|
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 |
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Location: Goseong
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 8:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
And yet there is resounding silence from the Hillary folks as their candidate demonstrates a willingness to put McCain in office rather than stick to the high road and win the primary on her merits. Kinda makes you think, doesn't it. |
Yeah, it makes me wonder why Barack doesn't accept Hillary's unity ticket offer.
I mean, if Obama felt so threatened by a long primary, that'd be an offer she'd find hard to refused. My thinking is, he's willing to ride out a long primary. |
Nice try at changing the subject, and a continuation of your resounding silence on Hillary's conduct. Thanks for the response, though, it is always worthwhile to know where someone's coming from. |
Ah, NK you might becareful. I pointed out the same thing got told that I was posting nothing but Hillary rants for pointing out a) a lack of strategy and b) the fact that I've said again and again she needs to start winning states and c) that I've never had anyone agree with me who supports Clinton.
Of course this is nothing but a Hillary rant right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| a continuation of your resounding silence on Hillary's conduct |
What? I know that you play the its-okay-when-Obama-does-it-but-when-Hillary-does-it-it-kills-the-party line way too often, but I wasn't aware I had an ethical duty to intervene when the candidate says something you find offensive.
Obama is woefully inexperienced. McCain is experienced.
Firstly, it doesn't seem that saying this harms the party, so much as its blatantly obvious.
Secondly, its odd that you, who've threatened to go libertarian should Hillary become the nominee through the Superdelegate process (you know, by the rules), should take umbrage here. I mean, if you're going the take-your-toys-and-play-elsewhere route, why are you even so worried about the state of the Democratic party? Unless, that is, you think Obama is the Democratic party. In which case, yes, Hillary is hurting the Democratic Party (aka Obama) with this statement. But not much, since she really needn't point it out for it to be obvious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Location: Oregon, USA
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| stillnotking wrote: |
| a continuation of your resounding silence on Hillary's conduct |
What? I know that you play the its-okay-when-Obama-does-it-but-when-Hillary-does-it-it-kills-the-party line way too often |
When did I do that? More to the point, when did Obama compare Hillary negatively to McCain? You're accusing me of doing things I haven't even had the opportunity to do; that's gotta be a new low in tu quoque.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Obama is woefully inexperienced. McCain is experienced. |
And Hillary is experienced? The only difference between Hillary and Obama on foreign policy experience -- besides the fact that Hillary demonstrated terrible judgment on AUMF and Obama demonstrated good judgment -- is that Hillary likes to make stuff up:
| Quote: |
Pressed in a CNN interview this week for specific examples of foreign policy experience that has prepared her for an international crisis, Clinton claimed that she "helped to bring peace" to Northern Ireland and negotiated with Macedonia to open up its border to refugees from Kosovo. She also cited "standing up" to the Chinese government on women's rights and a one-day visit she made to Bosnia following the Dayton peace accords.
Earlier in the campaign, she and her husband claimed that she had advocated on behalf of a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda to stop the genocide there.
But her involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process was primarily to encourage activism among women's groups there, a contribution that the lead U.S. negotiator described as "helpful" but that an Irish historian who has written extensively about the conflict dismissed as "ancillary" to the peace process.
The Macedonian government opened its border to refugees the day before Clinton arrived to meet with government leaders. And her mission to Bosnia was a one-day visit in which she was accompanied by performers Sheryl Crow and Sinbad, as well as her daughter, Chelsea, according to the commanding general who hosted her.
Whatever her private conversations with the president may have been, key foreign policy officials say that a U.S. military intervention in Rwanda was never considered in the Clinton administration's policy deliberations. Despite lengthy memoirs by both Clintons and former Secretary of State and UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright, any advice she gave on Rwanda had not been mentioned until her presidential campaign.
"In my review of the records, I didn't find anything to suggest that military intervention was put on the table in NSC [National Security Council] deliberations," said Gail Smith, a Clinton NSC official who did a review for the White House of the administration's handling of the Rwandan genocide. Smith is an Obama supporter.
