I guess comprehension isnt your forte! ITs not like you quoted any worthwhile text, but yet another bot bogeyman, blackmail nonsense. Isnt a dem congress in power, unless it changed in the last few days since you wrote your drivel down. So, if obama and the rest of those who enable him claim that we will get a veto proof dem majority, then wont the dems be the governing majority? Well, they can govern if they want to and have the spine to, not withstanding a republican adminstration or impeach the govt and bring about the govt that works
But before we get to any of this, its not a principles be damned, no skills demonstrated, empty suit with a (D) next to his name that can suddenly govern because it is a democratic govt. If you didnt learn anything from the 2006 euphoric election of our very own dem congress then you have learnt nothing.
But then it is clear from your bot quotation, you have learnt nothing worthwhile except the bot manual. dont waste my time with these childish bogeyman garbage
I guess McCain pandering to the right is so unusual and so unbelievable, nothing that Obama would do in the primary!! and not to mention obama would do no tough talk when he has to show he passes the commander_in_chief test, like this for example
"Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region"
Have you heard of the term hypocrisy before? try the dictionary.
Thats all you got? OOh McCain the boogeyman is all you have to vote for the man who is a transformational change agent? I guess all that criticism of the republican fearmongering is only reserved for republicans. As soon as bots do it, now it is the new holy grail of progressivism and it is the hope of the century. Come on try arguing a little more maturely instead of this shitty bomb iran scare.
Start giving reasons for me to vote FOR obama not AGAINST McCain. Im already not likely to vote for McCain. I dont need the savior and revolutionary change agent to tell me the reason to vote for him is to NOT let McCain become the president. sorry no sale on that one.
At some point in this campaign one has to hope Obama will give a reason or two as to why he deserves to be trusted with an enormous responsibility like the White house.
How many times do we have to go through this before this nonsense stops? But then again since ths is infested with bots, I guess the nonsense will never stop. It doesnt matter. No one cares what you think and you dont care what I think. Its better that way than your "surrender or die" garbage. you are in no position to tell anyone what to do, just as Im in no position to tell you what to do with your vote in the GE
For most people who have doubts about Obama the last thing it has to with is the clintons or the primaries in fact. What it has to do with is this:
1) what leadership has obama shown in his stay at IL or US senate so far? (dont quote nonsense like co-sponsoring myriad legislation in the US senate or getting tons of favors from Emil jones just so obama could run for the US senate, after jones became the majority leader in IL senate)
he could have shown leadership and conviction through his commitment to progressive principles even at political risk in the past week by not switching his positions on NAFTA, campaign finance or FISA or other issues. Did he do that?
McCain has risked his political neck with his party and the party leadership at least in a few instances in his political career and shown his gumption and demonstrating leadership.
What we need in a president, is a leader, not somebody who lists policy position pablum on his website without any commitment to most of them and acting like a chameleon who changes his position based on the audience he is courting today. I will take a politician who displays leadership, commitment to principles once a while at least than one who has never shown any guts to stand up for something
2) Since he hasnt shown much leadership and no record of any worthwhile achievements anywhere including legislative achievements, has Obama at least advocated for some major cause (progressive or otherwise) like UHC, workers rights, civil liberties, poverty, income inequality or anything at all throughout his public life, even if he wasnt very successful in achieving the end goals? Just like edwards or Hillary or nader or kennedy or feingold or anyone else? Pls show us what he has done that makes him a leader that we can hand over this country to?
3) On the dem policy position blackmail, dont bother with this one. Because as I said earlier, the progressive policy position papers on his website dont indicate that he believes in them, as clearly shown by his own flip flop on many of them in the last week alone. The policies are not worth the papers they are written on, unless the candidate has consistenly shown that he has hte cajones to stand up for them no matter what political cost and no matter what office he is running for. Look at his new found faith in faith based initiatives, after the primaries, right before the GE. Had he really believed in this, he could have advocated or explained to progressives how this was alright. We scorched Bush for faith based initiatives for years. Now that obama says its ok just so he can appeal to the fundies, this becomes OK? I guess even the most vile policy positions now become progressive holy grail just because Obama says so. Thats not a movement. Thats a cult. and a dangerous one for real progressives, not the psuedo Obama cultists who call themselves progressives.
Heck I would have a leader who I dont agree with much in terms of policy positions as president and have him in check by having a congress that is progressive, rather than somebody who has shown no leadership and no commitment to anything other than his own electoral fortune and risked nothing for political ambitions. Although the dem congress has been even worse than Obama in flip flops. So good luck on achieving anything progressive with this kind of dem congress, even if Obama wins by 538 to 0.
