|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I've been in my pessimistic mode for the last month, so I expect McCain to win. We'll have 4 more years of spend, spend, spend with no taxes raised to pay for any of it.
Obama will probably be the nominee, but I can't say I'm impressed with this:
| Quote: |
| Second, Obama�s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. |
It looks like politics as ususal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm still waiting for proof on that one. I won't hold my breath. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If Clinton is still in the race, it's because Obama can't finish it.
Finish it, Obama. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I've been in my pessimistic mode for the last month, so I expect McCain to win. We'll have 4 more years of spend, spend, spend with no taxes raised to pay for any of it.
Obama will probably be the nominee, but I can't say I'm impressed with this:
| Quote: |
| Second, Obama�s lawyers successfully prevented re-votes in Florida and Michigan. |
It looks like politics as ususal. |
I'm with you on the pessimism, especially after the county caucus I attended, but I actually expected Clinton to screw around and make it impossible for Obama to be a viable candidate. Hopefully if that happens a third option will get picked. Dole, Biden, even Richardson would be more acceptable that a Clinton run at this point.
I'm sort of with you on the opposition to re-votes, but it's really that the Obama campaign opposed the WAY the re-votes were to occur. It's stupid, but how can you give the O guff for playing politics when he opponent is being all Rove about the campaign. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 25, 2008 10:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
If Clinton is still in the race, it's because Obama can't finish it.
Finish it, Obama. |
Hmm..I thought it was because the primaries weren't over? Never mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Milwaukiedave wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
If Clinton is still in the race, it's because Obama can't finish it.
Finish it, Obama. |
Hmm..I thought it was because the primaries weren't over? Never mind. |
Oh, right. Obama has to win a certain amount of delegates. Damn you Hillary! Damn you for your politicking! *shakes fists* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Kuros, you drank that Clinton kool-aid down faster than an oil milkshake.
Here's the deal, statistically it is so UNLIKELY that Clinton can beat Obama in either delegates or popular vote that is is the same as considering it impossible.
It is also incredibly unlikely that Obama will be able to secure the necessary delegates.
So, it WILL come down to superdelegates and a brokered nomination.
Most of us are incredibly leary of the Clinton's ability to twist arms and play good'olboy politicks, and as such worry that Clinton will secure the nomination using those tactics. We are also worried that if that happens the Dems are as good as done.
I'm preaching to the choir here. You seem to be a smart poster. You know all this. And I understand where you're coming from, there is a great deal of anti-Clinton sentiment. What I don't understand is, are you just playing devil's advocate or do you truly believe that Clinton is both the only viable and only acceptable Dem candidate? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Czarjorge
Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros, no response? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Czarjorge wrote: |
| And I understand where you're coming from, there is a great deal of anti-Clinton sentiment. What I don't understand is, are you just playing devil's advocate or do you truly believe that Clinton is both the only viable and only acceptable Dem candidate? |
First of all, when have I ever asserted that Clinton is the only viable candidate?
Obama is a viable candidate, but I prefer Clinton.
I am playing heavy devil's advocate, because this forum is flush with unexamined assumptions about the race.
The first criticism against Clinton was that she was running on a platform of 'inevitability.' Some thought this was arrogant. Its a fair point. But now Obama's campaign is saying that according to the polls, Clinton cannot win 50% of the pledged delegates. Its a fair point. But this is where the Obama platform turns straight into spin: the Clinton campaign is selfish for continuing on, and hoping for the support of superdelegates.
'The rules are the rules.'
How many times have we heard this from Obambites on this forum? And yet, while applied liberally to Florida and Michigan, it is ignored with respect to the superdelegates. The rules are the rules, Obama needs 2,024 delegates to win the election. Should superdelegates vindicate Obama's popular vote victory? Perhaps, but not necessarily.
'The Clinton campaign will do anything to win.'
This argument has kept me from joining Camp Obama. Politics, like the courtroom, is an adversarial process. Politics, like the lawsuit, is an opportunity for compromise (most lawsuits end in settlements). Politics is a running dialogue and conversation, and a losing candidate can still heavily influence politics (Ex: Al Gore). A winning candidate should not have the last word on all issues (Ex: George Bush).
Essentially, Team Obama's argument is a moral argument. 'Clinton is unscrupulous and selfish.' Okay, fine. This is a campaign and attacks on one's fitness to govern are kosher. But the Obama campaign has taken it further: 'The Clinton campaign's very existence is unscrupulous and selfish.' Somehow, even though 47% of voters (which is more than 50% of democrats, plus some independents) support Clinton, her existence is unscrupulous and selfish.
