posted
I checked the website when I saw the post and did not see the story. They didn't have it until nearly fifteen minutes after your post, and a minute or two after his (take a look at the timestamp, which was 44 minutes when I started this post, putting the time posted on site at about 5:23 or 5:24).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
He is a divider, at a time when we need exactly the opposite. But at least I can see where he got his ideas.
The US government has experimented on African-Americans before. The Tuskegee experiments where blacks were unknowingly allowed to live with syphillis so researchers could test different treatments -- without consent -- didn't end until 1972 and then only because it came out in the press.
And the US government has shamefully dragged its feet on AIDS treatment.
Rev. Wright can be an egotistical rabble rouser. And I don't think he's right about the origin of HIV. And I think he's going to continue to be Obama's biggest liability, not because of their previous association but because he seems determined to use his newfound publicity to blow his friend's chances at the White House.
But I can see where he came from.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly, Chris. It is much more complicated than just writing him off as hateful and crazy.
And honestly, I think the more "out there" stuff is not who he has been until recently. Several ministers and theologians that I know personally and respect who have known him for a long time are puzzled by his recent behaviour. He has honorary doctorates from several respected institutions - Northwestern was about to give him one. I am reasonaly sure that he has been invited to preach at our very, very white catholic parish and I know for certain that other pastors from Trinity have.
People wonder why Senator Obama could have been sitting in the pews listening to this man "for twenty years". I don't think that he has been like this for twenty years.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu, they re-timestamp their stories all day as they update. If you look back through the ticker you'll see the entry with my quoted numbers was posted at 2:37 PM ET, and the first returns posted at 10:40 AM ET The timestamp you are referring to is for the updated story.
Added: As well as change what the featured stories are. It was one of them when I posted, and I had read it earlier.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just know I looked not long after your post and didn't see it on the front page (including under the politics sub-header).
edit: and assumed you had seen it on-air, and thus it would be on the site shortly, which it was after I waited. It only became somewhat relevant with this.
edit again: and he didn't think you were lying, he thought you were making a joke about how the media is covering primaries this election cycle that one never would have dreamed they'd have reason to cover. (edit once more: or at least so I interpreted it)
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, no. I don't have broadcast TV, much less cable. I believe you that it wasn't a featured story when you checked, but the fact that Guam was voting and info on when the results would come in has been on the front page most of yesterday and today. I'm surprised it wasn't still on the politics sub-header when it was off the front page.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Okay, that's really, really annoying. They don't have a story about it (that I can find) and they don't have it under the election center (that's just states) they just have a banner above the top announcing in huge letters that he won by 7 votes. Out of how many? What percentage of the vote is that?
Edit: Okay found the story now. I guess it is a fairly big deal, 7 votes out of 5000. What was more telling to me though was the fact that only 5000 people voted out of 50,000 registered voters on the island, only 10% of the island. That's gotta be one of the lower turnouts we've seen so far...
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: No, he's not.
He is a divider, at a time when we need exactly the opposite. But at least I can see where he got his ideas.
The US government has experimented on African-Americans before. The Tuskegee experiments where blacks were unknowingly allowed to live with syphillis so researchers could test different treatments -- without consent -- didn't end until 1972 and then only because it came out in the press.
And the US government has shamefully dragged its feet on AIDS treatment.
Rev. Wright can be an egotistical rabble rouser. And I don't think he's right about the origin of HIV. And I think he's going to continue to be Obama's biggest liability, not because of their previous association but because he seems determined to use his newfound publicity to blow his friend's chances at the White House.
But I can see where he came from.
Just curious but, in what way has the US gov dragged their feet on AIDS treatment? First off, it's not the government's job to cure disease. Yeah they direct research funds, but there are plenty of diseases angling for a piece of the R&D pie, and there's never too much money to pass around. HIV/AIDS has gone from a death sentence to a chronic (albeit expensive) treatable disease in the last 20 years. Maybe that's part of why there hasn't been as much attention paid to it lately, or as South Park said, it was "the disease of the 90's."
If you mean domestically, I don't know what you'd expect the US government to do for AIDS sufferers over and above what they may or may not get. I don't see why AIDS sufferers should get special help from the government when sufferers of cancer and many other fatal illnesses get no such favortism.
If you mean internationally, you may want to recheck some facts. I think in the years to come we'll hear more about it, but for now it's sort of a hidden success story, but the Bush Administration has been a bit of a boon to Africa in the last few years. He's pushed through a lot of dollars to fight poverty and especially to fight disease, it's why they wave American flags and wear, I swear to God, Bush t-shirts over there rather gleefully. They aren't by any means doing nothing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On rev. wright: A few years ago, my grandmother made a racist statement. My mother sat there in absolute shock at how the woman who raised her, who always taught her to not judge by race and to treat everyone fairly could possibly make that statement. My grandmother has since made equally questionable statements. Considering hwo she behaved even ten years ago, it doesn't make any sense. I can not believe that this is who she really is and it is just now coming out. Most people who knew her in the past believe it is just that she is getting old. Of course, now that she rarely calls people by the right name anymore, this has become even more believable. Scientists have done studies showing that old people have trouble filtering what they say. I guess watching my grandmother change and become less then she was, I am willing to accept that these statements by wright may not be who wright was 20 years ago, or even 2 years ago.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wright is 66, unless we are talking about early onset Alzheimer's, I'm going to assume he simply means what he says.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, America has done plenty and right now funding here isn't bad. But we were a slow starter.
It is not the government's job to cure disease. It is absolutely the government's job to promote awareness of a disease, especially one that a) has such devastating effects and b) is so easily avoided. Silence in this matter killed people, and our government was too quiet for too long.
It isn't true that Reagan never mentioned AIDS until after thousands had already died, or that federal funding wasn't provided for research and prevention, as many have said, but it isn't too far from the truth either. AIDS was downplayed. Reagan's surgeon general's requests for more attention to AIDS were ignored, and for years his other top advisors continued to categorize it as a gay disease. Pat Buchanan, Reagan's communications director, said AIDS was "nature's revenge on gay men." Reagan himself was quoted by his official biographer Edmund Morris as saying, "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague" because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."
Some funding was given. But little attention was drawn to it for far too long. The Great Communicator could have told people about it, advised safe sex or abstinence to prevent it, urged people to get tested, but he (and, frankly, virtually every other politician at the time) apparently just hoped it would go away. By the time funding did increase and people began learning how to prevent the spread and measures were discovered to make it manageable -- sometimes -- thousands suffered who perhaps wouldn't have had to.
President Bush has indeed called for increased AIDS funding. Sort of. He originally called for 15 billion over five years but requested only 2 billion the first year and then tried to block Congress when they bumped that up. And the money for that plan, the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), was largely diverted from what we were already sending to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, an organization that already was set up and successful.
Most telling, much of the money came with restrictions. You want US money? You must pledge to condemn prostitution, even if that further stigmatizes AIDS victims and keeps them from coming to you. (Brazil rejected $40 million in AIDS grants from the US because of that) And you must move away from your tried and true methods of abstinence-and-condom education towards abstinence-only programs, because promoting abstinence and monogamy is apparently the only thing that will work in sub-Saharan Africa where three times as many women as men have AIDS due to rapes from "wandering husbands" or from having sex in exchange for food and shelter. Well-established and successful groups that provide condoms, no money for you. Brand new, inexperienced startup groups that are faith based who promise to preach the good word of abstinence to the rape victims, you get grants.
OK, that's me being bitter. Abstinence is surely the best way to avoid AIDS. But demanding that it be the only method taught is irresponsible and dangerous, especially in Africa's situation, and apparently that's all we'll pay for these days.
I do applaud President Bush for making AIDS funding to Africa more public, for raising the funding to 30 billion over five years (even though that's what Congress was going to do anyway) and for getting the G8 to agree to double that. But the way he's going about it is simply not helping as many as it should be.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I know there are significant problems involved. I wasn't aware of some of those specifics with the Congressional wrangling, but I'm not at all surprised. That's the hidden hand of the religious right stepping in to command foreign policy. Apparently their sociologists and doctors in addition to Bible thumpers.
