Like Archinect on Facebook.
Sign up to our mailing list.
I agree the whole primary process is flawed and needs to be fixed. In the meantime, hopefully Obama will win convincingly enough in the upcoming primaries that the superdelegates won't have any choice but to back his nomination.
jafidler, similar article on NYTs home page:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/us/politics/14delegates.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
"With every delegate precious, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers also made it clear that they were prepared to take a number of potentially incendiary steps to build up Mrs. Clinton’s count. Top among these, her aides said, is pressing for Democrats to seat the disputed delegations from Florida and Michigan, who held their primaries in January in defiance of Democratic Party rules"
look, neither i nor hillary can control what the american people want in a candidate. it seems that "change" is going to trump "experience." what can she do about that that? personally i think it's unfortunate, and we may learn some difficult lessons under an obama administration. i'm not saying it will be all bad or the country will fall apart, but let's just say there's going to be a lot of on the job training with obama. but hey, it's democracy and if that's what the people want, so be it (it's gotta be a hell of a lot better than the bush administration).
let's not fight and enjoy valentines and tis stories of true love:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XE3jLCC_rwo
i'm not sure smarter is quite the right word.
the voters are a better gauge of how the general population will vote, because they are the voters. smarter? not so sure about that.
some of our best president's did not have much experience at all.
And I don't think Hillary's so-called "35 years of experience" is all that much to brag about.
i think there's a time and a place for fresh ideas. jfk's the most obvious example. without his enthusiasm and new approach to a sort of public activism (peace corp) the civil rights movement may never have taken off in as it did throughout the 60s. at the same time he made a number of mistakes during his time in office (bay of pigs, cuban missile crisis, prelude to vietnam).
i'm personally more a fan of an fdr than i am a jfk. fdr was incredibly savvy and just plain smart. his understanding of domestic and foreign policy was broad and enlightened, and find hillary much closer to fdr than i do obama. i think this country at this time in its history needs an fdr more than they do a jfk.
i'm guessing jafidler already saw this (somewhat biased) accounting of what's happening in michigan...but maybe some of the rest of you find it interesting.
in a country like the usa, though, where the perception of the legitimacy of elections seems to be hanging by a thread, how much longer before someone claims power via no peaceable means? will bush even leave office? if only we could vote for putin...so much easier when the choice is one
this country needed an FDR after GWB 1st term instead we got 2 terms of GWB...
I have to respectfully disagree. FDR ran a campaign against Hoover saying he wasn't doing enough, however when he took office he more or less adopted all of Hoover's policies and just strengthened them...pulling the country into the darkest days of the depression.
Deficit spending under FDR soared to levels that are unheard of even today as % of GDP. He authorized the confiscation of gold from private citizens. At the time the dollar was backed by gold and as FDR wanted to inflate the currency to pay for all the programs he had going, so why not just steal from the public to do so. And after all the programs, beauracry, etc. it took a world war to finally end the depression.
As for foreign policy, it took Pearl Harbor before he did anything that could be considered foreign policy. He also allowed Stalin to control eastern europe after WWII. Not questioned at the Tehran conference and a done deal by the Yalta conference. I'm not sure how that could in any way be considered savvy.
Yknow Im all for learning from history, but this is not the cold war, its not ww2, and Obama is not JFK, and Hillary is definitely not FDR. Its the 21st century, and I think we are seeing that this is a fundamentally new era for the world. Economics are different, war is different, and frankly no one is ready for what is coming in the next 4 to 8 years. Lets also be real about Hillary here, I mean she wasnt sitting in during cabinet meetings. She wasnt negotiating with Vladimir Putin. Shes been in the senate for a few more years than Obama has been. I would think what matters is how a person thinks and approaches problems. Thus far I dont think weve seen much evidence of Hills supposedly remarkable talents at management or making sound judgments.
I dont think it has sunk in yet just how powerful it will be for the world to see an america with a guy like Obama as president. I think it fundamentally changes the game in a way Hillary never can. With her its still the same old shit, the same old dynasties and the same old machinery, I just dont think anyone in the world will have any reason to believe things will be different. I dont even think its just the symbolic value of a new face, just some black guy of modest means. That same intelligence and clarity and honesty and reasonableness that makes him such a powerful politician here I think will be an incredible asset in talking to people like Putin and Jintao. I think they will instantly have to recognize that the old bullshit is over with and this is a new epoc for America.
FDR is responsible many economists say for the extension of the great depression. They argue it would have been a 1 or 2 year deal without the new deal, which effectively extended it until 4 years after VJ day. The war years were its only interuption.
Does anyone else feel a twisted sense of sarcasm in that ad?
