Korean Job Discussion Forums

[poet13]

plus99 "just over there throwing lemons?

you might literally be the lamest "poet" ive ever heard.

and.............

spliff is talking about moonbats. not quite the thread the OP must have envisioned. i love that you guys just post other articles, as if we weren't capable of using google on our own. the OP actually wrote something."

Your statement makes no sense at all. It's just an ad hominum attack.

Are you saying I didn't write any of this?


Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 5:51 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Hillary's campaign was doomed from the moment it began, but not because of her. From the very beginning, Hillary was lauded as the Democrats candidate, all others ignored. The primaries were pro forma, really just a victory lap, basking in the adoration of the Democratic party prior to smashing the loutish RebulblicanTs in the fall.

Then along came this 'Bama fellow.

Maybe Hillary had a chance when her campaign pulled out of it's collective group hug love-in and realized that he was catching up.

But, and it's a big but, I think she along with hubby admininstered the coup-de-grace to her campaign by the tone she took. I think they killed their chances at living in the white house again by dragging into this color, and by lying her face off. Their chances. Saw that huh? I bet it's a toss-up which one of them wants to be back in the white house more.

Misspoke about Bosnia? Misspoke? What the hell is that? Misspeaking is when you speak rashly, or innapropriately. Misspeaking is when you something wrong, catch it, and correct it. She didn't misspeak. She lied, and lied again, and then lied about the lie. And when she was called on it, she tried to make it seem like she was misunderstood or micharacterized. She lied. Plain and simple. She needs to have her mouth washed out with soap.

Her hubby, Bill, is another of the same ilk. I used to resepct him. I even defended him for the cigar-in-the-stank incident. After all, he's just a guy, and guys, whether you like it or not, can be dogs.

Hillary is a poor card player. She has broadcast her hand. her cards, in order, are;

Queen of diamonds. - In it for herself. Not for the country, not for the party. It's all about self.

King of clubs. - Bill wants the house again because he gets the power by association back. Whaddya wanna bet that he dashes overseas to visit his buddies on Air Force One less then 90 days in office? Imagine that boys club!

Short-eye Jack. - There is no truth in that clan. There may have been at one point in time, but just as the ring absorbed the character of the Gollum, so has power sapped the ethics of the Clintons.

Ace of spades. Or clubs....anything black. They were popular with blacks, but I think they are as or more race-conscious than anyone ever should be. It started with Bill, and more recently with Hillary and her claims of support among "hard working whites". Yassuh boss lady, poh niggas juss wan dat welfare check so's dey can buy some chitlins and sit on duh porch. I would love to be a fly on their wall when they talk privately about black people.

Joker. - Wild card. As transparent as we think she is, we really don't know what would happen if she were in power. Health care? Big fuckin' deal. Terrorism? So what. That's just spewing populist policy talk. I think her time in power would be spent ensuring her influence and income for after her reign. But you never know.

VP? I cannot imagine how more terribly wrong Obama could go by allowing her on the ticket. I think it would hamstring his presidency from day one. Bill would be running amok from the get go, and Hillary would be pissing all over the furniture and door jambs trying to defend her self defined power block...I mean, territory.

GOBAMA 08.
=========================================


Posted: Mon May 19, 2008 3:36 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Arguments for Obama? The phenomenon of Obama might be in part a case of "Joe Clark" syndrome. Canadians might remember the fellow named Joe Clark who was elected Prime Minister of Canada in 1979. The Toronto Star or Sun (I think) ran their headline the next day as "Joe Who?" There was a lot of opinion that people didn't so as vote FOR him, but that they were voting AGAINST the other players whom the Canadian public in general was disgusted with. His party was defeated in a non-confidence vote less than a year later. It might have something to do with him pissing off on vacation for a couple of months immediately after being elected.

Obama is change. He doesn't just espouse it, preach it, or make populist let's-be-happy-together speeches about change; he seems to be an entirely different creature, one I think the American public is well more than ready for. If the republicans..make that Bushee, hadn't dragged America into Iraq with non-evidence and reason that will likely be remembered as something near criminal, I don't think Obama would have his day. I think it took the country being in a giant clusterfuck for the people to say enough is enough, give us someone new.

I think that's Obamas strength. Now let's see if he can be that man.
-===========================================

A little reactionary? Well, the first paragraph described a reactionary process that occurred in Canada almost 20 years ago. I am suggesting that in part, Obama's popularity IS reactionary. It's reacting against what has been status quo politics in America. The reaction is people standing up and saying "enough!".

I also don't think it's much of a stretch to equate one person's popularity with another person's failures.
FOr example, if a business screws up enough, people go elsewhere for the product or service.

So what do YOU have to say?

got as class right now....

