if anyone listened to this american life a few weeks back, they talked about exactly that...
many inner city minorities and whites alike believe that government purposefully neglects inner city areas in the hopes that eventually the minority populations will get fed up and leave, so more prosperous white developments can take their place...
one only has to look at places like NO, Chicago's south and west sides, Phily and Brooklyn to see where such an idea comes from...
The inner city ghetto was generated by the destruction of the American manufacturing economy, manu. jobs moved overseas leaving the inner city high and dry, with mostly black, working class families without jobs. Sprinkle on a little institutionalized racism and we have a pretty bad situation.
"who says that the campaign all of a sudden will center on race, jafidler? if race now becomes central it won't be because obama did it. "
Yes, SW. Part of what's been inspiring about Obama's campaign is that he's made it about all of us, about bringing people of all races and religions together. His speech yesterday was no different.
What has changed, though, is that everyone else (Hillary, McCain, the Republicans) is now foisting the race issue on him. I think they realize that if Obama, and therefore America, are forced to talk about the race issue, and all those old wounds are opened up again, people will tire of it. It will be polarizing and divisive.
Joe Suburbs will have the perception—right or wrong—that the central issue of an Obama presidency is race. It may be a brutal truth, but the majority of Americans just don't deal with race issues on a daily basis. They're concerned about the economy, Iraq, other issues. If there's a perception that race is the central issue, many of those people will flee to Hillary or McCain.
I'm not saying ME here. I'm giving you my perception of how the electorate will act.
hey, dont shoot the messenger, it was a reference to a commonly spoken about conspiracy in the inner cities all over america.
in chicago, they move a few blocks down where the housing stock and infrastructure is still in good shape. im not sure about those other cities.
I agree with you Apurimac that the severity of the situations in many projects is a direct consequence of political and social institutions reinforcing racism and neglect.
unfortunately, even when cities were packed with manufacturing jobs, ghetto's existed, they are not the consequence of failed economic policy as much as they are the consequence of failed social policy. IMO
Oh and i'm sure white developers willed a hurricane to destroy NO to make life miserable for black folk.
Incompetent governments and overly-greedy insurance companies are responsible for the ills of many of Katrina's victims. There are numerous races of people in both of the aforementioned organizations. Painting katrina as a Black/White issue masks the truth of the situation that the city was incompetent in preparing for the inevitable, the Federal government (which can't be relied on for anything anyway) wasn't prepared for a Cat 4 storm hitting NO and that insurance companies over extended themselves by insuring homes that would eventually be destroyed in a major storm knowing they wouldn't be able to pay out.
Seriously, and I bet most of them were white, but would they not do what they did to New Orleans' poor blacks to a bunch of poor white folk? Your bet your sweet ass they would and they do.
Katrina may also stand as an example to those many Americans who have been lulled into thinking that their lack of savings, lack of preparedness, lack of awareness of their surroundings, can come back at them in a flash. Tough times ahead, folks. . .no matter who's President. Of course the most vulnerable will be hit hardest -- as usual.
lost in the hullabaloo of yesterday's speech is the increasing likelihood that michigan and florida will not have a do-over primary, largely because the obama campaign opposes it (and with good reason - he'd lose both states.) while this may lock up the nomination for obama, he is setting himself up to lose both states in november which could ultimately be very costly for the dems.
The simple truth of the matter is that Hillary can only win so many states IMO. Look at the states Obama has won, most are in deep red state territory while Hillary has been confined to the comfortably blue state territory. To me this means Obama is a way more unifying force than Hillary. Recent allegations are not, I still think Obama has more of a chance in November than Hillary.
to me that says obama is in some trouble. the red states will still go red (is wyoming ever going to go democrat? resounding no.) the blue states have largely gone for hillary and will likely still go blue even if obama wins the nomination. that leaves the swing states like florida, michigan, ohio, and pennsylvania, and that's where obama is in trouble.
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: March 19, 2008
PHILADELPHIA
In many ways, Barack Obama’s speech on race was momentous and edifying.
You could tell it was personal, that he had worked hard on it, all weekend and into the wee hours Tuesday. Overriding aides who objected to putting race center stage, he addressed a painful, difficult subject straightforwardly with a subtlety and decency rare in American politics.
Certainly, Senator Obama was exercising sophisticated damage-control on his problem with Jeremiad Wright. But he did not pander as Mitt Romney did with his very challenging speech about Mormonism, or market-test his own convictions, as most politicians do.
