Must...resist...responding...to such...idiocy...must...resist.ne1410s wrote:I think you would be better served to hold your breath until you turn blue. The only part of our society more entrenched than racism is sexism.
I honestly think that you've come undone if you're suggesting that if you and the other pouters openly support John "Four More Years!" McCain it's going to benefit the Democratic Party and make it stronger in the long run. Talk about giving Rove his elusive permanent (or, at least, long-term) dominance in national elections on a silver platter!silverscreenselect wrote:I haven't voted for a Republican since 1972, my first election, when I voted for the incumbent representative in my state House of Representatives district. He seemed a reasonable guy and he showed up on campus to distribute flyers which his Democratic opponent didn't and I was determined that the first time I voted, I would be independent.wbtravis007 wrote: If y'all don't wake up from this hysteria before then, I think that one day you will, and will regret letting your emotions get the best of you.
Since then I have voted for a grand total of zero Republicans in any election. If a Republican is unopposed in my district, I refuse to vote for him or her. When I got married and moved in with my wife in a different part of town and a different Congressional district, I kept my voter registration at my former address for two elections until I could help vote a particularly nasty conservative Republican Congressman out of office.
So this isn't something I view lightly or as a momentary fit of pique. I would have supported John Edwards or Biden or Dodd or Richardson in an instant had one of them become the nominee. But I consider Barack Obama a disgrace to the Democratic party as evidence most recently by the dog-and-pony show he has been putting on these last two weeks.
I don't believe he is a rabid anti-American hater as some have portrayed him. I feel he is a charlatan, a fraud, a hypocrite, a race baiter, a liar, a man with no convictions whatsoever other than getting himself elected. I believe that this entire process will damage the Democratic party badly. This may cost us the Senate elections in states like ME, MN, OR, and LA which will be the difference between a narrow majority and having to suck up to Joe Lieberman for another two years and a solid working majority.
There is only one way to put a stop to this if Obama is the candidate and that is to make sure that there is h*ll to pay in the Democratic hierarchy. Not just an honorable loss due to those nasty racist Republicans but a rout that will result in cleaning house and getting rid of those moronic convention rules and caucuses and morons like Donna Brazile. In that respect, I confess I am somewhat like a fan of a mediocre sports team who hopes at the end of a losing season that the team do as poorly as possible so that a borderline coach isn't kept around for another season to botch things up yet again.
And on an even more fundamental level, I have been disgusted by Republican tactics that have brought down decent people like Max Cleland and I have not wanted to be a part of them. Now, my party has been throwing itself at the feet of a man who has gotten where he is by doing the exact same thing and who is continuing to do the same thing, such as by posting the picture of Bill Clinton with Wright with the New York Times.
So I will support John Lewis my Congressman (who I think was mercilessly pressured into supporting Obama and who could yet switch back come this summer) and whoever gets the Democratic nomination against that worm of a Senator we have, Saxby the draft dodger Chambless. But I will vote for John McCain over Barack Obama.
I don't know which part of fantasy world you live in, but, in the real world these are real problems.Must...resist...responding...to such...idiocy...must...resist.
Never said they weren't.ne1410s wrote:I don't know which part of fantasy world you live in, but, in the real world these are real problems.Must...resist...responding...to such...idiocy...must...resist.
Stick a fork in the Democrats - they're done. There's too much bitterness on both sides to even think about coming together in November. Just check the blogosphere and you'll see what I mean. Supporters of Obama have declared they wouldn't vote for Clinton and vice versa. There are far more people in this category than there are conservatives who might sit on their hands and not vote for McCain.wbtravis007 wrote:Clinton won't run in 2012 unless it's as the incumbent president. If I were a betting person, I'd bet the house on this.silverscreenselect wrote:You might think that it would be worth enduring four years of McCain to get Hillary her nomination in 2012 -- by cleaning out the riff-raff standing in her way now: African-Americans; youth (or other new voters in the party); well-educated, white collar voters who are not long-time party (and Clinton) loyalists; etc. -- but do you really think that she'd have any chance at all in a general election under those circumstances?wbtravis007 wrote: If y'all don't wake up from this hysteria before then, I think that one day you will, and will regret letting your emotions get the best of you.
wbtravis007 wrote:I've been assuming that a lot of it has been last-ditch desperation. Now, though, I'm really beginning to have my doubts about whether they're going to be able to pull themselves back into the sane world before November.
If Hillary does not get the nomination and the Democrats go into the tank in the fall, I think she has a good shot at becoming Senate majority leader as someone who would have the cojones to stand up to a Republican administration, something Reid/Pelosi and company haven't done.wbtravis007 wrote:You might think that it would be worth enduring four years of McCain to get Hillary her nomination in 2012 -- by cleaning out the riff-raff standing in her way now: African-Americans; youth (or other new voters in the party); well-educated, white collar voters who are not long-time party (and Clinton) loyalists; etc. -- but do you really think that she'd have any chance at all in a general election under those circumstances?
If Hillary does not get the nomination and the Democrats go into the tank in the fall, the Senate majority leader will be a Republican.silverscreenselect wrote:If Hillary does not get the nomination and the Democrats go into the tank in the fall, I think she has a good shot at becoming Senate majority leader as someone who would have the cojones to stand up to a Republican administration, something Reid/Pelosi and company haven't done.wbtravis007 wrote:You might think that it would be worth enduring four years of McCain to get Hillary her nomination in 2012 -- by cleaning out the riff-raff standing in her way now: African-Americans; youth (or other new voters in the party); well-educated, white collar voters who are not long-time party (and Clinton) loyalists; etc. -- but do you really think that she'd have any chance at all in a general election under those circumstances?
Ok, I get it: If we just ignore the problem it will go away. I bow to your superior idiocy. You've obviously had much more practice than I.That doesn't change the fact that your statement was idiotic.
The "Oh, look at me- I'm so enlightened" type of BS statement that EXACERBATES, not helps solve, racial issues in this country.
Please tell me where I said we should ignore the problem.ne1410s wrote:jeemie:
Ok, I get it: If we just ignore the problem it will go away. I bow to your superior idiocy. You've obviously had much more practice than I.That doesn't change the fact that your statement was idiotic.
The "Oh, look at me- I'm so enlightened" type of BS statement that EXACERBATES, not helps solve, racial issues in this country.
Jeemie, if there's an idiot here, it ain't Tennis.Jeemie wrote:Please tell me where I said we should ignore the problem.ne1410s wrote:jeemie:
Ok, I get it: If we just ignore the problem it will go away. I bow to your superior idiocy. You've obviously had much more practice than I.That doesn't change the fact that your statement was idiotic.
The "Oh, look at me- I'm so enlightened" type of BS statement that EXACERBATES, not helps solve, racial issues in this country.
I do not believe you will find a post where I said that.
What I DID comment on (and have commented on a lot) was the ridiculous hyperbole that gets spouted whenever the subject comes up...mostly from people who try and show off their "superior sensitivity" to race issues.
Such people do more to make sure race problems continue more than anybody else, IMHO.
Yes- to say "the only thing more entrenched than racism is sexism" IS ridiculous hyperbole that does nothing to address the problem.SportsFan68 wrote:Jeemie, if there's an idiot here, it ain't Tennis.Jeemie wrote:Please tell me where I said we should ignore the problem.ne1410s wrote:jeemie:
Ok, I get it: If we just ignore the problem it will go away. I bow to your superior idiocy. You've obviously had much more practice than I.
I do not believe you will find a post where I said that.
What I DID comment on (and have commented on a lot) was the ridiculous hyperbole that gets spouted whenever the subject comes up...mostly from people who try and show off their "superior sensitivity" to race issues.
Such people do more to make sure race problems continue more than anybody else, IMHO.
That was not ridiculous hyperbole, and for you to call it ridiculous hyperbole shows me that you are going great lengths to avoid considering a real problem.
What?silverscreenselect wrote:wbtravis007 wrote:You might think that it would be worth enduring four years of McCain to get Hillary her nomination in 2012 -- by cleaning out the riff-raff standing in her way now: African-Americans; youth (or other new voters in the party); well-educated, white collar voters who are not long-time party (and Clinton) loyalists; etc. -- but do you really think that she'd have any chance at all in a general election under those circumstances?
