Our Primary/Caucus Votes
Flipp, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Hillary won't be far preferrable to George Bush (my god, she's guaranteed to at least be more competent than that dry drunk!), some of us are just suggesting that her own record is hideous and makes her a less appealing candidate than someone like Obama.
Not ignoring, simply haven't read them. I'll go back and check out your posts.Akash wrote:Well Flipp I've posted a number of articles detailing many other atrocious reasons why she wouldn't be a great President -- including in this thread an article showing how awful she'd be for working women -- but feel free to ignore those too.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Well Flipp I've posted a number of articles detailing many other atrocious reasons why she wouldn't be a great President -- including in this thread an article showing how awful she'd be for working women -- but feel free to ignore those too.
And her vote on Iraq shouldn't be seen as something insignificant anyway. Anyway, I was only responsing to the absurd assertion that a vote on Iraq "doesn't matter" now.
Edited By Akash on 1202486596
And her vote on Iraq shouldn't be seen as something insignificant anyway. Anyway, I was only responsing to the absurd assertion that a vote on Iraq "doesn't matter" now.
Edited By Akash on 1202486596
Besides, I respect a leader more who can course-correct midway and admit that they made a mistake (Hillary), than someone who bulldozes through their presidency never conceding anything to anyone and making the same stupid decisions over and over again even in the wake of completely negative, even disastrous results (Bush). Honestly, if her Iraq war voting record is the worst thing you can say about Hillary, you don't have a lot going for your argument that she's least compatible to the presidency.
Edited By flipp525 on 1202486399
Edited By flipp525 on 1202486399
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Um ok, but that's like a defense attorney saying, let's not hold a murderer accountable because we don't know how someone else would have acted in that situation? That's absurd Oscar Guy (sorry). Sure we don't know how Obama would have voted (though he did oppose the war back then, you know, back when it wasn't cool to do so) but WE DO KNOW HOW HILLARY VOTED. My god, why is that so diffficult a concept to grasp?
Anyway I know I'm going to get reamed for this (or banned or whatever) but I'm horrified sometimes at the dismissive attitude by some on this board towards the loss of innocent lives. You all show such amazing compassion when a beloved celebrity dies (not criticizing that, mind you), which is touching and beautiful, and I understand there's a somewhat "tangible" connection there (or it's specific and therefore easier to focus on) but would that you'd all show even a fraction of the same compassion towards the many MANY lives lost in this war. Or at least hold everyone responsible accountable.
Anyway, maybe it's just me who's been unfair/unrealistic. I think I made the mistake of thinking many of you were really progressive in your political beliefs, but that was probably just me imposing my own beliefs. It's clear the majority of you are just Democrats, and that's cool. The majority of you then will get the President you really want in 2008 (er...unless it's McCain). Good for you. It's already a lose-lose for me because Obama wouldn't be near my top choice either. I just find him marginally preferrable to Hillary.
SIDENOTE: I'm on the road with two journalists right now, and I probably won't be posting as much for the next few days -- I'm not ignoring anyone's response. But feel free to pile on.
Edited By Akash on 1202486813
Anyway I know I'm going to get reamed for this (or banned or whatever) but I'm horrified sometimes at the dismissive attitude by some on this board towards the loss of innocent lives. You all show such amazing compassion when a beloved celebrity dies (not criticizing that, mind you), which is touching and beautiful, and I understand there's a somewhat "tangible" connection there (or it's specific and therefore easier to focus on) but would that you'd all show even a fraction of the same compassion towards the many MANY lives lost in this war. Or at least hold everyone responsible accountable.
Anyway, maybe it's just me who's been unfair/unrealistic. I think I made the mistake of thinking many of you were really progressive in your political beliefs, but that was probably just me imposing my own beliefs. It's clear the majority of you are just Democrats, and that's cool. The majority of you then will get the President you really want in 2008 (er...unless it's McCain). Good for you. It's already a lose-lose for me because Obama wouldn't be near my top choice either. I just find him marginally preferrable to Hillary.
SIDENOTE: I'm on the road with two journalists right now, and I probably won't be posting as much for the next few days -- I'm not ignoring anyone's response. But feel free to pile on.
Edited By Akash on 1202486813
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
The point is, Akash, that there's nothing saying that Obama, who's just as big a political opportunist as Hillary, wouldn't do the same thing!
