Olbermann Special Comment on Clinton Campaign

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
D.Turtle
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1909
Joined: 2002-07-26 08:08am
Location: Bochum, Germany

Olbermann Special Comment on Clinton Campaign

Post by D.Turtle »

Watch this.
Transcript from crooksandliars.com wrote:Finally, as promised, a Special Comment on the presidential campaign of the Junior Senator from New York.
By way of necessary preface, President and Senator Clinton — and the Senator’s mother, and the Senator’s brother — were of immeasurable support to me at the moments when these very commentaries were the focus of the most surprise, the most uncertainty, and the most anger. My gratitude to them is abiding.
Also, I am not here endorsing Senator Obama’s nomination, nor suggesting it is inevitable.
Thus I have fought with myself over whether or not to say anything.
Senator, as it has reached its apex in their tone-deaf, arrogant, and insensitive reaction to the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro… your own advisors are slowly killing your chances to become President.
Senator, their words, and your own, are now slowly killing the chances for any Democrat to become President.
In your tepid response to this Ferraro disaster, you may sincerely think you are disenthralling an enchanted media, and righting an unfair advance bestowed on Senator Obama.
You may think the matter has closed with Representative Ferraro’s bitter, almost threatening resignation.
But in fact, Senator, you are now campaigning, as if Barack Obama were the Democrat, and you… were the Republican.
As Shakespeare wrote, Senator — that way… madness… lies.
You have missed a critical opportunity to do… what was right.
No matter what Ms. Ferraro now claims, no one took her comments out of context.
She had made them on at least three separate occasions, then twice more on television this morning.
Just hours ago, on NBC Nightly News, she denied she had made the remarks in an interview — only at a paid political speech.
In fact, the first time she spoke them, was ten days before the California newspaper published them… not in a speech, but in a radio interview.
On February 26th, quoting…
“If Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this, as a potential real problem for Hillary? If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he’s in? Absolutely not.”
The context was inescapable.
Two minutes earlier, a member of Senator Clinton’s Finance Committee, one of her “Hill-Raisers,” had bemoaned the change in allegiance by super-delegate John Lewis from Clinton to Obama, and the endorsement of Obama by Senator Dodd.
“I look at these guys doing it,” she had said, “and I have to tell you, it’s the guys sticking together.”
A minute after the “color” remarks, she was describing herself as having been chosen for the 1984 Democratic ticket, purely as a woman politician, purely to make history.
She was, in turn, making a blind accusation of sexism — and dismissing Senator Obama’s candidacy as nothing more than an Equal Opportunity stunt.
The next day she repeated her comments to a reporter from the newspaper in Torrance, California.
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
And when this despicable statement — ugly in its overtones, laughable in its weak grip of facts, and moronic in the historical context — when it floats outward from the Clinton campaign like a poison cloud, what do the advisors have their candidate do?
Do they have Senator Clinton herself compare the remark to Al Campanis talking on Nightline… on Jackie Robinson Day… about how blacks lacked the necessities to become baseball executives, while she points out that Barack Obama has not gotten his 1600 delegates as part of some kind of Affirmative Action plan?
Do they have Senator Clinton note that her own brief period in elected office, is as irrelevant to the issue of judgment as is Senator Obama’s…
…while she points out that FDR had served only six years as a governor and state Senator before he became President?
Or that Teddy Roosevelt had four-and-a-half years before the White House?
Or that Woodrow Wilson had two years and six weeks?
Or Richard Nixon… fourteen… and Calvin Coolidge 25?
Do these advisors have Senator Clinton invoke Samantha Power — gone by sunrise after she used the word “monster” — and have Senator Clinton say, “this is how I police my campaign and this is what I stand for,” while she fires former Congresswoman Ferraro from any role the campaign?
No.
Somebody tells her that simply disagreeing with and rejecting the remarks is sufficient.
And she should then call, “regrettable”, words that should make any Democrat retch.
And that she should then try to twist them, first into some pox-on-both-your-houses plea to ’stick to the issues,’ and then to let her campaign manager try to bend them beyond all recognition, into Senator Obama’s fault.
And thus these advisers give Congresswoman Ferraro nearly a week in which to send Senator Clinton’s campaign back into the vocabulary… of David Duke.
“Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let’s address reality and the problems we’re facing in this world, you’re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up.
“Racism works in two different directions. I really think they’re attacking me because I’m white.
“How’s that?”
How’s that?
Apart from sounding exactly like Rush Limbaugh attacking the black football quarterback Donovan McNabb?
Apart from sounding exactly like what Ms. Ferraro said about another campaign, nearly twenty years ago?
Quote:
“President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don’t ask Jackson tough questions because of his race. And former representative Geraldine A. Ferraro (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that because of his “radical” views, “if Jesse Jackson were not black, he wouldn’t be in the race.”
So… apart from sounding like insidious racism that is at least two decades old?
Apart from rendering ridiculous, Senator Clinton’s shell-game about choosing Obama as Vice President?
Apart from this evening’s resignation letter?
“I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign.
“The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you.”
Apart from all that?
Well. It sounds as if those advisors want their campaign to be associated with those words, and the cheap… ignorant… vile… racism that underlies every syllable…
And that Geraldine Ferraro has just gone free-lance.
Senator Clinton:
This is not a campaign strategy.
This is a suicide pact.
This week alone, your so-called strategists have declared that Senator Obama has not yet crossed the “commander-in-chief threshold”…
But — he might be your choice to be Vice President, even though a quarter of the previous sixteen Vice Presidents have become commander-in-chief during the greatest kind of crisis this nation can face: a mid-term succession.
But you’d only pick him if he crosses that threshold by the time of the convention.
But if he does cross that threshold by the time of the convention, he will only have done so sufficiently enough to become Vice President, not President.

