Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I would not call anyone racist unless their words or actions proved them to be. But how is Obama not qualified? The only qualifications are being 35 and a citizen of America, which he is. Just because Obama hasn't been in D.C. as long as others in the past doesn't make him less qualified. He actually has more ELECTED experience than HRC (elected in 1996 as State Senator, HRC in 2000 as U.S. Senator) but that's doesn't make him a better candidate. The people still decide who they want to lead the country and since he has won the nomination, that proves to me he is the better candidate. I respect your and anyone elses opinion until they show they don't deserve it.
The tape doesn't have to exist, any more than McCain has to have fathered a mixed race child. Many people believe that this tape exists, just like many people believe that Clinton used racist attacks to try to beat Obama and that Hussein was affiliated with al quaeda and that Rather counterfeited documents that showed that Bush was awol. This is just a across the bow by the right wing - a show of their power to distort reality.
I hear ya...but so far the only people I've heard say boo about this "tape" are the moron republican trolls like our Indigo here.
I just don't think it'll fly this time (especially now that we need our video evidence for everything - blame youtube and CSI...we need documented proof for everything)
I really believe that if Bush had tried the "McCain black baby" thing in 2007 it wouldn't have done a damn thing.
"I can't help you for being vapid and clueless yourself."
Fuck you.
"To know my arguments, dig my old posts. Should I show you how to do it too? Geezz..."
Why the fuck would I waste my time?
"I can't repeat myself ad nauseaum..."
1) Yes you can.
2) Learn how to spell.
It looks like you have spent the entire day posting ultra-right-wing screeds here. What do you think you have accomplished? Your time would have been better spent in the bathroom with some vaseline and a picture of Hillary in a saran-wrap pantsuit.
Hillary Clinton is not a recalcitrant child having a temper tantrum, to be "punished" for her bad behavior. She is a Presidential candidate who received 50% of the vote. She is not "blackmailing" Obama. In order to believe that, you must believe that she alone has the power to ensure that he wins the Presidency. All she can do is concede or not. The media have declared him the victor and he stands to gain nothing by her conceding before the convention. Why is it so important anyway? As for her leaving and taking her supporter's with her - we are not cult worshippers who obey every word of our great leader. We have minds of our own, and will vote the way we feel is best, regardless of her views. She has already stated (repeatedly) that she will support Obama in the general election should he win the primary. You seem to be saying "Give in and we might throw a few scraps your way, eventually". Clinton is negotiating from a position of strength, and she is wise to do so.
As for race and gender having nothing to do with this election... what rock have you been hiding under for the past 6 months?
Yeah those are minimum required but this is crucial time in which we are deep in crisis. We need someone who is ready from day one. I happen to believe HRC is, seeing how comprehensive her plan is and how eloquent and knowledgeable she is but too bad the party has decided from the start they are done with the Clintons even when she got popular votes and the map is with her and not with him. That's politics for you.
This guy sums up why it's risky to elect O as president:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R65LEFhnXBg&feature=related
If you want universal healthcare, economists have said that Obama's plan isn't workeable, hers is. But obviously his skin color is more important and interesting than healthcare for 92% AA for now.
Too bad, but the choice has been made, just don't regret it when he loses.
You know...John Edwards began planning for his first presidential run when had served barely a SINGLE year representing North Carolina in the Senate. It was his first time in elected office. Making trips to Iowa, raising money. He was considered as a possible VP candidate by Al Gore in 2000-though he had only been serving in the Senate since January 1999. He had not quite completed his first term when he decided to leave the Senate after becoming Kerry's VP.
Edwards was attacked for his lack of experience but not like Obama. I highly doubt he would raise serious concerns with Democrats today...unless he was beating their preferred opponent. But then he's not an "inadequate black man".
People begin to identify with a candidate, often literally sensing some commonality between them and their preferred candidate. Their thinking is "candidate x is one of us" OR "I want to be like candidate x". This is an emotional (not particularly logical) connection. Thereafter attacks on their candidate raise their ire and seem "unfair", opposing candidates take on a sinister appearance and attacks on them seem wholly justified. And the media is always biased against our preferred candidates.
No major Democratic candidate for president has been accused of being "anti-woman" or "anti-feminist" as far as I can recall. The rhetoric and record of one candidate to the next rarely deviates substantially from the Democratic party platform, which can hardly be considered "anti-woman" and Obama is not the least bit exceptional in this regard. But because he ran against a woman and because he is black, these identity-politics (gender and race-based) emotional arguments have superseded rational discussion of the issues-of which there has been virtually none in these letters columns, largely because there just isn't much grounds for debate there and race and gender are far more emotionally powerful subjects.
If Senator Clinton is Obama's best overall VP choice he will surely ask her to consider the position. I think Kathleen Sebelius would be a far better choice, except she would be around 68 in 2016. There are other choices-they will be thoroughly vetted. He and his campaign staff would do a far better job of determining if Clinton is actually the best choice than a handful of self-described Clinton supporters on the internet who have repeatedly stated that they will almost certainly never vote for Obama anyway. I know plenty of people who voted for Clinton in the primaries who are enthusiastic supporters for Obama now. Not because they necessarily dislike Clinton-they just never seriously even considered voting for a continuation of the Bush-regime in the form of McCain, and they like Obama even if they didn't vote for him. And those are people who actually voted in the primaries. There are a lot more of them than either ardent Clinton OR Obama supporters.
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