I grew up in the 90's, when awareness was everywhere and it felt like there was a crusade going on. Despite the hiccups and snags, I'm still proud of the effort we've made to help people half a world away for nothing in return.
I'd agree that we could've moved much faster on it when it first started to crop up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I would have liked to see a libertarian president, but I think I'll have to vote for McCain. Obama will probably screw up the economy, but McCain probably won't. He has a good history voting for free-market policies unlike Obama and Clinton. (Just look him up on http://www.freetrade.org/congress). Obama is extreme left, so he probably won't do much to liberalize markets, which will just cause the economy to suffer.
To some of McCain's naysayers that accuse McCain of being a warmongerer, McCain did vote against military involvement in Somalia and Bosnia. He spent several years as a POW in vietnam, which gives him first hand experience with the horrors of war. As a result, he should be the sort of person that would cautiously go to war. I think he said somewhere that he's willing to work with our allies more. Bush's unilateral policy of going to war will probably just alienate our allies hurting our domestic policy possibly with bad trade.
Don't bother trying to discuss with me my opinion, because I probably won't respond.
Posts: 178 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
the invisible hand of the free market when unregulated and without any effort to help those exploited to make the rich richer is not free.
Also I would like to see what evidence yould have that the dems would screw up the economy, as far as I can tell its usually the dems who turn a surplus. McCain by continuing the war in iraq and as such throwing billions of dollars away is what would hurt the economy.
IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, things are better now, but the 1980's were a very bad time.
Irami, so you think Wright was deceiving all the people who are now baffled by his behaviour? Do you think that he intends the damage he is doing? Why?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(This goes back a ways) Thanks for responding, fugu. I think there was significant instability coming from the mortgage related crises this winter as well, so it may well be that market performance and election behavior were both being moved by the economic situation. Still, I think there is a limit to the constant cry that correlation is not causation. We would have to be satisfied with a view of the world where nothing causes anything.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The cry is that correlation does not imply causation. Sometimes correlation is causation, just not nearly as often as it isn't. Also, causation is frequently tangled; there can be causation, without there being much causation from the event of interest. In fact, in such an intertwined society, I would be surprised there were events in the news that didn't influence the stock market . . . but most of those events have infinitesimal effect.
Note that the papers do find an effect, even with daily swings. But it isn't an effect you would notice by looking at the stock market numbers. It is a very small effect, that can only be discovered by looking at lots of events. Remember, the stock market is always moving, frequently by a lot.
There's a statistician I respect a lot who likes to point out something re: social science research. He never makes a type 1 error (claiming two treatments have different effects when they're really the same), because he doesn't study things that don't have effects. He never makes a type 2 error (claiming two treatments have the same effect when they're really different) because he never claims two things have the same effect (see the reason for never making type 1 errors).
The types of errors he makes are type M errors and type S errors. Type M errors are errors in magnitude of the effect, and type S errors are sign errors, reversing the ordering of the effects (saying one treatment has more effect than the other, when really the reverse is true).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Irami, so you think Wright was deceiving all the people who are now baffled by his behaviour?
I think Wright is a duly complicated man, and that many of the people who are baffled by his behavior are baffled because they projected upon Wright a vision that was never adequate to the true man.
quote:Do you think that he intends the damage he is doing? Why?
I think Wright cares more about his own opinions than he does about Obama's campaign. And so do I. The irony of the Obama campaign and the media treating Wright like an uppity Negro who doesn't know his place is outstanding. You think Wright is a firebrand. If Obama himself told me to keep my mouth closed because my beliefs intimidate voting whites, I'd give him the finger and keep speaking the truth.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The truth that the government invented AIDS? The truth that the denomination that has defended Wright is not really his denomination, but that he's part of some underground Black Church, and that he's not allowed to meet without white people overseeing him?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yep, if that's what I believed. It's funny, I saw Colin Powell go in front of the known world and point to tire tracks as proof that Iraq held large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. Tire tracks, man, tire tracks.