Unlike what the Clintons did to Lani Guinier, responding to her radical racial ideas by throwing her under the bus, Obama went to great pains to honor the human dimension of his relationship with his politically threatening “old uncle,” as he calls him.
Displaying his multihued, crazy-quilted DNA, he talked about cringing when he heard the white grandmother who raised him use racial stereotypes and confess her fear of passing black men on the street.
He tried to shine a light on that clannish place where grudges and grievances flourish. After racing from race for a year, he plowed in and took a stab at showing blacks what white resentment felt like and whites what black resentment felt like.
(He was spot-on about my tribe of working-class Irish, the ones who have helped break his winning streak in New Hampshire and Ohio, and may do so in Pennsylvania.)
He rightly struck back at right-wing hysteria-mongers. “Talk-show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism,” he said, “while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.”
Obama’s warning about race in America was redolent of Eugene O’Neill’s observation about Ireland: “There is no present or future,” O’Neill said, “only the past happening over and over again.”
His speech was pitched to superdelegates queasy about his spiritual guide’s Malcolm X-ism, the virulent racial pride, the separatism, the deep suspicion of America and the white man — the very things that Obama’s “post-racial” identity was supposed to have transcended.
The candidate may have staunched the bleeding, but he did not heal the wounds. His naïve and willful refusal to come to terms earlier with the Rev. Wright’s anti-American, anti-white and pro-Farrakhan sentiments — echoing his naïve and willful refusal to come to terms earlier with the ramifications of his friendship with sleazy fund-raiser Tony Rezko — will not be forgotten because of one unforgettable speech.
But then, the most intriguing thing about the speech in the National Constitution Center here, near the statues of the founding fathers who signed the document declaring that “all men are created equal,” was not even the part about black and white. It was the new color that Obama unexpectedly wore: gray.
The black and white plaguing the Obama camp was not only about skin color. Facing up to his dubious behavior toward his explosive friends, he had his first rude introduction in his political career to ambivalence, ambiguity and complexity.
Obama did not surrender his pedestal willingly. But he was finally confronted by a problem that neither his charm nor his grandiosity would solve.
He now admits that he had heard the Rev. Wright make “controversial” remarks in church, and that he had a “lapse of judgment” when he let the much-investigated Rezko curry favor by buying the plot of land next to his and selling a slice back so Obama could have a bigger yard. Newly alert to the perils of not seeming patriotic enough, he ended a speech in Pennsylvania the other morning with “God bless America!”
A little disenchantment with Obama could turn out to be a good thing. Too much idealism can blind a leader to reality as surely as too much ideology can.
Up until now, Obama and his worshipers have set it up so that he must be so admirable and ideal and perfect and everything we’ve ever wanted that any kind of blemish — even a parking ticket — was regarded as a major failing.
With the Clintons, we expect them to be cheesy on ethics, so no one is ever surprised when they are.
But Saint Obama played the politics of character to an absurd extent. For 14 months, his argument for leading the world has been himself — his exquisitely globalized self.
He should be congratulated on the disappearance of the pedestal. Leaders don’t need to be messiahs.
jafiller, you - like other CLInton supporters - are so insanely disengenuous it borders on the pathological. go and look at what each state has posited, they can't under their current constitutional or legislative or financial time table, assemble a re-vote. rules are rules unless it's regarding the CLInton's, then and only then are the rules worthy of circumventing.
See, beta, you (and other rabid Obamites here) immediately and instinctively answer with a rant on Clinton. JA also wrote that not re-voting in those states hurts Obama: that's what I'm more concerned about. The voters in those states didn't ask to move those primaries, it was decided by the Democratic Party, but the voters are losing a say in this election anyway. They're not going to forget that in November, and Obama is likely to pay the price.
...uh, i am responding to the FACT that has nothing to do whether or not it would hurt Obama, but whether or not Obama has anything to do with the non-vote.
see, with the CLIntonistas it's painfully obvious, either a re-vote under her terms or no re-vote at all, she's not the front runner...if you can't win a caucus just have Puerto Rico move the date up and change it to a primary, if you are of course an HRC supporter, but no one talks about that...
wow, it's been some time since i've received beta's vitriol. welcome back, my friend.
i'm not blaming obama. for once, he's making the right political move by doing everything in his power to avoid a re-do in michigan and florida. all i'm saying is it may come back to bite him come november. i'm not really saying anything very controversial here.
