Cyrena:

Do you know WHY you missed all four?  Because you post responses to me but never check to see whether I have responded back.  That is called “cowardice.”

As for Krugman, what part of “Paul Krugman is an economist” don’t you understand?  Or do you simply like to play semantics?  Or is it that you just can’t bring yourself to actually admit - honestly, humbly and sincerely - that you were wrong.  Don’t worry, the question is rhetorical.

Re the Obama ad, I stand (actually, sit) corrected as to what exactly occurred there.  However, I can’t help but wonder whether, if the situation were reversed - if Hillary had run a national ad that happened appeared in Florida when it shouldn’t have - whether the hue and cry would not be louder than a 747…

As for “propagandist,” this accusation would be amusing if it were not so absurd.  Providing information - even bad information, even incorrect information - is not propaganda if there is no intent to deceive.  My intent in providing info has NEVER been to deceive.  If I have been WRONG re my info, so be it.  But that does not make it propaganda.  Webster on “propaganda”: “The spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; Ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or to damage an opposing cause.”

Note the phrase “for the purpose of” and the word “deliberately.” These are called “indications of intent.” NEITHER apply to anything I have ever posted to this site.  Period.

So feel free to continue to play the schoolyard bully, believing that vulgarity, accusations and name-calling somehow further your cause.  They do not, and others have noted this as well.  It is clearly a pathology with you.

Peace.  (...and carrots...)

Maani

• And you have STILL not admitted your error re Paul Krugman, despite my posting it four times in four different threads.  Just in case you missed all four:

I DID miss all 4. Thanks so much for the bio on Paul Krugman. I read his columns regularly, and I think I’ve mentioned before, that I’ve read his work on International affairs/issues as well, which is closer to my own area. So, he’s a professor at Princeton, (my own advisor is emeritus from Princeton as well, maybe they know each other) as well as a newspaper columnist. Does he refer to himself as an economist, or a professor, or a journalist, or a scholar, or just an all around smart guy? (most academics are pretty smart, and can generally do more than one thing.)

So, should GWB call himself an economist as well? (He allegedly has an MBA from Harvard, though I’ve never actually seen it. Have you?) And, I think I’ll tell my sister that she should start calling herself an “Economist”. She too, has an MBA from USC. So what if she’s only used it to manage a household and a medical practice. (she pimps out her husband to do the actual labor in the practice, and she just manages the ‘economy’ of it).

So I admit my error. From now on, I’ll be sure to address Prof. Krugman as an “Economist”.

As for the stuff about the ad you saw, Conservative Yankee has adequately explained it. Obama was NOT running the ad. The State of Florida wasn’t running the ad, and neither was the Florida democratic party. It was a NATIONAL ad, run by ABC, and I believe he said CBS as well, and it was run nation wide. You should check the post #130023 from Conservative Yankee, on this very thread, to get the details.

Now, despite the fact that this was a NATIONALLY aired ad, I have NOT personally seen it. Neither has anybody that I know, but admittedly, I only asked the people that I know in Florida, after I read you complaining that Obama had acted illegally or somehow unethically, or against party rules, IN FLORIDA.

But Maani, NOW we know, THAT ISN’T TRUE. Gee. (again, I refer you to the post by CY). Now it could be, that the same ad is run here in my own state, but again, since I don’t watch TV, (and NEVER CNN or FOX, -of course I’m sure FOX didn’t run his ad, since he’s been boycotting FOX for months) so I guess that’s why I haven’t seen it myself.

Anyway, thanks again for the bio on Krugman.

None of the rest of the excuses for why Hillary DID violate the rules is of much concern to me. I honestly don’t care. Florida isn’t my favorite state, in case you didn’t guess that.

I like New York well enough though.

Meantime, you’re correct that I CONSCIOUSLY choose to use the words, liar, propagandist, and moron.

I’m going to try to do better though. No promises, but I will try to avoid using moron and liar. Readers don’t need for me to point out that you are a moron. And in all honesty, you may not always be lying intentionally. My dad always said that if someone actually BELIEVES the stuff they’re saying, then they aren’t really lying.

On the propagandist though, you’re definitely that, so that will continue to pop up.

Toodles.

CY,

Thanks again for the explanation. Makes sense to me that they are National Ads, and not STATE run ads, even though I admit I haven’t seen a single one myself. (But, only because I don’t watch TV).

I didn’t bother to see Hillary either, when she sneaked into the neighborhood here. But, at least I was smart enough not to try to harass her. My ass would be in the pokie of course, and I’m too old to go to jail for lost causes…

AOT:

Since Cyrena simply cannot help herself in her ridiculously liberal use of the word “liar,” and her ongoing accusations of people simply because she does not know something, or cannot verify it, I will repeat that at least half a dozen or more members of my family in South Florida saw the Obama TV ad, including my mother, who called to tell me about it.  Now if Cyrena wants to go beyond calling ME a liar and accuse my MOTHER of being a liar, well, there is not much I can do about it.  But my elderly mom is NOT given to lying.

As well Cyrena seems to miss the point.  How many people might have been influenced by Hillary’s last-minute visit/fundraisers?  A few hundred?  Or, give her benefit of the doubt, a few thousand?

Obama’s TV ad ran for a little more than a week prior to the voting.  So how many people did this ad reach, and possibly influence?  Certainly FAR more than the few thousand that might have been influenced by Hillary’s last-minute efforts.

Yet DESPITE Obama’s ad, and DESPITE the fact that only a few thousand people might have been influenced by Hillary’s last-minute efforts, she won 50% of the vote to Obama’s 33%.

Sadly, Cyrena cannot figure out how to respond to that without resorting, as always, to accusations and name-calling.  She lives in a schoolyard-behavior world and apparently NOTHING will every change that.

Peace.

I don’t think I suggested that Hillary was ‘campaigning’ in Florida, despite her closed fund raising events.

I DEFINITELY did NOT suggest that the people of Florida should NOT be able to participate or otherwise be shut out of the election campaign, anymore than I believe the people of Michigan should have been. The Democrats of that state were forced to either vote for Hillary, (the only Dem on the ballot) or vote ‘uncommitted’. So, quite frankly, I think that’s pretty fucked-up! And, I think it’s as much a travesty for the Democrats of Florida. Based on what I’ve read, (because I was really anxious to understand how something so radically undemocratic could be happening) it’s some sort of ‘punishment’ for Floridians holding an early primary.

So, let’s be real clear about the response that I made. It was to Maani, because he consistently misrepresents facts, sometimes to the point of out and out lying. Now, have YOU seen any campaign adds on the Florida airwaves for Barack Obama? (I’m presuming that you live in Florida). If so, it would be interesting to know, because Maani has made this claim on numerous posts here, (even though he lives in New York) and I’ve not been able to verify it, from anyone that I know in Florida.

So, THAT is what I was pointing out, and I will continue to call attention to Maani’s distortions or misrepresentations of the truth. (or anybody else’s for that matter).

Meantime, INDEED it is true, that holding a rally, (or even two closed fundraising events) does NOT technically constitute campaigning. But, I hate hypocrisy as much as I hate liars. So, I think we should just call things as they are. Yes, dems should be able to campaign in Florida, and if I lived in Florida, I’d be real pissed that they’ve been ‘decertified’. (But then, I’d probably be pissed at the world, if I lived in Florida)

But, here again, it is what it is. Maani claims that Barack Obama has been running a TV campaign ad, that nobody can verify so far. Hillary Clinton has held 2 fundraisers, as well as a rally. Do I care? No. But what’s good for the goose is pretty much good for the gander, eh? And, the hypocrisy from her fans, really doesn’t help her.

So yeah, if you live in Florida, you should be raising hell that the dems have been shut out of the campaign there. If I lived there; I would be. But then again, I’ve already admitted that if I lived in Florida, I’d probably just be concentrating on escape.

As it is, it’s already hard enough for a black person to vote for ANYBODY in Florida.
It’s like the home of voter suppression, intimidation, and fraud. My sympathies are with you.

yes Manni I noticed that too.
The fact remains that who ever wins, will have to campain in Florida, and not doing so now is both stupid, and unfair to Florida voters.  What this means is that Florida will not have a say in who will be chosen as the candidate.  Does this seem very democratic to you?

An important part of the democractic process is having a hand in chosing who will be a candidate for public office.  In the GDR(DDR) the former east Germany, they also had elections, except the list of candidates was drawn up by the state, and your choices where basically made for you.  Oh right that is the system we now have here!

I like the way they tried to spin Mcains win as “huge”, he only won by a few percentage points more than the otherguy, and if you added second and third places together, he would have come in a distant second.

Rest assured that Obama the windbag will deflate.  His hot air will not be easy to take over the summer.  He is an effiete-ivory tower-elitist.

cyrena:
Holding a rally after the polls close is NOT campaining.  The people of Florida will vote in the general election, so why should they be shut out shut out of the election campain that is already now underway?  Maybe the people of Florida would like to participate in the democractic process?

Cyrena:

Why is it that every time I try to make peace with you, and we start “playing nice in the sandbox,” you find the need to go back to insults, name-calling, etc.?  WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?!?!?!  You could have said everything above without using “liar,” “moron” and “propagandist.” Yet you CONSCIOUSLY chose to use those words.  I have NEVER called you a name - EVER!  You REALLY need to get a grip and interact with people without resorting to schoolyard behavior.

Re the Obama ad, almost everyone in my family in Florida saw it (that would be over a dozen people), including my mother who saw it three times.  My mother is not known for being a liar, and has no reason to do so.  As well, two friends who live in South Florida also saw it.

Re “mushroom cloud,” it is true that Condi Rice said it.  But Bush ALSO said it:

“We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing—in fact they would be eager—to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon. Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof—the smoking gun—that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

The following is a link to a video showing him delivering parts of this speech, including that line:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cMSTJNroEI

Cyrena, I have asked you numerous times now to “do the research” before you accuse others of not doing the research.  You still expect others to do your research for you.  That is unfair.  And you have STILL not admitted your error re Paul Krugman, despite my posting it four times in four different threads.  Just in case you missed all four:

“Paul Krugman is a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. He is also an author and a columnist for The New York Times, writing a twice-weekly op-ed for the newspaper since 2000.  Krugman is well known in academia for his work in trade theory, which provides a model in which firms and countries produce and trade because of economies of scale and for his textbook explanations of currency crises and New Trade Theory.  Krugman majored in economics as an undergraduate at Yale University. He earned a Ph.D. from MIT in 1977 and taught at Yale, MIT, UC Berkeley, the London School of Economics, and Stanford University before joining the faculty of Princeton University, where he has been since 2000. From 1982 to 1983, he spent a year working at the Reagan White House as a staff member of the Council of Economic Advisers.”

I am trying to interact with you on a calmer basis. And I will continue doing so even if you choose to continue to be combative, adversarial and insulting.  However, I hope you will move beyond that.

Peace.

Maani, I’ve tried to find the alleged commercial that you’ve been claiming that Obama ran in Florida, and you’ve claimed it so many times, that you gave us plenty of warning to be on the look out for it.

It would seem to be yet another figment of your imagination. Why do you play so loose with the truth Maani, when there are surely enough other things that you could ‘spin’?

In reality, HILLARY CLINTON held a rally in Florida.

• “DAVIE, Fla.) — Hillary Rodham Clinton won the Florida Democratic primary Tuesday night, an event that drew no campaigning by any of her presidential rivals and awarded no delegates to the winner. …The New York senator, fresh off her lopsided loss to Barack Obama in last weekend’s South Carolina primary, arranged a rally in the state as the polls were closing, an evident attempt to gain campaign momentum.”
Here’s more…
• “Last year, the national party stripped Florida of its delegates as punishment for moving its primary ahead of Feb. 5 and the candidates pledged to bypass the state. At stake Tuesday were 185 delegates….Still, Clinton winked at that pledge, holding two closed fundraisers in recent days and scheduling a rally with supporters after the polls closed in Florida.”
Clinton ‘winked’ at the pledge…and held her fundraisers and her rally.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1708063 ,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

Meantime, I’ve had all of my Florida ‘scouts’ out, looking everywhere, all over the airwaves, high and low, and in-between…for that Obama commercial/campaign ad. NOBODY has seen it.

God I hate LIARS…

Oh, BTW, the ‘mushroom cloud’ comment? That wasn’t george, that was his first lady, Condi Rice, back when she was whatever it was that she was.

This is what I mean Maani...just try to get things straight. Nobody can tell if you’re just a moron who doesn’t care anything about verifying the truth of anything, or if you do the stuff intentionally. Either way, you’ve lost any possible legitimacy on anything at all.

You’re just the standard propagandist, and not even a good one.

OUTRAGEOUS MEDIA SPIN ALERT!

In its article on McCain’s win in Florida, The New York Times makes this statement: “While most of the attention in Florida was on the Republicans, Democratic voters gave Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton a victory in a virtually uncontested race.”

Uncontested?  Excu-u-u-se me?  While it is true that Florida was not permitted to vote its delegates, NONE of the Dem candidates were permitted to campaign there (though Obama did so illegally by running a TV ad).  But all of them were on the voters’ ballots.  So how is this an “uncontested” race?

And CNN reported that, “Sen. Hillary Clinton will win Florida’s Democratic presidential primary Tuesday, CNN projects, although party sanctions have stripped the state of its convention delegates and no Democrats campaigned there.  Her leading rivals, South Carolina primary winner Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John Edwards, did not campaign in Florida. They opted to concentrate on next week’s “Super Tuesday” contests in states such as New York, California, Missouri and Georgia.

Did you get that?  “Her leading rivals...did not campaign in Florida.” But neither did Hillary!  So why the inference that she did - especially when Obama was the only one to (illegally) do so?

In fact, Hillary won 50% of the vote to Obama’s 33%.  Yet this is not the way it is being reported, despite that fact that “[T]urnout was high for the race even though no delegates were at stake. Nearly 400,000 people cast early or absentee ballots ahead of the primary, and Tuesday’s vote was expected to top the nearly 800,000 who turned out in 2004.”

Talk about unsubtle anti-Hillary spin!

fact is in america having a vagina is more of an issue than having black skin.  At least in a fight between a white woman and a black man (it helps that he is only 50% black, and has no connection culturally or genetically to black american culture - ie american slave culture) the white woman will lose.  America and esp. american men hate, loath, and fear women.

Caroline Kennedy, what a leach!
Ted Kennedy? What an ass.  He is a political hack, a hypocritical asshole.

As for Obama, he is a vacuous windbag spouting hot air and tossing out meaningless platitudes - soon all will see he has no clothes.  Let’s hope it is before we make him the emperor.

People use to get shot in some countries for being called that.

Part 1 of 2
Maani,

I actually get your point, about the ‘average’ American. I would disagree though, that the ‘Average American” today, is the same as the Average American, pre-2000.

I’ve probably mentioned this before, because it has stayed with me for so long, the utter ignorance from so many people that I’ve known personally, either because I’ve shared a career with them, or because they are extended family. But, maybe since you’re new here..it’s worth repeating.

I lived (because I worked) in TX for many years. (I only lasted that long because I could make frequent ‘get-aways’ - it’s really a shit hole place to be). Anyway at the time of the 2000 selection/Coup I was trying to (rather frantically) advise everyone I knew, of the serious dangers of a Bush-Cheney Cabal. (both had already done serious damage right there in TX). One of my cousins told me that he thought “Bush was sincere”. Then, he went on to say, “Besides, Gore hasn’t really DONE ANYTHING!” Yep, I guess he didn’t notice that Al Gore had been the VP for nearly 8 years.

In short, I think that pretty much proves your point, and I won’t disagree with it. It proves that until then, ‘average Americans’ pretty much remained out of the loop on just about most issues, at least in the area where I lived. That was not, nor has it ever been the case – with me. And, it ignores the fact that there are indeed other ‘Average Americans” who DO pay attention to the issues, and what’s going on. Now, you can call us the Intelligensia if you want, but I’m not sure that’s necessarily the case. Because, it just depends. It depends on so many things; class, demographics, etc, etc.

HOWEVER, I said that to say that the difference between us in looking at these things, is that you have asked why someone likes Obama OVER Hillary. I have consistently attempted to learn about the positions of ALL of the candidates, and I find Hillary supporters to be no better ‘informed’ than the ones that you questioned, who presumably support Obama.

Last week, Hillary was here on my campus. It was a surprise actually, but I guess they can’t say, too far in advance, when they will be where. And, between the two classes that I had during the time that she was here, I’d say roughly 1/3 (maybe slightly less) did miss class to go and see/hear her. (they were certainly encouraged to do so, IF they wanted to…we didn’t cancel the classes, but the students were not penalized for missing class to see her.)

That said, I STILL have not been able to get from any of them, INCLUDING anyone on this board, any specific reasons for any support. Now presumably, that’s what they would have gotten, from attending her event. Apparently, they did not. No one could give me anything other than…she has experience. Well for me, this is just as vague as George Bush allegedly being ‘sincere’. I want only to know what ‘experience’ she has, and where she stands on the issues that I believe are important, NOT JUST TO ME and mine, but to the WHOLE – to the common good. Because…that’s the only way that we can ever come out of this abyss. It does no good for ME, to have health care, if everybody around me has TB. OK, eventually…I’m gonna get it.

TBC

Part 2 of 2

It does no good for ME to have an education, if the kid at the market can’t make change, or connect simple mechanical concepts. It really isn’t helpful even, for ME to have a job, if everyone is in constant competitive Hobbsian mode, looking to beat the next person over the head, to take what they’ve got. And, it doesn’t do a single one of us any good, to have our military 10,000 miles away from home, when there are a million things they could contribute to our country right here. It has NOT helped that during the past two decades, (part of which when Hillary was in the WH with her husband) the US has lost nearly ALL of its jobs to oversees transnational corporations and manufacturers. That is especially troubling, because the ‘average American’ doesn’t see that, and would much prefer to blame it all on ‘illegals’ but only the ‘illegals’ from Mexico and points further south. They will not accept the fact that while these ‘illegals’ are in fact taking the few jobs that are LEFT OVER, the ‘average American’ never performed those jobs to begin with. So, there is great animosity toward these illegals, from the African-American community, because it is THEY who were doing these menial tasks before. And yet it is the majority white culture, (whose jobs have long since been shipped away) who are hollering the loudest about the illegals.

