Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Sucker them with "race" and "history" as if the mainstream media gives a damn about anything other than selling us a war that we don't need and cannot afford.
Go ahead and vote for war and pretend that you are honoring Dr. King because the news media says it's history so lets make history and screw the fact that we are all getting screwed by the war industry.
Get ready to send your sons and daughters to Pakistan to fight another phony war and bankrupt our nation even further. They can't wait for us to get nuked by some ticked off amateurs because America is just a season of "24" to these morons. Except there are no Jack Bauers.
Only YOU can save us, our glorious Leader! Oh living God, we worship at your feet. And you're CUTE!
don't vote anyway. Because they are such priggish little purists--have to have a SAINT or won't pull the lever--they either sit at home or vote for some boutique fringe candidate. Probably most of them are very young and are clearly quite naive (or, as they would put it, "idealistic"). Obama is foolish to bank on these starry-eyed losers carrying him to the nomination or the White House--as his stunning, momentum-stopping loss in New Hampshire proves.
If he can't come up with bread-and-butter policies to appeal to core Democratic constituencies who *do* vote--women, older voters, blue-collar voters, Latinos--then he is doomed. He is losing those groups by double digits to Hillary. But he *can* do damage to the Dem nominee by suggesting, as his surrogates have apparently started to do, that race must be the only reason for his loss since such rumors likely *will* damp down African-American turn-out in the general election. He is obviously power-obsessed and egotistical enough not to care. I think that's the real story here: Obama is so fundamentally immature and self-absorbed that he'd gladly sabotage the Dem nominee with black voters if it can't be him. And then we get 4-to-8 more years of a Justice Department Civil Rights division that doesn't believe racial discrimination exists (unless it's directed at whites).
All these so-called Obama supporters on this site (and others) are probably just young white kids who won't vote anyway, never do. They can safely be ignored. The election won't hinge on their support. And I would guess half of them are Republican concern trolls anyway, especially the virulent Hillary-haters trying to warn us what a disaster it would be to nominate her. I shudder to think that they really *mean* this demented, robotic hero-worship they're spouting about Obama because, if so, it has cult-like dimensions.
I suppose it would be too much to expect that we could get over selection by identity? After all, that's how we got George W. Bush, and that's worked out SO well, hasn't it? There are other choices. Some of them do not appear to be wholly owned subsidiaries of corporate America. I propose to vote for somebody who appears to at least consider my interests, even if I have to write them in.
There has been a lot of depressing blather in the letters. A number have suggested that if the Democratic Party (owned by the same lot that owns the Republican Party, BTW) nominates HRC, we MUST vote for her or we deserve Republican rule. What nonsense. If the Dems won't give us a candidate that supports our interests, then the Democratic Party isn't supporting our interests and we need a new party. One that does, perhaps. Wouldn't that be novel?
One blockhead suggests that HRCs divisiveness is a "myth". Sure. It's a myth, like the myth that the earth is round. Actually, it's an oblate spheroid. He says, Fact is: HRC's really popular, no more negatives than anyone else. Yeah well, Fact is: blue is really green. Well, yeah, they're different primary colors, but FUNCTIONALLY, they're pretty much the same. Yeah, that's the ticket.
If you vote for the least noxious media selected corporate creation because you are told to by people who are owned by corporate America, then and only then, do you actually deserve to have a bad leader. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
You said: "There has been a lot of depressing blather in the letters. A number have suggested that if the Democratic Party (owned by the same lot that owns the Republican Party, BTW) nominates HRC, we MUST vote for her or we deserve Republican rule. What nonsense. If the Dems won't give us a candidate that supports our interests, then the Democratic Party isn't supporting our interests and we need a new party. One that does, perhaps. Wouldn't that be novel?"
Yes, and if we could eat with our feet we wouldn't need hands. When will you be starting up your new party, hm? Blather (er, talk) is cheap.
As a white female in the Sen. Clinton demographic, a liberal Democrat living in (shock) South Carolina, I've received mailers from the John Edwards campaign (positive, sticking to his messages, no attack dog language) and Barack Obama (negative robo calls attacking Hillary, mailers that say he won't be attacking as he accuses the Clintons of doing, but then he proceeds to do so) -- and haven't received a single mailer or call from the Clinton campaign. Not that any of these mailers or calls would persuade me one way or the other, frankly -- it's just interesting as additional support for the signs and portents of Clinton expectations in the South Carolina vote.
I appreciate the fact that each candidate brings different lifetime experiences to the campaign and to a possible presidency. In other words, I would very proudly and confidently vote for Sen. Obama, Mr. Edwards or Sen. Clinton, but I'm leaning toward Sen. Clinton not because she's a woman but because she has exhibited great leadership in human rights, children's issues, education -- and she's tough enough to figure out a way to get us out of the Bush quagmire in the Middle East. I think she's learned in the past 7 years as a senator what she needs to do to get universal health care passed. I do wish she'd muzzle her husband, and I wonder what she's going to do when he thinks he's co-president and proceeds to make foreign policy (as Jimmy Carter has been accused of doing.)
Please don't assume that a vote in South Carolina that is not for Sen. Obama is necessarily racist. Having also lived in the Midwest and in Pennsylvania, I can assure you that the national media can find just as many toothless, illiterate racists in dives flying the so-called Confederate flag in those locales as they find here. But even in South Carolina, most of us have all of our teeth, wear shoes, and generally are open and well-meaning toward all people. Let's stay focused on the big picture in this campaign, no matter who the ultimate candidate is. Frankly, I'd be very happy to see eight years of President Hillary Clinton, then eight years of President Barack Obama, and then maybe we'd need a moderate, Republican candidate to bring us back from any excesses we Democrats have instilled. I think that's about right to keep the country in balance. Two Democratic administrations for every one Republican?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
Salon headlines in your mailbox
