quote:One of my biggest complaints about the current administration is that it has favored loyalty and ideology over expertise and experience in its appointments.
Believe me, this was a huge complaint about Clinton, except without the ideology. Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, this is going to sound very mean to Clinton, but I have been feeling like Clinton is just a liberal Bush. This view comes from the choices she has made in terms of hiring for her campaign, her accusations of treachery when people disagree with her, her response to the claim that the tax holiday will do no good and potentially harm, etc.
I also am getting annoyed with a lot of the claims that America is proving that they aren't ready for a female president. I think Clinton is simply the wrong female. She came with a lot of baggage, with a lot of people predisposed to hate her. She made numerous mistakes in her campaign. When I voted, it wasn't do I want a woman president, it was who do I think is a better leader. I did not vote against women- I voted against a very specific woman.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am also annoyed with all the cries of sexism being the reason she lost. It wasn't her femaleness that made her lose my vote - I would be thrilled to vote for a woman I admired. It was her baggage, her attitude, and her behavior.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, though a friend of mine back in December chose to phrase it "America isn't ready" which I thought was very odd. I mean, I assume she's a Republican, so I don't know why she wouldn't simply say "I don't like Hillary Clinton, personally or politically, and I would never vote for her."
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with scholarette, not necessarily that she's a liberal Bush, but in her reasons for not supporting or voting for her.
She dug her own grave, she can't blame anyone for it. This election was hers to lose. I know that sounds unfair in a way but seriously, she had the money, she had the machinery, she had everything going for her. She didn't lose this election because of her policies, which mostly mirror Obama's, she lost this election because of the way she ran it. And when it comes to that, you look at the guy in charge of the campaign, and ultimately it's the candidate. She hired the wrong people, said the wrong things, did the wrong things, made bad mistakes and in general ran a bad campaign. That Obama came from nothing and very little name recognition (and what a name to recognize) to surge ahead of one of the most recognizable names in the United States at the moment is an amazing sign of the disparity in their campaign styles.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No comments since yesterday afternoon. It was hard to follow, though, with polls closing at 11 our time for Oregon.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:This election was hers to lose. I know that sounds unfair in a way but seriously, she had the money, she had the machinery, she had everything going for her.
She has a large swath of the middle of the country that projects all of their virtues and fears on the Clintons. People look at her and see their best and worst possible selves. I don't think this was her election to lose. I do think that McCain will win the general in a walk, mostly because Bush set the bar so low for Republicans in '04 that McCain seems like a rightish compromise between Bush and Obama. You can't run negative on McCain. Thinking people won't buy it, and the unthinking people are already voting for him. McCain just has to get the message across, "I'm like Bush, but better. There aren't going to be any surprises. I'm too old to rock your world. But I'll be better. The dollar will be a bit stronger. And we won't be as dependent upon oil." McCain doesn't need to be a revolutionary. This isn't Kennedy against Nixon. Nixon was a known slime ball way before Watergate, and McCain's is a war hero with reasonably spotty record that he doesn't hide behind. As white guys go, McCain isn't ruthless or a baffoon. After 8 years of the current administration, that's enough for 53 percent of the voters and the Presidency.
As far as VPs go, I do have a weakness for Blanche Lincoln, but her name doesn't come up as much as it should. She is right of me, but so is most of America, and I've a hard time holding it against her.
It seems to be after yesterday's primaries and if you read the footnotes, the only way Clinton is leading the popular vote is if you count Michigan and Florida's votes for her, and don't count Michigan's uncommitted votes at all. So she gets 300,000 votes from Michigan and Obama gets none.
That's a pretty damned dishonest way of counting the votes, but I have come to expect as much from her.
Edit: If you count the Uncommitted votes as votes for Obama, he is ahead in the popular vote. By 50,000 votes. But those votes were split between Obama and Edwards really and some Obama and Edwards supporters didn't even vote, so it's hard to count them either way.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Clinton's claim that she is winning the popular vote is predicated on a tally of the popular vote that does not include any state that only held a caucus.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong:
quote:This election was hers to lose. I know that sounds unfair in a way but seriously, she had the money, she had the machinery, she had everything going for her.
She has a large swath of the middle of the country that projects all of their virtues and fears on the Clintons. People look at her and see their best and worst possible selves. I don't think this was her election to lose. I do think that McCain will win the general in a walk, mostly because Bush set the bar so low for Republicans in '04 that McCain seems like a rightish compromise between Bush and Obama. You can't run negative on McCain. Thinking people won't buy it, and the unthinking people are already voting for him. McCain just has to get the message across, "I'm like Bush, but better. There aren't going to be any surprises. I'm too old to rock your world. But I'll be better. The dollar will be a bit stronger. And we won't be as dependent upon oil." McCain doesn't need to be a revolutionary. This isn't Kennedy against Nixon. Nixon was a known slime ball way before Watergate, and McCain's is a war hero with reasonably spotty record that he doesn't hide behind. As white guys go, McCain isn't ruthless or a baffoon. After 8 years of the current administration, that's enough for 53 percent of the voters and the Presidency.
As far as VPs go, I do have a weakness for Blanche Lincoln, but her name doesn't come up as much as it should. She is right of me, but so is most of America, and I've a hard time holding it against her.
I can run plenty of negatives on McCain, he calls the Vietnamese gooks in public thats enough for me to think he shouldn't be 100 feet from the White House.
IP: Logged |
posted
No he doesn't, Blayne. For the first part, he was never talking about the Vietnamese people as a whole, but rather the specific people who imprisioned and tortured him for years. For the second, he's conceded that he will not be doing than any more.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Irami, I know you really, really don't want a black person to become President, but, even so, I think you should rethink the way you see McCain and the current political environment.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: No he doesn't, Blayne. For the first part, he was never talking about the Vietnamese people as a whole, but rather the specific people who imprisioned and tortured him for years. For the second, he's conceded that he will not be doing than any more.
Now that's bull. "The people who imprisoned him" just happen to be the current government of Vietnam.
IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're misunderstanding. He means the very specific people who imprisoned and tortured him, and he'd probably have mentioned if he noticed any of them holding a gov't office in Vietnam.
And most of those who were higher ups involved in ordering the establishment of the camp he was in or the like will be dead or approaching the state.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In my book, you get a special dispensation with respect to racial slurs after being a POW for five years and tortured. It's not optimal, but if that's the worst of his baggage after the torture, then I'm okay with it.
quote:I know you really, really don't want a black person to become President, but, even so, I think you should rethink the way you see McCain and the current political environment.
I'd like a black person to become President, but come on, Stevenson in '52 and '56, McGovern in '72, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, and let's not forget Kerry losing to Bush in '04, and the simple fact that Obama got killed, killed in Kentucky. Democrats lose, often and sometimes by a landslide. The last time I checked, America is more than just the West Coast, college towns and black people. For me, being an American means what I want and don't want doesn't matter at a federal level.
posted
Let me put it this way, its like as if someone got robbed by some black people and he just happened to call the thieves who stole his stuff "niggers", but I guess that's okay in your book right he's only talking about the few select people in particular who stole from him right?
IP: Logged |
posted
No, it is not like that. Being held in abject captivity and tortured is not like being robbed. It is a horrific experience.
Not to mention, he was part of an organization (the military) where using such terms to refer to the enemy was not just tolerated, but encouraged. His use of the term for those who held him captive is, if unfortunate, understandable and human, and not something he does any more.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: In my book, you get a special dispensation with respect to racial slurs after being a POW for five years and tortured. It's not optimal, but if that's the worst of his baggage after the torture, then I'm okay with it.
Yes, I also give special dispensation for such a background but I also think the President of the our country, whose job it is to be our chief diplomat and liaison to the world, must be held to a higher standard on such matters. I don't want someone who thinks its OK to publicly call any North Korean a "gook", representing my country as our leader -- no matter why he uses that word.
When you use a racial slur to describe an individual who commits a crime, it necessarily implies that you feel that race is somehow connected to that behavior. McCain's explanation that he was only using the racial slur toward people who actually imprisoned and tortured him is a poor excuse. If he doesn't feel their behavior was somehow connected to their race why is he choosing a racially motivated slur rather and a racial neutral one?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
He doesn't think it okay, he previously thought it was okay. And he only thought it okay for specific North Koreans who demonstrated by their actions that they were vile, contemptible people deserving of a death sentence (if anyone is).
And I think you demand too much logic out of an emotional reaction to extreme and prolonged trauma.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
In other news, both Obama and Clinton supporters in Kentucky and elsewhere think that Sen Clinton is making unfair attacks on Sen Obama (from CNN).
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
it were Vietnamese not Koreans.
IP: Logged |
I don't agree about Clinton, and I think you're WAY off on McCain's chances of winning. "Bush but better" isn't going to appeal to a lot of people who think Bush is a disaster. "I'm a little less disastrous than the status quo," isn't an awesome selling point. There's a lot to attack about him, from his blustery Bush-like foreign policy to his bad domestic policy. Obama will have plenty to work with, a legion of Democratic foot soliders to do local work and tons of cash to run ads and keep his grass roots machinery well funded. Plus he already has operations in pretty much every state, whereas McCain is only just getting his fundraising going.
I don't think it's anyone's race to lose, but Obama has more arrows in his quiver than most people give him credit for, and McCain isn't a fluffy teddy bear, he has a lot of negatives that can be exploited.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No, it is not like that. Being held in abject captivity and tortured is not like being robbed. It is a horrific experience.
Then would you consider it acceptable for someone to use the term "nigger" to describe a black man who had raped and beaten them. Or is that not sufficiently horrific either. Where do you draw the line.
quote:Not to mention, he was part of an organization (the military) where using such terms to refer to the enemy was not just tolerated, but encouraged. His use of the term for those who held him captive is, if unfortunate, understandable and human.
Like I said, all fine excuses for anyone unless they are asking to become our next President. If someone suffered a serious injury to their foot and managed through hard work to rehabilitate themselves until they were able to run with only a slight limp, I'd consider it inspiring to see that person run. But I wouldn't select them to represent my country on the Olympic team unless they could actually run faster than all other Americans.
There are times when you need to evaluate people based solely on their ability to perform without regard to their history. I think running for US President is one of those times.
quote:and not something he does any more.
The fact that he has managed to keep from using the term publicly after he was widely criticized for it and while he his running for President provides little consolation. It is hardly evidence that he no longer harbors racist attitudes toward asians that could interfere with his ability to deal with China and North Korea.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would not consider it acceptable. I would understand, however, if someone who had been raped and beaten by a black man, at a time when it was socially acceptable to call a black man nigger, continued to call that black man nigger for a while.
I also try not to expect a paragon of virtue out of the President, because that's a sure route to disappointment (and eliminating all or nearly all choices). For instance, Obama has a history of referring to women with demeaning diminutives (a history much more recent than McCain's), but I'm willing to contemplate him being President.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I think you demand too much logic out of an emotional reaction to extreme and prolonged trauma.
No, I only demand that much logic out of someone who wants to be the leader of my country.
I think its perfectly understandable and forgivable that people who have gone through extreme prolonged trauma might harbor racist attitudes. I also think that harboring racist attitudes should disqualify one from represent the US and its president, no matter the reason for those attitudes.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, Are you at all considering John McCain's record in regards to actions towards Vietnam and other Asian countries? It would seem to me that that his actions to aid and support these countries would outweigh his at one time word choice in describing the people who tortured him.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people are big racists. It's not the worst thing in the world. Sometimes it manifests in speech, other times in action. Of the Republicans, McCain has the most decent approach to immigration. I'd rather that and the occasional slur, than the apathy with a veneer of posing that counts for racial sensitivity on behalf of the Presidents of the last 30 years.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
His health care plan is total rubbish. I can't support him because of that. It would actually make things worse.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I would not consider it acceptable. I would understand, however, if someone who had been raped and beaten by a black man, at a time when it was socially acceptable to call a black man nigger, continued to call that black man nigger for a while.
30+ years is more than "a while" in my book.
quote:I also try not to expect a paragon of virtue out of the President, because that's a sure route to disappointment
I'm not concerned about virtue, I'm concerned about diplomacy. Diplomacy is after all one of the Presidents primary responsibilities and I find it disturbing that a Presidential candidate would care so little about how his words are perceived by the world. His "gook" comment is only one example of what I consider his lack of diplomacy.
quote: For instance, Obama has a history of referring to women with demeaning diminutives (a history much more recent than McCain's), but I'm willing to contemplate him being President. [/qb]
Also disturbing but in a different way. He doesn't publicly insult people by calling them "b--". I would however be very embarrassed if he called Angela Merckel "sweetie". But probably not as much as I was when Bush tried to give her an unrequested back rub.
[ May 21, 2008, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If we're talking about diplomacy, many of the world's most successfully diplomatic chief executives have been extremely rude people. I think you are not using well-chosen criteria, but are instead relying on a personal mythology about what it means to be an effective diplomat.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if we want to look at results, McCain is well respected by Vietnam and other countries in the region. See MrSquicky's post above for some reasons.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: If we're talking about diplomacy, many of the world's most successfully diplomatic chief executives have been extremely rude people. I think you are not using well-chosen criteria, but are instead relying on a personal mythology about what it means to be an effective diplomat.