Senator, if the serpentine logic of your so-called advisors were not bad enough, now, thanks to Geraldine Ferraro, and your campaign’s initial refusal to break with her, and your new relationship with her — now more disturbing still with her claim that she can now “speak for herself” about her vision of Senator Obama as some kind of embodiment of a quota…

If you were to seek Obama as a Vice President, it would be, to Ms. Ferraro, some kind of social engineering gesture, some kind of racial make-good.
Do you not see, Senator?
To Senator Clinton’s supporters, to her admirers, to her friends for whom she is first choice, and her friends for whom she is second choice, she is still letting herself be perceived as standing next to, and standing by, racial divisiveness and blindness…
And worst yet, after what President Clinton said during the South Carolina primary, comparing the Obama and Jesse Jackson campaigns — a disturbing, but only borderline remark, after what some in the black community have perceived as a racial undertone to the “3 A-M” ad… a disturbing — but only borderline interpretation…
And after that moment’s hesitation in her own answer on 60 Minutes about Obama’s religion — a disturbing, but only borderline vagueness…
After those precedents, there are those who see a pattern… false, or true.
After those precedents, there are those who see an intent… false, or true.
After those precedents, there are those who see the Clinton campaign’s anything-but-benign neglect of this Ferraro catastrophe — falsely or truly — as a desire to hear the kind of casual prejudice which still haunts this society voiced… and to not distance the campaign from it.
To not distance you from it, Senator!
To not distance you… from that which you as a woman, and Senator Obama as an African-American, should both know and feel with the deepest of personal pain!
Which you should both fight with all you have!
Which you should both insure, has no place in this contest!

This, Senator Clinton, is your campaign, and it is your name.
Grab the reins back from whoever has led you to this precipice, before it is too late.
Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth.
Your only reaction has been to disagree, reject, and to call it regrettable.
Her only reaction has been to brand herself as the victim, resign from your committee, and insist she will continue to speak.
Unless you say something definitive, Senator, the former Congresswoman is speaking with your approval.
You must remedy this.
And you must… reject… and denounce… Geraldine Ferraro.
Good night, and good luck.
A few notes about this Special Comment:
First of all, it is nice to see someone in the Media call out the Clinton campaign on its race-baiting.
Secondly, you can also see that Keith Olbermann did not do this lightly - see the preface and also the end of the comment.
Thirdly, I find it interesting that he lays the blame at the feet of the advisors of the Clinton campaign, and only calls out Clinton for listening to them - at the same time calling her out to take charge of her campaign.

If somebody can't manage a campaign, how can somebody expect that person to run an entire country?
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

This was indeed a very hard thing for Keith Olbermann to say. He is pleading in earnest for Hillary Clinton to do something —anything— to reverse her course before she destroys herself and the party's prospects for November. I think it is already too late for the former, however.
D.Turtle wrote:I find it interesting that he (Olbermann) lays the blame at the feet of the advisors of the Clinton campaign, and only calls out Clinton for listening to them - at the same time calling her out to take charge of her campaign.

If somebody can't manage a campaign, how can somebody expect that person to run an entire country?
Precisely. This is becoming my point of no return where Hillary Clinton is concerned, that not only was I persuaded to vote for Obama in the Alabama primary but that, as things stand now, I cannot vote for Hillary if she did manage to become the nominee.

Basic competence.

If we take Keith Olbermann's generous interpretation of the state of disorganisation in the Clinton campaign at face value, it points to somebody so unable to control her own team in addition to an inability to adapt to unexpected challenge (Obama) that I have no reason to believe this woman could outwit terrorists or the GOP —or Vladimir Putin (who we know is really going to be running the show in Russia as opposed to his sock-puppet, Medvedev).

But on the other hand, if it is the case that Hillary Clinton is consciously allowing racial innuendo (even if not outright racism) to be part of her message, then I cannot vote for her on moral grounds. It would mean that she has essentially embraced Republikan-style Divide-and-Conquer politics and has tossed aside any consideration of what is best for the country and it's ideals. It would mean that she has become no different than the side she's trying to convince us she opposes, and is willing to sacrifice anything and anybody for her own craving for glory. That she has sacrificed any conception of Right and Wrong and is willing to reopen old wounds the body politic has yet to recover from. That she is willing to destroy to succeed, and if she can't, to destroy rather than allow her party rival to succeed.

In either case, I am becoming convinced that Hillary Clinton would be a disaster as president were she elected. More likely, the result of her nomination would see the swearing-in of President McCain on 20 January, 2009 and at least four more years of the disaster that has been GOP misrule under the court of Chimpus Caesar and his puppetmaster, Count Dick.

No. I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton. I'll vote Socialist before I vote for either her, McCain, or Nader (fuck him), or I'll write-in vote for Obama. But I cannot vote for Hillary. I simply don't believe in her on any level.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
HemlockGrey
Fucking Awesome
Posts: 13834
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:21pm

Post by HemlockGrey »

No. I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton. I'll vote Socialist before I vote for either her, McCain, or Nader (fuck him), or I'll write-in vote for Obama. But I cannot vote for Hillary. I simply don't believe in her on any level.
I don't understand this at all. Hillary Clinton has absolutely destroyed any faith I had in her ability but I can't imagine anything other than full-throated opposition to stopping John McCain. She may be a terrible candidate, but that's nothing compared to four more years of Republican rule, which, if she wins the nomination, is the only alternative. You don't get any other choices in America and I think the only reasonable course of action is to pragmatically go with the person less likely to tear apart the country and bog us down in war without end.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses

"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

HemlockGrey wrote:
No. I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton. I'll vote Socialist before I vote for either her, McCain, or Nader (fuck him), or I'll write-in vote for Obama. But I cannot vote for Hillary. I simply don't believe in her on any level.
I don't understand this at all. Hillary Clinton has absolutely destroyed any faith I had in her ability but I can't imagine anything other than full-throated opposition to stopping John McCain. She may be a terrible candidate, but that's nothing compared to four more years of Republican rule, which, if she wins the nomination, is the only alternative. You don't get any other choices in America and I think the only reasonable course of action is to pragmatically go with the person less likely to tear apart the country and bog us down in war without end.
I must admit I do not know American politics as well as some of the more attentive Americans do, but could you please enlighten me on how you know that Clinton is less likely to "tear apart the country and bog us down in war without end?"
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

HemlockGrey wrote:
No. I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton. I'll vote Socialist before I vote for either her, McCain, or Nader (fuck him), or I'll write-in vote for Obama. But I cannot vote for Hillary. I simply don't believe in her on any level.
I don't understand this at all. Hillary Clinton has absolutely destroyed any faith I had in her ability but I can't imagine anything other than full-throated opposition to stopping John McCain. She may be a terrible candidate, but that's nothing compared to four more years of Republican rule, which, if she wins the nomination, is the only alternative. You don't get any other choices in America and I think the only reasonable course of action is to pragmatically go with the person less likely to tear apart the country and bog us down in war without end.
And who, pray tell, would this be? Not Hillary, as she is already showing either an inability to stop people from tearing the country apart or a willingness to see it done on the sly. And who, BTW, voted along with the very war the country is presently bogged down in.

Nevermind that her incompetence in the primaries does not speak well to her ability to defeat John McCain in November at all.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
User avatar
Xisiqomelir
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1757
Joined: 2003-01-16 09:27am
Location: Valuetown
Contact:

Post by Xisiqomelir »

YouTube version for those who prefer it.
User avatar
Fire Fly
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1608
Joined: 2004-01-06 12:03am
Location: Grand old Badger State

Post by Fire Fly »

This primary season has only vindicated everything the Republicans have been saying about her and I don't have any faith in her nor Bill anymore. They can go fuck themselves for all I care. She says one thing but my minding is saying, "You're a lying cut throat who would rather destroy your party and drum up old hatred rather than gracefully quit." You only need to look at the kind of supporters she has to get a clear picture of who she really is.
User avatar
Mr. Sinister
Padawan Learner
Posts: 227
Joined: 2003-05-08 07:21pm

Post by Mr. Sinister »

And like clockwork, despite prefacing is comment with his admiration for the Clintons, and going a bit easy on her by the standards of his usual comments, Olbermann is already being portrayed by Hillary supporters as an Obama-shill, O'reilly2.0, and an out and out sexist.

Obviously, if you don't get down on your knees and kiss Hillary's shriveled ass, you must hate vaginas. :roll:
User avatar
Oni Koneko Damien
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3852
Joined: 2004-03-10 07:23pm
Location: Yar Yar Hump Hump!
Contact:

Post by Oni Koneko Damien »

Mr. Sinister wrote:And like clockwork, despite prefacing is comment with his admiration for the Clintons, and going a bit easy on her by the standards of his usual comments, Olbermann is already being portrayed by Hillary supporters as an Obama-shill, O'reilly2.0, and an out and out sexist.

Obviously, if you don't get down on your knees and kiss Hillary's shriveled ass, you must hate vaginas. :roll:
By way of necessary preface, President and Senator Clinton — and the Senator’s mother, and the Senator’s brother — were of immeasurable support to me at the moments when these very commentaries were the focus of the most surprise, the most uncertainty, and the most anger. My gratitude to them is abiding.
Also, I am not here endorsing Senator Obama’s nomination, nor suggesting it is inevitable.
Thus I have fought with myself over whether or not to say anything.
When someone bends over that far backwards to point out "Hey, I'm not actually against these people, I'm just trying to point out what's going wrong, the people themselves are awesome," and the response is to lash out violently against them... goddamn, that's harsh in the most unpleasant way. If Hillary supports this backlash, or is behind it... fuck, I'll just call her Senator Janeway from now on.

It's a sad state of affairs when politicians and their most vocal supporters prove to be more immature, selfish, and childish than most of the quicker-banned trolls around here.
Gaian Paradigm: Because not all fantasy has to be childish crap.
Ephemeral Pie: Because not all role-playing has to be shallow.
My art: Because not all DA users are talentless emo twits.
"Phant, quit abusing the He-Wench before he turns you into a caged bitch at a Ren Fair and lets the tourists toss half munched turkey legs at your backside." -Mr. Coffee
HemlockGrey
Fucking Awesome
Posts: 13834
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:21pm

Post by HemlockGrey »

I must admit I do not know American politics as well as some of the more attentive Americans do, but could you please enlighten me on how you know that Clinton is less likely to "tear apart the country and bog us down in war without end?"
For one thing, her stated goal is to bring back the troops in a "phased redeployment". While that's a bit mealy-mouthed, it's a lot better than John McCain's ingenius plan to fight to the last Marine.

