Obama '08?

Things are getting heated again:

Quote:

Clinton went on to say that "The explicit argument of the campaign against Hillary is that no one who was involved in the 1990s or this decade can possibly be an effective president because they had fights."

"We're not going to have any of those anymore," he said sarcastically,

"Well, if you believe that," he added, "I got some land I wanna sell you."

Quote:

"The Obama campaign until very, very recently had no union support because they didn't believe that their constituency ... should include blue-collar workers," Rick Sloan, a representative of the Machinists and Aerospace Workers union, said on a conference call today. "Unions that are joining them are doing it out of sheer opportunism... What they don't understand is that this race is not over. It has just begun."

(Do I need to say this is patently false? I've referred before to the angry letter from [?] Union membership re: attacks on Obama, since they liked both Obama and Clinton but decided to go with Clinton since they thought at the time she was more electable. Can find that back on request.)

Quote:

We've seen veiled references and even candidates naming each other in some recent ads, but this attack ad from Clinton running in Wisconsin is the real thing, the genuine article...

[...]

Announcer: Barack Obama still won't agree to debate in Wisconsin. And now he's hiding behind false attack ads. Maybe he doesn't want to explain why his health care plan leaves out 15 million people and Hillary's covers everyone. Or why he voted to pass billions in Bush giveaways to the oil companies, but Hillary didn't. Or why he said he might raise the retirement age and cut benefits for social security. But Hillary won't. Why won't Barack Obama debate these differences? Wisconsin deserves better. Clinton: I'm Hillary Clinton and I approved this message.

All from "First Read."

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
I believe bring up racism in this election is a moot point; everybody votes for the individual they think best represents what they want in our president. As has been pointed out, Lewis is only following the voters wishes; nothing wrong with that! There will be people who votes for their race or gender; so what? That's going to be with us for a very long time. So how many Catholics voted for John Kennedy? Doesn't mean deadly. T.

Glad to learn you feel that way. Would you then also agree we can end affirmative action and all the government-sponsored programs involving racism-as-a-means-of-combatting racism that so infect business, education and many other elements of American life?

No, I wouldn't end it, because that only assures discrimination by fiat. Let's face it; without laws against discrimination, it'll become common - especially in the south. We still have more blacks and Hispanics in prison, because they're convicted with harsher penalties than others for the same crime.

When I see discrimination eliminated by freewill of the majority in all places in the US, we will continue to require laws against discrimination.

We even run into racial bigots on a2k.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

We even run into racial bigots on a2k.

NO!

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

I am not clear George.... are you a Clinton supporter? or are you just anti-Obama?

I am neither.

cicerone imposter wrote:

I believe bring up racism in this election is a moot point; everybody votes for the individual they think best represents what they want in our president. As has been pointed out, Lewis is only following the voters wishes; nothing wrong with that! There will be people who votes for their race or gender; so what? That's going to be with us for a very long time. So how many Catholics voted for John Kennedy? Doesn't mean deadly. T.

Glad to learn you feel that way. Would you then also agree we can end affirmative action and all the government-sponsored programs involving racism-as-a-means-of-combatting racism that so infect business, education and many other elements of American life?

cicerone imposter wrote:

No, I wouldn't end it, because that only assures discrimination by fiat. Let's face it; without laws against discrimination, it'll become common - especially in the south. We still have more blacks and Hispanics in prison, because they're convicted with harsher penalties than others for the same crime.

When I see discrimination eliminated by freewill of the majority in all places in the US, we will continue to require laws against discrimination.

We even run into racial bigots on a2k.

I'm having trouble following your logic. If you believe the question of black or white racism in the current primary and coming election is "moot", then how is it you also believe that affirmative action should be continued - particularly since it involves government intervention on the basis of deliberate inequality.

I do not believe you can demonstrate that there is systematic assignment of harsher penalties to blacks and hispanics for identical crimes in our courts. Certainly they are arrested more frequently (on a per capita basis), and many have criminal records that merit stiffer penalties on subsequent convictions. However there are well-documented correlations with other social and economic factors that explain much of it. At one time crime in this country was dominated by Jews. Soon afterwards the Irish and later the Italians took their place. It wasn't racism to take note of that then and it isn't racism to take note of black and latino gangs now.

0 Replies

georgeob, Have you not heard of blacks driving a MBZ or BMW get stopped not because they broke any laws, but because they were black?

Open your eyes, georgeob.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

georgeob, Have you not heard of blacks driving a MBZ or BMW get stopped not because they broke any laws, but because they were black?