He's already said, as Sonic has pointed out, that he would invade Pakistan if necessary. So, it's really pointless to bring up one person's vote (one shared by the public, including her many of her own constituents), in the debate over who would be the better president. That's our entire point. At this juncture, it's immaterial.
Edited By OscarGuy on 1202485585
He's already said, as Sonic has pointed out, that he would invade Pakistan if necessary. So, it's really pointless to bring up one person's vote (one shared by the public, including her many of her own constituents), in the debate over who would be the better president. That's our entire point. At this juncture, it's immaterial.
Edited By OscarGuy on 1202485585
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Big Magilla wrote:Also, isn't it time to put this "war" issue to rest? Does it really matter when either of of the candidates came to their conclusioin that the war was wrong as long as they are on the right side now?
Magilla, please don't take this the wrong way -- I am saying this sincerely, and more as a general response, not sarcastically or as any kind of "dig" at you -- but yes, it does matter. It matters a great deal. It matters because it means a candidate like Clinton chose political opportunity over her own integrity, and the cost was many innocent lives lost (and not just American lives). And she did so while others like Kucinich and Ron Paul had the same information and somehow knew enough not to vote for it.
She isn't the only one, this is true. But she is ONE OF THE ONES, and we shouldn't dismiss it so easily as some of you on this board keep doing. Vote for her if you must, but please don't imply that it doesn't "matter." This isn't an abstract concept like debating American exceptionalism. This is about human life. Sure she's on the "right side now" but she came there when it was popular with the American people (i.e. politically convenient) for her to do so. And while she was "learning", a lot of people had to die in the process.
And how do you know then she (and others like her) won't make the same choice again in the future when it's politically salient for her (or them) to do so? These are all the reasons why it matters, Big Magilla. In fact that incredibly dismissive question -- "does it really matter" -- should be posed to the lives lost in Iraq, and to the survivors whose lives will never be the same again.
Edited By Akash on 1202485514
I found this humorous, check it out if you want.
Why you shouldn't vote for Clinton or Obama
Why you shouldn't vote for Clinton or Obama
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
And you know what? If Obama wins the nomination, then we'll see how deep racial tensions run between non-white communities. I don't expect a significant number of Democrats in the Asian and Latino communities to vote for McCain or stay home on Election Day. But we'll see, won't we?Mister Tee wrote:What's unusual is not that Latinos and Asians support Hillary so overwhelmingly; it's that, because of Obama's historic candidacy, African-Americans are not similarly alligned. If Obama weren't in the race, Hillary would be getting 80% of the black vote in the primaries, and would likely have clinched by now.
I'm probably shouting into the wind here, but, Jesus -- these two are both respectable choices (if neither quite up to Edwards, in my view), and it's tiresome to hear anyone go after either as if they were Satan's Child.
Sorry, Mister Tee, but Clinton-Obama isn't exactly "No Country for Old Men"-"There Will Be Blood" calibre. :p
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Pretty much everywhere except among the GOP base, the media, and farther-left Dem circles, Bill Clinton was seen as an excellent president. As Sonic says, what's followed in his wake has only cemented that reputation. In minority circles -- those groups who had/have otherwise felt ignored or debased by GOP electoral politics -- this feeling is even more intense.
It's thus not surprising that Hillary reaps benefits from her association with Bill -- the same way Bobby Kennedy, and later, to some extent, Ted, drew minority support because of how warmly the black community felt about JFK.
What's unusual is not that Latinos and Asians support Hillary so overwhelmingly; it's that, because of Obama's historic candidacy, African-Americans are not similarly alligned. If Obama weren't in the race, Hillary would be getting 80% of the black vote in the primaries, and would likely have clinched by now.
It just struck me yesterday, that Obama's candidacy is a unique hybrid. Its base is the upper-scale, wine-drinking part of the party that has, in the past, advocated insurgents Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas and Bill Bradley -- all of whom lost in the end because their demographic just wasn't big enough (Bradley was especially wiped out, because he was the Democrats Who Don't Like Bill Clinton candidate -- in 2000, a miniscule if vocal group). Obama's racial identity enables him to add African-American voters almost en masse to this base -- a formidable combination never before achieved in the primaries, and one that might just beat out the well-established Clinton coalition (a formidable one on its own).
I'm probably shouting into the wind here, but, Jesus -- these two are both respectable choices (if neither quite up to Edwards, in my view), and it's tiresome to hear anyone go after either as if they were Satan's Child.
