U.S. Presidential Election 2008

[Deckard]

@gambit: chop your hand off and sell it on ebay..

-

So now, longtime friend of the Clintons Warren Buffet has told CNN (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/) Obama would be his choice for the next President of the United States.

I'm actually starting to feel for Clinton. I despise much of how she's carried out her campaign, but after starting out as the leading contender (the presumptive nominee?) and with a thirst for the White House as strong as hers, having invested so much time, effort, personal fortune and even dignity, this is going to be an extraordinarily difficult time for her.

[mmm skyscraper]

I'm actually starting to feel for Clinton. I despise much of how she's carried out her campaign, but after starting out as the leading contender (the presumptive nominee?) and with a thirst for the White House as strong as hers, having invested so much time, effort, personal fortune and even dignity, this is going to be an extraordinarily difficult time for her.

I'm sure a 8 million dollar book advance for a book abour her run will help.

[Deckard]

"Clinton, who is banking on a large win in Kentucky Tuesday to keep her presidential hopes alive, also said she doesn't believe racism has played a role in the presidential campaign. But the New York senator said sexist attitudes among voters and members of the media have been a constant detriment to her White House hopes."

Riiiiight (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/20/clinton-chastises-press-for-ignoring-sexism/#more-7226).

Meanwhile...

"Sen. Barack Obama said today that he agrees with Sen. Hillary Clinton that she has faced some sexism in the media coverage of her campaign.

"No doubt there are certain burdens for Sen. Clinton running as a formidable but first-time frontrunner as a woman in the same way I've got to deal with some issues as an African-American," Obama told ABC's Jake Tapper. "There is no doubt that there have been occasions where Sen. Clinton has had to overcome particular hurdles, and that is part of the groundbreaking nature of her campaign," he said."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4895145&page=1

[Sean]

"Clinton, who is banking on a large win in Kentucky Tuesday to keep her presidential hopes alive, also said she doesn't believe racism has played a role in the presidential campaign. But the New York senator said sexist attitudes among voters and members of the media have been a constant detriment to her White House hopes."

Riiiiight (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/20/clinton-chastises-press-for-ignoring-sexism/#more-7226).

Meanwhile...

"Sen. Barack Obama said today that he agrees with Sen. Hillary Clinton that she has faced some sexism in the media coverage of her campaign.

"No doubt there are certain burdens for Sen. Clinton running as a formidable but first-time frontrunner as a woman in the same way I've got to deal with some issues as an African-American," Obama told ABC's Jake Tapper. "There is no doubt that there have been occasions where Sen. Clinton has had to overcome particular hurdles, and that is part of the groundbreaking nature of her campaign," he said."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4895145&page=1I actually just came here to post exactly the same thing. :) At first, I was struck by how Hillary's now using sexism as an excuse (so graceful :rolleyes:) while Obama has actively avoided using racism as a crutch - especially after the West Virginia primary last week, and the Kentucky primary today that's sure to illustrate racism in voting preferences. But when I got to the part where Hillary said that she doesn't believe racism has played a role in this election.....I mean, really? She's just saying that, right? She can't possibly believe it, can she?

[Troy McClure]

I actually just came here to post exactly the same thing. :) At first, I was struck by how Hillary's now using sexism as an excuse (so graceful :rolleyes:) while Obama has actively avoided using racism as a crutch - especially after the West Virginia primary last week, and the Kentucky primary today that's sure to illustrate racism in voting preferences. But when I got to the part where Hillary said that she doesn't believe racism has played a role in this election.....I mean, really? She's just saying that, right? She can't possibly believe it, can she?

Denial isn't just a river in Africa.

Meanwhile back at the ranch: Clinton Donor offers $1,000,000 for Superdelegate support (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/19/superdelegates-turned-dow_n_102450.html)



Right now, at least at 4:41 Phoenix time, Senator Clinton is up by 14 points in Kentucky. I'd think that would have to go up, but I am surprised it isn't higher.

[cacophony]

Clinton Donor offers $1,000,000 for Superdelegate support (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/19/superdelegates-turned-dow_n_102450.html)

ahhhh haim saban. the man who brought us mighty morphin power rangers and big bad beetleborgs.

[gambit]

@gambit: chop your hand off and sell it on ebay.But that's the hand I write with. And masterbate with.

Very cool. Did you hear him speak somewhere?Yep!! He came to my hometown (Billings, Montana) and had a town-hall meeting at my old high school. :)

Photos are here.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7837100@N04/

[cacophony]

Photos are here.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7837100@N04/

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3055/2507619868_9ff9f85e43.jpg

you didn't mention anything about him punching you. :p

[gambit]

Heh, he must've gotten me pretty good because I don't remember it! :D

Oh, completely off topic, but I didn't realize there were female secret service agents. Now before people jump on me, I'm not saying women can't be bodyguards (the couple there could kick my ass), but I'm just used to the movies seeing big guys in suits.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

. . . I'm not saying women can't be bodyguards (the couple there could kick my ass), but I'm just used to the movies seeing big guys in suits.

Can you say, "Watching too much television" ? J/K

Don't make me sick my girls on you.

[gambit]

Don't make me sick my girls on you.Hmm, are they cute? ;):p

[Strangelet]

SUNRISE, FLA. -- Desperate to get attention for her cause to seat Florida and Michigan delegates, Hillary Clinton compared the plight of Zimbabweans in their recent fraudulent election to the uncounted votes of Michigan and Florida voters saying it is wrong when “people go through the motions of an election only to have them discarded and disregarded.”

“We’re seeing that right now in Zimbabwe," Clinton explained. "Tragically, an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people,” Clinton told the crowd of senior citizens at a retirement community in south Florida.


LOL howard dean is an african military dictator.

[Sean]

LOL howard dean is an african military dictator.


And here's a pretty clear-cut outline of Hillary's history with this subject...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wX99qUo3Ow

How so many people let her get away with continuing her ridiculous claim is beyond me. And this is classic too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-deGy60y9fo

[Strangelet]

and then there's this horseshit (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2009381/Hillary-Clinton-accuses-sexists-of-trying-to-stop-her-reaching-the-White-House.html). Clinton has played the gender card and nobody seems to be bothered by it.


Media coverage of the presidential race, Mrs Clinton told The Washington Post, has been "deeply offensive to millions of women".

Pundits have been obsessed, she said, with the idea that racism was a barrier to her Democratic rival becoming the first black president of the United States. "But it does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists," she said.


Kathy Ryan, 67, a retired teacher and local Democratic officials also blamed the media. "If they're women, they're Obama women who want her out. If it's men, the basis of it seems to be sexist. It's subtle but it's there," she said.
It just makes me think that she's leveling serious, vile accusations against the media. To suggest that their own sexism is running their coverage and that this bias has been a clear detriment to her campaign is nothing to take lightly. She needs to back this up, or don't go there

Imagine if Barack bitched about the racism of the appalachian region. He'd be skewered.

[dubman]

i think they're just letting her say any damn thing because it's a democratic bastion's last sad gasp of candidacy and no one really wants to add insult to injury.
then again, that patience is on a rather delicate rope, so if she presses on like this it could get funny real quick.
it already fundamentally doesnt make sense to count votes from a state that doesnt have the main opposition LISTED ON THE BALLOT.
and the fact that both candidates were just fine about it, something some outlets are FINALLY reminding everyone of, makes hillary look really cynical now that she's waxing about "the people's voice" being ignored.
it's so dumb i still dont really know how anyone can stump for this logically without getting shut down in less than 30 seconds.

[Sean]

it already fundamentally doesnt make sense to count votes from a state that doesnt have the main opposition LISTED ON THE BALLOT.
and the fact that both candidates were just fine about it, something some outlets are FINALLY reminding everyone of, makes hillary look really cynical now that she's waxing about "the people's voice" being ignored.
it's so dumb i still dont really know how anyone can stump for this logically without getting shut down in less than 30 seconds.I know that I'm eating a bit of crow on the subject. In an old thread here when the issue was first raised, I said that it would never stick because it's so blatantly wrong on every level. I figured everyone would see that it's not appropriate to change the rules at the end of the game, and that you can't call the results of a contest where only one of the two candidates even played accurate. But here we are, having to hold our breath to wait and see what the DNC rules at the end of the month.

Although, I'm sticking to my guns - there's no way they can award Hillary all of the delegates from Michigan and give Obama none. It would be unfair first of all, but more importantly as far as they're probably concerned, it would be a huge political mistake. Can you imagine the backlash of African American voters against the Democratic Party if they set in motion a series of events that stripped the nomination away from a black candidate after he's won the majority of pledged delegates? That would be a cut straight to the core of the Democratic base. I can't imagine it happening - but then I also can't understand how anyone can still support Hillary Clinton, and clearly many people do. :rolleyes:

[mmm skyscraper]

Clinton could still make history by being the first woman vice-president and concede all her former arguments in an effort to provide a united front against McCain.

Or she can use her position to get whatever else she wants out of the DNC. Governor, Supreme Court, some Cabinet position. Anything is possible as long as she steps down.

Plus thanks to stupid McCain-Feingold legislation, the sooner she drops out, the less time she has to get back money she loaned herself.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Excellent analysis of the "misogyny" argument in The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/gerard_baker/article3987286.ece) today.

Bottom line - it has nothing to do with her being a woman, and more to do with the fact that she changes tack every five minutes out of sheer expediency, has shown that she will tilt at windmills for as long as it takes to get what she wants, and people just don't trust her enough to want her ruling the country.

[Sean]

Clinton could still make history by being the first woman vice-president and concede all her former arguments in an effort to provide a united front against McCain.I know it could happen, but I still think I'd be surprised if it did. She stands so strongly for everything Obama is not. Sure, they share the same policy ideas for the most part, but the type of politics they represent are such polar opposites that simply having her on the ticket could compromise Obama's central message not just of change, but of change for the better in how things are done. My guess is that he'll pick someone that was a strong Hillary supporter, but who still fits in with how Obama does things.

Or she can use her position to get whatever else she wants out of the DNC. Governor, Supreme Court, some Cabinet position. Anything is possible as long as she steps down. Yeah, I fully expect something like this. Although her on the Supreme Court would be a terrifying prospect. :eek:

[Troy McClure]

And in today's WTF?!? statement by Senator Clinton, she mentions the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in an interview with a South Dakota newspaper.

Clinton mentions RFK assassination (http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Hillary_cites_RFK_assasination_in_explaining_why_s hes_still_in_race.html)

From Huffingtonpost.com (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/23/clinton-kennedy-assassina_n_103319.html)

In better news, Senator Obama picked up 5 delegates today, one of which was a Clinton backer. 5 more delegates for Senator Obama (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/05/23/obama-picks-up-4-delegates-steals-one-from-clinton/)

In light of Senator Clinton's creepy comment, I'm hoping for more superdelegates to jump ship like the Titanic.

-Jason

[cacophony]

i know everyone is waiting on pins and needles to know whether i agree with her assertions of misogyny. :rolleyes:

i do believe there are segments of the voting public who consciously or unconsciously have issues with the idea of a woman as commander in chief. i think for those who have unconscious problems, this bias manifests as a lot of nitpicking over issues that they let slide in other candidates.

however, at no point have i felt that the majority of voters, or even a significant enough percentage to swing the election, are of the above description. in fact, my honest feeling is that the longer this contest has gone on, the less the "woman" issue has come into play. i think it was much more of an issue back at the beginning when the national audience was still feeling out the field of candidates. now i don't believe for an instant that there is anything but a minute portion of the population left who really takes gender into consideration.

all of the candidates have their pigeonhole issues to overcome. she's a chick, obama is black, mccain is old. i think they're definitely issues for all of them, issues to be navigated carefully, but i don't think any of them is losing significant numbers of voters over these issues at this point in the game.

and this is coming from a chick who thinks home depot commercials are sexist.

[Strangelet]

^ agreed :)

[Deckard]

And in today's WTF?!? statement by Senator Clinton, she mentions the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy in an interview with a South Dakota newspaper.
She was giving a coded assassination order.

[Sean]

and this is coming from a chick who thinks home depot commercials are sexist.Brilliant. :D

And Hillary has already apologized for the assassination comment:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90RJR8G0&show_article=1

SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton quickly apologized Friday after citing the June 1968 assassination of Robert F. Kennedy as a reason to remain in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination despite increasingly long odds.

"I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I certainly had no intention of that whatsoever," the former first lady said.

And here's one other interesting little tidbit from the same article:

Recent reports suggested she may be discussing ways to end her campaign by being offered the vice presidential slot underneath Obama, but she rejected that and said she suspected the talk was coming from Obama aides.

"I would look to the camp of my opponent for the source of these stories," she said. "People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa."

Two of those recent reports, however, were attributed by CNN and The New York Times (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=New%20York%20Times&sid=breitbart.com) to supporters of Clinton.

It just increasingly seems to me that she's living in a dream world where she has no clue what's actually happening. I know she's intelligent, and that she must have some grasp of reality, but she's certainly not letting on that she does...

[Strangelet]

"I would look to the camp of my opponent for the source of these stories," she said. "People have been trying to push me out of this ever since Iowa."


yeah. they're called voters.:rolleyes:

[cacophony]

CNN was reporting today that they were told that even bill was counseling hillary to consider the VP seat.

[Deckard]

If anyone's still interested/can be bothered, Peggy Noonan writing in the WSJ gives a spirited debunking of the notion that Hillary has been beaten by misogyny.

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

(Best line: "It comes up zero if you Google "Thatcher" and "You're just picking on me because I'm a woman." " :D )

[Deckard]

i know everyone is waiting on pins and needles to know whether i agree with her assertions of misogyny. :rolleyes:

i do believe there are segments of the voting public who consciously or unconsciously have issues with the idea of a woman as commander in chief. i think for those who have unconscious problems, this bias manifests as a lot of nitpicking over issues that they let slide in other candidates.

however, at no point have i felt that the majority of voters, or even a significant enough percentage to swing the election, are of the above description. in fact, my honest feeling is that the longer this contest has gone on, the less the "woman" issue has come into play. i think it was much more of an issue back at the beginning when the national audience was still feeling out the field of candidates. now i don't believe for an instant that there is anything but a minute portion of the population left who really takes gender into consideration.

all of the candidates have their pigeonhole issues to overcome. she's a chick, obama is black, mccain is old. i think they're definitely issues for all of them, issues to be navigated carefully, but i don't think any of them is losing significant numbers of voters over these issues at this point in the game.
Yeah I'd agree with this too.

No idea what home depot commercials are though!

[cacophony]

No idea what home depot commercials are though!

hardware DIY store. here's your typical home depot commercial:

man is watching football. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MEN DO! women is going shopping BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WOMEN DO! woman informs man as she's leaving that she wants new floors in the living room. BECAUSE WOMEN ARE HOMEMAKERS! man absentmindedly says, "yes dear" BECAUSE MEN DON'T LISTEN! and oh no! it turns out the woman knew he wouldn't be paying attention so she tricked him into agreeing BECAUSE MEN ARE CLUELESS, RIGHT LADIES?!?!? derpy derp derp.

it's right up there with the commercials where mom leaves for the day and dad can't figure out how to use the right laundry soap because men are clueless, but it's okay because mom bought the fancy laundry soap that's foolproof. so dad feels all confident when the whites come out shining white, and mom smiles knowingly at the camera because he's just a stupid man who couldn't find his ass with both hands and a roadmap, and thank god women are better at housework.

[Deckard]

Haha, brilliant. :D

Yeah that's definitely a common theme in advertising isn't it?

Now there must be some way to transfer that to political ads......

[Sarcasmo]

hardware DIY store. here's your typical home depot commercial:

man is watching football. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT MEN DO! women is going shopping BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WOMEN DO! woman informs man as she's leaving that she wants new floors in the living room. BECAUSE WOMEN ARE HOMEMAKERS! man absentmindedly says, "yes dear" BECAUSE MEN DON'T LISTEN! and oh no! it turns out the woman knew he wouldn't be paying attention so she tricked him into agreeing BECAUSE MEN ARE CLUELESS, RIGHT LADIES?!?!? derpy derp derp.

it's right up there with the commercials where mom leaves for the day and dad can't figure out how to use the right laundry soap because men are clueless, but it's okay because mom bought the fancy laundry soap that's foolproof. so dad feels all confident when the whites come out shining white, and mom smiles knowingly at the camera because he's just a stupid man who couldn't find his ass with both hands and a roadmap, and thank god women are better at housework.

I love you. I've hated those commercials for years. Reinforcing gender stereotypes that have been obsolete since the 60's drives me insane. I mean, yeah, for the most part, I'm kinda doltish, but dammit, I can cook for myself and clean up after myself!

[Deckard]

Rupert Murdoch on Obama:

"He is a rock star. It's fantastic" "I love what he is saying about education." "I don't think he will win Florida.....but he will win in Ohio and the election". "I am anxious to meet him." "I want to see if he will walk the walk."

On McCain:

"McCain is a friend of mine. He's a patriot. But he's unpredicatble. Doesn't seem to know much about the economy. He has been in Congress a long time, and you have to make a lot of compromises. So what's he really stand for?... I think he has a lot of problems."

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hilary-rosen/rupert-murdoch-says-obama_b_104018.html)


Well, what to make of that.....?

[BeautifulBurnout]

Well, what to make of that.....?

... that, if Murdoch has the same influence in the States that he does here, Obama is the next POTUS. :D

[Deckard]

In praising Obama, perhaps he's trying to mobilize Clinton supporters? ;)

Yeah it's a stretch, but I find my speculation has to stretch accordingly when it comes to that man, given what we know of how he operates. He's certainly no enemy of the establishment, and neither is he stupid. It's almost impossible for me to hear anything he says and not ask, "What's he up to?"

[Sean]

Michigan and Florida have been resolved:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D910TUN80&show_article=1

...and Hillary supporters are pissed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

"...An inadequate black male who would not have been running had it not been a white woman..."

Way to make Hillary supporters look vile, lady.

And the facts regarding Hillary's continuing claims that she's the stronger candidate..

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/05/31/schneider.obama.polls.progress.cnn

[Troy McClure]

Maybe we should revoke the 19th amendment to the US Constitution??? I'm kidding.


I'm not sure where Senator Clinton gets people have been trying to get her to drop out in January.

At first I didn't think it was going to be a good idea for the DNC to broadcast their hearings today. But, it turned out to be great because it showed how Clinton's supporters can be when their backs are against the wall. Senator Obama's supporters seemed to keep their cool, and didn't act in an immature matter.

I've been participating in the open thread on Senator Obama's website, and there have a been a number of HRC supporters posting today saying how they were screwed today, Obama's a muslim, they are voting for McCain...blah, blah, blah, blah.

If I'm an undecided voter who isn't wanting to support Senator McCain, would I want to join in Clinton's house of juveniles? Not really.


Hopefully the uncommitted superdelegates will let us know where they stand starting Wednesday morning.

Jason

[Deckard]

The next few days will be interesting.......

[cacophony]

clinton's conduct in this matter has been absolutely grotesque.

[Deckard]

It's her supporters that continue to amaze me...

"As members of the DNC's Rules and Bylaws panel voted in favor of the measures, some supporters of Hillary Clinton's White House bid rose from their seats and began to shout “Don’t steal my vote!” and “Let’s go, McCain!”

Several paced the back of the ballroom, yelling at the committee members and chanting “Denver! Denver!” – the site of this summer's Democratic presidential nominating convention.

When Barack Obama’s name was mentioned, boos filled the room."

Quite honestly they sound like a bunch of neanderthals. Clinton's core vote, I wonder? (We already appreciate their disdain of 'in-ter-lec-tuals', who are, by definition, elitists, and don't know how to bowl or drink beer like yer decent, working, hard-working etc etc... :rolleyes: )

Really, if she takes this any further, she'll remove every last drop of doubt in my mind that she gives a flying fig about either the voters or the party - not that there's much doubt left already. It really does depress me that her 'at any cost' approach throughout this election campaign could be the single biggest factor that costs America not only a Democrat in the White House this year but also the chance to have had the best president in a long time, not to mention an enormous amount of restored respect from around the world (though I accept that there's a certain arrogance in assuming that the general opinion of the rest of the world matters much during a domestic election campaign, but still, it's set to be an additional casualty... )

If Obama's the nominee, her words against him will come back to haunt him and every Democrat supporter later this year, and irrespective of any reassurance from her about "falling in line with the eventual victor", her endorsement will sound hollow to the point of being met with hysterics. OK, all primary season differences can be used against the party's eventual nominee by their political opponent, but this woman has really gone overboard in supplying ammunition to the Republicans. She could have taken a more respectable approach with regards to so many things - the Obama/Muslim thing, the Reverend Wright furore, the comparison of Obama's inexperience with that of McCain - but on each and every one, she has chosen not to.

[cacophony]

Quite honestly they sound like a bunch of neanderthals. Clinton's core vote, I wonder?

that's unfair. and the joke above about the 19th amendment is in poor taste. i wonder how the rest of you would react if a hillary supporter joked that we should revoke the 15th amendment.

and believe it or not, some very intelligent and insightful people support clinton's bid for office. some of the rhetoric in this thread is guilty of the same kind of shrill narrowmindedness that the extreme minority of clinton supporters are guilty enough.

perspective please, people.

[Deckard]

that's unfair. and the joke above about the 19th amendment is in poor taste. i wonder how the rest of you would react if a hillary supporter joked that we should revoke the 15th amendment.

and believe it or not, some very intelligent and insightful people support clinton's bid for office. some of the rhetoric in this thread is guilty of the same kind of shrill narrowmindedness that the extreme minority of clinton supporters are guilty enough.

perspective please, people.
I know some intelligent people are supporting Clinton. That doesn't alter my perception that she has a bigger slice of the moron pie than Obama, and her campaigning approach appears to reflect that. I'm sorry if that sounds elitist of me because honestly I gain no pleasure from scoffing at low intelligence being exploited.

Her core vote being neanderthal was rhetorical of me I accept that. But then I agree with you that "Clinton's conduct in this matter has been absolutely grotesque" which is why I further question the mindset of the many voters still supporting her, at this stage of the campaign, and in particular the type given to yelling at the committee members and booing at the mention of Obama's name - I call that neanderthal, and I'd like to have seen Hillary speak out against that kind of behaviour.

But yes, point about perspective taken on board.

[cacophony]

But then I agree with you that "Clinton's conduct in this matter has been absolutely grotesque" which is why I further question the mindset of the many voters still supporting her

well yesterday i was stuck in traffic behind a guy with a very new looking "support president bush" sticker on his bumper.

there's no accounting for taste.

[Sean]

...not to mention an enormous amount of restored respect from around the world (though I accept that there's a certain arrogance in assuming that the general opinion of the rest of the world matters much during a domestic election campaign, but still, it's set to be an additional casualty... )Personally, I think this point is worth more consideration than it seems to typically get. Whether we like it or not, we're globalizing, and our standing with the world keeps getting more important as time goes on. I appreciate the constructive, positive persona that Obama offers our world image.

[Deckard]

Clinton to deliver major speech in New York tomorrow night. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/02/clinton-summons-top-donor_n_104715.html)

Expected to suspend campaign.

[IsiliRunite]

I think it is, although I don't like either Democratic candidate, unwise to lose pretty much three preferred means of implementation in favour of swapping to a total different (although still wrong) school of thought.

Basically, I'm annoyed by Hillary Clinton supporters being unreasonable by saying they won't for Obama in the general election...

Can't have your favourite type of pie so you pass up on the feast?!

I hope the bitch drops out, though...

[Deckard]

I may have spoken too soon (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/clinton_aides_tomorrow_nights.php).....

"Senior Clinton campaign aides privy to the construction of tomorrow night's election night celebration in New York insist that Sen. Clinton will not use the occasion to drop out of the race."

She will surely be dipping into some kind of alternate reality if she turns up tomorrow/today insisting she can win?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I may have spoken too soon (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/clinton_aides_tomorrow_nights.php).....

"Senior Clinton campaign aides privy to the construction of tomorrow night's election night celebration in New York insist that Sen. Clinton will not use the occasion to drop out of the race."

She will surely be dipping into some kind of alternate reality if she turns up tomorrow/today insisting she can win?


That'll be Mrs. B(+), for you.

[gambit]

From Montana to the world, I have one thing to say:

You're welcome.

Obama is presumptive nominee. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24944453/)

[cured]

Obama is going to win pretty handily in November, I think. He will trounce McCain in the debates. Let's hope he doesn't go with a Dan Quayle.

[cured]

New youtube making the rounds...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

(McCain the flip-flopper!)

[Troy McClure]

New youtube making the rounds...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

(McCain the flip-flopper!)

There is also this one that move.org is sponsoring:
http://www.bush-mccainchallenge.com/?rc=homepage

Senator Clinton's speech seemed odd. I respect her decision to say what she said tonight, but she is fooling herself and her supporters.

-Jason

[cured]

I've heard (and I agree) that she doesn't want to be the VP because she wants Obama to lose in November and to run again in 2012. Her speech tonight would indicate that.

[Troy McClure]

I've heard (and I agree) that she doesn't want to be the VP because she wants Obama to lose in November and to run again in 2012. Her speech tonight would indicate that.

Some people are of the opinion that the Clintons did this same game to Al Gore and John Kerry.

For giggles, I been reading the blog comments on Senator Clinton's website tonight. Yikes.

Jason

[Sean]

From Montana to the world, I have one thing to say:

You're welcome.

Obama is presumptive nominee. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24944453/)Yes, thank you. :D

I'm still amazed that Hillary continued her claim that she's more electable and has more popular votes, even after Obama clinched the nomination. I mean, I can believe she said it, but I just find it to be stunning that she's willing to try to hobble the Democratic party for her own personal satisfaction. It's like watching the biggest, slowest car wreck in history happen right before our eyes.

Honestly, I have no doubt that Obama can beat McCain - Hillary's the one I'm scared of. Will she help, or hinder?

[BeautifulBurnout]

Yes, thank you. :D

I'm still amazed that Hillary continued her claim that she's more electable and has more popular votes

Such BS - you either have a first-past-the-post system or you have proportional representation. You can't change the rules half way through the game, which is the way she seems to want to play it.

I think I can remember one year when the Lib Dems actually had more votes nationally than Labour in the general election but still came in a sorry 3rd on the first-past-the-post basis. It sucks, perhaps, but those are the rules we play by. And now she should gracefully retire from the scene.

[Sean]

Such BS - you either have a first-past-the-post system or you have proportional representation. You can't change the rules half way through the game, which is the way she seems to want to play it.

I think I can remember one year when the Lib Dems actually had more votes nationally than Labour in the general election but still came in a sorry 3rd on the first-past-the-post basis. It sucks, perhaps, but those are the rules we play by. And now she should gracefully retire from the scene. As most everyone knows, the Democratic party's nomination process is a delegate-based one. But what doesn't get discussed much when Hillary makes her popular vote argument is just HOW delegate based it is.

First, every state has different voting methods. Some have closed primaries where only Democrats can vote for Democrats. Some have open primaries, where people registered to any party can vote for Democrats. And then others have caucuses, in which smaller groups get together and have old-timey debates and discussions about the candidates and then vote. Even if we only consider these factors, we can see that the popular vote is an unreliable measure of support. In many states, you had Republicans, encouraged by people like Rush Limbaugh, voting for Hillary in an effort to extend the race. And clearly, caucuses don't give a good idea of what the popular vote numbers would be...they don't even report exact numbers of how many people voted in them.

But even beyond that, the delegates awarded from county to county are based not on sheer numbers of people, but on Democratic loyalty. Say you had two counties, each with a population of 100 people. The first county is made up of 10 registered Democrats, and 90 registered Republicans, and consistently votes Republican in elections. The second county is the exact opposite, with 10 registered Republicans and 90 registered Democrats, and consistently votes Democratic. The second county that consistently votes Democratic would have more delegates alloted to them than the first, effectively giving their votes more weight.

So it's not only a delegate-based system - it's actually structured in a way that makes it impossible to keep track of what the actual popular vote totals are. That's why, on CNN at least, they present multiple scenarios when discussing the popular vote. "If you count caucus estimates...", "if you count Michigan...", "if you blah blah blah...."

And of course, when it comes to Hillary's claim that she has the popular vote, she's happy to count all the Republican votes cast purely in an effort to hurt the Democratic party, but discards the caucus votes despite the fact that caucuses are typically run by the most passionate Democrats in the country. And more importantly, at it's foundation, her argument is basically along the lines of saying that if this were a soccer/football game, then she should win based on how long she had possession of the ball, not on goals. And as far as she's concerned, who cares if no one else knew they were playing for possession time and instead racked up more goals?