I dont care if he has done everything that I indicate below to demonstrate he is a leader, but he should have done something to show he is a leader and will fight for at least some principles. He has failed to do that thus far. And thats why many have difficulty handing him over the keys to WH, not just the strawman nonsense you and your fellow bots construct
Dont take cues from your dear leader on substance! Address the substance of my post or stop wasting my time. I have no patience for empty blah blah! As you noticed I was replying to that post very late at night because Im extremely busy with way way more important things to attend to that make me a decent living.
Your original claim: FISA vote doesnt meet the standards of "underhanded and unethical". You didnt bother to say what Hillary did that was underhanded and unethical. But another bot responding to my response to your post made the claim it was about the reagan statement. I quote the full statement and ask you and the other person to enlighten us all on a) how that statement is anywhere near accurate or correct b) how obama's unnecessary reference to Bill dissing his record of "change" while complimenting Reagan in the same sentence doesnt amount underhanded dig at the clintons
If you had any worthwhile ways to explain that statement and show how it is accurate and how any criticism of that statement is underhanded and unethical, you would have already done that. But since you clearly dont have the ability to show your the claims on underhandedness and unethical are worth the network BW they occupy, you spout out more garbage.
Put up or shut up and learn basic logic to begin with!
It is the rest of the non-bot world which has been saying that he is actually the old-style and the same old politician who says one thing and does another. Apparently you just discovered it and try to explain that is alright coming from someone whose primary claim to the nomination and the white house is change from the old washington politics to a new fresh straight arrow politics. Because the guy sure doesnt have any achievements,nor trail of advocacy for major progressive causes nor any worthy leadership role on any issue in has 15 years in public life. But then you knew that. You just decided to twist yourself into a pretzel to explain this guy's lack of leadership as a necessary ingredient for winning elections, even while the whole bot world claimed that same thing is "doing anything and saying anything to win", if another politician did that. It is this hypocrisy that I was addressing.
Being unethical and underhanded? How about the statement I quote from Obama in a reply 2 posts above where he compliments Reagan and disses clinton in the same sentence? You dont think that is underhanded dig at the clintons. The questioner asked nothing about the clintons and the answer that Obama gave suggesting that he is an agent of change in the mold of Reagan Kennedy had nothing to do with clintons. Yet he manages to pull Bill clinton into it. If you dont believe that is pandering to the gazette editors for endorsement and for republican voters by complimenting Reagan and at the same time taking a dig at Clinton (even when the context had nothing to do with Bill clinton) then I have a bridge in Timbaktu I can sell you. In addition if you want to talk about underhanded and unethical comments about the clintons, try Fall of 2007 when Obama camp continuously referred to clinton as divisive (pls refer to the domestic or foreign policy this would refer to, if you dont believe this is character assassination) and has "baggage" meaning the monica affair and white water etc (and they actually directly referred to monicagate as well white water in various statements). Taking Obama to task for his reagan statement and his underhanded dig of the cliton without any need whatsoever, is what you call underhanded? Some chutzpah you and the other fellow BO supporter display!
WHen I said this has been well documented, this is what I meant. The entire statements and the full context of this and other similar statements from Obama camp have been discussed to death here and elsewhere. I quote one above and I can get you even larger quotes if you need to, so you dont try to wiggle out of this using "context". It is tiring to repeat these exercises every 3 days when the BO supporters keep repeating talking points without actually addressing the original quoted statements. read the above post and respond to it if you believe you can explain that. Do some research of your own and instead of expecting others to do it for you. Talk about fantasy!! Obama being a fresh new politician who is changing the old style politics to something new is what is fantasy.
You mean Hillary's response to the following statement from Obama?
" don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that, for example, the 1980 election was different. I mean, I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not, and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path, because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like, you know, with all the excesses of the '60s and the '70s, you know government had grown and grown, but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating, and I think people just tapped into - he tapped into what people were already feeling, which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism, and, and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing."
