quote:

Originally posted by m!sty:
trog, i have a couple of questions about that piece

- the talk of clinton & winning, are they talking about winning the primaries or winning presidency? because while playing up to capture the hispanic vote (i imagine) might help with the former, she'd meanwhile be shooting herself in the foot with regards the latter? or would that not be the case?

- you say that the heartland will never accept her, and i get the idea that plenty of people are saying that if she gets the nomination, there's much less chance of a democrat being elected president next year. so if we're talking machiavellian politics, wouldn't all this most benefit the republicans?

The republicans have a long standing enmity with Hillary and know, despite what the media might say, that Hillary has the best chance of beating them.

Obama has nascent stances and a background they can pick at. they've already picked the crap out of the Clintons. more ammo for Obama, plus, they can get a bunch of closet racists on board to vote against a black man. getting trash to vote against women would be a bit harder.

Hillary and Bill have been through the republican assassination machine before, they know how it works and they do and have attacked back. Obama is still riding on his status as the next coming and has yet to undergo the savage lashing they would unleash on him if he is running as the nominee.

You think the Clinton advisor bringing up his history with coke was a tactic, wait until the republicans do it, and add in his background outside of America, and the rumors of him being a muslim.

Bullshit. Smacks of the sort of quasi-racism I've seen on DKos from the Hillary people.

The racists will attack Obama so he shouldn't be the Democrats' nominee. Let the racists win. They're too powerful.

NO ONE on the Democratic side OR the Republican side will energize the Republican base like Hillary Clinton. More than half of Republicans hate the three Republicans who stand a chance right now... Romney, McCain, Huckabee. Republicans will stay home on election day in droves as long as Hillary isn't on the ticket. Those same Republicans will show up in record numbers to vote against her.

She would probably still win, but saying Obama's negatives are greater goes against every single poll this year.

You're pulling it out of your ass.

The same polls that had Hillary getting her ass kicked in New Hampshire?

I'm not saying he's unelectable, I'm not saying he shouldn't be the nominee. I'm saying the media should stop presuming to speak for what the country is doing before they do and in so doing defining our reality without consent.

The race issue was not an issue until these fucking whore reporters made it one.
What I am suggesting is that thinking Barack will have an easier time with the republicans than Hillary is ludicrous. they're going to fucking go for the carotid of either of them in the race.

And I am pulling it out of my ass, I do not put faith in polls or the journalistic media who report them. My ass is far more pure and intelligent than they.

America hasn't sold it's soul to oil companies or predatory lenders it's sold it to a post-reality media that has little to do with a given American individual and more to do with a parasitic memetic organism.

You're crawfishing.

quote:

they can get a bunch of closet racists on board to vote against a black man. getting trash to vote against women would be a bit harder.

Bullshit.

"Post-reality." Hackles rising.

quote:

Originally posted by Trogdor:
You're crawfishing.

quote:

they can get a bunch of closet racists on board to vote against a black man. getting trash to vote against women would be a bit harder.

Bullshit.

What is crawfishing?

quote:

Originally posted by Trogdor:
You're crawfishing.

quote:

they can get a bunch of closet racists on board to vote against a black man. getting trash to vote against women would be a bit harder.

Bullshit.

I agree with Trogdor. Bigotry is wide and broad.

quote:

Originally posted by Trogdor:
NO ONE on the Democratic side OR the Republican side will energize the Republican base like Hillary Clinton. More than half of Republicans hate the three Republicans who stand a chance right now... Romney, McCain, Huckabee. Republicans will stay home on election day in droves as long as Hillary isn't on the ticket. Those same Republicans will show up in record numbers to vote against her.

I'll try to dig up the Time article which quotes a campaign staffer for someone other than Romney, I think, as say, "I don't care if we lose as long as (Romney) does too."

quote:

Originally posted by lithos:

quote:

Originally posted by Trogdor:
You're crawfishing.

quote:

they can get a bunch of closet racists on board to vote against a black man. getting trash to vote against women would be a bit harder.

Bullshit.

I agree with Trogdor. Bigotry is wide and broad.

I agree that it is too, but I think it'd be pointed easier at the black man then the white woman.

But I do not think either will much hurt their chances to win. Just that the republicans have a huge nebulous void in which to find/manufacture things about Obama. take the whole "secret member of a Muslim cabal" type thing, crazytown. But because he isn't clear as to his plans and such, more open to the sort of vague nuttiness the republican party are masters of.

I like Obama, I think he has an agenda and suspect it's a radical one that will shift America away from what were traditionally considered Core values' (jingoism, couch, jingoism) and into a more European model of the 21st century nation state. He seems (maybe) to get that the country is going thorugh a crisis of become a late-stage capitalist super power rather then being the New Kid on the Block (Jordan I love you!)