"see, with the CLIntonistas it's painfully obvious, either a re-vote under her terms or no re-vote at all, she's not the front runner"
see, with (some) Obamistas it's painfully obvious: you have to rant at Clinton to make any points at all. Personally, I don't give a FUCK about Clinton asking for what terms and what Obama has to do with the non-vote: that's just more "who's fault is it now" crap. The key probem is disinfranchising the voters of two pretty key states, and they have NOTHING to do with these stupid decisions that were made, and, again, they ain't gonna forget that.
If Hillary was so concerned about disenfranchising voters, maybe she shouldn't have supported the DNC sanctions against FL and MI to begin with, back when she was the "inevitable" nominee and those states didn't matter. But just like Bush, Hillary believes the rules no longer apply when they become an obstacle to one's lust for power.
We've had too many unprincipled whores in the White House already; it's time to elect somebody who has more character and dignity in his pinky finger than Bush, Billary, and McCain combined.
i'm wondering how that whole michigan/florida thing went down
because the democratic party, hillary, and barack all signed off on the votes not counting - they all agreed if the primary is moved up then the delegates don't count. the leaders all agreed to disenfranchise their voters.
at what point did the voters hear this? and why, i have always wondered, weren't democrats in michigan/florida outraged that their votes didn't count (at the time)?
[paster wright] now .. the chickenssssssssss .... have come HOME! tooooooo ROOST! [/wright]
"The key probem is disinfranchising the voters of two pretty key states, and they have NOTHING to do with these stupid decisions that were made, and, again, they ain't gonna forget that."
Yep, Michigan and Florida's leaders were well aware of what would happen if they moved their primaries up. They did it anyway. If I were a resident of one of those states, I would be pissed at my state leaders and vote them out of office. I do not think it sets a good precedent to change the rules now. To do so will only create more havoc in the future because people will see that their are no consequences for breaking the rules. They have no one to blame but themselves.
michigan and florida voters have no one to blame, but themselves.
what hogwash! what did voters in those states do to deserve their vote not being counted? if ya'll will remember there were all sorts of people on this website complaining how new hampshire and iowa vote first; well, the michigan and florida state democratic parties chose to challenge that system. now all of you obamatrons seem more than content with the current system (if new york instead of iowa went first, clinton would have blown obama away in the first few weeks.) the hypocrisy of you obamatrons is overwhelming.
Jeez, LiG, you too? Look, I'll make it real simple: yea, ok, it's nasty Hillary's fault, fine, whatever you say. My point is this: it might actually be BETTER for Obama to have a re-vote in those states. He probably won't win them, but Clinton can't make enough gain in delegates to make a difference with those states, and as far as her using the victories to sway super-delegates, well, the super-delegates know right now that she would win in a proper re-vote in those states, so I don't think that wouldl help her much.
But it helps Obama in the fall: two states can make a difference against McCain; hell, one state can, as we saw in the last two elections. And swing voters in those two states, who might have been on the fence about voting Democratic, and probably a lot of life-long Democrats, will now most likely say "fuck you" to the Democratic Party for negating their voices and might very well make the difference in McCain's favor.
Ok, I've had my say, proceed with your usual rants on Clinton.
Yes, a re-vote might actually help Obama... I think he'd have a good shot at winning Michigan, and he could at least give Hillary a good enough fight in Florida to minimize the number of delegates she gets.
But that's not the point.
The state parties (acting on the voters' behalf, I might add) broke the rules that everybody had agreed to, and now they're pouting like spoiled brats because it turned out their actions have consequences. Holding an election is a complicated ordeal that requires a lot of advance planning and tons of money, but they weren't willing to pony up the cash to fix their mistake. They wanted the DNC to bail them out, but were rightfully told to clean up their own mess.
Sorry, but Florida and Michigan already had their chance, and they fucked it up big-time. Eat it, swallow it, deal with it. And then maybe other states will think twice before trying to hold their own sham elections in 2012 or beyond.
Sorry, but Florida and Michigan already had their chance, and they fucked it up big-time. Eat it, swallow it, deal with it. And then maybe other states will think twice before trying to hold their own sham elections in 2012 or beyond.
lig, i would love to drag up some of your posts prior to the iowa and new hampshire primaries. love it. you're the queen bee of hypocrisy on this one.
personal attacks get you no further than Hillary is makes you look like a soar sport and instantly makes you loose respect. Much like staying in the race when there is no statistical way you can win and still making these.