All she's accomplishing at this point is working her most fervent supporters into a frothy excitement over the prospect of going to Denver and trying to steal the nomination away from Obama. Hardly party unity.

[Sean]

Finally.

Hillary sent out the following message:


Dear Friend,
I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.
On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.
I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.
When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.
I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.
I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.
I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.
In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.
I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.
Sincerely,
http://static.hillaryclinton.com/email/images/sig_hillary2.gif
Hillary Rodham Clinton

http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/blog/main/2008/06/05/144631

[Deckard]

Well, I don't know what everyone else thought, but I'd say that was a good constructive rousing speech from Clinton.

Hopefully it will have convinced many of her most ardent supporters to back Obama.

[Sean]

Well, I don't know what everyone else thought, but I'd say that was a good constructive rousing speech from Clinton.

Hopefully it will have convinced many of her most ardent supporters to back Obama.I think it's a great first step. But judging from some article comment sections, a bunch of her supporters are still claiming they'll vote McCain. Luckily, there are still 5 months until election day though, so if Hillary continues to campaign passionately for Obama, I don't see why he wouldn't win in November. I'm sure some of her supporters will never back Obama, but I think most will.

[BeautifulBurnout]

I think it's a great first step. But judging from some article comment sections, a bunch of her supporters are still claiming they'll vote McCain. Luckily, there are still 5 months until election day though, so if Hillary continues to campaign passionately for Obama, I don't see why he wouldn't win in November. I'm sure some of her supporters will never back Obama, but I think most will.

I read the first coupla dozen or so of the comments, then stopped. They read like some teenage band-site comments for the most part. One or two actually seem to give some kind of analysis, albeit skewed in favour of the Hillz version of events, but most of them are just - well - pathetic over-emotional grizzling. "We LURVE you Hillary, and we ain't ever gonna vote no more cos you'se gawn". Ugh. Shudder.

[IsiliRunite]

Obama is going to win pretty handily in November, I think. He will trounce McCain in the debates. Let's hope he doesn't go with a Dan Quayle.

It's really a battle of white guilt (supportive prejudice) vs. bigotry (negative prejudice).

I don't believe it will come down to issues or principles, just which wins out in the "gut feelings" of the majority (white) voters. Subtle things that can't be quantified... like Nixon's running make-up during the debates of his first campaign.

[Strangelet]

It's really a battle of white guilt (supportive prejudice) vs. bigotry (negative prejudice).


so you think along the same lines as geraldine ferraro? That Obama's campaign enjoys a dominating boost from white guilt?

K question. why are so many educated and young people supporting obama, then? too young to know what jim crow even feels like and too smart to want to find out?

not having it, sorry.

[IsiliRunite]

Educated people are support Obama because what is new, liberalism in most common usage, usually comes straight from colleges and universities. Not as though it is right or wrong, but that is usually the case.

Young people vote for Obama because they get the sense that he is not old-fashioned, he understands young people concerns because he is not 80 years old, and because Obama has more style than any candidate in a long time..

I'm not explaining his support by mentioning those prejudices, I am saying that a big factor in his ability to win the election depends on the outcome of white voters sub-consciously or consciously selecting one of those two prejudices more frequently than the other.

I don't really identify myself with anything Geraldine Ferraro says...

[Deckard]

I predict the unpatriotic cheese-eating surrender monkey slur may play a large part in why people choose against Obama this year - certainly once Republican Nightmare Productions® gets into full swing. Tbh I reckon this will be a much bigger factor than racism, assuming that's what you meant by "bigotry (negative prejudice)".

I'd say the Reverend Wright hoohaah ("God Damn America!!") fits more into that category than it does racism, though obviously racism - conscious or unconscious - will make it that much more potent.

His stance on talking to dictators and his relative lack of experience will be bigger issues, I think. The sense that he'll make a dangerously ineffective Commander-in-Chief (ridiculous as that phrase is) - think back to Bush v Kerry, and Bush's insistence that "that's just not what a Commander-in-chief does" and his constant focus on "being certain".

Another parallel with that election will be Obama's relatively professorial manner compared with salt-of-the-earth folksy McCain (even though Obama is streets ahead of Kerry in terms of charisma, there will still be that impression by some that he's out of touch with the common person) - and these strike me as the main reasons for people choosing McCain over Obama.

[cacophony]

Educated people are support Obama because what is new, liberalism in most common usage, usually comes straight from colleges and universities. Not as though it is right or wrong, but that is usually the case.

Young people vote for Obama because they get the sense that he is not old-fashioned, he understands young people concerns because he is not 80 years old, and because Obama has more style than any candidate in a long time..

I'm not explaining his support by mentioning those prejudices, I am saying that a big factor in his ability to win the election depends on the outcome of white voters sub-consciously or consciously selecting one of those two prejudices more frequently than the other.

I usually try to refrain from ad hominem attacks on this board but you, sir, are a fairly disgusting example of humanity.

You make me yearn for myrrh's posts.

[Strangelet]

I'm not explaining his support by mentioning those prejudices, I am saying that a big factor in his ability to win the election depends on the outcome of white voters sub-consciously or consciously selecting one of those two prejudices more frequently than the other.

I don't really identify myself with anything Geraldine Ferraro says...

So just to recap.

You think the overpowering cultural/social dynamic in this election is whites choosing between their guilt or their prejudice.

I suggest that racism/reverse racism is an inversely proportionate value to age and education (doesn't seem that controversial, honestly) and that the older and less educated the voters were the more likely they voted for clinton (or for obama for less substantive issues like its time we put a women/black man in office). In other words, those where white guilt would be a motivation weren't voting for him anyway. THe people voting for obama are already liberal, wanting a liberal president after a conservative strangle hold, and would vote against mccain if it meant voting for mc hammer.

But then you say the only reason young/educated people are voting for obama is because they like shiny new shit, regardless of the objective value.

Moreover, you're willing to throw out all the other ramifications like 4 dollar gas or 2 dragging wars to prop up your pet theory of whites running around consumed in competing forces of guilt and racism.

But then you don't want to be likened to Geraldine Ferraro even when she's said that the only reason Obama is beating Clinton is because the undercurrent sentiments of racial reparations trump sentiments of feminism.

This is entertainment, Sean is missing out.

Listen heffe, one of these days you're going to be at a cocktail party and you're going to be on your game but something is different this time. Instead of everyone revering your opinions, every one is staring at you in awkward silence. What follows will be an epiphany. You'll have discovered you've descended into the intellectual equivalent of an informercial personality because instead of questioning the universe and your grasp of it you've spent your life compensating for all the glaring self contradictions and inconsistency with a delivery of dripping arrogance and dismissive condescension.

just like your recent posts.

[IsiliRunite]

If a white democrat can't beat George W. Bush, the worst president in history, why will a black candidate be able to beat one of the best maverick Senators and American war heroes, who is also white, of the last 25 years? The general election is a gongshow smear contest...its not about principles. If you are a democrat this should concern you!

Why are you assuming, and making, all of these sweeping generalisations? I am not saying the ONLY reason people like this person is or the ONLY asset they have to winning is...

Have you read the dictionary lately? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/black
How many of those words are positive?

You give people too much credit if you think they are going to use reason. On average more liberals have white guilt than negative prejudice and I would say on average there is more negative prejudice on the conservative side. Why is it so hard for your brain to grasp that if there is a sway toward one prejudice during the general election on behalf of the undecideds (where everyone wins/loses an election, mr. cocktail party intellectual), the outcome will move respectively?

This is not party nomination bull-shit where everyone likes each candidate but has PREFERENCES (these preferences are what Geraldine was talking about). This is where 35-40% of people are Democrats and support democrats regardless, and 35-40% of people do the same for Republicans. The 20-30% in the middle, the people that have to make a decision, will sway the election if one prejudice in their mind is more prevalent than the other. I feel that is totally reasonable, and totally fair. If you can't understand that and at least acknowledge it, there might be something severely wrong with your or my communication abilities.

Your problem might be that you believe you have this great store of semantic knowledge that can win debates whenever you like, but you don't know that you actually know nothing. You don't KNOW anything. Every great philosopher acknowledged that, so stop building your arguments with what you believe is experience and wit and start using a little reason.

[Deckard]

If a white democrat can't beat George W. Bush, the worst president in history, why will a black candidate be able to beat one of the best maverick Senators and American war heroes, who is also white, of the last 25 years?
Why? Because Obama isn't Kerry in all sorts of ways besides race. And your country has endured 4 MORE years of Bush.

There are many factors that make a vote for Obama so much more compelling this year than a vote for Kerry in 2004 - factors that have NOTHING to do with race. Factors concerning Obama himself, what he stands for, his approach, his youth, his promise of change (those things can be "gut feelings" too you know), circumstancial factors like a worsening economy, an increasingly unpopular war, a rising death toll, an accumulating dislike of Republicans and where America now finds itself in 2008.

This should be the Democrats' year, even irrespective of Obama being the candidate. It's 4 years on from Bush/Kerry, times have changed, largely gotten worse. And Obama is a considerably more convincing, inspiring and optimistic candidate than Kerry ever was.

The problem with your comparison above is that it just seems so totally weighted to downplaying these other factors, while overstating the worst in people. As someone who often bemoans the ignorance and bigotry of people, even I have no problem in saying that bigotry probably won't be anything like as much an issue as you claim it will.

[IsiliRunite]

I was making a general statement of those prejudices potential impact on undecided's. I'm going to vote for Obama, but on plenty of other grounds than just prejudice. I believe plenty of others will vote for Obama for non-prejudicial reasons, as well.

I still stand by my hypothesis, though, because it is not an unfair generalisation and I reached it with reasonable methods that have not been proven wrong.

Hypothesis:
This is where 35-40% of people are Democrats and support democrats regardless, and 35-40% of people do the same for Republicans. The 20-30% in the middle, the people that have to make a decision, will sway the election IF one prejudice in their mind is more prevalent than the other.

I feel I have made myself relatively clear and don't want to read about endoctrinated devil's advocate bull-shit. Do not feel as though my statements are open to interpretation; I say exactly what I mean.

[Strangelet]

Hypothesis:
This is where 35-40% of people are Democrats and support democrats regardless, and 35-40% of people do the same for Republicans. The 20-30% in the middle, the people that have to make a decision, will sway the election IF one prejudice in their mind is more prevalent than the other.


Recent gallup poll. 4-5% unsure. Sorry if this is indoctrinated, devil advocacy. but it looks like your hypothesis suffers from unfounded assumptions.

where's your twenty percent conflicted crackers? (no fair lumping independents with undecideds, as it appears the independents have made up their mind one way or the other, unless we want to say they've already gone through their guilt versus prejudice thought process?)

[Deckard]

I was making a general statement of those prejudices potential impact on undecided's.
Yes I know you were.

I still stand by my hypothesis, though, because it is not an unfair generalisation and I reached it with reasonable methods that have not been proven wrong.

Hypothesis:
This is where 35-40% of people are Democrats and support democrats regardless, and 35-40% of people do the same for Republicans. The 20-30% in the middle, the people that have to make a decision, will sway the election IF one prejudice in their mind is more prevalent than the other.
And what are these "reasonable methods that have not been proven wrong"? What makes you so sure that white guilt or negative prejudice will play anything like the significant role that you suggest for this 20-30%? At least enough for you to come out with a statement like:

It's really a battle of white guilt (supportive prejudice) vs. bigotry (negative prejudice).I don't believe it will come down to issues or principles, just which wins out in the "gut feelings" of the majority (white) voters

Tell me, IsiliRunite, how are you so sure?

[Strangelet]

And what are these "reasonable methods that have not been proven wrong"? What makes you so sure that white guilt or negative prejudice will play anything like the significant role that you suggest for this 20-30%? At least enough for you to come out with a statement like:

awesome questions. Notice he's watered things down for his hypothesis to say nothing more than if people are swayed by irrational prejudices they will act in a prejudiced fashion and affect the outcome of the election. Which is fucking tautological. and doesn't quite get to the place where you can say something as smug as


You give people too much credit if you think they are going to use reason.


and


I am saying that a big factor in his ability to win the election depends on the outcome of white voters sub-consciously or consciously selecting one of those two prejudices more frequently than the other.

[Sean]

This is entertainment, Sean is missing out. I've been keeping up with the discussion through you all quoting IsiliRunite. :D

It may be worth responding to IsiliRunite if he/she starts supporting his/her assertions with factual evidence rather than personal hypothesis, and more importantly, if he/she drops the habit of hurling personal insults at other board members like the one that was fired off at Sarcasmo in the smoking thread. Until then, it seems like a waste of effort.

[Strangelet]

If a white democrat can't beat George W. Bush, the worst president in history, why will a black candidate be able to beat one of the best maverick Senators and American war heroes, who is also white, of the last 25 years? The general election is a gongshow smear contest...its not about principles. If you are a democrat this should concern you!


I don't know. I guess because its statistically proven to be more difficult to vote out an incumbent president when there is a popular war just starting up. Just like its statistically proven to be more difficult to preserve your party's power over the presidency during an economic down-turn.

These are verifiable, provable trends, so that distinguishes them from your whitey-with-a-guilt-complex model.

[gambit]

Obama has one thing that Kerry never had: charisma. And youth. And likability. Okay, so that's three things.

[cacophony]

I still stand by my hypothesis, though, because it is not an unfair generalisation and I reached it with reasonable methods that have not been proven wrong.

haha holy christ i'm glad i waited to put you on ignore. this was totally worth wading through the rest of your bullshit.

and now, join myrrh as the only other person i've chosen to put on my ignore list.

[IsiliRunite]

Because of the previous success of smear campaigns about irrelevant topics, like John Kerry's swift-boat saga, I think the proof is in the pudding that real issues aren't as important to "swing" voters as issues of personal character and personna.

More than 4-5% of Americans don't hold built-in allegiance ("I am a Republican" or "I am a Democrat") to either candidate, and that is the type of voter I'm speaking about. If all the non-Democrats and non-Republicans who have not made up their mind come election day step into the polling booth and vote in accordance with one prejudice over the other more frequently, it may have an effect on the election. Is that really hard to believe?

Aside from this bull-shit:

I don't need data to create a hypothesis. A hypothesis is pre-experiment, and I don't even have to be 'sure' about it. The experiment is the general election, and if you think my hypothesis is wrong...

The only assumption my hypothesis is making is that white guilt and negative prejudice exist. I think that's fair, reasonable. Even aside from that hypothesis, I believe Obama will take the election given a winner-take-all electoral college because he does not need votes in historically anti-African American states (slave and segregation states), which is the only place he has guaranteed trouble.

