i really don't think she is stupid enough to have meant it the way it sounds, because anything intended to sound that way would only be a bad thing for her at this point.
but that being said, when i heard it, there was a "yikes" moment and i thought, it is not good that she said this.
even though... every news "reporter" and every pundit has split up the demographic vote to death, seperating democratic primary voters in every which way they possibly could! whats next?
i can hear that silly bill schnider now saying "well solidad, it appears that green eyed voters voted two to one, for senetor so and so!"
its exhausting! these exit polls. ugh, i'm so sick of them!
if anything, i'd like to think the reason she said it (and basically she is just repeating what everyone on TV is saying), was to elude to the idea that these are the people who could deflect to john mccain in november.
in any case, it was a very messy thing to say.
i read the times article this morning, and i have to say i am really annoyed by these scared democrats! so scared of the disasterous divisions and unhealable hurt feelings on either side! i think they're over doing it a bit. everyone i have talked to will vote for the other if theirs is not on the ticket. once we hear mccain start to talk and debate, it will be a no brainer. drop out now? its really going to be over before we know it. why not just let all the states vote now, only 6 more contests to go.
that being said, i don't think it can go to the convention with obama being like, 5 away from the magic number. but why not let everyone vote and feel like a part of it all? think of poor little states like south dakota, west virginia, and montana, never getting any big media attention. its their moment to shine!
If people have a while to think; and if they can think (after 2004?) I know that if they have the least idea of what this country is supposed to be made of , they won't risk and onging endgame of Bushism.
I'm not sure that people in the U.S have any idea of the permanently ruinous precidents that Bush has set; which will without any doubt crush every idea that this republic is made of. Even with Obama it will be hard to recover anything , and get on a remotely survivable track.
new ad from the RNC. . .
ugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r...h?
v=r7Yd80tXs_4
If Hillary is not on the ticket Obama could lose the general election, that is what she is saying. Right now Obama will lose Ohio and Florida (possibly Michigan, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire too) to McCain. The only Obama pickup I see is Iowa. White working class people, Hispanics, older women, catholics and Asians are likely to vote for McCain if Hillary is not on the ticket. Obama outspent Hillary and still could not win these groups over.
There are several things I would like to say.
First of all, when the pollsters list that Sen. Obama is getting the support of 90-92% of the blacks that vote in a primary, that seems to be accepted as fact. When Sen. Clinton says that she is getting support from hard-working American whites, that is racism? Is she not only stating what the pollsters are saying? Are her facts incorrect? I don't think so. Hillary has had a long history of supporting all groups so I find it hard to believe that she is being called a racist for this. She knows that she cannot win without the support of African Americans.
And when I hear the fear of the Supreme Court nominees, doesn't each one have to be approved by the Senate, and aren't we expecting the Senate to be controlled by the Democrats? What is the problem here? That is why we have a system of checks and balances. Even if, God forbid, McCain wins, he can't control the Supreme Court and he wouldn't be the first President to have nominees accepted or rejected.
I realize that whatever happens and whoever the nominee is for the Democrats, many people will feel cheated. This is actually a three way race for the Presidency. If in fact, the loser in the Democratic nomination process were to run on another party's ticket, say the Liberal party, who do you think would actually win the election? Who do you think would carry the states that have the most electors? In a year where so many strange things have already happened, why not?
It wasn't that long ago that "control" of the Congress went to the Democrats. Shouldn't the people there be held accountable for some of the mistakes of this administration. Were they really elected to sit on their hands and wait 2 more years for a Democrat to win the White House?
I hear Michaelangelo spending so much time defending Sen. Obama and saying it is time to back him (actually he was calling for people to back him a while ago). Why have I never heard the same urging of support for Sen. Clinton? Do you really, honestly and truly believe that Sen. Obama has a better chance of beating John McCain that Sen. Clinton has? That doesn't make sense. If Democrats are REALLY serious about winning back the White House, the support should be given to the person that can actually win in November. It is Senator Obama's supporters that should be lining up behind Senator Clinton if the true goal is to win back the White House, or face the possibility of waiting four more years to see a true change.
There are several things I would like to say.