Prudence Bushnell, a retired State Department official who handled the Rwanda portfolio at the time and has not allied with a presidential candidate, confirmed that a U.S. military intervention was not considered in policy deliberations, as did several senior Clinton administration officials with first-hand knowledge who declined to be identified. |
How many phones has Hillary answered at 3 AM? For her to bring up this line of attack at all is just brain-dead. It hurts her at least as much as it hurts Obama.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Firstly, it doesn't seem that saying this harms the party, so much as its blatantly obvious. |
It's blatantly obvious that it will harm the nominee's chances to fight a protracted, negative nomination battle, and Hillary is the source of the vast majority of the negativity in the campaign. Kuros, the Republicans are loving this, and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise.
| Kuros wrote: |
| Secondly, its odd that you, who've threatened to go libertarian should Hillary become the nominee through the Superdelegate process (you know, by the rules) |
Rules? Like the rules Hillary agreed to that say the Florida & Michigan delegates don't get seated? Pretty rich for the Hillary camp to bring up rules.
Nah, I'm not mad about rules or the lack thereof. I'm mad that Hillary's only slim chance at the nomination is to tear down Obama -- who is at least 80% likely to be the nominee anyway -- thus increasing the chance that a warmongering, borderline-crazy gnome whose platform is "Bush, but more of it" becomes President.
| Kuros wrote: |
| I mean, if you're going the take-your-toys-and-play-elsewhere route, why are you even so worried about the state of the Democratic party? |
To be honest, I'm not worried about the Democratic party as an institution. I'd be glad to see it fall apart tomorrow if I thought it'd be replaced by a genuinely liberal party. The country is what I'm worried about. If Hillary gets the nomination over the objection of the electorate, then this will prove the utter dysfunctionality and worthlessness of the Donkey and I will, indeed, take my toys somewhere they might actually do some good. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Fri Mar 07, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Kuros, the Republicans are loving this, and you're fooling yourself if you think otherwise. |
I love this line of reasoning: the Republicans think its good so it must be good for them. Ummm, what have the past 6 years established except for the fact that the GOP wouldn't know what's in its best interest even when what they most love (power) is on the line.
| stillnotking wrote: |
| I'm mad that Hillary's only slim chance at the nomination is to tear down Obama -- who is at least 80% likely to be the nominee anyway -- thus increasing the chance that a warmongering, borderline-crazy gnome whose platform is "Bush, but more of it" becomes President. |
Well, this'll be a comfort: the Democratic party is not being torn apart. Instead, some partisans and worrywarts (b/c a lot of Democrats are feeling pretty insecure after 8 years of Bush) are advancing this argument. But mostly Obama-fans.
Because at the end of the day, there's no evidence to suggest that a continued primary will result in a weaker Democratic party. And as I said, if Obama really believed it, he'd offer an olive branch and put Hillary on the ticket. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Milwaukiedave
Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Location: Goseong
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dems play hardball, take risks
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON � As the Democratic nomination race continues in near deadlock, rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are faced with a delicate task: They're trying to hit each other hard enough to win more contests, without turning off the party VIPs likely to make or break their bids.
The trajectory at the moment is sharper attacks and more of them. The Clinton team is now comparing Obama's tactics to those of special prosecutor Kenneth Starr, whose investigation led to former president Bill Clinton's impeachment. Obama, meanwhile, is signaling he's willing to bring up some seamier aspects of the Clinton years.
There are risks for both sides. Several strategists say references to Starr could backfire by reminding Democrats of what they didn't like about the Clinton administration � its scandals. Obama's more aggressive tack after losses in Texas and Ohio could undercut his themes of unity and reconciliation.
Neither candidate is on track to win the delegates needed for the nomination solely from the popular vote, meaning "super delegates" � party leaders and elected officials free to use their judgment � may be decisive. Pollster Mark Mellman, who is neutral, says that reality will keep the rhetoric in check.
"Super delegates are concerned about keeping the party together," he says. "The surest way to alienate them is to run a scorched-earth negative campaign against your opponent."
Obama is criticizing Clinton's health care plan and pressing her to release tax returns that could shed light on Bill Clinton's business dealings. His campaign circulated a Newsday report Thursday about Clinton demanding that her 2000 Senate opponent release his returns.
Senior Clinton adviser Ann Lewis accused Obama of recycling "old Republican attacks." Communications director Howard Wolfson went further: "I, for one, do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton called the comparison "absurd." Democratic consultant Bill Carrick, who is neutral, said it was "preposterous" and added: "She runs the risk of reminding people that she's been a very polarizing figure."
