Karla
sbcNOSPAMglobal.net> wrote:
>In article <4862DEA7.1080809@
skypoint.com>, Dale Houstman says...
>>
>>
>>
>>Karla wrote:
>>> In article <486215DF.2040103@
skypoint.com>, Dale Houstman says...
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>ggamble wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Dale Houstman"
skypoint.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:48618E33.90206@skypoint.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>ggamble wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Michigan and Florida delegations attempted to move the dates of
>>>>>>>their primaries against the rules of the DNC.
>>>>>>>They chose to ignore the rules. The DNC had to enforce the rules,
>>>>>>>they had no choice.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The 50/50 delegate distribution was a compromise designed to not
>>>>>>>disenfranchise the voters.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How on earth can you hold on to this vast democratic party gender
>>>>>>>conspiracy theory by saying they *delivered to him on cue*.?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Sometimes the candidates we support don't win and we have to move on.
>>>>>>>Life and politics are full of compromises, there is no such thing as
>>>>>>>a perfect candidate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Are you telling me that you're not going to cast a vote for President
>>>>>>>in November because the person you supported in the primaries didn't
>>>>>>>win the nomination?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hillary and Bill are supporting Obama, what do you know that they don't?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hell, I haven't voted since Carter because I'm an ex-pat, but I'm
>>>>>>>voting in this one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Voting has been a non-issue for me forever now, but I have two reasons
>>>>>>to vote this year: despite whatever general qualms I have about the
>>>>>>existence of invisible entrenched power overriding the effectiveness
>>>>>>of any political vote, I think I want to be a part of this
>>>>>>socio-cultural marvel. also, in my state, Al Franken is going up
>>>>>>against that human worm Norm Coleman, and I've voted against Norm
>>>>>>every chance I've gotten.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Hillary was a dollop of old machinery lead. I wouldn't have have
>>>>>>walked two feet to vote for her.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>dmh
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I hear ya, Dale, regarding the marvel of it all.
>>>>>
>>>>>Who would've thought that anything would've bumped us both out of our
>>>>>cynicism.
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, not totally, and not really cynicism, but you know what I mean.
>>>>>
>>>>>Al Franken and Jesse Ventura?
>>>>>What kind of freak show are you running up there?
>>>>>heh
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Next year, an old Wayne Newton impressionist is running against a milk
>>>>carton juggling trannie for mayor of Floodville...
>>>>
>>>>As for Obama, let's just say he represents - for me - a fresh angle on
>>>>the soon-to-be disappointing. you gotta take your thrills where you can
>>>>get them. Hillary? I seriously don't understand the excitement over her
>>>>candidacy: she's a career shyster (a bad one by all accounts) and - as
>>>>the campaign revealed - one not above shoveling racism to stoke the
>>>>fires. Her getting behind that totally ridiculous "gas tax holiday"
>>>>idea, and quoting Karl Rove...well, that just frosted the pop-tart for
>>>>me. And the idea that she was "pushed out" is pure mirage.
>>>>
>>>>dmh
>>>
>>>
>>> So much to say, so little time (I'm off for vacation), but...
>>>
>>> Oh my, such a fresh angle the O has on FISA! Pander on now that you're the
>>> nominee.
>>>
>>>And when it sounds good, the O agrees to campaign financing, and when he's the
>>> nominee does a 180.
>>
>>Certainly. And Hillary made any number of 180s in her career: I've made
>>it clear that I am not one to consider Obama messianic: he's a
>>politician among many. My interest in him is minimal, but slightly
>>larger than that old party hack Hillary or her doppelganger on the
>>right, McCain. That's it: showing me that Obama isn't St Paul is
>>irrelevant. I leave the slobbering worship to the Hillary supporters who
>>think (somehow) that he candidacy was so "magical" that they can now
>>reasonably vote for McCain because they didn't get their wittle way.
>
>It's easy not to look deeper at what's troubling Democrats who say they will
>vote for McCain. It's easy to peg them as disenfranchised Hillary supporters who
>"didn't get their wittle way." It's easy but it's also a mistake. In the
>blogosphere, you can find many who went the same route as me. They thought that
>Obama was the best choice, began to see something wasn't right, looked further,
>took a second look at Clinton, and then began to notice this weird Obamabot
>behavior. And then it became evident that the media was in love with Obama, that
>the DNC was making weird decisions. I was honestly surprised at the sexism.
>Silly me. I had assumed it would be no big deal in this day and age to have a
>woman president. Surely, people were looking at other qualifications first? I
>tend to take a person as s/he comes and probably surround myself with friends
>who are the same so it was quite an eye opener to see the pandering to Obama,
>stepping gingerly here and there, and the deaf ears to attacks on Clinton. I
>really wish some of her supporters had let it be. She's tough enough to take it.
>Though recently, pundits have suggested she would have done better had she
>played the sex card. I disagree.
>
>>> The O now flips on NAFTA - indeed such a fresh angle.
>>
>>I said he was "fresh" not pure as saltpeter pancakes. It is refreshing
>>to be able to hear a candidate put words together without either
>>stumbling over their tongues, or laying claim to such "spectacular"
>>ideas as the gas tax holiday.
>
>I agree that he's somewhat refreshing. Early on I began to tire of his
>generalities and theoretical solutions. Sure, he had his cadence right but
>Clinton demonstrated that she understood the real world we live in.
>The divide
>grew between the two as time went on as I listened to his repetitions of 'yes we
>can' backed by little substance. It made me nervous.
Well, instead of just listening, K .. maybe you should go to his
website and read the substance of his positions. Read about his health
care plan, (not as good as Hillary's, true - but the plan HAS
substance and is a whole lot more palatable than what McCain talks
about), his positons on defense, energy and the environment, seniors
and social security, and any of 30 other issues, from Defence to
Women's issues. Each write up is comprehensive, substantive and a damn
site better than anything the Repugs are touting (more of the same as
the last 8 years). This "backed by little substance" is classic Repug
dogmatic attack shit they hurl at everybody that's a Dem that runs
against 'em.
So, you vote for Obama in the primaries and then start quoting Repug
propaganda out the side of your face now that he's got the nomination
and you're too hurt for Hillary losing?
Your "backed by little substance" indicates that you don't know how to
read, but I know better - so it must be spite and spit to make sure he
loses the general cause you're too angry a women can't be Pres this
time around.
Go read what's on his website! Or continue to spit and cry, I don't
really care. But while you cry, realize what it is you're really
crying about .. and it AIN'T Obama's lack of substance. Lie to
yourself if you must, but don't lie to me .. I can read what's posted
to a website. If YOU can't, well ...
-blue
>
>>> I voted for the O on Super Tuesday. I hadn't done my homework and like you,
>>>wanted that fresh angle. At that time, Hillary hadn't separated her public self
>>>from Bill for me. I stand corrected. She's a politician but at least I know what
>>> she's done in the Senate, what she represents, what to expect. All sex aside.
>>> She is the better candidate. Damn, but we've been bamboozled once again.
>>>
>>
>>Hillary is a machine hack. She fucked up the healthcare issue, and she
>>voted for our recent war. You are welcome to that sort of candidate. As
>>for being the "better candidate": she ran a horrible race, and - ta da -
>>she lost.
>
>As you know, Obama wasn't in the Senate to vote. Prior to running for President,
>he'd made several public comments about the recent war, but most of his
>supporters only remember 2004. They talk around his other public comments about
>Iraq and staying there.
>
>I disagree with your characterization of Hillary fucking up the healthcare
>issue. Unless you're privy to something I'm not, she fought hard and loss.
>Period.
>
>Karla
>
>>dmh
>>
>
>
>--