Why is campaign Obama making this argument? It has set itself up for it. Their campaign is the 'new politics' and the 'clean campaign.' It cannot make straight-out attacks, without looking hypocritical. So it makes this extremely holier-than-thou argument. Since Obama is the clean campaign, it is better, and further attacks only sully the specialness of it. But since Team Obama cannot actually attack Clinton specifically, it asserts generally that Clinton is the 'mean' candidate. This brings me to my penultimate talking point and irony.
'Clinton has a sense of entitlement.'
Perhaps, but the Obama campaign has the very same sense of entitlement. Anyone who would make the argument that Clinton's campaign needs to stop, without having actually gained the needed delegates, needs to recognize their own sense of undue entitlement. And finally . . .
'Criticism of Obama is bad for the party'
No. It. Is. Not. As someone who will eventually vote for Obama, let me say that I can recognize the valid points made against him versus the invalid points made. I, like many others, will vote for Obama despite his weaknesses. Just as I, like many others, recognize Clinton's weaknesses and support her just the same. There's a certain condescension in this argument that has been rife within the Obama campaign: Obama speaks on a level that many cannot comprehend, partly because of the media's reduction of his speeches into Obama-bites.
But legitimate criticism of Obama is good for the party. And so is legitimate criticism of Clinton. Criticizing Clinton for continuing to run is NOT remotely legitimate.
Do we understand each other better, Czarjorge? Let me make one last point. I have been vocal that I will support Obama should he win. I have not threatened to not vote for him because of Florida or Michigan. Can it be said of all Obama supporters here that they would support Clinton if she won? I only mention this to make a single point: I am not drinking the Hillary kool-aid, and I am perfectly willing to make the vote for Obama. And IRL, my friends at law school, all Obama supporters, recognize this. So the question remains, why can't it be recognized by many people on this site (besides you)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I will unquestionably support Clinton if she garners 50%+1 of the pledged delegates. I have said this since day one of the campaign and it's still true.
If she wins the nomination without winning the electoral aspect of the primary, then I will not vote for her -- but even then, it wouldn't be a personal issue with Clinton. I've said many times that she's neither better nor worse than the general run of Democratic Presidential candidates, and it'd be naive not to expect her to avail herself of her party connections if she can. However, the message that outcome would send to me is that the Democratic Party as a whole is less interested in the wishes of its rank and file than in preserving the old-boy network. Therefore, the Democratic Party would no longer deserve my vote and would never get it again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
I will unquestionably support Clinton if she garners 50%+1 of the pledged delegates. I have said this since day one of the campaign and it's still true.
If she wins the nomination without winning the electoral aspect of the primary, then I will not vote for her -- but even then, it wouldn't be a personal issue with Clinton. I've said many times that she's neither better nor worse than the general run of Democratic Presidential candidates, and it'd be naive not to expect her to avail herself of her party connections if she can. However, the message that outcome would send to me is that the Democratic Party as a whole is less interested in the wishes of its rank and file than in preserving the old-boy network. Therefore, the Democratic Party would no longer deserve my vote and would never get it again. |
My last paragraph was not an attack; it was a defense. Frankly, you can vote on whatever grounds you want.
But I offered this to demonstrate that I was not a Hillary-or-die voter:
| Quote: |
| I have been vocal that I will support Obama should he win. I have not threatened to not vote for him because of Florida or Michigan. |
I will vote for Obama even if Florida and Michigan do not vote.
Its ironic, because OFF this board, I'm trying to convince my mother to vote for Obama should he win it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I've been in my pessimistic mode for the last month, so I expect McCain to win. We'll have 4 more years of spend, spend, spend with no taxes raised to pay for any of it.
|
Well after hearing McCain's "plan" in dealing with the mortgage crisis, I've realized his economic policy overall is pretty bad. I'm siding with Obama, although if Hillary pulls off a miracle I really don't know if I can find it w/in myself to vote for her. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 2:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I've been in my pessimistic mode for the last month, so I expect McCain to win. We'll have 4 more years of spend, spend, spend with no taxes raised to pay for any of it.
|
Well after hearing McCain's "plan" in dealing with the mortgage crisis, I've realized his economic policy overall is pretty bad. I'm siding with Obama, although if Hillary pulls off a miracle I really don't know if I can find it w/in myself to vote for her. |
I disagree as I think that McCain's ideas are the best of three candidates on this issue. I don't think it should be the government's job to bail out irresponsible lenders and borrowers. The best way for the market to equilibrate is for the gov't to stay out; the market will find its way back.
