and the poor pay less; because we need to reverse the damage Bush has done.

Bring it on~!

An Endorsement of the Movement Barack Obama Leads
Posted January 27, 2008 | 04:49 PM (EST)


With the California primary ten days away, it's time to decide. And for me, it's not been easy.

My paramount concern is to prevent a Republican victory in November. Even though it seems to be a Democratic year, no one can say which Democratic can defeat, say, John McCain, the full-throated advocate of "winning" the Iraq war. At stake are many issues beyond Iraq, not least the appointment of the next generation of federal judges.

I will vote without hesitation for the Democratic nominee, if only to stop to the neo-conservative usurpation of power which began in Florida in 2000.

One must choose a candidate based on the issues for which they stand, the spirit they invoke, and the people they are able to mobilize.

As for issues, the differences between Obama and Clinton on Iraq are difficult to pin down. Obama was against the Iraq war five years ago, and favors a more rapid pullout of combat troops than Clinton. But both would replace combat troops with an American counterinsurgency force of tens of thousands, potentially turning Iraq into Central America in the 1970s. Obama seems more supportive of diplomacy than Clinton, but he supports military intervention in Pakistan's tribal areas. Edwards favors a more rapid pullout from Iraq, but is unlikely to prevail.

On Iraq, the anti-war movement has helped turn a public majority against the war, a historic achievement. But the movement alone lacks much capacity to forge anything beyond the slogan of "bring the troops home." Our most achievable goal is a strong voter mandate for peace in November, the election of more Congressional Democrats, and spreading public awareness of the dangers of counterinsurgency. The election of a Democratic president is a necessary condition for ending the war, but sadly not a sufficient one.

So the choice remains.

I do not like the Hillary haters in our midst. As president, her court appointees alone would represent a relief from the present rigging of the courts and marginal improvements for working people. On Iraq, I believe she could be pushed to withdraw. She is a centrist, and it will be up to social movements to alter the center.

Nor do I like the role being played by President Bill Clinton, who is telling lies about Iraq and Obama that are unbecoming a former president.

Neither do I agree with Gloria Steinem's divisive claim that the gender barrier is greater than the racial one. Who wants to measure slavery against the Inquisition? In the case at hand, who among us would argue that the barriers against Hillary Clinton are greater than those facing Barack Obama? What is compelling is that most black women support Obama.

I respect John Edwards' campaign and the role he has played in driving the Democratic Party towards a progressive agenda. At this point, however, I cannot foresee a primary he will win.

That leaves Barack Obama. I have been devastated by too many tragedies and betrayals over the past 40 years to ever again deposit so much hope in any single individual, no matter how charismatic or brilliant. But today I see across the generational divide the spirit, excitement, energy and creativity of a new generation bidding to displace the old ways. Obama's moment is their moment, and I pray that they succeed without the sufferings and betrayals my generation went through. There really is no comparison between the Obama generation and those who would come to power with Hillary Clinton, and I suspect she knows it. The people she would take into her administration may have been reformers and idealists in their youth, but they seem to seek now a return to their establishment positions of power. They are the sorts of people young Hillary Clinton herself would have scorned at Wellesley. If history is any guide, the new "best and brightest" of the Obama generation will unleash a new cycle of activism, reform and fresh thinking before they follow pragmatism to its dead end.

Many ordinary Americans will take a transformative step down the long road to the Rainbow Covenant if Obama wins. For at least a brief moment, people around the world -- from the shantytowns to the sweatshops, even to the restless rich of the Sixties generation -- will look up from the treadmills of their shrunken lives to the possibilities of what life still might be. Environmental justice and global economic hope would dawn as possibilities.

Is Barack the one we have been waiting for? Or is it the other way around? Are we the people we have been waiting for? Barack Obama is giving voice and space to an awakening beyond his wildest expectations, a social force that may lead him far beyond his modest policy agend. Such movements in the past led the Kennedys and Franklin Roosevelt to achievements they never contemplated. [As Gandhi once said of India's liberation movement, "There go my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader."]

We are in a precious moment where caution must yield to courage. It is better to fail at the quest for greatness than to accept our planet's future as only a reliving of the past.

So I endorse the movement that Barack Obama has inspired and will support his candidacy in the inevitable storms ahead.