No, oe, YOU said that "you recognize its not democratic" and YOU said "Hillary is running on bigotry and deception": don't put your words in my text. Please read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.
I said that what Hillary is doing (fighting the fight up to the convention if need be) has a long history in the politics of our country. And that parties have not gone down in flames after such contentious conventions. But then you pointed out that this is now and not then. Yea, you're right, politics in this country are not based on precedents and rules that have developed over a couple of centuries: everything started fresh with this election, and Obam is Mr. Clean, and Clinton is playing unfair: thanks for setting me straight on that.
And I also said, more than one time in this forum, that if Clinton wins she will make as good a president as Obama, so misquote that. What we are witnessing is a hell of a good campaign fight, one that makes even the vote I will cast in a late primary count this year; and voters are turning out in record numbers...but you go ahead and call it apathy.
As far as counter-arguments as to why I don't bury Clinton, I have worn out my fingers in this forum to be at least the voice of reason to look soberly at both candidates, under this flaming barrage at Clinton and foot kissing for Obama that you guys call a discussion. I could link to hundreds of articles and give you a couple hundred footnotes to pieces that look at Clinton as a politician and consider her without the stupid prejudice (and not all of these are favorable towards her as the best choice)...but really, what's the point in this forum...everyone's mind seems to be locked as tight as Fort Knox on that issue, so I'll take a pass.
you know what, if she acted like the democratic party meant something to her and not her own ambitions, then perhaps people would take a look and give her the benefit of the doubt. but since SC we've all realized that this was going to be different and this dog won't go down without a fight, this is her presidency, remember, and she won't let some black guy take it from her. so she can go screw.
March 11, 2008
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Red Phone in Black and White
By ORLANDO PATTERSON
Cambridge, Mass.
ON first watching Hillary Clinton’s recent “It’s 3 a.m.” advertisement, I was left with an uneasy feeling that something was not quite right — something that went beyond my disappointment that she had decided to go negative. Repeated watching of the ad on YouTube increased my unease. I realized that I had only too often in my study of America’s racial history seen images much like these, and the sentiments to which they allude.
I am not referring to the fact that the ad is unoriginal; as several others have noted, it mimics a similar ad made for Walter Mondale in his 1984 campaign for the Democratic nomination. What bothers me is the difference between this and the Mondale ad. The Mondale ad directly and unequivocally played on the issue of experience. The danger was that the red telephone might be answered by someone who was “unsure, unsteady, untested.” Why do I believe this? Because the phone and Mr. Mondale are the only images in the ad. Fair game in the normal politics of fear.
Not so this Clinton ad. To be sure, it states that something is “happening in the world” — although it never says what this is — and that Mrs. Clinton is better able to handle such danger because of her experience with foreign leaders. But every ad-maker, like every social linguist, knows that words are often the least important aspect of a message and are easily muted by powerful images.
I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image — innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger — it brought to my mind scenes from the past. I couldn’t help but think of D. W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,” the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society. The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.
The ad could easily have removed its racist sub-message by including images of a black child, mother or father — or by stating that the danger was external terrorism. Instead, the child on whom the camera first focuses is blond. Two other sleeping children, presumably in another bed, are not blond, but they are dimly lighted, leaving them ambiguous. Still it is obvious that they are not black — both, in fact, seem vaguely Latino.
Finally, Hillary Clinton appears, wearing a business suit at 3 a.m., answering the phone. The message: our loved ones are in grave danger and only Mrs. Clinton can save them. An Obama presidency would be dangerous — and not just because of his lack of experience. In my reading, the ad, in the insidious language of symbolism, says that Mr. Obama is himself the danger, the outsider within.
Did the message get through? Well, consider this: people who voted early went overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama; those who made up their minds during the three days after the ad was broadcast voted heavily for Mrs. Clinton.
