What Digby Said
Digby nails it like a Nazarene in his mid-20s:
That’s what I see when I talk to actual Democrats, particularly those who don’t spend all their time on the Internet. Not only do Democrats like both candidates, not only do they think they are going to get to vote FOR someone instead of AGAINST the Republican this year, but the primary is improving that view.
For the record, I voted for Obama (in The City, in The State), but I could just has easily have pulled the lever for Clinton. Interesting that, because back in ’92, I voted Green rather than sink to backing Diane Feinstein, who is quite possibly to the left of Hillary. It’s funny what having kids and holding down a regular job does to your pragmatism vis-a-vis politics.
Anyway, the point being, I’d be happy with either Obama or Clinton winning the nomination. And it’s been very eye-opening to see Hillary up her game in terms of optimism and inclusiveness in the face of serious competition from a man who owns those rhetorical categories. I liken it to playing pick-up basketball, where an average player can rise to level of better players much of the time.
All of which is to say, I’m pretty giddy about our November prospects at the moment.
UPDATE: What dday said. Not digby. doh!
Wish I shared your optimism. The next Democratic president had better like sleepless nights and independant investigations. The GOP is going to make their life a living hell. One term and out.
I’m looking forward to seeing how things play out. Both of the Democratic front-runners are awesome; all three of the Republican front-runners are complete basket cases.
Not that it’s not plenty possible for the Dems to valiantly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, but right now, it looks like the Giants and the Patriots teaming up for a game against the Banjoville Junior High freshman squad…
I suspect that the GOP may not have a very large contingent in Congress to push any investigations.
As for the Republican-leaning media, I wonder how many of them will be deprived of their microphones before the election. I can’t imagine many of them being able to stifle their bigot eruptions for long, and some of them may be blatant enough to get the Imus treatment.
At least, that’s what I’m hoping… God knows the easiest way to break the back of the GOP will be to shut down their enablers in the media.
DiFi is less than worthless, and no liberal should vote for her in good conscience, by the way.
Clinton seems to be about the same, but in the primaries it looks like she’s giving the nod to liberal fascists. I worry about her support for important causes, such as electoral reform and cutting defense spending. I think either Clinton or Obama could do most of the things they’re promising to do, but Obama could set up more and better victories from 2012.
Anyway, the point being, I’d be happy with either Obama or Clinton winning the nomination. And it’s been very eye-opening to see Hillary up her game in terms of optimism and inclusiveness in the face of serious competition from a man who owns those rhetorical categories. I liken it to playing pick-up basketball, where an average player can rise to level of better players much of the time.
All of which is to say, I’m pretty giddy about our November prospects at the moment.
I couldn’t agree more.
Jesus, let’s all commit suicide. You need anti-depressants.
As for the Republican-leaning media,…
Splodey heads ever’where!
Romney’s spending over a million dollars per delegate— go, Romney!
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/06/romneys_expenses_per_delegate.html
The thing is, some of them had blatant bigoted eruptions on many occasions (ie: Rush, Michael Savage), but not a goddamned thing still has been done about it. That’s what pissed me off about the whole Imus thing… it wasn’t the fact that he got canned, it was the fact that it should’ve happened to the rightwinged scream machine ten times over. The only reason why Imus got fired was because political punditry wasn’t his schtick.
But Imus is endorsing Obama! Sez he, “They got some nappy-headed ho’s in that family. I likes me some nappy-headed ho’s”
D.
While I agree, I could have easily voted for Obama as opposed to Hillary, in looking over the county by county breakdown of the voting yesterday (yea, I have no life), I forsee a real problem if Obama is nominated.
He’s not winning voters in the red districts of even the bluest states like New York and California. Hell, he only won one county in NY, and that was the county with an Ivy League university in it!
His message of change, while attractive to young voters, is scaring away people who will be sorely tempted to vote for McCain. He has to alter it if he hopes to succeed in November.
The only reason why Imus got fired was because political punditry wasn’t his schtick.
Nah, Imus got fired because the victims were extremely sympathetic. These were hard-working young college girls– a scrappy, underdog Cinderella basketball team. Calling them “ho’s” is not gonna fly, and throwing in “nappy-headed” didn’t help matters.
What do the candidates actually stand for? What separates them? I’m English, all I see is the BBC reporting on who’s ahead but I haven’t seen a single article discussing their policies. Am I not looking hard enough, or have they not actually announced their policies yet? I’d agree with Dhalgren, think it’s going to be very hard for the Democrats to avoid getting blamed for the Republican’s mess.