"Sorry, but Florida and Michigan already had their chance, and they fucked it up big-time. Eat it, swallow it, deal with it. And then maybe other states will think twice before trying to hold their own sham elections in 2012 or beyond."
Fine, OK: but don't come crying at Archinect in November if Michigan or Florida make the difference in an Obama loss.
(and I agree, the state parties should have paid to have these re-votes and fix their mistake...they might have just fucked their fall candidate by not doing so).
We had an honest discussion about race in the presidential sphere yesterday. This has never happened in my lifetime. Maenwhile, McCain was in Jordan with King Hussein, a staunch US ally who's mother is a Philadelphia socialite, and he said 4 times at public forums that Iran was behind Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The fifth time people pulled him aside to let him know that the Iranians, who are NOT Arabs and are Shiite, are enemies of the Sunnis who make up Al-Qaeda.
What a contrast! We have a candidate who gives the first honest assessment of race in America since the Johnson administration and one who carries on the Bush administration's lies and deceit. Imagine what can be done if we have an honest discussion about Iraq? Health Care? That is the potential of Obama. McCain inhabits an alternate universe of trophy wives and easy bogeyman.
Ya while Ive been even overaggressive about pointing out that Obama was certainly not the one who made race a central issue, and I find the idea that he is the one looking to rehash the past absurd beyond merit of response, I do actually agree a better solution should have been arranged with Michigan and Florida. Obviously the January results were bunk, but I do agree revotes would have been a good gesture to important swing states. Its hard to know how involved his campaign was in shutting down the revotes, but I have a hard time believing they had nothing to do with it, and by extension he is in part responsible for that. Maybe there were entirely legitimate reservations about process and security and all that, but it doesnt seem they should have been so insurmountable as to say 'oh to hell with the whole thing.'
I think that quite possibly one of the biggest (and best) differences between the two candidates may not be a stance or position- but the ability to engage a plethora of people from varied backgrounds and the sensibility to engage in calm negotiations-
especially when you don't agree.
Talking amongst some Obama supporting friends of mine, they partially agreed with my take - Obama should drop out now and give Hillary the nomination. Gasp! Now hear me out.
Whomever wins this November will inherit a faltering economy...Iraq...collapsing currency...huge inflation...$100 oil...and most likely a near even political split in congress. Getting anything done with be difficult, while the shitstorm that's currently brewing starts to rain down.
That's why I say our next prez will be a single term, regardless who it is. So...that leaves Obama the savior to come in via landslide victory in 2012.
My friends all agreed that my theory is valid if Hillary or McCain wins, but seem to think Obama is all powerful and can save this nation in his first 100 days. I'm slighly exaggerating, but as I'm sure the Archinect obama supporters will echo, Obama is different and can do what other politicians cannot.
I just can't get over why anyone would want to be president right now. Just saying, waiting 4 years could be a good thing for Obama.
conspicuously absent from the Washington Post editorial, is any mention of McCain.
after the pronouncements of a clearly delusional GW Bush, let's hear McCain make a profound statement on the condition of the war and the path to its conclusion. it is no longer enough to say we just stay and WIN. how and what is the criteria of winning?
when Clinton says she would remove them in 60 days i think Obama should say he will remove them in 1!
in fact i think congress should start impeachment immediately and put Osama in power now to solve the problem before Bush and his cronies have another chance to launch a false flag operation.
aquapura, that would only work if mccain won. if hillary won she would automatically be the democratic nominee in 2012 (unless she decided she didn't want to run for a second term)
aking - there's no rule that the party must nominate the incumbent. If Hillary really screws the pooch the dem's can dump her and put Obama's name on the ticket. Case in point - Leiberman ran as an independant after the CT dem's picked another guy for their nominee.
I have not written in this thread in while, but wanted to share an editorial by Gerson Moreno-Riano (my cousin) on Barack Obama's 'race' speech. Gerson's politics are very different than my own, as he is a conservative Christian, and a dean at Pat Robertson's 'school', but we wholeheartedly agree on this issue.
If this is the way some conservatives are viewing it, I think Obama should be fine.
VOTE OBAMA
if anyone listened to this american life a few weeks back, they talked about exactly that...
many inner city minorities and whites alike believe that government purposefully neglects inner city areas in the hopes that eventually the minority populations will get fed up and leave, so more prosperous white developments can take their place...
one only has to look at places like NO, Chicago's south and west sides, Phily and Brooklyn to see where such an idea comes from...
where the fuck do they move to?