Open your eyes, georgeob.

I have "heard" many things, but I don't believe them all. I don't know the relative incidence of such things and I am quite sure you don'y know that either.

0 Replies

Bill aint doing Hillary any good. But a great deal of harm. "Bill Clinton: Obama 'Literally Not Part of Any of the Good Things' From the 1990s"
February 15, 2008 6:43 PM

ABC News' Sarah Amos reports that former President Bill Clinton -- despite myriad promises he would stop assailing his wife's opponent given how it has backfired on her -- upped his harsh attacks today in Tyler, Texas.

"There are two competing moods in America today," Clinton said. "People who want something fresh and new -- and they find it inspiring that we might elect a president who literally was not part of any of the good things that happened or any of the bad things that were stopped before. The explicit argument of the campaign against Hillary is that 'No one who was involved in the 1990s or this decade can possibly be an effective president because they had fights. We're not going to have any of those anymore.' Well, if you believe that, I got some land I wanna sell you."

ABC News' Sarah Amos is traveling with the former president and transcribed his comments.

For the record, in the 1990s, Obama was a civil rights attorney, community organizer, and was in the Illinois state senate.

Presumably, by "any of the good things that happened" in the 1990s, Clinton is referring to the things he did as president (except for the ones his wife now distances herself from, such as NAFTA).

Sometimes, it sure feels like the former president's defense of his legacy gets in the way of his campaigning for his wife.

- jpt

UPDATE: Obama campaign spox Bill Burton tells ABC News in response, "It appears that the man who once told us 'Don't stop thinking about tomorrow' has changed his tune and is now singing 'Yesterday' everywhere he goes."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/bill-clinton-ob.html

0 Replies

Thanks for the report, Soz! Cool that you got to meet Michelle.

Congrats on the promotion, MM!

George: Please answer the question; do you think Martin Luther King is a racist?

Obviously, by the definition George is using, the answer is yes. This is such a broad definition, however, that it mostly just renders the term useless for the purpose of this discussion.

For instance; I would seriously consider voting for a black man based on his race, if only to counter act (neutralize) a bigot. Would that make me racist? (This mostly rhetorical question is to demonstrate the silliness in using George's definition while discussing Obama.

I believe it serves George's purpose perfectly, however: George, while operating on the principle that no man is an island has been regularly taking his turn stirring the pot of **** that the democrats have brewing (albeit, through no fault of their own (though Hillary is extra guilty). Obama is the stronger opponent for McCain, so naturally the Republicans will throw some extra blows his way.

While I can't completely disagree that watching the PC Police hand-wring over the sexist/racist puzzle is kind of funny; I also feel compelled to point out the hitherto near impossibility of the loyal Right behaving as de facto Hillary Clinton backers, seems to have come to pass. Razz

Interesting times.

0 Replies

Quote:

George: Please answer the question; do you think Martin Luther King is a racist?

Obviously, by the definition George is using, the answer is yes. This is such a broad definition, however, that it mostly just renders the term useless for the purpose of this discussion.

For instance; I would seriously consider voting for a black man based on his race, if only to counter act (neutralize) a bigot. Would that make me racist? (This mostly rhetorical question is to demonstrate the silliness in using George's definition while discussing Obama.

The gruff-looking young fellow in the thong undies gets it.

0 Replies

eoe wrote:

blueflame1 wrote:
Lewis is right. It would be wrong for superdelegates to defy the will of the people in their districts.

I thought that pretty much said it all so, this whole racism/reverse-racism argument is very moot. Just a whole lotta bumping of the gums. (well, in our case, fingertips.)

Except that it would not be 'wrong' to do so.

0 Replies

maporsche wrote:

eoe wrote:
blueflame1 wrote:
Lewis is right. It would be wrong for superdelegates to defy the will of the people in their districts.

I thought that pretty much said it all so, this whole racism/reverse-racism argument is very moot. Just a whole lotta bumping of the gums. (well, in our case, fingertips.)

Except that it would not be 'wrong' to do so.

amen!

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

maporsche wrote:
eoe wrote:
blueflame1 wrote:
Lewis is right. It would be wrong for superdelegates to defy the will of the people in their districts.

I thought that pretty much said it all so, this whole racism/reverse-racism argument is very moot. Just a whole lotta bumping of the gums. (well, in our case, fingertips.)

Except that it would not be 'wrong' to do so.

amen!

I meant to quote blueflame1.

It was his post that I am disagreeing with.