Did you bother to see the actual statements and the response Or just blowing smoke with talking points delivered from obama camps? Can you please explain to me how this sounds uncomplimentary about Reagan's change of the trajectory in the first place? and what fundamentally different trajectory that Reagan put us on that you can refer to in a complimentary way? Pls dont escape with "in context". I have given the full context of that statement there. There is more you can easily get access to. He clearly wants to compliment Reagan and compare himself to Reagan as an agent of change just to get the editors endorsement and to get some repub votes in NV. If this wasnt shitty pandering by dissing a popular president clinton in the same line as praising a terrible president like Reagan as an agent of change, then I dont know what is. You are complaining that hillary took his pandering and his underhanded dissing of a very popular and only 2 term president we had in the last 3 decades to task, as underhanded criticism of BO? You have some chutzpah doing that. Please dont deliver talking points and you certainly shouldnt be the one who is advising others about "not knowing what you are talking about"
If you must have someone screw you, you might as well get screwed by someone like McCain who actually has demonstrated leadership on at least 1 or 2 issues, even going against his own party and leadership at times [even if it is a very few times. I will take even 1 or 2 times better than never as in the case of BO). As I said elsewhere it is stupid to vote for a man based on a laundry list of left leaning policy position pablum on his website, while clearly demonstrating that he believes in nothing and has no conviction other than to get elected to a higher office even while he has achieved or even attempted anything worthwhile in the current office. Not even leadership on 1 or 2 issues while in his current office. We dont owe somone our votes because he has a (D) after his name or because he has left leaning policy position papers ad nauseum on his website, while clearly they are not worth the paper they are printed on. We need a proven leader as a president, even if we dont agree with him or he doesnt agree with us always. Somone who doesnt run for political cover at all times, but stands up for his own old promise at a minimum. Even if the guy shows leadership on 1 or 2 issues while risking himself politically I will take it. But BO has done nothing of the sort. Has he at least advocated for a major progressive cause with attendant political risks at any time in the past? No. He is no worthwhile leader of any kind. Now, Gore or Russ or Kucinich or Hillary or Michael Moore I can call them leaders. even Nader I call a leader, even when I dont always agree with his actions or positions. Because irrespective of success or failure all of them have stood up for or done long-standing advocacy for some greater progressive cause at their own political risk.
Boy, the bots have to twist themselves into mangled pretzels to defend a no-nothing "leader" of theirs.
of course, now that you define the standard to be one that favors the messiah! come on, have an iota of intellectual honesty at least. The guy has said one thing and done another repeatedly this one being only the latest [it has been documented plenty of times here and elsewhere should you need a reference]. Each time to win in that particular contest. How can you describe that as "he'll say or do anything to get elected" It doesnt meet the standard, indeed
I guess being a bot means getting used to being screwed over and over again.
Nah, you dont have a clue on facts and havent put up any in your response either. Go read the participation stats in this years caucuses. The 65 year olds werent even in the majority to be dominating. If you have info otherwise, pls quote the numbers either from this year or other previous presidential primary caucus years. dont just spout out nonsense. Anynumber of news outlets have reported on the fact that many groups including seniors, people with multiple jobs, people with kids etc couldnt be in the caucuses this year by the same numbers as the other groups. Also you are making bogus claims on absentee voting in caucuses. Pls show me how many caucus states allow for absentee voting.
You really dont even need evidence for this. ALl you have to do is to 1) know some basic statistics 2) look at the results from TX, WA and NV caucus, primaries.
Neither do you have a clue on statistics and democracy. Larger sample size isnt better? smaller better informed electorate is better for democracy? learn something, anything at all. The idea of one man one vote and representative democracy is that we dont want an "elite/better informed" section of the population to be the only one having a say in the representation. Then why shouldnt some section of the population (say nobel laureates) claim they are better informed than they are. Heck I am better informed than you are. You shouldnt vote by that standard. Who decides who is better informed. You for everyone else? Jeez, you are not too bright are you?
In any statistical system that decides representation, a larger sample size is always better than a smaller one. your high school stat teacher might help you here. Talk about getting better informed!
This has very little to do with Clinton as a person or a candidate. Clinton is not the holy grail for all who supported clinton. The whole point is not clinton or nothing. It is: is Obama qualified to lead and run the country and make the critical decisions that may need to be taken at any time? So far his supporters have shopped around only two supposed qualifications, since he has absolutely not articulated/advocated for anything long enough in his public life other than his own candidacy for higher offices. 1. His editor in chief of HLR 2. His successful campaign. I would give much credit to Axelrod for 2 although candidate does deserve some credit. But if that is a good criteria for voting for a president, we should have all voted for Bush in 2000/2004.