I realize there's a lot of Clinton hate due to her personality, but does anyone seriously believe that she's not better than four more years of Republican government? There's almost no significant issue on which John McCain differs from our current fuckup. Hillary may be a cunt, but at least she's a Democratic cunt, which means all the fucked up political appointees and Republican party hacks who have been busy tearing down every nonpolitical policy institution in this country for the last 8 years will be thrown out on their asses. It also means liberal appointees to the Supreme Court, as opposed to the conservative stalwarts McCain will inevitably appoint.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses

"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
KlavoHunter
Jedi Master
Posts: 1401
Joined: 2007-08-26 10:53pm

Post by KlavoHunter »

Hillary could have scored major points here, if she'd taken Ferraro, and in a very obvious way said "Miss Ferraro, I am not accepting your resignation - I'm firing you. Your hateful racism and sexism undermine every value of the Democrat Party and this campaign, etc etc etc" or something like that, Hillary could have turned this around into a possible coup.

Instead, she shits the bed.

Oni Koneko Damien wrote:If Hillary supports this backlash, or is behind it... fuck, I'll just call her Senator Janeway from now on.
This is pure gold.
"The 4th Earl of Hereford led the fight on the bridge, but he and his men were caught in the arrow fire. Then one of de Harclay's pikemen, concealed beneath the bridge, thrust upwards between the planks and skewered the Earl of Hereford through the anus, twisting the head of the iron pike into his intestines. His dying screams turned the advance into a panic."'

SDNW4: The Sultanate of Klavostan
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

HemlockGrey wrote:
I must admit I do not know American politics as well as some of the more attentive Americans do, but could you please enlighten me on how you know that Clinton is less likely to "tear apart the country and bog us down in war without end?"
For one thing, her stated goal is to bring back the troops in a "phased redeployment". While that's a bit mealy-mouthed, it's a lot better than John McCain's ingenius plan to fight to the last Marine.
That is assuming that she can be taken at her word, a thing which is not at all certain at this point.
I realize there's a lot of Clinton hate due to her personality, but does anyone seriously believe that she's not better than four more years of Republican government? There's almost no significant issue on which John McCain differs from our current fuckup. Hillary may be a cunt, but at least she's a Democratic cunt, which means all the fucked up political appointees and Republican party hacks who have been busy tearing down every nonpolitical policy institution in this country for the last 8 years will be thrown out on their asses. It also means liberal appointees to the Supreme Court, as opposed to the conservative stalwarts McCain will inevitably appoint.
If the Ferraro "gaffe" was intentional and the Clinton campaign is engaging in backhanded race-baiting, she's going by the GOP playbook to try to win her nomination. That reflects, whether you like the idea or not, on the sort of government she'd bring to the country —one marked by cynical opportunism.

That she has demonstrated incompetence in the running of her presidential campaign also reflects upon the competence, or lack thereof, of the administration she'd be the head of. Which would be disasterous given the sort of opposition from the GOP she will face. And she does not have husband Bill's political talents at deflecting that sort of opposition and maintaining popular support.

In short, a Hillary Clinton presidency would at best provide only a stormy interregnum to GOP misrule. It will not stop it. She would end up becoming the new Jimmy Carter —a symbol of Democratic failure and the bete-noir that Republican candidates can run against for a good two decades afterward.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Post by Coyote »

At this point, I see John McCain as Bush-II, and Hillary as Bush-Lite.

Imagine GW Bush-- his desires and intentions-- backed by an actual wily, capable intellect. That, IMO, would be Hillary. Maybe not her policies, directly... for example, she has a Democrat's view of health care, obviously. But her way of conducting business and getting things done is same ol'-same ol'. Replace Karl Rove with Bill Clinton as a back-alley hatchetman...
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!
HemlockGrey
Fucking Awesome
Posts: 13834
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:21pm

Post by HemlockGrey »

That is assuming that she can be taken at her word, a thing which is not at all certain at this point.
Maybe not, but I see no particular ideological reason for Clinton to want to slug it out in Iraq and its still better than the alternative of the hundred-year war that John McCain wants.

Most of the criticisms you've made are, I think, fairly accurate. Clinton does surround herself with some pretty slimy characters (chief among them that gaping asshole Mark Penn). But cynical opportunism has been running the country since Carter left office. Cynical opportunism will probably have a considerable place in the government even if Obama rolls into D.C. in a landslide. Cynical opportunism of the worst kind will most definitely continue to grow if there's a Republican victory.

I understand the argument that Clinton will be "Republican Lite." But in this election you get two choices, and if one is "Republican Lite" and the other is "Republican Original Flavor" I recommend you go with "Lite". Yeah, voting for a third party occasionally causes planks to be adopted by major parties but in the contest between the two candidates its the equivalent of throwing up your hands and saying "Whatever". And given how we know the Republicans will govern this country, doing anything short of outright opposing them seems to be a foolish choice.

And let's not pretend that Clinton really is just a Republican clone. She has progressive social policies. Her appointees will have liberal policy agendas. And most importantly she'll probably be filling some spots on the Supreme Court, which will impact the nation for generations long after she leaves office. Even if she ends up losing in four years to a Republican (and I don't think you can say with any certainty where anyone in politics will be four years from now- just look at McCain's fortunes) it's four years to patch up at least some of the damage that's been done.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses

"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
User avatar
Fingolfin_Noldor
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11834
Joined: 2006-05-15 10:36am
Location: At the Helm of the HAB Star Dreadnaught Star Fist

Post by Fingolfin_Noldor »

HemlockGrey wrote:And let's not pretend that Clinton really is just a Republican clone. She has progressive social policies. Her appointees will have liberal policy agendas. And most importantly she'll probably be filling some spots on the Supreme Court, which will impact the nation for generations long after she leaves office. Even if she ends up losing in four years to a Republican (and I don't think you can say with any certainty where anyone in politics will be four years from now- just look at McCain's fortunes) it's four years to patch up at least some of the damage that's been done.
That assumes she doesn't cave in to the right. She has already caved in with regards to refusing to denounce her own vote for Iraq and the next Congress/Senate might be as partisan as the current one.
Image
STGOD: Byzantine Empire
Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

It's also assuming that she doesn't end up getting elected on terms which will leave her with a Congress that's flipped back to Republican control, in which case she's not going to get anything or anybody passed through.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
HemlockGrey
Fucking Awesome
Posts: 13834
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:21pm

Post by HemlockGrey »

Again, how are either of those possible scenarios less desirable than four to eight years of outright Republican rule?
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses

"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
User avatar
Tanasinn
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1765
Joined: 2007-01-21 10:10pm
Location: Void Zone

Post by Tanasinn »

McCain is a pro-Iraq liar and religious right cocksucker. Clinton is an incompetent lying corporatist shill. All in all, I'd take McCain (who has actual political experience and at least a vague clue of what war is like) over Clinton. (That is, of course, unless he does something really stupid, like give Huck the VP nod. An old man for a president with a particulary stupid Jesus freak waiting in the wings? No thanks, I'll take Nader.)

Up to a point, I'd vote for just about anyone to deny that power-hungry shill office. This campaign has proven beyond a doubt that Clinton is of reprehensible character and seriously questionable competence.
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22466
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Post by Mr Bean »

Tanasinn wrote:McCain is a pro-Iraq liar and religious right cocksucker. Clinton is an incompetent lying corporatist shill. All in all, I'd take McCain (who has actual political experience and at least a vague clue of what war is like) over Clinton. (That is, of course, unless he does something really stupid, like give Huck the VP nod. An old man for a president with a particulary stupid Jesus freak waiting in the wings? No thanks, I'll take Nader.)

Up to a point, I'd vote for just about anyone to deny that power-hungry shill office. This campaign has proven beyond a doubt that Clinton is of reprehensible character and seriously questionable competence.
There's one bit I have issue with, he may be a religious right cocksucker, but per his track record that will last exactly one day after getting elected, as he has before. Watch his comments between elections, he could give to shits about the right wing morals group except during election years and it's not like he's ever actively done anything about it, keep in mind despite getting slammed for it he's still not supported the "marriage safety act" bullshit.

On this issue and this issue alone he gets portrayed much worse then he acutely is. However as I've said elsewhere, he's still lieing scum who can't be trusted to run a self service gas station let alone the nation.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

This thread has sparked my curiosity, so I went to John McCain's official website in order to see just how socially conservative his platform is. The headings on that section are:
Overturning Roe v. Wade

Promoting Adoption

Protecting Marriage

Addressing the Moral Concerns of Advanced Technology

Protecting Children from Internet Pornography

Protecting Children from Online Predators

The Greatest Honor is to Serve the Cause of Human Dignity
Sounds pretty damned socially conservative to me, and I do not share the belief that he will do an about-face on all these statements once he gets into office. If that's what got him into office, that's what he'll try to do. He strikes me as the kind of person who would consider it his duty.

BTW, after perusing the sites of Obama, Clinton, and McCain, it strikes me as interesting that despite the "nothing but empty inspirational speeches" talk, Obama's site has the most in-depth explanations of what he would do once in office. McCain is the guy who has the most empty feelgood policies on his site, with Clinton in the middle.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Patrick Degan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14847
Joined: 2002-07-15 08:06am
Location: Orleanian in exile

Post by Patrick Degan »

HemlockGrey wrote:Again, how are either of those possible scenarios less desirable than four to eight years of outright Republican rule?
Howzabout another quarter-century (at minimum) of Republikan political dominance in the wake of a failed one-term Democratic presidency? Think about what the country's going to look like after that.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln

People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House

Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22466
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Post by Mr Bean »

Darth Wong wrote:This thread has sparked my curiosity, so I went to John McCain's official website in order to see just how socially conservative his platform is. The headings on that section are:

Sounds pretty damned socially conservative to me, and I do not share the belief that he will do an about-face on all these statements once he gets into office. If that's what got him into office, that's what he'll try to do. He strikes me as the kind of person who would consider it his duty.
Actual performance VS website, McCain has been critical of them in the past, when in office he has spoken out against such things, when running FOR office he's against them. Again I put this under the fact he's a two faced SOB, rather than he's had a general change of heart.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Mr Bean wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:This thread has sparked my curiosity, so I went to John McCain's official website in order to see just how socially conservative his platform is. The headings on that section are:

Sounds pretty damned socially conservative to me, and I do not share the belief that he will do an about-face on all these statements once he gets into office. If that's what got him into office, that's what he'll try to do. He strikes me as the kind of person who would consider it his duty.
Actual performance VS website, McCain has been critical of them in the past, when in office he has spoken out against such things, when running FOR office he's against them. Again I put this under the fact he's a two faced SOB, rather than he's had a general change of heart.
If he's a two-faced SOB, then what makes you think he was being genuine before? I think he's just trying to figure out who to pander to. But if he gets into office by pandering to a certain group, I have a pretty strong feeling he will attempt to repay them.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22466
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Post by Mr Bean »

Darth Wong wrote: If he's a two-faced SOB, then what makes you think he was being genuine before? I think he's just trying to figure out who to pander to. But if he gets into office by pandering to a certain group, I have a pretty strong feeling he will attempt to repay them.
His twenty year record to this point is imho a clear indicator of how he would act as a President visa-vi the Religious right

A. While campaigning for office he will seek their aid, their money and their direct help
B. When in (Senate)office he will speak his mind as he damn well pleases and make the correct noises when a bill comes up and even vote for some of the religiously backed legislation, but by no means will support it on every single point compared to a real religious supporter such as Huckabee.
C. Thus he will not start it, but if it crosses his desk he would sign/vote for it.

There's an exception to this, which is of course if Mike H. or Romney gets the VP slot because they WILL start some shit and he will go along with them. Thus I say he's a two-faced SOB, he could give two shits for the religious right, he's not a true believer like Bush Jr or Minster Huck or Romney and his magic Mormon underpants.

Thus I say imho, he won't campaign for it, but if it reaches his desk he will sign it.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
HemlockGrey
Fucking Awesome
Posts: 13834
Joined: 2002-07-04 03:21pm

Post by HemlockGrey »

Howzabout another quarter-century (at minimum) of Republikan political dominance in the wake of a failed one-term Democratic presidency? Think about what the country's going to look like after that.
You can't really predict that will happen; like I said, look at McCain. Eight months ago he was dead in the water. Now he's the Republican nominee. Predicting where anyone's political fortunes will be in the distant future is a fool's errand. You might as well say that a Republican presidential victory would so energize the Republican base and so demoralize the Democrats that it would usher in another twenty years of Republican domination. Its all idle speculation.
The End of Suburbia
"If more cars are inevitable, must there not be roads for them to run on?"
-Robert Moses

"The Wire" is the best show in the history of television. Watch it today.
Post Reply