Dunno, actor212. My impression, as a white guy living in Chicago, is that conservatives, and ‘undecideds’ hate Mrs. Clinton more than they hate Obama. Of course, this is his home state. But still. He won over all those downstate Illinois crackers (the saying is, “‘The South’ begins about 10 miles south of the Chicago city limits) to get the position he holds now. I don’t know why he would not be able to do the same thing again.
Obama stands for hope.
Clinton stands for competence.
McCain stands for no man.
Romney stands for Romney.
Huckabee stands for ‘Gloooblarghh’.
Giuliani stands for 9/11.
Thompson stands for sittin’ a spell.
I’d agree with Dhalgren, think it’s going to be very hard for the Democrats to avoid getting blamed for the Republican’s mess.
One of ’em accrues more blame than the other.
So what separates any of the candidates on things like abortion/gun ownership/immigration/foreign policy? Or more specifically, what separates Clinton and Obama? Realistically it’s between them and McCain as far as I can see.
The fact is, we are not ready for the novelty of a woman OR black president. We are at war. This requires steady leadership, not sacrifices to the PC god. We need a border fence. We need to invade Iran. And we need tax cuts.
“As for the Republican-leaning media, I wonder how many of them will be deprived of their microphones before the election.”
I’m guessing zero. Rupert Murdoch, GE, and the company that gave us “Path to 9/11” have plenty of money to spend and aren’t going to let any DFHs tell them who to fire.
The fact is, we also need more repsect for the Constitution and the intent of the Founders, who were not atheists but Bible believeing Christians. We need constitutional amendments to outlaw abortion and gay, and to ensure God is not left out.
The fact is, this is the sort of censorship liberals decry but love to do themselves to their enemies.
That’s funny because, this morning, MSNBC has a little blurb up to the effect of Republicans MAY rally around their candidate, but Democrats MAY tear their own party apart! Huh?? I suppose – I mean, I MAY sprout wings and fly my daughter to school this morning instead of driving, but I wouldn’t count on it. McCain and Mittens MAY decide that they are just like each other after all, and they would be satisfied no matter who wins — Romney/McCain ’08!
When we were watching the SuperTrouperTuesday nonsense last night, my wife and I were laughing (gallows humor) about how, on the Repub side, there are three guys who we would never vote for because we consider all of them a throw back to the 12th century or so, and there were Repubs bitching because non of these three anti-abortion, let’s-kill-all-non-white-people (except fetuses), pro-war, lunatics were conservative enough! It’s like watching a bunch of kids in a day-care center fight. At some point they don’t even know what they are fighting about, but fighting and throwing tantrums is fun, so they don’t care!
Not disputing who is actually to blame for the economy and terrorism and Iraq etc, but many of the problems are only going to come to fruition in the nect few years. If the Democrats are in power they will get blamed for the problems regardless of who actually caused them (in my opinion). There will be a message at some point that there’s only so much that the Republicans can be blamed for, then the media will make it sound like a Democrat excuse. It’s a horrible Catch-22- if the Democrats do nothing, the economy gets worse and the voters blame them for it. If the Democrats try to do something to improve the economy they will have to introduce measures that will not be universally popular and they will lose votes. For me, it’s going to be interesting seeing how they deal with that.
[…] D-Day’s take (via D. Aristophanes): That’s what I see when I talk to actual Democrats, particularly those who don’t spend all […]
Gah! Don’t make us work, id! I’d say Clinton and Obama are more similar in their policy prescriptions than different, though Clinton is more hawkish on foreign policy (and famously got the Iraq vote very, very, very wrong) … on the other hand, Obama’s Senate record indicates he is not nearly as dovish as some of his supporters might believe.
Hillary’s health plan is better largely because it’s more practical, IMO, though Obama seems to me to be more adaptable on this issue (just a feeling, he seems less stubborn in demeanor than Clinton, for whom health care is a personal, almost ideological issue).
I don’t know that there’s substantial differences between the two on immigration, Obama’s endorsement of driver’s licenses notwithstanding. I suspect Obama at the point is courting Latino voters with such endorsements more than he is outlining his actual heart-felt position.
On abortion, they’re both pro-choice and would appoint justices who reflect that. Obama’s flirtation with mega-church dipshits is slightly troubling, but not really.
On macro-economic matters, I haven’t waded into the weeds of wonkishness enough to say what their substantive differences are. I await the advice of Teh Shrill on these matters.
