THEaquino - than you are in disagreement with the founders of this country. If you'd study their works, you'd know this. You'd know that this dialogue has already happened.
People never look at history.
Socialism was, is, and always will be a failure.
Man, the spin in this thread for one side or the other is making me dizzy: only this side is playing rough, the other side is squeaky clean and wholesome...wah, wah, wah. Give me a f'ing break. Elections are rough stuff, no holds barred operations, or haven't you noticed? And that didn't start with the Willie Horton ad, either. What Bill and Hillary and Obama and this whole group has done so far is Sunday school stuff. Shit, read some American history, fer Christ's sake.
Oh, and evilp, in the first Bush election you didn't vote for crap, you can throw that ballot in the dumpster: he was elected by one vote and the person who cast it sits on the Supreme Court.
G-Dub has disappointed many many republicans not because of the war per se but his ballooning budgets. As far as the war I think we should send a big invoice to the UN.
Or let all our "friends" treasury notes diminish to nothing so we can buy them back at a discount. Thanks for the ride sukas.
Ummm yeah the surpreme court is there to decide those sorts of issues and thats the way it was set up to work. I dont see the issue her - Gore barely won the pop vote and lost the electoral college - seems rather plain and simple once you get past the chads. The sysyem worked flawlessly and the transition of power occured seamlessly the way it was supposed to despite Paul Bunyon ( Gore) standing on the steps of the Surpreme court. But you know thats what you get with the Clintons and Gores - a bunch of Hill Billy ambulence chasing lawyers, and one old nasty crusty limp dick secretary of State Albright. Whart a waste the bunch of them. Lets close that chapter in our history.
Oh, because there were no riots and military overthrows and executions that means the system worked flawlessly? That's rich.
As opposed to the illustrious performance we've gotten from this bunch? Yea, we're about to close a chapter of history in about a year, alright, but it ain't the one you're thinking of.
Ok, futurist, I can't resist, here's a bit of history, from historian Joseph Cummins, taken from an interview:
"I think the mudslinging definitely is still a big part of our election process, but it’s less broad and vulgar. For instance, there is less aimed at other people’s physical attributes. The 19th century was very big on that. In the election of 1800, one of the dirtiest in American history, the venomous hack writer James Callendar (secretly hired by Thomas Jefferson) assailed then-President John Adams as a “repulsive pedant” and “a hideous hermaphroditical character,” whatever that means. Later in the 19th century, Martin Van Buren was accused of wearing women’s corsets (by Davy Crockett, no less) and James Buchanan (who had a congenital condition that caused his head to tilt to the left) was accused of have unsuccessfully tried to hang himself. Oh, and Abraham Lincoln reportedly had stinky feet.
The 20th century began this way; at the 1912 Republican National Convention, Teddy Roosevelt, wearing a sombrero and smoking a cigar, cheerfully referred to William Howard Taft, the sitting President and Roosevelt’s former vice president, as “a rat in a corner.” (The rodent motif is popular — FDR liked to call Alf Landon, his 1936 opponent, “the White Mouse who wants to live in the White House.”)"
"A hideous hermaphroditical character", I love that one.
futurist, i'd like to think i adhere to the tenets of classical republicanism with the idea that a small sacrifice on my side is my civic duty so that we can have social programs that benefit the greater good. I disagree with your assertion about the founding fathers because if you had studied their works you'd realize that many of our founding fathers were in fact proponents of classic republicanism as well. With one of its keys aspects being calling on all people to be good citizens and perform their civic duties such as paying taxes, obeying the laws and voting, for the good of the society.
And evil, i fully support the electoral college, what happened after is where i have the issue. Don't tell me W wouldn't have fought just as hard if Al's brother (if he has one) and former campaign co-chair had given the election to Al.
That is probably the strangest interpretation I've heard yet. Civic duty is one thing...right in the vein of being a good citizen and voting, but being forced to give money to someone without your consent is another.
It is all about agency. Always. This is core to ALL the battles of life.
Learn this and you will be wiser than others.
It is ALWAYS about Agency.
Every battle of governments past, present and future, will be about agency. These are the two sides:
Agency OR Force.
Liberty OR Socialism.
Noone has the right to take anything that is mine and give it to someone else, just because they don't have it. The intention does not supersede the principal. They have NO right. Neither does government, because it is just an extension of the people. Since an individual has no right to steal from me, neither does the government they create.
Now if I willingly choose to give of myself, than that is different. Reread the founders' works. This discussion has already been debated in length, and they decided Agency was the right course to pursue.
Today, sadly, our "leaders" have chosen to follow history's undeniable failure - socialism.
Look futurist, of course, free will, as a matter of principal, is a great thing and should carry the chiefest respect in any valid government. But lets be real for a moment. You really think privatized firefighters are a good idea? What about privatized police and military? Part of agency is we get to vote for our collective interest. If some guy overthrew the government and started evicting rich people from their homes and appropriating their assets to just hand out to the poor that would be one thing, but Clinton got elected, and overwhelmingly so the second time. Democrats pitch their programs to the public and everyone has a say in how much we think is appropriate to invest in the collective good. You can argue the ills of socialist-leaning politics until youre blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is people are pretty happy in Scandinavia, and like it or not life is better in South America than it was 20 years ago. It just isnt a fact that socialism is a universal failure.
Anyway that seems blindingly obvious to me.
.. On the dirty politics point, I think the whole idea is that we are sick of it. Yea its always been there, but christ, cant we take a break at least so we can actually get something done? Its PRECISELY this divide and conquer, right v left, christian v heathen, white v black v latino cornball nonsense thats gotten us here. I mean why is gay marriage even a question let alone a central political issue? We dont have enough to worry about we need the congress of the united states spending months debating whether or not to hand out symbolic insults to gay people?
We just need a fresh start already. Its not just oratory or charisma, its the genuine desire and wherewithal to put the diatribe behind us and work together to get shit done. Obamas speeches are laden with real and substantively different approaches in the way government should operate, engaging in face to face diplomacy with adversaries, gathering progressive coalitions based on agreements of principal that cross party lines, so that policies toward universal healtcare and sustainable energy can actually pass congress and become more than campaign promises. For gods sake, on Martin Luther Kings birthday Hillary is out there trying to sell this idea that the "I have a dream" speech was somehow incidental to that cultural transformation. She feeds into this idea that changes for the better are just benevolently bestowed upon people by their entitled leaders without provocation like Evita throwing garlands from a balcony. Those symbolic calls to action may not have had an executive pen behind them, but they were the real power forcing those changes. To say Obama's stirring similar emotions to end global warming and partisan deadlock is a 'fairytale' not only diminishes the goals themselves but really misses a critical mechanism in government, wherein it is the peoples passions that force their representatives to change the way they do things. Shes so obsessed with winning shes lost total sight of whats really necessary right now to make things happen.
I remember Kucinich on Tucker a few weeks ago explaining why he was telling his caucus-supporters to pick barack for their second choice instead of someone like Edwards who's health care plan is more similar. Kucinich just said: " I think Barack means what he says." And thats all it is. If you havent got honesty or integrity it doesnt matter what promises you make on the stump to get votes.