For more than a century, American politicians have played on racial fears to divide the electorate and mobilize xenophobic parties. Blacks have been the “domestic enemy,” the eternal outsider within, who could always inspire unity among “we whites.” Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy was built on this premise, using coded language — “law and order,” “silent majority” — to destroy the alliance between blacks and white labor that had been the foundation of the Democratic Party, and to bring about the Republican ascendancy of the past several decades. The Willie Horton ad that George H. W. Bush used against Michael Dukakis in 1988 was a crude manifestation of this strategy — as was the racist attack used against John McCain’s daughter, who was adopted from Bangladesh, in the South Carolina Republican primary in 2000.
It is significant that the Clinton campaign used its telephone ad in Texas, where a Fox poll conducted Feb. 26 to 28 showed that whites favored Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton 47 percent to 44 percent, and not in Ohio, where she held a comfortable 16-point lead among whites. Exit polls on March 4 showed the ad’s effect in Texas: a 12-point swing to 56 percent of white votes toward Mrs. Clinton. It is striking, too, that during the same weekend the ad was broadcast, Mrs. Clinton refused to state unambiguously that Mr. Obama is a Christian and has never been a Muslim.
It is possible that what I saw in the ad is different from what Mrs. Clinton and her operatives saw and intended. But as I watched it again and again I could not help but think of the sorry pass to which we may have come — that someone could be trading on the darkened memories of a twisted past that Mr. Obama has struggled to transcend.
Orlando Patterson is a professor of sociology at Harvard and the author of “The Ordeal of Integration: Progress and Resentment in America’s ‘Racial’ Crisis.”
The ad could easily have removed its racist sub-message by including images of a black child, mother or father — or by stating that the danger was external terrorism. Instead, the child on whom the camera first focuses is blond. Two other sleeping children, presumably in another bed, are not blond, but they are dimly lighted, leaving them ambiguous. Still it is obvious that they are not black — both, in fact, seem vaguely Latino.
Barack Obama has breathed life into the Democratic Party, and into American politics, for the first time in 40 years. Not since Robert Kennedy ran for president has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals. Not since then has America - including, especially, the nation's youth - been so inspired
Oh God....this is just too much. Talk about fishing for racism...the night call to a president is about an attack on the country or some other serious national emergency...a call from a black man?!?!? WTF!! this is just too much.
on the other hand
"Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday she disagrees with Geraldine Ferraro, one of her fundraisers and the 1984 vice presidential candidate, for suggesting that Barack Obama only achieved his status in the presidential race because he's black."
But Hillary brought Sinbad to a foreign policy crisis:
Pressed in a CNN interview this week for specific examples of foreign policy experience that has prepared her for an international crisis, Clinton claimed that she "helped to bring peace" to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. She also cited "standing up" to the Chinese government on women's rights and a one-day visit she made to Bosnia following the Dayton peace accords.
Earlier in the campaign, she and her husband claimed that she had advocated on behalf of a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda to stop the genocide there.
'Ancillary' to process
But her involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process was primarily to encourage activism among women's groups there, a contribution that the lead U.S. negotiator described as "helpful" but that an Irish historian who has written extensively about the conflict dismissed as "ancillary" to the peace process.
The Macedonian government opened its border to refugees the day before Clinton arrived to meet with government leaders. And her mission to Bosnia was a one-day visit in which she was accompanied by performers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, as well as her daughter, Chelsea, according to the commanding general who hosted her.
In response to claims that Hillary Clinton's trip with him was dangerous and part of crossing the threshold to be Commander in Chief, Sinbad says:
"What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"
and
"I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"
Sinbad, along with singer Sheryl Crow, was on that 1996 trip to Bosnia that Clinton has described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call at the White House on day one, a claim for which she's taking much grief on the campaign trail.
Sinbad, performing in 2007 for shareholders of Wal-Mart. Hillary Rodham Clinton served on the board of Wal-Mart from 1986 to 1992. (Spencer Tirey -- The Associated Press)
Harrowing? Not that Sinbad recalls. He just remembers it being a USO tour to buck up the troops amid a much worse situation than he had imagined between the Bosnians and Serbs.
In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"
Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. "They said there might be sniper fire," Clinton said.
Threat of bullets? Sinbad doesn't remember that, either.
"I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'"
In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."
Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"
As you may have guessed by now, Sinbad isn't supporting Clinton for president. He's an Obama guy. All because of Clinton.
"What got me about Hillary was her attitude of entitlement, like he messed up her plan, like he had no reason to be there," Sinbad said. "I got angry. I actually got angry! I said, 'I will be for Obama like never before.'"
Dead horse indeed, but I dont mind this debate, this is important shit.
"Now, I agree that in this case, if Clinton gets the nomination and the popular vote is ignored, there will be a disinfranchisement of a large number of voters:"
"all she's doing is running a tough campaign and taking advantage of the system, even the fucked-up rules of the system, as is her right to,"
So we agree that behind the wrangling, there is some underlying principal which is being violated, being taken advantage of, that the tactics being pursued are "fucked up" and that the consequences will be that voters will be disenfranchised. I understand its legal, but doesnt this bother you on some slightly more fundamental level?
"The real attacks will come when he wins the primary. The race card? Man, he's going against the party that thought up the Willie Horton ad, the Swift Boat campaign (and don't tell me the top of the party wasn't supporting that), and the almost bringing down of a President by looking into his sex life. They're not just going to play the race card, they're going to play the Muslim card, the developer card, and any other card they can dig up.
"And I'll say it one final time: the campaing Hillary is running against Obama is roses compared to what he'll get from the Reps. Quit whining."
You make no denials that there are in fact racially subversive messages coming out of her campaign, instead you excuse these methods by saying 'Hey, at least they arent as bad as the willie horton ad!' Again, dont you think we should be holding ourselves to slightly higher standards? Like, not employing racial stereotypes or exploiting racial divisions at all?
Well, you know, there's the 1919 Black Sox scandal and then there's the Patriot's coach stealing a few signals...it's a matter of scale, you're an architect, you should know that. "Racially subversive messages", again, your words: I never SAID she's playing the race card, just that the Republicans probably will (and I don't think she IS playing the race card). "Tactics being pursued are fucked up": see how you spin meaning? You said "tactics", tactics are her fault: I said rules, rules which we may not like (like super-delegates and not having winner take all), rules which she didn't put in place.
Oh, but enough, I'm tired already, this is like a broken record with you.
Did you guys hear about this? Bravo to Olbermann. He is as eloquent and as necessary a newsman as we have ever seen in this county.
Also, I got this in an email from Obama yesterday. It sums things up nicely, since Hillary obviously can't.
When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."
When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.
When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.
When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.
When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.
And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.
But the facts are clear.
For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, we have won more delegates, more states, and more votes.
Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.
no, I think they live is much more in tune with the current bush administration and say the mission accomplished sign...where if one were wearing the glasses of truth (or just observant) would have seen FAIL.
Nice try to throw more mud though...It is the best flick that stared Rowdy Raudy Piper...woohoo! Not to mention it is a John Carpenter flick...one of the best.
i've been reluctant to engage in any political debates, but calling politicians out for using simplistic statements is just silly...it's called a campaign slogan. it's especially silly if the criticism is coming from a republican.
exactly - barack's rhetoric is very reminiscent of w's rise to power in 2000. 'i'm not a washington insider! i'm going to clean up the mess the previous administration left!'
barack won't be quite as bad as george bush, but i do believe he will be the next jimmy carter (not john kennedy)
and dot, how does being a republican make it so i can't critique a politician? i'm non-partisan though - i feel it's important to not belong to a political party as it often becomes 'my team versus their team'.
i'm always in disbelief when i hear members of either team say 'i would never vote for a republican (or democrat)'.
i just have to note this; has anyone associated with the Obama campaign told or even insinuated that being President was not a job for a woman or that HRC should get back to making cookies and standing by her man? then why is acceptable for HRC's campaign to even obliquely suggest that BO should get to the back of the bus?
Free Ramos, I really am confused about you. You make comments about Obama's rhetoric, which I think is a valid point. I even think your comparison to Bush in 2000 has some traction, at least to anyone who isn't looking at the campaign through Obama colored glasses. However, then you turn around and say Obama wouldn't be "as bad as Bush"..."but is no Jimmy Carter"?!?!
