I personally think teeny hates whitey so much that nothing will ever change it or her.
Maybe she should strap a bomb around herself and walk into a room with 10 white devils and set it off.
the we'd be rid of 11 hate filled racists. :wink:
heavy sigh...
Deep breath...
Well, here's some relatively positive news...
Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama told Democrats to take a deep breath yesterday and stop worry. The two rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination told their supporters that "they may bicker daily over issues, character and innuendo" but they both believe that "Democratic voters will coalesce around a nominee and carry him or her to victory in November over Republican John McCain."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/obama_clinton_say_party_will_u_1.html
The Fear Factor
Posted March 28, 2008 | 06:09 PM (EST)
by Mike Lux
No, I'm not talking about the daily Bush/McCain festival of fear about the scary terrorists. And, no, I'm not talking about the 3 AM phone call ad, either.
I'm talking about how many people I know, many superdelegates among them, who are scared to publicly support Obama because of the Clintons' well-known penchant for vengeance.
There are plenty of people in the Democratic Party who think Hillary Clinton would make a better president, and/or a better general election candidate, than Barack Obama. There are also some folks who endorsed Hillary early on, and believe you have to stick with the candidate you endorse until the bitter end. There are even a few, although the number is shrinking daily, who still have not genuinely made up their mind. And some superdelegates in the remaining states want to wait for the voters in their own state to vote before they declare. But there are very few people I talk to who think Hillary can win without an utterly divisive fight that will likely tear the party apart. They know that from the perspective of what's best for the party, it's time to endorse Obama.
What those remaining undeclared folks are telling me in private, though, is that they hope the race will play itself out and Obama will emerge as the clear winner so that they don't have to piss the Clintons and their machine off. They don't want the Clintons and McAuliffe and those donors who signed the letter to stop raising money for them. They don't want Carville and Wolfson to call them a traitor. They don't want all the behind-the-scenes trashing that they know will come.
I am encouraging my friends to come out of their political closet. If all the superdelegates and other influential friends that I have talked to who believe that the best path for the party is for Obama to win a clear victory would come out in is favor, this thing really would be over.
I hope this doesn't start another big flame war -- I almost didn't write it because I am so tired of people attacking each other over this primary race. But I thought it was important for people to know what I'm hearing from people.
Well speaking for me attitudes will have to change a whole lot for me to feel comfortable voting for Hillary if she gets it. Although after making that statement about voting for McCain if Hillary gets it (spoke during the height of the Wright thing); I have been uneasy about my impulsive choice. It is just that Hillary has upset me and disappointed me so much during this campaign; it is like she is resorting to anything to win the democratic ticket and it gives me doubts about how she would perform once in office. Although once in office she would have no reason to resort to those tactics since she already achieved her objective; still it would be hard to get over it and for spite I may very well bite off my nose to spite my face or just skip the voting booth altogether in the general if she gets it.
Also in the end I am not sure a Hillary presidency would much different than a McCain ticket or even an Obama ticket. None of them have said they would withdraw forces from Iraq altogether right away and on a host of other foreign policies; they seem to agree. He seems to fall in line with the more right wing attitude toward other countries and the UN though. It is only on a domestic level where real differences come in; boiling down to a ideological difference in conservative domestic policies (if there is a such thing other than wanting to do away with almost all domestic policies) and a democratic domestic policy. So there again; I would have trouble voting for McCain; it is a dilemma for me.
I do know for sure out of Obama and Hillary it is Obama hands down and the only thing which would persuade me if heaven forbid; Hillary gets it is the domestic aspect. StillÂ…
snood wrote:Teeny,
I feel you, on your "the white man has been the racial aggressor for centuries" tip, but vast generalizations and kamikaze attacks on the A2K conservatives aren't going to make things clearer or open up communications.
I submit to you that it might take some ratcheting down of the rhetoric in order to move the discussion forward. They probably aren't going to cease and desist their attacks on Obama for any reason, but it certainly won't be because they were bested in a knock-down, drag-out.