Dont insult our intelligence and list his policy prescriptions from his website. Every candidate worth the salt will have to have policy positions. That doesnt make them a leader. This guy after getting elected and going to both IL senate and US senate has done nothing to show that he is a leader. He was a mediocre senator in IL until Emil Jones did him favors in the last 2 yrs of his senate stay, just so he could run for US senate. In the US senate he has taken no leadership position on Iraq or censure motion or anything else, like Feingold did or Kucinich did in the house. Fine. Has he at least successfully or unsuccessfully led on some democratic/progressive holy grail such as UHC or environment or GLBT rights/marriage or anything else that I can think of. At a minimum he hasnt even risked his own political neck and stood for some progressive priority even if he didnt ultimately succeed on that. That way showing that he actually can lead and advocate and expect him to succeed at a future point in time. He hasnt done any such thing. The only worthwhile thing his supporters cling to is his Editor in Chief at HLR. And if you go look at what he did in HLR, apparently he didnt even publish one article in HLR as EIC. There certainly is no scholarly article that google scholar search shows up for him on law as HLR chief or not. And somebody put together a case comparing 20 years of HLR citations and showed that the year he was EIC for is the lowest cited in 20 years. So even there his leadership is in serious question. Just show us where he fought hard and led and what causes for other than his own elections.
By comparision, whether we agree with McCain's policies or not, the man is most qualified to be run the country and be the leader of this country. Yes, it bothers me to vote for him (and probably why I may not vote for him) when you consider SCOTUS appointments or other such things that have long term impacts. However I would rather elect a dem congress which can put a roadblock on these things to a repub president than elect someone who has shown absolutely no leadership qualities in all his public life or even private life. His private career is completely unremarkable. He hasnt argued key legal cases or made key legal arguments as part of a team either that show his legal leadership.
At the end of the day party loyalty is not the holy grail. Think about it. If only some of the repubs who didnt think Bush was a good leader were not loyal to the repub party and crossed parties and voted for Al Gore we wouldnt have had the diasaster we had for 7 years. loyalty to the country and to have a good leader for the country is the holy grail. Obama simply doesnt meet these standards. It would be another presidency fully dependent on advisors and the cabinet rather than the president's leadership and judgement.
absolutely clueless conclusion. What this shows has nothing to do with GOTV. Afterall more people voted in the primaries than caucuses in all cases and hence the primary results are much more indicative of voter preference with larger sample sizes than the caucus results.
What this actually shows is that 1) caucuses have much lower participation and has more inaccuracies in the final result of voter preference due to a much smaller sample size 2) caucus participation is not possible for many key demographics like elderly, people with multiple jobs, people with one job but cant take off work and do 3 hours of caucusing, people with kids who cant sit at caucuses for multiple hours and stand outside in lines for hours to get in etc etc, essentially eliminating key demographics for certain candidates, while students, single folks, people with no kids, people with flexible jobs etc can participate and much of that latter category favoring one candidate over others
No its all about cluelessness, cluelessness, cluelessness for Bots!! No candidate that I know of in the dem party has won the nomination yet. In order to do that you need at a minimum 2025 delegates if you exclude MI, FL and probably 2250 or some number the dem committee comes up with on May 31. While obama may likely get there first, he hasnt yet and hasnt won anything yet.
Dont apply rules only when it suits you. If rules are strictly what you are rooting for, then rules allow super delegates (or even the so called pledged delegates) to cast their support to precisely whichever candidate they think is the right nominee for the dem party. I dont hear the obama camp saying any such thing.
If rules (irrespective of the voter participation/voter intent) is the only thing that matters, then you must have been one of the very few democrats who thought that Al Gore shouldnt have asked for any more recounts once the automatic recount was over and it showed Bush won by 512 votes. The rest of the democratic party didnt quite care what the rules were, but wanted to make sure that there should have been a statewide recount making sure all invalidated ballots were reexamined to make sure no legitimate Gore(/Bush) votes were uncounted.
