Obama Begins VP Search....

If they are against Hillary for real issues I'm fine.
But these pussies have a clusterfuck of swift boat type complainst.
Spineless jellyfish both of em.

That's kind of a lie there, tops. I have expressed my feelings about Hillary as a candidate on this board in great detail, from her position on Iraq & Iran, to the way she has run her campaign, to her history in the White House.

I can't think of anything that would fall under the category of 'clusterfuck of swiftboat type complainst.'

I have legitimate issues with Hillary, and with Bill, for that matter. My issues with her have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman, as you and your drowning-in-insecurity psyche keep alleging.
 
That's kind of a lie there, tops. I have expressed my feelings about Hillary as a candidate on this board in great detail, from her position on Iraq & Iran, to the way she has run her campaign, to her history in the White House.

I can't think of anything that would fall under the category of 'clusterfuck of swiftboat type complainst.'

I have legitimate issues with Hillary, and with Bill, for that matter. My issues with her have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she is a woman, as you and your drowning-in-insecurity psyche keep alleging.

No, no, I don’t think he meant you, but if so, I was not agreeing with that. I haven’t seen you do that, and I am pretty sure you have never agreed with the statement that Clinton is exactly like bush, or more likely to bomb Iran than John McCain. Honestly, I am talking about mostly liberal websites and writers, that I frequent. Some even bringing up the vince foster bullshit. There are posters here who have made statements about the Clintons that are just absurd, beyond the pale, and straight out of the right wing handbook. But in order to get the discussion back on track and away from personal ugliness, I was not speaking about that.
 
no I meant him, there's not much of a stone's throw of difference in policy between Hillary and Obama. Further the Democratic platform is going to rule the agenda anyway. The major difference I see is Hillary is more liberal on Health care and a couple less huge issues.
Both would have crushed Mcbush, and been good Presidents. Obama is obviously a better candidate based on his virtual rapping up of the delegates.
 
no I meant him, there's not much of a stone's throw of difference in policy between Hillary and Obama. Further the Democratic platform is going to rule the agenda anyway. The major difference I see is Hillary is more liberal on Health care and a couple less huge issues.
Both would have crushed Mcbush, and been good Presidents. Obama is obviously a better candidate based on his virtual rapping up of the delegates.

Well, there’s plenty of truth in that, except that I don’t trust her on the war, can’t abide her cluster bomb vote, and suspect Obama will be somewhat less likely to take us to war. However, clearly, Hillary is in no way, MORE likely than John McCain to start a war with Iran, that is absurd and shows something, but I don’t know what it is.
And even though I don’t trust her on the war, I do resent just a little bit, that at the beginning of this whole thing, everyone on tv was yelling “Will the American people trust a Woman CIC to be strong in a time of war?? Eleanor!”

And you know, she had to pass that litmus test, and Obama and Edwards and no one else did. So how many of those votes she felt forced into because of that, we will never know, but you see no acknowledgment of that, but you do see a lot of Hillary is the Evil Queen Bitch thing. To tell the truth I really don’t know what Onceler’s argument against Hillary is, I don’t feel I‘ve ever seen him make a right wing one though.
 
I never called you one name, but you have been calling me names starting with twisted sister, and ending with calling me a fool who was getting support from republicans (damo) on a thread yesterday, and you continued that today. And the idea of you complaining about any person interpreting your steaming anger, is ludicrous since you have done nothing but put others into categories.

If Obama is elected, it will be despite men like you who were real quick to say there’s a place for you on this bus bitch, and it’s prone, straight out of the Stokely handbook.

You’re so angry that I don’t even want to read your posts anymore. So, knock yourself out calling me names, I really don’t care bac, I just hope you and yours don’t put John McCain in the white house.

But this white **&^, who ain’t shutting up and getting prone for nobody, thinks you may.

WHOAH!
 
"And you know, she had to pass that litmus test, and Obama and Edwards and no one else did. So how many of those votes she felt forced into because of that, we will never know, but you see no acknowledgment of that, but you do see a lot of Hillary is the Evil Queen Bitch thing. To tell the truth I really don’t know what Onceler’s argument against Hillary is, I don’t feel I‘ve ever seen him make a right wing one though."

Darla, I agree that she thinks she has to vote that way because of the CIC standard, but I also think she'd have the nomination wrapped up by now if she had either voted against Iraq or admitted the vote was a mistake and come out more strongly against the war, and she would still coast against McCain if she did so. I think there is a perception there that isn't necessarily in tune with reality.

Also, if she feels she has to vote that way for the CIC bona fides, how do you think she'd govern? Would she ever err on the side of a more peaceful solution? She might well be the most hawkish Dem CIC we've seen in modern times, simply because she feels that standard, which may be a somewhat mythical standard, anyway.

I was against Hillary before she even announced, because of the way she handled healthcare in the '90's, and the way she has triangulated as a Senator since winning the seat, in constant "positioning" mode for a Presidential run. Since she started campaigning, I think we've all seen the side of her that has turned me against her even more. You're right - it isn't the extreme "she devil" image some try to present, but sorry, it isn't politics as usual, either. Not when you say the GOP candidate is better & more experienced than your opponent; not when you use Rovian scare tactics to paint your opponent as soft; not when you play to voter's most racist instincts & argue that you opponent can't get the votes of good working people..."white people". I also hate the way she has changed every metric in this race since the beginning. She will say & do just about anything to win; maybe that's true of every politician, but I haven't seen it from Obama nearly as much as I have seen it from her. Beyond all of that, she comes with an enormous amount of baggage by the name of Bill.

Oh yeah - and she's a chick. A strong chick, too. Wussy Dem men who sell bogus shit & get kicked around by their wives hate dem strong chicks; we're terrified of them.
 
"And you know, she had to pass that litmus test, and Obama and Edwards and no one else did. So how many of those votes she felt forced into because of that, we will never know, but you see no acknowledgment of that, but you do see a lot of Hillary is the Evil Queen Bitch thing. To tell the truth I really don’t know what Onceler’s argument against Hillary is, I don’t feel I‘ve ever seen him make a right wing one though."

Darla, I agree that she thinks she has to vote that way because of the CIC standard, but I also think she'd have the nomination wrapped up by now if she had either voted against Iraq or admitted the vote was a mistake and come out more strongly against the war, and she would still coast against McCain if she did so. I think there is a perception there that isn't necessarily in tune with reality.

Also, if she feels she has to vote that way for the CIC bona fides, how do you think she'd govern? Would she ever err on the side of a more peaceful solution? She might well be the most hawkish Dem CIC we've seen in modern times, simply because she feels that standard, which may be a somewhat mythical standard, anyway.

I was against Hillary before she even announced, because of the way she handled healthcare in the '90's, and the way she has triangulated as a Senator since winning the seat, in constant "positioning" mode for a Presidential run. Since she started campaigning, I think we've all seen the side of her that has turned me against her even more. You're right - it isn't the extreme "she devil" image some try to present, but sorry, it isn't politics as usual, either. Not when you say the GOP candidate is better & more experienced than your opponent; not when you use Rovian scare tactics to paint your opponent as soft; not when you play to voter's most racist instincts & argue that you opponent can't get the votes of good working people..."white people". I also hate the way she has changed every metric in this race since the beginning. She will say & do just about anything to win; maybe that's true of every politician, but I haven't seen it from Obama nearly as much as I have seen it from her. Beyond all of that, she comes with an enormous amount of baggage by the name of Bill.

Oh yeah - and she's a chick. A strong chick, too. Wussy Dem men who sell bogus shit & get kicked around by their wives hate dem strong chicks; we're terrified of them.

All good points. Though I believe that the general election polling, state by state, which seem to show her as electorally stronger than Obama, would argue that in fact, it’s not a mythical standard. That Americans really do need that constant assurance that their president is ready to kill a whole bunch of people at a moment’s notice. It’s an ugly truth that I don’t think a lot of us really want to face up to. Her strategy doomed her in the primary – more liberal than the general – but it looks like it was the right strategy for the general election. And if that holds, we might never be able to have a woman President.

I really was furious over her remarks comparing Obama to McCain and saying that McCain was more fit to be president than Obama was. But at the same time, I get furious at some of the attempts being made to demonize her, because what some don’t realize (but some do), is that if that holds, then that sets women back for maybe two generations. So I just want some realism. Did you see my post the other day about Ted Kennedy? Did you know that he took the nomination fight to the floor against Jimmy Carter? Because I didn’t. And I just think, well, how come he wasn’t evil? I don’t want to see that happen here, but if it did? It’s happened before and a man did it, and he’s beloved in the Democratic party today. So that doesn’t make sense to me.

But more than anything I just want this to be over, this week, or next at the latest. The longer it goes on, the more angry some Obama supporters get, the more demonized she will become, and the more harm done to women, politically, in the long run.
 
" So I just want some realism. Did you see my post the other day about Ted Kennedy? Did you know that he took the nomination fight to the floor against Jimmy Carter? Because I didn’t. And I just think, well, how come he wasn’t evil? I don’t want to see that happen here, but if it did? It’s happened before and a man did it, and he’s beloved in the Democratic party today. So that doesn’t make sense to me. "

I was young, but I remember that. From everything I heard, it was very bitter - not unlike the current primary. A lot of people blame it for dooming Carter.

When people were saluting Kennedy's career last week, I heard someone say that, if Hillary lost this run & couldn't run again for 8 years, she should target the Senate, and making herself as influential as Kennedy, which they added was a career that could realistically boast more accomplishments and influence than just about any Presidency. She could be the 1st woman majority leader and really change the way that body works, and make a lasting impression on history.

I agree with that, and I don't see it as just a consolation prize for her or for women. There is another popular myth out there that Hillary is the only shot for a woman to take the Presidency, and if she fails, it's somehow back to the drawing board for another few decades. I don't buy it. Sure, it may have to wait 8 more years now, but the landscape has changed profoundly, and I don't see what it is about her that makes her unique, or makes her the 'last hope'....
 
I wouldn't put much credability on general election polls right now. Just look at Obama's crowd's of thousands and new registrations on the dems side vs the 12 People who show up at most McBush rally's.
 
" So I just want some realism. Did you see my post the other day about Ted Kennedy? Did you know that he took the nomination fight to the floor against Jimmy Carter? Because I didn’t. And I just think, well, how come he wasn’t evil? I don’t want to see that happen here, but if it did? It’s happened before and a man did it, and he’s beloved in the Democratic party today. So that doesn’t make sense to me. "

I was young, but I remember that. From everything I heard, it was very bitter - not unlike the current primary. A lot of people blame it for dooming Carter.

When people were saluting Kennedy's career last week, I heard someone say that, if Hillary lost this run & couldn't run again for 8 years, she should target the Senate, and making herself as influential as Kennedy, which they added was a career that could realistically boast more accomplishments and influence than just about any Presidency. She could be the 1st woman majority leader and really change the way that body works, and make a lasting impression on history.

I agree with that, and I don't see it as just a consolation prize for her or for women. There is another popular myth out there that Hillary is the only shot for a woman to take the Presidency, and if she fails, it's somehow back to the drawing board for another few decades. I don't buy it. Sure, it may have to wait 8 more years now, but the landscape has changed profoundly, and I don't see what it is about her that makes her unique, or makes her the 'last hope'....

The more I look at it the more I believe that we won’t be able to have our first woman President be a Democrat. I think that it is just not realistic for a woman to be able to move left enough to get through the primary, without it dooming her as a weak candidate in the general. And I really don’t want a Republican woman president, because it doesn’t’ matter to me what their gender is, republicans generally suck. But after watching this, I am willing to bet our first female president is a republican.
 
I wouldn't put much credability on general election polls right now. Just look at Obama's crowd's of thousands and new registrations on the dems side vs the 12 People who show up at most McBush rally's.

That’s true, and I’m counting on it.
 
"And you know, she had to pass that litmus test, and Obama and Edwards and no one else did. So how many of those votes she felt forced into because of that, we will never know, but you see no acknowledgment of that, but you do see a lot of Hillary is the Evil Queen Bitch thing. To tell the truth I really don’t know what Onceler’s argument against Hillary is, I don’t feel I‘ve ever seen him make a right wing one though."

Darla, I agree that she thinks she has to vote that way because of the CIC standard, but I also think she'd have the nomination wrapped up by now if she had either voted against Iraq or admitted the vote was a mistake and come out more strongly against the war, and she would still coast against McCain if she did so. I think there is a perception there that isn't necessarily in tune with reality.

Also, if she feels she has to vote that way for the CIC bona fides, how do you think she'd govern? Would she ever err on the side of a more peaceful solution? She might well be the most hawkish Dem CIC we've seen in modern times, simply because she feels that standard, which may be a somewhat mythical standard, anyway.

I was against Hillary before she even announced, because of the way she handled healthcare in the '90's, and the way she has triangulated as a Senator since winning the seat, in constant "positioning" mode for a Presidential run. Since she started campaigning, I think we've all seen the side of her that has turned me against her even more. You're right - it isn't the extreme "she devil" image some try to present, but sorry, it isn't politics as usual, either. Not when you say the GOP candidate is better & more experienced than your opponent; not when you use Rovian scare tactics to paint your opponent as soft; not when you play to voter's most racist instincts & argue that you opponent can't get the votes of good working people..."white people". I also hate the way she has changed every metric in this race since the beginning. She will say & do just about anything to win; maybe that's true of every politician, but I haven't seen it from Obama nearly as much as I have seen it from her. Beyond all of that, she comes with an enormous amount of baggage by the name of Bill.

Oh yeah - and she's a chick. A strong chick, too. Wussy Dem men who sell bogus shit & get kicked around by their wives hate dem strong chicks; we're terrified of them.

There has been far more questioning of Obama'a ability to lead as CIC than there has been of Clinton, in fact, Clinton was behind some of the questioning. Some of that questioning centered around his race .. but he perservered, played by the rules, and won.

You've discovered as I have, that any criticism you have of Clinton makes you a sexist and there must be something wrong with you.

Of course, it doesn't matter that it was I who posted several "Clinton/Obama an unbeatable ticket" threads or that I was defending Clinton early in this process.

I agree with all the reasons why you've stated Obama is a better candidate .. but what do I know .. I'm a sexist .. one that used to jump on BB and others for being .. a sexist.

go figure
 
If they are against Hillary for real issues I'm fine.
But these pussies have a clusterfuck of swift boat type complainst.
Spineless jellyfish both of em.

That's just more bullshit and since no one else will step up to the plate, lets see if you're just here for the polls or if you have the balls to actually answer the questions of why Hillary should not be the nominee and why so many don't like her .. all of which has absolutely nothing the fuck to do with her being a woman.

Or are you just the aforementioned "pussy."

Stop your fucking whining and step up to the plate.
 
Posted by Care4all:

Also, as an adult voter, I thought all of this Hope and change CRAP was just that, crap...and simply NOT TRUE, because it was apparent that Obama WAS THE INSIDER and NOT Hillary as all thought.... He has the Kennedy family, Kerry, Dean, all the insiders of the political Democratic Arena, on his side...it ain't hillary that is the insider, but Obama....and as I have asked many times, WHAT IS IT that makes Obama the Candidate of Change?


Care, I was thinking about this, and wanted to get back to you. It's an valid and interesting question.

At least, this is my take. I’ve never personally assigned much significance to the hype about hope and change. Those are campaign slogans. Rhetorical devices.

I’ve tried to remain a relatively dispassionate observer of the squabbles between Obama partisans and Clinton partisans. The candidates I liked were Edwards first, Dodd second, and Kucinich third. So, I was never emotionally invested in either Clinton or Obama. I think I’ve previously addressed to you my distaste with some of the dirty politics and campaign tactics that have been employed. Appalling.

Here’s my reason for voting for Obama in my state’s primary; and it’s got nothing to do with “hope” or “change”. I actually don’t think there’s much difference between Obama and Clinton on the domestic policy front. I voted for Obama because he was against the war. That’s first and foremost. I also think he might be better on foreign policy, and in transforming our relations with the world. Clinton has been too belligerent with respect to Iran for my taste, and I’m not sure I trust her to get out of Iraq as quickly as Obama has promised. She hemmed and hawed for too many years about whether her war vote was a mistake.

Third, I think Obama has the potential to be transformational in terms of the way the Democratic Party moves forward from here. He’s shown a real talent for transforming the way money is raised, and for the way politics can be run from the grass roots at the state level, as opposed to being run by some command and control war room in DC or New York. I really like the fact that he’s found a way (to a significant extent) to bypass the standard sources of dirty political money. That could be a positive development. Possibly making the party more beholden to small cash individual donors, and not fat cat bigwigs. I don’t personally think Obama is a true, ideological progressive. But, I think once you take money and power out of the hands of Wall Street fat cats, and put that power in the hands of average Americans, the political dynamic of the country ultimately moves towards the progressive or populist side of the spectrum. I think that’s a given.

So, that’s pretty much why I voted for Obama: the Iraq War, foreign policy, and political transformation of the Democratic Party. The “hope” stuff just doesn’t sway me; I recognize it for what it is: rhetoric. Lastly, I think Obama did run a cleaner campaign. At least from what I've seen. That's admirable; but it doesn't ultimately determine my vote. I know Obama has played some hardball too, and I'd be the first to tell you that the media has been very misogynist towards Clinton. I've always noted that, and commented on that. But, I still feel like Obama played cleaner than Clinton. I just get the sense that he doesn’t personally like to play that dirty. Which is cool; a lot of politicians play dirty. But, I hear you loud and clear with regard to your thoughts that partisans from both campaigns have said and done some toxic and divisive stuff.

Now, I think Clinton’s policies are actually nominally better on a few domestic issues. At least on paper. And Care, I think I would actually vote for her against McCain if she were the nominee. Even though some of the campaign tactics she’s done have really pissed me off. I nevertheless think I would feel compelled to vote for her simply on issues pertaining to the courts, to Roe v. Wade, and to global warming. I don’t think I could stand by and watch McCain hand the courts over to some anti-choice, anti-civil rights, Federalist Society hacks. And I know I couldn’t stomach watching him make some fake, half-assed, ineffective policy choices on climate change.

But, I would be MUCH happier voting for Obama, for the reasons I stated above. Even though he was like my fourth or fifth choice, out of the Dem nomination candidates.
 
BLACKPANTHER, chill you got your brother as the nominee.
I shoved your head up your ass for your swiftboating of Hillary. Live with it.
 
Care, I was thinking about this, and wanted to get back to you. It's an valid and interesting question.

At least, this is my take. I’ve never personally assigned much significance to the hype about hope and change. Those are campaign slogans. Rhetorical devices.

I’ve tried to remain a relatively dispassionate observer of the squabbles between Obama partisans and Clinton partisans. The candidates I liked were Edwards first, Dodd second, and Kucinich third. So, I was never emotionally invested in either Clinton or Obama. I think I’ve previously addressed to you my distaste with some of the dirty politics and campaign tactics that have been employed. Appalling.

Here’s my reason for voting for Obama in my state’s primary; and it’s got nothing to do with “hope” or “change”. I actually don’t think there’s much difference between Obama and Clinton on the domestic policy front. I voted for Obama because he was against the war. That’s first and foremost. I also think he might be better on foreign policy, and in transforming our relations with the world. Clinton has been too belligerent with respect to Iran for my taste, and I’m not sure I trust her to get out of Iraq as quickly as Obama has promised. She hemmed and hawed for too many years about whether her war vote was a mistake.

Third, I think Obama has the potential to be transformational in terms of the way the Democratic Party moves forward from here. He’s shown a real talent for transforming the way money is raised, and for the way politics can be run from the grass roots at the state level, as opposed to being run by some command and control war room in DC or New York. I really like the fact that he’s found a way (to a significant extent) to bypass the standard sources of dirty political money. That could be a positive development. Possibly making the party more beholden to small cash individual donors, and not fat cat bigwigs. I don’t personally think Obama is a true, ideological progressive. But, I think once you take money and power out of the hands of Wall Street fat cats, and put that power in the hands of average Americans, the political dynamic of the country ultimately moves towards the progressive or populist side of the spectrum. I think that’s a given.

So, that’s pretty much why I voted for Obama: the Iraq War, foreign policy, and political transformation of the Democratic Party. The “hope” stuff just doesn’t sway me; I recognize it for what it is: rhetoric. Lastly, I think Obama did run a cleaner campaign. At least from what I've seen. That's admirable; but it doesn't ultimately determine my vote. I know Obama has played some hardball too, and I'd be the first to tell you that the media has been very misogynist towards Clinton. I've always noted that, and commented on that. But, I still feel like Obama played cleaner than Clinton. I just get the sense that he doesn’t personally like to play that dirty. Which is cool; a lot of politicians play dirty. But, I hear you loud and clear with regard to your thoughts that partisans from both campaigns have said and done some toxic and divisive stuff.

Now, I think Clinton’s policies are actually nominally better on a few domestic issues. At least on paper. And Care, I think I would actually vote for her against McCain if she were the nominee. Even though some of the campaign tactics she’s done have really pissed me off. I nevertheless think I would feel compelled to vote for her simply on issues pertaining to the courts, to Roe v. Wade, and to global warming. I don’t think I could stand by and watch McCain hand the courts over to some anti-choice, anti-civil rights, Federalist Society hacks. And I know I couldn’t stomach watching him make some fake, half-assed, ineffective policy choices on climate change.

But, I would be MUCH happier voting for Obama, for the reasons I stated above. Even though he was like my fourth or fifth choice, out of the Dem nomination candidates.

Yeah that's a great post Cypress. I pretty much agree with just about everything; maybe a few small things which I won't nitpick. It's so weird you wrote this, because I have been thinking all day, that even though I was long over Edwards dropping out, I think I'm back to not being over it. You know, we just didn't need this shit. And Edwards was going to be a good President. He was and is way more progressive than Obama. And he could have beat Hillary in the primary if you take Obama out of the equation. They split the anti-hillary vote early on, you know? Also, he would have been our best bet in the general. I always said we are in the unique position of having the most progressive candidate, also being the most electable candidate! Man, we blew it as a party. Totally.

There's an ugly, ugly general coming. And I don't know that Obama isn't going down in it. You know what's coming. So do I. Some of these "ohh the big bad Hillary" crybabies are going to find out what dirty is. She had to draw a line that the R's wont, precisely because of people like you and me, being the base. R's don't have that. That base ain't voting for them no matter what they do. And they're also going to find out that America generally doesn't do a song and dance over "the other". We're vulnerable. We might win, but that it's even a chance we won't in a year like this, is fucking criminally stupid on the part of democrats.

I just really miss John Edwards right now.
 
Yeah that's a great post Cypress. I pretty much agree with just about everything; maybe a few small things which I won't nitpick. It's so weird you wrote this, because I have been thinking all day, that even though I was long over Edwards dropping out, I think I'm back to not being over it. You know, we just didn't need this shit. And Edwards was going to be a good President. He was and is way more progressive than Obama. And he could have beat Hillary in the primary if you take Obama out of the equation. They split the anti-hillary vote early on, you know? Also, he would have been our best bet in the general. I always said we are in the unique position of having the most progressive candidate, also being the most electable candidate! Man, we blew it as a party. Totally.

There's an ugly, ugly general coming. And I don't know that Obama isn't going down in it. You know what's coming. So do I. Some of these "ohh the big bad Hillary" crybabies are going to find out what dirty is. She had to draw a line that the R's wont, precisely because of people like you and me, being the base. R's don't have that. That base ain't voting for them no matter what they do. And they're also going to find out that America generally doesn't do a song and dance over "the other". We're vulnerable. We might win, but that it's even a chance we won't in a year like this, is fucking criminally stupid on the part of democrats.

I just really miss John Edwards right now.


Wells said Darla.

I'll admit. I was crestfallen when Edwards crashed and burned. I think you're right: he was the only true progressive who would have crushed the GOP in a general, and unified the Dem party. I don't know if we're going to see a progressive - one who could totally own a general election like that - for years to come.

I totally hear you, with regard to the general election with Obama. While I am happy and pleased to support him, it's going to be VERY ugly. Very racist. And I don't think it will be quite the blow out some people thing.

Dems were stupid. I totally concur with you there.
 
Back
Top