The Ultimate Brokeback Forum

Author Topic: Election 2008--CLOSED  (Read 464121 times)

Offline jack

  • Tough Old Bird
  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 13964
  • aloha y'all...
    • My Adventures In Paradise
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #45 on: June 04, 2008, 11:39:08 PM »
i, for one, started out the campaign no fan of hillary, but came to respect her a great deal. that respect was in regular conflict with things she did that really bothered me and angered me. but it was nothing compared to how i felt about her attack team, particularly ickes, mccaulliffe, and wolfson and singer and the rest.

her team makes no bones about the fact that they work as attack dogs and are ruthless and will say anything to get ahead. the truth means nothing to them. i find them dispicable and repulsive. i want nothing more to do with them. we have had most of them around for years, and they are cut from the same cloth as the bush people.

i think these people, and their trench-warfare tactics are what inspire the most anger, revulsion and contempt. i know they do for me.
well said, dave.  and it cannot be ignored that she handpicked this group, therefore they ARE a window to her approach (which i actually think is appropriate to the workings of the legislature.)
"through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall..."

Offline jack

  • Tough Old Bird
  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 13964
  • aloha y'all...
    • My Adventures In Paradise
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #46 on: June 05, 2008, 02:32:54 AM »
john aravosis over at americablog credits one of his readers with mentioning a telling point, or at least a possibility of one, regarding the selction of caroline kennedy for a vetting committee.

how about a not too subtle signal that a veep candidate who had (apparently at least) callously invoked the death of robert kennedy as a campaign point might just have a hard time getting a consideration.  seems plausible to me.

it has also been brought up elsewhere that the unstated reason for sen clinton's concession speech being moved from friday to saturday is the fact that friday is the anniversary of that very slaying.      ::) oops.
"through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall..."

Offline Lyle (Mooska)

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 18192
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #47 on: June 05, 2008, 02:59:40 AM »
Quote
 "What does Hillary want?" she mused, in her most self-aware moment
in some time. "I will be making no decisions tonight," she concluded, asking
fans to go to her Web site to share their thoughts.

I, for one, am going to her website and share some of my thoughts with her.

In her speech last night, Sen. Clinton invited feedback from supporters on her website while she decided what to do (after Obama had clinched the nomination) - but visitors to her website were only permitted to offer positive feedback, and then only when they contributed money first.

Well, I did what I said, I left my comments for Hillary.  As Desperadum
says, you were only really invited to offer positive feedback, but I did
anyway.  (You could leave a response--then they did ask if you would
contribute after that.) I got a response (as though I was a committed
follower), but I thought the E-mail response I received from the Clinton
campaign was worth posting here:

I wanted you to be one of the first to know: on Saturday, I will hold an event in Washington D.C. to thank everyone who has supported my campaign. Over the course of the last 16 months, I have been privileged and touched to witness the incredible dedication and sacrifice of so many people working for our campaign. Every minute you put into helping us win, every dollar you gave to keep up the fight meant more to me than I can ever possibly tell you.

On Saturday, I will extend my congratulations to Senator Obama and my support for his candidacy. This has been a long and hard-fought campaign, but as I have always said, my differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.

I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.

When I decided to run for president, I knew exactly why I was getting into this race: to work hard every day for the millions of Americans who need a voice in the White House.

I made you -- and everyone who supported me -- a promise: to stand up for our shared values and to never back down. I'm going to keep that promise today, tomorrow, and for the rest of my life.

I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise.

I know as I continue my lifelong work for a stronger America and a better world, I will turn to you for the support, the strength, and the commitment that you have shown me in the past 16 months. And I will always keep faith with the issues and causes that are important to you.

In the past few days, you have shown that support once again with hundreds of thousands of messages to the campaign, and again, I am touched by your thoughtfulness and kindness.

I can never possibly express my gratitude, so let me say simply, thank you.

Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton

Offline brokebacktom

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 4371
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #48 on: June 05, 2008, 07:41:30 AM »
How come the Media doesn't report McCain's mistakes, but attack Clinton & ABM all the time for theirs. Boy, this election just showed how corrupt our Media is.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/_n_105283.HTML

Offline doodler

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 15461
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #49 on: June 05, 2008, 09:31:05 AM »

As an Irish Catholic Dem turned Republican turned Independent now for many years, I can only speak for myself and my own little opinions.  I don't adore McCain - not by a long shot, but I do turn right when it comes to many govt programs.  Socially, pretty liberal (obviously) but I like smaller govt, less intervention, tax cuts, etc.  I am also a small business owner and well, higher taxes doesn't sound very appealing.  Makes me work harder for less money.  Blah


I don't get Republicans... not YOU, T...  but people bred, born, raised, etc who still say they don't want a Dem this time around because taxes will go up. HOW can they go in any other direction considering A) the war and B) the economy? And whose fault are those two items?

Perhaps it's communistic, or is it socialistic, to think the stronger folks (as in wealthier or at least solvent) MUST help the weaker and less able to provide for themselves. Yeah, many government programs get way out of hand but that is more through graft and pilfering than spending too much money on the people they're supposed to be helping. When government contractors routinely get by with million dollar toliet seat charges, it is not because a "social" program is in place but because legitimate oversight is not.
In 2010, 606 people (all ages) were accidentally killed by guns.
Almost 3000 teens (15-19) die in traffic accidents a year.
1100 kids under 19 drown each year.
44 kids under 5 died of heat stroke in hot cars in 2013.
HIGH school sports account for 1.2 million trips to the ER annually.

Offline brokebacktom

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 4371
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #50 on: June 05, 2008, 10:00:11 AM »

As an Irish Catholic Dem turned Republican turned Independent now for many years, I can only speak for myself and my own little opinions.  I don't adore McCain - not by a long shot, but I do turn right when it comes to many govt programs.  Socially, pretty liberal (obviously) but I like smaller govt, less intervention, tax cuts, etc.  I am also a small business owner and well, higher taxes doesn't sound very appealing.  Makes me work harder for less money.  Blah


I don't get Republicans... not YOU, T...  but people bred, born, raised, etc who still say they don't want a Dem this time around because taxes will go up. HOW can they go in any other direction considering A) the war and B) the economy? And whose fault are those two items?

Perhaps it's communistic, or is it socialistic, to think the stronger folks (as in wealthier or at least solvent) MUST help the weaker and less able to provide for themselves. Yeah, many government programs get way out of hand but that is more through graft and pilfering than spending too much money on the people they're supposed to be helping. When government contractors routinely get by with million dollar toilet seat charges, it is not because a "social" program is in place but because legitimate oversight is not.


I'll ad More many goes to Corprate Welfare than Social Welfare. How are we going to pay for the debt that the Republicans created. The Federal Government actually increased under Bush 2.4% and under Carter it increased 1.7%. So, how had the smaller government? Also, the Tax cuts Bush pushed through was only for those who made 300,000 per year. I could go on, but I would get to angry. People want good schools but don't want to pay for it. Want roads but don't want to pay for it. Want a strong Military but don't want to pay for it. Want Clean air and water but don't want to pay for it. All this I don't want to pay for things attitude is finally kicking us in the ASS!!!
« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 10:17:56 AM by brokebacktom »

Offline Flyboy

  • A gentle word will calm the wrath...
  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 4788
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #51 on: June 05, 2008, 10:06:21 AM »

As an Irish Catholic Dem turned Republican turned Independent now for many years, I can only speak for myself and my own little opinions.  I don't adore McCain - not by a long shot, but I do turn right when it comes to many govt programs.  Socially, pretty liberal (obviously) but I like smaller govt, less intervention, tax cuts, etc.  I am also a small business owner and well, higher taxes doesn't sound very appealing.  Makes me work harder for less money.  Blah


I don't get Republicans... not YOU, T...  but people bred, born, raised, etc who still say they don't want a Dem this time around because taxes will go up. HOW can they go in any other direction considering A) the war and B) the economy? And whose fault are those two items?

Perhaps it's communistic, or is it socialistic, to think the stronger folks (as in wealthier or at least solvent) MUST help the weaker and less able to provide for themselves. Yeah, many government programs get way out of hand but that is more through graft and pilfering than spending too much money on the people they're supposed to be helping. When government contractors routinely get by with million dollar toliet seat charges, it is not because a "social" program is in place but because legitimate oversight is not.
You know what? I read somewhere, on the NET, they actually did a study and found that some conservatives, maybe just the Ultra conservative have that hard-wired in their brains, they simply cannot change it...........haha...........could this also be true of liberals? or better yet, could Hillary just plain be hard-wired NOT to say "I concede".........just a thought...........

Offline Dave Cullen

  • Author/Journalist
  • Administrator
  • Obsessed
  • ******
  • Posts: 7042
  • Founder, Editor
    • Columbine
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #52 on: June 05, 2008, 10:28:18 AM »
I got a response . . . from the Clinton campaign:

. . . I have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if he were the Democratic Party's nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise.

. . . I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise. . . .

Hillary Rodham Clinton


good stuff. it will be great to hear her say it. and i think she will. when she puts her heart into something, she can be damn good.

her tuesday night request for people to write to her website to advise her went over dismally--as it should--but it's nice to see she found a way to turn that around and use it positively. lyle excepted, the people who took the time to write to her there are presumably the most hard-core, angry supporters who want to fight on and fight obama rather than join him. these are the very people she needs to address, personally, via email. it helps to have a list of them.

i think the email blast went to all her supporters--anyone who had donated or signed up there over the last several months--but i bet they are keeping a separate list of these people, and will share both lists with the obama people, to send msgs over time. this is one of the great organizing powers of the web. you have mailing lists to reach the most ardent supporters. barack can actually know who a lot of the most angry people are, and address them.

on second thought, i doubt the clintons will ever share their lists. we'll probably hear arguments about that surface over the summer. but i think they'll agree to some tech solution where barack can send some emails directly to those people. but she's going to keep the coveted list as a bargaining chip, and as a future political resource.

on that point, i think she's probably legit. as long as obama can access it, it's pretty reasonable for her to keep it. it's a huge asset beyond the current (fall) campaign, and she earned it.

Offline Dave Cullen

  • Author/Journalist
  • Administrator
  • Obsessed
  • ******
  • Posts: 7042
  • Founder, Editor
    • Columbine
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #53 on: June 05, 2008, 10:35:53 AM »
How come the Media doesn't report McCain's mistakes, but attack Clinton & ABM all the time for theirs. Boy, this election just showed how corrupt our Media is.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/04/_n_105283.HTML

i don't know about the current mistake (since you didn't say what it is), and i'm no fan of media coverage, but to be fair, 90% of the coverage since mccain clinched has been on The Hillary & Barack Show. that's good and bad for each party:

the Ds get tons of free publicity, but they also get all their dirty laundry aired, relentlessly. the Rs get ignored, which includes ignoring most of their mistakes.

the truth is, the Ds were battling--there was something still at stake, the outcome (sort of) in doubt--and that's more interesting. the R story was boring.

to his credit, mccain never complained that the media was ignoring him. i actually figured he would. i think most Rs would have. i think he's much more honest and less of a media-basher than that, and his team is less of a spinner.

i think both candidates left standing are much less into the spin crap than their peers. there is definitely spin, but more of pushing the truth a bit beyond the truth, rather than bold-faced-lie spin. refreshing. SO refreshing.

---

anyway, now that we've got two candidates, and the plot of this story has turned to the battle between them, i think we'll be seeing a lot more coverage of mccain, good and bad.

if the problem is still around in two weeks, then we have a problem.