And so far, Hillary has NOT addressed that. She seems content with the fact that most Americans no longer bother with higher education, even though we NEED an educated populace, to repair our infrastructure and to catch us up with the rest of the modern world.

I do NOT care about race or gender. I also disagree with you, that the gender has been more of a drawback than race. I’ve studied the history of this country from every aspect there is, and you’re wrong there, so I’ll leave it there. I don’t have time to teach the classes on line.

Meantime, you and others consistently claim that Obama has nothing but rhetoric going for him, and I’ll accept that he could give more specifics. On the other hand, Hillary hasn’t given any either. John Edwards has put forth more than she has. And, regardless of what you might see as irrelevant in the rhetoric, it is EXTREMELY meaningful that Obama has been able to bring so many citizens into the political process. At the end of the day, that so far stands as most important to me, and it is appearing to be the case with many others as well.

I’ve lived through too many years, and too many presidencies, and observed too much of the population, basically removed from the process. THAT is what is different about Obama, whether you like him or not. Without some action from ‘we the people’ and not JUST the ‘intellegensia’ we’ll continue the decline, since that’s what has brought us to this point to begin with.

Meantime, I’m STILL open to hearing whatever it is that Hillary might do to address these issues, based on what she’s already said or done.

I don’t care to know how they are ‘different’ from Obama’s positions, because that’s not the point. I already know what his are. I want to hear her’s, and then I can decide for myself, what difference there is.

And, even if there is little difference on many of the issues, then that brings us to the ‘other stuff’ which is the same thing any of us would do in selecting a person for a job. If they seem to be equally matched in the basics, (and I’m not saying that I believe that myself) then we look at their postions on other things. For me, it’s things like NAFTA, and Human Rights, and our relationship within the International Community. Those are my own things, though different people may have other issues that take precedent, once they get beyond the basic stuff.

How does Hillary feel about these issues? I don’t know. She never says, except that we know she’s keen on NAFTA.

Douglas:

Are you DELIBERATELY taking my comment out of context?  I was simply referring to the fact that, by our very presence here on LieDig, and our ability to actually discuss, debate and argue the ISSUES, we are FAR more “politically savvy” than the “average” American.  And I specifically suggested that the “average” American is the one who ultimately decides the elections, since they gave us two terms of Reagan, one of Bush pere, and two of W Bush (and, for Clinton-haters, two of Clinton).  I also specifically noted that these “average” Americans - BECAUSE they are uneducated about the actual issues, positions and policies - will vote the few things they “know,” such as their “pockets.”

I was pointing all this out to question Cyrena’s comment that “the majority of the population” would truly “know” who would be “the best person for the job.”

As for the race/gender issue, one fact seems to have escaped most people here: sexism and misogyny are FAR older historically - throughout the world, in numerous countries, cultures, etc. - than is racism, or slavery BASED ON SKIN COLOR.  The debates on various threads here on LieDig seem to limit the gender and race issues to the 250 years or so that the U.S. has existed.  But sexism and misogyny were ingrained in the U.S. from Day 1 - LONG before the first slave was put to work.  It is no accident that blacks were given the Constitutional right to vote (even if that right was challenged legally and thwarted illegally via lynchings, etc.) FIFTY YEARS before women were given that right.

Peace.

Cyrena: You asked - #By Maani, January 29: “WE are the “intelligentsia” - the politically savvy class...”

Ha ha, you must be joking, Maani. Since when have “the chattering classes” become “the intelligentsia”?

Fortunately perhaps, it will be “the “average” American” who decides this election - if they can actually be bothered to vote.

Not having behaved like a bunch of ‘harpies’, they will go where their hearts or hip-pockets lead them. As it stands, that is in the direction of “change” and a woman as president.......

Specifics Please Part 1 - #By cyrena, January 29: “and have yet to see a female president.... a black female Secretary of State.... the average american female citizen… blacks as well as females… females had been around for a long while...”

Actually, if we’re truthful about it, gender is far more of a drawback for any potential president than race because people (advisedly) like cyrena are still unable to distinguish between a human female and a female of any other species.

Being a woman of color, I am annoyed that she is so inept despite the fact that she constantly whines about issues of color. Then again there are also “blacks” in other species too, uhh!?!?

The reality of the matter is that both racial discrimination and gender discrimination have existed in the socio-political-economic fabric of this nation since its inception because people haven’t been able to see past their presumed differences.

Although it’s just the truth, equality has had to be proven by geneticists - although it would never make much difference to some. Perhaps with the likes of cyrena, though, the geneticists will also have to go to the trouble of proving ‘species’ so that she can finally see whether she is truly human or not???

Cyrena:

You asked, “Can we just select the best person for the job, based on what the MAJORITY Of the population believes to be the best person to lead this nation in what MLK (and again Ted Kennedy) has referred to as “The fierce urgency of NOW?”

With all due respect, are you serious?  Most of us (including yourself) have agreed that the AVERAGE American - the “MAJORITY” - are NOT politically educated or savvy, are “brainwashed” by the media (believing most of what it tells them), are part of the largely mindless consumerist-Madison Avenue-TV socio-culture, and still wave the flag higher and sing the Star-Spangled Banner louder than most.

What on God’s earth makes you think they would even KNOW what is TRULY in their best interests (beyond their pocketbooks, which I think most people DO know), KNOW what the “fierce urgency of now” is, or would know which candidate would be the “best person” to lead them?  It is these “average” Americans who gave us George Bush - for TWO TERMS - Bush senior for one term and Reagan for two terms (and since you didn’t like Clinton, we can add him in if you like.)

The error you are making - understandably, since it is easy to make here at LieDig - is believing that those of us here (and perhaps SOME of the younger people surrounding the Obama campaign) represent “average” America.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Because whatever the disagreements amongst us here re Obama and Hillary (and Israel and the Palestinians, etc.), WE are the “intelligentsia” - the politically savvy class.

This is a large part of the reason why I keep “harping” on Obama’s rhetoric vs. what that rhetoric actually MEANS (assuming it means anything).  The “average” American IS likely to be caught up by flowery speeches and charisma and talk of “hope” and “change.” But that same “average” American is HIGHLY unlikely to be able to articulate a SINGLE position that Obama actually holds, because the “average” American is (sadly) not savvy enough to do so (or perhaps even care).

A group of local Obama supporters (about 100) - a range of ages, ethnicities, socio-economic groups, etc. - just had a support march in my area (I live on the Upper West Side of Manhattan).  I spoke with some of them, and asked them why they supported him.  Only two or three people out of a dozen or more could clearly articulate what Obama actually stood for - policy and position-wise; the rest just regurgitated the “hope,” “change,” “inspiring,” “charisma” rhetoric.  As an aside, when I asked them why they were NOT supporting Hillary, an even greater percentage of those I spoke to could not articulate anything beyond visceral (i.e., non-substantive) dislike; i.e., other than her vote for the initial Iraq resolution and vague references to “she’s already had her chance” (which, of course, is not the case), NONE of them could articulate a single policy position she holds.

If the above is true on the comparatively politically savvy UWS in NYC, what can we expect from the people in Everytown, USA ("good citizens” though they may be)?

I think you give the “average” American FAR too much credit.  While we may wish it were otherwise, and while it is true that Obama may in fact by inspiring more people to become involved in the political process, this does not necessarily equate with “political savvy” if many of his new supporters are “blindly” following his own rhetoric and cannot even articulate what his actual positions are - much less how they are different from Hillary’s.

Peace.

I’m still begging for the same thing. I just really would like to look for something that she’s said or done, that could make me, the average american female citizen, want to support her.

I’m still waiting…

Part 1 of 2

Contrary to this repeatedly stated accusation that ‘sexism’ is the thing that is hanging Hillary up, I believe it has been adequately PROVEN, by more than just a few of us who are WOMEN, that sex/gender is no more the issue than race is. Actually, if we’re truthful about it, race is far more of a drawback for any potential president than gender, at least in the political system in the USA.

That said, I will not dismiss the obvious, that we have to be a pretty damn backward group, to have existed as a nation for over 200 years, and have yet to see a female president. The reality of the matter is that both racial discrimination and gender discrimination have existed in the socio-political-economic fabric of this nation since its inception, and that’s not even open for debate, because it’s just the truth.

I can remember back to the beginning of what was a lengthy ‘corporate’ career for me, which happened at a time when blacks as well as females, were only just being allowed into the industry. (females had been around for a long while, but more of us became employed at the same time that a handful of African-Americans began to be ‘admitted’ to the industry and the corporate scheme of things at the time). As a woman of color, I also remember being annoyed, (on more than a few occasions) when the very occasional placement or promotion of another person of color, was ALWAYS the ‘least’ qualified for the position. In short, it seemed to me like they would select the dumbest of the selection of people of color, to hire and/or promote, EVEN WHEN OTHER MORE QUALIFIED WOMEN OR PEOPLE OF COLOR WHERE AVAILABLE. Yep, they’d almost always select the dumbest black dude, to fill those ‘quotas’. There are any number of guesses as to why. It hasn’t changed all that much. We have a black female Secretary of State, who couldn’t be LESS qualified if she actually worked at it. But, ‘we the people’ didn’t select her, any more than the working masses at my former corp selected our ‘bosses’ who were never as effective as the rest of the ‘worker bees’ in getting the job done.

It would be wonderful to have a female president, of ANY color, shape, or size. I would love it. I bet there are many Americans who would like to see that, because we know there are many capable woman (or at least there have been) who could do the job, and do it well. So far, Hillary hasn’t proven (at least to many of us) that she happens to be one of them.

So, can we just get to what it is that actually matters? Can we just select the best person for the job, based on what the MAJORITY Of the population believes to be the best person to lead this nation in what MLK (and again Ted Kennedy) has referred to as “The fierce urgency of NOW?” Can we just do that please, without all of the accusations that people won’t accept Hillary because she’s a female, and anybody that doesn’t accept her as the best person for the job must be indulged in sexism. And, can we equally avoid suggesting that if somebody doesn’t believe that Obama is the best person for the job, then it must be because they are racist? Not because that isn’t true for many people, because the fact of the matter is that it IS true for many people. Sexism and racism DO still exist in the USA and even more so here, than MANY other places on the globe. That is very sad, for this supposedly ‘civilized’ nation, to continue to be plagued by this.
TBC

Part 2 of 2

Still, I think I’ve said before, that I honestly believe that we have finally risen above that. Or…at least we’re trying. So, as part of the effort, and because our system is supposed to be based on a consensus, and because it is supposed to be guided BY the majority, and FOR the common good, can we at least begin to congratulate each other on making our selections, based on those positive things, rather than what Jackpine Savage has described as just ‘winning’ for the sake of ‘winning’? Can we stop with the gender and race pigeonholing long enough to just select whoever at least ‘seems’ most qualified to get the job done? And most specifically, get the job done as it relates to the COMMON good, rather than the CORPORATE good, or the ‘ruling class’ good?

Now I’ve put this request forth many times, and I’m not the only one to do it. Many others have done the same, but I’ve yet to get anything at all relevant, as a result of these requests. All I want to know, from those who are such avid devotees of Hillary Clinton, is WHY should we hire her? What can she do? What HAS she done, and what is she LIKELY to do, that might benefit the MAJORITY of ‘we the people”? That’s all I want to know.

Yes, I DO understand that any leader, any ‘boss’ any anybody, can ‘satisfy some of the people all of the time, and they can satisfy all of the people some of the time, and that it is next to impossible to satisfy all of the people, all of the time. BUT, can we get somebody who can satisfy most of the people, most of the time?

And, if Hillary can do that, can somebody, anybody, tell me how, or provide any evidence of how she’s done that in the past, or how we might ‘assume’ that she will in the future, based on what she says and does? If so, I will really feel like a well-informed citizen, and I will be very grateful to my fellow citizens, for sharing that knowledge.

But, please be advised, before any of you start in with the standard stuff, that we really only want to hear about Hillary and what she can do for our country, in a stand-alone respect. I’m sick of hearing about her alleged ‘qualities’ from a defensive position, based on how bad Obama is perceived by those who advocate on behalf of HRC. To consistently make the claims that Obama has the same vote here, or the same health care plan there, or on and on, doesn’t help us understand what it is that makes Hillary a better choice. So, just tell me what SHE can do, and back it up with more than just because she said she would.

Doug:

I could not agree with you more.  Obama talks about “change,” yet accepts the backing of perhaps the single most entrenched “insider” senator in the Senate - one who, like Obama, opposed the invasion of Iraq (and TK voted against the initial resolution), but then went on to support each bill that continued funding the war, as well as re-authorizing the Patriot Act and, in TK’s case, fully supporting the Real ID Act.  (Obama was a no-show for that one.) And THIS is the person who Obama is proudly accepting an endorsement from?

And while it is definitely a touchy issue, I agree that sexism/chauvinism/misogyny is a more ingrained prejudice than racism, and that this is playing a large part in what is occurring.  This is not to let Hillary (and Bill) off the hook for some of their tactics (though Obama’s camp has stooped pretty low a couple of times as well).  But even if Hillary ran a completely clean campaign, her gender would be an issue - tacit or overt - in the way you note.

Peace.

Actually, PH, Kucinich only backed Obama “as second choice” ONLY in the Iowa caucuses: he did NOT endorse Obama as a general matter.

Mr. Obama’s 55% to 26% victory Saturday over Mrs. Clinton was far wider than predicted..... the perception that he is an agent of change in a party longing for it, and an ability to attract both white and black voters in a state where the electorate remains racially polarized...”

Obama is hardly an “agent of change” and represents himself as a yet another boring suit. That the suits have now all come out to embrace him reinforces that outdated ideology.

If there is one thing the Kennedys and the rest of the suits, all male by definition, don’t want, it is a woman telling them what to do or changing their precious boys’s club in any significant fashion.

To them , it would be like having to give up their suits for skirts. Not a bad thing perhaps, given the fact that they are all at least a century out of date in the way they dress never mind the ways in which they presume to think.

Change will come when people really want change, not the fantasy of change by deliriously embracing yet another version of the same old thing. Both the politically correct and the Obama fans are deluding themselves that they are not avoiding voting for a woman.

Sexism is still the main stumbling block in that they imagine that any color of man is preferable to voting for a woman or that a black man represents change but a white woman as president somehow does not. In that case, is it that the majority nationwide have indicated that they don’t want change? Hardly!

Both candidate attract both black and white voters and so forth. The fact that Edwards is trailing “a distant third” indicates that he is not seriously seen as “an agent of change”. Typically, Truthdig then re-interprets the polls and the issues to make out that Hillary is somehow the baggage of the past simply because she is the most senior person.

Kucinich did endorse Obama and that meant alot in my book. 

We have to get a better system of voting which rids us of RNC and DLC manipulation of our current electonic systems.

“What is the significant difference between taking money from lobbyists, and taking money directly from the industries and businesses they represent?”

-Nothing.

Your system (I am not American) needs adjustment. The massive amount of capital needed to field a campaign has created a corrupt environment in politics reminiscent of pre Reform Act (1832) England. America is no longer governed by the people. I merely speculate that Obama may be flagging some sort of reform with this statement.

Brewerstroupe:

I don’t get it.  What is the significant difference between taking money from lobbyists, and taking money directly from the industries and businesses they represent?  Because Obama may not do the former, but he sure as heck does the latter.

In this regard, I think his rhetoric re lobbyists is at best disingenuous and at worst hypocritical.

Peace.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has disintegrated substantially. The layers of inauthentic fluff have begun to be pierced by the voters of America. Her disingenuous rhetoric and that which is said by her staff and husband made this election something of a circus.

It’s really surprising to me how long it took for people to really acknowledge how the Clinton Political Machine works. This campaign is about entitlement more than anything. Hillary has the ability to be a good president (far better than we’ve had in eight years anyway), but to say she is the best nominee or the toughest is a real far stretch.

Please note how Hillary and her campaign helpers use scare tactics against our own party. Using Republicans to fuel support is no different than using terrorism and 9/11. The Clinton Machine should be where the Giuliani Machine is. Down-and-Out.

Mrs. Clinton will not be nominated the Democratic Candidate unless her family ties pull all super delegates away from the voting majority, which WILL be behind Barack Obama. Face the facts, Clintonistas. Hill’s campaign is destined to fail.

From Obama’s SC victory speech:

“We’re up against the belief that it’s all right for lobbyists to dominate our government, that they are just part of the system in Washington. But we know that the undue influence of lobbyists is part of the problem, and this election is our chance to say that we are not going to let them stand in our way anymore.”
Could it be that Obama, cognisant of the fact that election to office is impossible without paying obeisance to AIPAC, is telling us that he will deal with the root causes of America’s disastrous foreign policy once elected? It is a forlorn hope but given Israel’s ownership of the Clintons, it may be the only one.

Hillary is one tough ole gal, she’ll hang in there till the end.

Funny how the media plays favorites. They gave Hillary this same adoration when she made her miraculous comeback in New Hamsphire before 1st practically righting her off as a dead candidate.

Now it’s all about Barack.

I really wish they would pay equal attention to all the deserving candidates, both democrate and republicans.

Moral to the story…

Don’t listen to intently on what the media says.
Make your own judgement.

My sentiments...EXACTLY!!!

Who are you guys?  Poll, schmoll; talk to me after the votes are in!  Till then shut the F#*&k;up!  Like ya’all have been so right...........