The inner city ghetto was generated by the destruction of the American manufacturing economy, manu. jobs moved overseas leaving the inner city high and dry, with mostly black, working class families without jobs. Sprinkle on a little institutionalized racism and we have a pretty bad situation.
"who says that the campaign all of a sudden will center on race, jafidler? if race now becomes central it won't be because obama did it. "
Yes, SW. Part of what's been inspiring about Obama's campaign is that he's made it about all of us, about bringing people of all races and religions together. His speech yesterday was no different.
What has changed, though, is that everyone else (Hillary, McCain, the Republicans) is now foisting the race issue on him. I think they realize that if Obama, and therefore America, are forced to talk about the race issue, and all those old wounds are opened up again, people will tire of it. It will be polarizing and divisive.
Joe Suburbs will have the perception—right or wrong—that the central issue of an Obama presidency is race. It may be a brutal truth, but the majority of Americans just don't deal with race issues on a daily basis. They're concerned about the economy, Iraq, other issues. If there's a perception that race is the central issue, many of those people will flee to Hillary or McCain.
I'm not saying ME here. I'm giving you my perception of how the electorate will act.
hey, dont shoot the messenger, it was a reference to a commonly spoken about conspiracy in the inner cities all over america.
in chicago, they move a few blocks down where the housing stock and infrastructure is still in good shape. im not sure about those other cities.
I agree with you Apurimac that the severity of the situations in many projects is a direct consequence of political and social institutions reinforcing racism and neglect.
unfortunately, even when cities were packed with manufacturing jobs, ghetto's existed, they are not the consequence of failed economic policy as much as they are the consequence of failed social policy. IMO
Oh and i'm sure white developers willed a hurricane to destroy NO to make life miserable for black folk.
Incompetent governments and overly-greedy insurance companies are responsible for the ills of many of Katrina's victims. There are numerous races of people in both of the aforementioned organizations. Painting katrina as a Black/White issue masks the truth of the situation that the city was incompetent in preparing for the inevitable, the Federal government (which can't be relied on for anything anyway) wasn't prepared for a Cat 4 storm hitting NO and that insurance companies over extended themselves by insuring homes that would eventually be destroyed in a major storm knowing they wouldn't be able to pay out.
However all the CEO's of those insurance companies took home multimillion dollar pay checks and bonuses....WTF!
Seriously, and I bet most of them were white, but would they not do what they did to New Orleans' poor blacks to a bunch of poor white folk? Your bet your sweet ass they would and they do.
Katrina may also stand as an example to those many Americans who have been lulled into thinking that their lack of savings, lack of preparedness, lack of awareness of their surroundings, can come back at them in a flash. Tough times ahead, folks. . .no matter who's President. Of course the most vulnerable will be hit hardest -- as usual.
Think ahead: save, learn, be involved.
lost in the hullabaloo of yesterday's speech is the increasing likelihood that michigan and florida will not have a do-over primary, largely because the obama campaign opposes it (and with good reason - he'd lose both states.) while this may lock up the nomination for obama, he is setting himself up to lose both states in november which could ultimately be very costly for the dems.
The simple truth of the matter is that Hillary can only win so many states IMO. Look at the states Obama has won, most are in deep red state territory while Hillary has been confined to the comfortably blue state territory. To me this means Obama is a way more unifying force than Hillary. Recent allegations are not, I still think Obama has more of a chance in November than Hillary.
to me that says obama is in some trouble. the red states will still go red (is wyoming ever going to go democrat? resounding no.) the blue states have largely gone for hillary and will likely still go blue even if obama wins the nomination. that leaves the swing states like florida, michigan, ohio, and pennsylvania, and that's where obama is in trouble.
Black, White & Gray
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: March 19, 2008
PHILADELPHIA
In many ways, Barack Obama’s speech on race was momentous and edifying.
You could tell it was personal, that he had worked hard on it, all weekend and into the wee hours Tuesday. Overriding aides who objected to putting race center stage, he addressed a painful, difficult subject straightforwardly with a subtlety and decency rare in American politics.
Certainly, Senator Obama was exercising sophisticated damage-control on his problem with Jeremiad Wright. But he did not pander as Mitt Romney did with his very challenging speech about Mormonism, or market-test his own convictions, as most politicians do.
Unlike what the Clintons did to Lani Guinier, responding to her radical racial ideas by throwing her under the bus, Obama went to great pains to honor the human dimension of his relationship with his politically threatening “old uncle,” as he calls him.