Though yes, Hillary's plan is half-baked at best. She just wants to leverage the power of the gov't to try and save everyone's home and making ppl think the gov't can save everyone's home too. In fact, her plan of further gov't involvement will only exacerbate the problem. What's even stupider about Hillary's plan is to bring on a commission led by Alan Greenspan of all people. That in and of itself is completely absurd seeing as how his stupid rate cuts are mostly to blame for the current housing crisis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
'The Clinton campaign will do anything to win.'
This argument has kept me from joining Camp Obama. Politics, like the courtroom, is an adversarial process. Politics, like the lawsuit, is an opportunity for compromise (most lawsuits end in settlements). Politics is a running dialogue and conversation, and a losing candidate can still heavily influence politics (Ex: Al Gore). A winning candidate should not have the last word on all issues (Ex: George Bush).
Essentially, Team Obama's argument is a moral argument. 'Clinton is unscrupulous and selfish.' Okay, fine. This is a campaign and attacks on one's fitness to govern are kosher. But the Obama campaign has taken it further: 'The Clinton campaign's very existence is unscrupulous and selfish.' Somehow, even though 47% of voters (which is more than 50% of democrats, plus some independents) support Clinton, her existence is unscrupulous and selfish.
Why is campaign Obama making this argument? It has set itself up for it. Their campaign is the 'new politics' and the 'clean campaign.' It cannot make straight-out attacks, without looking hypocritical. So it makes this extremely holier-than-thou argument. Since Obama is the clean campaign, it is better, and further attacks only sully the specialness of it. But since Team Obama cannot actually attack Clinton specifically, it asserts generally that Clinton is the 'mean' candidate. This brings me to my penultimate talking point and irony.
'Clinton has a sense of entitlement.'
Perhaps, but the Obama campaign has the very same sense of entitlement. Anyone who would make the argument that Clinton's campaign needs to stop, without having actually gained the needed delegates, needs to recognize their own sense of undue entitlement. |
Wow, I guess you haven't heard about the letters to Pelosi from the big Clinton fundraisers threatening to cut off donations to the DNC if the superdelegates back Obama? Talk about the worst kind of politics, candidate over party....
| Quote: |
Clinton donors object to Pelosi comment
By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer
Gurinder Osan/AP Photo
WASHINGTON --Twenty top Democratic donors who are supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for saying superdelegates should support the presidential candidate with the most pledged delegates.
No matter what the outcome of the 10 remaining contests, it will be nearly impossible for Clinton to overcome Barack Obama's lead in pledged delegates because they are awarded proportionally based on the outcome.
So it will be up to the nearly 800 superdelegates - party activists and elected officials who aren't bound by any vote - to put one of them over the mark of 2,024 delegates needed to win the nomination. Obama has 1,406 pledged delegates to Clinton's 1,249, according to The Associated Press count.
Pelosi, who has not endorsed either candidate as chair of the Democratic National Convention, said during a March 16 appearance on ABC's "This Week" that it would be harmful to the party if superdelegates don't support the pledged delegate winner.
In their letter, Clinton's supporters said superdelegates "must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party's strongest nominee in the general election."
The letter also noted the donors "have been strong supporters" of the House Democrats' fundraising apparatus.
"We therefore urge you to clarify your position on superdelegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the national convention in August," they said.
Pelosi stands by her comment, said her spokesman, Brendan Daly.
"The speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters," he said. "This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton called the letter "inappropriate."
"We hope the Clinton campaign will reject the insinuation contained in it," he said. "Regardless of the outcome of the nomination fight, Senator Obama will continue to urge his supporters to assist Speaker Pelosi in her efforts to maintain and build a working majority in the House of Representatives."
In response, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said: "Few have done more to build the Democratic Party than Bill and Hillary Clinton. The last thing they need is a lecture from the Obama campaign."
The letter was first reported by The Washington Post and the political blog Talking Points Memo. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This is a campaign and attacks on one's fitness to govern are kosher. |
Legitimate attacks would have been, but baseless attacks were and are not kosher. There was absolutely no substance behind the attacks on Obama's ablity to lead, it was cheap allegation only with no evidenciary support, designed to appeal to the not so bright democrat who does't really think things through and goes on instinct.
Furthermore, it was absolutely scummy to insinuate that McCain would be better as a leader. That was a clear case of candidate over party, that's when she lost me completely.
Last edited by Funkdafied on Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