What the f____? I'm no George Bush cheerleader, but of all presidents, you liked Carter? Please explain to me what you liked about him? Granted, I was well before voting age back then, but I have yet to find anyone outside of the die hard democrat core that thought the Carter years were any sort of treat.
Carter recognizes what the Israelis do is apartied towards the Palestinians, that is important, a injustice to 1 anywhere is a injustice to everybody everywhere.
what is bad about Carter is he was just as complicit as any other ruler in playing the abuse of power card and war.
VOTE OBAMA
THANK you. . . hee hee
obama is LEED AP.
kidding...
"Seriously can we call a moratorium on calling Hillary a bitch?"
No. This is trench warfare.
sticks + stones = architecture ?
Hillary is a Bitch using always lowball tactics, but can't even please her own man, an inept bitch at that.
gee -- misogyny, slander, and bad language all in one sentence. quite an accomplishment. . .
Jeez, I must be in the "twist my words" forum.
No, oe, YOU said that "you recognize its not democratic" and YOU said "Hillary is running on bigotry and deception": don't put your words in my text. Please read what I actually wrote, not what you think I wrote.
I said that what Hillary is doing (fighting the fight up to the convention if need be) has a long history in the politics of our country. And that parties have not gone down in flames after such contentious conventions. But then you pointed out that this is now and not then. Yea, you're right, politics in this country are not based on precedents and rules that have developed over a couple of centuries: everything started fresh with this election, and Obam is Mr. Clean, and Clinton is playing unfair: thanks for setting me straight on that.
And I also said, more than one time in this forum, that if Clinton wins she will make as good a president as Obama, so misquote that. What we are witnessing is a hell of a good campaign fight, one that makes even the vote I will cast in a late primary count this year; and voters are turning out in record numbers...but you go ahead and call it apathy.
I see you've all been quite busy since I stopped by last.
I'm just glad that Obama's "bad week" gave him 8 net delegates.
As far as counter-arguments as to why I don't bury Clinton, I have worn out my fingers in this forum to be at least the voice of reason to look soberly at both candidates, under this flaming barrage at Clinton and foot kissing for Obama that you guys call a discussion. I could link to hundreds of articles and give you a couple hundred footnotes to pieces that look at Clinton as a politician and consider her without the stupid prejudice (and not all of these are favorable towards her as the best choice)...but really, what's the point in this forum...everyone's mind seems to be locked as tight as Fort Knox on that issue, so I'll take a pass.
you know what, if she acted like the democratic party meant something to her and not her own ambitions, then perhaps people would take a look and give her the benefit of the doubt. but since SC we've all realized that this was going to be different and this dog won't go down without a fight, this is her presidency, remember, and she won't let some black guy take it from her. so she can go screw.
no it's not her presidency by any means, but she shouldn't go down without a fight, no one should...
oh, whatever
omg you horsist!
March 11, 2008
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
The Red Phone in Black and White
By ORLANDO PATTERSON
Cambridge, Mass.
ON first watching Hillary Clinton’s recent “It’s 3 a.m.” advertisement, I was left with an uneasy feeling that something was not quite right — something that went beyond my disappointment that she had decided to go negative. Repeated watching of the ad on YouTube increased my unease. I realized that I had only too often in my study of America’s racial history seen images much like these, and the sentiments to which they allude.
I am not referring to the fact that the ad is unoriginal; as several others have noted, it mimics a similar ad made for Walter Mondale in his 1984 campaign for the Democratic nomination. What bothers me is the difference between this and the Mondale ad. The Mondale ad directly and unequivocally played on the issue of experience. The danger was that the red telephone might be answered by someone who was “unsure, unsteady, untested.” Why do I believe this? Because the phone and Mr. Mondale are the only images in the ad. Fair game in the normal politics of fear.
Not so this Clinton ad. To be sure, it states that something is “happening in the world” — although it never says what this is — and that Mrs. Clinton is better able to handle such danger because of her experience with foreign leaders. But every ad-maker, like every social linguist, knows that words are often the least important aspect of a message and are easily muted by powerful images.
