NH Primary Results

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

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

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Post by Flagg »

You know the best part about this? Obama and Clinton actually tied. They both get 9 delegates sent to the convention.

I wonder if anyone in the MSM will mention that, or if they just want to keep up this annoying soap opera? I also wonder why I ask questions I already know the answers to.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Covenant
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4451
Joined: 2006-04-11 07:43am

Post by Covenant »

He actually got more 'superdelegates' but he's tied overall with Hillary, basically, as far as delegates go.

Needless to say, MSNBC may cover the delegate gap because of their pro-Obama leaning, whereas CNN may not. Tough I doubt they will at all, mostly because it will seem like hair-splitting, and nobody brought it up back in Iowa either. You'd need a purely neutral basis to be interested in bringing it up, and I don't think any of the networks have that. I don't mind that they have some sense of bias, but that's only because I'm not an Edwards guy. Then I'd have no network stumping for me.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Post by Flagg »

Covenant wrote:He actually got more 'superdelegates' but he's tied overall with Hillary, basically, as far as delegates go.

Needless to say, MSNBC may cover the delegate gap because of their pro-Obama leaning, whereas CNN may not. Tough I doubt they will at all, mostly because it will seem like hair-splitting, and nobody brought it up back in Iowa either. You'd need a purely neutral basis to be interested in bringing it up, and I don't think any of the networks have that. I don't mind that they have some sense of bias, but that's only because I'm not an Edwards guy. Then I'd have no network stumping for me.
They just love the story, that's all it is. It's fucking political theater and it's retarded.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
His Divine Shadow
Commence Primary Ignition
Posts: 12791
Joined: 2002-07-03 07:22am
Location: Finland, west coast

Post by His Divine Shadow »

Man hearing Hillary won NH on radio was a real fucking downer, way to start the day. Still it was very close, god I hope Obama takes it.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who did not.
User avatar
Covenant
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4451
Joined: 2006-04-11 07:43am

Post by Covenant »

His Divine Shadow wrote:Man hearing Hillary won NH on radio was a real fucking downer, way to start the day. Still it was very close, god I hope Obama takes it.
He still makes the most sense to me--despite his lack of experience, most of the republicans he'd be running against are all rather unpalatable to one group or another. McCain would probably be Obama's toughest fight, but that assumes the Republicans would actually go for McCain at a national level. I'm not sure they would. But it's all up in the air. Even if Hillary wins, she'd look like an insane, petulent child not to offer him a V.P. spot--and he'd probably want to think long and hard about it. Normally it's a somewhat useless position, but he might be able to clear up some of that 'experience' gap that people talk so much about.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Post by Thanas »

A Clinton/Obama ballot would really annoy the fundies... (y'know, the beast and a dark man leading the country *fundie head explodes*)

However, what does he have to offer her if (and that is a big if) she wins the primaries?
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Guardsman Bass
Cowardly Codfish
Posts: 9281
Joined: 2002-07-07 12:01am
Location: Beneath the Deepest Sea

Post by Guardsman Bass »

Thanas wrote:A Clinton/Obama ballot would really annoy the fundies... (y'know, the beast and a dark man leading the country *fundie head explodes*)

However, what does he have to offer her if (and that is a big if) she wins the primaries?
In terms of votes, probably not a lot. The black population already votes for Democrats in really high numbers, and he's from the Midwest. Then again, maybe some of his support will "carry over" to her. All of this, mind you, if she does win the nomination (and as mentioned, that's a big if).
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.”
-Jean-Luc Picard


"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
-Margaret Atwood
User avatar
CaptainChewbacca
Browncoat Wookiee
Posts: 15746
Joined: 2003-05-06 02:36am
Location: Deep beneath Boatmurdered.

Post by CaptainChewbacca »

Doesn't Chris Rock have a routine about how there will never be a black Vice President, because the white President would be too worried about someone trying to make him the first black President?
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
ImageImage
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Doesn't Chris Rock have a routine about how there will never be a black Vice President, because the white President would be too worried about someone trying to make him the first black President?
I thought he ended up saying that America already had a black president: Bill Clinton. Of course, in Chris Rock/Dave Chappelle/Carlos Mencia world, race is indistinguishable from stereotype, so it's just hillllllarious to say that Bill Clinton was black because he cheated on his wife with a fat chick.
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
CaptainChewbacca
Browncoat Wookiee
Posts: 15746
Joined: 2003-05-06 02:36am
Location: Deep beneath Boatmurdered.

