Breaking the Final Rule of Politics

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
melon said:


COULTER: No, and if you're looking at substance rather than whether it's an R or D after his name, manifestly, if our's candidate than Hillary's going to be our girl, Sean, because she's more conservative than he is. I think she would be stronger on the war on terrorism. I absolutely believe that.

HANNITY: That's the one area I disagree with you.

COULTER: No, yes, we're going to sign up together. Let me explain that point on terrorism.

HANNITY: You'd vote for Hillary —

COULTER: I will campaign for her if it's McCain.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,327605,00.html


the fact that mccain really does make the far right cringe makes me like him even more. but i suppose it's a matter of time before he whores himself over to the religious right.
 
deep said:
He is saying Hillary is not fit for the job

because we need

change

change

change


Every time he says
change

he is hurting Hillary !!!!!!!

You're right, we need change.



If she loses
it is his fault.


url]


wha , sob, whaaaaa!!!
24M5.GIF
 
[Q]Starting with you, Senator Bradley, do you believe that both Clinton and Obama are viable candidates and both should go on from this point on?

BILL BRADLEY: I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband's unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library.

And the reason that is important -- you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed.

These are important questions. The people deserve to know. And we deserve, as Democrats, to know before a nominee is selected, because we don't want things to explode in a general election against John McCain.
[/Q]

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/white_house/jan-june08/demdiscuss_03-05.html
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
fair enough, but seeing pope bill donohue squirm is never a bad thing.

He's a bigot with a severe persecution complex. It's a rather perverse combination.
 
melon said:


That's what Marxist philosophy would refer to as "false choice," where all of your choices, essentially, are really just the same.

I think in a lot of ways that's true of the general election also, but particularly the primary. Now if people would have voted for Kucinich and Paul in the primaries, then we'd have something to discuss re: platforms.

Irvine511 said:
i think when it comes to the platform, there isn't much difference between Hillary and Obama.

but when it comes to everything else, Obama does represent a real turning of the page and, hopefully, a way out of the bitter partisanship that has characterized the Baby Boom's rise to power. what actually gets don't won't be all that different from Hillary, but how it gets done, and how politics itself will function in our lives, might very well change with Obama.

he's not so easy to hate.

Hillary is very, very easy to hate.

How much of the Hillary hate do you think comes from her being a woman (vs. from her being Hillary Clinton)? I'm not 100% comfortable betting the next 4 years on there being more Americans hating Hillary than there are bigots who'll vote white regardless. Is she so easy to hate that people who hate her outnumber racists?
 
The hate that comes from her being a woman results from a double standard, which in some cases is a result of outdated sexist views. There is plenty of hate that comes from her just being Hillary Clinton- but the double standard hate is there too, as is the sexist hate, as is the mother complex hate. The sexist hate is more acceptable than the racist hate, but of course there are regional differences in that. I know someone who lives in Tennessee who says that so many people she knows just state out loud that they could never vote for a woman for President-men and women. It's not as acceptable to say out loud that you would never vote for an African American for same-the polls bear that out and people will lie about that. But I'm sure in some places it's fine to say that out loud. As for people who hate her because she's HRC outnumbering racists, I have no idea. As for sexists outnumbering racists, that's an interesting question- sometimes they overlap too. Two for the price of one.
 
CTU2fan said:
How much of the Hillary hate do you think comes from her being a woman (vs. from her being Hillary Clinton)? I'm not 100% comfortable betting the next 4 years on there being more Americans hating Hillary than there are bigots who'll vote white regardless. Is she so easy to hate that people who hate her outnumber racists? [/B]



i think a lot of it comes from her being a woman. i do think there's a strong dollop of sexism mixed into the brew of Hillary-hate. i think some men find her castrating. i think some men find her a grown-up Tracy Flick.

it's a very, very complex thing. sexism is a part of it, but not all of it. i think there are many men who would vote for a woman, happily, but wouldn't vote for *this* woman, yet for reasons that are inextricably linked to her being a woman.
 
Irvine511 said:

i think a lot of it comes from her being a woman. i do think there's a str i think there are many men who would vote for a woman, happily, but wouldn't vote for *this* woman, yet for reasons that are inextricably linked to her being a woman.

There are many women who would not vote for this woman.

And the reasons are not tied to the fact she is a woman, but the fact they dislike her on a personal level.

I am not one of these women. But I have spoken to a number of them, and they are rational and eloquent and disagree with her policies. They're not some kind of traitors to their gender.
 
anitram said:


I am not one of these women. But I have spoken to a number of them, and they are rational and eloquent and disagree with her policies. They're not some kind of traitors to their gender.

Which policies, besides the Iraq vote? Just curious.
 
Well, there are the economic conservatives (2 that I know, heaven help me), who do not support any kind of socialized health care plan - obviously they'd take a similar stand regarding Obama. I don't think they will vote for McCain because they are rather socially liberal and dislike the current crop of Republicans so I imagine they probably won't vote. This is the trust fund baby constituency, in case you're wondering.

Most of the others take issue with her foreign policy and think that she is going to be only marginally less isolationist than the Republicans. I think a lot of it comes from the perception that she has taken such a hard stand on the WoT that she's willing to part with some diplomatic avenues in the name of seeming tough.

One woman I know won't vote for her because she thinks that the current health care proposal is pathetic and that Hillary had it right back in the 90s, but that her subsequent interactions with BigPharma have caused her to sell out her principles in that respect. This is somebody with a PhD who works in research, who also feels that Hillary's close ties to Big Pharma will just result in more nonsense like the NEJM being sued to reveal their peer reviewers and so on.
 
Irvine511 said:

i think a lot of it comes from her being a woman. i do think there's a strong dollop of sexism mixed into the brew of Hillary-hate. i think some men find her castrating. i think some men find her a grown-up Tracy Flick.

it's a very, very complex thing. sexism is a part of it, but not all of it. i think there are many men who would vote for a woman, happily, but wouldn't vote for *this* woman, yet for reasons that are inextricably linked to her being a woman.

And why do they find her "castrating"? When you find out why, well you have to wonder why a man with the very same qualities would not be labeled the male equivalent, whatever that may be-and is there even such a thing? It all comes down to women being expected to conform to a certain different standard, doesn't it? People can disagree with her policies and I respect that 100 percent, and that "traitor to gender" that was lobbed at Oprah and others is complete crap and offensive. But I have no respect for those reasons that are inextricably linked to her being a woman, and I think you are so right about that. It's like those people who say Obama is more feminine, more like a woman-when they say that they mean more like their standard of how women should behave and be.
 
I am at a bit of a loss

with all this emphasis on the packaging :huh:



I know it is not easy

but, switch out McCain
with a Margaret Thacher type

I choose her because she is close to his age

I hope that person would have the same pool of voters regardless of gender


and again,
swap Hillary for a 60 year old male,
say a Gore or Kerry
with the same programs and agenda?

I hope that person would have the same pool of voters, would it be larger?


I did this exercise with Obama
swap him out for someone that has only been a U S Senator for 3 years

and ask yourself if a different package
would get his same pool of voters ?

more or less?


Is there too much consideration being given to the packaging?
 
melon said:


So how's Stephen Harper doing up there?

A helluva lot better than anything you guys have elected since JFK!!! At least Harper (and I'm anything but a fan) hasn't jailed more people for possession of Marijuana than Bill Clinton. At least he's no where near as bad as Bush/Cheney. Or Nixon. Ford. Carter (O.K. , maybe Carter has an edge). Johnson. Although we certainly have our share of problems I couldn't be happier being a Canadian citizen as opposed to an American. Having said that, some of the nicest people I've ever met were American citizens. It's your Government I can never trust.
 
Harry Vest said:


At least Harper (and I'm anything but a fan) hasn't jailed more people for possession of Marijuana than Bill Clinton.

So they are/were federally imprisoned?
 
I must say I was fooled and used to like Bill Clinton - until I took a real look at what happened during his years as President. Here's a guy who had the audacity to claim he tried marijuana but NEVER INHALED - Bullshit!!! Then came Welfare reform, The Three Strikes law, and the fact that there were more convictions of simple posession during his years than previously. Not to mention the ignoring of Rwanda. He was spineless as a President. Slightly better than Bush overall but what the hell is that saying. Hillary would be no different. Obama just might be.
 
Again, are those federal charges? I might be wrong, but to my knowledge the harsh marijuana prosecution, zero tolerance policies and three strikes laws were state policies, and charged on state level, not federal.

I agree they should have taken action in Rwanda way earlier, but there are to blame: The US, the UN, the EU and all its member states, Canada and many more countries that just watched.

Welfare policy in the US, if you don't know, is a very difficult issue. I haven't looked into the details of those, and I know that some of them didn't really help much, especially for the poor, there also has been some progress you haven't seen with the other presidents.
 
Back
Top Bottom