I half expect hillary to gas the crowds at her inaugural address with giant 'strength and experience' parade balloons.
Is this what you are trying to link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mOa3sXjqE4
Why did he use all his villain characters?
Villains for Hillary '08
anyone see hill on snl last night? at least she's getting the amy poehler endorsement! also pleasantly surprised to see that the snl folks have seen the tim russert debates as i have.
also a question for obama supporters, how do you feel that your candidate may win the nomination without having won new york, california, texas, ohio, michigan, florida, and pennsylvania, i.e. the most populous states in the country? so much for the indignation that "flyover" iowa is first state to caucus.
Bullshit. Hillary won NY because she's a Senator from NY. It would be unthinkable for her not to win her own state, just like Obama handily won Illinois.
California was a close race and could have gone either way. Hillary won, and them's the breaks. But New York and California are almost certain to vote for the Dem in the general election anyway, regardless of whether it's Hillary or Obama on the ballot.
Michigan and Florida are meaningless because their delegates don't count and none of the candidates did any campaigning there. Fuck, Hillary was the only name on the ballot in Michigan... You really think that's a legitimate victory? Things must be pretty desperate in Hillaryland. Oh wait, they are.
Last time I checked, Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania haven't even voted yet, and things aren't looking good for Hillary in any of those states, considering how much of a lead she had two weeks ago. Obama is now ahead in TX, Hillary's lead in Ohio has evapoarated, and Hillary is rapidly losing ground to Obama in PA -- which doesn't even vote for several more weeks.
SNL is the perfect venue for Hillary... Her entire campaign has been like a stale SNL skit that drags on forever for no apparent reason, and both SNL and Hillary share the distinction of being once-great things that have far outlived their relevance.
Give it up, Hillary. You lost. Eat it, swallow it, deal with it.
You pick a fight and the whine, are you trying to replicate the Hillary candidacy?
ohio and texas, we love you (as we do new york, california, massachusetts, michigan, florida, and don't forget little new hampshire)!
and eli, i may pick a fight, but you're entitled to select the wine as we toast hillary's nomination as the democratic candidate for president of the united states.
Take your wine and your morally depleted candidate and go fuck yourself.
Ja, you must be proud:
racist/xenophobic tactics (the turban picture, ' obama is not a muslim as far as I know') drudgereport alliance
rush limbaugh alliance
SNL endorsement of the whine strategy
Hillary Win in TX and OH
She has not changed her message form her 11 in a row lost streak, what changed?
I do not want that woman and her petty tactics anywhere near my government.
Matt Drudge Press Secretary
(by the way, I sent that to Ben Smith. Expect the Clinton/Limbaugh '08 alliance to revealed soon in mass media.)
Some of you guys on these political threads are starting to be assholes.
When it comes down to it , you must admit that if you don't get to actually viote in Nov. for either Hilary OR Obama as first choice, you 'll end voting for either Hilary OR Obama as a SECOND CHOICE .
...all these long winded conjectrures l will look so silly in November
seriously, oe, grow-up. you people are taking all this way to seriously.
what do you do with the other min of the day , when you are not typing something about Obama?
Got get some fresh air. November will be here soon enough
ff33º I agree with you, I think everyone is getting tired.
BUT I just cannot forgive Hillary the South Carolina racist stunts, the turban photo leak (believe me it worked in rural OH were people saw a black guy in a funny turban and right at that moment decided on Hillary), the 'as far as I know'.
To me at this point it goes beyond Obama/Clinton, it is about what type of country we live in. Is it OK to attack people's background? Are thinly veiled attempts at racial division OK? I say NO, and will never forget what the Clintons and Democrats (for allowing it) have done.
and while i'm being divisive and rude, like my candidate, are any of you that post regularly on these political threads architects? i don't see your names on anything, but politics.
[and if you come back with "architecture is political," i would like to see an obama on your door schedule.]
"seriously, oe, grow-up. you people are taking all this way to seriously."
Well you arent taking this seriously enough.
all i'm saying is this election is not worth telling complete strangers to "go fuck yourself."
thankfully i need to get back to work this afternoon.
DO THE MATH! NO, SHE CAN'T! DO THE MATH!
I have to agree with jafidler on this...You can all go take this as seriously as you want , but....
1. you only have one vote
2. That vote is in November
3.i chances ar slim you will change anyone's mind here by being a dick....most nectors have a their own preferences.
4. A "Go fuck yourself" isn't conducive to civilized debate
all i'm saying is this election is not worth telling complete strangers to "go fuck yourself."
No youre right of course, Im just so fucking pissed about this. Its so fucking demoralizing to see just how pervasive the lack of insight runs in this country.
Here's my exemplary problem with Hillary
Michigan and Florida, who break the rules and are were as representative as an election in Russia (only one candidate on the ballot) are "indicative of how the nation feels and should be included" even though they violated the rules that everyone, including Hillary, agreed to but nobody should pay any attention to the fly-over states - you know, the ones that don't vote for Democrats every time but voted for Obama greater than all the republicans combined - yeah, those.
So she is fine with going back on her word and changing the rules of the game if she stands to personally profit from it, but the people who play by the rules are not "representative" and can be dissed without fear. From this I can only determine that the rules don't apply to the big dog - and I've had enough of that in the last eight years.
Hilary Clinton has acted like Lisa Simpson in the past couple weeks. She is basically acting very petty and childish with 1. her staged tantrum on television (based on Obama's criticism on her health care plan) 2. Releasing negative ads based on the ignorance of the American people (turbins) 3. Trying to convert the last debate into her discussion of health care. 4. Digging up dirtless smears on Obama's correspondence with Canada. (which was cleared by the Canadian government the day after)
It's unfortunate that she won Ohio and Texas, but I think its clear that Ohio is the reason for the last Bush term and Texas is responsible for the rest of this mess. What did people expect? Overall, it is comforting that Obama is still leading in delegates after all of this mess. It is also clear that the people that were fooled at the lower end of the education scale. I'm confident that people will make their way around these issues when they are explained more clearly.
why is it that obama supporters have to resort to insulting people that think differently from them? is it possible that we may just have different beliefs and perceptions regardless of how ye enlightened obamatrons like to skew just about anything and everything to support the obama and denigrate hillary. look it's not working - and often simply comes off as propoganda. you're going to need to try a different tack.
In other words, there's nothing wrong with being ignorant. It's just a way of thinking differently.
no, lig, i would say that clinton supporters value different things than obama supporters. obama supporters are very big on moral outrage, posting countless scandalous stories that are supposed to guilt clinton supporters into the obama camp. when i in fact do not find these stories very morally outrageous at all and prefer to select my candidate based on positions, intelligence, and moreover, a general world view than i am sympathetic towards. that is why i am suggesting taking a different tack if indeed you are trying to convince me obama's "the man" rather than you just coming off as arrogant and full of yourself.
"a general world view than i am sympathetic towards."
Which is what exactly? Partisanship? Cold war geopolitikal maneuvering? Where is the future? Dont you get it? You have no 'why'!
all this devotionalist spouting of self-assurance that some from obama fans, reminds of a tired cliche like "Jesus-freak" passion...
These Conventions are impotent: such as suggesting others are ignorant or listing off inventories of Obama's rival many inconsistencies, or trying to sound outraged by just hitting "all caps", or the usual rhetorical query fired at others, rather than listening to what they are saying..
Obama fans just want somebody to regurgitate your passion on, but all the while are left "Change"-ing nothing. I'll say it again, ...you will end up voting either for hilary OR obama in like 7 months, and until then ..there is little you can do, but you insist on offending your fellow nectuers by insinuating postures of fidelity to Obama. Don't forget your audience.
ff33º, take your own advice and stop your whiny holy-than-thouness and stop insulting your fellow archinectors.
partisanship is not a world view. geopolitical maneuvering is closer to what i'm talking about. she understands how countries, political institutions, political leaders operate. yes, there may be some manipulation in that, but that's politics, and anyone who doesn't believe it...cough....cough...senator obama...will be absolutely squashed by his political adversaries. the world isn't as rosey as obama supporters would like to believe.
take the michigan primary for example. obama played by the rules by staying off the ballot. why? he had nothing to gain by staying off the ballot. hillary stayed on the ballot, did zero campaigning in the state, and won easily. she was the winner; barrack was not. come november michigan voters will remember obama's absence. why disenfranchise voters by not putting your name on the ballot, even if you believe what you're doing is "morally" right. whine about "that's just not fair" all you want. moral outrage doesn't get things done; intelligence does, and hillary has that in spades
ok, I will. ....but i regret nothing I have said here.
...and you have to admit...I am probably right about one thing.. many Obama fans here will still, however reluctantly, vote for Hilary if she happens to win the nomination, which equates to a big contradiction of the current frenzy ofAbam fans seeking co much campaign justice.
ff33º I think you are wrong, if Hillary is in that ballot I am voting McCain (if he gets a decent healthcare plan and VP, I actually think he would be good the Iraq issue too) or Nader (which I guess either way itis a vote for McCain).
I do believe in principle and character and cannot support someone like Hillary.
dear god, anyone who would consider voting for either mccain or nader (what?!) is completely out to lunch. in that case, it would seem principles and morals are all you are voting on.
of course, what do you vote for?
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?