Post by CaptainChewbacca »

Darth Wong wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:Doesn't Chris Rock have a routine about how there will never be a black Vice President, because the white President would be too worried about someone trying to make him the first black President?
I thought he ended up saying that America already had a black president: Bill Clinton. Of course, in Chris Rock/Dave Chappelle/Carlos Mencia world, race is indistinguishable from stereotype, so it's just hillllllarious to say that Bill Clinton was black because he cheated on his wife with a fat chick.
I think both. I remember the line "I'll kill the president, he'll become the first black president, and I'd be the most famous man in prison."
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
ImageImage
User avatar
Crossroads Inc.
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9233
Joined: 2005-03-20 06:26pm
Location: Defending Sparkeling Bishonen
Contact:

Post by Crossroads Inc. »

Can I just say that I am so FFING SICK of listening to women whine and cry about how Hillary is getting a bum wrap... becuase shes A women! Does it occure to any of them that we don't like Hillary NOT because shes a "girl" but because shes a cold hearted bitch?

Wha wha! Hillary is behind because the mean Men are oppresing her! Whaaaa!
Praying is another way of doing nothing helpful
"Congratulations, you get a cookie. You almost got a fundamental English word correct." Pick
"Outlaw star has spaceships that punch eachother" Joviwan
Read "Tales From The Crossroads"!
Read "One Wrong Turn"!
User avatar
Metatwaddle
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1910
Joined: 2003-07-07 07:29am
Location: Up the Amazon on a Rubber Duck
Contact:

Post by Metatwaddle »

Crossroads Inc. wrote:Can I just say that I am so FFING SICK of listening to women whine and cry about how Hillary is getting a bum wrap... becuase shes A women! Does it occure to any of them that we don't like Hillary NOT because shes a "girl" but because shes a cold hearted bitch?

Wha wha! Hillary is behind because the mean Men are oppresing her! Whaaaa!
Are you on drugs? Hillary's had to deal with gender politics out the ass from plenty of people. Chris Matthews is the worst offender with sexist remarks. He actually called men who support Hillary "castratos". The Tennessee Guerilla Women have cataloged some other, slightly less sexist remarks here.

I don't like Hillary. I'm not voting for her. But to say she hasn't had to deal with misogyny is ludicrous. And it reflects pretty badly on you, too.
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things... their number is negligible and they are stupid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
Crossroads Inc.
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9233
Joined: 2005-03-20 06:26pm
Location: Defending Sparkeling Bishonen
Contact:

Post by Crossroads Inc. »

Discombobulated wrote:Are you on drugs? Hillary's had to deal with gender politics out the ass from plenty of people. Chris Matthews is the worst offender with sexist remarks. He actually called men who support Hillary "castratos". The Tennessee Guerilla Women have cataloged some other, slightly less sexist remarks here.

I don't like Hillary. I'm not voting for her. But to say she hasn't had to deal with misogyny is ludicrous. And it reflects pretty badly on you, too.
OK i'll apoligize for that rath flipant remark, I will simply say what is getting o me is that it seems all I hear from Hillary supporters is that if you DON"T like Hillary you MUST be a sexist mysoginsitic pric. I 've been hearing people call in that the ONLY reason people don't like Hillary is because shes a women. That they won't consider any other option is what gets to met. I want to be able to hate her and Not be treated like some sexist pig.
Praying is another way of doing nothing helpful
"Congratulations, you get a cookie. You almost got a fundamental English word correct." Pick
"Outlaw star has spaceships that punch eachother" Joviwan
Read "Tales From The Crossroads"!
Read "One Wrong Turn"!
User avatar
The Guid
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1888
Joined: 2005-04-05 10:22pm
Location: Northamptonshire, UK

Post by The Guid »

I have to agree with Dis. I may be a feminist, but I am not too observant a one. It took my very smart girlfriend to point out that Hillary has consistently been asked about her appearance on many occasions, when the men have not.

She also pointed out how people have JUMPED on the emotional moment, whereas I imagine all the contenders have had their moments of emotion, or they'd be accused of robotics.

Also, there was a poll on Facebook:

"Can a woman be as effective a President as a man?"

Of course most people wrote "Yes" but there is a significant minority of "No" votes and the very question should be offensive. If I were to say:

"Can a black person be as effective as President?"

then that would clearly be ridiculous. The same undoubtedly applies.
Self declared winner of The Posedown Thread
EBC - "What? What?" "Tally Ho!" Division
I wrote this:The British Avengers fanfiction

"Yeah, funny how that works - you giving hungry people food they vote for you. You give homeless people shelter they vote for you. You give the unemployed a job they vote for you.

Maybe if the conservative ideology put a roof overhead, food on the table, and employed the downtrodden the poor folk would be all for it, too". - Broomstick
User avatar
Covenant
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4451
Joined: 2006-04-11 07:43am

Post by Covenant »

Misnogyny is clearly a part of some people's criticisms, I think that's clear, but it's over-reaction to call it into question everytime. Your question of "can they be as effective" is at the heart of the commonly repeated: Are Americans ready for a woman President? There's no reason they shouldn't be, but the question is essentially no less ridiculous (though still as frustrating) as asking if Americans are ready for a black president, or a hispanic president, or a mormon or a catholic president. Guiliani wouldn't be the first, but this was a big issue for Kennedy in his first run, and it was how he dealt with the bias that defined the debate. And if Hillary does want to prove that she, like Kennedy, is not defined or beholden to the unusual aspect that she bears into office, then she's going to have to take the step of behaving like someone who does not rely on it.

That is why a concern of mine is more how she deals with it, since she is embracing it as a wedge issue more than proving that it doesn't matter what you are, so long as you are qualified. It would be the same as Obama saying he would be an effective President because, as a black man, he could appeal to the thugs and gangstas to chill the hate, yo. It may be an uphill slope for her as a woman and she has to deal with bias, but there's racial bias working against two of the other candidates as well, a religious bias against two Republican candidates (or three, depending on who you ask), and it's not like she hasn't invited much of broad-spectrum this criticism with some of her comments.

By going from the "I don't want to do something useless like stay home and bake cookies" hard-nosed political heavyweight to the oddly emotional powderpuff Hillary of the modern campaign with such an emphasis on bringing out elderly women, having "women bring their daughters and mothers," and some rumors of her busing in college-age girls to crank out the vote, Hillary is doing a lot of harm for a short-term gain. Is it suprising men are voting more for Obama when they're featured so rarely as Hillary advocates by her team, or that you hear stuff like this? Men shouldn't vote against women, but I'm sure women would bristle to hearing a "boys club" candidate asking men to bring their sons and fathers and busing in frat boys.

That's a rather ridiculous strategy on the surface, to run as a gender candidate, and it doesn't jive with her extremely professional politics of the past. I think it's just an election ploy and it's aggrivating to see it going anywhere. She's smarter and better than that, and sparking a gender-based conflict in the democratic party would be awful, and open the door to the candidacy of the partriarchy on the Republican side to come in and play out a really awful dialogue with American emotions.

The crying was a great example. It's been compared to the 'Muskie Moment' where Ed Muskie stifled a sniffle after talking about some personal attacks, and that momentary flash of weakness doomed his campaign. Other candidates have been free with the tears and they haven't gotten coverage, so it is unfair to single out Hillary for this--and I knew, as soon as I saw it, that this was going to be a boon for women (though I doubt most people would think Chris Matthews was replaying it over and over out of sympathy for her) but a big negative for men. Though it'd be unfair not to criticize Bush for his watery eyes, but still rail Hillary on it, it's hard not to see how it was a big campaign moment--much like her hurt feelings comment in the debate, and the apparent tag-team effect boosting her ratings among women. Sympathy is a poor voting mechanism, so I'm hoping that people really WILL back off of her, and engage her where she's been weak (paradoxially) so far, on the issues.

But it is important to defend against claims of misnogyny before they're flung just because men and women do indeed respond different to the emotional heartstring-tugging effects of seeing a woman cry about her hair (that's what the discussion leading up to the Hillary Sniffle was about) or about seeing the frontrunner get attacked legitimately by two of the other Candidates in a debate. If they're really going to set the bar that low, some measure of offense is bound to be taken, as I'm not sure how else then to articulate a digust with the martyrdom candidacy she's been playing on recently coming from a candidate with the money, the machine, a former beloved President with his whole administration, and only four more years of senate duty than Obama. If being the First Lady is really such great government experience then we should nominate Barbara Bush as well, since being married to and mother of a President must surely trump simply being the jilted wife of one.

And I really do like Hillary, I just think this strategy is like putting the Democratic party between four horses and telling them to pull. We can't afford to give the Republicans that chance, and if she does want to run, she's got to have some balls. I think Angela Merkel, Kim Campbell, and Margaret Thatcher would all agree on that, and I think Hillary is as smart and tough as any of them.
User avatar
brianeyci
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9815
Joined: 2004-09-26 05:36pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by brianeyci »

Well it's entirely possible that Hillary was acting more "real." Has it occured to some of you that Hillary's tears were covered so much because she is always aloof and haughty, but then she revealed the real her? That's more newsworthy than someone who isn't haughty and cries, because a "breakdown" from someone who's supposed to have a heart of steel is newsworthy, just a couple days before the election. In the middle of summer, months before the primaries, nobody really gives a fuck and even if Hillary cried then I doubt it would've been the kind of news or even news at all. I'm sure if Obama cried two days before it would've been news, or any other candidate.

It's entirely possible that 13 points down, with all your advisors telling you that Obama's getting three times the crowds and Obama's being compared to JFK inspiration going to the moon, going into a room full of women, her hard exterior shell cracked finally, just like how she cracked during debate for the first time in October. She's about to lose becoming President. If it felt fake, maybe it's because the woman wasn't good at expressing emotions. So what? I'm reminded of a woman who called 9/11 about an intruder in the house, and because she didn't sound authentically panicked enough, the 9/11 operator disregarded her.

Emotional candidates don't have to precipitate a gender war, especially since Obama's campaign is completely emotional. If your entire country splits because a woman can't be emotional while being a politician, then fuck 'merica. Bring on the gender war I say, because the ones who will oppose Hillary in said gender war would oppose Hillary even if she was tomboy. You can't appease that kind of thinking: to them a woman is always a woman.
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 »

I find it amusing that the news are calling it a "Great Hillary Victory", when it was a mere 3% difference in Vote. Why... did they forget that Obama beat Hillary by more than 10% in Iowa? How convenient of them.
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
Metatwaddle
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1910
Joined: 2003-07-07 07:29am
Location: Up the Amazon on a Rubber Duck
Contact:

Post by Metatwaddle »

The Guid wrote:I have to agree with Dis. I may be a feminist, but I am not too observant a one. It took my very smart girlfriend to point out that Hillary has consistently been asked about her appearance on many occasions, when the men have not.
Yeah, the media hacks have been going on and on about the appearance, and the laugh, and the voice, and every-damn-thing else.
She also pointed out how people have JUMPED on the emotional moment, whereas I imagine all the contenders have had their moments of emotion, or they'd be accused of robotics.
How about Mitt Romney crying three times? That's fine, but when Hillary does it, it's suddenly proof that women aren't emotionally strong enough to be president.
Also, there was a poll on Facebook:

"Can a woman be as effective a President as a man?"

Of course most people wrote "Yes" but there is a significant minority of "No" votes and the very question should be offensive. If I were to say:

"Can a black person be as effective as President?"

then that would clearly be ridiculous. The same undoubtedly applies.
That's very illuminating, and yes, it is pretty offensive. It's also exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about.
Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things... their number is negligible and they are stupid. --Dwight D. Eisenhower
User avatar
brianeyci
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9815
Joined: 2004-09-26 05:36pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by brianeyci »

ghetto edit: I don't think the idea of men busing in frat boys and asking men and uncles to come in and vote for a male gender candidate is comparable to a female doing the same with her sex. The reason is women really do face huge hurdles in politics, with under representation, and women really do need different treatment than men for now to break the glass ceiling.

At risk of sounding sexist, certain qualities are feminine, and maybe the country needs a woman to do some healing and it would be better than a man. If Hillary decides to run that way, especially if it's subtle, I wouldn't worry about a gender war.

Obama isn't running as a black candidate, but he is running as an emotional candidate (hope every fourth word!) so if Hillary runs as an emotional candidate and it happens to coincide with the fact she's female, so be it.
User avatar
Ford Prefect
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 8254
Joined: 2005-05-16 04:08am
Location: The real number domain

Post by Ford Prefect »

Look, it really has to be said, but the American presidential elections sound like some sort of inane game. I mean, come on ... 'Super Tueday'? It sounds like a football gimmick. Superdelegates? Superdelegates!?
What is Project Zohar?

Here's to a certain mostly harmless nutcase.
User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Post by Thanas »

Well, for what it is worth, Germany's biggest newspaper had an editorial from it's long-time america correspondent about Obama, and the tone of the article was essentially: "Obama is a bag of hot air with a great ability to connect with people."

Some choice quotes translated by yours truly:
Barack Obama would be the worse candidate and he would be a bigger reason for the democrats as well...Now he enchants people by offering standard speaches - with everything in it except political outlines.
Obama has been a senator for three years now, being a member of the foreign policy chamber as well as the chairman of the subcommittee on Europe. In all this time he has never been in Europe - except for a brief stop in Downing Street - and he did not hold one hearing on a relevant issue. His name is not connected with any big issue, be it foreign or interior policy. The one who does not do much makes lesser mistakes....
He conveys the feeling that he is an outsider....another candidate, one who has been put through every kind of fire in her political life, and who has learned that the daily work of the white house means less promises but more hard work, has a hard time competing against that feel - good candidate.
Eight years ago a president was elected, who too promised to change Washington and claimed to be an outsider...Today, the country should have learned that lesson. Promises cannot be renewed every eight years. Instead a period of unemotional political stability is necessary. Hillary Clinton would be the right candidate for that job. Even if she appears boring compared to the preacher and fisher of men Obama.
Those were the main points of an editorial published yesterday. (And before anyone asks, the editor is not a right wing nutjob or a Clinton groupie, but someone who is heading the america section of germany's biggest newspaper.)

Any thoughts on this? I do not agree with most of what the article said, but I would be hardpressed to remember any big issue being connected to Obama.

Maybe it is just a continental thing - a politician like Obama would not really have a chance in german politics. Still, this is not the only editorial I have read about Obama that was somewhat unflattering - maybe the german press simply does not get him.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs
User avatar
Glocksman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7233
Joined: 2002-09-03 06:43pm
Location: Mr. Five by Five

Post by Glocksman »

I'm no Obama supporter, but if you substituted 'Bill Clinton' where it says 'Barack Obama' and 'George H.W. Bush' for 'Hillary Clinton', and published it in 1992, the criticism would apply equally to Bill.

In other words, I wouldn't put much stock in it.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier

Oderint dum metuant
User avatar
brianeyci
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9815
Joined: 2004-09-26 05:36pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by brianeyci »

Politics is a profession where experience truly does not matter. You don't need to be a former soldier to be defense minister, an Indian to be minister of Indian affairs, or a former banker to be minister of finance.

The qualities of leadership are bringing around the right people together, expert people and experience, and making a decision based on them explaining to you the pros and cons. This is why Bush fails -- he surrounds himself with a small amount of close friends who all think like him, yes men, while someone like Obama is a winner since he's willing to reach out.

There is still a baseline intelligence involved -- the politician's eyes can't roll when a scientist explains something to him. But he's not supposed to be an expert at everything, and certainly not an expert at politics because you can get leadership qualities in any profession outside of politics. If politicians are too entrenched or corrupt, then political experience is a detriment due to the politician owing too many favors to too many people, while a maverick could come in relatively clean and do what's necessary.
User avatar
Glocksman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7233
Joined: 2002-09-03 06:43pm
Location: Mr. Five by Five

Post by Glocksman »

The one thing I originally thought GWB had (boy was I wrong) was the ability to recognize that he couldn't be an expert in everything and would bring in strong, intelligent cabinet members who were experts in their fields and would base his decisions on what they conveyed to him.

In reality, he wound up listening to the neocon asshole 'democracy holy war' fucks and the supply side evangelists, and now the country is screwed. :evil:
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier

Oderint dum metuant
User avatar
brianeyci
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9815
Joined: 2004-09-26 05:36pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by brianeyci »

Yep. Even if he was smarter, he'd be a failure because he doesn't listen to the other side.

That's why Obama's interviews (his interviews not his speeches) are so attractive. He constantly says he's willing to listen to the other side, but that listening to the other side doesn't mean he's agreeing with them or that it's a sign of weakness.

Meanwhile Bush shuts out the ACLU, hangs around Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice. Cheney treated the Democrats with total contempt. Probably his only friends. Even if he was smart, his entire worldview would be warped because of the people he listens to. Powell was the one hope, but he turned into a pansy putting loyalty above principle. Bush wouldn't have listened to Powell over Cheney either. Powell isn't exactly the other side either -- soldiers follow orders, they don't deviate. He needed some people around him who didn't tow the line.
Post Reply