I have spent my life studying the pictures and symbols of racism and slavery, and when I saw the Clinton ad’s central image — innocent sleeping children and a mother in the middle of the night at risk of mortal danger — it brought to my mind scenes from the past. I couldn’t help but think of D. W. Griffith’s “Birth of a Nation,” the racist movie epic that helped revive the Ku Klux Klan, with its portrayal of black men lurking in the bushes around white society. The danger implicit in the phone ad — as I see it — is that the person answering the phone might be a black man, someone who could not be trusted to protect us from this threat.
The ad could easily have removed its racist sub-message by including images of a black child, mother or father — or by stating that the danger was external terrorism. Instead, the child on whom the camera first focuses is blond. Two other sleeping children, presumably in another bed, are not blond, but they are dimly lighted, leaving them ambiguous. Still it is obvious that they are not black — both, in fact, seem vaguely Latino.
Finally, Hillary Clinton appears, wearing a business suit at 3 a.m., answering the phone. The message: our loved ones are in grave danger and only Mrs. Clinton can save them. An Obama presidency would be dangerous — and not just because of his lack of experience. In my reading, the ad, in the insidious language of symbolism, says that Mr. Obama is himself the danger, the outsider within.
Did the message get through? Well, consider this: people who voted early went overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama; those who made up their minds during the three days after the ad was broadcast voted heavily for Mrs. Clinton.
For more than a century, American politicians have played on racial fears to divide the electorate and mobilize xenophobic parties. Blacks have been the “domestic enemy,” the eternal outsider within, who could always inspire unity among “we whites.” Richard Nixon’s Southern strategy was built on this premise, using coded language — “law and order,” “silent majority” — to destroy the alliance between blacks and white labor that had been the foundation of the Democratic Party, and to bring about the Republican ascendancy of the past several decades. The Willie Horton ad that George H. W. Bush used against Michael Dukakis in 1988 was a crude manifestation of this strategy — as was the racist attack used against John McCain’s daughter, who was adopted from Bangladesh, in the South Carolina Republican primary in 2000.
It is significant that the Clinton campaign used its telephone ad in Texas, where a Fox poll conducted Feb. 26 to 28 showed that whites favored Mr. Obama over Mrs. Clinton 47 percent to 44 percent, and not in Ohio, where she held a comfortable 16-point lead among whites. Exit polls on March 4 showed the ad’s effect in Texas: a 12-point swing to 56 percent of white votes toward Mrs. Clinton. It is striking, too, that during the same weekend the ad was broadcast, Mrs. Clinton refused to state unambiguously that Mr. Obama is a Christian and has never been a Muslim.
It is possible that what I saw in the ad is different from what Mrs. Clinton and her operatives saw and intended. But as I watched it again and again I could not help but think of the sorry pass to which we may have come — that someone could be trading on the darkened memories of a twisted past that Mr. Obama has struggled to transcend.
Orlando Patterson is a professor of sociology at Harvard and the author of “The Ordeal of Integration: Progress and Resentment in America’s ‘Racial’ Crisis.”
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
ah ha ha
post 900!
votobama!!!
fresh start 2 da top!
votOBAMA!!
Barack Obama has breathed life into the Democratic Party, and into American politics, for the first time in 40 years. Not since Robert Kennedy ran for president has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals. Not since then has America - including, especially, the nation's youth - been so inspired
Oh God....this is just too much. Talk about fishing for racism...the night call to a president is about an attack on the country or some other serious national emergency...a call from a black man?!?!? WTF!! this is just too much.
on the other hand
"Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday she disagrees with Geraldine Ferraro, one of her fundraisers and the 1984 vice presidential candidate, for suggesting that Barack Obama only achieved his status in the presidential race because he's black."
that racist...
oh, sorry, new page...pk, back to whining.
I actually agree on the 3am ad. Its certainly dubious for a whole host of reasons but I dont think racism is one of them.
