Obama '08?

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Btw Lola: I think the Obama Vs. McCain campaigns would pretty much guarantee a healing of the Democrat-divide you fear so much.

I couldn't disagree more.

McCain is the exact candidate that democrats did not want to run against. He has the most potential to split the party, or at least those closer to the center (as I am). I will probably stick with Obama if he wins (it will all depend on who each others running mate is, and how they frame their campaigns).

Obama leans too far left on some issues for me (further left then Teddy Kennedy). Clinton is much closer to the center, which as I've said before appeals to me, and McCain is just as close to the center as Clinton is, just on the other side of the l/r divide.

I would see more Clinton supporters moving to McCain than I would see them moving to Obama. However this all depends on running mates. If McCain chooses Huckabee, it will galvanize everyone left of center.

Lola wrote

Quote:

Pretending they are white men would be a mistake, imo. They aren't white men and denying the effects, both emtionally and politically, of the long term effects of racial and gender discrimination is unwise if not a form or racial and gender bias itself.

I don't think that's what Freeduck meant though, though she is certainly capable of speaking for herself. What I took from her post is that if we take race and gender out of it, the Dems are left with two candidates that everybody likes or at least would consider on merit rather than emotional appeal. Focus on race and gender can actually obscure the facts that should be considered.

There's another reason why I focus on the generational. Obama has spoken about going back to the 90s, that we have to move forward, that the politics of the 60s are over. That way of talking sounds like he's suggesting that there's nothing good to learn or use from the politics of the 60s. If he doesn't mean that, he needs to clarify it as soon as possible because a large number of people are hearing it that way.

I agree that there are some political practices that we can learn from because they don't work or cause ethical problems. However, there is an issue of another form of discrimination, that's agism. Those of us who took part in the politics of the 60s surely made some mistakes, but it's an insensitive over statement to dismiss those practices without qualifying what he means. Maybe he has qualified it. If he has, it hasn't made it into the media well enough to counteract that perception.

maporsche wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Btw Lola: I think the Obama Vs. McCain campaigns would pretty much guarantee a healing of the Democrat-divide you fear so much.

I couldn't disagree more.

McCain is the exact candidate that democrats did not want to run against. He has the most potential to split the party, or at least those closer to the center (as I am). I will probably stick with Obama if he wins (it will all depend on who each others running mate is, and how they frame their campaigns).

I mostly agree here. Dems had me against a far Right candidate, period. Obama likely still does.

maporsche wrote:

Obama leans too far left on some issues for me (further left then Teddy Kennedy). Clinton is much closer to the center, which as I've said before appeals to me, and McCain is just as close to the center as Clinton is, just on the other side of the l/r divide.

What issues might those be?

maporsche wrote:

I would see more Clinton supporters moving to McCain than I would see them moving to Obama. However this all depends on running mates. If McCain chooses Huckabee, it will galvanize everyone left of center.

You are straight delusional if you think more Hillary-Democrats will unite behind John McCain than Barack Obama. Dude...

Rasmussen Reports (900 LVs, Feb. 4-7, MOE +/- 4%):

Hillary Clinton 43%
John McCain 46%

Barack Obama 47%
John McCain 42%

The consensus view as to why there is such a discrepancy is, as Rasmussen's analysis makes clear:

Obama leads McCain among voters not affiliated with either major political party. McCain leads Clinton among the unaffiliateds.

I missed a great discussion between people last night apparently - but it's clear to me through both discussion here and in other places on the net that Lola is displaying the exact same attitude that most Hillary supporters have: that Obama should have waited his turn and that it's a personal affront to them that he didn't.

McCAIN AND THE GOP

By now, everybody knows that the Senate version of the economic stimulus bill failed to overcome a Republican filibuster yesterday. You need 60 votes for that, and the final tally was 59-40. (Harry Reid changed his vote at the end for parliamentary reasons, so the reported tally was 58-41)

Part of story here is that John McCain, alone among senators, failed to show up to vote, and his vote could have made the difference. Mr. Straight Talk apparently didn't want to risk conservative backlash by voting in favor of moving forward, but also didn't want to risk his beloved independent cred by joining a party line vote against it. So he stayed home. It was a real profile in courage.