Offline Dave Cullen

  • Author/Journalist
  • Administrator
  • Obsessed
  • ******
  • Posts: 7042
  • Founder, Editor
    • Columbine
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #54 on: June 05, 2008, 10:41:41 AM »
things move fast once the power shifts in a party.

barack is taking control of the DNC. he decided to keep Howard Dean--very good decision, imo--but adding some of his key people to make sure it's run with his interests at heart:

Quote
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/06/dean_stays_at_dnc_tewes_joins.html

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) is moving quickly to put his imprint on the Democratic National Committee, offering a vote of confidence in current chairman Howard Dean while also installing one of his most senior political deputies in a leadership role at the party committee.

. . . there had been speculation that Dean might be removed in favor of a party chairman of Obama's choosing.

Obama put that speculation to rest this morning.

. . . Although Obama is keeping Dean, he is also ensuring that one of the main pillars of his campaign is installed at the DNC. Paul Tewes, a longtime party operative who managed Obama's Iowa caucus effort, will take over the general-election strategy at the DNC, according to several officials briefed on the decision.

Dean will announce Tewes to the DNC staff this afternoon. . . . Those close to the DNC's operations insist that no wholesale changes will occur at the party committee. Instead, the current staff will stay in tact while a number of Obama loyalists are added to bolster the committee's general election operation.

i imagine we should start hearing within hours and days about which big names obama is hiring from the clinton camp. if he can just pass on ickes and mccauliffe, i think i can be happy. though i'd be much happier if none of the dreaded attack dogs come. i'm betting none will.

Offline Dave Cullen

  • Author/Journalist
  • Administrator
  • Obsessed
  • ******
  • Posts: 7042
  • Founder, Editor
    • Columbine
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #55 on: June 05, 2008, 10:46:16 AM »
speaking of top advisors:

i LOVE david axelrod, and he is probably a key reason obama won. he should absolutely stay as chief strategist. but . . .

i think they should yank him from tv. i think he's a really bad tv spokesperson. he spins a bit too much--a shadow of the other side, but still, he does it and it's gross--and he's not even good at it.

vile as he is, terry mccaulliffe knows how to dodge a question and pretend like he's answered it. it does offer something else that makes sense, even though it's an answer to a different question; a complete evasion.

david axelrod just sounds evasive. he sounds slippery, and not a good image for obama.

he's a brilliant strategist, but tv is not the guy's strength. so why have they been putting him in front of the cameras? they've got plenty of people to do that.

Offline Dave Cullen

  • Author/Journalist
  • Administrator
  • Obsessed
  • ******
  • Posts: 7042
  • Founder, Editor
    • Columbine
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #56 on: June 05, 2008, 11:40:42 AM »
. . . and it cannot be ignored that she handpicked this group, therefore they ARE a window to her approach.

agreed. that's one reason i never trusted her or her spouse. they're gross.

and how did i forget lannie davis? i just saw a clip of him on colbert. blech! he's one of the worst.

(sorry about the spellings of some of these names. not my strong suit.)

Offline Tahoelvr

  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #57 on: June 05, 2008, 12:15:23 PM »
thanks flyboy for that bit of humor about hardwiring -

Doodler, I agree with you.  I am not in the tax bracket that would be affected by raising my taxes (I wish) but some of my friends are.  Some of them are completely greedy and others do more than their share of giving back in volunteering, donating money, time and goods. 

Seems that it works against capitalism that if you hit a certain bracket you get screwed so folks will find a way to take it off their taxes with deductions or other ways.  I also think it affects people in their generosity - if you give voluntarily it makes you feel good, if it's taken from you because of your success you become resentful.  Personally, I have been a fan of that flat tax program for years.  No deductions, just straight across the board.

JMO.






Offline brokebacktom

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 4371
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #58 on: June 05, 2008, 12:21:07 PM »
Now this is quite upsetting. Why do they get the option to retire? They should be fired, I know I would if I did a major screw up that this.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/05/air-force-chief-of-staff_n_105457.html

Offline Rosewood

  • Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 3635
Re: Election 2008
« Reply #59 on: June 05, 2008, 12:42:13 PM »
what is interesting, and is being noted by the blogosphere if not the MSM, is that the obama campaign is not pressuring sen clinton to give it up and get on board, her own supporters ARE doing so, and in greater numbers by the day, incuding some of her biggest, most powerful supporters and contributors, some privately, others QUITE publicly.

maybe smoke signals will get the message across. 

The thing I find so perplexing (though in retrospect I suppose I shouldn't), is how graceless and tone deaf she's acting.
It's as if she's at war with herself and her better instincts. Surely someone as smart and invested in politics (now and
in the future) as she, HAS to know she screwed up royally. At the risk of being thought not entirely pc (and why
I should care about that, I don't know...probably I don't really care), I'd say that women - Glaring Generalization
coming right up! - on the whole, are usually blessed with an extra invisible gene which is open and sensitive
to nuance and subtlety. While men tend to stumble about and sometimes have to be hit over the head with a frying
pan to make them aware that something is amiss in their general vicinity, women usually have already picked up
the invisible threads zooming through the atmosphere. It's our gift and our curse.

So, why has HC stumbled so damned badly these past few days?
How could she NOT HAVE KNOWN that Tuesday night was the night to congratulate her opponent
NOT ONLY FOR A HARD FOUGHT contest but for WINNING said hard-fought contest.
And please, couldn't someone rein in Terry McAullife's TOTALLY INAPPROPRIATE opening
comments? What are these people thinking?
Well, he's a man, I forgive him for misreading the moment.  ;)
BUT I expected more from Hillary Clinton.

Thank goodness Obama has the good sense to show a tone of grace when dealing with her and
opstreperous minions. In my view, HC has played right into the hands of her detractors and even into
the hands of those who are against women running for any high office. She in danger of becoming
(if she hasn't already), the most obvious of charicatures: a nagging woman who can't let go;
flailing ineffectually in an almost "I meant to do that..." moment. (See how some of her minions
went on cable to explain that she MEANT to ease out all along and didn't want to rush her supporters!?)
There she was on national television asking: what do I do now?
Not a very pretty moment for women in general.

If she doesn't watch it, she'll soon become a laughing stock, even as Dean did four years ago.
There was very little of nobility in that pretty little speech of the other night.
It was TOTALLY tone deaf to the moment, the nuance, the subtlety, the spirit of the night which
was and SHOULD HAVE BEEN all about Obama's history making (not to mention extraordinary) moment.

As Obama was mathematically declared the Democratic nominee, HC became a foot note.
But she should have been ready to seize that moment (no matter how galling) and turn it into something fine.
She didn't.

In a way I can't really define, HC has made me ashamed to be a woman (but only fleetingly, I assure you).
Yegads! Her OWN SUPPORTERS had to show her the way out the door. Talk about misstep.
"Okay, lady closing up now, time to go."
HC not only harmed her own image but those of her most ardent supporters who have been looking,
if nothing else, ill-at-ease and rather shame-faced.

Losing with grace can be just as powerful as winning with honor.
Someone should have explained this to HC.

Something else:

Last night on Charlie Rose, he had on Mark Halperin of Time and Connie Schultz of the Cleveland
Plains Dealer and a couple of other powerhouse reporters whose views are generally well thought
out. Halperin said that he considered Barack Obama "the most extraordinary politician he's ever seen."
Charlie Rose then asked, "...better than Bill Clinton?"
Halperin said, "Well, not better, but just as good." (I paraphrase a bit.)

Connie Schultz seconded the idea as well. They all seemed to agree that Obama's political talents
have, all along, been underestimated. What people may not understand is that he's a
VERY very fast learner.

In other words, we ain't seen nothing yet.

« Last Edit: June 05, 2008, 01:28:21 PM by Rosewood »
"Tut, tut, child," said the Duchess.
"Everything's got a moral if only you can find it."
                                                  Lewis Carroll