In article
4ax.com>, Beau Blue says...>
>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.
You don't really want to start down that road! What do I trust? His promise
there to "have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months" or his
statement in the Las Vegas Democratic debate about his "plan that will get our
troops out by the end of 2009." (12 months)
Or statements in the past couple of weeks that left him some wiggle room should
conditions warrant his needing to leave troops there quite a bit longer.
So is it 12 months, 16 months, or as long as needed.
Like I said, you don't really wanna go there.
How about Social Security?
And his promises with respect to the economy. Ten billion here, twenty billion
there, but no explanation of how he plans to do it. That's what I mean by no
substance.
He's a flim-flam man. Harold Hill in River City.
>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?
Wow, what a re-write! I feel like a Rip Van Winkle with that spread of inaction
between voting in the primary and June 3.
When I voted for Barack, and talked about how I disliked the Clinton drama,
Obamabots accused me of using Repug talking points too.
>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.
Your reliance on his website promises in the face of his statements elsewhere
indicate that you know how to read but don't know any better. The O is going to
break your heart if you believe like I think you do. And as stated elsewhere,
I'm not voting for McCain. Unless it gets a lot worse, I'll vote for Obama. I'm
conflicted on it, and generally despise voting for someone because they'll win
rather than what they stand for.
>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 ...
There you go again. So tell me, why did a constitutional lawyer promise to
oppose and fillibuster "the warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in
defiance of FISA, [which] is unlawful and unconstitutional" last January but
vote in support of the immunity package this week? Why did he promise to oppose
the Patriot Act and then vote for it? In case you're still stuck on the only
violin you can find, these are real questions. No tears here!
Karla
>-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
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
--
--
