@3 - That's true. But there are people like my 60-year old in-laws (life-long republicans who live in the rural midwest) who are going to cross party lines if Obama gets the nod.
Wow. Despite supporting Obama, I increasingly feel my annoying contrarian instincts now telling me to start fretting about the risks. What if he doesn't have what it takes? He's never faced a truly difficult election, has he? (Granted, neither of Hillary's opponents were exactly worthy adversaries either, but ... still.) And we're trying to avoid a Clinton, but Clinton had pretty Obama-ish qualities himself in 1992.
Sorry, but South Carolina, a come-to-Jesus victory speech and three Kennedys (one of them sober) does not a presidential nomination make. See, it's like Bill wants to one-up the father-son succession phenom by securing a husband-wife succession. And who can blame him? getting into the Trivia books ain't easy. So if you have some eggs and a basket, get another basket.
Posted by
BELMONT PLACE |
January 28, 2008 12:33 PM
dear obama supporters-get an education and realize you are making the wrong decision for this country. we are more fucked than ever right now and obama is NOT the answer. he will not be able to unravel the horrible web that the current asshole has woven. it's just that simple. we need EXPERIENCE, not hope. hope ran out a long time ago.
You seem to be forgetting the role the Clintonistas played in fucking this country in the first place. I still remember Bill saying that the 1st Amendment was too extreme. Fuck the Clintons.
If he drops out? Probably Obama, though it's entirely a stylistic choice. If either Clinton or Obama runs the government on the substance of what they're campaigning on, we're fucked. We need a new FDR, not Bill Clinton 2.0. I'm sorry, but Obama's just another version of BC 2.0 so far, and the first version wasn't worth an upgrade.
Well, actually, AMB, it kind of is. The Committee on Foreign Relations is part of the controlling levers of our elitist society, and most of the powerful are directly connected to it.
Their journals a nice read if you're into that kind of thing, even if they're usually wrong in retrospect.
Oh God, wait until the Republicans get ahold of Sandy Berger again. And you think Obama has negatives. Albright and Holbrooke are good, though. To be honest, I don't know Obama's guys, except Clarke, who is an impressive name.
I kind of like the idea that people in the cabinet be informed about stuff going on in the world. It's a lot better than the rootinest, tootinest cowboy douchebaggery we've had for the last 8 years.
The people who are most critical of the CFR are people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that the UN exists to enslave us all, and that global warming is a liberal hoax.
I like Hillary, I really do. Wherever there's a policy difference between her and Obama, I always find I agree with hers. Maybe because she seems to have a much better grasp of the specific, where as Obama seems more to be about empty rhetoric. That said, Hillary would be a disaster in the general. The GOP hate her - the left of her own party hate her. So, I'm hoping for Obama.
Posted by
4dSwissCheese |
January 28, 2008 2:02 PM
@26, or "Obama has no experience", is operating on sound bites.
Obama has more than 10 years' experience in the clusterfuck that is modern politics. That's a pretty long time-- longer than Hillary's held any office, if you don't count "Bill's wife". Which you shouldn't. Before that, Obama was a community leader, an organizer, a civil rights lawyer. He has a prestigious education and a strong grasp on what can be done that won't alienate half the country (or the rest of the world) and he's a great orator. A president isn't much else.
If he was more "experienced", or more deeply involved in the political machine, he'd likely be a divisive, accusatory, conniving candidate. I'd rather he bring something different to the table.
Still for Edwards. It is my vote. Despite whatever the Stranger staff may think.
"Simplifying" the contest is something I'd expect from Fox. What's next a colorful USA Today graph of useless trivia on the cover?
Edwards is the Democratic answer to Ron Paul: passionate supporters, no chance of winning the nomination, extremist views that are hard to take seriously but sure mobilize some of the internets.
It's not going to happen. He may, possibly, be a power broker at the convention. Neither the main nor his policies will see the White House.
Of course he has no chance at president ... however a sizable block of delegates can have great influence in the party. Look at how much Dean has changed the party(much for the better IMHO) after the MSM declared him dead.
Comments
clinton is looking more and more like a bitch, and hillary isn't doing herself any favors either.
Uh oh. This won't make ECB very happy.
there are a ton of clinton supporters that aren't ECB, just for the record.
Ouch that is a landslide
@3 - That's true. But there are people like my 60-year old in-laws (life-long republicans who live in the rural midwest) who are going to cross party lines if Obama gets the nod.
Woohoo! 17%! Go Hillary!
I'll vote for Clinton over any of the Reoublicans, but I think Obama has the only chance to win.
Stop victimizing ECB by voting for Obama! Sheesh!
Go to the caucuses Feb. 9th, Obama people, and bring all o your Obama-loving friends!
Oh and here's the Web site to find your caucus location:
http://www.wa-democrats.org/caucusfinder
Sorry about the poor spelling above. Damn WWU computer lab keyboards.
LOL, Ziggity.
I'm thinking if it's a Clinton/McCain race we're getting another GOP president. If it's Obama/McCain, we've got a hell of a shot.
Back to mourning the loss of Edwards for me.
Wow. Despite supporting Obama, I increasingly feel my annoying contrarian instincts now telling me to start fretting about the risks. What if he doesn't have what it takes? He's never faced a truly difficult election, has he? (Granted, neither of Hillary's opponents were exactly worthy adversaries either, but ... still.) And we're trying to avoid a Clinton, but Clinton had pretty Obama-ish qualities himself in 1992.
(I'm still caucusing for him.)
This is very upsetting.
Edwards was a fine candidate who got marginalized by the Corporate MSM due to his attacks against corporate greed.
That being said I'm with @7
I was going to suggest that everyone annoy ECB by voting for Obama, but it looks like everyone already had the same idea.
@10 use the ones in The Communication Building, my favorite is room 314
It's a bit odd to call Edwards out of it this early. I'd call it irresponsible if the Stranger were MSM rather than a mag for Seattle queers*.
"It's the delegates, stupid." And he's not out of it as yet, especially if the nat'l convention is brokered:
http://politicalinsider.com/2008/01/the_edwards_scenario.html
Sorry, but South Carolina, a come-to-Jesus victory speech and three Kennedys (one of them sober) does not a presidential nomination make. See, it's like Bill wants to one-up the father-son succession phenom by securing a husband-wife succession. And who can blame him? getting into the Trivia books ain't easy. So if you have some eggs and a basket, get another basket.
This poll is sexist.
I look forward to seeing the crowds at the Fremont Public Library!
Try to get there early if you can - thanks!
I AM CRYING HERE ON THE HILLARY HATE :( :( :(
Yippee!
We get to pick from C.F.R. candidate A or B
Hillary hate? Where? Not in this meaningless poll. Obama's been leading the Slog polls since day one.
Sweet! I was vote number 666.
@22,
I guess none of the Dem front-runners see the value in pandering to the conspiracy nutter constituency.
dear obama supporters-get an education and realize you are making the wrong decision for this country. we are more fucked than ever right now and obama is NOT the answer. he will not be able to unravel the horrible web that the current asshole has woven. it's just that simple. we need EXPERIENCE, not hope. hope ran out a long time ago.
@26
You seem to be forgetting the role the Clintonistas played in fucking this country in the first place. I still remember Bill saying that the 1st Amendment was too extreme. Fuck the Clintons.
@12: Are you suggesting that Hillary did?
At least I'd heard of Alan Keyes before he was shipped out to run against Obama.
#26 is a quintessential hillary supporter.
#26 is everything i know and love about hillary supporters. behold.
Edwards.
If he drops out? Probably Obama, though it's entirely a stylistic choice. If either Clinton or Obama runs the government on the substance of what they're campaigning on, we're fucked. We need a new FDR, not Bill Clinton 2.0. I'm sorry, but Obama's just another version of BC 2.0 so far, and the first version wasn't worth an upgrade.
@25, all
Clinton advisors = CFR members
Madeleine Albright, “Sandy” Berger, Lee Feinstein, Leslie Gelb, Richard Holbrooke
Obama Advisors = CFR members
Richard Clarke, Jeffrey Bader, Gregory Craig, Ivo Daalder, Richard Danzig
Edwards.
@32
And?
Do you even know what the CFR is? I'll give you a hint by telling you what it's not: a supar-sekrit plot to control you via fluoridation.
Well, actually, AMB, it kind of is. The Committee on Foreign Relations is part of the controlling levers of our elitist society, and most of the powerful are directly connected to it.
Their journals a nice read if you're into that kind of thing, even if they're usually wrong in retrospect.
Oh God, wait until the Republicans get ahold of Sandy Berger again. And you think Obama has negatives. Albright and Holbrooke are good, though. To be honest, I don't know Obama's guys, except Clarke, who is an impressive name.
This whole thing is rigged. I'm going to start cheating seeing how Anthony is letting someone else get away with it.
I guess I'll be the better man, like all HRC supporters, and just let it be.
@35
I kind of like the idea that people in the cabinet be informed about stuff going on in the world. It's a lot better than the rootinest, tootinest cowboy douchebaggery we've had for the last 8 years.
The people who are most critical of the CFR are people who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, that the UN exists to enslave us all, and that global warming is a liberal hoax.
count me in for edwards, too.
I'm in for Edwards, too. (You bunch of MSM-led sheep!)
I like Hillary, I really do. Wherever there's a policy difference between her and Obama, I always find I agree with hers. Maybe because she seems to have a much better grasp of the specific, where as Obama seems more to be about empty rhetoric. That said, Hillary would be a disaster in the general. The GOP hate her - the left of her own party hate her. So, I'm hoping for Obama.
Why no button for "Why, I'd be happy with either one"
Because that's what I'd vote. The pool of candidates is much better than 2004.
You do realize that Edwards reads CFR journals for fun, right?
No, I am NOT joking.
(silly silly Americans who don't understand how their political system "functions")
@43
Costco has a pretty good deal on Reynolds Wrap. I think you get like 500 sq. ft. of it for the same price as 250 at the supermarket.
@26, or "Obama has no experience", is operating on sound bites.
Obama has more than 10 years' experience in the clusterfuck that is modern politics. That's a pretty long time-- longer than Hillary's held any office, if you don't count "Bill's wife". Which you shouldn't. Before that, Obama was a community leader, an organizer, a civil rights lawyer. He has a prestigious education and a strong grasp on what can be done that won't alienate half the country (or the rest of the world) and he's a great orator. A president isn't much else.
If he was more "experienced", or more deeply involved in the political machine, he'd likely be a divisive, accusatory, conniving candidate. I'd rather he bring something different to the table.
Council, not Committee. Once again Will is confused.
It's an organization of powerful people. God forbid powerful people should talk to each other or anything.
@25 acknowledging CFR advised candidates = "nutter"
@38 I like CFR advised candidates
I will buy you that COSTCO reynolds wrap if you name the CFR advisors/members in the current administration.
The Council on Foreign Relations write the papers that have dictated much of American policy for the last 60 years.
Expect much of the same.
Edwards
Still for Edwards. It is my vote. Despite whatever the Stranger staff may think.
"Simplifying" the contest is something I'd expect from Fox. What's next a colorful USA Today graph of useless trivia on the cover?
Edwards is the Democratic answer to Ron Paul: passionate supporters, no chance of winning the nomination, extremist views that are hard to take seriously but sure mobilize some of the internets.
It's not going to happen. He may, possibly, be a power broker at the convention. Neither the main nor his policies will see the White House.
Nader
how did we get down to the the two most least experienced candidates?
@52 - wrong post - you want the GOP poll thread.
Edwards
Of course he has no chance at president ... however a sizable block of delegates can have great influence in the party. Look at how much Dean has changed the party(much for the better IMHO) after the MSM declared him dead.
I missed the vote. Go Obama!
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).