It's thus not surprising that Hillary reaps benefits from her association with Bill -- the same way Bobby Kennedy, and later, to some extent, Ted, drew minority support because of how warmly the black community felt about JFK.
What's unusual is not that Latinos and Asians support Hillary so overwhelmingly; it's that, because of Obama's historic candidacy, African-Americans are not similarly alligned. If Obama weren't in the race, Hillary would be getting 80% of the black vote in the primaries, and would likely have clinched by now.
It just struck me yesterday, that Obama's candidacy is a unique hybrid. Its base is the upper-scale, wine-drinking part of the party that has, in the past, advocated insurgents Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas and Bill Bradley -- all of whom lost in the end because their demographic just wasn't big enough (Bradley was especially wiped out, because he was the Democrats Who Don't Like Bill Clinton candidate -- in 2000, a miniscule if vocal group). Obama's racial identity enables him to add African-American voters almost en masse to this base -- a formidable combination never before achieved in the primaries, and one that might just beat out the well-established Clinton coalition (a formidable one on its own).
I'm probably shouting into the wind here, but, Jesus -- these two are both respectable choices (if neither quite up to Edwards, in my view), and it's tiresome to hear anyone go after either as if they were Satan's Child.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Bingo! I think you've hit the nail on the head. I don't think people vote in large groups against someone or some thing, they vote in large numbers for someone or some thing so if they're coming out in droves for Hillary it's beacuse they must really like her.Sonic Youth wrote:There was a huge increase of Asian and Latino naturalization during the '90s, when Bill Clinton was president. And at the time, this period was being touted as a golden age of promise and prosperity. (And under this fool president, it sure looks that way in retrospect more and more.) Maybe immigrants just have fond memories of the '90s - they were less demonized then than they are now. So, I'd say it's natural that they feel indebted to the Clintons. It's just identity politics (as opposed to racism, which is very different).
Also, isn't it time to put this "war" issue to rest? Does it really matter when either of of the candidates came to their conclusioin that the war was wrong as long as they are on the right side now? I'm more interested in what they're going to do going forward than what they did or didn't do in the past. Either one will be more progressive than any Republican. We need to vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is or it will be more of the same for four more years. Don't be fooled by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk. They will no more vote for Hillary than most of us here would vote for another member of the Bush family.
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
And since we have no proof to show that Obama wouldn't have voted for the resolution, then the entire thing shouldn't keep getting brought up.
There's a difference between obstinately sticking to your principles despite evidence proving the contrary and basing a decision on the provided evidence. And Kucinich's vote can hardly be considered germaine to the discussion. Kucinich has voted against dozens of bills that his fellow democrats haven't.
As for this whole women's rights thing, I'm not arguing for or against the NOW support. I'm just suggesting what they believed when making the decision.
There's a difference between obstinately sticking to your principles despite evidence proving the contrary and basing a decision on the provided evidence. And Kucinich's vote can hardly be considered germaine to the discussion. Kucinich has voted against dozens of bills that his fellow democrats haven't.
As for this whole women's rights thing, I'm not arguing for or against the NOW support. I'm just suggesting what they believed when making the decision.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
OscarGuy wrote:Hillary supported the measure back then because, like everyone else in congress, she saw only the cherry-picked intelligence the white house provided and with the heavy support in the public eye, she did what almost every other politician did, voted based on the provided evidence.
But Oscar Guy, if this was what "everyone else" saw, why did even a few politicians vote against it, including Kucinich and REPUBLICAN Ron Paul? I think Hillary "saw" a little bit more into it than that. She saw political opportunism and a chance to make herself seem tougher on "terrorism", more masculine. She chose political opportunity over her own integrity (and the cost was high -- many lives lost in Iraq, and not just American ones) and this is something we shouldn't gloss over. She's not the only one who did, but let's not give her a free pass by saying she just saw what "everyone else" saw.
I don't really care what a person's gender or race is. I go based off of their records and their ability. While I wouldn't necessarily say Hillary has a great record, I think she sticks by her principles more readily than Obama.
Even if those principles are hideous and completely betray working class women, as the article I provided clearly shows? George W Bush also "sticks by his principles" and it was one of the more maddening things about him. He was basically like, "I'm wrong and strong." I'd rather have someone who can cop to being wrong, take in new information, and alter (if necessary) a previously reprehensible position. It's what adults do.
Edited By Akash on 1202508895
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8005
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA