Interesting comments about Hillary.... I have a hunch these sentiments are widespread.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apv5KWHgXTE

Interesting comments about Hillary.... I have a hunch these sentiments are widespread.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apv5KWHgXTE

It sounds like the next general election may make the last one look like a love in.

Shiliary. Should have dumped Willy.

I got off early today and listened to the Ed Schultz show on Air America on the way home. Really, I did. They were making snide remarks about Hillary that would make Rush proud. Her supporters are like rats on a sinking ship. I wonder how much longer she will hang on? Crying doesn't help, I heard about that on Air America as well. Maybe Edwards will have to be Obama's VP.

Is it just me or does Bill Richardson appear sedated lately? He is talking and acting like he is 30 minutes into happy hour.

I get the feeling it's a Nixon-Kennedy thing- Everyone always says that if you read the Nixon-Kennedy debates, Nixon actually did well. But on TV he looked awful and he lost to a very handsome, telegenic, confident guy with a lot less experience.

Hillary say all the right things and she does have a boatload of experience. She's hindered by an unfortunately shrill delivery that seems to be a handicap specific to women of her generation.

I get the feeling it's a Nixon-Kennedy thing- Everyone always says that if you read the Nixon-Kennedy debates, Nixon actually did well. But on TV he looked awful and he lost to a very handsome, telegenic, confident guy with a lot less experience.

Hillary say all the right things and she does have a boatload of experience. She's hindered by an unfortunately shrill delivery that seems to be a handicap specific to women of her generation.

It is about sales basically....?

It's all about the Change vs. Experience crap that the media has zeroed in on.

If I could tell the difference between Hillary and Obama on any issues, this would be more important to me.

It is about sales basically....?

Always has been. Anyone who tells you different is trying to coast on substance.:rolleyes:

Shiliary. Should have dumped Willy.

No, no, no. As we've learned here in the past, it's either Shrillary or Hitlery. (Not advocating the terms, just noting historic RBR teminology.)

It's all about the Change vs. Experience crap that the media has zeroed in on.

If I could tell the difference between Hillary and Obama on any issues, this would be more important to me.

An important difference to me is how they voted on the Iraq debacle back when Saddam was in power.

And Hillary touting 35 years of experience.... just what is she including as "experience"? Is she including Bill's time in office as experience? Like those guys in the video, that's not kosher in my book - being First Lady is not being President. So, what has she done that can justify putting her in the oval office with the weight of the world on her shoulders, day in and day out?

I hope for the sake of the future of women in high positions that she doesn't quit like I've heard she might, but instead, digs deep within and puts up a clean fight for the hearts and minds of the voters, at least through the 2/5/08 super duper tuesday.

An important difference to me is how they voted on the Iraq debacle back when Saddam was in power.

And Hillary touting 35 years of experience.... just what is she including as "experience"? Is she including Bill's time in office as experience? Like those guys in the video, that's not kosher in my book - being First Lady is not being President. So, what has she done that can justify putting her in the oval office with the weight of the world on her shoulders, day in and day out?

I hope for the sake of the future of women in high positions that she doesn't quit like I've heard she might, but instead, digs deep within and puts up a clean fight for the hearts and minds of the voters, at least through the 2/5/08 super duper tuesday.

Well she did have some emotional moment, tears involved I think and that isn't going to do her a lot of good. I listened to her explaining it away and she sounded like she was really cornered. I think she's toast and I ain't all that glad of it. As for the experience, I think she has always counted herself as the woman behind the curtain and at least an equal partner.

An important difference to me is how they voted on the Iraq debacle back when Saddam was in power.
Didn't the vote the same way, both for the war?

Kucinich and Biden are the only ones not tainted by that vote, IIRC.

Edit: I'm an idiot, Obama wasn't even in the Senate then, he was elected in 2004.

It's all about the Change vs. Experience crap that the media has zeroed in on.

If I could tell the difference between Hillary and Obama on any issues, this would be more important to me.
Since finding out that people want change, Hillary has been trying to portray herself as both the candidate of change and the one with experience. The voters aren't buying it.

Well she did have some emotional moment, tears involved I think and that isn't going to do her a lot of good. I listened to her explaining it away and she sounded like she was really cornered. I think she's toast and I ain't all that glad of it. As for the experience, I think she has always counted herself as the woman behind the curtain and at least an equal partner.

And therein lies the problem.

People have been saying that Hillary is a machine, very robot like and showing no emotion.

Now, she shows emotion, and she gets crap for that.

She can't win either way apparently.

That being said, I was never in the Clinton camp during this campaign at all. She's too much middle of the road for me, not nearly liberal enough for my liking, and tends to tote the Bush line a lot of the time, and has voted for things I don't agree with. She's a centrist. I always laugh when people try to paint her as some wicked hard core lefty. She's not even close folks.

Of course, being that I do like kooky guys, I am a Kucinich supporter, but alas, he's not going to make it, so I'll throw my support, what little of it there is, to Obama. My sister in law is working for him, so that's another good reason. She's passionate about his campaign and what he can bring, and I trust her opinion, and her call on that.

As for Hillary's experience, and those who discount it for being first lady, I think a lot of people are wrong that being first lady doesn't bring a lot of experience. At night, who does the President possibly talk to more than anyone else? His wife. I'm sure Hillary being as smart as she is, she probably provided her opinions and advice to Bill when he was President, and look, if she were elected again, her closest advisor would be a former President of the US who had 2 terms. I mean, that's a bunch of experience there don't you all think?

But, if she is running on experience, she can't run on the whole "change" thing either, since her husband was President, she's a Senator, and has been in politics for a long time. She has to run on her record, and her ideas, not on change. She's going to lose that battle as she's been around too long.

I would like to see Obama get the nomination. I've read through his positions on his website (pretty well documented I might add), and they seem to jibe for the most part with what I'd personally like to see. I've read through all of the candidates websites, and what I can honestly say is that bar none, the democratic websites have specific plans and ideas up there, while most, if not all, of the republicans (save Huckabee and Paul actually) have really super duper vague allusions as to what they want to do.

If Obama gets the nom, I think he should run with Richardson as VP, or possibly Tim Kaine out of VA. Richardson would be a really kick arse Sec of State as well. So many possibilities.

I do think that a lot of younger folks are getting involved here, and it's mostly because of Obama. And this can only be a good thing for now, and for the future. I saw some coverage of him in NH this evening, and he had to consistently do 2 speeches wherever he went. One that was planned inside an auditorium, or something similar, and one outside where a huge overflow crowd was gathered to see him. Nobody else was having to make 2 speeches at the same location.

Since finding out that people want change, Hillary has been trying to portray herself as both the candidate of change and the one with experience. The voters aren't buying it.
My hope is that the independents are getting behind Obama, and will guide him to victory. I thought Hillary was the electable one, but I may have been wrong. Still somewhat early though...

I would like Kucinich, then Edwards, but neither of those are very likely.

That being said, I was never in the Clinton camp during this campaign at all. She's too much middle of the road for me, not nearly liberal enough for my liking, and tends to tote the Bush line a lot of the time, and has voted for things I don't agree with. She's a centrist. I always laugh when people try to paint her as some wicked hard core lefty. She's not even close folks.

Yes, by aligning herself with Bush and taking more centrist positions it was like she took getting the Dem nomination for granted and was already positioning herself for the general election.

As for Hillary's experience, and those who discount it for being first lady, I think a lot of people are wrong that being first lady doesn't bring a lot of experience. At night, who does the President possibly talk to more than anyone else? His wife. I'm sure Hillary being as smart as she is, she probably provided her opinions and advice to Bill when he was President, and look, if she were elected again, her closest advisor would be a former President of the US who had 2 terms. I mean, that's a bunch of experience there don't you all think?

It's not equivalent experience, First Lady and President, and it's somewhat disingenuous to pass it off as such IMO. I can't think of any other First Lady who would have thought that way, or even tried to link the two. Anyone can advise the President, but that doesn't mean they have the capability to wear the mantle. The question is, are they qualified to take that seat of highest responsibility, the place where the buck stops, and actually make the decisions that will affect the world's future and our standing within it. And to weather the flak that comes with the territory.

/Michael Deaver as President???
//Rosalyn Carter?
///Eleanor Roosevelt........... hmmmm.......

Yes, by aligning herself with Bush and taking more centrist positions it was like she took getting the Dem nomination for granted and was already positioning herself for the general election.

She's too packaged - I'd like to see her break out and show us what's really inside. At this point, it would seem she'd have all to gain and nothing to lose.

She's too packaged - I'd like to see her break out and show us what's really inside. At this point, it would seem she'd have all to gain and nothing to lose.

She lacks the charisma of Obama, it is a little too late to learn that. I honestly think the woman is incapable of being charismatic. Everything with her seems so rehearsed.

What has to suck is that she was expecting a democratic coronation, she definately wasn't expecting this. Gore has to be kicking himself.

If it comes down to Huckabee versus Obama, Bloomberg will enter the race and take votes from Obama. A Bloomberg, Guiliani, Clinton race would be fun to watch. Who would carry NY?

No it's Hillarity :)

It's not equivalent experience, First Lady and President, and it's somewhat disingenuous to pass it off as such IMO. I can't think of any other First Lady who would have thought that way, or even tried to link the two. Anyone can advise the President, but that doesn't mean they have the capability to wear the mantle. The question is, are they qualified to take that seat of highest responsibility, the place where the buck stops, and actually make the decisions that will affect the world's future and our standing within it. And to weather the flak that comes with the territory.

/Michael Deaver as President???

I do understand that it's not equivalent, believe me, but I think by hanging around the White House, you'd probably learn a little bit about the job, the pressures, and what it actually takes and all of that good stuff. I think that there is a link between the 2, and let's face it, Hillary seemed to be a lot more engaged in the politics than her predecessors.

If she were elected, I do believe that she could do the job. And do it well most likely. She's just not the horse that I'm pulling for is all.

My hope is that the independents are getting behind Obama, and will guide him to victory. I thought Hillary was the electable one, but I may have been wrong. Still somewhat early though...

I would like Kucinich, then Edwards, but neither of those are very likely.

He inspires, just like JFK in '60, and to a lesser extent, Clinton in '92. The youth and inexperience is actually in his favor. The people want change. When that happens fresh talent is more attractive than old guard "experience." The new guy won't be afraid to take risks. Plus Obama gives righteous speeches. People are comparing him to Martin Luther King! That's a supercharge for a politician, the ability to move audiences with words and ideas. Hillary by comparison seems uptight, square, middle class, and Edwards comes across as a whiny complainer.

Obama seems to be gathering steam. I hope he remains untouchable by the dormant racism in American politics.

She lacks the charisma of Obama, it is a little too late to learn that. I honestly think the woman is incapable of being charismatic. Everything with her seems so rehearsed.

She is a total stiff and when she puts any oomph into it she seems phony...what a waste.

She's too packaged - I'd like to see her break out and show us what's really inside. At this point, it would seem she'd have all to gain and nothing to lose.
Damn, I change my mind, this felt sincere to me. She doesn't cry, but she does get a bit choked up. I bought it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qgWH89qWks

Well, I would not for any in the Democrat party but I will say this; Hillary’s responses in the debates are much more substantive than anything that b. Hussein Obama has said. I don’t care about Hillary or Hussein Obama. But, if I were a liberal, which I am not, I would gravitate towards Hillary when it comes to these two. Here are my reasons,

First, Hillary is actually answering the questions especially when it comes to change. She is very specific. She uses examples from her past record as a Senator and first Lady. She also touts her experience with specific examples. B. Hussein Obama doesn’t have a record. In actuality, he hasn’t done a single significant thing in government. He also uses abstract words that may make the mob feel good but they don’t mean anything. For example, his book title – The Audacity of Hope. What the hell is that? He uses words such as "hope" and "let’s come together" and "let’s build a coalition with Republicans and Democrats". These phrases sound good but in actuality they are impractical and even if they could be achieved it’s doubtful that they can be effective in governing. This guy is just full of it. To think that he can get Republicans to work in his administration is really quite naive.

Second, Hillary may be able to pull off the election. I don’t believe that she can will but she may have a chance. I look at the electoral college and she loses just about every state in the South and mid-West. But b. Hussein Obama has about as much chances as BJ of winning. He loses every state from Virginia to Nevada and even some or most costal states. Why nominate someone who doesn’t stand a change of winning the election? It doesn’t make any sense.

Third, the guy can’t rhyme his words. At least Jesse Jackson could rhyme his phrases. Every other word from this guy’s mouth is "hope" and "together". But he can’t use then in phrases that rhyme and that’s not going to help him.

:blush2: :cool:

Damn, I change my mind, this felt sincere to me. She doesn't cry, but she does get a bit choked up. I bought it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v 6qgWH89qWks

Listening to her talk in such black & white terms as she does in that video suggests to me that she is not entirely in touch with reality, and perhaps has underestimated both opponents and the voting public, and overestimated herself and where she stands among us.

Obama was a state senator in 2002. He spoke out against the Iraq war.

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

aligned herself too many times with W. She lacked conviction and voted on things to appease people who would never vote for her anyway. In trying to play ths card, she turned her back on her actual constituents and now the cows are coming home. Tis the filed she had sewn, and now she's unhappy with her crops.

she touts all this 'experience' well if your experience leads you to vote along with W on issues like domestic spying and war then, well I'll take a rookie

Hillary is actually answering the questions especially when it comes to change. She is very specific. She uses examples from her past record as a Senator and first Lady. She also touts her experience with specific examples. B. Hussein Obama doesn’t have a record. In actuality, he hasn’t done a single significant thing in government. He also uses abstract words that may make the mob feel good but they don’t mean anything. For example, his book title – The Audacity of Hope. What the hell is that? He uses words such as "hope" and "let’s come together" and "let’s build a coalition with Republicans and Democrats". These phrases sound good but in actuality they are impractical and even if they could be achieved it’s doubtful that they can be effective in governing. This guy is just full of it. To think that he can get Republicans to work in his administration is really quite naive.


Good post LiteSpeeder.

Your point about 'the mob' is spot on. This is what it may come down to in the States these days...selling one's self to the mob, and Obama would appear to be an excellent salesman.

Obama is selling modern day absolution for people's bad feelings and sins. The absolution coming from the power of his personality..

He could have been a TV preacher.

Good post LiteSpeeder.

Your point about 'the mob' is spot on. This is what it may come down to in the States these days...selling one's self to the mob, and Obama would appear to be an excellent salesman.

Obama is selling modern day absolution for people's bad feelings and sins. The absolution coming from the power of his personality..

He could have been a TV preacher.

Reagan sold himself to the mob, as did both Bush's (as did Clinton). How else does one get a person who only represents 5% of the population elected? Do you think W is a cowboy rancher?

Hillary tried selling herself as well. She used 'experience' but her experience has led her to some bad decisions which she has a public record of

She thought she was a shoe-in with her own party so she turned her back on them so she could sell herself to the middle. End result, the middle didn't buy her pitch and the left said "Well phock her then, sellout"

Young people who seem to have less issues with Obama's race and independents who are tired of the partisanship of DC are attracted to his message. He delivers it well, that is part of his job, you seem to knock him for it. Lastly, he was always been a secret favorite. All it took was Iowa. Many folks said "I'd support him but I don't think he has a chance of being elected". Now he appears to have a chance and now all those folks on the fence are jumping on board.

I'm not in his camp but I understand what he is doing. I also think there is probably nobody running (both parties) who would be better for mending international fences.
He is intelligent, articulate and could restore some integrity (on a PR level) to the WH.
Lastly I think a person of color with a name like Barak Hussein Obama would have an easier time being accepted and listened to in 3rd World and Islamic nations. Even if it is a front, the appearance of the 'same old white guys club' would look to not be at the helm.

so much for the rightwingnuts conventional wisdom about how "the left" just loves Hillary.

the only ones obsessed with Hillary are them.

LiteSpeeder, love how you keep using his middle name of "Hussein". any particular reason for doing so? Do you call Romney "Willard"?

cast my vote today, for Edwards. Hopefully, he'll finish at least second, and we can kill the Hillary campaign once and for all, right at the start. I just think she's unelectable in the general election, she inspires too much hatred in the right. Or is that unrequited lust? Have to ask Steamy.

If the lines at my polling place are any indication, huge turnout in NH today. Which can only favor Obama. Never seen them backed up like this, and only 11:00 AM. Lots of people registering for the first time today.

But if Obama get the nomination, I'll gladly vote for him. I'd even hold my nose and vote for Hillary, but I'd rather it not come down to that. Would love someone like Chris Dodd as his running mate, but he might be more useful as Senate majority leader. Seeya, wishy-washy Harry.

so much for the rightwingnuts conventional wisdom about how "the left" just loves Hillary.

the only ones obsessed with Hillary are them.

The rightwingnuts were licking at the chops at the prospect of having Hillary to target their hate at. I mean, it was going to be so easy - just dust off the old anti-Clinton, anti-liberal rhetoric and toss it at her and it would stick like white on rice, like cold on ice.

But now there's Obama. Now they are going to have to think hard to come up with a hate message which doesn't backfire on them, and expose themselves as hateful bigots. Thinking hard is not their strong suit....

The rightwingnuts were licking at the chops at the prospect of having Hillary to target their hate at. I mean, it was going to be so easy - just dust off the old anti-Clinton, anti-liberal rhetoric and toss it at her and it would stick like white on rice, like cold on ice.

But now there's Obama. Now they are going to have to think hard to come up with a hate message which doesn't backfire on them, and expose themselves as hateful bigots. Thinking hard is not their strong suit....

exactly. They're scared to death of an Obama campaign. And the only thing they have to fight against him is their disgusting hateful racist bigotry. It'll be a joy to watch the party expose themselves for the backwards racists that they are. And you know it'll be coming.

He is intelligent, articulate and could restore some integrity (on a PR level) to the WH.

Why would he specifically restore integrity?

He voted for the Patriot act.


Lastly I think a person of color with a name like Barak Hussein Obama would have an easier time being accepted and listened to in 3rd World and Islamic nations. Even if it is a front, the appearance of the 'same old white guys club' would look to not be at the helm.

Why would you think that?

Are you saying that the Islamic world is anti-white in a racist sense?

If that is true, is appeasement an honorable course?

No, no, no. As we've learned here in the past, it's either Shrillary or Hitlery. (Not advocating the terms, just noting historic RBR teminology.)

Or Hillarity.

I'm not in his camp but I understand what he is doing. I also think there is probably nobody running (both parties) who would be better for mending international fences.
He is intelligent, articulate and could restore some integrity (on a PR level) to the WH.
Lastly I think a person of color with a name like Barak Hussein Obama would have an easier time being accepted and listened to in 3rd World and Islamic nations. Even if it is a front, the appearance of the 'same old white guys club' would look to not be at the helm.

Who do you support? Edwards is a wimp with the stink of Kerry still on him, Hillary is just unelectable IMO--too much baggage...who else is there? I'm still not sure what kind of susbstance Obama brings to the table, but I think he's electable. He has the smell of a winner on him that Kerry never did.

Who do you support? Edwards is a wimp with the stink of Kerry still on him, Hillary is just unelectable IMO--too much baggage...who else is there? I'm still not sure what kind of susbstance Obama brings to the table, but I think he's electable. He has the smell of a winner on him that Kerry never did.

I'm not atp, but I'll answer anyway by saying I would have liked to see Biden get more traction. Guess he'll just have to wait for a prominent cabinet spot.

Good post LiteSpeeder.

Your point about 'the mob' is spot on. This is what it may come down to in the States these days...selling one's self to the mob, and Obama would appear to be an excellent salesman.

Obama is selling modern day absolution for people's bad feelings and sins. The absolution coming from the power of his personality..

He could have been a TV preacher.


following the past eight years of openly displayed illiteracy...a president needs to be felt as much as anything else...
Christians feel that Huckabee is the right guy, the rest of us feel they're wrong...

I'm not atp, but I'll answer anyway by saying I would have liked to see Biden get more traction. Guess he'll just have to wait for a prominent cabinet spot.

I was just limiting it to candidates who have a real chance at this point. I think we could do a lot worse than Obama--he's got that JFK appeal that could very well get him elected and he seems to be willing to stir the pot that desperately needs stirring. Time will tell if he gains momentum or whether a "Dean scream" will undo him overnight.

Are you saying that the Islamic world is anti-white in a racist sense?

If that is true, is appeasement an honorable course?


shooting them all dead. ?? just askin'...

that Democratic polling places are beginning to run low on ballots already...but it wasn't a concern in Repub. polling places.... mmmm...wonder why? :rolleyes:

I was just limiting it to candidates who have a real chance at this point. I think we could do a lot worse than Obama--he's got that JFK appeal that could very well get him elected and he seems to be willing to stir the pot that desperately needs stirring. Time will tell if he gains momentum or whether a "Dean scream" will undo him overnight.

I hear ya - Obama's my choice among the front runners, thanks in part to that recent bigoted pot-shot post here in PO attempting to smear him. It helped me make up my mind.

I wouldn't worry about a Dean Scream with Obama - his temperment is far more stable. If anything, I fear a bullet or such putting an end to him. He's a threat to whatever bigoted power base that continues to exist.

I hear ya - Obama's my choice among the front runners, thanks in part to that recent bigoted pot-shot post here in PO attempting to smear him. It helped me make up my mind.

I wouldn't worry about a Dean Scream with Obama - his temperment is far more stable. If anything, I fear a bullet or such putting an end to him. He's a threat to whatever bigoted power base that continues to exist.

I sort of fear for his life too...I think the best defense against that would be to put an African-American Muslim in the VP candidacy seat...double the threat against the bigoted white power base..

I kinda like Obama, he is definitely charismatic. My wife has an issue with him though, something about him refusing to say the pledge of allegiance.....I dunno where she saw that, but she said it was in the news a few months back. If Bloomberg comes in as an independent, I would vote for him, but otherwise, for the first time since 92, I might vote democrat. I'm a republican by nature, but the party I grew to love as a young man has morphed into a bastardized stepchild beholden to the religious right which saddens me, bring back a Goldwater type republican and I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. I can't vote for any of the current republican candidates. Huckabee will probably win the nomination, and I will do everything I can, including writing letters, posting on RNC websites, whatever, to prevent him from being elected.:thumbsup:

Lastly I think a person of color with a name like Barak Hussein Obama would have an easier time being accepted and listened to in 3rd World and Islamic nations. Even if it is a front, the appearance of the 'same old white guys club' would look to not be at the helm.

style over substance? pfffftt.
people down in the 3rd world have issues w/ US corporations and US power. no one has an issue w/ names... or BUsh. that's america's problem.

shooting them all dead. ?? just askin'...

are those the only options? select a president w/ the right "color" or shoot down the entire 3rd world?:idea:
does that kind of thinking represent Obama base? i hope not... i believe americans are inteligent beings.

I sort of fear for his life too...I think the best defense against that would be to put an African-American Muslim in the VP candidacy seat...double the threat against the bigoted white power base..

sure. and make it a race choice. excelent idea. :idea:

sure. and make it a race choice. excelent idea. :idea:
...than voting for two old, white guys? seeing as that is what we have now..why is it only race to you when talking
about non-whites? ethnocentric much?

just askin'....life is only the angle you take on it.

I sort of fear for his life too...I think the best defense against that would be to put an African-American Muslim in the VP candidacy seat...double the threat against the bigoted white power base..

I think that opinion is both ignorant, cynical, and dangerous...indulging the notion that a political position should be filled based upon race and religion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apv5KWHgXTE

Is it me or are people really shallow...and stupid?

I mean, hearing things like "Hillary is too dated" and "doing the same things she was doing when her husband was president years ago"??? :confused:

Give me a friggin break!

Listening to her talk in such black & white terms as she does in that video suggests to me that she is not entirely in touch with reality, and perhaps has underestimated both opponents and the voting public, and overestimated herself and where she stands among us.
I think you are right. I don't think she realizes how damaging her negatives are. It never occurred to her that the voting public would find someone they liked and they would abandon her in droves.

...than voting for two old, white guys? seeing as that is what we have now..why is it only race to you when talking
about non-whites? ethnocentric much?

just askin'....life is only the angle you take on it.

it was you who brought the race issue when called for a "colored" VP as an antidote for bigotry based assassination.
:idea:

I'm not atp, but I'll answer anyway by saying I would have liked to see Biden get more traction. Guess he'll just have to wait for a prominent cabinet spot.

Biden's a putz. Full of loud talk, and not a whole lot of action, unless it's looking out for the credit card companies.

Is it me or are people really shallow...and stupid?

I mean, hearing things like "Hillary is too dated" and "doing the same things she was doing when her husband was president years ago"??? :confused:

Give me a friggin break!How many people can you date before you get to be too dated?

it was you who brought the race issue when called for a "colored" VP as an antidote for bigotry based assassination.
:idea:


YOU'RE the one making an issue out of it... ?? :idea: :confused:
I never used the word "colored" either as you'd like to try and highlight...isn't that a bit of an outdated term anyway? you may be dating yourself there, old guy...

I think that opinion is both ignorant, cynical, and dangerous...indulging the notion that a political position should be filled based upon race and religion.

really? you seriously think religion shouldn't be a driving factor for a political position?
you should inform both the current president, Huckabee, and Romney of such a little fact..they seem to be missing that idea too...

dangerous? oh ya, I'm a HUGE THREAT!! (run away, run away)

I was being both facetious and counter to the idea that the world should be run by wrinkley white men...you're over analyzing....but then again, what's new? mmm?

r

I was being both facetious and counter to the idea that the world should be run by wrinkley white men...you're over analyzing....but then again, what's new? mmm?

and what color should be the runners of the world?:rolleyes: it hought 2x before bumping this thread but this is a racist statement so it's worth it. and no, racism does not only mean "anti black" but giving any value to color of skin which is exactly what your posts promote.
it's the worst political thinking of the 20th century.

I'm not atp, but I'll answer anyway by saying I would have liked to see Biden get more traction. Guess he'll just have to wait for a prominent cabinet spot.

I like Biden and Kucinich but neither has a chance in hell

Rydster, Obama would improve foreign relations because he doesn't come off as a trigger happy moron who can't finish a sentence. He doesn't sound like a half crazed guy playing cowboy with the world's largets arsenal.

and I'm not saying the ME is anti-white (which they may be) but their experience has been getting screwed by rich white men (see Colker's point about US Corps) so having someone appear (and I said appear) like they aren't part of the club would possibly open some doors. Second Obama's dad is African, that would help open some doors there. He would not appear (yes appear) to be part of the power structure they are so used to getting the shaft from.

which is why I said P-R

I like Biden and Kucinich but neither has a chance in hell

Rydster, Obama would improve foreign relations because he doesn't come off as a trigger happy moron who can't finish a sentence. He doesn't sound like a half crazed guy playing cowboy with the world's largets arsenal.

and I'm not saying the ME is anti-white (which they may be) but their experience has been getting screwed by rich white men (see Colker's point about US Corps) so having someone appear (and I said appear) like they aren't part of the club would possibly open some doors. Second Obama's dad is African, that would help open some doors there. He would not appear (yes appear) to be part of the power structure they are so used to getting the shaft from.

which is why I said P-R

whoever becomes president is representing the United States. period. doesn't matter what you, me, rydster or snakepit think about HIM when it comes to international relations. it makes NO difference. it's how he ACTS and not the color of his skin or how his name sounds. The cuba crisis happened while prince charming Kennedy was in charge...
it makes absolutely no difference. it's the internal process of the regions that determines it's conflicts w/ wealthier nations who explore their resources and not the internal US politics.

style over substance? pfffftt.
people down in the 3rd world have issues w/ US corporations and US power. no one has an issue w/ names... or BUsh. that's america's problem.

sadly American's elect style over substance. that is nothing new here or haven't you been paying attention the last few decades?

yes they have issues with US Coprs and US Power which is personified by wrinkley white men.

on strictly a P-R (please note I have used this term in very post) level having somebody at least appear to not be the same old, samne old could only help

Who do you support? Edwards is a wimp with the stink of Kerry still on him, Hillary is just unelectable IMO--too much baggage...who else is there? I'm still not sure what kind of susbstance Obama brings to the table, but I think he's electable. He has the smell of a winner on him that Kerry never did.


I'm I guess by default in the obama camp.

Did anyone else see the CNN SubHeadline
Dem voters Focus on Issues, Republican voters focus on personality
?

sadly American's elect style over substance. that is nothing new here or haven't you been paying attention the last few decades?

yes they have issues with US Coprs and US Power which is personified by wrinkley white men.

on strictly a P-R (please note I have used this term in very post) level having somebody at least appear to not be the same old, samne old could only help





... it's the internal process of the regions that determines it's conflicts w/ wealthier nations who explore their resources and not the internal US politics.

the conflicts are not about antagonizing the US per se but leverage for reaching these nations' goals: trade, war w/ neighbours etc..

... it's the internal process of the regions that determines it's conflicts w/ wealthier nations who explore their resources and not the internal US politics.

the conflicts are not about antagonizing the US per se but leverage for reaching these nations' goals: trade, war w/ neighbours etc..

the ME or Africa or your South America and asked the average person
who is more likely to start a nuke war in the ME Obama or Bush? you'd get a 50/50 split and people saying "it is all about conflicts with wealthier nations"

the ME or Africa or your South America and asked the average person
who is more likely to start a nuke war in the ME Obama or Bush? you'd get a 50/50 split and people saying "it is all about conflicts with wealthier nations"

you are playing the Fear card.. exactly the same game you accuse the right and Bush to play. the exact same game.
Freud was always right.:D

no one knows how/ who/ when a nuke war would happen. if it happened it wouldn't be the US to trigger it... and everybody knows this.

you are playing the Fear card.. exactly the same game you accuse the right and Bush to play. the exact same game.
Freud was always right.:D

no one knows how/ who/ when a nuke war would happen. if it happened it wouldn't be the US to trigger it... and everybody knows this.

do you NOT read my posts or are you having a hard time translating?

the whole time I have been saying Obama on a P-R (that is PUBLIC RELATIONS) level (because he is articulate (first), appears to be thoughtful and not prone to rash decisions and because of his name and his race) will ease tensions in the ME and certain parts of the 3rd world. That means the PUBLIC of these areas will be more at ease and feel less threatened by him over our present cowboy. This may help future foreign relations and open some possible doors.

not a fear card. Last I checked foreigners don't vote in US elections.

lastly, I don't know if you keep up, but the US is now voted internationally as the greatest (or close to the greatest) threats to world peace. Is that solely due to our actions or is it our actions combined with the attitude and demeanor of our leader?
So , yes, the world is a bit scared of us right now but they don't affect our elections.
But for the US to re-establish its place in the world we need to address this issue pronto.

the ME or Africa or your South America and asked the average person
who is more likely to start a nuke war in the ME Obama or Bush? you'd get a 50/50 split and people saying "it is all about conflicts with wealthier nations"

Iran took Americans hostage when Carter was President, and held them for quite a while - until Reagan was elected. Many out there believe the release of the hostages had to do with that change in Presidents. I think whoever is President will affect to varying degrees reactions and decisions made throughout the world. I agree Obama's presence could open some blinds and shed light upon areas where there's been darkness.

Iran took Americans hostage when Carter was President, and held them for quite a while - until Reagan was elected. Many out there believe the release of the hostages had to do with that change in Presidents. I think whoever is President will affect to varying degrees reactions and decisions made throughout the world. I agree Obama's presence could open some blinds and shed light upon areas where there's been darkness.

because Reagan and Bush cut a deal in advance. Gee, Iran holds hostages, makes deal that aids Republican Party get elected. They get weapons and the Cons toss all of Carter's energy policies. Isn't that cozy?

So the change in Presidents had more to do with the hostages than the other way around. The part that which you speak, was the admitted P-R messaging that was sold. You know "New Sherriff in Town. The Cons will protect you" which they've now used for 30 years. Would American's have felt the same had they known they were making backroom deals swapping weapons for the hostages? Highly doubtful. But again this shows the power of P-R.

sales, sales, sales

sad but true

do you NOT read my posts or are you having a hard time translating?

the whole time I have been saying Obama on a P-R (that is PUBLIC RELATIONS) level (because he is articulate (first), appears to be thoughtful and not prone to rash decisions and because of his name and his race) will ease tensions in the ME and certain parts of the 3rd world. That means the PUBLIC of these areas will be more at ease and feel less threatened by him over our present cowboy. This may help future foreign relations and open some possible doors.

not a fear card. Last I checked foreigners don't vote in US elections.

lastly, I don't know if you keep up, but the US is now voted internationally as the greatest (or close to the greatest) threats to world peace. Is that solely due to our actions or is it our actions combined with the attitude and demeanor of our leader?
So , yes, the world is a bit scared of us right now but they don't affect our elections.
But for the US to re-establish its place in the world we need to address this issue pronto.

how many times do i have to tell you IT DOES NOT MATTER? i believe there is problem w/UNDERSTANDING A DIFFERENT OPINION BASED ON ACTUAL EXPERIENCE and not a nationality or translation issue.. arrogance and ignorance, always a bad mix.

dumb posts!

see... you pretend to have a better PR.... yet you come off as the arrogant american talking down to someone from a different country by telling me i can't understand your english. Freud was right..:rolleyes:

hopeless!

and now i am bringing down every single post you make just because it's easy.

sales, sales, sales

sad but true

unless it's you selling.. then it becomes... hope?:rolleyes:

because Reagan and Bush cut a deal in advance. Gee, Iran holds hostages, makes deal that aids Republican Party get elected. They get weapons and the Cons toss all of Carter's energy policies. Isn't that cozy?

So the change in Presidents had more to do with the hostages than the other way around. The part that which you speak, was the admitted P-R messaging that was sold. You know "New Sherriff in Town. The Cons will protect you" which they've now used for 30 years. Would American's have felt the same had they known they were making backroom deals swapping weapons for the hostages? Highly doubtful. But again this shows the power of P-R.

sales, sales, sales

sad but true

the 3rd world does not buy phony liberal BS. never did.
we will always less equal when push comes to shove as seen in your reply to me.
pseudo leftism is a joke down here.

and what color should be the runners of the world?:rolleyes: it hought 2x before bumping this thread but this is a racist statement so it's worth it. and no, racism does not only mean "anti black" but giving any value to color of skin which is exactly what your posts promote.
it's the worst political thinking of the 20th century.

me thinks you may be too sensitive...
I value diversity in the higher ranks...always have...and I've always wondered why, by enlarge...there isn't any. ??

walk around the halls of the university hospital where i work, the walls are covered with oil paintings of bald, white, male doctors...same with university presidents...have you bothered to take a look at the portrait line up of the entire US presidency?

mountain, meet molehill. take a breather, have a beer. calling me a racist is both funny and rather offensive at the same time. my post promotes the exact opposite of what you're trying to label it as...so, bite me.

are those the only options? select a president w/ the right "color" or shoot down the entire 3rd world?:idea:
does that kind of thinking represent Obama base? i hope not... i believe americans are inteligent beings.

that's just the one I posted.....feel free to choose your own options.
American's are intelligent beings? You've never worked in the service or tourism industry, have you?

you're also wildly extrapolating....the Obama base? what? any time you'd like to start making sense, I'll be right here...

whoever becomes president is representing the United States. period. doesn't matter what you, me, rydster or snakepit think about HIM when it comes to international relations. it makes NO difference. it's how he ACTS and not the color of his skin or how his name sounds. The cuba crisis happened while prince charming Kennedy was in charge...
it makes absolutely no difference. it's the internal process of the regions that determines it's conflicts w/ wealthier nations who explore their resources and not the internal US politics.

to remove race/religion out of the context of world conflicts seems extremely short sighted...maybe YOU don't see it that way, but I'd be willing to be $$ that many other of the world's inhabitants do, many of which we're currently in verbal and physical conflict with.

"oh, look, here's another group of white, Christian based people invading our land again!"

does the word "jihad" mean anythign to you? its a religious war that has beeen called against us mutliple times by multiple people...in their online postings, AQ based groups refer to "white crusaders"...

btw, Kennedy did a damn good job defusing the missile crisis w/o firing a shot...I highly doubt the current yokle in the WH would have done the same thing...your analogy was reaching and rather weak.

how many times do i have to tell you IT DOES NOT MATTER? i believe there is problem w/UNDERSTANDING A DIFFERENT OPINION BASED ON ACTUAL EXPERIENCE and not a nationality or translation issue.. arrogance and ignorance, always a bad mix.
dumb posts!
see... you pretend to have a better PR.... yet you come off as the arrogant american talking down to someone from a different country by telling me i can't understand your english. Freud was right..:rolleyes:
hopeless!
and now i am bringing down every single post you make just because it's easy.

seems one as yourself would have an interest in the psychoilogy, the archetypal battles being played in the courts of US and World Opinion. Seems that you have forgotten Israel's lost P-R battle in Lebanon already. The freudian and Jungian reads on both are fascinating.

Nah, people don't care about P-R, you're right. People are strictly 'fact oriented' which explains the multitude of knee jerk reactionaries worldwide. People don't actually buy into the hype whether it is presented by Fox or Al Jazeera. People are much smarter than that, they look for the truth behind the story.

so what does the 3rd World buy these days? Does it prefer the strong hand of a ruthless Junta? Are they resigned to their fate of being expoited? Is it hopeless there?
Oh and Colker, I'm only slightly left of center. It is just the radical swing to the right that makes me seem like a leftist. I'm fully in support of democracy with a well regulated (to keep it safe and fair) capitalist system. Just because I've read Marx and use his historicism in analysis doesn't mean I'm a Marxist, like I use Freud and/or Jung, or Wittkower, I adhere to no principle to aquire an ist. I'm a fusion-ist.

the 3rd world does not buy phony liberal BS. never did.
we will always less equal when push comes to shove as seen in your reply to me.
pseudo leftism is a joke down here.

so what kind of liberal/leftism do you use to describe the recent trends in some South and Central American Govts?

and never did? that's a good one. your grasp of history is astounding.

Iran took Americans hostage when Carter was President, and held them for quite a while - until Reagan was elected. Many out there believe the release of the hostages had to do with that change in Presidents. I think whoever is President will affect to varying degrees reactions and decisions made throughout the world. I agree Obama's presence could open some blinds and shed light upon areas where there's been darkness.

negotiations for the release of those hostages had been taking place for months before Reagan even took office. Do you believe that nothing at all was going on, but the very minute Ronnie took the oath of office, the Iranians got scared and said, we better let these guys go?

the timing of the release was a pure PR moment set up by Ronnie's people, to make him look good for the doofus idiots.

me thinks you may be too sensitive...
I value diversity in the higher ranks...always have...and I've always wondered why, by enlarge...there isn't any. ??

walk around the halls of the university hospital where i work, the walls are covered with oil paintings of bald, white, male doctors...same with university presidents...have you bothered to take a look at the portrait line up of the entire US presidency?

mountain, meet molehill. take a breather, have a beer. calling me a racist is both funny and rather offensive at the same time. my post promotes the exact opposite of what you're trying to label it as...so, bite me.

it's not what one thinks of himself..

your idea promotes the race card. not only that but diminishes Obama as a politician. it's his political project and his competence you should vote for and not the color of his skin.
voting a black man as resentment against "how things are" is a bad, bad idea. it NEVER works. it backfires.
voting on Obama because he is black just rehashes racism instead of extinguish it.

me thinks you may be too sensitive...
I value diversity in the higher ranks...always have...and I've always wondered why, by enlarge...there isn't any. ??

walk around the halls of the university hospital where i work, the walls are covered with oil paintings of bald, white, male doctors...same with university presidents...have you bothered to take a look at the portrait line up of the entire US presidency?


Ironic that the first to shout that 'race' is a construct, are the first to push for positive discrimination...and celebrate the cause of this or than minority race individual.

It is not a big step from declaring this 'race' good, to declaring that 'race' bad. I would like to leave 'race' out of politics, and focus on merit. Racial politics conjures up bad memories...maybe some people on here are ok with that?

Not that the 'racial profile' (or religion...so long as church remains separate from state) of the US President really matters a dam in terms of international politics. The historical phenomenon of radical Islam has its own agenda and motivation....beyond the skin colour of this or that politician...let us remember that the international Jihadist declared war long before Shrub.

Nations and regions have their own economic and social problems/tensions. Personality politics does not go very far in a liberal-democracy...from a historical perspective...the President does not rule by personal fiat after all?

If some on this board (atp, bahueh etc) want to go down the race/religion route of selecting a President based upon his/her's 'reception' in the ME...we should think about this more deeply. Obama with his muslim raised estranged Father, is more likely to be seen as an apostate by the zealots...and how do you think being black goes down in the Arab world? The Arab world you (atp, bahueh) assume is some kind of tolerant haven for ethnic minorities (I mean they are all dark skinned right...must all get on great? :rolleyes: ). You need to wake up from your liberal fantasy...there is a much racist sentiment in that part of the world as anywhere.

the rich saudis go to lebanon find "light skin" girls to marry. it's a fact.

if/ when the US president arrives in a thrid world country it's how he respects the sovereignity of it's politics and how the president of the 3rd world nation receives the US president that matters.
that's how it is.
it does not mean a damm if the US president is black, called Obama or Bill... he is a foreigner. a president fromm another nation and not a movie star.
i call it from experience.

it's not what one thinks of himself..

your idea promotes the race card. not only that but diminishes Obama as a politician. it's his political project and his competence you should vote for and not the color of his skin.
voting a black man as resentment against "how things are" is a bad, bad idea. it NEVER works. it backfires.
voting on Obama because he is black just rehashes racism instead of extinguish it.

his race is no secret..and it is being openly talked about. My idea was a silly banter at the white power base...you've turned it into so much more....but then again that seems to be the MO here...

Ironic that the first to shout that 'race' is a construct, are the first to push for positive discrimination...and celebrate the cause of this or than minority race individual.

It is not a big step from declaring this 'race' good, to declaring that 'race' bad. I would like to leave 'race' out of politics, and focus on merit. Racial politics conjures up bad memories...maybe some people on here are ok with that?

Not that the 'racial profile' (or religion...so long as church remains separate from state) of the US President really matters a dam in terms of international politics. The historical phenomenon of radical Islam has its own agenda and motivation....beyond the skin colour of this or that politician...let us remember that the international Jihadist declared war long before Shrub.

Nations and regions have their own economic and social problems/tensions. Personality politics does not go very far in a liberal-democracy...from a historical perspective...the President does not rule by personal fiat after all?

If some on this board (atp, bahueh etc) want to go down the race/religion route of selecting a President based upon his/her's 'reception' in the ME...we should think about this more deeply. Obama with his muslim raised estranged Father, is more likely to be seen as an apostate by the zealots...and how do you think being black goes down in the Arab world? The Arab world you (atp, bahueh) assume is some kind of tolerant haven for ethnic minorities (I mean they are all dark skinned right...must all get on great? :rolleyes: ). You need to wake up from your liberal fantasy...there is a much racist sentiment in that part of the world as anywhere.


oh great armchair psychologist and philosopher.... I hang on your every word. :rolleyes:

to cast me in belief of racial stereotypes (you know Tyrone, right, cuz he's black too?!)
speaks volumes about how much don't know about me...
I mean for instance....do you know if I'm African American or not? do you?

his race is no secret..and it is being openly talked about. My idea was a silly banter at the white power base...you've turned it into so much more....but then again that seems to be the MO here...

you make it as the main issue. and you wonder why there is no more blacks w/ relevance in your profession.. the answer is slavery. you know it better than me.
the idea is to make skin color disappear and not stand out.
don't vote on him cause he is black. his color makes no difference.

you make it as the main issue. and you wonder why there is no more blacks w/ relevance in your profession.. the answer is slavery. you know it better than me.
the idea is to make skin color disappear and not stand out.
don't vote on him cause he is black. his color makes no difference.

but I know a few black employees I work with whom have vowed to vote for him simply because of his race...its an issue for a LOT of other people...denying that is naive.
me? hardly...I quipped..you ran in the opposite direction with it.

but I know a few black employees I work with whom have vowed to vote for him simply because of his race...its an issue for a LOT of other people...denying that is naive.
me? hardly...I quipped..you ran in the opposite direction with it.

so if a few white employees decide to vote huckabee (or whomever republican that would face Obama) just because Huck is white... then you would be just as cool as with the black cats in your office?
no. you call racism on the whites and justice on the blacks. this is pure cynicism cause you deny an ethical, correct way to vote.

I mean for instance....do you know if I'm African American or not? do you?

should that matter? it's a forum on ideas.... do ideas have a race attached to them?

My fairly extensive relationships with black Americans, me being a middle class suburban WASP hipster from the civil rights movement of the Sixites, is that black people don't want to be defined by the color of their skin. They know they are, inside, just like whites. They want white people to be themselves with blacks. When some white guy comes on like a brother, with all the hip hop lingo, they think, "What is this shi##? Whitey tryin' to be cool." It's inappropriate, insulting, condescending, somewhat akin to baby talk.

The one thing most blacks don't want to discuss with whites is race. Anything coming from a white that reminds a black that he is black makes him self-conscious. I've found again and again, just being myself and showing respect as I would to any person, I am immediately accepted.

Pundits have pointed out that many blacks could vote for Hillary Clinton because they viewed her husband as being "the first black president." I think his unpretentious colorblindness is what they really are talking about.

You can speculate on whether the voting public is ready to elect a young guy with a black cultural past to lead the nation. You would have a very good argument blaming latent racism if he fails, and if he succeeds, a desire among a great many whites to absolve racist guilt passed down through the generations. Let's not forget, 50 years ago or less, whites and blacks were estranged and basically afraid of each other. They lived in parallel universes.

Obama could be the perfect antidote to the super-rich corporate Republicans who have been screwing the country for 8 years. He could, without really trying, restore the government to the people, head and shoulders above any of the other candidates.