Say I have two horses. It is my property. I worked to pay for them. I own them. But my neighbor does not have a horse. I like my neighbor, I want him to do well in life, but I want to keep my two horses. This is my right. Now say the sherrif, who's sole responsibility is to protect my life, my property, and enforce the law...comes and says I am required to give my extra horse to my neighbor. Because its the right thing to do. Because he doesn't have one and I have two. This is wrong. This doesn't change the fact that I did not willingly volunteer of myself my horse.
* Goverment is the creation of the people. It, then, ONLY has the powers that people give it, and they cannot give it powers that they do not possess. Reduced to an individual, anything that an individual has a right to do, those are the rights it can pass onto government. Make sense? The creation cannot eclipse the creator. Government cannot take on powers it does not have.
We are in danger of losing our Liberty if we give Government that which it has no right to control.
Democrats - full blown Socialism
Republicans - Socialism Lite
Independents (broad spectrum) - I am a conservative, but a registered Independent. I am a patriot. I know America is the greatest Country in the history of the world. I am a Christian. Not a wacko, CBN, "you're going to hell!" hypocrite.
I lived in Asia, I speak Mandarin, and have seen the effects of the so-called "good intentions" of goverments for the people. I know this issue very well and will NEVER be fooled by the promises of Socialism. I see it in America and it angers me at the hold it has taken. It serves to only empower the top. It consentrates the power in select areas, (where the founders wanted power pulled down and divided up) and the people are damned if they maneuver from the system.
The next day the government tells you that you can only have one car. You can only have 2 kids and aborition is expected. You can only have so much money. You can only have so much living space. You can only use certian products. You can only have so much....it goes on and on and on....whatever they determine is good for you.
The moderate slips into the extreme and one day it is Monks and journalists being killed in the streets by thugs, and the next day people are murdered in prisons and in the dark by thugs in uniforms.
Where does it come from ?
Every socialist ideology comes from the atheistic creations of the French Revolution. Where God is dead. So rights and powers and innate and inalienable AGENCY is only provided by MEN. Not God. MEN only. With God dead, there is nothing at your being that requires anything for you. So man can add and take whatever rights he decides for you. These ideas were started and perpetuated in academia until now. They follow the sick interpretations of Marx, Althusser, Lacan, Fish and a host of other godless individuals as reason
Mao Zedong loved Marx. And he murdered MILLIONS of his own people to implment his ideology. China today, continues to murder MILLIONS too. All under Socialist ideals that this is NECESSARY to keep stability. Population controls. Rationing systems. Thought and Speach police.
Look at History. Stalin, Mousalini, Lenin...look at Pol Pot and a host of others who followed these ideals. Look at Europe, Poland and Bosnia and Scotland, all welfare states, which have parrallel societies...no assimilation, no National identity. This is how it starts . They erase the heros. Get rid of Washington and Lincoln Day. Make it Presidents day. Get rid of Martin Luther King Day...call it Civil Rights Day....generalize, never specify. Broad inclusion, never specificity. Open borders, no sovereignity. Slide. Slide. Slide.
There will NEVER be an equal distribution of money and class for all people. It is foolishness to seek this. If every man deserves a loaf of bread. Someone still has to bake it. Men are imperfect. And by nature, we strive to improve, to compete, to reach the unreachable. You cannot stifle or hold down people. Equalize them. Regulate them. Socialism and Communism and Totalitarianism are all on the same side of the fence, only varying in degree of what? Of FORCE.
Even a little socialism is not good, because the line will continue and continue to be redrawn until it is too late. I have seen it. The founders knew this. It is foolish and instead of placing our lives on the ideals of crazy, godless men from the dark ages, we should strive to build in the inspired works of the men that founded this Country. Socialism robs individuals of self confidence, of choice, of their God-given liberty.
Its your duty to have no horse, the government will see to it that horse needs are carefully alocated or terminated all together, after all horse emit methane gas and require feed that takes up valuable land to grow. If we catch you with a horse, you will have to go on fear factor.
I much perfer Obama's cap and trade futures policy through the Chicago Climate Exchange, creating a global free market for known and quantilfiable green house emissions, enforce by agreed upon international market exchange protocols, not UN
The fallacy you commit, Futurist, is to group democrats (and republicans) with socialists like Mao. Marxist socialism is a failed ethos. It doesn't work. And no rational democrat or republican would espouse it.
The hard right always wants to portray democrats as socialists. This is a completely naive understanding of both socialism and the policies of American political parties. Politics is not a continuum -- if it was, I could say that what you advocate is theocratic anarchism lite.
In your post, you essentially conflate everything. You describe fictitious trends that you've dreamed up, then portray them as real. Your brain is clearly addled by its own illusions.
i wish we had emoticons on archinect so i could give futurist the one with the yellow head and the eyes bugged out and its finger spinning around its ear. that one's the best. i do appreciate that you've successfully diffused some of the hillary-barrack vitriol here, if only for a day or two.
it would also be nice if barrack supporters could keep their rapture on the barrack thread, so i don't have to read it. so hard to keep things on topic these days!
You just don't understand the origins of socialism and where the spectrum leads. Euro socialism and totalitariansm only vary in degree. Communism is a socialist system. Totalitarianism is a socialist system. Eurosocialism - is a multiculturalist system of one world government, thought and speach police 24/7. And the truth is that Democrats are Socialists. This isn't rhetoric. They want a complete welfare state. They want open borders and multiculturalism. They want concentrated power and regulation on eveything from cars to healthcare. It is completely in line with the system.
Republicans of today are moderate Democrats that are just more greedy when it comes to getting more money rather than power. No true conservative is for anarchy. Anarchists are more in line with the "revolution" concept that socialists drum up. True conservatives champion the founding principles of America.
And if you want to call known history and the present day atrocities underway, as 'trends' and 'illusions' than you really need to wake up.
Socialism is alive and well in America and it exists primarily with the Democrats. The Republicans are closet Socialists when it comes to welfare.
We need to turn America back toward its founding principles. Not Europe and Asias'.
But I like this debate [sorry for the offtopic ja ;)] so lets go step by step.
I'll have to assume from your horses example youre against all taxes, because if no private citizen has the right to take money from another then certainly the government does not. Let me also assume youre against all arrests on private property because if I do not have a right to go into another persons house then certainly the government does not. In fact I must assume youre against arrests and fines and prosecutions of any kind because I dont have the right to take someones stuff or to kidnap and hold someone against their will.
You see where this is going? At what point does a seemingly good-idea-in-principal become absurd in the real world?
We are a social species and we have to make collective decisions. We make collective decisions about standards for behavior and decisions about how to pool collective efforts into projects that are mutually beneficial. Its quintessential to human existence. If its reasonable for a group to expect that members cant murder or steal why is it unreasonable for people to expect that everyone pay taxes and contribute to funding police and firefighters and the greater common good? We do apply agency in these decisions through voting, and so I really dont see where this principal of yours meets the road.
"
The next day the government tells you that you can only have one car. You can only have 2 kids and aborition is expected. You can only have so much money. You can only have so much living space. You can only use certian products. You can only have so much....it goes on and on and on....whatever they determine is good for you.
The moderate slips into the extreme and one day it is Monks and journalists being killed in the streets by thugs, and the next day people are murdered in prisons and in the dark by thugs in uniforms.
"
Man you just LOVE the slippery slope! How about we debate ideas that are actually on the table and not do the fallacy round robin?
Again man, we vote, so isnt really just "they" is it?