If that's the case then I think it's a good thing. Countries shift, they peak, they flatten out a bit, it happens.

World is on an accelerated timetable on now.

I wonder sometimes if and when India and China become whatever it is everyone is all on about them becoming if they will be the last ones to be able to become that.

quote:

Originally posted by ContritePuppy:

quote:

Originally posted by Trogdor:
You're crawfishing.

quote:

they can get a bunch of closet racists on board to vote against a black man. getting trash to vote against women would be a bit harder.

Bullshit.

What is crawfishing?

Backing away from what you said, clicking yer claws.

quote:

Originally posted by lithos:

quote:

Originally posted by Trogdor:
You're crawfishing.

quote:

they can get a bunch of closet racists on board to vote against a black man. getting trash to vote against women would be a bit harder.

Bullshit.

I agree with Trogdor. Bigotry is wide and broad.

Ummm.... no, that's actually not what I'm saying (and aren't most wide things broad also?).

I'm saying that racists would vote against Obama for being at least partially African American, but they don't make up that large a voting bloc. They're even a small and shrinking portion of Republicans. Not enough to worry about. They're certainly not to be rewarded.

Here:

quote:

The racists will attack Obama so he shouldn't be the Democrats' nominee. Let the racists win. They're too powerful.

I was giving an example of the quasi-racist argument against Obama, which puppy may or may not be using. Seems to me he is, but I'll listen to an explanation otherwise.

Whereas, the folks who would vote against Hillary do so without regard to her being a woman. They would vote against her for being a Clinton and many of them are Democrats. She would increase turnout for her opponent to a much greater extent than Obama would.

Hillary's people are already using legal maneuvering in Nevada, as a campaign tactic. It's the sort of thing she's known for: establishment politics. People are sick of it.

To my gills. Meh!

CP-

quote:

I'm saying the media should stop presuming to speak for what the country is doing before they do and in so doing defining our reality without consent.

Isn't that what they are ALL about?

"Release the Black Gilly Saw!"

quote:

Originally posted by Trogdor:


I was giving an example of the quasi-racist argument against Obama, which puppy may or may not be using. Seems to me he is, but I'll listen to an explanation otherwise.

I think I noted this above but my point was that Obama is at least as open to republican tactics of divisiveness as Hillary and carries his own baggage as a candidate.

It seems odd to me that you have stated how warped and hopeless the country has become and yet you seem to believe that race won't be an issue.

I am not a black man, I don't (often) pretend to be a black man but I suspect that most black men in America would disagree with the idea that race isn't a big issue in America.

It may be PC to say that it isn't but when people go into their booths no one is to know why they vote for whomever.

I think Obama and Hillary are both highly electable. Obama, right now, appears more so, but I think his lack of experience in mudslinging may hurt him later on. Right now he only has to contend with democratic flak.

My refutation of you argument was that you seemed to think that Hillary was going to loose the election based on what we think we know now.

I don't think what occurs now will have much to do with the campaign of whomever becomes the democratic nominee.

If Obama is the nominee the republicans will find a way to make race an issue. If it is Hillary they will make gender an issue.

It's what they do do.

quote:

Originally posted by RUR:
CP-

quote:

I'm saying the media should stop presuming to speak for what the country is doing before they do and in so doing defining our reality without consent.

Isn't that what they are ALL about?

It is now, but my theory is, that not so long ago, the media reflected the culture rather than drove it.

I think I said I wasn't gonna get involved again-- and I won't. But I am reading, and interested.

:-)

Read this:

"The Clinton campaign had not taken a formal position on the lawsuit, but several supporters had brought the court action. As he campaigned across Nevada this week, former President Bill Clinton argued about the unfairness of caucusing in casinos.

In a statement on Thursday afternoon, the Clinton campaign expressed disappointment in the ruling.

“While we were not involved in this lawsuit and have always said that we would play by the rules that we’re given, it has always been our hope that every Nevadan should have equal access and opportunity to participate in the caucus,” the statement said. “Make no mistake — the current system that inhibits some shift workers from being able to participate, while allowing others to do so, would seem to benefit other campaigns. More importantly it is unfair.”

After a campaign appearance in California, Mr. Obama said his campaign “had nothing to do with setting up these rules.” Yet he was pleased by the judge’s ruling and suggested the lawsuit was filed simply because he won the endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union.

“I think the judge was clear that you can’t change the rules six days before a caucus,” Mr. Obama told reporters in San Francisco. “Any alternation would have disenfranchised maids, dishwashers, bell hops, people who work on the Strip.”

Which shift workers were excluded from caucusing?

I'm thinking, if it were me in Vega, at the end of a shift in the strange non-hours found there, a caucus would be the last place I'd want to go.

But that's just me.

Ha !!Romney's fight with the AP

great video.

Well, he is the pres hopeful Americans would most like to see in a barfight.