Initiate Debate: Just like first aid — stop the bleeding first. Deal with the associated problems after. All of the pretty cosmetic work means nothing if the patient bleeds to death on the table. Sometimes the first doctor on the scene gets sued just because he was the first one to initiate treatment; it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t try. (Republicans: this is a figure of speech. There is no human patient. The “doctor” would be the next President. What this means is: your president has raped and gutted the country, and the damage needs to be stopped & reversed before we can all move forward again, even if the person(s) trying to stop it get blamed.)
I wish I could vote for Obama when it counts. Here in Oregon we share with Kentucky the fate of being the last state to vote. Grrrr. I spoke with my sister in L. A.; she hemmed and hawed and finally chose Hillary. I think that’s typical of the democratic constituency – we’re gonna be happy with whomever gets the nod. Dems will vote Dem. And the turnout for dems is so high not because we fervently want one particular candidate but becuase we’re all het up about the fucking disaster of the last seven years.
The general election though, is a horse of another color. Again, the dem candidate will capture essentially all the dems. Independents will break to one side or the other based on what happens in the run-up to November.
I’d like to see Obama topping our ticket because, mutatis mutandem, Obama excites new voters. My gut feeling is Obama will have much bigger coat tails than HRC. If the Ind’s break for O (that’s likely, imho) and we increase the size of the dem base, we’ll do that much better in the congressional elections.
Your mileage may vary. Only your doctor can say if Zoomfudzol is right for you. Sorry Tennessee.
S’alright, I LOVE being confused for Digby.
Or wait, was it Hillary who endorses driver’s licenses? I forget … but only because I’m moderately informed and late for work …
DA: She went both ways on DLs. After she took so much crap for it after that one debate (where they got Kucinich talking about UFOs) she changed her mind.
The fact is, if you succeed in putting Hitlery into the white house, you will also put Bill in there. They will kill again.
I think I got too long-winded. My point was the same as PeeJ: At this point, we Dems have two remaining candidates, and I (& most Dems, I think) would be “good enough” with either. On the other side, the WingNuts are screaming that they would rather have ‘Hitlery’ than McCain, they would rather have Stalin than Huckabee, etc., etc., and just COULDN’T vote for them if it came down to it (yeah, right).
Gary, we warned you about taking out a sub-prime on the bottom of the barrel. Terrible view and very tough to flip.
Gahhhh — 2ndGen Gary beat me to the ‘Hitlery’.
The fact is, we are not ready for the novelty of a woman
If one embraces the fact that Gary is starting to think of himself as royalty, I can accept that this statement is absolutely true.
Professor Larry Lessig, the creator of the Creative Commons, and a superb presenter on issues of copyright did this presentation on why he is endorsing Obama over Hillary:
http://lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html
There is a transcript here:
http://blog.printf.net/articles/2008/02/05/transcript-of-lawrence-lessig-obama-video
But I strongly recommend watching the video, as the transcript misses a lot of the subtlety of the presentation.
Miguel
On the other side, the WingNuts are screaming that
Which goes back to dday’s point: are the actual Republicans paying attention to that?
He won over all those downstate Illinois crackers
Actually, Clinton carried those counties, the ones down by Indiana and Kentucky.
Gary Ruppert said,
February 6, 2008 at 19:03
The fact is, if you succeed in putting Hitlery into the white house, you will also put Bill in there. They will kill again.
Would you post your address? I don’t think they should have to Google you…
Which goes back to dday’s point: are the actual Republicans paying attention to that?
I doubt it — Republican voters (as opposed to Republican pundits) are somewhat coherent, and should generally notice when an iceberg has ripped through the hull of the ship. Especially when the captain just keeps ramming away the ice.
DA- thanks, that was kind of the impression that I had from reading here and other places. From the sounds of it, if there’s not much to choose from on policy it becomes a personality contest. I’d be wary of someone who was inflexible on changing policy, as we’ve seen what happens when people blindly stick to their guns/convictions without being able to detach themselves and be objective.
Marsupial- absolutely, couldn’t agree more. Someone has to take some actions that will try and make things better. My concern with that is (unless it’s managed in exactly the right way, or they get very lucky) that those actions will make them unpopular and after 4 years it will be straight back to a Republican government.
What those who project an aura of invincibility around the Hillary campaign fail to consider is that the asshole in the White House isn’t about to let this election go by without exerting his influence on the outcome.
