dude, I am talking about fortitude and principles, do not equate me with a fascist because I like to trust my leader. I am not talking about puritanistic morality, but character, someone I can trust to do the right thing at the right time, that their internal dialogue is complex but can make a decision. Our current president can only do the latter.

your challenge: Abraham Lincoln, a normal person with many faults (dude had various nervous breakdowns) but in the right moments he knew what to do.

I am a fan of people like Ghandi, MLK, people that inspire, are principled, and through those qualities make transformational changes in their societies. People with courage. These type of people hardly ever get into politics because it is such a corrupt endeavor. They are all about pandering and scaring people (specially in America).

I put Obama up there, a person that can reason and feels OK bringing others into that process. Hillary, on the other, is not a genuine person (how many Hillary's did we see in the last weeks?). She would be a marginally good president (like Bill) but nothing extraordinary.

That's fine Elimelech, and I would agree that Obama has character: but your estimation that he will be a good president, that he will actually succeed in turning his visions into reality, is just that, an estimation, a projection. It hasn't been proven in reality, and being an outsider to Washington politics has its down side: do you think all the hard nosed politicoes in DC are going to lay out a red carpet for Obama, just kiss his ring and pass all the legislation he wants? If you do, you're fooling yourself.

lincoln is the one exception, but those were exceptional times before the civil war that called for a moral leader. this is not 1860. while i have great respect for dr. king and mahatma gandhi, they were not politcal leaders.

"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,"


This is what I mean by the profound lack of imagination held by people who could entertain the idea Hillary stands for anything at all. Is this really the best we can do? Is this really the world you want for your children to grow up in? To go back to the 20th century and muck around in the fucking dark ages of petty tribal wrangling? How well did that callousness serve us in vietnam and Iraq or with nafta and the WTO? How well did your valueless geopolitics serve those groaning beneath the slab in central america or pakistan or rural america? How well did it serve people Rwanda or Haiti or Sudan? How far has it gone to end global warming or global poverty or to broach even the commonest of cultural understanding between the west and the middle east? Your worldview is so profoundly empty, so morally bankrupt that it has served nothing but to sow the seeds of our own cultural suicide. The Clintons fail convince there is any relationship between principal and policy because [i]they have no principal. Their principal is to pander and manipulate for no higher purpose than their own political ego. How can you place any faith whatsoever in people with such a vacuum of conviction? After all the lies and manipulation how can you believe Hillary means anything she says? How can you possibly think morality is the sovereign territory of religion?? Dont you read?? Dont you know any non-religious people who do any good in this world? Dont you hold any value in honesty and self-sacrifice and equality or any of the things that make this world worth being a part of?


Elimelech is not alone. I dont think you have any idea how disdainful much of our generation is of this mindset of yours or for the soulless drivel the Hillary has been peddling during this campaign. We are not like you. We will not sacrifice principal for the sake of political expediency, and mark my words, if hillary wins in august it will destroy the democratic party and its future in america. To be absolutely frank, McCain has been shown more honesty, respect and personal integrity in this campaign than the Clintons have in the last 20 years.

sorry for all the italics.

"but your estimation that he will be a good president, that he will actually succeed in turning his visions into reality, is just that, an estimation, a projection. It hasn't been proven in reality,"


And hillary has?? What good did her supposedly mountainous experience do for her when she fumbled healthcare or voted for the iraq war or for Liebermans hairbrained Iran amendment? Cant you connect the dots between the lack of moral character and backbone and failed decision making and policy?

Again, oe, all those characterizations of Clinton are your opinion. You don't think she means any of the things she says: I think she does mean to do well for the country and has the capability to be president (jafidler is not alone, either). There are many people who express disbelief for what Obama says as well, calling it empty rethoric and grand visions which he will not be able to fulfill (and before you flame, that is not my opinion). And I guess things like health care for everyone is going back into the dark ages. I think you may be confusing the propaganda machine that continually spits garbage at anything Clinton (and we know which party has been behind it for a long time) with a sober look at a candidate. But look, I'm not going to argue this further, because I won't change your mind and vice-versa. So be it.

Oe, you misunderstood my comment on Obama: I wasn't speaking about his lack of experience. I was talking about being a good politician, simple as that. In my mind, to be one it's not enough to be a visionary: one must also be a hard son-of-a-bitch, and I mean that in the best way.

For example, Obama is often compared to Bobby Kennedy. Yes, Bobby was amazingly intelligent and his vision for the country went deep: but he was also one mean son of a bitch - again, I mean that in a good way. He did a lot of the hard work for his brother, and he rarely backed down from a fight. Plus, being part of the Kennedy clan didn't hurt, inspite of what people might say: being connected and powerful can be used to do good by the right person (which I think Bobby was).

Obama has not shown me he has that kind of grit yet: on the contrary, some of his moves against Clinton have been whimpy. Plus, he is by self definition an "outsider" to politics as it's played right now in our capital: well, that's good in one way, but bad in the sense that he is "not connected" and will not be easily let into the coalitions and inside plays (the ones we are not supposed to know about), which means he might be much less effective. Yes, the change he wants to bring is refreshing, but his ability to effect it is as yet unproven (and that's not "in comparison to Clinton"; I'm just talking about the man himself).

Look, I agree I wont convince you, but this isnt about propaganda. Three months ago I thought like you did, that Clinton was just the poor victim of republican vilification, that she was a smart and impassioned candidate who just didnt happen to fit the time. But in these last months Ive seen her lie, Ive seen her cheat, Ive seen her turn racism into a vehicle for political gain, and I just cannot in good conscience validate that kind of person with a vote, and it troubles me terribly that anyone else can. Its just that simple.

And I also think obama has shown remarkable fortitude through this campaign. After enduring from the clintons a breed of dirty politics so low even Karl Rove has openly denounced, I would indeed say he has demonstrated himself to be one tough son of a bitch. Being tough isnt about vitriol and cheapshots and bickering, its about being cool even when your opponent is out of line, being firm but being reasonable and self-restrained.

Whatever you might say about the clintons, certainly reasonablness and cooperation has not been their strong suit. I think by now people should be ready for a new set of ideas and tactics.

I wonder if she will offer Ralph Nader the Vice President position....as long as he lets her be President?

"while i have great respect for dr. king and mahatma gandhi, they were not politcal leaders."


ps this is the most ridiculous comment of the week.

politics: a. The art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs.

now please tell me the difference between gandhi and nehru; then, you will understand what politics is.

Jaf is right, activists like King and Gandhi are not politicians themselves: they use their tactics (protest, nonviolence, etc.) to put pressure on politicians and those in government to effect change. This is the statement that Clinton was making about King needing Johnson to effect the change he wanted, an obvious statement that was not worth making - and that's all it was too, a comment on visionaries also needing to work in the real world, through real governments to get things done (but, you know, she was playing THE RACE CARD...God forbid she should make ANY statement against Obama, he's just so sensitive and needs to be protected from the big bad Hillary.)

difference between gandi and nehru......One was an Architect!

What youre gonna try to give me a history lesson now? I lived in india. Id love to see you try and convince anyone there gandhi wasnt a "political leader."


You guys are like people who get lost because they cant tell the difference between a map and reality. You say we live in a fantasy land, I say you dont even see the real world right in front of your face. Youre so fucking reductive you cant see the real forces in this world, the real things that drive people and the real reasons people change their lives. You know what its like to talk to some black kid from west providence with dreadlocks telling you that in the last year for the first time in his life white bankers downtown look him in the eye and nod when they pass him on the street? That for the first time he feels like hes not living in two worlds? That Obama just by standing up and making speeches has fundamentally altered his world? That is power. Clinton cant do that. She cant fix the middle east because she has sense whatsoever of what the real people living there care about, and never will. She cant push healthcare or energy policy through because she has no sense whatsoever how to communicate in any earnest reasonable way to the other half of this government or to half of the people in this country for that matter. LBJ didnt just bestow the Civil Rights Act upon us out of the goodness of his heart, The british didnt hand over india just because they thought it would be nice, they had millions of people organizing and pushing and screaming for change. We force them, not the other way around.

Pens dont change the world. People do.

That's fine, oe, I understand all of that. Obama's campaign is life changing. But Obama IS a politician (I hope there's no argument there), and as such he must have both vision and a method of turning those visions into reality, that's all I was saying. Based on his record so far, I think he does have the potential to do what you describe, and be a good, even great president, and I'm willing to vote for him to prove it (but I don't agree with you about Clinton not having those abilities, as you well know).

and you didn't say anything different about LBJ than I did: he DIDN'T do it through the goodness of his heart, he did it because of the result of the civil rights movement, but he WAS the key politician in the story (just as JFK would have been had he not been killed).

In making this point Ive held a hard line, but of course I agree youve got to know the ins and outs of the legal process. But the guy taught constitutional law, and hes managed to go from community organizer to senator to potential president in like 20 years, and gotten more than his fair share done on the way up. Right now hes battling the two most formidable beasts in the american political landscape simultaneously, and winning. I think to say hes a quick study is the understatement of the decade.


I dont know, to its hard for me to understand picking mediocrity over greatness. I mean Hillary may have a 60-40 advantage over obama on the flightdeck, but hes got her 90-10 on practically everything else it takes to be a great president. I dont project my fond fuzzy memories of the 90's onto Hillary Clintons skills at legal wrangling. The economy was great, (although I think giving full credit even to Bill is quite a stretch, let alone to his wife by some voodoo-proxy) but I also recal like 6 years of the most pointless partisan gridlock in american history. Yknow Ive seen that movie. Ive seen where "I know how to beat the republicans" leads. We all have. Ive seen that cold political expediency put to use passing the Iraq resolution and the patriot act and I just dont think it has served us well. I mean she can tout this dubious 35 years of experience all she wants but to be honest I when it comes actual successes I have a far easier time pointing to checkmarks on Obamas resume than Hillary Clintons.

My bosses quote:

"Age doesnt matter. Batting average does."

"This is the statement that Clinton was making about King needing Johnson to effect the change he wanted, an obvious statement that was not worth making - and that's all it was too, a comment on visionaries also needing to work in the real world, through real governments to get things done (but, you know, she was playing THE RACE CARD...God forbid she should make ANY statement against Obama, he's just so sensitive and needs to be protected from the big bad Hillary.)"

Really? So then it's just a coincidence that these comments were made in South Carolina (when all of the discussion of race was an issue)? I don't think that you are providing enough context to your statement. And the credit lies (RIP) with MLK not LBJ. It's ridiculous to assert that LBJ is somehow as important or responsible for the civil rights movement as MLK. MLK's organization, pacifism, passion, strength, sacrifice and dedication to the oppression that was held common by African American's is what produced the civil rights movement. The governments reactionary legislation only was passed when the government thought it was beneficial. It is like saying that Lincoln wanted to end slavery because he was passionate about the oppression and inhumane economy of the United States. He wanted to defeat the South and he did. Legislation is slow, reactionary and political. Revolutionaries have passion and work hard for their cause. Is the asumption that legislative work is what counts and the rest falls by the wayside? I don't think it is and we should be clear on who did the work in the Civil Rights Movement.

So, that being said, can we apply this logic to another circumstance? Does this then mean that Woodrow Wilson should is as important as the National Woman's Party? I doubt anyone would say that he was (with respect to suffrage).

"It is like saying that Lincoln wanted to end slavery because he was passionate about the oppression and inhumane economy of the United States."


I know its been in vogue to go back and geopoliticize history lately, but I mean the guy was a passionate abolitionist, and I dont think he was secretly thinking 'Oh gee I cant wait to rub in those southerners faces how superior our manufacturing industry is!"

Passionate abolitionist.....okay!!!

And the Civil War was about federalism too, right?!

oops...i posted the article starting on page 2...

So Im reading along, and run into the word "vanilla" and start to think, 'Oh yea, this is going to be a thoughtful piece of journalism.'

Well,

Now, it appears clear that neither Florida or Michigan will re-vote. And Hillary's best case scenario for including the votes of those states would require basically a split of 50/50% so that they can be seated at the convention.

With what was Hillary's last chance to win the popular vote now gone, it is a virtual certainty that she can not make up Barack Obama's delegate lead.

Her reliance on super delegates going against the voting public is clearly a dangerous one. One that seems far to similar to Bush's robbery a few years ago now. How does Hillary now justify the continuation of her campaign? And further more, how does she justify to the voters her nomination, when it is now clear it is virtually impossible for her to win in either delegates or popular vote?

And also, is Hillary willing to drag this election out to the convention for her own gain at the expense of the democratic parties chances of election in November?

why is it that obama supporters seem so desparate to see her drop out? what are they afraid of if "she has no chance"? i also find it ironic that with all the cries of voter injustice from the left that obama supporters seem to have no problem with not counting the votes from two of the largest states in the country and two critical swing states in the general election. there's something backwards and disingenuous about that. just let things play out. it's not over till the fat lady sings.

oh...she's singing, you refuse to hear the fat bitch.

i hear she has a gig at the democratic national convention, but that's just a rumor.

for being such lovers of democracy, obama supporters sure don't like to see all the votes get counted.

Somebody please tell me under what circumstances could Hillary possibly win the nomination legitimately -- that is, without having the superdelegates overrule the voters and set off a civil war within the party that would destroy both Hillary and Obama. Maybe she's actually a closest Republican (see: DLC) and that's been her plan all along. It would certainly explain a lot.

The longer she stays in the race, the more she demonstrates that she doesn't give a flying fuck about the good of the Democratic party, the good of the country, but that she is in this only for herself and for the big money lobbyists who have their collective arm up her ass.

The fat lady has not only sung, she has left the stage, taken off her costume, gotten into a taxi and gone home. The stage is dark and the audience has left the building, except for Hillary and a few supports sitting alone in the balcony, waiting for an encore that will never happen.

i just don't understand why if you are so sure obama has the nomination are you so anxious to see hillary bow out. similar to huckabee staying in after it was clear mccain was going to be the nominee, she feels that he poses an alternative. i don't disagree that chances are 99.9% that obama will win, but michigan and florida have still not been absolutely decided and frankly there are a lot of democrats out there that have major concerns about an obama nomination. sorry, i don't think he's the right leader for this country. hillary bowing out is not going to change that.

What we are worried about is that Obama is wasting time (and money) fending her off and he can't focus on McCain and the Presidential Election. McCain has moved on. He is campaigning big picture now while the democratic party is trying to figure if we should waste millions of dollars on a freakin revote.

DROP OUT HRC SO WE CAN FOCUS ON THE BIG PICTURE!

too bad u don't think he is the right leader for this country. the majority of the people and states do. what the hell else is left??

hrc was the assumed nominee at the beginning of this race. nobody paid any attention to obama. she dropped the ball and she needs to drop out. hillary has no one to be upset with but herself and her campaign.

Well she will drop out after her campaign completely and thouroughly in Clinton style paints Obama as "the black guy" ensuring their democratic kingdom of division masquarading as diversity continues.

look, another political lesson 101 for the obamatrons. if obama has shored up the nomination as you believe he has focus your attention on mccain. ignore hillary. if you didn't notice the hillary thread had been dead for weeks before you obamatrons started it up again. all media attention is on obama right now. aaaahhhh...this is what drives me crazy about obama and the obamatrons. i can hardly imagine four years of this.

While Hillary supporters seem to expect preseason games to be counted toward making the playoffs and don't seem to have any problem with changing the rules in the middle of the game.

I think they should let Mich. and Fla. vote - she prob will win them at least Fla. - just so whent he delegates are sorted and Bama is still on top. Look the guy is a figurative fresh start from the politics of the last 30 years. Thats what is needed. Plain and simple. I agree theres not much substance there - so what. A big part of the job of president is marketing, being the face of the nation. He will go a long way, further than McCain ( who I like but think is a bad choice) or Hillary ( who would be the worst of the three)

exactly, evilp. obama needs to just say he supports a re-do in florida and michigan, knowing full well that chances are nil that it's going to happen. he needs those democrats in those two states, and he hasn't done anything to try to win them. in fact he's pushing them away.

you may call his approach fresh; i call it naive and incredibly frustrating as an observer of his campaign. i'm thinking more and more that the conservatives are going to eat him for breakfast when the general election rolls around. this reverend wright flap was just the opening salvo.

as much as i respect the man's intelligence and gentle demeanor, jimmy carter ring any bells?

Well if McCain keeps making gaffes like this I think Obama will do just fine. Senility is setting in.

I glad you bring up the rev - maybe because I live in Chicago I dont really get upset over wild black preachermans but the first time I got wind of this guy was actualy from a right wing hate news letter I subscribe to - I like to hear the most xtreme on both sides, somewhere in the middle is the truth.

Anyways - the right wingers have triangulated this preacher attack months ago - and Clinton picked it up and ran with it. Shes using the right winger tactics - has she really run out of amunition?

you're gonna do great tomorrow hill!

tAkE mE hOmE, mOuNtAiN mOmMa!!

ja - what I think nobody realizes is that this guy is a real community organizer - like nobody's business. No one reports on it so its like it doesn't happen - but instead of starting out sitting in giant boardrooms with other high priced lawyers (or sitting in on your wife's billion dollar company's boardroom filled with high-priced lawyers) Obama sees what happens to the little guy as a result of the policies of the last 20+ years. Those speeches are something else, but don't for one second think he doesn't have the chops to back it up. If the limit of his talent was just that of a great speechwriter, he'd be writing Hilary's acceptance speech, not his own...

lookin' good for 2016

RUN HILLARY, RUN!

Over-the-Hillary.  Her health problems have been appearing closer together.  She may not be in shape for the 2016-2020 term, as a lot can change, and having seen an abrupt change in health in a family relative this past year.  Bill is losing it.  There was once a picture of him dozing off at some event.  They are another dynasty like the Bushes.  They need to leave.  I'm a Dem, and I don't always vote party lines, but the Clintons are sleazy.  Thank "Slick Willie" for mommies and daddies having to prematurely explain to their kids what a b.j. was when their kids asked "What did the President do wrong?"  Who cares, per the OP, what Michael Rotondi thinks?  I guess when you're that high up, uber-liberal, and quasi-Hollywood, being a "male feminist" is what is expected of you.  Politicians suck.  All of them.  So do many starchitects.  Wasn't some architect, like Michael Graves or another big name, also peddling branded dinner ware or something else for the house?  A hair away from Martha Stewart, really.  I refuse to buy anything endorsed by Martha Stewart since she is an ex-criminal, yet America, and the world, is too stupid ... and gives these people 9 lives.

Hillary, huh?  Her mantra back then was HillaryCare.  She didn't see it through.  Obama did.  When there are 2 candidates running I don't like, I just don't vote.  Should have done that in 2004 with Kerry-Edwards, thinking "Gee, Edwards has an expensive haircut, but I didn't think he could pull off the cheating he did ... on his wife who passed away only years later."

Thank "Slick Willie" for mommies and daddies having to prematurely explain to their kids what a b.j. was when their kids asked "What did the President do wrong?"

not to beat a dead horse (ba-da DUM! *rimshot*) but mommy and daddy didn't have to explain what a b.j. was .. all they had to say was the president lied under oath.  that's what clinton did wrong.  he wasn't impeached for getting a b.j. in the oval office, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

YOU CAN DO IT, HILLARY!  DA DO RUN RUN RUN, DA DO RUN RUN!

 not to beat a dead horse (ba-da DUM! *rimshot*) but mommy and daddy didn't have to explain what a b.j. was .. all they had to say was the president lied under oath.  that's what clinton did wrong.  he wasn't impeached for getting a b.j. in the oval office, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.

YOU CAN DO IT, HILLARY!  DA DO RUN RUN RUN, DA DO RUN RUN!

Some people probably thought it was a good segue as in "Ok, time to tell Joey and Suzy about the birds and the bees ..."  Clinton was a sleaze the whole way through, and his wife turned a blind eye to his CONSTANT philandering.  There are various books on them pointing to the fact that it's a marriage of convenience.  Read a slightly sensationalistic book called "The Truth About Hillary," which I HAD to read because I got stuck at an impasse on the interstate due to snow over the forthcoming summit, so I hit the Barnes & Noble at the off ramp, got me a cup of hot tea ... and read that book, for free.  I knew I didn't like her before.  That confirmed it.  There's also "Hell to Pay."  You want to keep seeing Bill Clinton? Not me.  The Dems sort of need to reinvent themselves for 2016.  The GOP needs to seriously reinvent itself.