Shame on you. Make "their" problems "our" problems, and then "they'll get your back"? Who the fuck do you think you are? Its not about getting our back, its about showing that the black community actually learned something from all of the inhumanity that was directed against it, namely, that "INJUSTICE ANYWHERE IS A THREAT TO JUSTICE EVERYWHERE."
I think MLK would be ASHAMED to hear his community say to another minority, "we'll vote against your rights unless you scratch our back"..
White liberals marched with black liberals in the 60s, and they elected a black president in 2008. In the same year, black people actively voted down rights for another minority.
I am absolutely astounded to see such garbage on the Rec list. Shame on EVERY SINGLE PERSON that recommended this garbage.
shame on you for being Limbaugh-lite, and shame on annefrank for her positive rating of a comment like that.
You're objecting to Obama's 'not standing up', or whatever the talking point of the day is, and using his hugely non-PC and morally courageous stance against the drug war to hit him at the same time? Seriously, is there ANYONE on this website with good judgement?
yeah - I was really pissed off about this too. But I will not be a single issue voter. Single issue voting is just a bad, bad idea.
That said, the one thing that doesn't fit with the image and coalition that Obama is building is his strangely backwards view on the homos. Still, if Obama can continue to do what he is doing, re-energize the electorate, bring youth back into politics, this will be so good for America that it will indirectly help gays immensely, whether he intends this or not.
The Clinton's amaze me sometimes, with their short sightedness. Yes, Obama has fallen into the "trap" of defending himself from a rabid (yes, I said it, yes I meant it) former president, and will probably loose the nomination. I concede that.
However, lets take a bigger picture view, shall we? Given the nature of Hillary's win, which has left every Obama supporter I know shaking mad, and has managed to convince several fence-ers like myself that we were wrong, that Hillary must NEVER be allowed to run the Democratic party, explain to me exactly how she will win in Nov?
There is a difference between winning, and winning dirty/ugly. Clinton clearly thinks that winning ugly is OK so long as you win. If it was just about beating repubs, I would agree. However, the kind of behavior that her and Bill engage in, over a presidency, would TAINT the democratic party just like the Republican party has been tainted (probably to a lesser degree though). In the long run, her approach spells disaster, and there is a large chunk of the democratic party (I dare say, the most educated of us) who can see this and will NOT vote for her over a moderately acceptable Repug.
I agree. I have been wafling between Obama and Clinton for a long time, started out Obama, changed to Clinton, got turned off, thought for a while that either one was fine.
However, what I saw in Nevada changed my mind. Either one is not fine. I will not be voting for Hillary Clinton, either in the primary or the general. Now that McCain will win the GOP, I think I can safely say that the lesser of two evils is to accept a president I don't really agree with but who will hopefully reform the disgusting GOP, rather than allow HRC to win but destroy the democratic party with her end-justifies-all-means tactics.
What the Clinton campaign did in Nevada, ESPECIALLY Bill, is so profoundly disturbing that I really have to wonder what the hell is happening to my party. I think Hillary Clinton is a much better politician than this, I think she could win without running a scorched-earth campaign, and I am aghast that she has chosen this way of doing business. Its a shame, and its profoundly dangerous, because our two party system only works if at least ONE party operates with some level of decency. Where will we turn if Democrats become Rovian? Who would we vote for then?
Are you telling me that Michelle Obama or Elizabeth Edwards have equal pull as the most popular man in American politics? Are you serious our do you just talk to hear yourself talk?
Bill Clinton is not a private citizen, he gave that up a long time ago. Bill Clinton is former president Bill Clinton, the 3000lb gorilla of American politics, and represents an ERA. So, comparing Bill Clinton of 2008 to Ronald Reagan of 1992 is perfectly sound.
In regards to your comment about the movement, I'd like to know how exactly a one-term senator took on the most powerful machine in politics, overcame next to zero name recognition in one year, outraised them, and then put them on the defensive to the point where they needed A FORMER PRESIDENT to bail them out in NH, not to mention tears? You think that was just Obama? Who believes in a cult of personality now, dumbass? If it wasn't a movement, Clinton would already be the nominee.
I really don't see why someone with so little to add as you does so damn much talking.