========================================

Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 1:05 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Hillary has a better grasp of health care than Obama. However, she's already had one shot at it....and flunked. Her current proposed incarnation is no better. As Obama rightly points out, you can't force people to pay who don't have money. On the other hand, I don't think Obama's proposal is that much better. I think it was just primary talk. Primary talk done well simply means he or she said the right thing at the right time in the right way without going overboard and offending or slighting this minority or that.
I personally think health care is just one of those things where some people are not going to be covered. Health care is not equal. Rich people will have more, and poor people will have less....or none. So we have two candidates whose proposals propose to cover everybody....and I think it's simply not possible.

You asked where the other eight candidates are? The didn't raise enough money and therefore not enough people were able to learn about them.
You asked why specifically Hillary and Obama? Hillary is obvious. She had tremendous cachet and was likely in the top three most recognizable women in America.
Obama is a little harder. I think it has to be traced back to his speech four years ago at the DNC. From there he has continued to impress the people who need to be impressed.
Without knowing so as fact, I don't think any of the candidates would have been so without the blessing of the Democratic Party powers that be. I would even suggest that when the powers that be say "it's a wrap", the candidate withdraws.
We have to remember, it's not individuals running for the presidency. It's a party. The party puts forth a number of candidates and lets them vet themselves. Hillary and Obama are the survivors.

I think during the primaries, there aer a lot of issues that are kind of taboo. Some are always taboo, and some are better addressed in the run-up to the general election because they are interparty issues, not intraparty issues.
Intraparty discussion, as the democratic candidates have done for the past many months, serve as practise for the general election, help the candidates define the issues, and get an idea of where the general public stands on each issue. The party will then tailor their propsoal to fit the feelings of the public....
===========================================

Posted: Tue May 20, 2008 7:16 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So Hillary took Kentucky, and Obama will take Oregon. He has the majority of the pledged delegates now.

I think the superdelegates are playing this so as not to offend Hillary too much. That is, if they all fall to Obama in a landslide, she will be insulted and possibly damage the party further.
See the way I see it is this....


The following is PURE speculation, and something to think about, NOT a conspiracy theory. That doesn't mean I think American politics are completely clean though...

People are all bothered about the superDs deciding the outcome. So, I think they communicate just enough with each other, and pledge just enough to one candidate that the remaining primaries and pledged delegates can still decide the outcome. I don't think counted on Hillary getting landslides in a few states. If they had, I think Obama would have a few more superdelgates, and come the last primary, the party could stand back and say the candidate was chosen by the pledged delegates, not the superDs.
==========================================


Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:57 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"SuperDs are trending heavily Obama right now."

And I'm very happy about that. I think they're trying to send the message without appearing to fall over themselves.

"Meanwhile, Hillary is not destroying the party. That is hyperbole. In fact, the extended race is actually good for the Democrats."

Maybe her campaign is not hurting the party yet, but at a certain point I think it will, especially if she decides to make the DNC a battleground. Well, it could go different ways. She could fracture her power base by being a sore loser. A fractured power base will be hard to block shift to Obama. It could be good because her followers may finally realize how incredibly self-centered she is about this and switch to Obama. The point is, if she continues to question his electability, as is her latest tactic, she could hurt the Dems in the fall. Yes, an extended race keeps all eyes on the Dem's, and that's a good thing too, but when it's two against one, the one usually get's a whipping.

"It would be worse if Hillary dropped out, because there'd be many who would still vote for her."

Is this before or after she wholeheartedly throws her support behind Obama as the entire Democratic party rightfully expects? And this article, http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/963217,polls052108.article suggests that they are already coming over to Obama.

"How bad would that look for Obama, if after Hillary dropped out, he still could not win (or could barely win) states like Kentucky?"

Cue John Wayne drawl....."Well, shoot pilgrim, by then, the election's over, and it don't matter for spit."

"As it is, she's not attacking Obama's character or policies, so its best for everyone that she stays in until June 4th."

She may not be attacking character or policies, but she is attacking his electability. Her imagination puts her math skills to shame.
=============================================

Kuros wrote. "I'm going to need a link for that assertion. When was the last time she attacked his electability? If its before the results in NC and IN, then its kosher."

=====================================


Here you go...

"In her victory speech Tuesday night, Clinton made a direct pitch to superdelegates on the electability argument, hoping they would reconsider the two candidacies.

"I want to send a message to everyone who is still making up their minds, I am in this race because I believe I am the strongest candidate," Clinton said."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/13/AR2008051302499.html


====================================

"Touting Clinton's Electability, Using Every Available Source

Democratic presidential hopeful New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton addresses her election night celebration at the Marriott Hotel in Louisville on May 20, 2008. (AFP/Getty Images) By Perry Bacon Jr.
LOUISVILLE -- As she continues to press on, Hillary Clinton's campaign is less about health care, experience or solutions than a factor no one would have guessed at the beginning: electability.