Somehow that was taking seriously. Given the Tuskegee trials, and the temperament of the 1980s, I don't think it's beyond reasonable possibility to assume that the US government dragged its feet in the name of scientific or morbid curiosity. If Wright believes that the government had a hand in creating it, I definitely don't think such an accusation out of the possibility of reason. Something gets created in a lab, then starts acting in unpredictable ways. It's a tale as old as Adam. I, personally, think that in the late 70s, a group of high ranking LDS had a conversation that went something like this, "We can't keep locking out these niggers, it's starting to get unseemly."
"Giving them the priesthood is going to offend a lot of the faithful."
"Well, those faithful are going to have to bite the bullet, because we've tried to ride it out this long, Brown v. Board of Education was 25 years ago, and I don't want to spent the next twenty-five years fending off attacks from the mammons calling us racist. Think about the greater good. America needs salvation. Deal?"
posted
In fairness, I don't think the mainstream considers Wright uppity. I think they consider him nuts. It'd be more like asking my buddy Stewart not to go off on one of his conspiracy theory kicks in front of the military people we're chatting with or asking Justin not to launch into an anti-religion rant in front of the pastor.
Some conversations are just rude by definition of who they're had with. Telling white people that you believe they want to kill black people just because is rather rude. Believe it or not, people don't like to be told they were complicit in attempted geneocide, and saying no one wanted to fix AIDS because it only hit blacks, gays, and users is pretty darn close to that.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, ya really need to watch this and this, which is MUCH kinder to Reagan than he deserves. Your statements concerning Dubya's effect upon US medical aid to Africa are misleading toward so close to opposite of the truth that they might as well been written by CarlRove.
And unless Wright was an extraordinary exception amongst preachers, he jumped onto the already popular conspiracy bandwagon after having helped spread AIDS within the black community.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Irami, so you think Wright was deceiving all the people who are now baffled by his behaviour?
I think Wright is a duly complicated man, and that many of the people who are baffled by his behavior are baffled because they projected upon Wright a vision that was never adequate to the true man.
quote:Do you think that he intends the damage he is doing? Why?
I think Wright cares more about his own opinions than he does about Obama's campaign. And so do I. The irony of the Obama campaign and the media treating Wright like an uppity Negro who doesn't know his place is outstanding. You think Wright is a firebrand. If Obama himself told me to keep my mouth closed because my beliefs intimidate voting whites, I'd give him the finger and keep speaking the truth.
So basically just extraordinarily selfish and egotistical then?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that he's taking the massive reach offered by his newfound media attention to do his job. And his job is not to get Obama elected president.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Summary: The group "Women's Voices Women's Vote" has a number of Clinton supporters on its board, and Clinton's campaign manager used to be a member of its leadership team. They have been making robo-calls to NC voters saying that a voter registration packet is going to be delivered to them, despite the fact that the registration deadline is well passed. This may cause confusion as to if the voter is registered or not (and therefore more likely not show up to vote). It appears that the majority of people called are black, and that this has been happening in previous primaries.
Posts: 254 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Lyrhawn, ya really need to watch this and this, which is MUCH kinder to Reagan than he deserves. Your statements concerning Dubya's effect upon US medical aid to Africa are misleading toward so close to opposite of the truth that they might as well been written by CarlRove.
And unless Wright was an extraordinary exception amongst preachers, he jumped onto the already popular conspiracy bandwagon after having helped spread AIDS within the black community.
Just me or does the media of then seem more responsible?
IP: Logged |
If this is accurate, and if Clinton's people are on the board, I want this blasted across every media there is. Backbiting and fearmongering and rumor spreading are par for the course in politics, sadly, and will likely never go away entirely. But this is tampering with the elective process. If the people Hillary Clinton trusts to run her campaign, the people she favors as loyalist, are willing to do this sort of thing I do not want them or her in public office.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And unless Wright was an extraordinary exception amongst preachers, he jumped onto the already popular conspiracy bandwagon after having helped spread AIDS within the black community.
I'm almost afraid to ask, but how did he (or the preachers amongst whom he may or may not have been an extraordinary exception) help spread AIDS, exactly?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I think that he's taking the massive reach offered by his newfound media attention to do his job. And his job is not to get Obama elected president.
His job is self-aggrandizement? He thinks that the lives of the poor would be better with John McCain as president? Or that the war he decries would be ended sooner? That social justice has a better chance if Obama is defeated?
How was he doing his job as a pastor this week? Especially considering that he was particularly damaging to one of his parishioners?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And unless Wright was an extraordinary exception amongst preachers, he jumped onto the already popular conspiracy bandwagon after having helped spread AIDS within the black community.
I'm almost afraid to ask, but how did he (or the preachers amongst whom he may or may not have been an extraordinary exception) help spread AIDS, exactly?
I'm guessing through their moral repression and stigmatization of immorality, as the critics see it?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
His job is to preach what he believes to as many people as possible. He's doing his job as he sees it. What he's not doing, in my opinion, is helping his flock by doing it.
Wright's style of preaching is threatened by Obama's all-inclusive, let's work together style of governing. While he has done many good things with his church, much of Wright's message depends on fear and ridicule and anger, and his message of the black man being kept down will be considerably lessened if one of his own parishioners is the President of the United States. I don't know that he is intentionally cutting Obama's legs out from under him, but I do think he is being incredibly short-sighted and egotistical.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But that hasn't been his message until fairly recently. Everyone that I know who knows this man has said that this has not been his message. His church has good relationships with several white congregations, including my own. So either he has been hiding this hatefulness and fooling a lot of very bright people for quite some time or it is new or at least newly grown to this level of crazy.
And he is not - or at least has not been - a stupid man. Nor a man who has done things unintentionaly. He went so far as to insinuate that Obama was a liar. He must know how damaging this is - or he is losing it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Your statements concerning Dubya's effect upon US medical aid to Africa are misleading toward so close to opposite of the truth that they might as well been written by CarlRove.
That's not what I've read.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: But that hasn't been his message until fairly recently.
Wright's own defense against the YouTube clips were that that they were from sermons from several years ago. The three most famous quotes were (again, according to Wright) from sermons that were 15, 8 and 7 years ago, respectively. I don't think his rhetoric has suddenly changed. Perhaps he's become more vocal or less restrained, but it seems that he's at least occasionally used this rhetoric over the course of his twenty-year relationship with Obama.
<edit>I briefly wrote, and then deleted, a post responding to Irami's belief about the 1978 LDS revelation on the Priesthood. I deleted it b/c I felt it was written in a bad spirit and was harsher than it needed to be.</edit>
quote:SIX days ahead of the North Carolina primary comes a story of real sleaze—not Jeremiah Wright-style buffoonery, but Nixon-style illegality designed to dupe and disenfranchise voters—that should surprise precisely nobody who has been following and covering this campaign. A group called Women's Voices Women's Vote (WVWV), which claims to have been "created to activate unmarried Americans in their government and in our democracy" has been placing robocalls to voters across North Carolina that seem designed to fool them into thinking they have not yet registered to vote. Many of the voters who received those calls are black. Voters in 11 states have complained about similarly deceptive calls and mailings that have been traced back to WVWV this primary season.
Guess which Democratic candidate WVWV's founder and president, Page Gardner, has donated $6,700 to (hint: it's not Barack Obama). Guess whose election campaign Joe Goode, WVWV's executive director, worked for (hint: it was in 1992, and it was a winning campaign). Guess whose chief of staff sits on WVWV's board of directors (hint: it was the president who served between two Bushes). And guess whose campaign manager was a member of WVWV's leadership team (hint: it's Hillary Clinton).
That really does deserve to be blasted all over the airwaves...
If people want to achieve that blasting we should e-mail that story into the tip lines of the various new sources. If enough people do it it'll hopefully catch their attention.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
BTW, it looks like the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP is going after the "Women's Voices Women's Vote" group - calling for an investigation:
quote:RALEIGH - The N.C. NAACP sent a complaint Saturday to the state Justice Department requesting an aggressive investigation into recent automated calls it suspects were meant to confuse voters and suppress the black vote. A group identified as Women's Voices Women Vote has said it was behind the calls made to voters in North Carolina that provided misinformation about voter registration.
The calls told voters to expect a "voter registration packet" in the mail, though the calls were made after April 11 -- the registration deadline in North Carolina.
So it's making its way with mainstream NC media - be nice if this filtered up to national mainstream media.
Posts: 4344 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that's not the point here -- and frankly, I don't really care who has been ahead or behind in polls. What's notable -- and disturbing -- is that Hillary Clinton feels the need to lie in very obvious fashion, as if everyone is just too stupid to look up the easily verifiable facts. I'm going to capitalize this and boldface it for emphasis: SHE HAS BEEN EITHER AHEAD OR AT THE MARGIN OF ERROR IN EVERY SINGLE MAJOR POLL* DONE IN INDIANA, YET IS CLAIMING WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THAT "WE CAME FROM SO FAR BEHIND IN INDIANA."
This is not normal human behavior -- not by a long shot. It's actually rather scary, and it gets to a deeper issue -- the issue of trust. Why does Clinton feel the need to lie in the face of verifiable facts? She did it with NAFTA, she did it with Bosnia and now she's doing it with polling numbers. I just don't get this - and I say that not as a "Hillary hater" but as an honest declaration of frustration. Her behavior tells me she's either so arrogant that she's fine with insulting the public's intelligence with such in-your-face lying, or she's a pathological liar that has gotten so used to lying that she doesn't even know she's doing it anymore.
It's gotten some mainstream media attention, but they seem to have written it off o_O
quote:But for all the paid and unpaid talent associated with the group, which focuses on registering unmarried women to vote, it's landed in legal hot water in North Carolina for robo-calling voters after the primary registration date and for not identifying the group in the call.
Voters and watchdog groups complained about the calls, and North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper ordered them to stop on Wednesday. Some saw a turnout-suppression conspiracy because the group's allies include so many Clinton supporters, especially Podesta and Williams.
quote:Although the calls have stopped, the group is chasing down postal trucks to withdraw the mailers from circulation. Inside the organization, there is plenty of finger-pointing about who's to blame -- but by the end of the week, even some of the bloggers who had raised the specter of a Clinton conspiracy seemed to accept that shoddy management, despite all that talent, was the more likely culprit.
Heh, why do I feel that if this was Obama, it'd be all over the place? Yet because it's Clinton and we expect sleaze from Clinton, they're just shrugging their shoulders and going 'eh'.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is just part of the excellent executive experience Senator Clinton is ready to bring to the White House on day one.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Her recent speeches and ads on the gas tax holiday have me seething.
She isn't arguing on the merits, she's arguing on fear mongering. Obama was right, this IS right out of Karl Rove's playbook.
If she wins, I just might not vote in November. I won't support McCain, but my ability to just vote for the Democrat is rapidly disappearing. I HATE the idea of not voting. But I don't know if supporting her is something I'll be able to justify. She's playing the kind of politics I HATE. I think it'll be perfect for beating McCain, she can throw an elbow with the best of them. But all it proves to me is how bad a person she is, and how much better Obama is that he at least tries to rise above those kinds of politics. He might lose in November, and before I might have argued that winning with bad politics was better than losing an honestly fought race so long as we won, but, I don't think that now. I'd rather he run the way he wants to run and lose than run HER way and win.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to be voting for Obama in November. If that's as a write-in candidate, fine. I cannot in good conscious vote for Clinton, and I don't think she would have managed to hang on this long without a whole heck of a lot of back-room support, and I want the DNC to know that it is -not- politics as usual, and as long as they keep running races like it is they will not have my support.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
::shrug:: Didn't start with him, won't end with him, but he's been the guy most famous for promoting that kind of politics recently. You don't have to write the playbook to use the playbook. Though Rove has been very good at adapting old fear mongering tactics for a new generation.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