What we witnessed was in caucus/primary states was that the caucuses were much less valid (sample size wise) and the results between the two were dramatically different and in the case of TX the results were complete opposite of the other. Pointing this and the overall pop vote count lead (likely after PR votes) to the super delegates and asking them to support clinton would be very much within the rules of the dem party and was precisely the reason why this stupid super-d system was devised to begin with
The question is right there in front of you: why (people have been trying to push clinton out of the race since Iowa). part of the answer she gives is "it is historically unprecedented" (if you watch the video) and after the next question of "you dont buy this party unity argument" she responds with examples of contests ending in June (first her husband's contest in June and then RKF's with his tragic assassination as she said in the previous march comment). Actually I cant recall many other protracted contests that ended in June, without googling for it. SO the question and the answer makes it clear that this response was about taking the nomination battle to June (which was when she kept saying she expects the contest to end, many times, earlier)
But it is clear that obama camp would rather use anything at their disposal to paint hillary as secretly wishing for a murder and a racist who would like to see an assassination of the AA opponent. That plays well into the hands of the guilt ridden SDs who can then flock to Obama en masse with faux outrage and end the contest before he embarasses himself by losing the popular after Puerto Rico.
Obama camp (of which mydd has become an integral part now with Josh and Jonathan acting as the campaign mouthpieces) was playing from the same faux outrage playbook back in Jan, right before SC primary to get AA votes conveniently after talking racial unity up until NH. LIterally overnight "clintons are racists" accusations reached fever pitch after the NH primary where minority votes were limited and before NV/SC where minority votes mattered (in SC it mattered way more than anything else) Obama camp has gone to the most vile extent to denigrate the clintons as racists (who apparently became racists right before the crucial SC primary to lose all those votes they spent years courting, if you can believe this garbage). I thought I would stay home this Nov. Now we must defeat this man or we will be make this the permanent strategy for future presidential aspirants to denigrate long standing progressive democrats as racists and as seekers of murder and mayhem. Well, McCain is a lucky man!
First of all, I am so touched you feel sorry for me, some stranger on the "internets", for my inferior intellect after you displayed such an awe inspiring intellect and impeccable logic in your post. It must be good to live in the "obama make believe land" wherever that is and believe that you actually possess any intellect, let alone a superior one.
Your first two sentences make as much sense as Obama speak. Not a huge surprise
My point wasnt that she would win with 100% certainty. The point is your statement "She couldn't win a primary so you think she can win a 3 way general election. Some people have no connection to reality anymore at all" is demonstrably false. In politics 6 months is a pretty long time. Anything can and does happen as in the case of this very nomination process. For you to somehow claim that it is unreal to believe you can win GE even if you lose the nomination has no basis in reality or logic, based on recent history. THere is nothing unreal about believing you can win the GE even if you lose the primary, based on what happened in CT. Whether it will happen is not the point you raised or I was making or responding to. No one knows that. It really doesnt matter if leiberman was running for president or US senator. It is not which race you are running for that makes this realistic or unrealistic. It is the dynamics of that particular race, the candidates involved and their support level that makes it real or unreal. Now if Nadar believes he can win a 3 way race that is unreal, at least based on his previous runs and what we know today about the other candidates. If hillary believes she can win, nothing unreal about that, given what the hillary voters indicate in every primary exit poll and in increasing numbers. in 6 months, Obama's negatives have nowhere else to go but south, as has been the case in the past 6 months. McCain is starting out with humongous baggage and is hence vulnerable even among strong conservatives who dont quite care for him to be energized about his candidacy. So, there is nothing unreal about her chances, even if they are low to begin with.
If voters in this country feel that she is the best candidate and elect her to be POTUS as an independent, who are you to call that evil? This is what I call arrogance. As far as throwing the election to McCain, Obama and his bots are doing such a wonderful job of it, by alienating core democratic voters in favor of "new voters", you dont need Hillary to do any damage.
As far as the democratic blackmail is concerned (if you are a true democrat, you should only vote a democrat) it is precisely the kind of blackmail/zealotry that got Bush elected in the first place. Many McCain republicans who didnt like Bush in 2000 and thought he was an empty suit still ended up voting for him due to party loyalty eventually. I know a few of them who lived to regret it. Electing obama the democrat is not the loyalty test, if you believe he is not the right person for the office. THe loyalty test is, as an american citizen who do you think is the right person for the job and who can handle the incredibly difficult job of righting the wrongs of the past 7 years and other unexpected challenges sure to come our way. If Hillary runs as an independent, to me, it is her who is most qualified and the right person for the office, given that the only choices we now have are the three in front of us. Granted I would rather have someone else much more accomplished and has executive experience articulating and implementing a solid vision in some state office or other offices than what Hillary has in her resume. But that is now moot since what we have left is these three.
Given what we have seen in terms of the weak Obama coalition ("Latte Liberals + AAs") we are in no more danger of losing the WH to Mccain with Hillary running as independent, than without her running as indep. So stop the blackmail and using words like evil and other such nonsense.