Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
What is considered "progressive" in politics is always from the person's point of view, so I will not debate it here. For example, I do not consider "gay marriage" progressive. Full equality of gays before the law -- definitely. But the concept of "marriage" should be sent back to the churches (where they belong) and those should enforce their own rules. And no law-based advantages for married couples, either.
However, the conclusions reached by the participants in the forum on Bill Clinton's legacy hosted by the Brookings Institution pretty much summarize how I view Bill Clinton's presidency. You fill find them here:
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2001/0109elections.aspx
This couple brought the Democrats back from the grave. And they have been spit on in return. I guess the new by-word for Democrat politics is "Chicago-style". I will not support it.
He have a hot veteran hitter (Clinton winning 3 out of ever 4 primaries lately) who we have dceide to sit on the bench.
Meanwhile, we have a slumping rookie (Obama) who has had a couple of good months at the beginning of the season, so his season average looks ok, but he has clearly been unable to hit the ball out of the infield for some time now. But upper management has been grooming this youngster and they are going with him come hell or high water.
Are we going to head into the World Series and start a scuffling greenhorn? Over a hot-hitting veteran? Really? Also, Clinton has faced Republican pitching for years and has done very well, thank you. She knows what they throw and how to hit it. Obama, it seems, is till learnting how to handle softballs from his own party.
Are the Democrats that out of touch with reality, so conflict averse and so allergic to competition that they'll still put Obama out there against McCain when he's consistently losing primaries in his own party? Do they want to win this thing or are they just love-struck over the new guy?
Makes no sense to me. Maybe the Supers will take into account momentun, swing states, and second half batting average. A good baseball manager sure would.
She isn't delusional. She is basically trying to do as much damage as possible so she can quickly reload for a run in 2012 against McCain. She has consistantly been the best GOP attacker and has succeeded in running a variation of the Nixon southern strategy in order to poison the well.
Ego ego ego
Thanks for the link. I'll check it out. I tend to think that we have to define our terms and agree on them. It's the most interesting because that's where differences of opinion really come out. I would say that most people consider gay marriage a 'progressive' issue. I can see your libertarian streak coming out in wanting goverment to get out of the marriage business. I mostly agree with you, but I also wonder about issues like inheritance and rights in case of short or long term incapacitance. Contract law doesn't seem like a good solution.
My personal opinions about the Clintons are too lengthy to include here in any detail. I agree he/she (they) did a pretty good job last time, but it is correct that they had to demonstrate that they could do it again. And they made a lot of mistakes. Last year I believed that Obama was a lightweight and that he wouldn't make it. If Hillary had a post Feb 5th strategy, I really believe that Obama would be the one conceding. Some amount of dirt has been flung, but it's been flung by both sides. I'll leave it to others to count the piles and conclude which ones are the highest.
Because you slammed him when he stuck with the church and now you slam him when he leaves it. So, he can't win with you on this.
That's what makes it dishonest. Feel however you want, that's fine with me.
But I sat in a Catholic Church and HS that, if every class and sermon was dissected, would bar me from everfy serving as President. We had priests say that AIDS was God's punishment for gays. And I did not get up from class at any point in the 4 years. I sat with priests talking about how we should support the IRA in their terror campaign against the Brits in the 1980's.
So I happen to believe that 100% of everyone who has anything to do with religion listened to a lot of crazy shit every week of their life. Did you ever read the Bible? That thing is a monument to sexism, racism, anti-semiticism. It's really somethin'!
But the party establishment was behind Hillary, still is for the most part as her SD's have not deserted her out of fear / loyalty. Almost every heavy-hitter they had actively campaigned for her. Supporting Obama as a Super Delegate at the start was seen as career suicide. So how is Obama the insider or establishment choice? The "country club"?
Also, I like Ron Paul and a lot of what that guy said about the weak dollar is now coming back to haunt Americans with $4+ gas prices. I think he is an important voice in America since the GOP threw libertarians away.
But Clinton is his polar opposite, can't work.
Aside from that same tired and meaningless (if not simplistic and technically arguable) position of "she backed the war"
Wow, dude, that is the determining factor for me...and several million other people. You see, I counted on the democrats that were representing the people at the time of this debacle to stand up and say no, in the face of this administration, in the face of am radio, in the face of the majority and the media - I expected them to stand up and say no. The fact that she did not, screams to me that she caved to pressure, for whatever reason. You might minimize it, as is the Clinton backer way - following in kind with your choice's affinity for creative accounting. However, it has been the primary reason for all of my votes ever since. I was against this war from the onset and I will not back anyone that sent our kids, our resources, our tax dollars into the quagmire that is Iraq.
Hillary had everything - name recognition, money, political clout and unfortunately, arrogance. She did not research the Dean grassroots ground breaker that could have sent her into the stratusphere. And because she failed to cover that angle, she has lost. Live and learn.
Doesn't it get old using the same tired and sorry allusions? Religion? Seriously? Common now. You latch on to one word - inspiring - dismissing everything else. My God! Are you not inspired by your candidate? If not, then why not? I am "inspired" by someone that can articulate exactly what I have been experiencing for years. I am inspired for the first time to get out and volunteer. There's a lot to be said for inspiration. It's only becomes a negative when your candidate lacks it.
"Enraptured by profound emotional attachment?"
say what? This is what you guys do. Attach false "emotions" on those that have intellectually and rationally weighed the pros and cons of ALL the candidates and NOT chosen yours. I have no emotional attachment, except to say - yay, finally someone that wants to change things. That sees things through a similar lense. Typical "anti-Obama" mentality - thrust them all into your little categories so that you can dismiss.
I understand being disappointed. We get behind someone and we wholeheartedly believe that they are absolutely the best choice. You wouldn't have chosen that candidate otherwise, right? However, you are dead wrong. If Clinton had won the nomination, I would have voted for her. Simply because I wouldn't want McCain.
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
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