I am not claiming profundity, or universal truth, by mentioning my hypothesis. I was just bringing up a potential facet of the election I have not heard much about, seeing if anyone had anything to add. I guess when a person believes all of their words are groundbreaking or profound, they try to prove that everyone elses' words are not profound even if they did not submit their work to the board of review. Hence...the dirty debate team felt they could make a 'you-wrong-me-right' discussion out of nothing! Meddling kids...

Lighten up, people. Even if you are all competing with me, the debate should have been discussion in the first place, and we should all be on the same team...

So, dirty collectively believes Obama has too much going for him and too much going against McCain for prejudices to really matter. Alright, I will take your collective perspectives into account and reflect on them.

[Deckard]

...So, dirty collectively believes Obama has too much going for him and too much going against McCain for prejudices to really matter.
No-one's suggesting prejudices won't be a factor in this election. Simply that we don't see any evidence that bigotry or white guilt will matter anything like as significantly as you suggested in your earlier unequivocal statements.

Subsequently typing the word hypothesis 647 times does nothing to explain that, my friend. Hypotheses can indeed come from limited evidence, but still require some evidence (otherwise you might as well be pulling them out your ass).

Offering up the swiftboat saga as an example only points to the power of smear campaigns, of appearing unpatriotic or dishonest. It tells us nothing about the prevalence of white guilt or bigotry.

So I'm still waiting...

[Sean]

Feeling especially patient today, so I temporarily suspended my one person ignore list. ;) Because of the previous success of smear campaigns about irrelevant topics, like John Kerry's swift-boat saga, I think the proof is in the pudding that real issues aren't as important to "swing" voters as issues of personal character and personna.

More than 4-5% of Americans don't hold built-in allegiance ("I am a Republican" or "I am a Democrat") to either candidate, and that is the type of voter I'm speaking about. Well now you're changing your story. You say 4-5% now, but earlier you said "20-30% in the middle, the people that have to make a decision, will sway the election IF one prejudice in their mind is more prevalent than the other."

And it appears that you're claiming the election will swing one way or another based primarily on which prejudice wins out, bigotry or white guilt. To quote nearly your entire first post, "It's really a battle of white guilt (supportive prejudice) vs. bigotry (negative prejudice). I don't believe it will come down to issues or principles, just which wins out in the "gut feelings" of the majority (white) voters".

I'm in the middle. A white, middle class, 35 year old registered independent with a high school education. I like Obama for the reasons that I believe the bulk of his supporters do. He's campaigning on the platform that we need to shift the direction the country is taking. He's respectful of opposing viewpoints. He's good at finding common ground. He wants to involve the American people in the political process more than we have been for nearly a decade. He's more willing to put what's right ahead of what's politically expedient. And he actually inspires people to get involved and to care about politics, an often overlooked plus for a President. Prejudices will of course be a factor, but I don't think there's evidence that they'll ultimately be the deciding factor, as you initially asserted.

I am not claiming profundity, or universal truth, by mentioning my hypothesis. I was just bringing up a potential facet of the election I have not heard much about, seeing if anyone had anything to add. Well now you're tempering your statements to a more reasonable level. But that doesn't change why people first jumped on your comments. Once again, I'll quote your first reply: "It's really a battle of white guilt (supportive prejudice) vs. bigotry (negative prejudice). I don't believe it will come down to issues or principles, just which wins out in the "gut feelings" of the majority (white) voters".

So for you to now say that:

I guess when a person believes all of their words are groundbreaking or profound, they try to prove that everyone elses' words are not profound even if they did not submit their work to the board of review. Hence...the dirty debate team felt they could make a 'you-wrong-me-right' discussion out of nothing! Meddling kids... ...is a tad disingenuous.

Lighten up, people. Even if you are all competing with me, the debate should have been discussion in the first place, and we should all be on the same team...No one's competing with you. We were all just apparently taken off guard by the extreme nature of your initial post, and responded accordingly. Even you seem to have realized your comments were a bit beyond reality, because your subsequent posts have taken a very different stance, as I mentioned at the top of this reply.

So, dirty collectively believes Obama has too much going for him and too much going against McCain for prejudices to really matter. Alright, I will take your collective perspectives into account and reflect on them. I actually do feel that they "really matter", but I don't think they'll play a deciding role in the election. I think they really matter more in a sense that prejudices existing on the level they do are a social problem we need to continue working towards solving.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I'm going over visit some music threads.

[Strangelet]

Lighten up, people. Even if you are all competing with me, the debate should have been discussion in the first place, and we should all be on the same team...

So, dirty collectively believes Obama has too much going for him and too much going against McCain for prejudices to really matter. Alright, I will take your collective perspectives into account and reflect on them.

You're right, we should be discussing this without heated competition and it really does appear that we are in agreement about the most fundamental issues.

But don't feel compelled to reflect on our perspectives any further than we've given you cause. In return, you should expect the same. I personally can't take seriously any hypothesis or assertion or edict or whatever that is ramrodded down as beyond suspicion through your impeccable derivation methods.

You want us to consider the possibility that there will be a dynamic of prejudice affecting the general election then you should back it up with reasons and expect the possibility that we may wish to disagree with your reasons.

I personally don't care whether or not you agree with me. I don't agree with myself half the time. I just need you to respond to my questions in a way that is demonstrative, pedagogical even, not blandly offensive and derisive.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

pedagogical even,

Oh God, no, please, don't keep this one going.

[Strangelet]

no lets keep going. and add this to the mix.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENC1E5XEnUA

is Obama a muslim? questions a paid advert of the "national campaign fund" whatever that is...

So i'm willing to concede this doesn't bode well for a reasonable dialog this campaign.

I'm also willing to concede that people could possibily vote for obama out of a reaction to such smears.

not sure where that puts things, but fwiw.

edit: this is more information about the "national campaign fund"

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15835.html (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15835.html)

[IsiliRunite]

20% non-Democrat or Republican is not the same as 4-5% who still have to make up their mind, or are actually considering two candidates. I used those different terms differently, so its not really changing a story ;)

White guilt is not just sympathy for racism, like sympathy for a smear you mentioned above. white guilt is a feeling of general wrongdoing by caucasian americans for the mistreatment of african americans in the past.

the way racism will affect obama is different form the way white guilt might affect the election. Some point to racism as a bi-product of our natural generalization abilities, and our reverse rational in justifying them (if we are enslaving them we must be superior). I don't really want to get into explaining how some people believe actions and characteristics of individuals represent an entire "classification" or individuals, but white guilt is slightly more academic. While I'm sure there was some feeling of resentment and remorse in the caucasian american community (for actions committed by their ancestors against african americans) before the civil rights movement, there was serious consideration of reparation programmes once the point had been reached where the average sentiment was that african americans were on a level playing field but coincidentally weren't 'scoring goals' on that playing field. Instead of pointing to innate racism within our hiring practices and such actions from day to day, certain people in certain high places felt there was something still wrong with the legal/formal structure of our society that needed to be fixed. One of these reparation movements was the move toward affirmative action, which was still active at my alma mater until just recently. My home school is considered a "liberal" public university, and because affirmative action was enacted at other universities, places where new (one defintion of 'liberal') ideas arise, I will consider affirmative action a liberal policy. Coincidentally, I consider liberalism more in line with white guilt because liberals were more of a factor in pressing for civil rights for all americans in the 1960s, and, as I mentioned a few moments ago, certain individuals who drove the civil rights movement to fruition felt equality of status were necessary in addition to equality of opportunity.

I am not sure why racism is perceived more common among republican voters, or the "religious conservatives", but this group has not historically supported "white guilt" policies in law/policy making. Present-day "red states" have had past-day racist policies on the books and racist practices in their culture moreso than "blue states", so perhaps I do not need to discuss this point.

Couple the 4 or 5 percent who still might change their mind between now and the election, and the opinion that people do not hold a laundry list of rational explanations for the reason they support a candidate but rather anchor their reasoning onto certain character issues... I fear that judgement-tampering through deceptive or misleading ad campaigns could sway the outcome of an otherwise close election depending on the success of the non-principle non-issue campaign ads of the respective sides.

in my opinion...if one campaign has better ad writers supporting but not necessarily associated with, who write more sticky and contagious ads, that candidate will be successful in the end. the subject of those ad campaigns will boil down to race, I believe, because it is the most glaring and exploitable difference between the two candidates (exploitable via the two similar but different prejudices I've mentioned) and the election will be too close to avoid using these type of ad/rehtoric campaigns. fwiw

all of that comes from articles I can't publish here from my school library, cnn, and a few textbooks.

edit: with respect to the gallup poll... not that you or anyone else reading this thread is assuming the poll is "accurate", but to make the conclusion that the poll is "accurate" relies that people are aware of the prejudices that do and do not exist in their mind, aware of when to utilize them, and have the opportunity to turn them on/off when desired.

[Strangelet]

not to ignore the points you just made, but this just came out, coincidentally enough. I guess others are thinking about the same questions..


http://www.gallup.com/poll/107770/Most-Say-Race-Will-Factor-Their-Presidential-Vote.aspx (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107770/Most-Say-Race-Will-Factor-Their-Presidential-Vote.aspx)


So on the one hand, black voters say Obama's race makes no difference to them, and on the other hand, about 9 out of 10 blacks say they will vote for Obama. But the high percentage of the black vote going to Obama is not unusual. Gallup polling estimated that John Kerry received 93% of the black vote in 2004, and Al Gore received 95% in 2000. So it may be that black voters are making the (correct) self-observation that they would be voting for the Democratic candidate regardless of his or her race, meaning that Obama's particular race is not a deciding factor for them.

Whites are even less likely than blacks to say Obama's race would be a factor in their vote. Eighty-eight percent of non-Hispanic whites say his race makes no difference. Six percent of whites say they are less likely to vote for Obama because of his race; 5% say they are more likely to vote for him. There has been discussion this year of a "hidden" race factor in which certain groups of white voters will end up not voting for Obama because he is a black candidate. What these data show is that more than 9 in 10 whites, when asked about Obama's race directly, deny that it will be a negative factor in their vote
that seems like a pretty cut and dry score for non white guilt factor party. (or a white guilt landslide, which seems to be even more unlikely than a luke warm center)

scroll down even further and they ask blacks and whites both if obama's race will reward/penalize his vote count. Both races replied the same. 21 percent thing it will benefit him. 26-68 percent said it will penalize him.

So basically 90 % of voters say race does not affect them personally but a around a quarter of the voters think it will affect the choices of everyone else.

[gambit]

McCain was on the Today show and caused a bit of a firestorm (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11005.html). The bold is mine and is what caused the ruckus.

The exchange that has Democrats licking their chops began when co-host Matt Lauer asked about the surge strategy in Iraq: “If it's working Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?”

McCain replied: “No, but that's not too important. What’s important is the casualties in Iraq, Americans are in South Korea, Americans are in Japan, American troops are in Germany. That’s all fine. American casualties and the ability to withdraw; we will be able to withdraw. General [David] Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we are.

“But the key to it is that we don't want any more Americans in harm's way. That way, they will be safe, and serve our country and come home with honor and victory, not in defeat, which is what Senator Obama's proposal would have done. I’m proud of them. And they're doing a great job. And we are succeeding and it's fascinating that Senator Obama still doesn't realize that.”

I'm really curious to hear what Sarcasmo has to say about this. Thoughts? I think this is going to hurt McCain the same way "bittergate" hurt Obama. That being said, yes, making sure our soldiers don't get killed is the most important thing, but what's a life if it's completely scarred by war? And if the war has no end in sight and growing increasingly meaningless?

[Troy McClure]

It should be criticized and heavily debated. Smarter people than me might be able to spin that McCain truly believes everything is going fine and dandy as long as no US soldiers are killed, and doesn't care so much about non-fatal injuries like mental trauma or loss of limbs.

--Jason

[Sean]

20% non-Democrat or Republican is not the same as 4-5% who still have to make up their mind, or are actually considering two candidates. I used those different terms differently, so its not really changing a story ;)Maybe you should be more clear when you post then, because these two statements by you:

"4-5% of Americans don't hold built-in allegiance ("I am a Republican" or "I am a Democrat") to either candidate, and that is the type of voter I'm speaking about"

...and...

"20-30% in the middle, the people that have to make a decision, will sway the election IF one prejudice in their mind is more prevalent than the other"

...do not support your assertion above. In both cases, you cited the vastly different percentages as being representative of the groups you were referring to in your claims about "white guilt" and "racism" based swing votes.

I have to say - I've given you opportunity after opportunity to engage in meaningful debate but you simply seem to refuse. You keep dodging any real points, and trying to shift focus away from earlier, unequivocal statements that you made. Frankly, it's frustrating and counter-productive when every time you contradict yourself, you choose to claim that we're having problems understanding you rather than acknowledging that you haven't presented your ideas in a clear enough way for them to be understood in the first place.

White guilt is not just sympathy for racism, like sympathy for a smear you mentioned above. white guilt is a feeling of general wrongdoing by caucasian americans for the mistreatment of african americans in the past.

the way racism will affect obama is different form the way white guilt might affect the election. Some point to racism as a bi-product of our natural generalization abilities, and our reverse rational in justifying them (if we are enslaving them we must be superior). I don't really want to get into explaining how some people believe actions and characteristics of individuals represent an entire "classification" or individuals, but white guilt is slightly more academic. While I'm sure there was some feeling of resentment and remorse in the caucasian american community (for actions committed by their ancestors against african americans) before the civil rights movement, there was serious consideration of reparation programmes once the point had been reached where the average sentiment was that african americans were on a level playing field but coincidentally weren't 'scoring goals' on that playing field. Instead of pointing to innate racism within our hiring practices and such actions from day to day, certain people in certain high places felt there was something still wrong with the legal/formal structure of our society that needed to be fixed. One of these reparation movements was the move toward affirmative action, which was still active at my alma mater until just recently. My home school is considered a "liberal" public university, and because affirmative action was enacted at other universities, places where new (one defintion of 'liberal') ideas arise, I will consider affirmative action a liberal policy. Coincidentally, I consider liberalism more in line with white guilt because liberals were more of a factor in pressing for civil rights for all americans in the 1960s, and, as I mentioned a few moments ago, certain individuals who drove the civil rights movement to fruition felt equality of status were necessary in addition to equality of opportunity.