But Hillary brought Sinbad to a foreign policy crisis:
Pressed in a CNN interview this week for specific examples of foreign policy experience that has prepared her for an international crisis, Clinton claimed that she "helped to bring peace" to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. She also cited "standing up" to the Chinese government on women's rights and a one-day visit she made to Bosnia following the Dayton peace accords.
Earlier in the campaign, she and her husband claimed that she had advocated on behalf of a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda to stop the genocide there.
'Ancillary' to process
But her involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process was primarily to encourage activism among women's groups there, a contribution that the lead U.S. negotiator described as "helpful" but that an Irish historian who has written extensively about the conflict dismissed as "ancillary" to the peace process.
The Macedonian government opened its border to refugees the day before Clinton arrived to meet with government leaders. And her mission to Bosnia was a one-day visit in which she was accompanied by performers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, as well as her daughter, Chelsea, according to the commanding general who hosted her.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-experiencemar07,0,51719.story
dude - say what u want about Hillary, but leave Sinbad out of it!
Daily Kos: Sinbad Speaks! Clinton Camp Implies He's Crossed the Threshold
In response to claims that Hillary Clinton's trip with him was dangerous and part of crossing the threshold to be Commander in Chief, Sinbad says:
"What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"
and
"I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"
Sinbad, performing in 2007 for shareholders of Wal-Mart. Hillary Rodham Clinton served on the board of Wal-Mart from 1986 to 1992. (Spencer Tirey -- The Associated Press)
Harrowing? Not that Sinbad recalls. He just remembers it being a USO tour to buck up the troops amid a much worse situation than he had imagined between the Bosnians and Serbs.
In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"
Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. "They said there might be sniper fire," Clinton said.
Threat of bullets? Sinbad doesn't remember that, either.
"I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'"
In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."
Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"
As you may have guessed by now, Sinbad isn't supporting Clinton for president. He's an Obama guy. All because of Clinton.
"What got me about Hillary was her attitude of entitlement, like he messed up her plan, like he had no reason to be there," Sinbad said. "I got angry. I actually got angry! I said, 'I will be for Obama like never before.'"
LOL!!!
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/03/sinbad_unloads_on_hillary_clin.html
"Please read what I actually wrote,"
Dead horse indeed, but I dont mind this debate, this is important shit.
"Now, I agree that in this case, if Clinton gets the nomination and the popular vote is ignored, there will be a disinfranchisement of a large number of voters:"
"all she's doing is running a tough campaign and taking advantage of the system, even the fucked-up rules of the system, as is her right to,"
So we agree that behind the wrangling, there is some underlying principal which is being violated, being taken advantage of, that the tactics being pursued are "fucked up" and that the consequences will be that voters will be disenfranchised. I understand its legal, but doesnt this bother you on some slightly more fundamental level?
"The real attacks will come when he wins the primary. The race card? Man, he's going against the party that thought up the Willie Horton ad, the Swift Boat campaign (and don't tell me the top of the party wasn't supporting that), and the almost bringing down of a President by looking into his sex life. They're not just going to play the race card, they're going to play the Muslim card, the developer card, and any other card they can dig up.
"And I'll say it one final time: the campaing Hillary is running against Obama is roses compared to what he'll get from the Reps. Quit whining."
You make no denials that there are in fact racially subversive messages coming out of her campaign, instead you excuse these methods by saying 'Hey, at least they arent as bad as the willie horton ad!' Again, dont you think we should be holding ourselves to slightly higher standards? Like, not employing racial stereotypes or exploiting racial divisions at all?
Well, you know, there's the 1919 Black Sox scandal and then there's the Patriot's coach stealing a few signals...it's a matter of scale, you're an architect, you should know that. "Racially subversive messages", again, your words: I never SAID she's playing the race card, just that the Republicans probably will (and I don't think she IS playing the race card). "Tactics being pursued are fucked up": see how you spin meaning? You said "tactics", tactics are her fault: I said rules, rules which we may not like (like super-delegates and not having winner take all), rules which she didn't put in place.
