Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - The long defeat (warning: Democratic primary thread)

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The long defeat (warning: Democratic primary thread)
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

bassexpander

Joined: 13 Sep 2007
Location: Someplace you'd rather be.

Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:55 pm Post subject:

Czarjorge wrote:

This was southeastern Iowa, so unfortunately racism does play a part in that judgement,

I'm from Iowa. Your statement is a load of crap. It's hardly a racist state compared to most of the USA. Obama got a good look there.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 9:07 am Post subject:

Funkdafied wrote:

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.

No, it is perfectly acceptable to point out the obvious: Obama's resume is unsatisfactory.

That's not an unfair attack.

The Wright affair? It was NOT the Clinton campaign who broke that story.

Funkdafied

Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:12 am Post subject:

Quote:

Obama's resume is unsatisfactory.

Then so was JFK's, and Hillary's too.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:22 am Post subject:

Funkdafied wrote:

Quote:

Obama's resume is unsatisfactory.

Then so was JFK's, and Hillary's too.

Hillary's resume is a bit light, and Kennedy's was, too.

Quote:

Kennedy represented the state of Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1947 to 1953 as a Democrat, and in the U.S. Senate from 1953 until 1961.

But both Hillary and Kennedy have at least served a full 6-year Senate term.

Funkdafied

Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:47 am Post subject:

Quote:

But both Hillary and Kennedy have at least served a full 6-year Senate term.

And that equates to Obama's resume being "unsatisfactory"? And you seriously believe it was legitimate to leap from there to the whole "not ready to lead" angle? And legitimate to even imply that McCain would be a better leader? Cause that sounds wrong to me. Im not even a rabid Obamite like you seem to think I am. I just think he's better. And the more this campaign goes on the more that is confirmed for me, not only by how Obama handles things but by Hillary's tactics.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:06 am Post subject:

Funkdafied wrote:

Quote:

But both Hillary and Kennedy have at least served a full 6-year Senate term.

Yes, I think McCain could be a better leader. The problem with McCain is, he's a conservative with authoritarian tendencies.

Obama may be ready to lead. We simply don't know. I think Clinton's resume is a bit light herself. The Democrats with the great resumes, such as Biden and Richardson, were passed up for those with better name recognition.

Attacking Clinton does not ipso facto assuage reservations about Obama. A lot of what you're saying about Clinton is fair, but it doesn't establish persuasion for Obama. And I think that's the problem with a lot of Hillary's attacks on Obama, as well.

Funkdafied

Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House

Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:31 pm Post subject:

Now we're having a converstation. So tell me why McCain would be a better leader. Which of his policies would be better than Obama's? And if it's not policy, what is it? Personality? You just said he's an authoritarian, and I'll add that he does not seem to understand modern diplomacy, nor does he have a very good grip on how Europe relates to the middle east, and he seems, frankly, a little trigger happy from his POW days. I can't think of any way he'd be better. But I'm here to be educated.

Czarjorge

Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:09 am Post subject:

Sorry, I've been away for a bit, but I wanted to continue this string. I am, unfortunately, therefore ignoring all posts after this one. I really do want to understand where Kuros is coming from supporting Clinton.

Kuros wrote:

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.

I'm just checking. You might dislike Obama and that drove you to Clinton.

And I get the 'devil's advocate' position. I like that role as well. That's one of the reasons I asked. You may have been playing at support for Clinton.

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.

I think you're convoluting the issue a bit. Yes, the 'inevitability' campaign ploy did rub a lot of people wrong, including myself, but I understand why she did it. It seems a number of things the Clinton campaign has done recently has blown up in their faces.

The Clinton campaign is selfish for running a NEGATIVE, CHARACTER ASSASSINATING campaign. They're not running on the issues, and you don't have to say that Obama's campaign is doing the same thing. Obama's campaign is also running more on image than substance, but Obama's tack has been to play himself up rather than Clinton down. Clinton is selfish for the MANNER with which she is running her campaign.

One of the reason's I'm supporting the Democratic party so strongly this time around is a hope and desire to see 'Rovian' style politics if not eliminated, then lessened, in US politics. I specifically criticize Clinton because she continues to deal from the Republican playbook. NOT because she's still in the race.

'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.

Allow me restate what I said above. I don't want Clinton out of the race, I want her to stop playing dirty pool.

'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.