Good words, snood. I sincerely hope we can apply the same yardstick to the candidates as well. I think as a country, we need to disavow the race baiters. I also think it requires the candidates, thats Obama, Clinton and McCain, and also the voters, thats us, to do a little work, and that is to disassociate ourselves from that ilk. Thats what this whole discussion has been about, and I think there is lots more work to be done, most importantly the candidates and who we endorse as candidates. If the candidates are not willing to do the above, then we should not support them. So talk is cheap, and I think actions speak louder than words.
There aren't any "race-baiters" in Obama's campaign to disavow, Okie.
You might want to start by disavowing your own "race-baiting."
old europe wrote:okie wrote:By the way, polls showing Obama being fairly resilient to the Wright thing mainly proves one thing, that voters are emotionally attached to this candidate.
Or maybe it shows that the Wright thing is not what you make it out to be. Or maybe it shows that voters like Hillary or McCain even less, and therefore stick with Obama. Or maybe it shows that voters were really convinced by Obama's speech.
Claiming that it "mainly proves one thing" seems to be a bit off.
Like Bill Maher said last night, the attempted demonization of Wright is the worst form of racism.
revel wrote:Well speaking for me attitudes will have to change a whole lot for me to feel comfortable voting for Hillary
Luckily, you won't have a chance to vote for Hillary for quite some time, if ever (Unless you live in New York, Pennsylvania, etc.)
snood wrote:heavy sigh...
Deep breath...
Well, here's some relatively positive news...
Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama told Democrats to take a deep breath yesterday and stop worry. The two rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination told their supporters that "they may bicker daily over issues, character and innuendo" but they both believe that "Democratic voters will coalesce around a nominee and carry him or her to victory in November over Republican John McCain."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/obama_clinton_say_party_will_u_1.html
What I'd like to know is why aren't we Democrats (including each candidate's surrogates and super delegates) already coalesced around campaigning against the Republican Party's priorities and solutions? Why does unity need to wait until a single candidate is nominated? The problems in this country don't change based upon who is the nominee.
What are we waiting for?
Fair question. I'm trying to do my part and I'm moving forward independant of the dem nominee to look at the collision of both parties.
T
K
O
This is interesting, from the AP...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_BUSH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-03-28-23-41-54
Quote:GREENSBURG, Pa. (AP) -- Sen. Barack Obama said Friday he would return the country to the more "traditional" foreign policy efforts of past presidents, such as George H.W. Bush, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.
At a town hall event at a local high school gymnasium, Obama praised George H.W. Bush - father of the president - for the way he handled the Persian Gulf War: with a large coalition and carefully defined objectives.
Quote:"The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan, and it is George Bush that's been naive and it's people like John McCain and, unfortunately, some Democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naive ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation around the world," he said.
So, does this mean that Obama liked the Reagan and Bush 41 foreign policy ideas?
That is a departure from the typical dem policy, isnt it?
What is the typical dem policy?
Butrflynet wrote:What is the typical dem policy?
Attacking any repub policy, without bothering to see if its a good policy or not.
Diest TKO wrote:mysteryman wrote:Butrflynet wrote:What is the typical dem policy?
Don't take anything I say serious. I'm not going to answer your question.
Translation added.
K
O
Do yourself a favor.
Dont ever edit what I post.
I post exactly what I mean to say, and if you cant handle that dont read what I post.
Better yet.
If you don't have an answer for a question, don't reply.
If you do have an answer that doesn't troll, give it.
You can dish it out but can't take it.
It's a fair question, and if you don't plan to contribute, maybe you shouldn't post. It's especially odd since you posted the link. what? You didn't expect a question or two?
Question: What is a "typical dem policy?"
Take 2
K
O
MM,
Just clarifying because it isn't as clear as you're telling TKO.
You're saying that the only foreign policy democrats have had in the past is to attack any republican policy?
Butrflynet wrote:MM,
Just clarifying because it isn't as clear as you're telling TKO.
You're saying that the only foreign policy democrats have had in the past is to attack any republican policy?
Thats not exactly what I said.
I said that the dems policy seems to be to attack any repub policy, just like the repubs policy seems to be to attack any dem policy.
Neither side looks to see if the policy is good or bad, they just attack it as being wrong.
I find it interesting that Obama seems to be going against that by actually admitting to wanting to use the Reagan- Bush foreign policy as a guide for his own (if he gets elected).
