posted
Wowbagger, she also references the first movie in the longer quote:
quote:"Could you imagine if Rocky Balboa had gotten halfway up those art museum stairs and said, 'Well, I guess that's about far enough'? That's not the way it works," Clinton said, referring to a famous scene in the first "Rocky" movie.
Also, I don't think it's "crazy", just funny. I'm not presenting it as an arguement that she should lose or anything. But maybe it's deeper than I thought: She's not overlooking the ending of Rocky at all, but she's already setting up 2012 as Rocky II for her victory there!
I do think the context is pretty different from the Obama/Dr J thing you linked, though. Obama wasn't trying to compare himself to Dr J, he was joking around with radio hosts on a sports call-in show.
posted
Hillary can't really think that she's going to win any Philadelphia votes with the 'Rocky' reference. If she does, she's even more out of touch than I thought.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The funny thing is every underdog that comes to Philly Compares themselves to Rocky. Even Obama did back in October.
quote: "Well, first of all, I think some of this stuff gets overhyped," Obama said. "In fact, I think this has been the most hyped fight since Rocky fought Apollo Creed, although the amazing thing is I'm Rocky in this situation"
posted
Back in October, Obama didn't necessarily expect to win. If Hillary fits in this story at all, she's Apollo Creed in Rocky II.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It figures that my silly post would end up on top of the page.
And if we wanted to really overanalyze it to even further absurdity we could talk about the racial undertones of the Rocky films: Is Obama supposed to be Apollo Creed or Mr.T? Is McCain that Russian boxer from #4? Is the Rocky reference a secret message to racists that Hillary is the "great white hope" to keep blacks from dominating in politics like they do in boxing? *gasp*
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: It must be hard for a city to have only one famous fictional person in it.
That's why Hong Kong is so awesome. It's the city of Jackie Chan who in reality is equally cool if not more so than the fictional characters he portrays in films.
But I suppose Hong Kong also belongs to Bruce Lee, and Chow Yun Fat.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just musing, does Hillary Clinton count as an underdog now? To me, she doesn't feel like one, although she is definitely unlikely to win.
Coming from a by far first place spot with a whoel ot of heavy weight support pretty much invalidates being an underdog to me. To me, she's just losing.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: The funny thing is every underdog that comes to Philly Compares themselves to Rocky.
Yes, exactly! And they pretty much all miss the fact that Rocky lost. (When they come here to MN, they mostly talk about the snow. Occasionally Paul Wellstone.)
Obama doing it in October opens up another humor avenue, too, if that whole "xerox" thing was still part of the ongoing debate. "I was comparing myself to Rocky before Hillary ever was! She's using my words again!"
posted
The three most recent polls have Obama in the 40's. The most recent one has him leading by 3. That's really something. I'm sure the PPP poll is an outlier.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We've started canvassing and calling around here, and at least in our area there are a lot of undecideds.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: What about that mouse that told Ben Franklin how to discover electricity?
I used to love that cartoon when I was a kid.
What Philadelphia lacks in fictional characters, it makes up for in real historical ones. Maybe Clinton should watch less TV and read more history books.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Just musing, does Hillary Clinton count as an underdog now? To me, she doesn't feel like one, although she is definitely unlikely to win.
Coming from a by far first place spot with a whoel ot of heavy weight support pretty much invalidates being an underdog to me. To me, she's just losing.
She's like a basketball team that was heavily favored. Now it's the fourth quarter, and she's down and throwing fouls just to stop the clock. [/torturedsportsanalogy]
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because all white males are rich and don't get persecuted.
Of course not, Launchywiggin. But to claim or hint at victim status as a white Christian guy is just absurd in the United States. But it's not an uncommon claim from the religious and social right.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think he was claiming a victim status, but arguing that it's unfair for people to discount your opinion based on the color of your skin. You'd agree with that, wouldn't you?
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think he was claiming a victim status, but arguing that it's unfair for people to discount your opinion based on the color of your skin. You'd agree with that, wouldn't you?
Actually, no I wouldn't agree with that. His argument amounted to, basically, "These things are wrong and no sane person would disagree with that." He then went on to suggest that the way things were generations ago was some sort of inviolable trust with regards to how we should do things.
His entire premise was that we should continue going with things the way Christian white dudes did back in the day. Him being a Christian white dude, it's pretty easy for him to say we should keep doing things the way he wants them done, for what amounts to that reason alone.
If he ever expresses an opinion beyond, "It's wrong and it's obvious," then sure, I'll revise that portion of my response.
Or you could just latch on to that statement out of its context.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You wouldn't agree that your opinions should be credited or discredited based on their merits--and not your skin color? That's the only thing I'm talking about. I don't know or care about your argument, or whatever statement you want me to take out of context.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looks like Clinton has agreed to another debate. In an earlier article I read covering this it said that Obama wanted to hold it on the 19th, while Clinton wanted to hold it on the 27th, but the linked article doesn't give any indication of this disagreement.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You wouldn't agree that your opinions should be credited or discredited based on their merits--and not your skin color? That's the only thing I'm talking about. I don't know or care about your argument, or whatever statement you want me to take out of context.
His suggestion of a claim to victim status obviously has a bearing on his skin color, Launchwiggin.
If a 20-something white Christian male living in the United States (wherein us white folks are usually around 70% of the population) claims that society is oppressing him, I'll say, "What? Who's oppressing you?" and then probably laugh and ask just how he is being oppressed.
So, the only thing you're talking about is pretty darn silly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jake: Looks like Clinton has agreed to another debate. In an earlier article I read covering this it said that Obama wanted to hold it on the 19th, while Clinton wanted to hold it on the 27th, but the linked article doesn't give any indication of this disagreement.
I'm almost a little surprised that she'd have a face to face with him after all the stupid crap she's pulled lately. Obama will find a way to call her on a lot of it I think. Especially I hope he asks her how she can attack him for not being democratic while suggesting that the votes of millions of Americans don't matter and the delegates should disregard them and vote for her. That's why I think she wanted to have the debate AFTER the election, and not days before. Obama might have been happy not to have one at all, and Clinton to have one at any time, she needs the free air time, but Obama will probably benefit from a face to face before Pennsylvania, maybe even taking a couple points from her.
The tone of this debate will be interesting. I wonder if soft Clinton or firebrand Clinton will show up.
quote:Originally posted by: Rakeesh If a 20-something white Christian male living in the United States (wherein us white folks are usually around 70% of the population) claims that society is oppressing him, I'll say, "What? Who's oppressing you?" and then probably laugh and ask just how he is being oppressed.
While it's not something I'd really throw much of a hissy fit over, I DO think there is a very subtle form of, not oppression, but acceptable prejudice against white guys in society. It's not something that would keep them from voting, or getting jobs or pay raises or any of the things groups traditionally complain about. But I think white males are maybe the one group in society that it's pretty much 100% okay to beat up on. Television is full of stupid white guys. I've seen several times during the current election the candidates on all sides have pandered to women and minorities, and the few times commentators have said "well, what about white men?" or "this election might come down to white men as a swing vote" they've almost been laughed out of the room.
Like I said, nothing to really get up in arms about, but there IS a backlash in society against white men. But is has more to do to with perception, stereotypes and image. I don't think I'm old enough yet to really be harmed by it, as it seems mostly aimed at middle aged men, but it's pretty easy to see.
I knjow that has absolutely no bearing on the current discussion, but I think it should be noted.
posted
As of 2005, the median income for Americans over 25 in the work force was $32,140/year. The median income for non-Hispanic white males over 25 in the work force was $42,399/year.
The median working black man over 25 earned only $30,539/year and the median working woman (all races) earned only $26,661/year.
So the median white man in America earns 32% more than the average American (which includes the white men), 59% more than women and 39% more than black men. The disparity is even greater if you look at average income instead of the median because the white men are seriously over represented in the highest paying jobs.
The US Senate is currently 82% white males (compared to ~37.5% in the general population), 1 % black, 1 % asian and 16 % women.
I think that for a 59% pay raise and more than double the chance of gaining real power, I'd be willing to let them make jokes about me.
Some white men are just whiners.
[ April 03, 2008, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Obama outraised Clinton 2 to 1 in March, $40 million to $20 million, bringing is 2008 total thus far to $131 million to Clinton's $70 million. McCain's March numbers are unavailable, but it is believed his January and February fundraising combined only totaled $23 million.
Many of Clinton's backers, including the Governor of New Jersey and senator Maria Cantrell are saying that if Clinton does not win the popular vote they will very seriously consider moving their support to Obama, but haven't made a decision yet. This echoes the feeling that many superdelegates have about the winner of the popular vote getting the superdelegate votes.
posted
I'm sorry Lyrhawn, I wasn't so much responding to you as I was to white men I have previously heard whine about how oppressed they are.
Yes, white men are the butt of a lot of jokes, but being the butt of jokes when you are more prosperous and powerful than the average person is very different than being the butt of jokes when you poor and disenfranchised.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, how is what I'm talking about silly? I never said white men were oppressed. I've said that we shouldn't be judged on our skin color.
It might be silly because it's so obvious, but considering you're dodging, maybe you don't get it. I think it's important to eradicate prejudice against all races, colors, creeds. That includes middle-aged white men, black people, hispanics and everything inbetween. The idea that anyone should be shut down in a conversation based on their skin color should be appalling to you. Or maybe you think that's a silly idea.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
ABC is taking a cautious approach to the story, but the Tallahassee Democrat had a big story about how Florida's delegates are going to be seated after all.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I saw that story yesterday. The important bit is this:
quote:If Florida's delegates are approved to participate in the convention, then the two candidates, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, will have to come to an agreement on just how the delegation will be seated.
Somehow I don't see that happening any time soon.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because all white males are rich and don't get persecuted.
Of course not, Launchywiggin. But to claim or hint at victim status as a white Christian guy is just absurd in the United States. But it's not an uncommon claim from the religious and social right.
No, it's not uncommon. From anyone. It's "cool" right now to be the poor oppressed people deserve affirmative action. I've heard it everywhere. Christians, Jews, Muslims, blacks, whites, Hispanics, atheists, young people, old people, gays, straits, all have members that claim that their group is the most loathed minority in modern culture.
People have problems. And one of their problems is in blaming it on something they have no control over to gain sympathy.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'm sorry Lyrhawn, I wasn't so much responding to you as I was to white men I have previously heard whine about how oppressed they are.
Yes, white men are the butt of a lot of jokes, but being the butt of jokes when you are more prosperous and powerful than the average person is very different than being the butt of jokes when you poor and disenfranchised.
Thanks for the clarification Rabbit. Like I said before, it's not something I'd get up in arms about, it's just something I'd like noted. There are a lot of other much bigger substantive issues that need to be addressed first.
On Florida -
Isn't going to happen. Clinton will try to make hay out of it for the next few weeks, or God forbid, months, but it's unlikely that Obama will budge. Pisses me off a bit that the focus is on Florida and there isn't equal consideration given to Michigan. It's unlike that the Democratic candidate will win the election without us, it's only happened once in the last 100 years, and there are some seriously pissed people here.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't speak for anyone else, but, I blame Howard Dean.
Not many here really know who to blame I think, people are aware, but, not hyper aware to the point of understanding how the move and Howard Dean and the DNC, and the primary process in general all fit together to figure out how it all came about.
posted
I think by hook or by crook half the delegates from Michigan and Florida will be seated, the threat of putting either state of reach for democrats in the general election will be enough to motivate the DNC/Obama/Clinton to come to some kind of accord. The sticky bit is the 40% uncommitted, you can't just assume all of those were for Obama, but all of them were explicitly not for Clinton (when there's only two options it's pretty clear which one is which, in favor of Clinton or not). Some sort of system needs to be set up that allocates the uncommitted delegates in a manner that is not controlled by Clinton or Obama supporters by the Michigan democratic party leaders. Florida is fairly easy to allocate, half of what each won. it gives an unfair advantage to Clinton, but it's better than no representation, even if no representation is the right position to take, it's not the politically feasible one.
I've said this before, since before super tuesday or the michigan/florida elections. If Clinton winds up winning the primary because she broke DNC rules and left her name on the ballots, I'll vote third party in the general. The funny thing is, until about mid january I was a pretty vocal Clinton defender and supporter, and I liked Obama equally, if perhaps a little less. This campaign has definitively revealed who is more trustworthy, who has better leadership skills, who has more skill as a politician, and who has the best judgement. The only good judgement Clinton has shown was in the politically savvy move of not removing her name from the ballots of Michigan and Florida. She's been so thoroughly discredited in comparison with Obama that I can't bring myself to support her. I'd almost be inclined to vote McCain, but I won't do that, he's been revealed as a fake-moderate over the last eight years.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't judge someone based on the color of their skin, but I would judge someone based on playing the race card, whatever that race happens to be.
I bring up my race from time to time, and I expect to be judged on it when I do.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
He wasn't acting in his capacity as a member of Clinton's campaign, of course, and there's nothing wrong with what he was doing at all, but it certainly isn't going to help her in the upcoming primary that her chief strategist is a lobbiest with an agency that's been hired by the Colombian government to promote free trade.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, but one can assume 45% of the votes were cast specificly against Clinton. And that the 45% represented only a fraction of those who would have voted antiClinton had other major candidates been on the ballot.
One can also assume that Granholm&Gang rigged the primary to favor Clinton, and have been actively opposing all attempts to hold a fair revote, despite the fact that the "election" was illegal. Not merely breaking Democratic rules, but breaking the Law of the Land. ie Michigan cannot hold a similar primary in 2012 because the bill which enabled the 2008 primary has been voided. That being so, there is no way to seat Michigan's superdelegates without encouraging similar ballot rigging in the future.
posted
There may be ways to seat delegates from Florida and Michigan, just no fair ways to determine who those delegates are based on the results of the illegal election.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Blaming Dean is like blaming the umpire for calling a walk cuz the pitcher beanballed the hitter. MLB owners decide the rules of baseball, the umpires merely enforce them.
For self-aggrandizement, Granholm&Gang deliberately smacked Michigan's Democrat-leaning voters upside the head with a fastball, and are now claiming that they've been fouled cuz the DNC won't change the rules of the game. The DNC acting on behalf of Democratic officeholders and voters sets the rules, the CredentialsCommittee enforces them. So Dean is closer to an announcer saying that the umpire will call a walk on the beanball.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