When the bombs start falling over Iran during the week of the Democratic convention, the corporate media will shift into high gear to once again convince those who might otherwise consider voting Democratic that the GOP is the only party that can be trusted in matters of war and national security.
This will benefit McCain, who’ll siphon off just enough votes to win in a 47-46 squeaker. Third-party candidates (Bloomberg, Nader, Ron Paul, etc.) will attract those turned off by Hillary, and gather up the remaining seven percent.
For you see, America is filled to the brim with idiots who’ll gladly rally ’round the flag if the corporate media pounds the war drums loudly enough. And Hillary won’t dare protest lest she be declared unpatriotic (Obama would be more likely to resist the pressure to conform).
You can prepare to see the Democrats’ White House prospects evaporate when this happens. Bush has to be succeeded by a Republican hawk to vindicate his sorry excuse for a presidency, and I think he’ll do whatever it takes to see it happen. He doesn’t care if it’s McCain or Romney so long as it’s someone who’ll continue this stupid, win-proof war. Long-term ramications for the GOP be damned – George W. Bush cares about George W. Bush.
Republican voters are coherent? I thought this place and the snark it provides was evidence that there are a lot of crazy (20% of the population) Republican voters out there?
It was funny listening to some of the analysis on MSNBC last night. One guy (I have no idea what his name is — my daughter kept calling him “The man with the brown skin”, as opposed to “the guy with the grey hair” (Olbermann) or “the girl I like” (Hillary)) said something to the effect of Obama being sure-death for the Democrats, since he has to scratch to get about 40+% of the vote in the primaries with only Democrats voting, how could he EVER compete in a general election? And we were like “Huh??!?”, because that may have been the dumbest statement of the night.
Although, it’s true: if I can’t have Obama, then I am running down and voting for Romney, several times if possible (I’m sure it will be possible). Because that’s just how we roll.
Republican voters are coherent?
I think MOST of them are coherent (that’s really not saying much). It’s the people who speak for them who are the douchebags.
Screamin’ Demon – I think you’re leaving out the part where the corporate media has corporate interests … and another four years of GOP economic fuck-ups isn’t precisely in those interests.
“ramifications,” dumbass. I gave up caffeine last week. Being drug-free is a bitch.
and another four years of GOP economic fuck-ups isn’t precisely in those interests.
Good point. But bad economic times has never seemed to prevent them from supporting the GOP before, and I can’t see how it will now. I hope I’m wrong.
Lets just hope that we get ron paul running as an independent. That’s a good 1% off the GOP vote right there. If the Huckster does the same, that could be a further 10%!
Then we send some lads with baseball bats round to Nader’s house, and “convince” him not to try running. Although I don’t think it will matter if we get Obama running. I think he is capable of picking up most of the Nader hippy vote. Even Hillary could capture most of the female ones!
Did you guys know that it’s the ENVIRONMENTALISTS who are keeping us from doing anything about Darfur?
http://www.townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/ChuckAsay/2008/02/3
Teh stupid is strong with this Asay. Not to mention the mouth-breathing neo-con who forwarded it to me.
Good point. But bad economic times has never seemed to prevent them from supporting the GOP before, and I can’t see how it will now.
There don’t appear to be bad economic times for people at a certain level of management.
This seems to reflect the thinking of Democrats Abroad as well.
The real owner of America not you, Americans.
George Carlin
You still in here initiate? When Obama won Iowa I took a look at the foreign press. The gist was “There’s hope for America after all.”
What’s the mood over there vis a vis this election?
I’m just here to pimp The Pain Comics. Funny stuff.
I worried about the Republican Election Gaming system. John Edwards is out of the race, so if they throw the third election in a row, no matter who gets the nomination, they can claim that, “American wasn’t ready for a
blackwomancandidate.”I have even seen discussions about that psychological condition wherein a person tells an exit pollster that they voted for the minority out of guilt when in reality they voted for the old white man. So they are sowing the seeds of ambiguity in addition to all of the other tricks they have been honing since 2000.
It’s impressive if nothing else.
The fact is, conservatives like Gary are the enemy in his war.
Treat them accordingly.
Kwap.
not “his war”… that should be “this war”
Screamin’ Demon, I really don’t see a war ploy working this time around. People are sick of the war, and they sure as hell don’t wanna see it expand anywhere. War in Iran would be a perfect time for the Dems to start reminding everyone of how much they hate the war, how much they hate the idiot who started it, how much they hate the Republican Party that mindlessly slurps up the Boy King’s sloppy seconds.
War in Iran would put a hell of a lot more pressure on Republicans to repudiate the Holy Bush, and I don’t think any of them would be able to do that. Hence: down in flames.
Jesus was 33 years old when we nailed him up. That’s why it says “33” on every bottle of Rolling Rock.
Yeah, but when he was in his 20s he was the one doing the nailing.
He won over all those downstate Illinois crackers
Actually, Clinton carried those counties, the ones down by Indiana and Kentucky.
I think he was referring to the Senate race in Illinois back in ’04. True, he was facing Keyes, but I don’t think that’s any less valid a comparison than an election in which he was running against another Democrat.
To me, this whole question of whether Hilary or Obama did better in red counties is kind of pointless. It doesn’t tell us a goddamn thing about which one would do better in a red county against an actual Republican opponent, which is a somewhat more pertinent question than “which candidate appeals more to Democrats who live in conservative areas.” It’s like saying the Cincinnati Reds will win the World Series this year because of how awesome they looked in an intra-squad scrimmage during spring training.
Well, okay, maybe it’s not quite *that* worthless. But it’s close.
not “his war”… that should be “this war”
No, I think you had it right the first time.
Really, K?
Are you pulling my leg?
Jesus was 33 years old when we nailed him up.
If somebody had bothered to invite me I could have brought the revolutionary Vaughan S-2 but the “In Crowd” couldn’t be bothered.
Jesus was 33 years old when we nailed him up. That’s why it says “33? on every bottle of Rolling Rock.
That sucks for him, because only one day later, everyone was 0 years old. Since the calander had become 0 A.D., and no one has negative ages.
Poor bastard. I bet Ponty P was a liberal fascist.
That’s an uphill battle if I’ve ever seen one. Seeing how a big majority of Americans currently oppose both the war in Iraq AND a potential war with Iran, I just don’t see this happening. This isn’t like 2003, when public sentiment was A-OK with a quick-n-easy war with Iraq. People have gotten the point. Took too many dead bodies, took too much of our credibility lost, but nevertheless, people have gotten the point.
War with Iran starts to smell draft-tacular, and the party that has to reinstall the draft will most likely fall out of favor for the next, oh, 30 years. I think between attacking Iran and hoping McCain loses in the general election so there’s nyah-nyah-told-you-so to be had, the bastions of wingnuttery are gonna go for Option 2.
RB nails it like Florence Griffith-Joyner in the 1988 Olympics.
1992.
I can’t believe I haven’t seen more chatter about the massive turnout for Dems, and the weak GOP turnout. Those numbers were incredible last night!
So the point of your item is: Neither seek employment nor reproduce? We agree.
…when we nailed him up.
What you mean ‘we’, white man?
Yeah, Asay’s comics are a riot of laughs. He puts one out every one or two weeks with the theme that everything is fine and dandy in Iraq, but the liberals such have a deep down hatred for the Iraqis to the point that they want to kill them.
The problem with this line of thinking is that although it often applies, it doesn’t apply in cases where the President and his fellow gang members don’t give the slightest sh*t about what the big majority or overwhelming majority or all but a tiny few raving screaming crazy Americans think.
Now, I’m not saying they are definitely at that point — but they very well could be.
It may be more significant for Bush / Cheney to be battling institutional and ally opposition, but if Bush Jr. Commander Guy decides he wants to do it, it will be a case in which Bush Jr. says, “F*** you, I’m right, and I don’t care if you don’t like it ’cause whattya gonna do, vote me out?”
And D. points out 1992.
It’s so out of character for me I can hardly believe I’m going to say this.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the severely dumbed down populace, the great unwashed masses of American shit-for-brains, are *starting* to realize or maybe just have some unsettling notion that the media is worth diddly squat.
Blame it on the intertoobz. There’s just too many widely heard voices crying “bullshit” to be ignored.
Damn! Those rose colored contacts hurt my eyes! It burnsssss! It hurtses us!
An important question for non-Americans concerns the likelihood of war with Iran.
Clearly, McCain would “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” simply to solidify his Republican cred; Romney would attack because it would be good for the American arms and oil industries; Huckleberry would do it because, well, they just ain’t Christian enough.
But I think both Clinton and Obama present a similar risk. I think either of them would allow an Israeli strike on key Iranian targets, and then vigorously defend Israel’s “right to defend itself” in any subsequent international debate.
But I’m a natural pessimist and I’ve been trained, over the last seven years, to think of the United States as a rogue nation.
Well, I don’t like either of these candidates, though of course they’re less bad than McCain, Romney or Huckabee.
I don’t get either Obama or Clinton supporters’ looking at the primary results and interpreting them as spelling trouble in November for the other candidate with this or that demographic.
The primary is a race between Obama and Clinton. People voting for Obama are choosing him over Clinton. People voting for Clinton are choosing her over Obama. (And for what it’s worth the race is extraordinarily even, both in delegates and votes cast.) By themselves these votes tell you absolutely nothing about how the losing candidate’s voters will behave in the general election.
But here’s what we do know: polls show Democratic voters like both candidates. There may be some electability issues with one or the other, but they can’t be gleaned from Democratic primary results.
I had a little talk with a friend of mine who is a HUGE Hillary supporter.
She really hates Obama. Really, really.
She said she would vote for McCain over Obama because McCain is honest.
Her reason for hating Obama so much?
He’s a phony and he keeps playing the race card.
Reasoning like that keeps me from making any predictions about November.
It’s within the realm of possibility. Of course, if they were to appoint April Glaspie to the staff at the US Embassy in Israel, it might give pause to some of the hawks.
Clinton inspires nothing in me. She is a corporate candidate, who cowardly voted for the war, the defining issue of the last decade. I will never vote for her.
I can’t say that Obama is a perfect candidate, but I would be happy to vote for him.
hoosier x,
I think that Obama phoniness really doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. I’ve seen people rant about the fact that he described himself as a “professor” on his resume (which is actually very reasonable in the law school context), and about the fact that he voted present on abortion issues, which seems to have been part of a consistent strategy back then.
I also really don’t see him “playing the race card,” and I don’t think that a real credible case of that can be made.
So I don’t think your friend represents any sort of large movement.
Via The Poor Man Institute:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html
And while there probably aren’t enough Dems like me who won’t vote for Clinton to make a difference, she is just not going to get votes from men or women on the Republican side. Obama will beat McCain. Clinton could lose to McCain.
foreigner-
I’m always pimpin’ my guy Dennis around here.
He’s on the same page with you and an American to boot.
We need constitutional amendments to outlaw abortion and gay
Teh Garynator is accidentally honest again!
He doesn’t give a damn about marriage, except as a vehicle that seems to legitimize his bigotry. He’d really just like to put gays in camps.
Hmm, seems to me there was some historical figure wanted to do just exactly that…
mikey
Oh Steve, steve, steve.
You’d cut off your nose to spite your face. If McCain were to become Pres. the swirling in the toilet would be over – right down the drain we’d go. And it would be YOUR fault.
steve e., I’ve heard your logic before and it always sounds so flawed to my ears. Clinton and Obama are pretty obviously working towards the same ends, give or take, but you can only bring yourself to vote for one of them, You’d rather see 8 more years of the same rot rather than lower your standards of democratic perfection. I just don’t get it.
To me, it’s like the Star Trek episode where Spock tells identical robots that he likes one but hates the other because she is identical to the one he likes. The Enterprise crew winds up short circuiting all the robots, who can’t deal with illogic.
He’d really just like to put gays in camps.
But I love’s me the gay camps! Oodles of fun and sex and dancing!
He’d really just like to put gays in camps.
With Gary as the Scoutmaster.
Kinky, Gary! We never knew.
Who but the gays could put the camp into camp?
Kinky, Gary! We never knew.
Oh, it’s been obvious for a while that Gary is nothing if not kinky. Frickin’ sadist…
“Blame it on the intertoobz. There’s just too many widely heard voices crying “bullshit” to be ignored.”
I’m on board with this thought. It’s like being accidentally informed. Could happen to anyone.
But I think both Clinton and Obama present a similar risk. I think either of them would allow an Israeli strike on key Iranian targets, and then vigorously defend Israel’s “right to defend itself” in any subsequent international debate.
Foreigner:
I am also very, very worried about exactly that. While I believe it is almost certain that McCain or Romney would attack Iran, it is unfortunately quite possible that Obama or Clinton might do that too, or at least not prevent Israel from doing so.
Remember, though, that if Bush attacks Iran, the point is moot. And Bush could very well attack.
From my perspective, I just want things to hold together long enough for my nation (the USA), to get itself back on track, and begin to wake up from the neoconservative doctrines. We’ll see if it happens. A lot of people are sick of the Middle Eastern wars, but some people I talk to want to attack Iran.
Specifically, on this issue of Obama being “phoney” or “playing the race card,” I agree with you.
I’m talking about in general.
I’m talking about the guy who voted for Bush because he thought Kerry’s wife was pushy and obnoxious.
People are stupid. My friend is a graduate of UCLA. She knows Bush and Cheney are full of shit. But I know she will vote for McCain over Obama for stupid reasons. (I am NOT singling out Hillary supporters. This is just a good example from a conversation I had recently. The point is NOT that Hillary supporters are dumb. The point is that people are dumb and vote for stupid reasons. Which is why the Republicans ALWAYS have a built-in advantage.)
I’m talking about the people who say both sides are just as bad … and then vote Democrat because they don’t want their Guns or Bibles taken away.
I’m talking about the people who will vote against Obama because he’s a Muslim … or a member of a radical black Christian church … or because he “doesn’t have enough experience.”
I’m talking about the people who don’t like Mitt – not because he’s an ultra-capitalist flip-flopping opportunistic hack – but because he’s a Mormon. But they will vote for him anyway because the Democrats are socialists.
I’m talking about the people who really buy the meme that McCain is “honest” or a “straight shooter” or a “maverick.”
I’m talking about the people who will vote for Hillary just because it means that Bill will be back in the White House.
I’m talking about the people who WON’T vote for Hillary just because it means that Bill will be back in the White House.
Start collecting the sophistries. Perhaps science can figure out a way to use them for fuel.
That’s an uphill battle if I’ve ever seen one. Seeing how a big majority of Americans currently oppose both the war in Iraq AND a potential war with Iran, I just don’t see this happening. This isn’t like 2003, when public sentiment was A-OK with a quick-n-easy war with Iraq. People have gotten the point.
I talk with too many people who haven’t gotten the point.
Feinstein is to the left of Hillary? Then why has she been on her back for W the last few years?
Poor Gary.
” . . . to ensure God is not left out.” Gotta tell ya, God’s been feeling left out of religion for a long, loooong time now. I know ’cause she told me over cribbage and tequila shots last Friday night. Did I mention that God looks and sounds just like Aeryn Sun? And is a helluva decent cribbage player?
She is a helluva decent cribbage player
Poor sxwarren. You haven’t noticed that She cheats at cribbage?
Hoosier X, teh stupid is a problem. No doubt.
I heard I guy from Massachusetts call in to the Diane Reihm show this morning. He said he could not decide who to vote for, but chose Clinton because he thought she was more likely to advocate lobbying reform. One of the panelists, a reporter, seemed to be barely suppressing her laughter when she said “I am afraid if that was your criteria you made the wrong choice.”
I think the other side has the monopoly on teh stupid, but you’re right, it exists on both sides.
Clinton inspires nothing in me. She is a corporate candidate, who cowardly voted for the war, the defining issue of the last decade. I will never vote for her.
I can’t say that Obama is a perfect candidate, but I would be happy to vote for him.
Who still hasn’t voted AGAINST a war?
It’s easy to talk, but he’s a gutless coward based on his Senate voting record.
I mean, how many people will just sit out the November election because “both sides are just as bad”?
And how many people who DO go and vote will vote for the one who you’d want to have a beer with?
(McCain beats both Hillary and Obama in this category. Doesn’t mean I’d trust him to watch my cactus for a few days.)
God knows what talking points the SCLM will drone into our heads by November.
And Rove knows what dirty tricks will be needed for the Repugs to STEAL the election again.
Okay, which do you want? Somebody who voted for the disastrous war, but says they now regret it, and want to end the war.
Or somebody who didn’t vote for the disastrous war, and hasn’t really taken a huge stand against it, but also says they want to end it.
Or, on the republican side.. Three stooges who want the war to carry on forever, and are planning on an even MORE disastrous war.
If you don’t vote for the Democrat on the grounds of the war, you are a fucking idiot incapable of basic logic. When they ask you “cake or death?” you don’t fucking say “oh, im on a diet, I suppose I’l have to take the death.”
Well, both of my Dem candidates dropped out (Kucinich and Edwards) but, like any good, decent human being, I’ll vote for whatever center-right dumbshit the Democrats pull out of their ass this time again because the opposing side is so much fucking worse I cannot believe any of them were allowed near a voting booth.
Alas random, most Americans are fucking idiots incapable of basic logic. Apparently, there’s at least one or two posters here in that set. (I don’t mean Gary St. Citadel Smegma who’s below idiot level)
Both Clinton and Obama are big-business candidates. Both breathed a sigh of relief when Edwards and his talk of economic inequality and corporate power left the race.
PeeJ:
Now you mention it, she does seem to get more cribs after I’ve had a few shots. She certainly can hold her liquor. Swears like a sailor, though.
Now, take God.
There’s a
chicklady I’d have a beer with.Hey!
Isn’t there supposed to be a concern troll scheduled to swoop in and call me a sexist and say all liberals are sexist?
Must have been delayed by a flat tire on the clown car on the way back from the 7-11.
http://wonkette.com/353418/magical-inkless-pens-help-obama-carry-nothing-in-chicago
Yup. Idiots.
I advocate the voting booths be placed at the end of a maze. The sort of thing your average lab rat can navigate in about 30 seconds. Anyone who can’t find their way through it, can stay there till the next election.
I wouldn’t give God the time of day. Her moral are questionable, her work ethic stinks, and her sense of humor leaves a lot to be desired.
Hoosier X – I too know an intelligent well-educated lady who says she would rather vote for McCain over Obama because Obama isn’t American enough. She’s anti-war but socially medium-conservative. When I said, WTF?, she said he’s a first generation American – not enough ‘experience’ being American. That time I sub-vocalized my WTF. I think I was in shock.
Personally, I think these ‘not Obama’ rationalizations are about race. We are all instinctively xenophobic. Her reaction is so clearly lacking in logic that it must be rooted way back in the fear center. Of course I also think she is typically, like the man in the street, almost completely ignorant of either man’s real positions and records, so maybe by November she’ll come around.
like the man in the street, almost completely ignorant of either man’s real positions and records
I’m sure that will be cured by the debates and the informed media commentary in the course of the election.
That’s my conclusion. My friend is very nice and very funny and quite knowledgeable on a number of things. She majored in Women’s Studies and Italian. But her Dad is a hick from Arkansas and, though he can see through Repug bullshit and is quite perceptive on non-race related issues, he has some less enlightened opinions on race. She kind of makes fun of him some of the time, but some of her comments make it clear she hasn’t rolled far from the tree.
She frequently goes off on minority women’s-studies students. In her mind, they are all hatin’ on the white women for not doing enough for black and/or Latino women. (I know just enough about the women’s movement to find these discussions quite fascinating.)
I have little doubt that there were a few hardcore students in her classes that WERE hatin’ on the white women. But my friend gets real bent out of shape about it, generalizes about minority students in women’s studies and – back when she was taking those classes – she would talk about it all the time.
I’m avoiding all talk of the election with her until the candidate is chosen. That is not a distraction I need.
God is a He you stupid ignorant heathen!
You’ve just spoken blasphemy Susan! Blasphemy against God the Father the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost!
Oh just shut up, you tedious fuck. You’re not doing yourself any favors up here by namedropping and spewing that shit.
What dday said. Not digby. doh!
This slip-up is forgivable. Frankly, I go to Digby to read Digby. DDay is an excellent writer (hence your mistake), but I’m a bit of a grumpy old man when it comes to these things.
I have to say it’s a little scary when Dennis Prager agrees with dday. (http://dennisprager.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2008/02/05/memo_to_both_parties_vote_for_whos_best,_not_for_whos_electable)
It’s truly a pleasure to get to choose between Clinton and Obama. My worry is that with McCain solidifying his lock, he may coast to a nomination while Clinton and Obama fight and spend massively through August. I don’t look forward to fielding a bruised, broke, tired candidate.
So Hillary, Barack: think about it. You are both very popular. You’re bringing people to the polls in droves. Your policy differences are witheringly small. And neither of you need a white male from the South or Midwest to “balance the ticket.”
Make a pact, now. Whoever gets to Denver with the most delegates gets to be the candidate, and the runner up is the veep. Done. Sure, you both want to win, but it’s more important to win in November. Somebody gets to make speeches and sign bills; the other gets to run the government and set policy. Cheney, bless his black little heart, has made the VP job relevant, and either of you will make history in holding it.
Let’s skip the catfight and the brokered convention and the disillusioned supporters of the runner-up and having to sign our “Stimulus Rebates” over to the DNCC. We love you both. We’ll take you both, in either order.
Think about it.
We have to minimize “sitting out” as much as possible. Turnout, turnout, turnout. No complacency.