| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:03 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Condesening...that's the hallmark of the HC campaign.
As for winning over voters, surely it won't be done on Dave's ESL. And I couldn't give a rip what you think about me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Milwaukiedave wrote: |
Condesening...that's the hallmark of the HC campaign.
|
Ha ha. Hillary is responsible for my sins, now?
I think that Obama-as-Savior attitude is giving you a warped perspective on this primary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yep...it's the inevitablity attitude that HC and her supporters give off to everyone else. The attitude that I deserve it and if my shoeprint lands on your face in the meantime, oh well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| [Your bitterness might] be better placed if Obama were getting crushed; but he has at least an even chance of winning. |
| Milwaukiedave wrote: |
| Yep...it's the inevitablity attitude that HC and her supporters give off to everyone else. |
Whatever you say . . . just don't tell me that negativity in campaigning doesn't work. It seems to have sold you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wow, the pot calling the kettle black. Maybe you should turn on tv to see if one of HC's surrogates is attacking Obama again? Then she can just play stupid as she always does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Milwaukiedave wrote: |
Yep. go back to the same tired old talking points that Obama is for nothing. It doesn't work. Obama is against the war in Iraq and will bring the troops home. Please remind me how HC voted in 2002?
Obama is for bringing affordable healthcare to everyone.
Obama is for working with allies to bring solutions and talking to countries that are on our "axis of evil" list to try to bring them to the table.
Obama is for supporting working families and lowering the tax burden for them.
Obama is for plenty of things. The HC talking points are getting old. |
He'd get my vote. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
MilwaukieDave replied to Kuros:
| Quote: |
| Yep...it's the inevitablity attitude that HC and her supporters give off to everyone else. The attitude that I deserve it and if my shoeprint lands on your face in the meantime, oh well. |
Ya know, that's what really rubs me the wrong way about Hillary too--her sense of entitlement. And what makes it so exasperating is that she knows full well that a win for her means her husband Bill is back in the White House. It's almost like a third term for him even if she is able to hold onto the reigns of power once there. (And I haven't thrown my support to Obama, so this isn't a partisan observation).
Have you noticed that Hillary isn't making a clarion call for a woman to be President, as in "it's about time a woman had a chance?" I think her staff knows that tactic won't be received well because of Obama. It must gall her that she can't claim exclusive minority status in the campaign despite her recent comment that she's thrilled Obama is in the race (re: not Race). Yes, and I haven't a single hair on my azz.
Last edited by stevemcgarrett on Wed Jan 16, 2008 6:37 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Steve,
What's really damning is the fact that people have the nerve to say that is those that hate (and I think hate is a little too strong to describe my feeling, I like to use strong dislike) Hillary Clinton that make her divisive, not HC herself. Talk about stretching the truth.
The fact is she will have a tough time in the conservative states, especially in the midwest and mountain states. In the general election, the amount of votes you get doesn't matter, it's winning each state. If you can't win the state, it takes away from your the electoral strategy. The fact is that you can't depend soley on the larger states (California, Florida, NY, Penn, Ohio, Michigan, etc.) you have to be competitive in smaller states as well.
In 2000 and 2004, Oregon was pretty close, but both time went for the Democrats. A large portion of the state is rural and they vote Republican. If turnout isn't good in the Willamette Valley (Eugene, Salem) and in the Portland area and the D's don't vote for the nominee in high numbers, the state could go red this time around.
Last edited by Milwaukiedave on Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2008 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Have you noticed that Hillary isn't making a clarion call for a woman to be President, as in "it's about time a woman had a chance?" I think her staff knows that tactic won't be received well because of Obama. It must gall her that she has can't claim exclusive minority status in the campaign despite her recent comment that she's thrilled Obama is in the race (re: not Race). Yes, and I haven't a single hair on my azz. |
David Brooks wrote about this yesterday
| Quote: |
But Clinton�s real problem is that she is caught in a trap, which you might call The Identity Trap.
Both Clinton and Obama have eagerly donned the mantle of identity politics. A Clinton victory wouldn�t just be a victory for one woman, it would be a victory for little girls everywhere. An Obama victory would be about completing the dream, keeping the dream alive, and so on.
Fair enough. The problem is that both the feminist movement Clinton rides and the civil rights rhetoric Obama uses were constructed at a time when the enemy was the reactionary white male establishment. Today, they are not facing the white male establishment. They are facing each other. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Both Clinton and Obama have eagerly donned the mantle of identity politics. |
I don't agree with this. I think they have both avoided the identity thing, by and large. It's an obvious unstated subtext, but that's unavoidable given they are both the first viable candidates that are not white males in two and a quarter centuries.
Maybe it's too much to hope for this to continue throughout the campaign, but at least it started this way and was a sign that the public (at least in Iowa and New Hampshire) had grown past the 'you're a credit to your race/gender' kind of thinking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have no problem with HC being divisive. Politics is division, the trick is not to be too overt about courting it.
The problem is I think she'll be another imperial president, judging by her tactics with Congress the first time around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| jkelly80 wrote: |
I have no problem with HC being divisive. Politics is division, the trick is not to be too overt about courting it.
The problem is I think she'll be another imperial president, judging by her tactics with Congress the first time around. |
You suffer that danger with Candidate 'Just-give-me-an-excuse-to-bomb-Pakistan' as well.
Any President will be described as an Imperial President. Except maybe Ron Paul, who wouldn't lift a hand for Darfurs or Burmas if it killed him. Trade-offs, trade-offs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| jkelly80 wrote: |
I have no problem with HC being divisive. Politics is division, the trick is not to be too overt about courting it.
The problem is I think she'll be another imperial president, judging by her tactics with Congress the first time around. |
You suffer that danger with Candidate 'Just-give-me-an-excuse-to-bomb-Pakistan' as well.
Any President will be described as an Imperial President. Except maybe Ron Paul, who wouldn't lift a hand for Darfurs or Burmas if it killed him. Trade-offs, trade-offs. |
Sorry I didn't mean "imperial" in the sense of foreign policy. I don't think anyone is for that, except Paul as you said, and he's not a serious candidate. I meant in the FDR--->Nixon--->Cheney continuum of a capricious, arrogant executive branch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I meant in the FDR--->Nixon--->Cheney continuum of a capricious, arrogant executive branch. |
This problem can be avoided with a Congress that plays its Constitutional role. Presidents propose, Congress disposes. Assertive members of Congress are part of the balancing of powers that was designed into the system. If Representatives and Senators just lay down and let the President run over them, they have no one to blame but themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 16, 2008 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| well-said Ya-Ta. Not like the executive can run roughshod over the other branches if they put up a fight. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