I suppose I have to agree with the foundation of your point. Yes, I am disappointed and I oppose the way Clinton's campaign is being run. I think it's more a matter of taste, but I suppose morality could be part of that.

I know you're involved in the law, and likely see the political game through a different lens than I, but don't you also want to see a clean campaign run on the issues?

Would you prefer if Obama snapped back at Clinton when his faith is brought up that she's a liar. That's she a lady, and therefore unfit to rule. I suppose he could try to subtly play the menopause card, implying that the physological changes would affect her ability to govern. Would that be a better lead up to the convention?

The issue is, again, that Clinton's tactic is to defame Obama's character to such a degree that he's no longer a viable candidate on the national level.

'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 . . .

I realize I've been repititious, but at least I'm not alone.

'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.

What is legitimate? Ruining Wright's life? The guy has a lot more depth than he's getting credit for, yet he's being scummed up in order to transfer some of that dirt to Obama. That's screwed up, right? Am I alone here to find that screwed up? Don't you guys like MLK?

Thus far the only "awful" thing Obama's camp has done is for one of his staffers to say 'Hillary is a monster', or more accurately 'Hillary is acting like a monster'. Did you hear what Ferraro said? That was messed up. ETC, ETC etc.

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)?

How or why would you lay Florida and Michigan at Obama's feet?

Thank's good discussion. I'm interested to here what you have to say. I'm a bit lit, but I believe most of the spelling and punctuation is reasonably correct.

[/b]

Czarjorge

Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:14 am Post subject:

bassexpander wrote:

Czarjorge wrote:

This was southeastern Iowa, so unfortunately racism does play a part in that judgement,

I'm from Iowa. Your statement is a load of crap. It's hardly a racist state compared to most of the USA. Obama got a good look there.

I based that statement on what I overheard said during smoke breaks at the county Democratic convention.

R. S. Refugee

Joined: 29 Sep 2004
Location: Shangra La, ROK

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 3:25 am Post subject:

stillnotking wrote:

... people who say that America is too racist a country to vote for a black man may be saying more about themselves than about America.

The state of Virginia (capitol of the old Confederacy) elected a black man governor a few years back. And Virginia isn't exactly a flaming liberal blue state (even less so then).

If Virginia can look past racial prejudice to elect a black governor, I expect the rest of the country can too. Very Happy

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:31 am Post subject:

Funkdafied, I'll address your points later.

Czarjorge wrote:

Kuros wrote:

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.

I think you're convoluting the issue a bit. Yes, the 'inevitability' campaign ploy did rub a lot of people wrong, including myself, but I understand why she did it. It seems a number of things the Clinton campaign has done recently has blown up in their faces.

The Clinton campaign is selfish for running a NEGATIVE, CHARACTER ASSASSINATING campaign. They're not running on the issues, and you don't have to say that Obama's campaign is doing the same thing. Obama's campaign is also running more on image than substance, but Obama's tack has been to play himself up rather than Clinton down. Clinton is selfish for the MANNER with which she is running her campaign.

One of the reason's I'm supporting the Democratic party so strongly this time around is a hope and desire to see 'Rovian' style politics if not eliminated, then lessened, in US politics. I specifically criticize Clinton because she continues to deal from the Republican playbook. NOT because she's still in the race.

Clinton is Rovian? You mean, the Karl Rove who did a pushpoll in South Carolina asking whether it bothered people if John McCain had an illegitimite black baby?

Sorry, I think that is hyperbole. Clinton is running a negative campaign because she is losing, and most of her swipes at Obama have been on point. The reason the candidates are drifting away from the issues is because they have so many similarities on the issues. Frankly, Obama's attack on NAFTA damaged him more in my eyes than anything that has come since. But Clinton and Obama are nearly identical on the issues, so the ball goes to experience and credibility.

Czarjorge wrote:

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.

I suppose I have to agree with the foundation of your point. Yes, I am disappointed and I oppose the way Clinton's campaign is being run. I think it's more a matter of taste, but I suppose morality could be part of that.

I know you're involved in the law, and likely see the political game through a different lens than I, but don't you also want to see a clean campaign run on the issues?

Yes, it might be a matter of taste for some people, instead of a moral position.

Obama and Clinton have run a lot on the issues, especially in January and February. But there's not much daylight between them, and the campaigns have become locked into a vengeance accusation cycle.