Please give some examples?
My concern with diplomacy is very strongly influenced by the damage the Bush administration has done to the American image through out the globe. I think we badly need some one who is able to repair that damage and comments like this from McCain lead me to believe he will make matters worse rather than better.
In general, I guess I see diplomacy differently than many people. I see diplomacy as the art of finding compromises that both sides are able to see as acceptable. It involves being able to empathize with what motivates your enemies rather than villainizing them. I know many people see bullying or bribing people to accept your terms and effective diplomacy. I find it hard to call that diplomacy at all.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't remember whether it's come up here or not, and this certainly isn't new news at this point, but I find myself thinking a fair amount about Obama's successful move to divert left leaning 527s funding to his own campaign coffers in an effort to control the message when he goes up against McCain.
What's his strategy? It's unlikely that McCain will be shamed into doing the same, or even that it would be possible for him to do so. It's also unlikely that Obama is simply trying to elevate political discourse, because he has to know that the attacks from conservative 527s will be coming in fast and low regardless of whether the same is true of liberal 527s. He also knows from experience that the American public can still be influenced by negative political tactics; Clinton has certainly done better than she would have if she hadn't been willing to resort to mudslinging.
He must have something up his sleeve, but I'm not sure yet what it is. I can think of a number of possibilities, but none of them really resonate with me at this point.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I would however be very embarrassed if he called Angela Merckel "sweetie". But probably not as much as I was when Bush tried to give her an unrequested back rub.
Wait, Bush what? I missed this. When did it happen? What were the circumstances?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know how it gets. You're hanging out in the White House hot tub. You've had a couple of glasses of wine...certain ideas just sort of pop into your head. Who wouldn't look at Angela Merckel in that circumstance and not consider titillating her teutonic tectonics?
---
Actually, if I remember right, it was at a G8 conference somewhere in Europe.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I would however be very embarrassed if he called Angela Merckel "sweetie". But probably not as much as I was when Bush tried to give her an unrequested back rub.
Wait, Bush what? I missed this. When did it happen? What were the circumstances?
The G8 summit in Rostock. Here is a link to the video "Bush/Merckel". I was in Germany at the time and this made big news there. I think the look on Merckel's face alone should tell you how appropriate this was.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
woops, It was the WTO meeting that was held in Rostock. That G8 summit was near St. Petersburg.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, can we do anything about the left right scroll situation?
Also, I thought everyone hated Bush because he would never apologize for anything, but no one is willing to accept McCain's apology for "gook" gate.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Ben Franklin was extremely impolite to many people, and also one of our most effective ambassadors. Winston Churchill pulled together one of the most divided alliances in history.
Going down the list of Presidents ranked best at foreign policy by a large number of international relations scholars: http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/3913
FDR, Truman, and Nixon top the list. I'm not seeing any trend towards politeness. Indeed, I'm seeing no particular correlation.
I think you are very wrong about foreign policy. I think that, while compromise is extremely important, an unwillingness to proffer carrots and wield sticks would severely undermine our international effectiveness.
I think that there is a long history showing many regimes can only be dealt with by using that strategy consistently, and that many more regimes often respond better given an accurate assessment of where we draw lines and what we will do for those who do what is in our interests.
I think that there is broad agreement in all governments of the first world that the carrot and the stick are vital tools of foreign policy, even with each other (whaling treaties, anyone?).
I think the issues many countries have with our current President's foreign policy have almost nothing to do with whether or not he employes those practices, but are often with how he does not employ them very well (for lacks of carrots, see NK and Iraq. For lacks of sticks, see Russia).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: That's just horribly embarassing. Wow.
Do you mean me? We can discuss it more after the page turns, I guess, because I'm really not able to follow this page.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I was talking about Bush trying to give Merckel a backrub. The post was started when Rabbit's post about the backrub was the most recent one.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I think you are very wrong about foreign policy. I think that, while compromise is extremely important, an unwillingness to proffer carrots and wield sticks would severely undermine our international effectiveness.
I think you missed the fact that Rabbit was defining diplomacy, not foreign policy. (As well as gving the opinion that we need more diplomacy in our foreign policy, of course.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not think they are very separable. However, many of the people mentioned were successful at both despite being rude people.
Also, Bush is known for being a very (probably overly) friendly diplomat in person. But when we get into the realm where we are talking about the need to compromise, we are talking about foreign policy decisions.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