Mocking McCain's pretensions is always worthwhile, but there's a much bigger point to make too. The differences between the Senate bill and the original House/Bush bill were pretty modest. The Senate bill changed the distribution of the tax breaks slightly, extended unemployment benefits a few weeks, and offered heating aid for the poor, along with a few goodies specifically designed to appeal to Republicans. The grand total of the changes amounted to $44 billion over two years. This is not a huge amount of money.

Now, it's obvious that everyone believes a stimulus bill of some kind is a good idea (the House bill passed nearly unanimously), so it's not as if anyone voted against the Senate version because they believe it's a fundamentally flawed concept. And since the last month's worth of economic news has been uniformly bad, no one who believes in stimulus has any real reason to balk at fattening up the package a bit. This wasn't a principled stand about letting the economy work things out on its own.

But what happened? Republicans filibustered the larger bill and then sustained the filibuster on virtually a party line vote. Why? Because it had a few billion dollars of spending targeted at Democratic priorities. There's nothing more to it.

The moral of the story is this: Republicans have no intention of ever working with Democrats on anything remotely like a bipartisan basis. Even on something as trivial as this, they filibustered and won. They will do the same thing next year no matter who's president. They will do it on every single bill, no matter how minor. They will never stop obstructing. Period. Presidential hopefuls, take note.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I missed a great discussion between people last night apparently - but it's clear to me through both discussion here and in other places on the net that Lola is displaying the exact same attitude that most Hillary supporters have: that Obama should have waited his turn and that it's a personal affront to them that he didn't.

Most Hillary supporters? Scary thought to think such a vast number of Americans could be so emotionally charged as to completely disregard reason and the spirit of fair play. Perhaps I've been too dismissive of the idea of people really going that far over the edge. Out of curiosity:

Does anyone else here really think Obama has done wrong to not stand aside?

Does anyone here really think Hillary has done wrong to not stand aside?

Most Hillary supporters? Scary thought to think such a vast number of Americans could be so emotionally charged as to completely disregard reason and the spirit of fair play. Perhaps I've been too dismissive of the idea of people really going that far over the edge. Out of curiosity:

I want to say one more thing.......laugh, I do need to go, but this is important.

There are several ideas being repeated on this thread and in the media that are wag the dog statements. They only "true" in the sense that you heard them on television. Is it really true that the Clintons will say anything to get elected? Did Bill Clinton actually say that Obama's campaign was a "fairy tale?" Or did he say that his claims about being being against the war was a fairy tale. A lot of this fighting began when John Edwards purposefully distorted Hillary's words in that debate now so many weeks back. When her answer to the conplex question contained an attempt to speak to the conflictual, and complex nature of the issue (immigration), she was misquoted and her answer was purposely misrepresented. Is this the kind of "saying anything" we're talking about? It's happened on both sides, multiple times. One instance of it is not more sinister than another.

I also question the assumption that the Clintons are criminals or that they are somehow politically corrupt. I question whether "politics as usual" in the form of the use of reletionships is always an example of "backroom politics" in which the powerful purposely abuse those with less power in an unfair way. The ability to use relationships, built over time or even the use of coersive or trading favors techniques when dealing across the aisle are not in and of themselves unethical. I try to draw a distinction between a deliberate attempt to deprive any person or group of people their rights from those practices that are basically good bargaining techniiques.

I think if we're going to really make a good decision about who to vote for, we should be careful to avoid over simplification or an attempt to force a complex issue into a black or white mold.

What are the specific practices of the past that Obama is referring to? Can any one help me out with a source that can help me make this distinction?

NEW ORLEANS, May 19 -- Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who has cast herself as an ally of African-Americans in rebuilding this city, this weekend accepted fund-raising assistance from a family friend who is controversial with many black and white victims of Hurricane Katrina.

The friend, Sheriff Harry Lee of Jefferson Parish, has been close to former President Bill Clinton for many years, and he is popular among some Democrats here. But Sheriff Lee has a long history of making divisive and derogatory remarks, sometimes aimed at residents of neighboring New Orleans, which is predominantly black, and his relationship with many black political leaders is turbulent.

Sheriff Lee drew notoriety shortly after the hurricane when some of his deputies helped prevent hurricane evacuees, most of them black, from crossing the Crescent City Connection bridge into Jefferson Parish. Sheriff Lee defended the move, saying his office had "a duty to protect our people."

Sheriff Lee was a host committee member for a fund-raiser here Friday night for Mrs. Clinton's presidential campaign. The event, which the senator attended, was closed to the news media. A Clinton campaign spokeswoman declined to comment on Mrs. Clinton's views of Sheriff Lee's actions in 2005 or on his fund-raising support.

Quote:

Most Hillary supporters? Scary thought to think such a vast number of Americans could be so emotionally charged as to completely disregard reason and the spirit of fair play. Perhaps I've been too dismissive of the idea of people really going that far over the edge. Out of curiosity:

If you're trying to exclude yourself or any group of people from this "vast number of Americans" who can delude themselves based on emotion, you are making a claim to be other than human. Everyone is exposed to this danger. Denying it only leaves you vulnerable to manipulation.

This is a good example of the kind of polarization that under lies so much of politics. It's "them" that are bad. "We" don't need to look at ourselves with the same measure.

Woyio....why do you say the Clinton's are criminals? This has the ring of a major over statement to me. Can you find a trust worthy source for documentation of this claim? I should look into it if there's a change it could be true.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I missed a great discussion between people last night apparently - but it's clear to me through both discussion here and in other places on the net that Lola is displaying the exact same attitude that most Hillary supporters have: that Obama should have waited his turn and that it's a personal affront to them that he didn't.

Most Hillary supporters? Scary thought to think such a vast number of Americans could be so emotionally charged as to completely disregard reason and the spirit of fair play. Perhaps I've been too dismissive of the idea of people really going that far over the edge. Out of curiosity:

Does anyone else here really think Obama has done wrong to not stand aside?

Does anyone here really think Hillary has done wrong to not stand aside?

The one over-riding thing that I've noticed is the complete and total personalization of Clinton voters. They see attacks on Clinton as attacks upon themselves, many explicitly state that. Therefore what we are seeing right now isn't all that surprising; older, mostly white ladies who are threatened by a younger man taking what they feel is rightfully theirs.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I missed a great discussion between people last night apparently - but it's clear to me through both discussion here and in other places on the net that Lola is displaying the exact same attitude that most Hillary supporters have: that Obama should have waited his turn and that it's a personal affront to them that he didn't.

Most Hillary supporters? Scary thought to think such a vast number of Americans could be so emotionally charged as to completely disregard reason and the spirit of fair play. Perhaps I've been too dismissive of the idea of people really going that far over the edge. Out of curiosity:

Does anyone else here really think Obama has done wrong to not stand aside?

Does anyone here really think Hillary has done wrong to not stand aside?

The one over-riding thing that I've noticed is the complete and total personalization of Clinton voters. They see attacks on Clinton as attacks upon themselves, many explicitly state that. Therefore what we are seeing right now isn't all that surprising; older, mostly white ladies who are threatened by a younger man taking what they feel is rightfully theirs.

Cycloptichorn

Really Cyclo.........is it only the "older, mostly white ladies" who are taking this personally? Or is it that we're all taking it personally and we don't stop to consider our assumptions?

We may be older, and we may be white, but we're not stupid or any more deluded than anyone else. You can see, by your statement above why we're taking it personally. Your statement is a clear example of age bias and therefore an attempt to, if not discriminate, to marginalize. Really, I think you should look at your own tendency to discriminate against "older white women."

How would you like me to choose your category, younger white men (I don't know your age) and say that you are in a category that is deluded? Please. It's comments like these that inflame rather than elucidate.

If you think you don't operate out of an identification with Obama for some not always so rational reason, you are deluded.

Please refer to Free Duck's response to me above and then get back to me on this. Thanks.

Lola wrote:

Woyio....why do you say the Clinton's are criminals? This has the ring of a major over statement to me. Can you find a trust worthy source for documentation of this claim? I should look into it if there's a change it could be true.

"Articles of Impeachment:

RESOLVED that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS."

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

"Whitewater began back in 1978 when Bill and Hillary Clinton along with two Arkansas acquaintances, James B. and Susan McDougal, borrowed $203,000 to purchase 220 acres of riverfront land in Arkansas' Ozark Mountains, then formed the Whitewater Development Corporation with the intention of building vacation homes.

In 1982, James McDougal purchased a small savings and loan in Little Rock and named it the Madison Guaranty. By the mid-1980s, Madison Guaranty had aroused the attention of federal regulators who questioned its lending practices and financial stability. For example, in 1985, a fund-raising event was held at Madison Guaranty to help eliminate $50,000 of Governor Bill Clinton's campaign debt. Federal investigators later alleged that some of the funds had been improperly withdrawn from depositors' funds.

A major link between the Clintons and Madison Guaranty had been forged after McDougal hired the Rose Law Firm, where Hillary Clinton was a partner, to help the ailing institution. But by 1989, following a number of failed loans, Madison Guaranty collapsed and was shut down by the federal government which then spent $60 million bailing it out. In 1992, the Federal Resolution Trust Corporation, during its investigation into the causes of its failure, named both Bill and Hillary Clinton as "potential beneficiaries" of alleged illegal activities at Madison Guaranty. A referral was then sent to the U.S. Justice Department. "

woiyo wrote:

Lola wrote:

Woyio....why do you say the Clinton's are criminals? This has the ring of a major over statement to me. Can you find a trust worthy source for documentation of this claim? I should look into it if there's a change it could be true.

"Articles of Impeachment:

RESOLVED that William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS."

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/impeachments/clinton.htm

"Whitewater began back in 1978 when Bill and Hillary Clinton along with two Arkansas acquaintances, James B. and Susan McDougal, borrowed $203,000 to purchase 220 acres of riverfront land in Arkansas' Ozark Mountains, then formed the Whitewater Development Corporation with the intention of building vacation homes.

In 1982, James McDougal purchased a small savings and loan in Little Rock and named it the Madison Guaranty. By the mid-1980s, Madison Guaranty had aroused the attention of federal regulators who questioned its lending practices and financial stability. For example, in 1985, a fund-raising event was held at Madison Guaranty to help eliminate $50,000 of Governor Bill Clinton's campaign debt. Federal investigators later alleged that some of the funds had been improperly withdrawn from depositors' funds.

A major link between the Clintons and Madison Guaranty had been forged after McDougal hired the Rose Law Firm, where Hillary Clinton was a partner, to help the ailing institution. But by 1989, following a number of failed loans, Madison Guaranty collapsed and was shut down by the federal government which then spent $60 million bailing it out. In 1992, the Federal Resolution Trust Corporation, during its investigation into the causes of its failure, named both Bill and Hillary Clinton as "potential beneficiaries" of alleged illegal activities at Madison Guaranty. A referral was then sent to the U.S. Justice Department. "

If this is all you have to offer, then I'm not convinced.

Bill: I Made A "Mistake" By Defending Hillary; "I Don't Want To Be The Story"
By Greg Sargent - February 8, 2008, 10:12AM
In an interview with a local news station in Maine, Bill Clinton admitted that he'd erred by over-zealously defending Hillary in the run-up to the South Carolina primary. Asked by a reporter if he regretted his perceived attacks on Obama, he replied...



Bill said:

"The mistake that I made is to think that I was a spouse like any other spouse who could defend his candidate...I think I can promote Hillary but not defend her, because I was president."
He also steadfastly denied having attacked Obama directly:

"A lot of things that were said were factually inaccurate. I did not ever criticize Senator Obama personally in South Carolina, I never criticized him personally...I think whenever I defend her, I (a) risk being misquoted and (b) risk being the story. I don't want to be the story."
It's a bit surprising that he -- or her advisers -- didn't think through this dynamic in advance, but there you have it.