But, do you think an Obama-McCain race is going to be gentlemen talking about the issues? No! There's some relevance to the intensity in the campaign.

Lastly, Obama has not impressed me on the issues. His education program is lackluster and insufficient. He has not addressed Guantanamo enough. He has not come out with courageous stances lately (like his early promise to drastically reduce America's nuclear weapon stockpile). He continues to back the Drug War. Worst of all, Obama does not address the real change we need.

Samuelson wrote:

A moral cloud hangs over our candidates. Just how much today's federal policies, favoring the old over the young and the past over the future, should be altered ought to be a central issue of the campaign. But knowing the unpopular political implications, our candidates have lapsed into calculated quiet.

They pay lip service to children but ignore the actual programs that will shape their future. The hypocrisy is especially striking in Obama. He courts the young, promises "straight talk" and offers himself as the agent of "change." But his conspicuous omissions constitute "crooked talk" and silently endorse the status quo.

The insidious nature of this problem is that because the spending increases for the elderly occur gradually, the pressures on taxes and other government programs will also intensify gradually. A crucial moment to clarify the stakes and compel politicians to make choices probably won't occur until it's too late.

The longer we delay -- and we've done so now for several decades, because the strains created by an aging society have been obvious that long -- the more likely that eventual "solutions" will be unfair to both young and old. To acknowledge that and to come to grips with it would constitute genuine "change."

Czarjorge wrote:

Would you prefer if Obama snapped back at Clinton when his faith is brought up that she's a liar. That's she a lady, and therefore unfit to rule. I suppose he could try to subtly play the menopause card, implying that the physological changes would affect her ability to govern. Would that be a better lead up to the convention?

The issue is, again, that Clinton's tactic is to defame Obama's character to such a degree that he's no longer a viable candidate on the national level.

If Obama attacked Clinton's sex or age, he'd be hurting himself. He'd be perceived as A) a hypocrite and B) a monster. However, I would hope Obama would not hurt himself in this way.

But I do not think that Clinton's tactic is to defame Obama's character. I think Clinton's tactic is to injure Obama's credibility and to question his readiness as commander-in-chief. That was the central point of the admittedly flawed 3am ad.

Czarjorge wrote:

Kuros wrote:

'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.

What is legitimate? Ruining Wright's life? The guy has a lot more depth than he's getting credit for, yet he's being scummed up in order to transfer some of that dirt to Obama. That's screwed up, right? Am I alone here to find that screwed up? Don't you guys like MLK?

Thus far the only "awful" thing Obama's camp has done is for one of his staffers to say 'Hillary is a monster', or more accurately 'Hillary is acting like a monster'. Did you hear what Ferraro said? That was messed up. ETC, ETC etc.

Clinton DID NOT break the Wright story. I repeat: Clinton DID NOT break the Wright story. So you cannot put that at her feet.

Secondly, how can you defend Wright's comments while being offended at Ferraro's? Ferraro's comments were stupid, stupid, stupid, but its not the first time we have heard the argument. Obama supporters have been arguing that Obama's race is an asset, and essentially that was Ferraro's message at the end of the day.

No, Ferraro's comments were not legitimate, but they were FERRARO's comments, not the campaign's.

Czarjorge wrote:

Kuros wrote:

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)?

How or why would you lay Florida and Michigan at Obama's feet?

Thank's good discussion. I'm interested to here what you have to say. I'm a bit lit, but I believe most of the spelling and punctuation is reasonably correct.[/b]

I don't think I can lay FL and MI at Obama's feet, b/c these states' incompetence will not bring them to the point where the Obama dominated delegation can reject the voting.

Hillary Clinton is a flawed candidate. Obama is a better campaigner, but since the fundamentals favor Democrats, I think Clinton can win. She'll make the best President of the three candidates, in my opinion.

Don't worry about punctuation or spelling too much.

Milwaukiedave

Joined: 02 Oct 2004
Location: Goseong

Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:32 am Post subject:

Kuros wrote:

Allow me restate what I said above. I don't want Clinton out of the race, I want her to stop playing dirty pool.

I'd love to see this as well.

Kuros wrote:

So you are saying that Clinton has been running a positive campaign until now and only running a negative campaign because she is losing. Are you sure about that?

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
Page 3 of 3

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

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe