As an Australian, I have to say that our countries must stick their noses out of your politics. For some unknown reason, our FORMER prime minister took it upon himself to state that Obama would not be a good president. America was understandably angry and the average Aussie was mortified, as much as when Bush told us we should've been voting little Johnnie Howard back in! Howard's gone!!
When I click the link you provide, I get a banner that says, "OOOPS We can't find your web page. Here are some suggestions" And then it gave me an article titled "American Psycho" about all the nasty, personal misogynistic attacks on Senator Clinton...she's too young, old, pretty, ugly, cold, weak, feminine, masculine, and worst of all she has thick ankles! Did I get the right article? If I did, I couldn't agree more. She has been attacked by the Right Wing relentlessly since Bill was in office. I have never been able to figure out why they hated her so much. What the Hell did she do, other than fall on her sword trying to implement a health care program. And suffer humiliation over Bill's capers. Maybe they sensed all along that she might run for president one day, and they wanted to get an early start on smearing her. If so, they were a lot more clairvoyant than I. I think what she has done with her life is just plain incredible, and I admire her very much. I sincerely hope she wins the Presidency. It will be SO MUCH FUN to watch those RIght WIngers take it in the chops!
It isn't just the right wing that would take Clinton to task, and it has not one thing to do with her being a her. I used to like her, but I never thought, and still don't, believe she can win nationally. There is just way too much negative opinion that people in middle America have connected with her for way to long to be ousted by the present excellent handlers schemes she employs at this point. Lately though, it has become more than obvious that she is Bush Light, sold out to corporate forces, and an assured four to eight more years of lobbyists writing legislation, votes bought and sold, and the white house for sale. The right still distrusts her, but has nothing to fear, in all actuality, it's funny, in a way. Even Michael Moore, in his excellent health care documentary Sicko notes that she has sold her soul to the pharm and insurance lobbies, at this point. Her health care plan does nothing to remove greedy insurance companies from the mix, as he notes. Her donor base includes most of the corporate demons that have supported George Bush, and Obama has taken similar donations to keep up. Interestingly, they have both subsequently come out in favor of the new NAFTA legislation that corporate America wants badly. Vote for Edwards, the only one of the three that takes no pac or lobbyist money, at all, and the only candidate that will keep our interests above the corporate shadow government. You can take your pick, America, either fight for change, or unite the country, but in all actuality, the change we need cannot be won without fight, as the forces that hold our neck presently, will not let go voluntarily. The two are an oxymoron, and that's something people are going to have to realize, or this country is lost.
I like Edwards, Ron, but have reluctantly concluded that he and Kucinich, whom I also like are both unelectable. So it comes down to Clinton or Obama...obviously there is no Republican running who should be elected to anything above garbage collector. And you are right...they both took money from Big Corporate America. It's the only way to get elected with the system we have. It's why Edwards and Kucinich don't have a prayer. It takes a half a billion bucks to run a winning presidential campaign. We need to solve this, get rid of the stench of corporate money in politics, but we are not going to do that before November. A vote for Edwards is a vote thrown away, and maybe equivalent to a vote for Romney or McCain. It would be nice to have a squeaky clean candidate. But it is essential that we win! Clinton would NOT carry on Bush's policies. Not like Romney or McCain would.
Bert, RE - "American Psychos" The feminist writer in UK reflects the view of some women who turned out to vote for Hillary in New Hampshire. The treatment she received must have energized some men and women to vote. Bill Bradley came out for Obama. Hillary is going to have a fight to get the nomination. Edwards chance rests as a compromise choice if there's a deadlock.
Clarke, The LA Times this morning had an article suggesting that there was a "sympathy vote" for her in NH. It's funny, I read elsewhere that her moment of emotion would hurt her. People would think she isn't strong enough to be president. Different views, different spins. I don't think Edwards has a chance. It will be either Clinton or Obama, I predict, and whichever one wins will be the next president unless they screw up badly in the campaign. It's the Dems to lose this year. But that was true for the last two Dem candidates, IMO. They both should have won. Well, Gore actually DID win. But that's another story, and a sad one. I get very depressed when I think how different things would be today if he had taken office.
Bert, I heard John Kerry has now endorsed Obama, too. Bill Bradley, now Kerry. It's a pattern and likely the leading Democrats are talking to each other. I respect Bradley and I don't think he "takes orders not to be refused." I don't know if I would vote for Obama. I wouldn't write off Edwards or many others, in both parties. Third party with money is possible. Kerry and Gore were their own best enemies. By the way, I read you signed off the other thread. I had replied to Peter's listing of Huckabee's Christian extremism:Peter You wrote: "Although he has a heart-warming, "common man" pitch, I have not seen any evidence that he is becoming a populist Presidential choice. There has been no movement of anyone other than religious conservatives to his standard."
Huckabee has courted the home schoolers as well as the NEA, the labor union of public school teachers. The 16,000-member New Hampshire affiliate of the National Education Association recommended to its members Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary. The state chapter's membership is more than 25% Republican. The other Repubs have avoided the NEA so that partially explains their endorsement. Huckabee had helped them in March in reaching a settlement with the school system in Manchester NH. He spoke to the national NEA in July, which other Repubs did not . He had been actively involved in reforming the school system in Arkansas and his three children attended public schools.
The ones in the shadows are having their way with us no matter what we do ... we have been divided and conquered all along ... that is just the way our system works.
I guess I can understand why the NEA would endorse Huckabee on the Republican side. Considering the others, he is the lesser of evils. I thought I had washed my hands of that discussion, Clarke, but you seem to be following me around. Let's just let that one die, okay? This is a different topic here.
Bert, I think the competitions within each party are playing off against each other . The choice of one candidate by one party may affect the choice in the other. Also, it may determine whether a third party is created. Obama and Huckabee have been "earthquakes" for the establishments of both parties. Hillary might be helped to gain the nomination if Huckabee keeps on doing well.
Hmmm. I have to think about that. I think the Dem candidate who wins the nomination, no matter who it is, would be helped immensely if Huck is the Republican nominee. I think either McCain or Romney would draw more votes in the election than Huck. But I think all three of them, Mac, the Mormon and the Preacher, would be absolutely terrible leaders for our nation. Of the three, McCain is the least repugnant Republican. That has a nice little alliterative ring, doesn't it?
Bert, I would not rule Rudy Giuliani out . We are in a vacuum which perhaps over the next ten years will be filled in response to events at home and abroad that may at times be like shocks. I have doubts about most of the present candidates I might vote for. The people are uninformed (and misinformed) and too few are willing take responsibilty as citizens.
Bert, First you say we need John, then you say to vote for him is to throw your vote away. This is the primaries for craps sakes, not the general and there is no vote thrown away with John. One of the things he is doing now, if nothing else, is keeping either Obama or Clinton from running away with things, like Kerry did, before most of the country had been heard from, and a good showing, even if he does not win, will allow him to go into convention and have a very strong effect on the party platform. If not elected, it's very possible many of his ideas can be. Stop putting out "wisdom" that is unthinking and shallow.
First you say we need John, then you say to vote for him is to throw your vote away.
No, I said I LIKE Edwards, but I think he is unelectable for the reasons I stated. And I stick by my statement that voting for him accomplishes nothing. It looks to me like neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama is going to run away with anything. They are going to slug it out. Platform shmatform...a worthless piece of paper, forgotten as soon as the election is over.
Stop putting out "wisdom" that is unthinking and shallow.
I am "putting out" my opinion. Period. Feel free to disagree and state your reasons. I will not call your comments unthinking and shallow.
Clarke...you might be right about Giuliani. He will appeal to moderates more than any of the other GOP candidates, but most of the Right Wing hates him...except for Pat Robertson who LOVES him! That should help him a LOT!
That is a good article you pointed to ... wish you had said more of your own about it.
The thing with the Republicans, all these kinds of comments, from all the different locations they can bring this bear .... please I hope American gets this, this time.
This is not personal. They could care less about Hillary or Bill's personality, they just want to cast doubt for everyone else because they are protecting their Republican racket!
Like ... is there any doubt this is a racket ... look at how many trillions !!! of dollars went into this war, what it did the markets that was predicable for futures investors and billionaires.
This has nothing to do with Bill, Hillary, the blow job, ankles or anything, this is about distracting the American people from really participating in their democracy .... or whatever it is now.
This is about the same thing that the mud slung at Bill about philandering, rape, murders, whatever it is to stop democracy from happening here for as long as possible and hopefully forever.
Get real ... Hillary is a nice lady dedicated to doing good. She is not a rich cheating sob like some two term draft-dodging presidents who cheated investors in harken energy out of his first fortune that enabled him to enter politics. Nope.
This is what is by-proxy and persistant, underhanded, and neverending attack on the American people and their democracy. Their right to a decent expectation of participation in this country unless they are already multimillionaires.
Of the three Dems left "standing", at this point, I would prefer Mr. Edwards to be the nominee. This corporate "beast" is incredibly powerful, and nothing short of a direct assault will have any significant impact. Mr. Edwards seems the most likely to undertake such an assault. The others would perhaps be more "electable" in some sense (though that does not bare out in polling I've seen thus far), but would be "too little too late", I'm afraid.
Another Republican would be icing on the corporate cake, now, and I would vote for any of the major Dems before accepting such a thing willingly. There's no way to tell with any certainty who is beholden to who, but at least Mr. Edwards has built his campaign around the "Two America's" mantra, and it's going to be kinda tricky for him to act just the opposite in office, without "spilling the beans" if things are as far along as some fear.
I agree with Bruce most vociferously in regard to what we are actually facing; An elitist society comprised of the unthinkably wealthy in the role of royalty, and the rest in the role of subjects. Money can't buy everything, but that bothers some of those with an endless supply, I think, in a way that is hard for us mere mortals to comprehend fully; What if fabulous wealth actually meant one was free to do as they please, with impunity? Is there some rational reason to doubt those at the very top are prone to pushing for such a world? Are we talking about MY species?
Bert, I can only say that your comments about the platform and John's ability to effect it strike me as extremely short sighted. The party platform, while not etched in gold, is, and has always been, a statement of party will, a shopping list, so to speak of what the consensus of Democratic opinion holds as goals. Not all can be enacted, but they are, and have always been, a guide to our elected representatives, as anything that makes it to that platform is vetted with the party electorate. It is, no matter your opinion, extremely important. I got the immediate flash in my mind of Bush's comment that the constitution is just a piece of paper. Oh well. We agree to disagree, I suppose, but I find it extremely troubling, that you would dismiss Edwards, after two primaries, while he definitely has shown strong showings in both, in the first place. Could it be you just favor someone else? Need I remind you that Clinton lost both, and went on to win the nomination? Also:
I would ask those that favor Obama, or Clinton, can your candidate say this?
John Edwards has never, ever taken a dime from special interest PACs or a single lobbyist. Who do you think is going to work for us? We finance him, we support him, and he can, with a clear conscience, work, for US.
The Democratic primary battle resembles those of the past 30 years. There is one candidate, the idealist, the outsider, leading an insurgency against the pragmatist, the party establishment. Edward Kennedy vs Jimmy Carter in 1980, Gary Hart vs Walter Mondale in 1984, Jesse Jackson vs Michael Dukakis in 1988, Bill Bradley vs Al Gore in 2000 and Howard Dean vs John Kerry in 2004. Every time the pragmatist has won. Obama differs from previous insurgents from the party's Left, and appeals to moderates and even Republicans. Edwards is a wild card. We have something similar taking place in the Republican contest, except there is more diversity: Huckabee the outsider and populist who can appeal to Democrats ; Romney, the outsider and conservative reformer ; and a number of insiders / party politcians. And the possibilty of a third party.
Ron's reminder of some of Bush's comments, ie. "The Constitution is just a piece of paper" puts me in mind of a defect in the Democrats.
Why don't the Democrats use these things to their advantage?
The Republicans say this election is about Bush, and that the Republicans candidates should run away from Bush and his record ... meaning I suppose that they should lie. The main Republican strategy in every election, while the sad-sack Democrats sit up there and try to emotionlessly tell what they want people to think of as the truth, but not engaging the Republican lies.
Well, the Democrats should run lots of ads with Bush's most unfavorite hits. Wanted Dead of Alive, Bring it on, Rumsfeld, vacation time, to remind everyone how outrageous this got, and how none of these candidates said or did anything to break the incompetence of Bush and his administration on Iraq, Afghanistan.
And now they want to again sidetrack the election and make it over character, as if competence has nothing to do with anything, and character is just how often you go to church.
None of these guys has any idea of the trends that the average American is facing, decreasing everything, while no matter what, just like the corporate CEOs the rich never have to pay the price of what it costs to run the country, bad or incompetent performance.
I think that just might resonate with the American people a little better. What we have is a shooting war, where one side, the Democrats wants to keep things looking like a teaparty. It just can't be done.
Ron, Tell me what was in either the Democratic or the Republican platform in 2000 or 2004. No, don't go Google it! Do it from memory. Edwards was a fairly distant second in Iowa, basically tied with Clinton. Edwards got 17% in New Hampshire, compared to 39 and 36 for Clinton and Obama. I would not consider that a "strong showing." The proof of the pudding will be South Carolina, where Edwards HAS to win to be considered a serious contender.
;-) ... easy ... Republican - beat the democrats at any and all costs. Democrat - get elected or not, but be right and be able to justify all complaints.
Bert, The primary system , originally intended as a reform of the Convendon , smoked-filled room way , has now become something rather differnt. The parties control the primaries (were there vote changes in New Hampshire behind the scenes?) and they make different rules in different states. If primaries don't decide there will be a lot of bargaining before and during the conventions. Edwards knows this. In any case, he has votes and can influence the platform.
South Carolina will decide Edward's fate. If he doesn't win there...he is toast. If he DOES win there...he lives to fight another day. But in the end, money wins. Sorry, I don't like it, but it is the way life is. And nobody guaranteed that life would be fair. If life were truly fair, George W. Bush would have ended up in jail where he belongs.
This god of fate you worship is most unappealing. Obviously, no good thing could EVER come to pass if all were to take up your religion, and strive to have guessed right, rather than lend their efforts to what they believe to BE right. You can be a cynical old sage if you wish, and you will often get the pointless pleasure of saying "I told you so". Though of course not always, since the universe is NOT anything like the predictable "machine" you would like to assume. It's odd that just after major upsets in both parties, totally unprognosticated by the prognosticators, you would trumpet the inevitability of anything political.
Save your sympathy for yourself, it is you who live in a fantasy world, not those attempting to do the right thing. They have no need of sympathy, they are aware that a slim chance is better than none at all. I have seen the "odds" beaten a thousand times in my life, and care not what those who covet a safe bet prophecy.
You're only going to be on this planet a few more years, what the hell are you saving your "allegiance" for? You really ought to consider that there are only two realistic possibilities here; There is a God, or there is not. In either event, what you're advocating makes no sense at all. If darkness is inevitable, I'll curse it the whole way down. I'm a human being, not a book-making program. If disappointment were even a little dangerous, I'd have died a long time ago.
John, I really don't know what to make of your post. It mystifies me. Fate? Who mentioned fate? Worship? What the f**k are you talking about? I merely stated my opinion that it will take a half a billion dollars to win the election next fall, and John Edwards ain't gonna come close to that. Romney, McCain (maybe), and Giuliani might manage it. Clinton and Obama will too. One of the will end up president. Now you can call that cynical if you like. I call it realistic, and history is on my side. Sympathy? HUH? Lost me again, John. I don't have a clue what you are talking about. As for fantasy world, I think my scenario is a whole lot more real than whatever you are dreaming about. But miracles do occasionally happen. People get picked up in tornadoes and deposited miles away, completely unharmed. As for my remaining time on this planet, John, I am being entirely practical about that. I wish for the best possible result in the next election...with the emphasis on possible. How this is advocating darkness, escapes me. I think you have lost it, boy. Back off, straighten up, get a drink of water and collect your wits. (laughing)
I understand that YOU don't think there is anything dark about what you're doing here, but I can plainly see there is. Perhaps you have never come to realize you were behaving in less than a helpful or enlightened way, and changed your stance, but I doubt that. I think you sense what I'm speaking of. Times call for effort in the face of poor odds, or hopeless resignation. What good purpose is served by telling people trying to buck the "system" to give up, I cannot imagine. What have they to lose?
As I said, John, the system needs to be fixed. We desperately need campaign reform, and I have said this repeatedly. But we are NOT going to get campaign reform in the next ten months. So, if you want to tilt at windmills, be my guest. I don't like your judgmental tone. You have no right to judge me and call me "less than helpful or enlightened." Helpful for whom? You? Your candidate? What makes you so right that you can be self-righteous? You say I'm not "enlightened." Your attitude is...dare I say it...almost RELIGIOUS. Anyone who disagrees with you is committing blasphemy. Well, John, I am entitled to my opinion, and you are entitled to yours. I am not going to be judgmental towards you, only towards your ideas, and that is what we are supposed to be doing here on Gather. Suddenly, you seem to have taken it upon yourself to make personal judgments about others. That is not useful for the discussion, John, and I am frankly surprised. We have tangled before, and you have usually managed to remain more rational and logical in your posts. Lets stick to the issues here, shall we, and stop the personal attacks.
That's odd, I spoke up for just that reason. It's YOU who are being the great "judge" here, not I. I spoke of what you wrote, and the lack of rational motivation I could detect. You have done nothing to convince me I missed the mark. Consider the truly weak reasoning which you demonstrate here:
"But we are NOT going to get campaign reform in the next ten months"
Um, yeah, but sir, if we don't do SOMETHING differently real soon, there will NEVER be significant reform. Don't you get it? If ONLY those backed by big money folks can be elected, they will NOT permit reform that changes that reality to take place. What you are essentially proposing is that things are so bad, that honest people cannot be elected . . . so let's write off this election, and pretend there will be a better chance in the years to come.
It makes NO SENSE, regardless of the seriousness of our dilemma. For if the hyper-wealthy can be resisted, let's go for it while we are still able, and if they can't be resisted now, how on earth could we resist them after another victory, and a few more rounds of corrupt legislation favoring the wealthy, and their grip on power? The answer is simple; WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE.
If you want to pretend we've just caught a bit of a cold, and everything will naturally return to some idyllic balance of power, feel free, but don't expect thinking people, who actually give a shit about their fellow human beings, to treat you as a great counselor. You are so convinced of your own infallibility, that even your own reasoning can't awaken your caution about it. You say Mr. Bush "should be" in prison, but he's not, he's in power. This ain't no party, this is about freedom itself. It's showtime.
It's nothing at all "personal", and I'll be doing the same sort of "reality check", as I always have, without regard for who is "selling" their know-it-all bullshit, at the cost of the last desperate chance the world may have to escape a horrible future of deception and oppression. It actually matters to me. It's not a TV show.
You didn't come here championing anything but surrender, and I called you on it, so what? Explain yourself if you can, I have.
Bert, If you are making bets, have you factored in the influence of Bloomberg's entry, not only the election but also the selection of the two parties' candidates? He is quite willing to spend 10 billion out of his own pocket. He wants the challenge and he can see the likelihood neither party may offer a compelling choice to a public turned off of the standard Republican and Democrat mantras and the persistant bipartisan rancor.
My guess is its going to be Huckabee vs Clinton and the odds favor Clinton winning.
You are an idealist, John. Nothing wrong with that...except that it might get Romney elected president...or worse yet, Huckabee. This is what Ralph Nader caused to happen in 2000. He said, "There's no difference between Republican and Democratic candidates, so even if my participation puts Bush in office, that's okay. Ask yourself if you agree with Nader today. Would the country be in the mess it is in if Gore were President? The strange thing is, if I understand your position, we both want the same outcome here...a Democratic victory and reform of our government to get rid of the stench of Big Money influence. I think that if a large segment of the Democratic voters agree with you, it will assure exactly the opposite. I am a pragmatist. I think revolutionary change is unlikely in this country. It hasn't happened in the last 230 years, and it ain't gonna happen now. So, my view is, we have to settle for small victories and chip away at the rot and corruption. But I am sure you disagree, and I am tired of this discussion, John. I will not respond to you further here. Hopefully, if we will meet in another thread, you will be less strident and intolerant of competing ideas than you have been here.
Clarke, I don't know much about Bloomberg, except that he has stated that he would be willing to spend a billion to get elected President. So...he has the money and the ambition. Romney, of course, has used a chunk of his personal fortune that he amassed as a corporate raider to finance his campaign. If Bloomberg threw his weight behind Romney, I think it would be hard for anyone else to compete. As for Bloomberg himself running, it seems unlikely to me. He would be entering the race near the finish line, and he isn't that well known nationally, has no organization to run a campaign, etc.
Bert, Bloomberg has a big ego and he's damn smart. If he thinks he could fix the government -and fixing is what he does best - and he could win, he will run. I think he's an outsider as is Romney . Bloomberg seems the sort of guy who likes to build his own group or party.
"Big issues" get debated at elections and party platforms take positions : the basic policies that are followed after the elections don't change. The brilliant Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope (1961) is still the best history and examination of how this works and the most cogent analysis of its benefits and dangers. The last candidate who posed a threat to this system was Robert Kennedy. The failure of bipartisan cooperation is not as much about Democrat or Republican issues as influence and greed. The arrogance and incompetence of the Bush adminstration failed the two parties' one domestic and international policy . The Bush policy was not essentially different in its goals from those of the establishment. Unforunately it was successful in moving us toward becoming a National Security state.
You can endlessly atribute whatever bullshit you can imagine to me, and then claim it is I who am being overly strident or judgmental all you wish, but it means nothing to me, it's just your imagination talking. You are the one playing the great prognisticator, the great seer of ultimate reality, the great diviner of other's thoughts and nature, not I. You are the one declaring over and over what is possible, and what is not, based on nothing more than your own conjecture.
How on earth can you claim to be the "pragmatist", when you go about proclaiming your own mind the measure of reality and possability? Just what the hell do you think you are, a god? There is nothing pragmatic about believing your own imagination is a valid window on reality, it's "idealism" of the highest order. And imagining you are not doing so, when you are in fact doing so, is self delusion.
Calling someone that happens to realize there is no point in believing in magical powers that will somehow fix the world if we just mumble about "gradual change", and don't act in the present to change anything, is word play, not pragmatism. Pragmatism involves action, not dealing with problems by simply having dreamy ideas that they will go away by virtue of the great god of fate. Gradual change obviously starts in some vague future for you, and in the present you go about telling folks there's no point in starting now. That's what you DO in the present, regardless of what you claim "we" can do later. You're an idealist all right, just a rather gloomy one.
"The Bush policy was not essentially different in its goals from those of the establishment. Unfortunately it was successful in moving us toward becoming a National Security state."
I agree, and THAT'S the "rub". We are looking at "entrenchment" of the established powers, and there comes a point where such entrenchment means the effective end of meaningful change. It's not "more of the same" in the same sense that a person getting sicker is not an endless process. Eventually, the patient dies.
"At this point, it appears that the Democrats and moderate Republicans are succumbing to their fear of direct confrontation with his [Bush's]psychology. They seem afraid the president might be vindicated by another terrorist attack on US soil (as though the attack would prove that polarizing the world is the true path). They want to avoid a constitutional crisis in the months until Bush leaves office. They haven't wanted their legislative time consumed with investigations of administrative corruption and usurpation of power. They haven't wanted to alienate the electorate during an election season. Their own ambivalence has been set off by his, but with a different result. They waffle: one minute resisting him, the next backing down. All this is understandable, but it misses the point that corruption and usurpation of the sort that has been unleashed by the president's psychology may have already seriously damaged our national institutions. What is the message to the future if we allow this president's psychological defenses against his failures to inflict such damage and then evade our responsibility to hold him accountable for it? "http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011008A.shtml
> They seem afraid the president might be vindicated > by another terrorist attack on US soil
God, each and every one of the American people ought to be slapped about 20 times and then have ice water splashed in their faces ... triple for our politicians ...
... why does Bush get to have this both ways. If there are no attacks, it was due to his brilliance, and if there is an attack it is proof that he needed to be tough, maybe tougher. Argh!
The facts are that Bush ran things right smack dab into the ground. If he were a Japanese soldier with any honor he would let a bloody trail of guts on the White House front steps for his shame.
First, he gambled ... actually gambled with the world on Iraq, and got us into a quagmire ... and if we get out, and if the surge works, in no way is that any kind of reflection on him. He would never have changed a bloody thing is the loyal opposition and the people had not raised hell about what's going on.
Next, what he did was so incompetent, who he trusted and what is cost. He should forfeit every penny he has and his whole family have to the US Treasury as some kind of big apology for his gamble that did not pay off.
Finally, can't wait to see if a Democrat can do anything to fix this mess.
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
Please select the part of the post you are reporting.
Please select why you are reporting this content.
Please enter a description.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 43
Howard's gone!!
And then it gave me an article titled "American Psycho" about all the nasty, personal misogynistic attacks on Senator Clinton...she's too young, old, pretty, ugly, cold, weak, feminine, masculine, and worst of all she has thick ankles!
Did I get the right article?
If I did, I couldn't agree more. She has been attacked by the Right Wing relentlessly since Bill was in office. I have never been able to figure out why they hated her so much. What the Hell did she do, other than fall on her sword trying to implement a health care program. And suffer humiliation over Bill's capers.
Maybe they sensed all along that she might run for president one day, and they wanted to get an early start on smearing her. If so, they were a lot more clairvoyant than I. I think what she has done with her life is just plain incredible, and I admire her very much. I sincerely hope she wins the Presidency. It will be SO MUCH FUN to watch those RIght WIngers take it in the chops!
And you are right...they both took money from Big Corporate America. It's the only way to get elected with the system we have. It's why Edwards and Kucinich don't have a prayer. It takes a half a billion bucks to run a winning presidential campaign.
We need to solve this, get rid of the stench of corporate money in politics, but we are not going to do that before November. A vote for Edwards is a vote thrown away, and maybe equivalent to a vote for Romney or McCain. It would be nice to have a squeaky clean candidate. But it is essential that we win! Clinton would NOT carry on Bush's policies. Not like Romney or McCain would.
RE - "American Psychos"
The feminist writer in UK reflects the view of some women who turned out to vote for Hillary in New Hampshire. The treatment she received must have energized some men and women to vote.
Bill Bradley came out for Obama. Hillary is going to have a fight to get the nomination. Edwards chance rests as a compromise choice if there's a deadlock.
The LA Times this morning had an article suggesting that there was a "sympathy vote" for her in NH. It's funny, I read elsewhere that her moment of emotion would hurt her. People would think she isn't strong enough to be president. Different views, different spins.
I don't think Edwards has a chance. It will be either Clinton or Obama, I predict, and whichever one wins will be the next president unless they screw up badly in the campaign. It's the Dems to lose this year. But that was true for the last two Dem candidates, IMO. They both should have won. Well, Gore actually DID win. But that's another story, and a sad one. I get very depressed when I think how different things would be today if he had taken office.
I heard John Kerry has now endorsed Obama, too. Bill Bradley, now Kerry. It's a pattern and likely the leading Democrats are talking to each other. I respect Bradley and I don't think he "takes orders not to be refused."
I don't know if I would vote for Obama. I wouldn't write off Edwards or many others, in both parties. Third party with money is possible.
Kerry and Gore were their own best enemies.
By the way, I read you signed off the other thread. I had replied to Peter's listing of Huckabee's Christian extremism:Peter
You wrote:
"Although he has a heart-warming, "common man" pitch, I have not seen any evidence that he is becoming a populist Presidential choice.
There has been no movement of anyone other than religious conservatives to his standard."
Huckabee has courted the home schoolers as well as the NEA, the labor union of public school teachers. The 16,000-member New Hampshire affiliate of the National Education Association recommended to its members Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and Mike Huckabee in the Republican primary. The state chapter's membership is more than 25% Republican. The other Repubs have avoided the NEA so that partially explains their endorsement. Huckabee had helped them in March in reaching a settlement with the school system in Manchester NH.
He spoke to the national NEA in July, which other Repubs did not . He had been actively involved in reforming the school system in Arkansas and his three children attended public schools.
I thought I had washed my hands of that discussion, Clarke, but you seem to be following me around. Let's just let that one die, okay? This is a different topic here.
I think the competitions within each party are playing off against each other . The choice of one candidate by one party may affect the choice in the other. Also, it may determine whether a third party is created. Obama and Huckabee have been "earthquakes" for the establishments of both parties. Hillary might be helped to gain the nomination if Huckabee keeps on doing well.
I think either McCain or Romney would draw more votes in the election than Huck.
But I think all three of them, Mac, the Mormon and the Preacher, would be absolutely terrible leaders for our nation. Of the three, McCain is the least repugnant Republican.
That has a nice little alliterative ring, doesn't it?
I would not rule Rudy Giuliani out . We are in a vacuum which perhaps over the next ten years will be filled in response to events at home and abroad that may at times be like shocks. I have doubts about most of the present candidates I might vote for. The people are uninformed (and misinformed) and too few are willing take responsibilty as citizens.
First you say we need John, then you say to vote for him is to throw your vote away. This is the primaries for craps sakes, not the general and there is no vote thrown away with John. One of the things he is doing now, if nothing else, is keeping either Obama or Clinton from running away with things, like Kerry did, before most of the country had been heard from, and a good showing, even if he does not win, will allow him to go into convention and have a very strong effect on the party platform. If not elected, it's very possible many of his ideas can be. Stop putting out "wisdom" that is unthinking and shallow.
No, I said I LIKE Edwards, but I think he is unelectable for the reasons I stated. And I stick by my statement that voting for him accomplishes nothing. It looks to me like neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama is going to run away with anything. They are going to slug it out. Platform shmatform...a worthless piece of paper, forgotten as soon as the election is over.
I am "putting out" my opinion. Period. Feel free to disagree and state your reasons. I will not call your comments unthinking and shallow.
The thing with the Republicans, all these kinds of comments, from all the different locations they can bring this bear .... please I hope American gets this, this time.
This is not personal. They could care less about Hillary or Bill's personality, they just want to cast doubt for everyone else because they are protecting their Republican racket!
Like ... is there any doubt this is a racket ... look at how many trillions !!! of dollars went into this war, what it did the markets that was predicable for futures investors and billionaires.
This has nothing to do with Bill, Hillary, the blow job, ankles or anything, this is about distracting the American people from really participating in their democracy .... or whatever it is now.
This is about the same thing that the mud slung at Bill about philandering, rape, murders, whatever it is to stop democracy from happening here for as long as possible and hopefully forever.
Get real ... Hillary is a nice lady dedicated to doing good. She is not a rich cheating sob like some two term draft-dodging presidents who cheated investors in harken energy out of his first fortune that enabled him to enter politics. Nope.
This is what is by-proxy and persistant, underhanded, and neverending attack on the American people and their democracy. Their right to a decent expectation of participation in this country unless they are already multimillionaires.
Another Republican would be icing on the corporate cake, now, and I would vote for any of the major Dems before accepting such a thing willingly. There's no way to tell with any certainty who is beholden to who, but at least Mr. Edwards has built his campaign around the "Two America's" mantra, and it's going to be kinda tricky for him to act just the opposite in office, without "spilling the beans" if things are as far along as some fear.
I agree with Bruce most vociferously in regard to what we are actually facing; An elitist society comprised of the unthinkably wealthy in the role of royalty, and the rest in the role of subjects. Money can't buy everything, but that bothers some of those with an endless supply, I think, in a way that is hard for us mere mortals to comprehend fully; What if fabulous wealth actually meant one was free to do as they please, with impunity? Is there some rational reason to doubt those at the very top are prone to pushing for such a world? Are we talking about MY species?
I can only say that your comments about the platform and John's ability to effect it strike me as extremely short sighted. The party platform, while not etched in gold, is, and has always been, a statement of party will, a shopping list, so to speak of what the consensus of Democratic opinion holds as goals. Not all can be enacted, but they are, and have always been, a guide to our elected representatives, as anything that makes it to that platform is vetted with the party electorate. It is, no matter your opinion, extremely important. I got the immediate flash in my mind of Bush's comment that the constitution is just a piece of paper. Oh well. We agree to disagree, I suppose, but I find it extremely troubling, that you would dismiss Edwards, after two primaries, while he definitely has shown strong showings in both, in the first place. Could it be you just favor someone else? Need I remind you that Clinton lost both, and went on to win the nomination? Also:
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977226913
John Edwards has never, ever taken a dime from special interest PACs or a single lobbyist. Who do you think is going to work for us? We finance him, we support him, and he can, with a clear conscience, work, for US.
Why don't the Democrats use these things to their advantage?
The Republicans say this election is about Bush, and that the Republicans candidates should run away from Bush and his record ... meaning I suppose that they should lie. The main Republican strategy in every election, while the sad-sack Democrats sit up there and try to emotionlessly tell what they want people to think of as the truth, but not engaging the Republican lies.
Well, the Democrats should run lots of ads with Bush's most unfavorite hits. Wanted Dead of Alive, Bring it on, Rumsfeld, vacation time, to remind everyone how outrageous this got, and how none of these candidates said or did anything to break the incompetence of Bush and his administration on Iraq, Afghanistan.
And now they want to again sidetrack the election and make it over character, as if competence has nothing to do with anything, and character is just how often you go to church.
None of these guys has any idea of the trends that the average American is facing, decreasing everything, while no matter what, just like the corporate CEOs the rich never have to pay the price of what it costs to run the country, bad or incompetent performance.
I think that just might resonate with the American people a little better. What we have is a shooting war, where one side, the Democrats wants to keep things looking like a teaparty. It just can't be done.
Tell me what was in either the Democratic or the Republican platform in 2000 or 2004.
No, don't go Google it! Do it from memory.
Edwards was a fairly distant second in Iowa, basically tied with Clinton.
Edwards got 17% in New Hampshire, compared to 39 and 36 for Clinton and Obama. I would not consider that a "strong showing."
The proof of the pudding will be South Carolina, where Edwards HAS to win to be considered a serious contender.
Republican - beat the democrats at any and all costs.
Democrat - get elected or not, but be right and be able to justify all complaints.
The primary system , originally intended as a reform of the Convendon , smoked-filled room way , has now become something rather differnt. The parties control the primaries (were there vote changes in New Hampshire behind the scenes?) and they make different rules in different states. If primaries don't decide there will be a lot of bargaining before and during the conventions. Edwards knows this. In any case, he has votes and can influence the platform.
If he DOES win there...he lives to fight another day.
But in the end, money wins.
Sorry, I don't like it, but it is the way life is.
And nobody guaranteed that life would be fair.
If life were truly fair, George W. Bush would have ended up in jail where he belongs.
This god of fate you worship is most unappealing. Obviously, no good thing could EVER come to pass if all were to take up your religion, and strive to have guessed right, rather than lend their efforts to what they believe to BE right. You can be a cynical old sage if you wish, and you will often get the pointless pleasure of saying "I told you so". Though of course not always, since the universe is NOT anything like the predictable "machine" you would like to assume. It's odd that just after major upsets in both parties, totally unprognosticated by the prognosticators, you would trumpet the inevitability of anything political.
Save your sympathy for yourself, it is you who live in a fantasy world, not those attempting to do the right thing. They have no need of sympathy, they are aware that a slim chance is better than none at all. I have seen the "odds" beaten a thousand times in my life, and care not what those who covet a safe bet prophecy.
You're only going to be on this planet a few more years, what the hell are you saving your "allegiance" for? You really ought to consider that there are only two realistic possibilities here; There is a God, or there is not. In either event, what you're advocating makes no sense at all. If darkness is inevitable, I'll curse it the whole way down. I'm a human being, not a book-making program. If disappointment were even a little dangerous, I'd have died a long time ago.
I merely stated my opinion that it will take a half a billion dollars to win the election next fall, and John Edwards ain't gonna come close to that. Romney, McCain (maybe), and Giuliani might manage it. Clinton and Obama will too. One of the will end up president.
Now you can call that cynical if you like. I call it realistic, and history is on my side.
Sympathy? HUH? Lost me again, John. I don't have a clue what you are talking about.
As for fantasy world, I think my scenario is a whole lot more real than whatever you are dreaming about.
But miracles do occasionally happen. People get picked up in tornadoes and deposited miles away, completely unharmed.
As for my remaining time on this planet, John, I am being entirely practical about that. I wish for the best possible result in the next election...with the emphasis on possible.
How this is advocating darkness, escapes me.
I think you have lost it, boy. Back off, straighten up, get a drink of water and collect your wits. (laughing)
I understand that YOU don't think there is anything dark about what you're doing here, but I can plainly see there is. Perhaps you have never come to realize you were behaving in less than a helpful or enlightened way, and changed your stance, but I doubt that. I think you sense what I'm speaking of. Times call for effort in the face of poor odds, or hopeless resignation. What good purpose is served by telling people trying to buck the "system" to give up, I cannot imagine. What have they to lose?
I don't like your judgmental tone. You have no right to judge me and call me "less than helpful or enlightened." Helpful for whom? You? Your candidate? What makes you so right that you can be self-righteous? You say I'm not "enlightened." Your attitude is...dare I say it...almost RELIGIOUS. Anyone who disagrees with you is committing blasphemy.
Well, John, I am entitled to my opinion, and you are entitled to yours.
I am not going to be judgmental towards you, only towards your ideas, and that is what we are supposed to be doing here on Gather. Suddenly, you seem to have taken it upon yourself to make personal judgments about others. That is not useful for the discussion, John, and I am frankly surprised. We have tangled before, and you have usually managed to remain more rational and logical in your posts.
Lets stick to the issues here, shall we, and stop the personal attacks.
"I don't like your judgmental tone."
That's odd, I spoke up for just that reason. It's YOU who are being the great "judge" here, not I. I spoke of what you wrote, and the lack of rational motivation I could detect. You have done nothing to convince me I missed the mark. Consider the truly weak reasoning which you demonstrate here:
"But we are NOT going to get campaign reform in the next ten months"
Um, yeah, but sir, if we don't do SOMETHING differently real soon, there will NEVER be significant reform. Don't you get it? If ONLY those backed by big money folks can be elected, they will NOT permit reform that changes that reality to take place. What you are essentially proposing is that things are so bad, that honest people cannot be elected . . . so let's write off this election, and pretend there will be a better chance in the years to come.
It makes NO SENSE, regardless of the seriousness of our dilemma. For if the hyper-wealthy can be resisted, let's go for it while we are still able, and if they can't be resisted now, how on earth could we resist them after another victory, and a few more rounds of corrupt legislation favoring the wealthy, and their grip on power? The answer is simple; WE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE.