Oh, but enough, I'm tired already, this is like a broken record with you.
at least we agreed on the 3am ad...
cue the triumphal music
I agree weve run the gambit on this one. Im more sensitive, youre less sensitive, either way Im sure we agree on practically everything else.
*High-five 3am racial paranoia* ;)
Mississippi called for Obama. Woo Hoo.
i said baby,it's 3 a.m.!
SHE MUST BE LONELY!
I never listened to Matchbox twenty...now I know why.
"Clinton apologizes to black voters"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_s_apologies
Which side of her mouth is she talking out of today?
Did you guys hear about this? Bravo to Olbermann. He is as eloquent and as necessary a newsman as we have ever seen in this county.
Also, I got this in an email from Obama yesterday. It sums things up nicely, since Hillary obviously can't.
When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."
When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.
When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.
When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.
When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.
And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.
But the facts are clear.
For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, we have won more delegates, more states, and more votes.
Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.
nice use of alliteration, barack.
it is powerful, punctual, and presidential.
i finally realized why barack's super simplistic slick statements sicken me
you every see that movie 'they live'? barack's plastering of:
JUDGMENT TO LEAD
STAND FOR CHANGE
YES WE CAN
reminds me of:
and
no, I think they live is much more in tune with the current bush administration and say the mission accomplished sign...where if one were wearing the glasses of truth (or just observant) would have seen FAIL.
Nice try to throw more mud though...It is the best flick that stared Rowdy Raudy Piper...woohoo! Not to mention it is a John Carpenter flick...one of the best.
i've been reluctant to engage in any political debates, but calling politicians out for using simplistic statements is just silly...it's called a campaign slogan. it's especially silly if the criticism is coming from a republican.
You need to use your judgment to decide if there's truth behind what they have to say.
you know FRC, you have to be IN THE POSITION OF POWER first, then get people to OBEY and FEAR....sound like anyone in recent memory??
exactly - barack's rhetoric is very reminiscent of w's rise to power in 2000. 'i'm not a washington insider! i'm going to clean up the mess the previous administration left!'
barack won't be quite as bad as george bush, but i do believe he will be the next jimmy carter (not john kennedy)
and dot, how does being a republican make it so i can't critique a politician? i'm non-partisan though - i feel it's important to not belong to a political party as it often becomes 'my team versus their team'.
i'm always in disbelief when i hear members of either team say 'i would never vote for a republican (or democrat)'.
and hussein, are you saying barack isn't in a position of power?
i think he has quite a few followers these days ..
please.
followers?
i think i can, yes i can.
so, anyone that takes a position to support Obama is an automaton?
to compare Obama to Carter is a gross over exagerration, i am sure they thought the same thing when Clinton got into office.
Tone and Context tough guy.
This guy is Michael Jordan to Bob Kousey or Jerry West; yeah they were good, but this guy is the real deal.
i just have to note this; has anyone associated with the Obama campaign told or even insinuated that being President was not a job for a woman or that HRC should get back to making cookies and standing by her man? then why is acceptable for HRC's campaign to even obliquely suggest that BO should get to the back of the bus?
Al Companis - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Campanis
Free Ramos - are you comparing Obama to Rowdy Roddy Piper?
Free Ramos, I really am confused about you. You make comments about Obama's rhetoric, which I think is a valid point. I even think your comparison to Bush in 2000 has some traction, at least to anyone who isn't looking at the campaign through Obama colored glasses. However, then you turn around and say Obama wouldn't be "as bad as Bush"..."but is no Jimmy Carter"?!?!
What the f____? I'm no George Bush cheerleader, but of all presidents, you liked Carter? Please explain to me what you liked about him? Granted, I was well before voting age back then, but I have yet to find anyone outside of the die hard democrat core that thought the Carter years were any sort of treat.
no no no! you misread my statement, here it is:
barack won't be quite as bad as george bush, but i do believe he will be the next jimmy carter (not john kennedy)
Carter recognizes what the Israelis do is apartied towards the Palestinians, that is important, a injustice to 1 anywhere is a injustice to everybody everywhere.
what is bad about Carter is he was just as complicit as any other ruler in playing the abuse of power card and war.
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.