• The Clinton people are doing whilst some people here poo poo it and minimize it.  And I call them on it.

    That's not race-baiting.  That's the opposite, my friend.

  • on a comment on Hearts And Minds over 6 years ago

    I haven't forgived him and am still pissed about it.  I'm not thrilled about a possible Obama presidency.  But I'm more negative about a possible Clinton II.

    I agree with you about showing more "meat."  However, I truly wish Clinton had been more high-profile fighting while senator as well.  east things like SCHIP are fine, but she never spoke about the rape this adminstration allowed the corporations to do.  It stands to reason, though, because they did the same thing when her husband was in the WH, albeit to a lesser degree.

    I would be both happy (and disappointed) with either Obama or Clinton winning the nom.  And I will support strongly EITHER of them should they be our standard-bearer.

  • comment on a post On Winning (And Losing) Hearts over 6 years ago

    even though it's TECHNICALLY wrong.  So, in that sense, he's right.

    Most people don't remember (or never watched) all those ostensibly "charming" moments from Mrs. Clinton.  

    Those moments don't matter now.  It's like they never happened because the narrative has been written already without that summer of charm in there.  Boo hoo.

  • When and where exactly did Obama say he was MLK's heir?

    Now you're just making shit up.

  • Dollars to donuts you're a white person and have no idea what real race-baiting is.

  • And Hillary never moves and pivots her image (as well as VOTES) to appeal to differing segments of the electorate?

    That's rich, especially considering how slick Bill was.

  • comment on a post Hearts And Minds over 6 years ago

    VERY VERY interesting take.  Yes, I DO see that Hillary is doing far better at winning over people's hearts than Obama is winning over people's minds.

    As an Obama man, I hope he does something proactive - and very soon - about the mostly false impression that he lacks enough "substance."

  • comment on a post Florida now Matters to Obama over 6 years ago

    Let's see:

    1.  Union state

    2.  In a recession

    3.  Edwards pulls out.

    4.  Edwards is an idiot.


    Not even close.  He wouldn't know the real problems with the Latin community it it smacked him in the face.

    You were a civil rights activist.  Do you speak for black people?  No.  as well you shouldn't.  Yet, everyone it seems can speak with abandon about the latino community even when they're not latino and don't know what the fuck they are taling about.

  • I never said that people should make things permament.  BUt isn't that what Medicare is, or should be?

    you make no sense.  Bush has accomplished a SHITLOAD in seven years.  He has given the corporations everything they have wanted.   And that wouldn't have been possible but for an ineffective prior administration.  Clinton's presidency, in retrospect, was an utter failure.  He was like a GHW Bush second term.

    most people agree that is will take many many years to undo Bush, correct?

    it took Bush onlly TWO years to undo everything Clinton did.  the only permament thing Clinton accomplished was his piece of shit corporate giveaway called NAFTA.

    If Bill was so special, Bush would not have accomplished so much in so little time.  Fuck, we haven't even rolled back reagan yet, but Bush did a fine job undoing everything supposedly progressive that Bill did.

    Bill's administration created NAFTA and then ran out the clock.  Nothing more elegant than that.

    I do not want to waste eight more years of my life with a milquetoast, wimpy, centrist pro-corporate government.  yes, Obama may turn out way more moderate than Hillary.  No one really knows.  But to quote your beloved selfish Bill Clinton, i'd rather "roll the dice" on Obama HOPING (yes, hoping) for a tru progressive that willl commence real change than KNOW FOR SURE that HRC will do no such thing.

    Color me stupid, but I'd rather risk Obama than go back to the nineties where we could have accomplished much much more but didn't.

  • are you reading impaired?

    you and ademption utterly failed to understand.  how can i be any clearer:  most people agree that is will take many many years to undo Bush, correct?

    it took Bush two years to undo everything Clinton did.  the only permament thing Clinton accomplished was his piece of shit corporate giveaway called NAFTA.

    more of that bullshit?  no fucking thanks.

  • in Arizona, latinos make up 30% or more of the pop, but they don't have SHIT.

    one of the most racist, anti-latino states in the union.  they cannot even vote there because of the draconian measures.

    try again.  i am guessing you are not a member of a minority group?  i could get your ill-informed white male opinion ar redstate.

  • I could drive a Mack truck through the massive holes in your post.

    Assuming I meant welfare "reform" is offensive.  However, if you must, I would say that it was a disaster for poor people of all races but dispropotionately affected minorities.  And you are dead wrong if you think the NAACP was "neutral."  Almost ALL inner-city politicians were against it.

    I was referring more to things like college grants and loans and the emasculation of unions.  Latinos, in particular, are one group who is most fucked by the lack of strong unions.  And if you cannot figure out why then I am wasting my time typing here.

  • all that stuff was ruined by Bush.  THAT'S my point.  Bush's "reforms" were much more permanent.

    And please don't ever cite to me tax cuts as an accomplishment when this country is undertaxed and going broke because of it.  And also looks like some pathetic third-world country in parts of infrastructure because we refuse to fund important projects.

  • What did Clinton really truly accomplish for the minority communities that lasted?  That was permanent?

    He let the GOP erode everything that we have accomplished for minorities since the 1960s.


Advertise Blogads