If you want to pretend we've just caught a bit of a cold, and everything will naturally return to some idyllic balance of power, feel free, but don't expect thinking people, who actually give a shit about their fellow human beings, to treat you as a great counselor. You are so convinced of your own infallibility, that even your own reasoning can't awaken your caution about it. You say Mr. Bush "should be" in prison, but he's not, he's in power. This ain't no party, this is about freedom itself. It's showtime.
It's nothing at all "personal", and I'll be doing the same sort of "reality check", as I always have, without regard for who is "selling" their know-it-all bullshit, at the cost of the last desperate chance the world may have to escape a horrible future of deception and oppression. It actually matters to me. It's not a TV show.
You didn't come here championing anything but surrender, and I called you on it, so what? Explain yourself if you can, I have.
If you are making bets, have you factored in the influence of Bloomberg's entry, not only the election but also the selection of the two parties' candidates? He is quite willing to spend 10 billion out of his own pocket. He wants the challenge and he can see the likelihood neither party may offer a compelling choice to a public turned off of the standard Republican and Democrat mantras and the persistant bipartisan rancor.
My guess is its going to be Huckabee vs Clinton and the odds favor Clinton winning.
Ask yourself if you agree with Nader today. Would the country be in the mess it is in if Gore were President?
The strange thing is, if I understand your position, we both want the same outcome here...a Democratic victory and reform of our government to get rid of the stench of Big Money influence. I think that if a large segment of the Democratic voters agree with you, it will assure exactly the opposite.
I am a pragmatist. I think revolutionary change is unlikely in this country. It hasn't happened in the last 230 years, and it ain't gonna happen now.
So, my view is, we have to settle for small victories and chip away at the rot and corruption.
But I am sure you disagree, and I am tired of this discussion, John. I will not respond to you further here. Hopefully, if we will meet in another thread, you will be less strident and intolerant of competing ideas than you have been here.
I don't know much about Bloomberg, except that he has stated that he would be willing to spend a billion to get elected President. So...he has the money and the ambition.
Romney, of course, has used a chunk of his personal fortune that he amassed as a corporate raider to finance his campaign. If Bloomberg threw his weight behind Romney, I think it would be hard for anyone else to compete.
As for Bloomberg himself running, it seems unlikely to me. He would be entering the race near the finish line, and he isn't that well known nationally, has no organization to run a campaign, etc.
Bloomberg has a big ego and he's damn smart. If he thinks he could fix the government -and fixing is what he does best - and he could win, he will run. I think he's an outsider as is Romney . Bloomberg seems the sort of guy who likes to build his own group or party.
"Big issues" get debated at elections and party platforms take positions : the basic policies that are followed after the elections don't change. The brilliant Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope (1961) is still the best history and examination of how this works and the most cogent analysis of its benefits and dangers.
The last candidate who posed a threat to this system was Robert Kennedy.
The failure of bipartisan cooperation is not as much about Democrat or Republican issues as influence and greed. The arrogance and incompetence of the Bush adminstration failed the two parties' one domestic and international policy . The Bush policy was not essentially different in its goals from those of the establishment. Unforunately it was successful in moving us toward becoming a National Security state.
You can endlessly atribute whatever bullshit you can imagine to me, and then claim it is I who am being overly strident or judgmental all you wish, but it means nothing to me, it's just your imagination talking. You are the one playing the great prognisticator, the great seer of ultimate reality, the great diviner of other's thoughts and nature, not I. You are the one declaring over and over what is possible, and what is not, based on nothing more than your own conjecture.
How on earth can you claim to be the "pragmatist", when you go about proclaiming your own mind the measure of reality and possability? Just what the hell do you think you are, a god? There is nothing pragmatic about believing your own imagination is a valid window on reality, it's "idealism" of the highest order. And imagining you are not doing so, when you are in fact doing so, is self delusion.
Calling someone that happens to realize there is no point in believing in magical powers that will somehow fix the world if we just mumble about "gradual change", and don't act in the present to change anything, is word play, not pragmatism. Pragmatism involves action, not dealing with problems by simply having dreamy ideas that they will go away by virtue of the great god of fate. Gradual change obviously starts in some vague future for you, and in the present you go about telling folks there's no point in starting now. That's what you DO in the present, regardless of what you claim "we" can do later. You're an idealist all right, just a rather gloomy one.
"The Bush policy was not essentially different in its goals from those of the establishment. Unfortunately it was successful in moving us toward becoming a National Security state."
I agree, and THAT'S the "rub". We are looking at "entrenchment" of the established powers, and there comes a point where such entrenchment means the effective end of meaningful change. It's not "more of the same" in the same sense that a person getting sicker is not an endless process. Eventually, the patient dies.
> by another terrorist attack on US soil
God, each and every one of the American people ought to
be slapped about 20 times and then have ice water splashed
in their faces ... triple for our politicians ...
... why does Bush get to have this both ways. If there are
no attacks, it was due to his brilliance, and if there is an
attack it is proof that he needed to be tough, maybe
tougher. Argh!
The facts are that Bush ran things right smack dab into
the ground. If he were a Japanese soldier with any honor
he would let a bloody trail of guts on the White House front
steps for his shame.
First, he gambled ... actually gambled with the world
on Iraq, and got us into a quagmire ... and if we get out,
and if the surge works, in no way is that any kind of
reflection on him. He would never have changed a
bloody thing is the loyal opposition and the people
had not raised hell about what's going on.
Next, what he did was so incompetent, who he trusted
and what is cost. He should forfeit every penny he has
and his whole family have to the US Treasury as some
kind of big apology for his gamble that did not pay off.
Finally, can't wait to see if a Democrat can do anything to
fix this mess.