First of all, when the pollsters list that Sen. Obama is getting the support of 90-92% of the blacks that vote in a primary, that seems to be accepted as fact. When Sen. Clinton says that she is getting support from hard-working American whites, that is racism? Is she not only stating what the pollsters are saying? Are her facts incorrect? I don't think so. Hillary has had a long history of supporting all groups so I find it hard to believe that she is being called a racist for this. She knows that she cannot win without the support of African Americans.
And when I hear the fear of the Supreme Court nominees, doesn't each one have to be approved by the Senate, and aren't we expecting the Senate to be controlled by the Democrats? What is the problem here? That is why we have a system of checks and balances. Even if, God forbid, McCain wins, he can't control the Supreme Court and he wouldn't be the first President to have nominees accepted or rejected.
I realize that whatever happens and whoever the nominee is for the Democrats, many people will feel cheated. This is actually a three way race for the Presidency. If in fact, the loser in the Democratic nomination process were to run on another party's ticket, say the Liberal party, who do you think would actually win the election? Who do you think would carry the states that have the most electors? In a year where so many strange things have already happened, why not?
It wasn't that long ago that "control" of the Congress went to the Democrats. Shouldn't the people there be held accountable for some of the mistakes of this administration. Were they really elected to sit on their hands and wait 2 more years for a Democrat to win the White House?
I hear Michaelangelo spending so much time defending Sen. Obama and saying it is time to back him (actually he was calling for people to back him a while ago). Why have I never heard the same urging of support for Sen. Clinton? Do you really, honestly and truly believe that Sen. Obama has a better chance of beating John McCain that Sen. Clinton has? That doesn't make sense. If Democrats are REALLY serious about winning back the White House, the support should be given to the person that can actually win in November. It is Senator Obama's supporters that should be lining up behind Senator Clinton if the true goal is to win back the White House, or face the possibility of waiting four more years to see a true change.
You said a lot at once al.
Something that horrifies me about the American electorate is that they elected Bush by a significant margin that allows no douts to be cast on his legitimacy, as horrible as his presidency is. That says very lttle about the voters but that they are a prety lame bunch.
The biggest problem with the American political system is that the system of "checks and balances" which the founders went to such extremes to engrain in our system has gone to hell. The problem is not just so much that Bush himself has corrupted it in every way possible but that he has demonstarted how set up it has been for corruption. It should have schocked the hell out of the nation when Congress gave over thier power to declare war to Bush. Now we know that the justice department is at his bidding-he is appointing people with a distinct political agenda. We spend most of the nations money making war, to the extent that noted Military people are shocked and afraid. Tommy Franks said that it will just take one more major terrorist attack for a coup to take place.
Not only has Bush made it legal for the president to declare Martial law if there is any diruption whatsoever(2006) but he has clearly overridden the constitutional constraint on breaking Treaties and made torture legal.
The congress virtually does anything the president wants. We have allowed the embodyment of the "industrial-military complex" with the president residing over everything but have allowed the legislative and judicial branches of government to atrophy. This has been happening since WW2.
The determination to back Obama has more than anything to do with principle. If he ia willing to pull back the American Empire as the British did after the war, the Republic may be preserved, Otherwise we risk a replay of what happened in Rome.
Octavious sent a soldier to the Roman senate and gave them the choice of giving up their power to his dictatorship or to fall beneith the swords of his army.
The courts and leaders have warned against the keeping of a standing army from Geo Washington to Eisenhouer.
We have had an ever expanding military force since WW2 and have engaged in 30 major conflicts. We have 800+ bases in150 countries.
We survive by making war.
Clinton is a hawk and would just keep us on this dangerous path.
If she won it might not be that much different than if McCain does.
I agree that it would be great to have a multi party system. But, as it is, if Clinton won would anything change? Just winning is not the goal. It is not the case that we have candidates with equal agendas.
I trust in the wisdom of a majority of Party leaders, and I hope that this time the voters can make the right choice. Our voting public has become exceedingly ignorant of what they are voting for or against.
that is always a danger of democracy. That may be the price of a sold media and a rotten educational system. I wonder how many students learn anymore that we have a Co
cont: Constitution even.
al, if you relate anything positive with white people you will be called a racist.
Commenting by HaloScan