"We have to select a nominee who is best positioned to win in November," she told her supporters here after scoring an overwhelming win in the Bluegrass State.

Emphasizing the importance of a Democrat winning the White House, she said, "That's why I"m still running, and that's why you're still voting."

Both former president Bill Clinton and his wife now spend much of their stump speeches delivering complicated electoral math lessons on how Hillary Clinton will be a better general election candidate than Obama, citing her appeal in Michigan, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, based on primary results in those states.

In a speech in Kentucky on Monday, Clinton even cited an estimate by Karl Rove's consulting firm that suggested she would be the favorite in more states than Obama in a general election.

"In every single election map I have seen, she is beating Senator McCain handily and she is the only Democrat who is doing that," the ex-president said in Lexington on Monday.

The argument, while reflecting a campaign where a group of Democratic Party officials will cast the final votes, show how far this race has come. Clinton entered the race as the candidate most popular among Democrats but with party activists worried she could not win enough swing voters to win a general election.

The former president's arugment is also based on a host of assumptions that do not appear to be convincing to superdelegates, who are moving toward Obama in droves.

Posted at 9:09 PM ET on May 20, 2008 "
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/20/touting_clintons_electability.html
===========================================

[ReeseDog]

Astounding. A full six-course meal for the troll.

Poet, if you don't feed it, it'll eventually die. Especially a weak one like plus99.

[poet13]

True.

[itaewonguy]

Obama is the man!!!

[Kuros]

[ReeseDog]

Her campaign is still in the toilet, and Obama doesn't stand a chance in hell against McCain, in the end. Personally, I'd like to see Obama in the House, but I don't think it'll happen.

[Darashii]

[poet13]

"My argument is that Hillary is not substantively hurting Obama."

We agree.

"The individual statements are important, because they shed light on what she's said during her advocacy for herself. If she were found to attack Obama, I think you'd have a stronger argument."

Since you wrote the above, Clinton's latest gaffe has been the RFK comments. More to the point, despite Obama repeatedly saying that he understood what she meant, and doesn't hold it against her and wil not judge her for it, as well as excusing her for it by saying that in 15 hard fought months, everybody fucks up, Clinton is claiming that Obamas advisors are fanning the controversy by saying, "Clinton's statement (sic) was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign." On Saturday, Obama told a Puerto Rican radio station that he took Clinton at her word when she said she meant no harm in invoking Kennedy's assassination. Obama's campaign has clearly tried to ignore this controversy, I think content to let her self immolate, no help needed from him.

"But as it is, she's not commenting on Obama's positions or character. She's merely stating her opinion: she'd be more electable than Obama, because Obama's performance is weaker in certain states. This is the argument she has to make to get Superdelegate support.'

SHe's more electable than Obama because he's weaker in certain states. I think that stating the obvious. It's just as easy to say that he s more electable because she is weaker in certain states.


"Obama still has to confront this weakness:"

Yes, he has weaknesses...but every candidate does.

"Hillary cannot solve it for him by dropping out."

No, she can't solve his problems, but she sure as hell could stop drawing crime scene chalk outlines around everything as a road map for the Republicants.

" He can do so by campaigning in those states and drawing in voters. As I've linked before, the post March 3rd primaries have registered over a million new Democrats. The continued campaign allows Obama an opportunity to raise more cash."

Perhaps the single greatest thing that has come out of this primary compaign is the broadening and deepening of the electorate....of which Obama has taken full advantage.

"Hillary does not need to drop out until Obama has reached the threshold of votes once Florida and Michigan have been resolved. She's not hurting the party, but party members do have genuine concerns about Obama."

No, she's not obligated to drop out until Obama has enough delegates, but I think Florida and Michigan are prime examples of Clinton willing to say and do anything to get her way. Both candidates agreed with the DNC rules that stripped those states of their votes. Clinton agreed because she was considered a lock at the time to be the candidate. Now that she thinks she can work some math and win (even though they would still leave her well behind in the delegate count), she is demanding that they count. Not just count, but count as full votes and delegates with no sanctions at all for their actions. Next I predict she will file a law suit saying that the delegate system doesn't count and because she has (she might if they count michigan and florida fully) popular vote, THAT should be the measure of who is the candidate.

Did you read Bill's conspiracy claim? There's a "they".

[spliff]

[poet13]

[No_hite_pls]

[poet13]

"There is not a huge difference between Hillary and Obama anyway (sorry right wingers) and to me it seems as if they are really pretty friendly to each other. "

There may not be that much difference between them, but I think they can't stand each other....more so than just rivals. Clinton has pulled some really dirty shit, and Michelle Obama has made it plain that she doesn't want Clinton to be around her. It's personal....real personal.

[Kuros]

[TheUrbanMyth]

[spliff]