"
Every socialist ideology comes from the atheistic creations of the French Revolution. Where God is dead. So rights and powers and innate and inalienable AGENCY is only provided by MEN. Not God. MEN only. With God dead, there is nothing at your being that requires anything for you. So man can add and take whatever rights he decides for you. These ideas were started and perpetuated in academia until now. They follow the sick interpretations of Marx, Althusser, Lacan, Fish and a host of other godless individuals as reason
"
Well first, the idea that atheism is the root of all evil is so absurd its barely worth debating. But lets make this abit easy for you. Im a theist, a passionate one at that. But who holds authority over the interpretation of God's wishes for us? What do you think is the best mechanism for determining whats right and wrong?
"
This is how it starts . They erase the heros. Get rid of Washington and Lincoln Day. Make it Presidents day. Get rid of Martin Luther King Day...call it Civil Rights Day....generalize, never specify. Broad inclusion, never specificity.
"
You really want hero worship over honoring the actual principals these guys espoused?
"
There will NEVER be an equal distribution of money and class for all people. It is foolishness to seek this. If every man deserves a loaf of bread. Someone still has to bake it. Men are imperfect. And by nature, we strive to improve, to compete, to reach the unreachable. You cannot stifle or hold down people. Equalize them. Regulate them. Socialism and Communism and Totalitarianism are all on the same side of the fence, only varying in degree of what? Of FORCE.
"
Youre throwing a pretty wide net here arent you? Ive worked in impoverished places, I know sometimes just a little investment can make a huge difference in the lives of everyone. If people vote they want some help from the feds so health insurance premiums dont banrupt the whole frigging country is that really anything like totalitarianism?
"It is foolish and instead of placing our lives on the ideals of crazy, godless men from the dark ages, we should strive to build in the inspired works of the men that founded this Country."
Whos doing what?? Does any part of this sentence make a lick of sense to anyone?
"They want open borders and multiculturalism. They want concentrated power and regulation on eveything from cars to healthcare."
You're drastically oversimplifying, Futurist. This is how you want to perceive the world: black versus white, socialism versus you.
I do understand the beginnings of socialism—in Russia, it came from the bolsheviks who were against the monarchy. They demanded the violent overthrow of the government and the establishment of a command economy. This is actually the opposite of what most democrats want. Most democrats want a functioning, open and democratic government, and a market economy that provides opportunities for many people to realize their abilities.
Democrats generally want a sensible border control policy. They want curbs on immigration, but still promoting the idea of a nation of immigrants; they want moderate regulations and safety standards that protect us from pollution, malicious corporations, or getting shot by our neighbors. This is far from socialism.
The wierd thing about a christian libertarian viewpoint is that it advocates for total freedom in almost every aspect of people's lives: freedom from government, freedom from regulation. But when it comes to sexual and religious matters, you seem to want the government in everyone's bedroom and living room. "One man one woman!" "Repeal a woman's right to choose!" "Atheism leads to socialism!"
This perspective seems deeply hypocritical and contradictory.
Futurist, you're spewing so much pablum I don't even know where to start. I'll just pick a couple of points. Your blanketing Europe as a blob of socialist states that lack indivudual identity is utter nonsense. Italy has no national identity? France has no national identity? The one concept that actually threatens their national identity is a capitalist one, the European Union, an attempt to create the United States of Europe. Farwest1 has described your tactics pretty well. You glob any opposing ideologies to American capitalism under the rubric "socialism" no matter what the actual realities and workings of that particular nation are, and throw dirt on the grave by bringing up the most heinous examples (Stalin, Mao, etc., etc.), making no distinction between countries that are for the most part capitalist but include some social programs and totalitarian states. It's a nice tactic, but it's transparent and based on false logic (e.g. "Politician X believes in making the trains run on time: Hitler and Mussolini believed in making the trains run on time: politician X is thus a fascist). And to state that Democrats are actually socialists that want a complete welfare state is the bullshit statement of all bullshit statements, and is true only in your deluded mind. But keep dreaming.
I really want to respond to oe's points on dirty politics. I agree with you in principle, oe, about a fresh start, that finally, after all these years, we could see the game change once and for all, but that outlook ignores some basic realities, and the main one is that you would have to change some basic human attitudes and reactions first. Political campaigns area a large social dynamic with forces at play that I fear are stronger than any one politician to change, and that includes Obama. There are basically two tactics to take if you're running for office: the honorable and decent one, which is to talk about yourself and your ideas, and the "dirty" and not so honorable one of talking (and taking) your opponent down.
Now, I get that Barack is trying to take the high road, but I suggest that the process and dynamics involved make that pretty much impossible. And when you state that Hillary is so "so obsessed with winning she's lost total sight of whats really necessary right now to make things happen" I think your miss the point. Yes, there always is an obsession with winning, for anyone running for that office: the prize at the end (power, money, fame, influence) is too great to resist. Hillary (and Bill as well) is more correctly a total realist and is playing the election game to the hilt. In the example of her Martin Luther King statement, I think she was just being simple: of course King wanted to implement his efforts through politicians and legislation: how else to get the results he and the movement were striving for, short of running for president himself? So her statement was disingenuous and really pointless: but racist? Come on...
But the chorus (media, pundits, blogs, etc.) picks up the chant "Is it racist?" "Is it racist?", which soon starts to just sound like "It's racist" "It's racist". At that point, you would think that Barack's best course is to take the high road, that he would "win over the people" by showing that he's better than that...but of course we know that in practice that's actually political suicide. He HAS to respond, has to put up his dukes, cannot keep quiet, or the chorus turns into "chicken", "no guts", "loser" (see the Willie Horton ad and the Swift Boat campaign), and Hillary very well knew he would have to respond. Now, why is a response that would be praised as high minded and moral in parlor conversation actually political suicide in the street? I don't rightly know, but I bet there's a few hundred libraries full of books which have tried to figure behavior that particular quirk in human behavior.
I do think the Clinton campaign has seen their support among blacks fall and in response has made an organized attempt to isolate Obama as 'the black candidate', but I dont think the Martin Luther King statement was the most glaring example of that attempt, nor do I think it was in-and-of itself in any way a racist comment. Now one could say this tactic makes machiavellian political sense, but its pretty fucking callus. As ruthless as we know they are, I dont think people really imagined they would be willing to discard all their hard work in the 90's and resort to racial divisiveness just to improve their odds in a few states.
I agree, the tactics I was talking about can definitely backfire: there's some sort of line you can't cross in those tactics, and when you do you actually stir up sympathy for the opponent. But oe, be assured, when and if the campaign comes down to just the two of them, the game will get even rougher and his campaign strategists will press him to respond in kind. Barack will come up against a struggle between his idealism (which I do think is honest and fresh) and doing what he has to just to survive.
i ignore these race issues, because they are pure spin, started by obama supporters to cull black voters from hillary's base. i live in detroit and know for a fact that she has a major black following here, mainly because of bill's record of support of the black community. but if obama supporters can plant a seed of doubt in black voters about the clintons' record on race, they know that they can chip at her base. of course hillary plays her own political games, and frankly they're both matching each other blow for blow at this point. it's become dirty, but hey, this is politics. to claim moral superiority from either candidate is pure hogwash.
this was a recent cnn article on obama surging ahead of clinton in support from black voters. clinton in october held a 30 point leader over all other candidates within the black community at that point. what changed? the article surmises that after iowa black voters began to believe that obama was a viable black candidate for president. i disagree. i believe the shift was far more gradual, and it came from support by the black media. i don't know how many "news and notes" fans we have on archinect, but i listen almost every night. increasingly since december they have become much more adamant in their support of obama. the same has happened on our local detroit hip hop radio stations. i'm not saying it has anything to do with the actions of any particular candidate, but i believe the shift in support came of an effort to galvanize the black vote within the black media and completely unrelated to the recent castigating of bill by the mainstream media.
eli, did you believe bill clinton to be a "racist" when he was the president? if not, what changed? perhaps it is you that has changed and not the president.
ja, no i did not, i loved billary. i dont think they are racist, but they are using racist tactics to get what they want, which may be worse. I an not celebrating, I think this is one of the worst things that has happened, i loved billary, now i despise them to the point I could not vote for them. this is a sad thing, but i cannot vote for people that use these nasty dirty divisive tactics.
questioning what I think is obama's flimsy record is fine, it should be done, afterall he is running for prez. Using race is outside the bounds of what I can accept and NOTHING can make it ok, at least to me.
the change in billary= power and legacy lust. they are blinded by their own brilliance. shameful way to possibly end a political life, and if she gets the nomination a stain that will not go away.
i just find it hard to understand how people who once supported the president now use the same childish tactics ("billary," monica references, etc.) that the conservatives used under newt.
also most of the sources that wonderk first posted regarding hillary's perceived "racist tactics" were not news stories; they were blogs or op-ed pieces with a very particular and slanted bias. in the age of the blogosphere, it seems that credible news sources have instead been replaced by joe blogger's opinion pieces. if your beliefs are in agreement with the blogger's, then, it somehow adds credence to your own beliefs.
as stated above, i'm beginning to think democracy is overrated.
And it seems most of the DC establishment would agree with you.
I mean come on. Today shes got him out there comparing barack to jesse jackson. You really dont think theres a little attempt margininalize him over race?
And theres the big difference. Obama supporters not even connected to the campaign getting mad about this stuff isnt the same as the Clintons systematically instigating it.
obama supporters are the campaign - that's how politics in the age of the internet works. oe, you are the campaign as is eli, beta, evilp, etc. how much do you actually hear from the candidates? very little. how much do i hear from you? far too much. therefore clinton is a racist simply because you assert it, and it is reinforced over and over again with each of your posts. but why should i care what you have to say? you are some guy hiding behind an alias hanging out on some forum on the internet as am i. we have far too much authority over each other without any good reason. so what is all of this leading to? well, in my opinion, it leads to the likable candidate getting elected president over the candidate who really has the intelligence and experience to lead. we are on the verge of an economic meltdown and an incredibly complicated foreign policy debate over the middle east, and here comes barack obama. he may not be fdr, but he sure seems like a helluva guy.
In 1983 Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted by U.S. Attorney and future mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuliani, on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran. They were indicted while they were in Switzerland. The pair failed to return to the U.S. following the indictment, and were on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.
On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, President Bill Clinton granted Rich a presidential pardon. Since Rich's former wife and mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made large donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office, Clinton's critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought.
No, they are not. Obama does not have control over what some talk radio host says, but hillary does have control over what goes on in her own campaign. I dont think the clintons are racist at all, but you must admit their behavior lately is starting to make their interest in and respect for issues of race in the past look pretty disingenuous.
ja, I'm going to leave you alone, as I respect your right to choose and support your candidate.
I just want you to know that up to a couple of weeks ago I was undecided and was leaning towards Hillary. Her and Bill's behavior (fair game because SHE is using him as an attack dog) this week make me truly disgusted. short of straight out calling Obama the n-word they have gone out of their way to marginalize him over race. They are never going to say it straight up, they are politicians, that is why we rely on the (now many, many) op-eds, bloggers, and respected voices (some that served in official capacity under Clinton) who have also noticed the nasty tactic.
Once again, attack his stances, attack his record, but not HIS RACE. Because they did that they lost any support they could get from me and a large section of the democratic party.
Look at the record we have laid out here (videos and straight up quotes, not the opinion pieces), if you don't think it matters, well you don't think so. But for a lot of us this is a do or die issue, if Obama had demeaned women I would be saying the same thing.
I thought we were beyond the southern democratic party tactics of the 50's and 60's... Once again I am disgusted and sad not jubilant over this sad moment in democratic (the party) politics.
i trying to understand something, Obama supporters ARE the campaign, but Bill Clinton's words and actions are not? and criticism of him and her = Billary are not good form? your logic is so convoluted it almost begs for psychoanalysis.
clinton supporters all over are telling Obama supporters if he can't take this criticism, then what will happen against the republicans? if hillary can't control her barking dog of a husband what will happen if [s]he IS elected president? <depends on what your definition of IS,IS>
what Clintonistas don't like is that Obama, when he's at his best, is fantastic at describing an America truly united and not casting aspersions at conservatives or demonizing others. The Clintons can't, because they are trying to convince America that the world they live in is filled with hate, not hope, anger, not hope, the past, and not the future.
Some of the posters on this thread (e.g. beta and elimelech) would have been great in the role of Captain Renault in Casablanca: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that mudslinging is going on in this election!"
Once again, give me a f**ing break. It's obvious that these statements are coming out of a hatred of the Clintons and not a real examination of what they are actually saying. I admit their show is getting unseemly, especially Bill's role, and they are doing the majority of the slinging: but racist?
They are not marginalizing him over race: more correctly, they are trying to divert the discussion, have it under their terms and not Barack's, which is a basic campaign tactic. And it might be smarmy, but, once again, that's because Obama is mostly still sticking to the high road for now, but I repeat, it won't last.
So beta, it's not just Clintonian spin: if Obama can't respond to these fairly lame insinuations by the Clintons now, can you imagine what's facing him if he wins the nomination and goes against the Republicans? They're going to tear him a new a**hole. Not just on race: they're going to scour every frigging corner and dusty attic of his entire life and drag it out into daylight: it ain't going to be pretty.
(And as to this statement "The Clintons can't, because they are trying to convince America that the world they live in is filled with hate, not hope, anger, not hope, the past, and not the future.": a bit of exaggeration soup, anyone?)
He basically spells out the reasons why a win for Hillary will be suicide for the Democrats come November, especially if McCain is the Republican nominee -- McCain has more credibility than Hillary on all the issues she's touting in the primary: namely, her experience.
Run Hillary Run
THEaquino - than you are in disagreement with the founders of this country. If you'd study their works, you'd know this. You'd know that this dialogue has already happened.
People never look at history.
Socialism was, is, and always will be a failure.
Man, the spin in this thread for one side or the other is making me dizzy: only this side is playing rough, the other side is squeaky clean and wholesome...wah, wah, wah. Give me a f'ing break. Elections are rough stuff, no holds barred operations, or haven't you noticed? And that didn't start with the Willie Horton ad, either. What Bill and Hillary and Obama and this whole group has done so far is Sunday school stuff. Shit, read some American history, fer Christ's sake.
Oh, and evilp, in the first Bush election you didn't vote for crap, you can throw that ballot in the dumpster: he was elected by one vote and the person who cast it sits on the Supreme Court.
G-Dub has disappointed many many republicans not because of the war per se but his ballooning budgets. As far as the war I think we should send a big invoice to the UN.
Or let all our "friends" treasury notes diminish to nothing so we can buy them back at a discount. Thanks for the ride sukas.
^^ we did that to Japan in the early 90's ^^
this whole thread makes me think democracy may be overrated.
Hey, jaf, maybe we should ask the Sumpreme Court to vote on THAT.
i think i know which way they'd vote.
Ummm yeah the surpreme court is there to decide those sorts of issues and thats the way it was set up to work. I dont see the issue her - Gore barely won the pop vote and lost the electoral college - seems rather plain and simple once you get past the chads. The sysyem worked flawlessly and the transition of power occured seamlessly the way it was supposed to despite Paul Bunyon ( Gore) standing on the steps of the Surpreme court. But you know thats what you get with the Clintons and Gores - a bunch of Hill Billy ambulence chasing lawyers, and one old nasty crusty limp dick secretary of State Albright. Whart a waste the bunch of them. Lets close that chapter in our history.
Oh, because there were no riots and military overthrows and executions that means the system worked flawlessly? That's rich.
As opposed to the illustrious performance we've gotten from this bunch? Yea, we're about to close a chapter of history in about a year, alright, but it ain't the one you're thinking of.
vamure-
"...****, read some American history, fer ******* sake..."
No, for YOUR sake.
Futurist, replace Christ with me? I wouldn't presume.
Anyway, my comments are getting this thread off topic, so, carry on everyone.
vamure -
No you would presume to blaspheme His name though.
Ok, futurist, I can't resist, here's a bit of history, from historian Joseph Cummins, taken from an interview:
"I think the mudslinging definitely is still a big part of our election process, but it’s less broad and vulgar. For instance, there is less aimed at other people’s physical attributes. The 19th century was very big on that. In the election of 1800, one of the dirtiest in American history, the venomous hack writer James Callendar (secretly hired by Thomas Jefferson) assailed then-President John Adams as a “repulsive pedant” and “a hideous hermaphroditical character,” whatever that means. Later in the 19th century, Martin Van Buren was accused of wearing women’s corsets (by Davy Crockett, no less) and James Buchanan (who had a congenital condition that caused his head to tilt to the left) was accused of have unsuccessfully tried to hang himself. Oh, and Abraham Lincoln reportedly had stinky feet.
The 20th century began this way; at the 1912 Republican National Convention, Teddy Roosevelt, wearing a sombrero and smoking a cigar, cheerfully referred to William Howard Taft, the sitting President and Roosevelt’s former vice president, as “a rat in a corner.” (The rodent motif is popular — FDR liked to call Alf Landon, his 1936 opponent, “the White Mouse who wants to live in the White House.”)"
"A hideous hermaphroditical character", I love that one.
Ooooh, blaspheme...why you cad, you.
No blaspheming intended, just writing the vernacular, but if it makes you feel better, change it to "chrissake", for chrissake.
Some peoples' vernacular need more soap than others. ;)
futurist, i'd like to think i adhere to the tenets of classical republicanism with the idea that a small sacrifice on my side is my civic duty so that we can have social programs that benefit the greater good. I disagree with your assertion about the founding fathers because if you had studied their works you'd realize that many of our founding fathers were in fact proponents of classic republicanism as well. With one of its keys aspects being calling on all people to be good citizens and perform their civic duties such as paying taxes, obeying the laws and voting, for the good of the society.
And evil, i fully support the electoral college, what happened after is where i have the issue. Don't tell me W wouldn't have fought just as hard if Al's brother (if he has one) and former campaign co-chair had given the election to Al.
THEaquino -
That is probably the strangest interpretation I've heard yet. Civic duty is one thing...right in the vein of being a good citizen and voting, but being forced to give money to someone without your consent is another.
It is all about agency. Always. This is core to ALL the battles of life.
Learn this and you will be wiser than others.
It is ALWAYS about Agency.
Every battle of governments past, present and future, will be about agency. These are the two sides:
Agency OR Force.
Liberty OR Socialism.
Noone has the right to take anything that is mine and give it to someone else, just because they don't have it. The intention does not supersede the principal. They have NO right. Neither does government, because it is just an extension of the people. Since an individual has no right to steal from me, neither does the government they create.
Now if I willingly choose to give of myself, than that is different. Reread the founders' works. This discussion has already been debated in length, and they decided Agency was the right course to pursue.
Today, sadly, our "leaders" have chosen to follow history's undeniable failure - socialism.
you are clueless.
jasoncross -
....about what is not important.
Look futurist, of course, free will, as a matter of principal, is a great thing and should carry the chiefest respect in any valid government. But lets be real for a moment. You really think privatized firefighters are a good idea? What about privatized police and military? Part of agency is we get to vote for our collective interest. If some guy overthrew the government and started evicting rich people from their homes and appropriating their assets to just hand out to the poor that would be one thing, but Clinton got elected, and overwhelmingly so the second time. Democrats pitch their programs to the public and everyone has a say in how much we think is appropriate to invest in the collective good. You can argue the ills of socialist-leaning politics until youre blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is people are pretty happy in Scandinavia, and like it or not life is better in South America than it was 20 years ago. It just isnt a fact that socialism is a universal failure.
Anyway that seems blindingly obvious to me.
.. On the dirty politics point, I think the whole idea is that we are sick of it. Yea its always been there, but christ, cant we take a break at least so we can actually get something done? Its PRECISELY this divide and conquer, right v left, christian v heathen, white v black v latino cornball nonsense thats gotten us here. I mean why is gay marriage even a question let alone a central political issue? We dont have enough to worry about we need the congress of the united states spending months debating whether or not to hand out symbolic insults to gay people?
We just need a fresh start already. Its not just oratory or charisma, its the genuine desire and wherewithal to put the diatribe behind us and work together to get shit done. Obamas speeches are laden with real and substantively different approaches in the way government should operate, engaging in face to face diplomacy with adversaries, gathering progressive coalitions based on agreements of principal that cross party lines, so that policies toward universal healtcare and sustainable energy can actually pass congress and become more than campaign promises. For gods sake, on Martin Luther Kings birthday Hillary is out there trying to sell this idea that the "I have a dream" speech was somehow incidental to that cultural transformation. She feeds into this idea that changes for the better are just benevolently bestowed upon people by their entitled leaders without provocation like Evita throwing garlands from a balcony. Those symbolic calls to action may not have had an executive pen behind them, but they were the real power forcing those changes. To say Obama's stirring similar emotions to end global warming and partisan deadlock is a 'fairytale' not only diminishes the goals themselves but really misses a critical mechanism in government, wherein it is the peoples passions that force their representatives to change the way they do things. Shes so obsessed with winning shes lost total sight of whats really necessary right now to make things happen.
I remember Kucinich on Tucker a few weeks ago explaining why he was telling his caucus-supporters to pick barack for their second choice instead of someone like Edwards who's health care plan is more similar. Kucinich just said: " I think Barack means what he says." And thats all it is. If you havent got honesty or integrity it doesnt matter what promises you make on the stump to get votes.
Consider this simple principle:
Say I have two horses. It is my property. I worked to pay for them. I own them. But my neighbor does not have a horse. I like my neighbor, I want him to do well in life, but I want to keep my two horses. This is my right. Now say the sherrif, who's sole responsibility is to protect my life, my property, and enforce the law...comes and says I am required to give my extra horse to my neighbor. Because its the right thing to do. Because he doesn't have one and I have two. This is wrong. This doesn't change the fact that I did not willingly volunteer of myself my horse.
* Goverment is the creation of the people. It, then, ONLY has the powers that people give it, and they cannot give it powers that they do not possess. Reduced to an individual, anything that an individual has a right to do, those are the rights it can pass onto government. Make sense? The creation cannot eclipse the creator. Government cannot take on powers it does not have.
We are in danger of losing our Liberty if we give Government that which it has no right to control.
Democrats - full blown Socialism
Republicans - Socialism Lite
Independents (broad spectrum) - I am a conservative, but a registered Independent. I am a patriot. I know America is the greatest Country in the history of the world. I am a Christian. Not a wacko, CBN, "you're going to hell!" hypocrite.
I lived in Asia, I speak Mandarin, and have seen the effects of the so-called "good intentions" of goverments for the people. I know this issue very well and will NEVER be fooled by the promises of Socialism. I see it in America and it angers me at the hold it has taken. It serves to only empower the top. It consentrates the power in select areas, (where the founders wanted power pulled down and divided up) and the people are damned if they maneuver from the system.
The next day the government tells you that you can only have one car. You can only have 2 kids and aborition is expected. You can only have so much money. You can only have so much living space. You can only use certian products. You can only have so much....it goes on and on and on....whatever they determine is good for you.
The moderate slips into the extreme and one day it is Monks and journalists being killed in the streets by thugs, and the next day people are murdered in prisons and in the dark by thugs in uniforms.
Where does it come from ?
Every socialist ideology comes from the atheistic creations of the French Revolution. Where God is dead. So rights and powers and innate and inalienable AGENCY is only provided by MEN. Not God. MEN only. With God dead, there is nothing at your being that requires anything for you. So man can add and take whatever rights he decides for you. These ideas were started and perpetuated in academia until now. They follow the sick interpretations of Marx, Althusser, Lacan, Fish and a host of other godless individuals as reason
Mao Zedong loved Marx. And he murdered MILLIONS of his own people to implment his ideology. China today, continues to murder MILLIONS too. All under Socialist ideals that this is NECESSARY to keep stability. Population controls. Rationing systems. Thought and Speach police.
Look at History. Stalin, Mousalini, Lenin...look at Pol Pot and a host of others who followed these ideals. Look at Europe, Poland and Bosnia and Scotland, all welfare states, which have parrallel societies...no assimilation, no National identity. This is how it starts . They erase the heros. Get rid of Washington and Lincoln Day. Make it Presidents day. Get rid of Martin Luther King Day...call it Civil Rights Day....generalize, never specify. Broad inclusion, never specificity. Open borders, no sovereignity. Slide. Slide. Slide.
There will NEVER be an equal distribution of money and class for all people. It is foolishness to seek this. If every man deserves a loaf of bread. Someone still has to bake it. Men are imperfect. And by nature, we strive to improve, to compete, to reach the unreachable. You cannot stifle or hold down people. Equalize them. Regulate them. Socialism and Communism and Totalitarianism are all on the same side of the fence, only varying in degree of what? Of FORCE.
Even a little socialism is not good, because the line will continue and continue to be redrawn until it is too late. I have seen it. The founders knew this. It is foolish and instead of placing our lives on the ideals of crazy, godless men from the dark ages, we should strive to build in the inspired works of the men that founded this Country. Socialism robs individuals of self confidence, of choice, of their God-given liberty.
The next wave is "Green Socialism"
Its your duty to have no horse, the government will see to it that horse needs are carefully alocated or terminated all together, after all horse emit methane gas and require feed that takes up valuable land to grow. If we catch you with a horse, you will have to go on fear factor.
I think Al Gore won a noble prize for hios work in the realm of global green socialism
I much perfer Obama's cap and trade futures policy through the Chicago Climate Exchange, creating a global free market for known and quantilfiable green house emissions, enforce by agreed upon international market exchange protocols, not UN
The fallacy you commit, Futurist, is to group democrats (and republicans) with socialists like Mao. Marxist socialism is a failed ethos. It doesn't work. And no rational democrat or republican would espouse it.
The hard right always wants to portray democrats as socialists. This is a completely naive understanding of both socialism and the policies of American political parties. Politics is not a continuum -- if it was, I could say that what you advocate is theocratic anarchism lite.
In your post, you essentially conflate everything. You describe fictitious trends that you've dreamed up, then portray them as real. Your brain is clearly addled by its own illusions.
i wish we had emoticons on archinect so i could give futurist the one with the yellow head and the eyes bugged out and its finger spinning around its ear. that one's the best. i do appreciate that you've successfully diffused some of the hillary-barrack vitriol here, if only for a day or two.
it would also be nice if barrack supporters could keep their rapture on the barrack thread, so i don't have to read it. so hard to keep things on topic these days!
farwest1 -
You just don't understand the origins of socialism and where the spectrum leads. Euro socialism and totalitariansm only vary in degree. Communism is a socialist system. Totalitarianism is a socialist system. Eurosocialism - is a multiculturalist system of one world government, thought and speach police 24/7. And the truth is that Democrats are Socialists. This isn't rhetoric. They want a complete welfare state. They want open borders and multiculturalism. They want concentrated power and regulation on eveything from cars to healthcare. It is completely in line with the system.
Republicans of today are moderate Democrats that are just more greedy when it comes to getting more money rather than power. No true conservative is for anarchy. Anarchists are more in line with the "revolution" concept that socialists drum up. True conservatives champion the founding principles of America.
And if you want to call known history and the present day atrocities underway, as 'trends' and 'illusions' than you really need to wake up.
Socialism is alive and well in America and it exists primarily with the Democrats. The Republicans are closet Socialists when it comes to welfare.
We need to turn America back toward its founding principles. Not Europe and Asias'.
Jesus its like a fallacy shmorgasboard up there.
But I like this debate [sorry for the offtopic ja ;)] so lets go step by step.
I'll have to assume from your horses example youre against all taxes, because if no private citizen has the right to take money from another then certainly the government does not. Let me also assume youre against all arrests on private property because if I do not have a right to go into another persons house then certainly the government does not. In fact I must assume youre against arrests and fines and prosecutions of any kind because I dont have the right to take someones stuff or to kidnap and hold someone against their will.
You see where this is going? At what point does a seemingly good-idea-in-principal become absurd in the real world?
We are a social species and we have to make collective decisions. We make collective decisions about standards for behavior and decisions about how to pool collective efforts into projects that are mutually beneficial. Its quintessential to human existence. If its reasonable for a group to expect that members cant murder or steal why is it unreasonable for people to expect that everyone pay taxes and contribute to funding police and firefighters and the greater common good? We do apply agency in these decisions through voting, and so I really dont see where this principal of yours meets the road.
"
The next day the government tells you that you can only have one car. You can only have 2 kids and aborition is expected. You can only have so much money. You can only have so much living space. You can only use certian products. You can only have so much....it goes on and on and on....whatever they determine is good for you.
The moderate slips into the extreme and one day it is Monks and journalists being killed in the streets by thugs, and the next day people are murdered in prisons and in the dark by thugs in uniforms.
"
Man you just LOVE the slippery slope! How about we debate ideas that are actually on the table and not do the fallacy round robin?
Again man, we vote, so isnt really just "they" is it?