The Democratic party is badly broken right now and needs fixing. A relatively close election defeat this year with the predictable grumbling about Republican dirty tactics means that we are essentially looking at the same situation again in 2012. It's only if you can clear a lot of dead wood out of the way that you can start to fix things.
I have to agree with you on this.wbtravis007 wrote:What?
Good grief.
If Hillary pouters openly support McCain, then the "dead wood" that will be "cleared out" will be whole sections of voters that winning coalitions are made of -- not a few obstinate individuals bent on denying Hillary her due.
I'll watch for evidence that sss has regained his good sense.
I'm a firm believer that people can get out of hissy-fits and tizzies and what not and be just fine.
I'd hate to have to admit to myself that my take on his political acumen all this time could have been so wrong.
The young people that are being attracted to Obama are not doing so because of his ideology or stance on the issues, as many who came into the party because of Howard Dean were. Instead, they are attracted by his image and his likability and their belief that a charismatic figure like him can "change" what's wrong in Washington, which is largely portrayed as a series of middle-aged and older politicians of both parties who are obviously having very little fun.Jeemie wrote: I also begin to understand why young people have held such disdain for the process, if this is how older folks like SSS will greet their participation (although had Hillary and not Obama attracted these new voters, I suspect SSS would call the new folks "wise beyond their years" and "a presence that will be a force to reckon with for many years").
I am not particularly an Obama supporter or hater. He's not a candidate I'm excited to support, but neither is Clinton. I recently had lunch with a group of people who are very active in Democratic politics. Most of them were older, very politically minded and very much supported Obama.silverscreenselect wrote:The young people that are being attracted to Obama are not doing so because of his ideology or stance on the issues, as many who came into the party because of Howard Dean were. Instead, they are attracted by his image and his likability and their belief that a charismatic figure like him can "change" what's wrong in Washington, which is largely portrayed as a series of middle-aged and older politicians of both parties who are obviously having very little fun.Jeemie wrote: I also begin to understand why young people have held such disdain for the process, if this is how older folks like SSS will greet their participation (although had Hillary and not Obama attracted these new voters, I suspect SSS would call the new folks "wise beyond their years" and "a presence that will be a force to reckon with for many years").
If you press these people as to what Obama's stance on the issues is, most of them wouldn't be able to tell you (and changing the way things are run in Washington is not a stance on the issues). The only issue that they could probably identify with Obama is the Iraq war, and, ironically, it's not a very big concern to most of them (unlike McGovern in 72).
So they are willing to believe that by voting for him and campaigning for him (sometimes with some questionable methods), that somehow this will change how things work in Washington in some undefined way that will make things better, again in some undefined way.
Of course, things don't work that way, as they will find out if he does get elected. There is a good possibility that by the time this campaign is over, a lot of them will realize that he is just another politician and may drift away for that reason as well.
I read recently that Obama's greatest strength, and I can agree with this, is his ability to enable people to project their own personal set of goals and desires onto him and that he shares them. Unlike real world politicians, like Hillary and McCain, who actually go on record with stances on issues that people disagree with, Obama is able to float above it all with people thinking that by electing him, they will get just what they want.
Obama may turn out to be a wonderful progressive as a president. He may turn out to be further right than the Clintons on a lot of issues. He probably will prove to be ineffectual on a lot of issues as the Republicans tie him up in knots and the Dems try to pull his strings. But the point is that no one, not Sir G, not Travis, not anyone can confidently say what he will do once in office because he never really allows himself to be pinned down to anything (other than starting to get us out of Iraq in the fairly near future, and I wouldn't count on that happening to a significant extent). Add that to a dangerous level of inexperience and poor judgment and you have a recipe for disaster.
As long as we have people believing this, the race issue will not go away.nitrah55 wrote:Here's my shorthand understanding of racial issues in the US: Barack Obama has a better chance of being elected president than he has of hailing down a cab at 86th Street and 3rd Avenue in Manhattan.
What, exactly, is her "due?"denying Hillary her due
I think Travis thinks Hillary supporters are bitter at Obama because they feel the nomination was Hillary's by right.tlynn78 wrote:What, exactly, is her "due?"denying Hillary her due
Of course there are real problems!ne1410s wrote:I don't know which part of fantasy world you live in, but, in the real world these are real problems.Must...resist...responding...to such...idiocy...must...resist.