Displaying his multihued, crazy-quilted DNA, he talked about cringing when he heard the white grandmother who raised him use racial stereotypes and confess her fear of passing black men on the street.
He tried to shine a light on that clannish place where grudges and grievances flourish. After racing from race for a year, he plowed in and took a stab at showing blacks what white resentment felt like and whites what black resentment felt like.
(He was spot-on about my tribe of working-class Irish, the ones who have helped break his winning streak in New Hampshire and Ohio, and may do so in Pennsylvania.)
He rightly struck back at right-wing hysteria-mongers. “Talk-show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism,” he said, “while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.”
Obama’s warning about race in America was redolent of Eugene O’Neill’s observation about Ireland: “There is no present or future,” O’Neill said, “only the past happening over and over again.”
His speech was pitched to superdelegates queasy about his spiritual guide’s Malcolm X-ism, the virulent racial pride, the separatism, the deep suspicion of America and the white man — the very things that Obama’s “post-racial” identity was supposed to have transcended.
The candidate may have staunched the bleeding, but he did not heal the wounds. His naïve and willful refusal to come to terms earlier with the Rev. Wright’s anti-American, anti-white and pro-Farrakhan sentiments — echoing his naïve and willful refusal to come to terms earlier with the ramifications of his friendship with sleazy fund-raiser Tony Rezko — will not be forgotten because of one unforgettable speech.
But then, the most intriguing thing about the speech in the National Constitution Center here, near the statues of the founding fathers who signed the document declaring that “all men are created equal,” was not even the part about black and white. It was the new color that Obama unexpectedly wore: gray.
The black and white plaguing the Obama camp was not only about skin color. Facing up to his dubious behavior toward his explosive friends, he had his first rude introduction in his political career to ambivalence, ambiguity and complexity.
Obama did not surrender his pedestal willingly. But he was finally confronted by a problem that neither his charm nor his grandiosity would solve.
He now admits that he had heard the Rev. Wright make “controversial” remarks in church, and that he had a “lapse of judgment” when he let the much-investigated Rezko curry favor by buying the plot of land next to his and selling a slice back so Obama could have a bigger yard. Newly alert to the perils of not seeming patriotic enough, he ended a speech in Pennsylvania the other morning with “God bless America!”
A little disenchantment with Obama could turn out to be a good thing. Too much idealism can blind a leader to reality as surely as too much ideology can.
Up until now, Obama and his worshipers have set it up so that he must be so admirable and ideal and perfect and everything we’ve ever wanted that any kind of blemish — even a parking ticket — was regarded as a major failing.
With the Clintons, we expect them to be cheesy on ethics, so no one is ever surprised when they are.
But Saint Obama played the politics of character to an absurd extent. For 14 months, his argument for leading the world has been himself — his exquisitely globalized self.
He should be congratulated on the disappearance of the pedestal. Leaders don’t need to be messiahs.
Gray is a welcome relief from black and white.
jafiller, you - like other CLInton supporters - are so insanely disengenuous it borders on the pathological. go and look at what each state has posited, they can't under their current constitutional or legislative or financial time table, assemble a re-vote. rules are rules unless it's regarding the CLInton's, then and only then are the rules worthy of circumventing.
See, beta, you (and other rabid Obamites here) immediately and instinctively answer with a rant on Clinton. JA also wrote that not re-voting in those states hurts Obama: that's what I'm more concerned about. The voters in those states didn't ask to move those primaries, it was decided by the Democratic Party, but the voters are losing a say in this election anyway. They're not going to forget that in November, and Obama is likely to pay the price.
...uh, i am responding to the FACT that has nothing to do whether or not it would hurt Obama, but whether or not Obama has anything to do with the non-vote.
see, with the CLIntonistas it's painfully obvious, either a re-vote under her terms or no re-vote at all, she's not the front runner...if you can't win a caucus just have Puerto Rico move the date up and change it to a primary, if you are of course an HRC supporter, but no one talks about that...
wow, it's been some time since i've received beta's vitriol. welcome back, my friend.
i'm not blaming obama. for once, he's making the right political move by doing everything in his power to avoid a re-do in michigan and florida. all i'm saying is it may come back to bite him come november. i'm not really saying anything very controversial here.