0 Replies

maporsche, it would be a mistake for superdelegates to go against the vote of the people. It might be legal but it would be divisive and many would say immoral I think in the end it will become a moot point. It wont happen. "Christine Pelosi: Superdelegates Should Not Overturn Majority Dem. Vote"
February 15, 2008 12:10 PM

Christine Pelosi, daughter of the Speaker and (more notably at the moment) a superdelegate, warns of a massive disillusionment of voters should Democratic Party officials back a presidential nominee that didn't win the pledged delegate vote.

"Many of us are elected by the grassroots of the party," she said, "And I cannot imagine going home in November to those people and try to phone bank for someone who did not capture the [pledged delegate] vote... We were all galvanized by what happened to Al Gore in Florida."
link

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

George: Please answer the question; do you think Martin Luther King is a racist?

I don't know whether Martin Luther King was a racist or not. Certainly his rhetoric contained no hint of racism - he consistently advocated equal treatment of everyone and the evaluation of people based on their individual qualities. Based on that I'd say the odds are that he was not.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Obviously, by the definition George is using, the answer is yes. This is such a broad definition, however, that it mostly just renders the term useless for the purpose of this discussion. For instance; I would seriously consider voting for a black man based on his race, if only to counter act (neutralize) a bigot. Would that make me racist? (This mostly rhetorical question is to demonstrate the silliness in using George's definition while discussing Obama.

Try to get your facts right. I didn't offer ANY definition of the term. I used the dictionary definitions that Blatham provided in a futile attempt to confound my argument. Moreover your conclusion about MLK is obviously dead wrong.

OCCOM BILL wrote:

I believe it serves George's purpose perfectly, however: George, while operating on the principle that no man is an island has been regularly taking his turn stirring the pot of **** that the democrats have brewing (albeit, through no fault of their own (though Hillary is extra guilty). Obama is the stronger opponent for McCain, so naturally the Republicans will throw some extra blows his way.

While I can't completely disagree that watching the PC Police hand-wring over the sexist/racist puzzle is kind of funny; I also feel compelled to point out the hitherto near impossibility of the loyal Right behaving as de facto Hillary Clinton backers, seems to have come to pass. Interesting times.

You unfairly, and without a defensible basis for it, prejudge my intent (or "purpose" as you phrased it). The truth is, believing as I do that it is impossible right now to discern which of the two Democrat candidates would be a stronger opponent for McCain, I have no basis for stirring up such a fight or wishing for one candidate over the other. I have seen the repeated suggestions on this and other threads (see "Ole Times There are not Forgotten) that white voters who oppose Obama are likely motivated by racism, based solely on a statistical measure of their preferences - while those same posters ignore the far greater statistical preference for him among black voters. The obvious motive of my remarks was the evident blindness and hypocrisy of this commentary.

0 Replies

Odd place to pass this on, I know. But friends are gathered.

I'm presently designing screen doors. I'm working on four, perhaps five, unique screen door designs. They will be three inches wide and six inches high. They'll be able to be fit inside an envelope.

You'll want your own, no question about it, and at some point soon, I'll be able to offer them to you. At around cost, say $10.

You'll want one, no question about it, and you'll be in the exclusive company of perhaps some one million other individuals with distinctive taste.

Once you have it in hand, you put it somewhere safe, but not too inaccessible as you'll want to, now and again, take it out just to look at it.

Then in October or November, you'll take it out, put it in an envelope addressed to the White House. In October and November, then, I see a million screen doors delivered to the President.

blatham
The "Don't let it hit you on the way out" Foundation

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

Christine Pelosi, daughter of the Speaker and (more notably at the moment) a(n) Obama supporter

edit mine.

0 Replies

maporsche, John Lewis is now an Obama supporter too. I think the trend towards superdelegates going with the delegates of their district is the way it's goona be.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

maporsche, John Lewis is now an Obama supporter too. I think the trend towards superdelegates going with the delegates of their district is the way it's goona be.

For the sake of the country I hope you're wrong.

0 Replies

Quote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:

George: Please answer the question; do you think Martin Luther King is a racist?

george wrote:

I don't know whether Martin Luther King was a racist or not. Certainly his rhetoric contained no hint of racism - he consistently advocated equal treatment of everyone and the evaluation of people based on their individual qualities. Based on that I'd say the odds are that he was not.

Keep on this one Bill. george is doing the greased-pig escape. But he hangs with sailors and if a lonely sailor is anything at all like a lonely farmer, and I bet they are, then a greased piglet is at risk of... well, let's use a euphemism here...at risk of a porking.

So, get him straight.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know