"
Every socialist ideology comes from the atheistic creations of the French Revolution. Where God is dead. So rights and powers and innate and inalienable AGENCY is only provided by MEN. Not God. MEN only. With God dead, there is nothing at your being that requires anything for you. So man can add and take whatever rights he decides for you. These ideas were started and perpetuated in academia until now. They follow the sick interpretations of Marx, Althusser, Lacan, Fish and a host of other godless individuals as reason
"
Well first, the idea that atheism is the root of all evil is so absurd its barely worth debating. But lets make this abit easy for you. Im a theist, a passionate one at that. But who holds authority over the interpretation of God's wishes for us? What do you think is the best mechanism for determining whats right and wrong?
"
This is how it starts . They erase the heros. Get rid of Washington and Lincoln Day. Make it Presidents day. Get rid of Martin Luther King Day...call it Civil Rights Day....generalize, never specify. Broad inclusion, never specificity.
"
You really want hero worship over honoring the actual principals these guys espoused?
"
There will NEVER be an equal distribution of money and class for all people. It is foolishness to seek this. If every man deserves a loaf of bread. Someone still has to bake it. Men are imperfect. And by nature, we strive to improve, to compete, to reach the unreachable. You cannot stifle or hold down people. Equalize them. Regulate them. Socialism and Communism and Totalitarianism are all on the same side of the fence, only varying in degree of what? Of FORCE.
"
Youre throwing a pretty wide net here arent you? Ive worked in impoverished places, I know sometimes just a little investment can make a huge difference in the lives of everyone. If people vote they want some help from the feds so health insurance premiums dont banrupt the whole frigging country is that really anything like totalitarianism?
"It is foolish and instead of placing our lives on the ideals of crazy, godless men from the dark ages, we should strive to build in the inspired works of the men that founded this Country."
Whos doing what?? Does any part of this sentence make a lick of sense to anyone?
"They want open borders and multiculturalism. They want concentrated power and regulation on eveything from cars to healthcare."
God forbid!
You're drastically oversimplifying, Futurist. This is how you want to perceive the world: black versus white, socialism versus you.
I do understand the beginnings of socialism—in Russia, it came from the bolsheviks who were against the monarchy. They demanded the violent overthrow of the government and the establishment of a command economy. This is actually the opposite of what most democrats want. Most democrats want a functioning, open and democratic government, and a market economy that provides opportunities for many people to realize their abilities.
Democrats generally want a sensible border control policy. They want curbs on immigration, but still promoting the idea of a nation of immigrants; they want moderate regulations and safety standards that protect us from pollution, malicious corporations, or getting shot by our neighbors. This is far from socialism.
The wierd thing about a christian libertarian viewpoint is that it advocates for total freedom in almost every aspect of people's lives: freedom from government, freedom from regulation. But when it comes to sexual and religious matters, you seem to want the government in everyone's bedroom and living room. "One man one woman!" "Repeal a woman's right to choose!" "Atheism leads to socialism!"
This perspective seems deeply hypocritical and contradictory.
Futurist, you're spewing so much pablum I don't even know where to start. I'll just pick a couple of points. Your blanketing Europe as a blob of socialist states that lack indivudual identity is utter nonsense. Italy has no national identity? France has no national identity? The one concept that actually threatens their national identity is a capitalist one, the European Union, an attempt to create the United States of Europe. Farwest1 has described your tactics pretty well. You glob any opposing ideologies to American capitalism under the rubric "socialism" no matter what the actual realities and workings of that particular nation are, and throw dirt on the grave by bringing up the most heinous examples (Stalin, Mao, etc., etc.), making no distinction between countries that are for the most part capitalist but include some social programs and totalitarian states. It's a nice tactic, but it's transparent and based on false logic (e.g. "Politician X believes in making the trains run on time: Hitler and Mussolini believed in making the trains run on time: politician X is thus a fascist). And to state that Democrats are actually socialists that want a complete welfare state is the bullshit statement of all bullshit statements, and is true only in your deluded mind. But keep dreaming.
I really want to respond to oe's points on dirty politics. I agree with you in principle, oe, about a fresh start, that finally, after all these years, we could see the game change once and for all, but that outlook ignores some basic realities, and the main one is that you would have to change some basic human attitudes and reactions first. Political campaigns area a large social dynamic with forces at play that I fear are stronger than any one politician to change, and that includes Obama. There are basically two tactics to take if you're running for office: the honorable and decent one, which is to talk about yourself and your ideas, and the "dirty" and not so honorable one of talking (and taking) your opponent down.
Now, I get that Barack is trying to take the high road, but I suggest that the process and dynamics involved make that pretty much impossible. And when you state that Hillary is so "so obsessed with winning she's lost total sight of whats really necessary right now to make things happen" I think your miss the point. Yes, there always is an obsession with winning, for anyone running for that office: the prize at the end (power, money, fame, influence) is too great to resist. Hillary (and Bill as well) is more correctly a total realist and is playing the election game to the hilt. In the example of her Martin Luther King statement, I think she was just being simple: of course King wanted to implement his efforts through politicians and legislation: how else to get the results he and the movement were striving for, short of running for president himself? So her statement was disingenuous and really pointless: but racist? Come on...
But the chorus (media, pundits, blogs, etc.) picks up the chant "Is it racist?" "Is it racist?", which soon starts to just sound like "It's racist" "It's racist". At that point, you would think that Barack's best course is to take the high road, that he would "win over the people" by showing that he's better than that...but of course we know that in practice that's actually political suicide. He HAS to respond, has to put up his dukes, cannot keep quiet, or the chorus turns into "chicken", "no guts", "loser" (see the Willie Horton ad and the Swift Boat campaign), and Hillary very well knew he would have to respond. Now, why is a response that would be praised as high minded and moral in parlor conversation actually political suicide in the street? I don't rightly know, but I bet there's a few hundred libraries full of books which have tried to figure behavior that particular quirk in human behavior.
"figure out that particular quirk in human behavior."
Oh, and futurist, as far as:
"Agency OR Force"
it's always been and will probably always be Force, even in our glorious land, or as someone else has put it better than I ever could, in song:
"Democracy don't rule the world, You'd better get that in your head; This world is ruled by violence, But I guess that's better left unsaid."
I do think the Clinton campaign has seen their support among blacks fall and in response has made an organized attempt to isolate Obama as 'the black candidate', but I dont think the Martin Luther King statement was the most glaring example of that attempt, nor do I think it was in-and-of itself in any way a racist comment. Now one could say this tactic makes machiavellian political sense, but its pretty fucking callus. As ruthless as we know they are, I dont think people really imagined they would be willing to discard all their hard work in the 90's and resort to racial divisiveness just to improve their odds in a few states.
