Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"the more she and her hired thugs do this, the more it alienates the Democratic base"
Yes, after all, she's only managed to collect half the vote, almost the exact number of voters as Obama. Just look at all that alienation! At some point, Obama people are going to have to face the reality that whether or not he becomes the nominee, almost as many people will have voted for Hillary as for him, against him as for him. And if one considers declared democrats, it may not even be "almost" as many, but it may be more voted for Hillary. So to put a twist on this silly line quoted above: the more Obama supporters dismiss the 50 percent of democrats that voted for Hillary as non-existent, the more they alienate half the democratic base that Obama needs. Hardly a "unifying" stance.
Billcap:
Obama has won ALL of the ten contests since Super Tuesday, by margins ranging from 17 to 82 percentage points. Hillary Clinton is most definitely NOT collecting half the vote, unless you are following Mark Penn in deciding that certain states and demographic segments "don't count."
I understand the disappointment that Clintion supporters must feel about their candidate's failure, but this does not excuse, much less justify, rewriting the laws of mathematics.
Your point is valid to an extent.
The thing is that MAD, generally deals with most other forms of extremist - with the religious extremist, wars become holy wars and Mutually Assured Destruction is less of a deterrent.
Particularly if you have the really, really scary ones - the rapturists. Forget everything about Muslims, in America there is a small group of Christians that actually wants the apocalypse.
Obama is winning amongst those who do not remember how good the Clinton years were. The Clintons are proven.
Obama has YET to say or do anything substantial. Words and charm do not a president make.
"Billcap:
Obama has won ALL of the ten contests since Super Tuesday, by margins ranging from 17 to 82 percentage points. Hillary Clinton is most definitely NOT collecting half the vote, unless you are following Mark Penn in deciding that certain states and demographic segments "don't count.I understand the disappointment that Clintion supporters must feel about their candidate's failure, but this does not excuse, much less justify, rewriting the laws of mathematics."
It has nothing to do with "not counting"--it has to do with couting.Yes, simple math. Unless you want to argue that there are more people in North Dakota than California. He has been winning by big margins in some mid and small states while Hillary has won by small margins in large states. Guess what--that ends up to not that big a difference in total. There have been roughly 20 million votes cast. The difference between the two candidates is less than a million. That's not including Florida or Michigan (if one does include them and gives all uncommitted to Obama, the difference is less than half a million). In either case, that's a rough split of the vote. As I said, if Obama wins the big states, that will change significantly. If, on the other hand, Hillary wins the big states (Texas, OH, PA) by smaller margins than Obama wins states like Rhode Island, it will still work out to a rough split.
You've done nothing but prove my point. That too many Obama people are blind to the reality that the party hasn't fully embraced Obama over Hillary, hasn't come close to a "rejection" of Hillary. In fact, those numbers quoted above are much closer when one counts just registered democrats (this is, after all, a race to be the democratic nominee). So again, the "party" is far from "rejecting" Hillary. And if one considers Obama's numbers are further skewed by demographics rather than policy, it's even more clear that this is no wholesale rejection of her--either her method of campaigning or her policies.
Your sarcastic and smug superiority at the close of your post goes further to making my point about too many Obama supporters
First, thanks for the (rightfully) limited acknowlegement.
Second: While I'm sure you know as well as I that the acronym MAD has been played up because of its implications about anyone who participates in such a zero-sum game, it did serve a useful if painful purpose in our evolution. That's in the past for now. And of course you're right that it wouldn't work nearly as well, at least theoretically speaking, with religious fanatics, even though Osama Bin Laden himself has been quoted as saying it would be "inhuman" to target nuclear power plants (perhaps even the Old Cave Dweller understands that plutonium is not only forever but that it also doesn't always stay put). However, these fanatics are a long way from possessing or controlling the kind of Mutually Assured Destructive power owned by the US, Russia and its environs, and China. Maybe even India. They (religious fanatics, ie: Muslims out for trouble) are no less problematic (see reference to plutonium problem) but are definitely less of an international threat than those you mentioned at the end of your post to me.
I also made reference to our homegrown religious fanatics, starting with our current fish head of state. We have a bigger problem than anyone seems to recognize, and we really need to address that one urgently, even as we keep a clear eye and firm grip on the development of lunatic fringe operations outside our borders. I'm all too familiar with the rapturist movement, our would-be immanentizers of the Christian eschaton, who would blow up the planet in a heartbeat, given the opportunity and maybe a proper sign. (if you can find it, there is a great movie on this topic, from the late 60s and curiously difficult to locate anywhere these days, called "The Billion Dollar Brain", which brought this issue to life for me back in the day; I have kept the crazies on monitor ever since).
As usual, the late Walt Kelly, in the guise of his Pogo character, remains correct and current: "We have met the enemy and he is us."
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"
219 Democrats and one Republican join in favor of the legislation, which passed by a narrow margin
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Salon headlines in your mailbox