"see, with the CLIntonistas it's painfully obvious, either a re-vote under her terms or no re-vote at all, she's not the front runner"
see, with (some) Obamistas it's painfully obvious: you have to rant at Clinton to make any points at all. Personally, I don't give a FUCK about Clinton asking for what terms and what Obama has to do with the non-vote: that's just more "who's fault is it now" crap. The key probem is disinfranchising the voters of two pretty key states, and they have NOTHING to do with these stupid decisions that were made, and, again, they ain't gonna forget that.
"where the fuck do they move to?"
Indiana my friend.
If Hillary was so concerned about disenfranchising voters, maybe she shouldn't have supported the DNC sanctions against FL and MI to begin with, back when she was the "inevitable" nominee and those states didn't matter. But just like Bush, Hillary believes the rules no longer apply when they become an obstacle to one's lust for power.
We've had too many unprincipled whores in the White House already; it's time to elect somebody who has more character and dignity in his pinky finger than Bush, Billary, and McCain combined.
i'm wondering how that whole michigan/florida thing went down
because the democratic party, hillary, and barack all signed off on the votes not counting - they all agreed if the primary is moved up then the delegates don't count. the leaders all agreed to disenfranchise their voters.
at what point did the voters hear this? and why, i have always wondered, weren't democrats in michigan/florida outraged that their votes didn't count (at the time)?
[paster wright] now .. the chickenssssssssss .... have come HOME! tooooooo ROOST! [/wright]
"The key probem is disinfranchising the voters of two pretty key states, and they have NOTHING to do with these stupid decisions that were made, and, again, they ain't gonna forget that."
Yep, Michigan and Florida's leaders were well aware of what would happen if they moved their primaries up. They did it anyway. If I were a resident of one of those states, I would be pissed at my state leaders and vote them out of office. I do not think it sets a good precedent to change the rules now. To do so will only create more havoc in the future because people will see that their are no consequences for breaking the rules. They have no one to blame but themselves.
what hogwash! what did voters in those states do to deserve their vote not being counted? if ya'll will remember there were all sorts of people on this website complaining how new hampshire and iowa vote first; well, the michigan and florida state democratic parties chose to challenge that system. now all of you obamatrons seem more than content with the current system (if new york instead of iowa went first, clinton would have blown obama away in the first few weeks.) the hypocrisy of you obamatrons is overwhelming.
Jeez, LiG, you too? Look, I'll make it real simple: yea, ok, it's nasty Hillary's fault, fine, whatever you say. My point is this: it might actually be BETTER for Obama to have a re-vote in those states. He probably won't win them, but Clinton can't make enough gain in delegates to make a difference with those states, and as far as her using the victories to sway super-delegates, well, the super-delegates know right now that she would win in a proper re-vote in those states, so I don't think that wouldl help her much.
But it helps Obama in the fall: two states can make a difference against McCain; hell, one state can, as we saw in the last two elections. And swing voters in those two states, who might have been on the fence about voting Democratic, and probably a lot of life-long Democrats, will now most likely say "fuck you" to the Democratic Party for negating their voices and might very well make the difference in McCain's favor.
Ok, I've had my say, proceed with your usual rants on Clinton.
word, emilio.
Yes, a re-vote might actually help Obama... I think he'd have a good shot at winning Michigan, and he could at least give Hillary a good enough fight in Florida to minimize the number of delegates she gets.
But that's not the point.
The state parties (acting on the voters' behalf, I might add) broke the rules that everybody had agreed to, and now they're pouting like spoiled brats because it turned out their actions have consequences. Holding an election is a complicated ordeal that requires a lot of advance planning and tons of money, but they weren't willing to pony up the cash to fix their mistake. They wanted the DNC to bail them out, but were rightfully told to clean up their own mess.
Sorry, but Florida and Michigan already had their chance, and they fucked it up big-time. Eat it, swallow it, deal with it. And then maybe other states will think twice before trying to hold their own sham elections in 2012 or beyond.
lig, i would love to drag up some of your posts prior to the iowa and new hampshire primaries. love it. you're the queen bee of hypocrisy on this one.
personal attacks get you no further than Hillary is makes you look like a soar sport and instantly makes you loose respect. Much like staying in the race when there is no statistical way you can win and still making these.
other than to steal and play dirty i suppose
"Sorry, but Florida and Michigan already had their chance, and they fucked it up big-time. Eat it, swallow it, deal with it. And then maybe other states will think twice before trying to hold their own sham elections in 2012 or beyond."
Fine, OK: but don't come crying at Archinect in November if Michigan or Florida make the difference in an Obama loss.
(and I agree, the state parties should have paid to have these re-votes and fix their mistake...they might have just fucked their fall candidate by not doing so).
/me things somebody is not looking at the popular vote and delegate count ^
We had an honest discussion about race in the presidential sphere yesterday. This has never happened in my lifetime. Maenwhile, McCain was in Jordan with King Hussein, a staunch US ally who's mother is a Philadelphia socialite, and he said 4 times at public forums that Iran was behind Al-Qaeda in Iraq. The fifth time people pulled him aside to let him know that the Iranians, who are NOT Arabs and are Shiite, are enemies of the Sunnis who make up Al-Qaeda.
What a contrast! We have a candidate who gives the first honest assessment of race in America since the Johnson administration and one who carries on the Bush administration's lies and deceit. Imagine what can be done if we have an honest discussion about Iraq? Health Care? That is the potential of Obama. McCain inhabits an alternate universe of trophy wives and easy bogeyman.
Ya while Ive been even overaggressive about pointing out that Obama was certainly not the one who made race a central issue, and I find the idea that he is the one looking to rehash the past absurd beyond merit of response, I do actually agree a better solution should have been arranged with Michigan and Florida. Obviously the January results were bunk, but I do agree revotes would have been a good gesture to important swing states. Its hard to know how involved his campaign was in shutting down the revotes, but I have a hard time believing they had nothing to do with it, and by extension he is in part responsible for that. Maybe there were entirely legitimate reservations about process and security and all that, but it doesnt seem they should have been so insurmountable as to say 'oh to hell with the whole thing.'
$$$
Doll company Herobuilders has created an 8-inch tall Barack Obama doll.
$$$
looks like hillary had the doll company darken his skin color
i mean come ON! has she no shame?
"If there was a glimmer of sense... "
I think that quite possibly one of the biggest (and best) differences between the two candidates may not be a stance or position- but the ability to engage a plethora of people from varied backgrounds and the sensibility to engage in calm negotiations-
especially when you don't agree.
Talking amongst some Obama supporting friends of mine, they partially agreed with my take - Obama should drop out now and give Hillary the nomination. Gasp! Now hear me out.
Whomever wins this November will inherit a faltering economy...Iraq...collapsing currency...huge inflation...$100 oil...and most likely a near even political split in congress. Getting anything done with be difficult, while the shitstorm that's currently brewing starts to rain down.
That's why I say our next prez will be a single term, regardless who it is. So...that leaves Obama the savior to come in via landslide victory in 2012.
My friends all agreed that my theory is valid if Hillary or McCain wins, but seem to think Obama is all powerful and can save this nation in his first 100 days. I'm slighly exaggerating, but as I'm sure the Archinect obama supporters will echo, Obama is different and can do what other politicians cannot.
I just can't get over why anyone would want to be president right now. Just saying, waiting 4 years could be a good thing for Obama.
conspicuously absent from the Washington Post editorial, is any mention of McCain.
after the pronouncements of a clearly delusional GW Bush, let's hear McCain make a profound statement on the condition of the war and the path to its conclusion. it is no longer enough to say we just stay and WIN. how and what is the criteria of winning?
when Clinton says she would remove them in 60 days i think Obama should say he will remove them in 1!
in fact i think congress should start impeachment immediately and put Osama in power now to solve the problem before Bush and his cronies have another chance to launch a false flag operation.
aquapura, that would only work if mccain won. if hillary won she would automatically be the democratic nominee in 2012 (unless she decided she didn't want to run for a second term)
aking - there's no rule that the party must nominate the incumbent. If Hillary really screws the pooch the dem's can dump her and put Obama's name on the ticket. Case in point - Leiberman ran as an independant after the CT dem's picked another guy for their nominee.
mccain is so stupid he could be told sensitive private information and his broken mind would slip it out every time
this is a well known pattern. he is unfit to lead anything
The good thing about the falling dollar is its wiping out the national debt - anytimes a good time to be president
I have not written in this thread in while, but wanted to share an editorial by Gerson Moreno-Riano (my cousin) on Barack Obama's 'race' speech. Gerson's politics are very different than my own, as he is a conservative Christian, and a dean at Pat Robertson's 'school', but we wholeheartedly agree on this issue.
If this is the way some conservatives are viewing it, I think Obama should be fine.
Barack's big speech By Gerson Moreno-Riano
oh boy, if this tracks back to HRC, http://dabroots.livejournal.com/1920220.html
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.