(Scroll down to Swing State Analysis on the right-hand side).
But what does he know? He's just been amazingly prescient in a lot of races, that's all. (Obviously he's just drunken the Obamabot Kool-Aid, or else he'd be spouting the standard Hillbot talking points.)”
“If you define "walks on water" as refusing to pander to racist low-info voters with dumbass ideas like the gas tax holiday, and not employing the old, cynical, devisive tactics of the last eight years, then sure, okay...”
“Assuming your scenario plays out this year, what makes you think she will be any more "inevitable" in 2012? There are a lot of people like me who were neutral towards her at the outset, who now despise her heartily for the loathsome tactics she has adopted and her howling sense of entitlement. We will not be any more inclined to vote for her in four years.
Nope, this is it for her, and she has lost. She's not the only woman who will ever have a realistic shot at becoming president, though, thankfully. What a sad thing that would be, if she were it. One day, we'll get a chance to vote for a real, principled progressive woman for president.”
“And if you think the less-educated working class rural whites would not go for McCain over Clinton (assuming for the sake of argument that she wrests the nomination away from Obama), then you are as nuts as Breitweiser is.
This particular demographic has been mostly Republican since the days of Reagan, anyway. Not that Obama will "push them aside"; some of them are persuadable by appeals to their real interests. Those that would never vote for a black man are unlikely to vote for a woman either, though, if she were up against a white Republican male in the general election.”
“"I believe in a strong national defense and national security. I believe in a more efficient govt., so that we can spend money in areas that need attention, like education, health care, social security and alternative energy. I do believe the weatlhiest should pay a higher pct. in taxes, but not to the extreme. "
So you're an Obama supporter, after all? Nice to know you agree with his platform.
"I believe in securing our boarders..."
Yeah, but what about the boarding HOUSES? Shouldn't they be secured, too?
"get the fluck out"
Try Tide with Bleach. It usually gets the fluck out for me.
“You seriously think he's going to lose the true-blue big states like California, Massachusets and New York, which the Clintonoids tout as evidence that she is the more electable candidate?
Just because they went for her in the Democratic primary is no reason to expect they would not go for the Democratic nominee in November. More incoherent illogic from the Hill-Billies. Can you please explain how ANY Democratic candidate can win without the African American vote?
Take a good, long look at Poblano's projections (featured on this site just yesterday), based on incremental increases in turnout among African Americans, college students, and Hispanic Americans that Obama inspires, then come back and tell me his campaign is nothing more than "mere" "vision and inspiring words". Obama's candidacy is paradigm-shattering, game-changing, and revolutionary. It's how he derailed "Ms. Inevitability", in the first place.”
“Quoth Breitweiser: 'Clearly, Obama cannot run on "change" since McCain corners the market on "change" and being a "maverick outsider".'
The guy who represents Bush's third term has "cornered the market" on change??!? Huh, whuh??
The only reason McSame still gets away with that "maverick" scam is that we Democrats are still distracted by pointless infighting in a primary that should have ended months ago, but for the vanity and sense of entitlement of Hillary Clinton.
Here we see the delusional reasoning of the Clinton dead-enders in all its wacky glory: only another tired, backward-looking, cynical, old-style Washington-insider campaign can carry the banner of "change" forward to beat the guy who wants to continue the disastrous legacy of the Bush years. It takes a hack to beat a hack, I guess.”
“Puh-leeeze. Hillary did not "win" the votes in Michigan and Florida by any rational or fair measure. Both candidates agreed going in that they would not campaign in those states, or honor their votes, to punish them for flouting DNC rules that were clear to everybody from the get-go. When it suited her "inevitability" strategy, that was just fine with Senator Clinton.
She then broke her agreement, and campaigned in Michigan, anyway. Even so, with no other choices on the ballot, 40% of Michiganders voted for "Not-Hillary". Do you expect us to believe that she would have done as well as she did if any other choice had been on the ballot? And in Florida she benefited from massive name recognition, to do as well as she did. If the outcomes had favored Obama and not her, you can bet your bottom dollar that she would be hollering at the top of her lungs about abiding by the party rules, and not rewarding illicit behavior.
Others have already dealt with your nonsense about black voters, so I won't bother with that point. As regards electability, though, Clinton is the one who would lose badly to McCain (his "experience" beats her "experience" any day, he's an actual macho hunting, whiskey-downing, warmongering Republican male, she just plays one on TV, etc.) The 'truth" (i.e., bullshit) about Obama has been flung at him already, and he has only come out stronger.”
“You're absolutely right, frustratedinohio, it's all over and McCain has won. Nothing for us to do now, but curl up in a ball on the floor and moan. I mean, it's not like McSame and the Repugs have any problems of their own in this election, right?
Yep, we are SO screwed! Nothing to do but hope McNasty will be gentle with us, when he bends us over a hogshead and gives us all a Viagra-fueled rogering! Resistance is futile! Let the pissing and moaning begin!”
“It made sense to me, and I don't think it was meant to be condescending to white guys with beer guts, either. (I'm one myself, and I wasn't offended by the picture or your comment.) I think you were expressing bewildered frustration that people who should be a core Democratic constituency have been seduced away from voting their own interests by Republican bullshit, for decades now.
Compared to other groups on whom they have been conditioned to look down, they could be said, somewhat hyperbolically, to be the 'Ruling Class', but really it is the richest 1% of the population, Bush's 'base', who play us all off against each other, and laugh up their sleeves at our gullibility. I took your hyperbole for what it was intended, I think--an expression of dismay at the prospect of a repeat of past debacles. Who wouldn't be frustrated at the thought, "oh, no, here we go again!"”
donaldw6 on Apr 22, 2008 at 18:47:38
“Thanks for the support, but apparently I didn't express myself very well this time. C'est la vie.”
Apr 7, 2008 at 16:48:21
“I think his commentary is at best insensitive, and that is being charitable.
As for the differences you cited, some people say the same thing about sexual orientation. They're wrong, but that doesn't prevent them from making the argument. Another thing which is supposedly a matter of free choice is religious belief (or the absence thereof). Do you think it is OK to discriminate against people based on their beliefs, just because it is (debatably*) voluntary?
(*Most people stay in the tradition in which they were raised, but that's a discussion for another day.)”
Apr 7, 2008 at 16:37:18
“It's not about whether or not it's voluntary, it's the nastiness and casual cruelty with which his opinion is expressed. "Obesity apologizers"??? It's just about being minimally civil to your fellow human beings.”