Strategist Matt Bennett, a veteran of campaigns since 1988 who is also neutral, said he was shocked by the Starr analogy. "She seems to do well when people think something unfair is happening to her," he said. "I do think they can overplay the victim hand."
Carrick said Obama needs to worry less about "protecting his aura" and more about countering Clinton attacks on his credibility, leadership and experience. "They tried to slough off some of these attacks, ignore them, stay above them. It didn't work," he said.
The Obama team is taking a tougher approach, reflected in campaign manager David Plouffe's description of Clinton this week as "the most secretive politician in America." Obama told Time he'll make sure Clinton doesn't get "a pass" on ethics issues. If she continues to bring up "real estate transactions" and question the character of his donors, he said, "then we will make certain that she has to answer those same questions with respect to herself, her husband and her campaign."
Whitewater was the Clinton real estate deal that triggered the investigation concluded by Starr, whose digging uncovered Bill Clinton's relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Obama has not brought up those controversies directly. The Clinton team raises questions daily about Obama's relationship with Chicago businessman Tony Rezko, who helped Obama buy a house and now is being tried on corruption charges.
The two camps also are continuing their argument over who Americans should trust in a national security crisis. Clinton started it with her TV ad asking who voters want answering a 3 a.m. phone call at the White House. Obama adviser Susan Rice said Thursday that neither Clinton, Obama nor presumptive GOP nominee John McCain � all senators � has had to answer that call.
"Only a commander in chief has shouldered that burden. And you don't get that experience by being married to a commander in chief," said Rice, an assistant secretary of State for Bill Clinton.
Hillary Clinton appeared with generals Thursday to propose more troops and aid in Afghanistan. Rice said it sounded like what Obama offered last August. There also was one-upmanship on money. Clinton said she had raised $4 million since her Tuesday wins. Obama countered with his February fundraising total: a staggering $55 million, $20 million more than Clinton reported. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:24 am Post subject: Re: Hillary takes the high road, supports her fellow candida |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
What? You thought I was talking about Obama? She wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. Hillary just decided to support McCain:
| Quote: |
"I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.
"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.
Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a "distinguished man with a great history of service to our country," Clinton said, "Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with." |
Here's a thought: maybe she, Zell Miller, and Joe Lieberman can go form a party together. 'Cause whatever the hell they are, they're not Democrats. |
Just curious where ought people who don't like Pat Robertson but who also don't trust Moveon and the Daily Kos to take care of the US go? ( I know where Moveon and the Daily Kos would like them to go but anyway)
Maybe the message is Moveon and the Daily Kos rule and if you don't like it tough - vote for the Republicans.
Well I won't fight you here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stillnotking

Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Location: Oregon, USA
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:00 am Post subject: Re: Hillary takes the high road, supports her fellow candida |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Just curious where ought people who don't like Pat Robertson but who also don't trust Moveon and the Daily Kos to take care of the US go? ( I know where Moveon and the Daily Kos would like them to go but anyway)
Maybe the message is Moveon and the Daily Kos rule and if you don't like it tough - vote for the Republicans.
Well I won't fight you here. |
I must have missed something. Are any of the people you named running for President?
Obviously MoveOn and DKos will end up supporting the Democratic candidate, whoever it is. They are Democratic partisan organizations, Joo. And I think it's pretty ironic that you pay more attention to them than I do.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 8:06 am Post subject: Re: Hillary takes the high road, supports her fellow candida |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
Just curious where ought people who don't like Pat Robertson but who also don't trust Moveon and the Daily Kos to take care of the US go? ( I know where Moveon and the Daily Kos would like them to go but anyway)
Maybe the message is Moveon and the Daily Kos rule and if you don't like it tough - vote for the Republicans.
Well I won't fight you here. |
I must have missed something. Are any of the people you named running for President?
Obviously MoveOn and DKos will end up supporting the Democratic candidate, whoever it is. They are Democratic partisan organizations, Joo. And I think it's pretty ironic that you pay more attention to them than I do.  |
Liberman and H. Clinton ran for president.
They are liberal /left organizations who will go after democrats that don't agree with them.
Well if you don't pay much attention to them - then good for you at least one of us is doing the right thing .  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jkelly80

Joined: 13 Jun 2007 Location: you boys like mexico?
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| American liberalism= simplistic white male bashing AND necessary perspective on proto-fascistic security policy |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003 Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
Posted: Sat Mar 08, 2008 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| 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
|
|