I am not sure why racism is perceived more common among republican voters, or the "religious conservatives", but this group has not historically supported "white guilt" policies in law/policy making. Present-day "red states" have had past-day racist policies on the books and racist practices in their culture moreso than "blue states", so perhaps I do not need to discuss this point.So, what's your point? You've now explained your opinions on the histories of "white guilt" and "racism" as you see them, but what's that got to do with the reality of what's likely to influence this election?

Couple the 4 or 5 percent who still might change their mind between now and the election, and the opinion that people do not hold a laundry list of rational explanations for the reason they support a candidate but rather anchor their reasoning onto certain character issues... I fear that judgement-tampering through deceptive or misleading ad campaigns could sway the outcome of an otherwise close election depending on the success of the non-principle non-issue campaign ads of the respective sides.I agree that "judgement-tampering through deceptive or misleading ad campaigns" will play a significant role in this election as it has in every election, but I don't agree that the primary issues will be "white guilt" and "racism"....or at least not in the way you seem to be saying. And nothing that you've written in this post supports your continuing assertion that they will be - all you've done is make the same unsupported claims in a more elaborate way.

The deceptive ad campaigns are already in full swing, and they're focused on false accusations about Obama being unpatriotic, or that he'll be a friend to terrorists, or that he's an elitist, or that he's a closet Muslim.

Will racism play a role? Of course. We already saw it in places like Kentucky and West Virginia, where around 21% of voters in those (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226014) states (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225982) actually admitted in exit poles that race was a factor in their vote. And if 21% admitted it to a stranger taking a poll, then I'm sure quite a few more factored it in but didn't admit it. But places like West Virginia and Kentucky have gone Republican for the past decade of presidential elections, and they aren't considered likely swing states that'll make or break the election this year (http://www.270towin.com/). Likely swing states like Ohio and Pennsylvania have been more affected by smears along the lines of Obama being out of touch with the working man, thanks largely to Hillary pushing disinformation about NAFTA and such....not smears about race.

in my opinion...if one campaign has better ad writers supporting but not necessarily associated with, who write more sticky and contagious ads, that candidate will be successful in the end. the subject of those ad campaigns will boil down to race, I believe, because it is the most glaring and exploitable difference between the two candidates (exploitable via the two similar but different prejudices I've mentioned) and the election will be too close to avoid using these type of ad/rehtoric campaigns. fwiwFair enough. I can stomach a lot more unsupported theories if they're presented as personal opinion rather than stated as objective fact.

all of that comes from articles I can't publish here from my school library, cnn, and a few textbooks.

edit: with respect to the gallup poll... not that you or anyone else reading this thread is assuming the poll is "accurate", but to make the conclusion that the poll is "accurate" relies that people are aware of the prejudices that do and do not exist in their mind, aware of when to utilize them, and have the opportunity to turn them on/off when desired. C'mon now.....you support your assertions with various articles that you claim you "can't publish here", but then say that we can't rely on a linked gallup poll that runs counter to your claims? That's awfully convenient, wouldn't you say?

[Deckard]

You keep dodging any real points, and trying to shift focus away from earlier, unequivocal statements that you made.

...what's your point? You've now explained your opinions on the histories of "white guilt" and "racism" as you see them, but what's that got to do with the reality of what's likely to influence this election?

...all you've done is make the same unsupported claims in a more elaborate way.
I'm glad it wasn't just me thinking that. :)

[Strangelet]

in my opinion...if one campaign has better ad writers supporting but not necessarily associated with, who write more sticky and contagious ads, that candidate will be successful in the end. the subject of those ad campaigns will boil down to race, I believe, because it is the most glaring and exploitable difference between the two candidates (exploitable via the two similar but different prejudices I've mentioned) and the election will be too close to avoid using these type of ad/rehtoric campaigns. fwiw


just to add with what Sean said, I happen to believe the "most glaring and exploitable difference" between the two candidates would be age/generation. There's more that separates the two candidates' world view by generation than by race.

You see that with the media's glee towards McCain's computer illiteracy, singing beach boys songs, and comparing his ornery stuffy speaking skills with Obama's rock star performances. We're talking Mick Jaggar, not Rick James.

I guess you could counter argue that ageism does not carry the same taboo and that the media is allowed to make jokes about his wanting the whipper snappers off of his lawn, and not suggest Obama enjoys fried chicken and watermellon. So then I really can't disprove how much of racism is at play underneath the rhetoric.

But then the problem has become a burden of proof for you because it can't be proven any more than disproven, all hidden and unconscious as it all is.

So we might as well be talking about the thetan spirits and their affect on our voting behavior.

The only concrete manifestation of white guilt we've been able to reference is Affirmative Action, which is admittedly a liberal principle. But the confusion between what the liberals have wanted to do for ghetto black kids and who they want to elect as their leader, is what confused Gerraldine Ferraro, another old fuddy duddy, to cry "affirmative action" with respect to Obama's cometting success.

I know we aren't accepting any similarities between her thinking and yours, but for the lack of other evidence to support the white guilt hypothesis I'm afraid I have not choice. You're a ferarro lover. :D

[IsiliRunite]

I agree that "judgement-tampering through deceptive or misleading ad campaigns" will play a significant role in this election as it has in every election, but I don't agree that the primary issues will be "white guilt" and "racism"....or at least not in the way you seem to be saying. I think some of the issues such as terrorism and patriotism base on what is different between John McCain. Maybe... John McCain is harder to paint as a terrorist because he is white and we all know white people can't be terrorists! Similary, Obama is African American and several African nations have significant muslim populations. And, of course, all muslims are terrorists! I think it is a matter of associating what is atypical about Obama with fear. Misunderstanding and fear go hand and hand, and that is the type of deception I see from that camp....

How can Obama utilize white guilt? His "Change" campaign could, possibly, maybe (sub-consciously & deceptively) signify changing the white-dominated political landscape once and for all in America and this could grab hold in the minds of "guilty" persons.

just to add with what Sean said, I happen to believe the "most glaring and exploitable difference" between the two candidates would be age/generation. There's more that separates the two candidates' world view by generation than by race.

Fair enough. I can stomach a lot more unsupported theories if they're presented as personal opinion rather than stated as objective fact.

C'mon now.....you support your assertions with various articles that you claim you "can't publish here", but then say that we can't rely on a linked gallup poll that runs counter to your claims? That's awfully convenient, wouldn't you say?

But the difference in race is new territory for the political theorist, the american voter, and the aid campaigner... so its a little more interesting to me. successful race-based campaigns, slogans, and policy points could be more successful because we have no developed immunity to them over past election seasons:p Perhaps we will never be immune to exploiting our fear of what is different, with respect to negative prejudice campaigns... :(

Perhaps this is why I threw out a relatively unprovable hypothesis, just to see what others feel about the possibility. Given the nature of the poll, as I stated, the otherwise best possible evidence to disprove me, effectively, cannot. Neither you or I can say that racist or white guilt exploiting campaigns will affect the election, or which will be more successful. Extremely detailed polling after the election in addition to the results is the only way to see...

That's the point...its not a fact, or a piece of knowledge. Just a model for what might or might not happen, and you have expressed that you believe it won't happen. It's a model that might or might not apply, and if it did apply there are three possible outcomes of the model so it is slightly useless in present-day. It ain't profound, or necessarily important, but it I think it is relevant at least. I just wanted you all to entertain the idea and see if there was anything that made the model impossible to explain the election such as...

"Obama's campaign can't utilize white guilt in ads" ==> Then Obama may just be negatively affected by racism, which means there is no battle between two conflicting prejudices but rather one prejudice that must be endured.

1. Model does not apply.
2. Model applies (loosely or seriously race-based campaigns can have an impact): a. Racist campaigns win more vote to the Republican side than white guilt wins votes for Democrats b. Negate each other c. opposite of (a.)

The only concrete manifestation of white guilt we've been able to reference is Affirmative Action, which is admittedly a liberal principle. But the confusion between what the liberals have wanted to do for ghetto black kids and who they want to elect as their leader, is what confused Gerraldine Ferraro, another old fuddy duddy, to cry "affirmative action" with respect to Obama's cometting success.
I have not deliberately thought of the obvious parallels between supporting Obama because of his race alone and affirmative action before, but I suppose appealing to white guilt by toning into voter's affirmative action-like sympathies is the most efficient way for Obama to take advantage of white guilt. If that makes sense...I think it may self-evident to you all. Maybe I'm just tripping

I know we aren't accepting any similarities between her thinking and yours, but for the lack of other evidence to support the white guilt hypothesis I'm afraid I have not choice. You're a ferarro lover. :D I hate joooo.

Can we talk about something else now? We have concluded our thoughts quite nicely about my little model. I feel as though I understand you all and you understand me.

[Strangelet]

I hate joooo.

Can we talk about something else now?

LOL

[IsiliRunite]

I actually don't like her :p

[Sean]

Can we talk about something else now? Okay. How about this?

http://wcbstv.com/local/obama.mccain.condoms.2.746688.html

NYC Company Markets Obama & McCain-Themed Condoms

Entrepreneur 'Having Fun' With '08 Presidential Campaign

NEW YORK (AP) ― The presidential race is in full swing -- but not the way you might think.

A young New York City entrepreneur has decided to "have fun" with the campaign by marketing condoms featuring images of Barack Obama and John McCain.

Benjamin Sherman, who created the company Practice Safe Policy, says the Obama condom carries the slogan "Use With Good Judgment."

The McCain version says "OLD BUT Not Expired."

According to the Web site, McCain condoms "are battle tested, strong and durable, for those occasions when you just need to switch your position!"

While the company can't guarantee the condoms are 100 percent effective, it says it's certain "that without wearing one, there's likely to be an Obama-Mama in your future."

[gambit]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25145431/

Jesus, this hit me like a ton of bricks. Definitely one of the best journalists in the business.

[Troy McClure]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25145431/

Jesus, this hit me like a ton of bricks. Definitely one of the best journalists in the business.

To me, he was the best of this news era. I remember watching him in college during the 2000 elections and his now famous white board and dry erase marker, and him writing 'Florida, Florida, Florida'.


Jason

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

We've definately lost someone great.

[Sean]

Interesting BBC report on general election swing states (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7449629.stm). It outlines all of the places that'll likely be up for grabs in November and why, simply and clearly.

EDIT - And Al Gore is announcing his support of Obama today. Got this in my email:

A few hours from now I will step on stage in Detroit, Michigan to announce my support for Senator Barack Obama. From now through Election Day, I intend to do whatever I can to make sure he is elected President of the United States.

Over the next four years, we are going to face many difficult challenges -- including bringing our troops home from Iraq, fixing our economy, and solving the climate crisis. Barack Obama is clearly the candidate best able to solve these problems and bring change to America.

This moment and this election are too important to let pass without taking action.

That's why I am asking you to join me in showing your support by making a contribution to this campaign today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/gore

Over the past 18 months, Barack Obama has united a movement. He knows change does not come from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue or Capitol Hill. It begins when people stand up and take action.

With the help of millions of supporters like you, Barack Obama will bring the change we so desperately need in order to solve our country's most pressing problems.

If you've already contributed to this campaign, I ask that you consider making another contribution right now.
If you haven't, please take the next step and own a piece of this campaign today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/gore

On the issues that matter most, Barack Obama is clearly the right choice to lead our nation.

We have a lot of work to do in the next few months to elect Barack Obama president, and it begins by making a contribution to this campaign today.

Thank you for joining me,

Al Gore

LIVE TONIGHT -- 8:30 p.m.

[Deckard]

Emails from Al Gore... Sean what's happening to you?!!

Expect you've read this, but here's another one...

Obama defends Clinton at Michigan rally (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/17/obama-defends-clinton-at-michigan-rally/)

(Booing is not just the preserve of Clinton-supporting neanderthals after all. ;) )

"I want everybody here to be absolutely clear — I want everybody here to be absolutely clear — Senator Clinton is one of the finest public servants we have in American life today," said Obama, noting her work on behalf of children's rights and universal health care.

"She has been on the right side of just about every battle that we have fought — she has, in her own words, shattered a glass ceiling into 18 million pieces. ….She is worthy of our respect, she is worthy of our honor.

"…And she's tough! That's why this race took so long. She's a fighter and we need fighters in the Democratic Party. Because we've got a lot to fight for. There's a lot worth fighting for."

Well said Mr O.

[cured]

Sean, a buddy of mine who works for the DNC had a similar take to the key states in the Presidential election:

Actually I can tell you where we are going to play, it will be in 10 states:

Nevada
Colorado
New Mexico
Minnesota
Iowa
Michigan
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Virginia
New Hampshire

Two more which lean Republican but we have a fighting chance in thus they are on the fringe:

Florida
North Carolina

Obama only needs anywhere from 1-3 of these states in order to win the election.

[cured]

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html

In his 1992 Senate bid, McCain was joined on the campaign trail by his wife, Cindy, as well as campaign aide Doug Cole and consultant Wes Gullett. At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day.

[Deckard]

"McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day."

What for, the outburst or the hair loss?

[Sean]

Emails from Al Gore... Sean what's happening to you?!!Ha ha! :D No, it was an email through the Obama campaign because I've contributed to it in the past. I still think Gore's an alarmist, but he can certainly help bring votes to Obama, who I view as more of a realist. Ends justifying the means in this case. ;)

[cured]

He probably meant it regarding his wife, who somehow thought it was okay to fool around with his 'do ;)

[cacophony]

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2008/McCain_temper_boiled_over_in_92_0407.html

there is absolutely no way i accept this anecdote as truth.

[IsiliRunite]

Al Bore sent me an e-mail too. It was boring.

[Sean]

there is absolutely no way i accept this anecdote as truth.I have some trouble with accepting this too. I did a quick search for the quote, and every site that was carrying a story about it seemed less than respectable. They were all like blogs and such.

[cacophony]

i'm not saying i refuse to believe he has a temper. or that he's never cussed it up a notch in front of his wife and reporters. or that he never snapped at someone in a way that wasn't terribly flattering. hell, most politicians at that level have a mean temper. both clinton and bush are said to be fairly temperamental men.

it's just.... do we really think that story doesn't sound like something that will end up debunked on snopes in 3 days? it reeks of campaign shenanigans. reeks, i say.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

He was referring to Nixon.

Or maybe it was me?

[Sean]

And it seems that exaggerated stories are kind of unnecessary with McCain anyway. He's providing Obama's campaign with all they need every time McCain takes a stance on an issue.

He's suddenly flipped his stance on offshore drilling for oil (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/mccains-offshore-drilling_n_107872.html), and I was in agreement with him on his old stance regarding it.

He's blasted the Supreme Court ruling (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/14/mccain_blasts_ruling_on_guantanamo/) that detainees being held in Guantanamo ("Gitmo" for Janie ;)) should be allowed to "have the constitutional right to challenge their detention in civilian courts", which to me is a sensible ruling.

And he's still out there pushing that ridiculous "gas tax holiday" (http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080618/BLOGS09/80618036) plan that virtually every economist has derided as a counter-productive, fundamentally flawed idea.

And yet those idiots who now call themselves PUMA...former Hillary Clinton supporters who want Obama to lose the election...still don't seem to recognize why their current stance is idiotic, or even that it's idiotic in the first place.

[Strangelet]

And yet those idiots who now call themselves PUMA...former Hillary Clinton supporters who want Obama to lose the election...still don't seem to recognize why their current stance is idiotic, or even that it's idiotic in the first place.

I don't think I've ever found myself despising any political collective more than these people. Sheer disbelief brings me to this chick's (http://www.taylormarsh.com) blog occasionally. where I enjoy such amazing quotes as this from some boomer.


Many Clinton supporters, men and women, of all races and ages, insist that they will never, ever, ever vote for Obama due to his disrespectful, misogynistic, race-baiting treatment of Hillary and Bill — and by extension all of us — his lightweight resume, questionable associates and tactics, his wavering, shallow policies, reported caucus state irregularities by surrogates, his stand against full Florida and Michigan voting rights, his hijacking MI delegates, plus taking those that weren’t actually his; last but not least, his potentially dangerous position toward Israel, and associations with anti-Semitic, racist preachers and factions. That’s just the short list.


i just imagine the whole boomer establishment feeling the draft of a thousand doors slamming on their asses and I smile. That's what obama means to me.

[Deckard]

And this guy want's to be president?

(anyone know if that's been doctored?)

[Strangelet]

probably fake, considering the clock behind him says "3:00 AM" ;)

[Sean]

And this guy want's to be president?

(anyone know if that's been doctored?)Kinda funny though. :D

[cacophony]

And this guy want's to be president?

(anyone know if that's been doctored?)

undoubtedly. there's extra sharpening around much of the photo which is a convenient way to hide photoshopped artifacts in a doctored photo. but if you look at the lowest curve of the phone cord, where it would change angles, you see there's a softness, almost blur about the coils where everything else in the photo is extra sharp.


not that i know anything about doctoring photos. *shifty eyes*

[Deckard]

probably fake, considering the clock behind him says "3:00 AM" ;)
Ahaaa! Well spotted!

[cacophony]

also, remember this?

http://z.about.com/d/urbanlegends/1/0/3/w/bush_phone.jpg

[cacophony]

and if you'll buy that, you'll probably buy this:

http://www.gofalldown.com/cacophony/myimages/popestripclub.jpg

okay i'm done now. :D

[Deckard]

Is that real?

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Is that real?


It is, and that's actually me on stage.

[cacophony]

Is that real?

didn't you know? pope john paul was a leg man.

[Deckard]

It is, and that's actually me on stage.
I think I'm going to self-censor, in the interest of keeping this thread clean! (and on topic :D ) So, *ahem* ...on a somewhat more serious note...



Iran and Israel.

What do you guys think might be the impact upon the presidential race if Israel really were to launch strikes against Iran (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7465170.stm) this year?

I know it's only hypothetical at the moment, and this particular rehearsal is probably just a warning sign. But if they did decide to strike, do you think it would benefit McCain's chances over Obama's?

Also, given the possibility of an Obama victory, is there any sense that a pre-election strike would would make more sense for Israel than one after the election, when Obama might be in the White House? Could there be a "now or never" aspect to it, do you think?

[cacophony]

i doubt they're really weighing the ramifications of an obama presidency as they ponder the ridiculous continuation of the middle east cycle of violence.

see, this is why the israel thing pisses me off. if any other (muslim) country launched a strike we'd be all full of outrage. but if isreal slaughters a bunch of civilians we have to back them. it's an unacceptable commitment to back a country that's just as psychotic as all of the others in that region.

to answer your first question i think any middle east violence benefits mccain.

[Deckard]

i doubt they're really weighing the ramifications of an obama presidency as they ponder the ridiculous continuation of the middle east cycle of violence.
I'm not so sure tbh. The fact that Obama has signalled his willingness to talk to Iran (notwithstanding those all important "conditions") makes me wonder if those in Israel looking to take military action against Iran might see an Obama presidency as a fairly big spanner in the works?

[Deckard]

So Cindy McCain is out on the campaign trail taking not-so-subtle shots against the opponent's wife.

"I've always been proud of my country," she's claiming, in rally after rally - obviously a jab at Michelle Obama's earlier gaffe about being "proud of America for the first time".

My question is, had it been Michelle Obama with the history of drug addiction, and had it been Michelle who'd stolen drugs meant for third world countries to support her addiction - would the reaction be the same? A kind of overwhelming respectful silence? A "let's not go there"?

I'm not saying we should be judging candidates by their spouses, but honestly, I find that hard to believe.

[cacophony]

I'm not so sure tbh. The fact that Obama has signalled his willingness to talk to Iran (notwithstanding those all important "conditions") makes me wonder if those in Israel looking to take military action against Iran might see an Obama presidency as a fairly big spanner in the works?

I just think it's a silly kind of america-centric thinking to think israel is carefully weighing the hypothetical appointment of a leader with very hypothetical intentions for the region.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

So Cindy McCain is out on the campaign trail taking not-so-subtle shots against the opponent's wife.

"I've always been proud of my country," she's claiming, in rally after rally - obviously a jab at Michelle Obama's earlier gaffe about being "proud of America for the first time".

My question is, had it been Michelle Obama with the history of drug addiction, and had it been Michelle who'd stolen drugs meant for third world countries to support her addiction - would the reaction be the same? A kind of overwhelming respectful silence? A "let's not go there"?

I'm not saying we should be judging candidates by their spouses, but honestly, I find that hard to believe.


When you see the spilt screen on your news broadcast of choice, think, "I wonder which of the two would one least want to piss off?"

That would be my choice.

[Strangelet]

i doubt they're really weighing the ramifications of an obama presidency as they ponder the ridiculous continuation of the middle east cycle of violence.

see, this is why the israel thing pisses me off. if any other (muslim) country launched a strike we'd be all full of outrage. but if isreal slaughters a bunch of civilians we have to back them. it's an unacceptable commitment to back a country that's just as psychotic as all of the others in that region.

to answer your first question i think any middle east violence benefits mccain.

I think you're both right. But I especially agree with Deckard. There's nothing hypothetical about israeli air strikes in Iran. Not when you have history showing that they did air strikes in Iraq under Saddam and just recently in Syria. And there's nothing hypothetical about the shift in u.s. foreign policy with respect to the middle east vis a vis an obama presidency. Its going to be looked upon by the outside players as a refutation of the neocon agenda. And the likes of Perle and Wolfowitz its going to be more than a refutation as they are shown the door, along with the rest of the rats hiding in the office of the vice president. The same people who have simply made american interest == fundamentalist flavored zionist interest and the armed forces a branch of that movement. I wish this could be seen as american-centric bias, but it is sure the way things look from my perspective.

[cacophony]

And there's nothing hypothetical about the shift in u.s. foreign policy with respect to the middle east vis a vis an obama presidency.

first of all, we're ignoring the fact that there's very little evidence to prove that obama will ultimately take the election over mccain this early in the game. just because he's our nearly unanimous internet message board fave, that doesn't mean he has it in the bag. and there's no reason for anyone to assume that mccain has been safely quarantined and no longer poses any military threat in overseas conflicts. any politician anywhere in the world is aware that it could go either way and as i said i think it's highly doubtful any country is carefully crafting its foreign policy based on the singular hypothetical of one american leader over another. hell, for all anyone knows obama could announce a clinton VP nod any second now and that would change the whole ball game.

second, i'm not aware of anything that definitively says an obama presidency would totally turn US policy towards israel on its ear. that's the biggest problem with obama, he's been definitive about almost nothing. and in fact he's spent much time in recent weeks courting the jewish holdout votes by emphasizing his continued support for israel. so how is there "nothing hypothetical" at this point about his stance on israel?

[cacophony]

I was really hoping for a reply from you to some of the points I last raised on this. Any chance you may have the time? :)

i realized today that i never got back to you. i'm not dredging this up now to reopen old wounds, rather to address the issues you wanted addressed.

No, offensiveness is not purely dictated by intent. But by the same token, offensiveness is also not dictated purely by perception. All I'm saying is that we need to measure both sides of the situation - how the word is perceived coupled with the actual intent - in order to objectively determine how big a deal something like this is.

i won't disagree that the degree of offensiveness lies on both sides of the issue, both intent and perception. i think in any discussion about potentially offensive language you have to take both sides into consideration. in this case the comment was notable enough to enough people to have been raised as an issue in the first place. how many words did obama utter in that one appearance that day? how many made national news? that speaks to an established precedence for the potential volatility of the word. if we can accept that, then we have to accept that his intent isn't purely the issue here.

The best way I can explain this is by sharing something that once happened to me. A friend of mine from college was an intense feminist. I mean really, really intense. She was over at me and my roomate's apartment one day, flipping through a magazine, and she came to some advertisement that had a picture of a young female model in it. She seemed kind of flustered by it, showed me the picture, and said something like "do guys really find her attractive?" I looked at the picture, and I said something like, "yeah, she's a pretty girl". My friend responded with a look of shock and said "GIRL? A pretty GIRL?!?", and then went on to berate me for using the word "girl". I explained that the model looked like she was younger than me (I was around 19 at the time), and since I didn't think of myself as a "man" yet, then it's only natural that I didn't think of this model as a "woman" yet either. My friend asked what I would call my male friends who were around my age, and I said "not men...probably guys". Her final angry point was that it isn't "guys and girls, it's guys and gals". So I said "okay, she's a pretty gal then", and that was the end of it.

i see your point, although i will say there's a massive difference between the hystrionic feminism of a college aged girl just coming to terms with her "womyn" power and the more general segment of the american populace that reacted to obama's comment. undoubtedly in college i spewed similar hysteria about the plight of women in the western world, just as i undoubtedly spewed some fairly offensive anti-christianity arguments during my most vocal pro-atheist phase. it's both blessing and curse that college opens us up to new ideas at an age when we're most vulnerable to charismatic thinking.

so while i appreciate your example and i understand the point you're trying to illustrate, i have to take it with a grain of salt. which is not meant to diminish her feelings on the subject. i'm just saying it would be as though we were discussing legislation about animal cruelty and you used an example about a PETA activist to prove the counterpoint. when you have an issue that's supported by a fairly general slice of the population, you can't entirely depend on extremist parallels to create a counterpoint.

As you said, we have no way of knowing exactly what motivates Obama's use of a word like "sweetie", but I think it's safe to say that his overall demeanor and treatment of people doesn't seem to support the idea that we should take his use of it in the worst possible way.

and i guess my point is that all we know of obama is what's edited in to nightly news reels. we know what he's allowed himself to express in public when people are watching. we don't really know any politician's overall demeanor. i would go so far as to argue that the "hillary is a bitch" people don't know jack shit about what she's like outside of the public eye. she's got a family and friends and a longstanding career as evidence that what we see on the news isn't necessarily 100% of her personality. obama and every other politician live in the same dichotomy.

the psychology of a national politician is not the same as the psychology of any other average joe. you can't just look at nightly news clips and go, "well he seems like a good guy." after all, that was a huge argument in support of george w bush during his first election.

It's funny you should use this picture as an example, because yes, I would take some small issue with someone accusing the photographer (or editor who wrote the caption) of being offensive by using the word "boy". The first thing I thought when I opened the picture after reading what you had written was "well they do look to be young boys". I mean, how old would you guess they are? I would guess around 15 or so myself...maybe even younger. I don't consider 15 to be a man, I consider 15 to be a boy. So maybe it was meant as derogatory, but there's a very fair argument to be made that it was not.

the men in that photo are most certainly older than 15. the only way i can substantiate that claim is to say i spend a lot of time on shorpy and there's a comparable appearance among age groups in photographs of that era and those are young men, not boys. additionally, even if your age assessment were accurate i can assure you that photographer captions on images of white males in that age group are typically referred to at the very least as "young men." 15 year olds were not kids during that era, remember. by the age of 15 most young men had been working hard labor for years.

and i would agree, as i think it was my original point, that the use of "boy" was not intended as derogatory. it was a generally accepted colloquial way to refer to black men during that time. but does that mean that the usage was not offensive? would you consider calling a black man "boy" now? i'm going to guess you're like anyone else and you wouldn't because you understand how strongly offensive it is.

And this is something we fundamentally differ on. I understand your point, but I flatly disagree that an instance of someone like Obama using the word "sweetie" is "much worse" than someone calling a woman a "cunt" or a "bitch". Yes, you can fight harmful intent, but my feeling is that you don't have to "fight" the use of a term you view as derogatory if the intent is not malicious. Deckard gave a great example with his parents. He didn't need to fight them on it because they weren't trying to be hurtful. All he seemed to have to do was point out that what they said could be taken as offensive, and they adjusted. Easy as pie, and everyone's happy. As an example to the contrary, my college friend DID choose to fight me over my benign use of the word "girl", and all it accomplished was taking an innocent situation and turning it into a confrontation that we both left feeling frustrated.

i never claimed that cunt and bitch are unequivocally less offensive than sweetie. i said to me, in my own personal view of language, sweetie is worse because it speaks to an ingrained and thoughtless diminishing effect on the intended target. i would wager that 99% of the "feminists" in this country would be shocked and offended that i shrug off cunt and bitch the way i do. or that i use them as casually as i do in rush hour traffic.

ultimately, though, that's not the point. the point to be resolved is whether obama's use of sweetie in that context was ultimately offensive. i would argue that is is, not because of his intent but because of the perception of the community that the word applies to. just like the photographer referring to those young men as "boys" during a time when the intent had nothing to do with maliciousness.

In this case with Obama, he immediately recognized how what he said could be perceived, and apologized. As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of the issue. Now if he starts showing a pattern of true disrespect towards women that stretches beyond the isolated bad habit of using a word like "sweetie", then yes, I will agree that his use of the word is quite possibly indicitive of something more. At this point however, that's not the case, so I just personally see this as a pretty minor issue.

apologies from politicians are rarely anything to get excited about. they apologize when they're caught. they apologize when they're caught text messaging lewd sentiments to underage pages. they apologize when they cheat on their wives. they apologize when they out CIA agents. a politician's apology is one of the most worthless things on the planet.

but you're right in that the issue is a fairly small one unless and until he demonstrates a pattern of disrespect. unfortunately i don't blow off this one incident as just one incident. i see it as someone who had not yet set a pattern suddenly setting up the potential for a pattern. he took the first step. you can't create a pattern without that first step. he is more disappointing to me than someone who never made a slip in the first place.

do i ultimately think someone should weigh their support of him based on this one slip? of course not. but i find it irresponsible to simply brush it away. it's an element of a potential leader's personality. i want to see how he handles himself with regards to this issue going forward. hopefully it was just a one-off mistake. fantastic if that's the case. but i'm not going to forget it happened.

[Strangelet]

first of all, we're ignoring the fact that there's very little evidence to prove that obama will ultimately take the election over mccain this early in the game. just because he's our nearly unanimous internet message board fave, that doesn't mean he has it in the bag.


:) you honestly think mccain has a chance in hell? 14% (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080621/ap_on_re_us/out_of_control) of americans think the country is moving in the right direction. Historians are considering this period of unease with past periods including the red scare, the great depression, and the early 80's inflation. All of which resulted in a change of government. That's some shit not even the PUMA retards can drown out with their fabricated indignation. With or without a Clinton VP. That's not to say its in the bag for Obama. Just that, imho, Mccain has a better chance of popping a vein in his forehead and dying during the next altercation with a reporter than he does winning this election. I honestly think Clinton has a better shot with a suspended campaign.


and as i said i think it's highly doubtful any country is carefully crafting its foreign policy based on the singular hypothetical of one american leader over another.


Obviously I can't prove otherwise, anymore than you can disprove such backdoor machinations. But there's an argument to be made that the Iraq war would never have happened had it not been for a bush presidency. And still it wouldn't have happened had it not been for a Cheney vice presidency. even more so it wouldn't have happened had it not been for the pro-israel progressive politics of the Cheney advisors. Here's the link to the Front line doc summarizing this (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/). And feel free to draw your own conclusions.

But basically, you take away the people, you've taken away the ingredients for the first and hopefully last preemptive war America will undertake.

So governments can, and probably do, recognize this and can plan accordingly.


second, i'm not aware of anything that definitively says an obama presidency would totally turn US policy towards israel on its ear. that's the biggest problem with obama, he's been definitive about almost nothing. and in fact he's spent much time in recent weeks courting the jewish holdout votes by emphasizing his continued support for israel. so how is there "nothing hypothetical" at this point about his stance on israel?

Everyone seems to be assuming that Obama will not strike Iran. Its not my assumption, but I'm basing my argument on that since people who are smarter and have a lot more information seem to be promoting that.

However, I think you're right to be frustrated with his inelegant, nebulous stance on Israel, and I'll concede the point that he hasn't really been clear what he's going to do that will be any different than the preceding presidencies. So yes things are definitely hypothetical, but I would argue that this may be a positive thing for his campaign since he's following the administration whose deaf dumb and blind resolve in the face of terrific contrary evidence has been a tragic flaw. SOmething the Clinton campaign should have understood better. Maybe people want someone who can admit they are wrong, even if it means they don't always act like they are right.

[Deckard]

Cacophony, I'm not suggesting Israel is "carefully crafting" its policy around American elections - that does make it sound America-centric. But it would be bizarre to think they weren't factoring in the outcome of your country's election given the weight you carry in the world. And "factoring in" would absolutely encompass whether to do what they planned to do before a potential President Obama... or risk waiting til after.

As Strangelet says, a President Obama may well turn out to disappoint many who are hoping for a break in America's unflinching support of (or bias towards) Israel over and above the Palestinians. He may even opt to attack Iran himself, or - if Israel attacks - sit silently by while the world is demanding that he call for a ceasefire, as with Bush/Blair and Lebanon.

But at this point in time, there's no getting away from the fact that - for whatever reason - possibly his willingness to talk about dialogue with Israel's enemies, possibly the idiotic suspicion that he's a closet Muslim - whatever the reason, there absolutely is suspicion about Obama's position on Israel, suspicion that he lacks the will to sufficiently defend it and/or side with it. Immediately upon winning the Democratic ticket, Obama's first speech - to AIPAC - wasn't exactly arranged as a cosy get-together and thank-you session to his support base, was it?

And yes, I also find this odd, given the effort he goes to to reassure on these matters. (Remember this? (http://www.darktrain.org/dirty/forums/showpost.php?p=91617&postcount=12))

[cacophony]

what i'm having a hard time resolving in the argument is that you guys are saying it seems likely obama will be the next president. and that in spite of the fact he's been wishy-washy on his policy towards israel, it doesn't seem likely he'd be the pillar of support that previous presidents have been.

so if that's the conclusion, then wouldn't it make it LESS likely that they'd strike against iran? meaning, if they were making plans with america's future leadership in mind, and it seems like that future leadership won't support them, why would that make a strike against iran MORE likely?

[Deckard]

what i'm having a hard time resolving in the argument is that you guys are saying it seems likely obama will be the next president.
For my part, I talked about "the possibility of an Obama victory". I don't personally yet deem it 'probable' or more likely than a McCain victory. Others may disagree. Either way though, with the two neck and neck, we're not exactly talking much less than a 50% chance, so it's still what I would call a very realistic prospect. I see it as quite realistic to think that considerations and contingencies will be made from that kind of chance. I don't see it as America-centric to expect that kind of risk assessment, given the role American foreign policy plays in the world.

and that in spite of the fact he's been wishy-washy on his policy towards israel, it doesn't seem likely he'd be the pillar of support that previous presidents have been.
That's not my judgment, because I'm the same as you, I'm seeing statements that would suggest a new approach to Middle East relations, and other statements that suggest more of the same unwavering support. But the point is, plenty of people have been questioning whether he'd be the same "pillar of support" for Israel that previous presidents have been. I think we can certainly say at this point that an unwavering pillar of support and/or hawkish approach is not as guaranteed as it might be under McCain, or has been under Bush, or might have been under many of the other candidates the parties put up. Obama is making certain people nervous in that sense, and some may see it as prudent to prepare for the worst.

so if that's the conclusion, then wouldn't it make it LESS likely that they'd strike against iran? meaning, if they were making plans with america's future leadership in mind, and it seems like that future leadership won't support them, why would that make a strike against iran MORE likely?
Well if we go with that conclusion, then my point is that it would make sense for them to strike Iran before the election, not after. Strike before and they still have the Bush/Cheney administration in the White House, there's zero chance of negotiation with Iran.

After the election, with a ~50% chance of a President Obama, and given what he's said about a different approach to foreign policy, possibly engaging in negotiation with Iran, well a strike during that time would completely isolate Israel. Politically it would be a disaster.

That's why I've been wondering, with the prospect of an Obama presidency and what that might entail, and with the recent 'rehearsals' last week, whether we might see an Israeli strike on Iran this year. If they're going to do it (and they're a lot closer to Iran than any of us, the threat will feel much greater to them), it would be the lesser of evils to do it before the election.

[Sean]

i realized today that i never got back to you. i'm not dredging this up now to reopen old wounds, rather to address the issues you wanted addressed.No wounds here to worry about. I like discussing this stuff. :)

i won't disagree that the degree of offensiveness lies on both sides of the issue, both intent and perception. i think in any discussion about potentially offensive language you have to take both sides into consideration. in this case the comment was notable enough to enough people to have been raised as an issue in the first place. how many words did obama utter in that one appearance that day? how many made national news? that speaks to an established precedence for the potential volatility of the word. if we can accept that, then we have to accept that his intent isn't purely the issue here.Absolutely agreed. As I said, I believe that both intent and perception were at issue here.

i see your point, although i will say there's a massive difference between the hystrionic feminism of a college aged girl just coming to terms with her "womyn" power and the more general segment of the american populace that reacted to obama's comment. undoubtedly in college i spewed similar hysteria about the plight of women in the western world, just as i undoubtedly spewed some fairly offensive anti-christianity arguments during my most vocal pro-atheist phase. it's both blessing and curse that college opens us up to new ideas at an age when we're most vulnerable to charismatic thinking.It was an intentionally extreme example that I used for two reasons. One, since it happened to me, the incident influenced my thinking on this subject as I matured and remained vivid in my memory, and two, it's extreme nature makes the point of perception versus intent ultra-clearly.

so while i appreciate your example and i understand the point you're trying to illustrate, i have to take it with a grain of salt. which is not meant to diminish her feelings on the subject. i'm just saying it would be as though we were discussing legislation about animal cruelty and you used an example about a PETA activist to prove the counterpoint. when you have an issue that's supported by a fairly general slice of the population, you can't entirely depend on extremist parallels to create a counterpoint.I agree, but I would like to point out that I didn't "entirely depend on extremist parallels to create a counterpoint". I only used a personal story as a single example to clearly illustrate my point that simply because someone takes offense at a comment doesn't inherently mean the comment was offensive.

and i guess my point is that all we know of obama is what's edited in to nightly news reels. we know what he's allowed himself to express in public when people are watching. There are other factors we can consider in reaching our conclusions as well, and that directly influence my thoughts on the subject. One big one would be Michelle Obama. It's clear that given her resume and her strikingly articulate public persona, she's a very strong and intelligent woman. Generally speaking, I think the odds are that a woman like her wouldn't be likely to settle down to raise a family with a raging misogynist. And please note that I said "wouldn't be likely" there....I'm not drawing any definitive conclusions here, I'm just playing the odds. Similarly, as far as I've seen, many men who are primarily raised by strong, independent-minded women as Obama's mother appears to have been, tend to come away from it with a better understanding and appreciation of women than most other men have. Again, not a certainty in Obama's case, but a strong likelihood. And even beyond that, the man has two young daughters. The vast majority of men I know who have daughters have been made more sensitive to the needs and feelings of women as a result. And frankly, the few I know who have run counter to this have ended up divorced, or at best in dysfunctional marriages.

So when I look at all of these things collectively, coupled with a public persona that gives no indication outside of the "sweetie" comment that there's any hint of misogyny, then I conclude that the chances of Obama being a sexist are extremely slim at worst.

we don't really know any politician's overall demeanor. i would go so far as to argue that the "hillary is a bitch" people don't know jack shit about what she's like outside of the public eye. she's got a family and friends and a longstanding career as evidence that what we see on the news isn't necessarily 100% of her personality. obama and every other politician live in the same dichotomy. I would agree. By all accounts, Hillary is supposed to be a warm and appealing person according to those who know her personally.

the men in that photo are most certainly older than 15. the only way i can substantiate that claim is to say i spend a lot of time on shorpy and there's a comparable appearance among age groups in photographs of that era and those are young men, not boys. additionally, even if your age assessment were accurate i can assure you that photographer captions on images of white males in that age group are typically referred to at the very least as "young men." 15 year olds were not kids during that era, remember. by the age of 15 most young men had been working hard labor for years.You're absolutely right about the context....that people around 15-17 or so would have been typically referred to as at least "young men" back in the year of that photo, but I still think they look like they're 15 at the oldest. I'm also typically pretty terrible at guessing ages though, so who knows?

and i would agree, as i think it was my original point, that the use of "boy" was not intended as derogatory. it was a generally accepted colloquial way to refer to black men during that time. but does that mean that the usage was not offensive? would you consider calling a black man "boy" now? i'm going to guess you're like anyone else and you wouldn't because you understand how strongly offensive it is.Again, I'm bad at guessing ages. But if someone looks like a boy, then I'll call 'em a boy. I'm a huge opponent of political correctness for it's own sake, meaning that I won't typically lie on the off chance that someone may be unjustifiably offended, like in the example I gave of my feminist college friend.

the point to be resolved is whether obama's use of sweetie in that context was ultimately offensive. i would argue that is is, not because of his intent but because of the perception of the community that the word applies to. just like the photographer referring to those young men as "boys" during a time when the intent had nothing to do with maliciousness.Since we're summing up our points here, I absolutely agree that his use of the word "sweetie" was offensive. What I disagree with is any assertion that it's a sign of a deeper misogyny on his part, because there's simply no evidence to support that point.

apologies from politicians are rarely anything to get excited about. they apologize when they're caught. they apologize when they're caught text messaging lewd sentiments to underage pages. they apologize when they cheat on their wives. they apologize when they out CIA agents. a politician's apology is one of the most worthless things on the planet.

but you're right in that the issue is a fairly small one unless and until he demonstrates a pattern of disrespect. unfortunately i don't blow off this one incident as just one incident. i see it as someone who had not yet set a pattern suddenly setting up the potential for a pattern. he took the first step. you can't create a pattern without that first step. he is more disappointing to me than someone who never made a slip in the first place.I certainly didn't get "excited" about his apology, but I did find it appropriate and sufficient for the situation. He made a poor choice of words, and he apologized for it. We have every reason to believe this was an isolated instance, so there ya' have it. I'm not blowing it off as much as I am giving it only as much concern as I feel it deserves. A I said before, if a deeper pattern of sexist behavior emerges, then that's a different story. But I refuse to judge someone based on an isolated mistake.

do i ultimately think someone should weigh their support of him based on this one slip? of course not. but i find it irresponsible to simply brush it away. it's an element of a potential leader's personality. i want to see how he handles himself with regards to this issue going forward. hopefully it was just a one-off mistake. fantastic if that's the case. but i'm not going to forget it happened. It shouldn't necessarily be forgotten, but it certainly shouldn't be dwelled upon in my opinion. I don't think we disagree on this by all that much ultimately, but my basic approach to people, and this has left me disappointed more than once, is that they're basically okay until they prove otherwise to me. Obama hasn't proved otherwise to me yet.

[Sean]

:) you honestly think mccain has a chance in hell? 14% (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080621/ap_on_re_us/out_of_control) of americans think the country is moving in the right direction. Historians are considering this period of unease with past periods including the red scare, the great depression, and the early 80's inflation. All of which resulted in a change of government. That's some shit not even the PUMA retards can drown out with their fabricated indignation. With or without a Clinton VP. That's not to say its in the bag for Obama. Just that, imho, Mccain has a better chance of popping a vein in his forehead and dying during the next altercation with a reporter than he does winning this election. I honestly think Clinton has a better shot with a suspended campaign. I'm a life-long Boston sports fan, so I'm conditioned to expect a loss until the final buzzer tells me otherwise.

[cacophony]

There are other factors we can consider in reaching our conclusions as well, and that directly influence my thoughts on the subject. One big one would be Michelle Obama. It's clear that given her resume and her strikingly articulate public persona, she's a very strong and intelligent woman. Generally speaking, I think the odds are that a woman like her wouldn't be likely to settle down to raise a family with a raging misogynist.

hillary clinton married an unapologetic repeat womanizer. they also raised a daughter. :)

[Deckard]

Further to what i was saying about the belief that Obama will be viewed as "soft on Iran"...

Kristol: Bush Might Bomb Iran If He 'Thinks Obama's Going To Win' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/22/kristol-bush-might-bomb-i_n_108510.html) (06/22/08)

On Fox News Sunday this morning, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol said that President Bush is more likely to attack Iran if he believes Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is going to be elected.

However, “if the president thought John McCain was going to be the next president, he would think it more appropriate to let the next president make that decision than do it on his way out,” Kristol said, reinforcing the fact that McCain is offering a third Bush term on Iran.

“I do wonder with Senator Obama, if President Bush thinks Senator Obama’s going to win, does he somehow think — does he worry that Obama won’t follow through on that policy,” Kristol added. Host Chris Wallace then asked if Kristol was suggesting that Bush might “launch a military strike” before or after the election:

WALLACE: So, you’re suggesting that he might in fact, if Obama’s going to win the election, either before or after the election, launch a military strike?

KRISTOL: I don’t know. I mean, I think he would worry about it. On the other hand, you can’t — it’s hard to make foreign policy based on guesses of election results. I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what is, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force.

[Deckard]

In light of this as well....
McCain Adviser: Another Attack on U.S. Would Be "Big Advantage" For McCain (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/23/mccain-adviser-another-91_n_108671.html)
...I wonder if we'll see an Iranian "event" occurring between now and the election, that will require a "strong and decisive response"?

[Sean]

hillary clinton married an unapologetic repeat womanizer. they also raised a daughter. :)True, and in her case, my opinion has always been that much of her commitment to the marriage likely has to do with political expediency. As of now, Michelle Obama has given no indication that she shares similar ambitions. Luckily for us all, there's only one Hillary Clinton....;)

[Sean]

Well, Nader will likely be less of a vote-sucker for Obama than he may have been previously:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jun/25/nader-critical-of-obama-for-trying-to-talk-white/

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader accused Sen. Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic Party nominee, of downplaying poverty issues, trying to "talk white" and appealing to "white guilt" during his run for the White House.

"I mean, first of all, the number one thing that a black American politician aspiring to the presidency should be is to candidly describe the plight of the poor, especially in the inner cities and the rural areas, and have a very detailed platform about how the poor is going to be defended by the law, is going to be protected by the law, and is going to be liberated by the law," Nader said. "Haven't heard a thing."

"We are obviously disappointed with these very backward-looking remarks," Obama campaign spokeswoman Shannon Gilson said.

So presumably because black people all live in the ghetto, Nader believes that all black politicians should focus their legislating power on the issues of the ghetto. Well done, Nader. Well done. :rolleyes:

[Strangelet]

so if that's the conclusion, then wouldn't it make it LESS likely that they'd strike against iran? meaning, if they were making plans with america's future leadership in mind, and it seems like that future leadership won't support them, why would that make a strike against iran MORE likely?


A former head of Mossad has warned that Israel has 12 months in which to destroy Iran's nuclear programme or risk coming under nuclear attack itself. He also hinted that Israel might have to act sooner if Barack Obama wins the US presidential election.


They apparently fear that the chances of winning American approval for an air attack will be drastically reduced if the Democratic nominee wins the election. Mr Obama advocates talks with the regime in Tehran rather than military action.


That view was echoed by Mr Shavit, who said: "If [Republican candidate John] McCain gets elected, he could really easily make a decision to go for it. If it's Obama: no. My prediction is that he won't go for it, at least not in his first term in the White House."


He warned that while it would be preferable to have American support and participation in a strike on Iran, Israel will not be afraid to go it alone.
"When it comes to decisions that have to do with our national security and our own survival, at best we may update the Americans that we are intending or planning or going to do something. It's not a precondition, [getting] an American agreement," he said


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2212934/Israel-has-a-year-to-stop-Iran-bomb%2C-warns-ex-spy.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/2212934/Israel-has-a-year-to-stop-Iran-bomb%2C-warns-ex-spy.html)

[Deckard]

Mmm, glad to see that my mind thinks in the same way as the former head of Mossad. :o

Seriously though, all things considered, it seems entirely prudent for Israel to be considering this. Not that I'm saying I personally agree with it, but strategically, in terms of the immediate threat they see posed by Iran, it seems to me entirely pragmatic to take action before the election. At this point, the choice and risks are clear to them - do they want to risk waiting, then find that they may be at even greater threat but unable to act - or do they not take that risk, and instead, act now?

[Strangelet]

well I had the same thoughts. but more and more I think cacophony may be proven right with respect to Obama's intentions. He may find himself in lock step with the existing foreign policy trend.

And agreed about Iran. I don't want them to have nuclear weapons any more than the israelis. Its just not the world I want to live in, sorry. I know that steps on the toes of people who find it hypocritical, but just because Darth Vader has a death star doesn't mean the ewoks get one either.

[Deckard]

well I had the same thoughts. but more and more I think cacophony may be proven right with respect to Obama's intentions. He may find himself in lock step with the existing foreign policy trend.
True. I'm not convinced Obama will be as different as many are proposing he will. But clearly some important political heavyweights do appear to think that, or at least feel very uneasy about the possibility, enough to express that unease. And that's the only real point of substance I'm making here.

And agreed about Iran. I don't want them to have nuclear weapons any more than the israelis. Its just not the world I want to live in, sorry. I know that steps on the toes of people who find it hypocritical, but just because Darth Vader has a death star doesn't mean the ewoks get one either.
Well this pretty much deserves a thread of its own, and yup, I completely agree - argument of fairness and entitlement be damned, unfortunately.

[IsiliRunite]

are some of yous endorsing preemptive strikes?

[Strangelet]

are some of yous endorsing preemptive strikes?

define preemptive strike:)

[mmm skyscraper]

define preemptive strike:)

http://www.discogs.com/release/135179

[cacophony]

I think cacophony may be proven right

DAMN STRAIGHT. ;)

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

DAMN STRAIGHT. ;)


Oh c'mon, you're not all bad.

[Deckard]

Obama rejects Clark's statement (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/06/30/obama-rejects-clarks-statement/)

I just don't see why it should have been necessary for Obama to reject this. :confused:

Barack Obama formally rejected Gen. Wesley Clark's recent comments Monday that questioned whether the John McCain's military experience qualified him to be commander in chief.

"As he's said many times before, Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service, and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement.

The comments came in an interview on CBS Sunday when Clark suggested McCain's experience as a prisoner of war did not alone provide the necessary experience to set the country's national security policies.

"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.

What the hell is wrong with Clark saying that? Am I missing something?

Why do there have to be these untouchable myths that Americans must never dare challenge, even when that challenge consists of mere reason, delivered with a respectful tone?

Unless I'm misunderstanding the remarks, I have to ask, where the hell is Obama's backbone on this one?

[cacophony]

What the hell is wrong with Clark saying that? Am I missing something?

what you have there is a preemptive strike. he's trying to prevent a media firestorm before one can start. unfortunately the reaction comes off as a little knee-jerk to me and it makes me think about how the media has jumped on so many stupid little retarded issues, and now he runs the risk of becoming head shy every time a little thing pops up. i'm sure when you've been beaten up by the press over a friggin' flag lapel pin, you get a little flinchy, but if he's going to look like a strong leader (read: not wishy-washy) he's going to have to be able to let these things be said without wincing publicly.

in this case he might be right to distance himself from the comments. one of the ways in which the republicans have the democrats beat, hands down, is their war hero candidate during a time of military upheaval. the democrats absolutely cannot open the door to the question of military experience because they'll lose every time. it's not that our best presidents have had military experience, in fact quite the opposite. but it's one of those things that could expose a theoretical weakness in the democrats' candidate. it's all about perception rather than reality. and you can't have a candidate who doesn't defer to a veteran's experience during a time when just about every one of us knows someone engaged in military action right now. it's not "support your troops" kosher.

Why do there have to be these untouchable myths that Americans must never dare challenge, even when that challenge consists of mere reason, delivered with a respectful tone?

why does american idol have to get good ratings? because americans are emotional first, rational last. it leads to a lot of stupid decision-making.

[Sean]

I agree that Clark's comments were legitimate, and I see no need for an apology. I particularly enjoyed this one - "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president." But Obama was forced to respond by McCain:

McCain, at a news conference in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, said that he thought remarks like Clark's were "unnecessary" but that the question of an apology was up to Obama.

"If that's the kind of campaign that Senator Obama and his surrogates and supporters want to engage in, I understand that," he said. "But it doesn't reduce the price of a gallon of gas by a penny" or do anything else to help Americans.

He added a moment later, "I know that General Clark's comment is not an isolated incident. I have no way of knowing what involvement Senator Obama has in that issue."

Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Illinois Democrat, said Monday that "Senator Obama honors and respects Senator McCain's service and of course he rejects yesterday's statement by General Clark."

A series of McCain surrogates, all with military connections and ties to the senator, made their discontent clear in a conference call arranged by the campaign.

"It is inconceivable to me that anyone would take a shot at Senator McCain's military experience or say he lacked experience because he didn't command troops in wartime, " said Admiral Leighton Smith, who has worked with McCain for years. "General Clark is way off base on this one."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/30/america/campaign.php

[Deckard]

I take your point about the Dems' perceived weakness on military matters Cacophony. That's the thing I guess - that being right isn't always the same as being politically wise - in fact sometimes it appears to be the complete opposite. I do however find this sort of thing immensely frustrating; moreso from Obama.

His remark, "no-one should ever devalue that service, especially for the sake of a political campaign" is a classic case of letting (or as you say, pre-empting) the lowest common denominator set the terms of the debate, and responding accordingly.

The possibility that Clark may only have been de-valuing something that was over-valued in the first place (to the point of it being misleading) doesn't mean he was suggesting there was little or no value.

To interpret it that way really does involve some classic black and white thinking. I guess had Obama attempted to clarify it, he would then have been denounced as an out-of-touch intellectual trying to worm his way out of an insult, or something like that.

Oh well, I'm sure we can expect lots more of this between now and the election...

[cacophony]

"It is inconceivable to me that anyone would take a shot at Senator McCain's military experience or say he lacked experience because he didn't command troops in wartime, " said Admiral Leighton Smith, who has worked with McCain for years. "General Clark is way off base on this one."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/30/america/campaign.php

i agree with smith, clark was way off base with his comments. i fail to see how it benefits obama or corrects a misconception about mccain to make the point he made. historically americans have made a fuss about military service but in the end it doesn't win elections. see john kerry vs gwb for the most recent example. see bob dole vs bill clinton for another. attacking a candidate's military service in the hopes of discrediting the fellow doesn't help. it can only raise a shitstorm of public opinion backlash during a time of military conflict.

and i'm left with this thought: if GENERAL clark disapproves of the level of mccain's service, then obama ought to not make a blip on his radar screen. for these comments to come from a general really raises the question about why he or anyone should support a candidate that lacks military experience if mccain's service isn't good enough. i think it was a misstep on clark's part.

[Deckard]

But he wasn't "attacking a candidate's military service". Neither did he say anything to suggest "he disapproves of the level of mccain's service." With respect, I thought those were the very kind of distortions that we were just talking about? :confused:

There was nothing in Clark's comments that, to me, suggested he was being unfair to McCain. If it was "way off base" politically (which I don't think is quite how Smith meant it) then that's surely only an indictment on the way people are allowing the reactionary section of voters and media to set the tone of the debate, and not standing up to counter it?

If you're saying politically it was way off base, and will do the Dems no favours, then I can see your point. But I don't see that as a reflection of the illlegitimacy of Clark's comments, or this sense that McCain has been somehow unfairly affronted/disrespected by what was said. I don't see it as off base in that regard. At all. Honestly, I just see McCain's camp playing the victim card on this one, for cheap political points.

Here's what Clark said yesterday in an attempt to clarify:

"John McCain is running his campaign on his experience and how his experience would benefit him and our nation as president. That experience shows courage and commitment to our country, but it doesn't include executive experience wrestling with national policy or go-to-war decisions."

Given the way the McCain camp is constantly implying his experience is relevant to all this, I think somebody should be making the point that Clark did. It is a misconception that's being allowed to propagate. Another great myth. Voters thinking they have in McCain someone whose experience is going to be relevant to the things the McCain camp are implying they will be (if you can unravel that grammar).

Shouting about McCain's 894th/899 rank at the United States Naval Academy might have been off base. But this? I don't buy it.

[cacophony]

there's always more to words than just the words. i personally found clark's comments a little snide. i also found them unnecessary. but the biggest problem with it is that the words were spoken by a general. if a friggin general gets up and tries to put the smallness of someone's military contribution into context, that just reads as a little shitty.

it's not that he's wrong. as i said, military experience hasn't historically done much to win elections. and it hasn't historically done much to improve the performance of any given president. he's not wrong to point out that the mere fact that mccain served doesn't make him qualified. but i do find the way in which he delivered the message a little uncalled for. and because of his own ties and position relative to the military, i find it a little distasteful.

frankly i would have loved to hear that message delivered by john kerry because lord knows that man tried to shoehorn his veitnam service into every nook and cranny of his campaign. so apparently the democrats think small, peon service is valuable when it's their candidate, but when it's a republican it doesn't count for jack squat. it was a comment made in poor judgment and poor taste.

i don't think the comment reflects on obama, although i wish he hadn't had such a knee-jerk flinch reaction to the issue. and i think anyone who would let that comment color their view of obama is a bleeding idiot. the comment reflects specifically on clark and i don't think the comments showed clark's best side.

[Deckard]

(CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/01/mccain.ads/index.html?iref=topnews))
"John McCain's campaign will stop advertising on several Web sites that have vilified Barack Obama as unpatriotic and, in one case, compared the Democratic nominee-in-waiting to Adolf Hitler."

To Hitler?! That's just completely not on!

;)

[cacophony]

he godwined his campaign. :eek:

[gambit]

Considering how he got butchered over the "clinging" and "bitter" comments, it's understandable, and smart, that Obama distanced himself from Clark's comments.