I agree, the tactics I was talking about can definitely backfire: there's some sort of line you can't cross in those tactics, and when you do you actually stir up sympathy for the opponent. But oe, be assured, when and if the campaign comes down to just the two of them, the game will get even rougher and his campaign strategists will press him to respond in kind. Barack will come up against a struggle between his idealism (which I do think is honest and fresh) and doing what he has to just to survive.
i ignore these race issues, because they are pure spin, started by obama supporters to cull black voters from hillary's base. i live in detroit and know for a fact that she has a major black following here, mainly because of bill's record of support of the black community. but if obama supporters can plant a seed of doubt in black voters about the clintons' record on race, they know that they can chip at her base. of course hillary plays her own political games, and frankly they're both matching each other blow for blow at this point. it's become dirty, but hey, this is politics. to claim moral superiority from either candidate is pure hogwash.
latest Bill quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqd2dfjl2pw
now the racist UNDERtones become more apparent, what will he say next?
ja, please tell me what bill clinton did for black america, other than going on Arsenio Hall and playing the sax?
this was a recent cnn article on obama surging ahead of clinton in support from black voters. clinton in october held a 30 point leader over all other candidates within the black community at that point. what changed? the article surmises that after iowa black voters began to believe that obama was a viable black candidate for president. i disagree. i believe the shift was far more gradual, and it came from support by the black media. i don't know how many "news and notes" fans we have on archinect, but i listen almost every night. increasingly since december they have become much more adamant in their support of obama. the same has happened on our local detroit hip hop radio stations. i'm not saying it has anything to do with the actions of any particular candidate, but i believe the shift in support came of an effort to galvanize the black vote within the black media and completely unrelated to the recent castigating of bill by the mainstream media.
eli, did you believe bill clinton to be a "racist" when he was the president? if not, what changed? perhaps it is you that has changed and not the president.
ja, no i did not, i loved billary. i dont think they are racist, but they are using racist tactics to get what they want, which may be worse. I an not celebrating, I think this is one of the worst things that has happened, i loved billary, now i despise them to the point I could not vote for them. this is a sad thing, but i cannot vote for people that use these nasty dirty divisive tactics.
questioning what I think is obama's flimsy record is fine, it should be done, afterall he is running for prez. Using race is outside the bounds of what I can accept and NOTHING can make it ok, at least to me.
the change in billary= power and legacy lust. they are blinded by their own brilliance. shameful way to possibly end a political life, and if she gets the nomination a stain that will not go away.
i just find it hard to understand how people who once supported the president now use the same childish tactics ("billary," monica references, etc.) that the conservatives used under newt.
also most of the sources that wonderk first posted regarding hillary's perceived "racist tactics" were not news stories; they were blogs or op-ed pieces with a very particular and slanted bias. in the age of the blogosphere, it seems that credible news sources have instead been replaced by joe blogger's opinion pieces. if your beliefs are in agreement with the blogger's, then, it somehow adds credence to your own beliefs.
as stated above, i'm beginning to think democracy is overrated.
And it seems most of the DC establishment would agree with you.
I mean come on. Today shes got him out there comparing barack to jesse jackson. You really dont think theres a little attempt margininalize him over race?
And theres the big difference. Obama supporters not even connected to the campaign getting mad about this stuff isnt the same as the Clintons systematically instigating it.
obama supporters are the campaign - that's how politics in the age of the internet works. oe, you are the campaign as is eli, beta, evilp, etc. how much do you actually hear from the candidates? very little. how much do i hear from you? far too much. therefore clinton is a racist simply because you assert it, and it is reinforced over and over again with each of your posts. but why should i care what you have to say? you are some guy hiding behind an alias hanging out on some forum on the internet as am i. we have far too much authority over each other without any good reason. so what is all of this leading to? well, in my opinion, it leads to the likable candidate getting elected president over the candidate who really has the intelligence and experience to lead. we are on the verge of an economic meltdown and an incredibly complicated foreign policy debate over the middle east, and here comes barack obama. he may not be fdr, but he sure seems like a helluva guy.
I just remember this:
In 1983 Rich and partner Pincus Green were indicted by U.S. Attorney and future mayor of New York City Rudolph Giuliani, on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran. They were indicted while they were in Switzerland. The pair failed to return to the U.S. following the indictment, and were on the FBI's Most Wanted List for many years.
On January 20, 2001, hours before leaving office, President Bill Clinton granted Rich a presidential pardon. Since Rich's former wife and mother of his three children, socialite Denise Rich, had made large donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office, Clinton's critics alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought.
and think who else has bought these two?
"obama supporters are the campaign"
No, they are not. Obama does not have control over what some talk radio host says, but hillary does have control over what goes on in her own campaign. I dont think the clintons are racist at all, but you must admit their behavior lately is starting to make their interest in and respect for issues of race in the past look pretty disingenuous.
ja, I'm going to leave you alone, as I respect your right to choose and support your candidate.
I just want you to know that up to a couple of weeks ago I was undecided and was leaning towards Hillary. Her and Bill's behavior (fair game because SHE is using him as an attack dog) this week make me truly disgusted. short of straight out calling Obama the n-word they have gone out of their way to marginalize him over race. They are never going to say it straight up, they are politicians, that is why we rely on the (now many, many) op-eds, bloggers, and respected voices (some that served in official capacity under Clinton) who have also noticed the nasty tactic.
Once again, attack his stances, attack his record, but not HIS RACE. Because they did that they lost any support they could get from me and a large section of the democratic party.
Look at the record we have laid out here (videos and straight up quotes, not the opinion pieces), if you don't think it matters, well you don't think so. But for a lot of us this is a do or die issue, if Obama had demeaned women I would be saying the same thing.
I thought we were beyond the southern democratic party tactics of the 50's and 60's... Once again I am disgusted and sad not jubilant over this sad moment in democratic (the party) politics.
And did you see her 'consession speech'? Real fucking gracious Hill.
i trying to understand something, Obama supporters ARE the campaign, but Bill Clinton's words and actions are not? and criticism of him and her = Billary are not good form? your logic is so convoluted it almost begs for psychoanalysis.
clinton supporters all over are telling Obama supporters if he can't take this criticism, then what will happen against the republicans? if hillary can't control her barking dog of a husband what will happen if [s]he IS elected president? <depends on what your definition of IS,IS>
what Clintonistas don't like is that Obama, when he's at his best, is fantastic at describing an America truly united and not casting aspersions at conservatives or demonizing others. The Clintons can't, because they are trying to convince America that the world they live in is filled with hate, not hope, anger, not hope, the past, and not the future.
Some of the posters on this thread (e.g. beta and elimelech) would have been great in the role of Captain Renault in Casablanca: "I'm shocked, shocked to find that mudslinging is going on in this election!"
Once again, give me a f**ing break. It's obvious that these statements are coming out of a hatred of the Clintons and not a real examination of what they are actually saying. I admit their show is getting unseemly, especially Bill's role, and they are doing the majority of the slinging: but racist?
They are not marginalizing him over race: more correctly, they are trying to divert the discussion, have it under their terms and not Barack's, which is a basic campaign tactic. And it might be smarmy, but, once again, that's because Obama is mostly still sticking to the high road for now, but I repeat, it won't last.
So beta, it's not just Clintonian spin: if Obama can't respond to these fairly lame insinuations by the Clintons now, can you imagine what's facing him if he wins the nomination and goes against the Republicans? They're going to tear him a new a**hole. Not just on race: they're going to scour every frigging corner and dusty attic of his entire life and drag it out into daylight: it ain't going to be pretty.
(And as to this statement "The Clintons can't, because they are trying to convince America that the world they live in is filled with hate, not hope, anger, not hope, the past, and not the future.": a bit of exaggeration soup, anyone?)
I suggest that everyone interested in the Democratic race read Frank Rich's column in today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27rich.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=frank+rich&st=nyt&oref=slogin
He basically spells out the reasons why a win for Hillary will be suicide for the Democrats come November, especially if McCain is the Republican nominee -- McCain has more credibility than Hillary on all the issues she's touting in the primary: namely, her experience.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.