&quot;I have been but little in,&quot; said Ninian hastily...

She's right, though. Among other things, Florida and Michigan were both unfairly excluded by the party, because of a stupid technicality. Coincidentally (?), those two states both went heavily for Clinton.

From:

Hardly a coincidence. All the candidates, INCLUDING Clinton, agreed not to campaign there or to accept any delegates elected from those primaries. Then Clinton started losing, campaigned there, won the (uncontested) primaries, and now she wants those delegates seated. Would she be pushing for "their voices to be heard" if the states had gone for Obama? Don't make me laugh.

Stupid technicality? Nope. The party makes the rules, and the party members are expected to abide by them. Except Clinton, who apparently doesn't feel the rules apply to her if she's losing.

From:

Yeah, I've heard this argument before, and I don't buy it. I don't think the primary process as it exists is particularly fair anyway, though.

From:

Sorry, I'm not actually making an argument, just stating facts.

Whether it's fair or not, Clinton agreed to it. Then tried to change her mind when she started losing.

She doesn't give a damn about the voters, or fairness, or anything except winning. Which suggests exactly what kind of president she would be.

From:

I don't share your condemnation of her, and frankly, I'm a bit put off by it. You know full well she'd be a damn sight better than what we have now. By several orders of magnitude.

From:

I don't really care whether you are put off or not; if you don't like my journal, you are under no obligation to read it.

And, no, I don't think she would be a notable improvement over what we have now--that's just my point. One power-hungry crook is the same as another IMO.

From:

Why are you so quick to dismiss her as a power-hungry crook? She wants to be President, yes; so does Obama. I don't expect anybody would run for office if they didn't want it.

From:

There's a difference between running for office and trying every dirty, cheap trick in the book to run down your opponent and cheat your way to a win.

From:

You mean like making not-very-subtle references to PMS, or deriding someone's past experience as "tea parties"?

From:

Oh, come off it. You're comparing comments that were misread by Hilaryphiles to her attempts to change the rules of the nominating contest in the middle of the game when she loses?

Thanks, you are uninvited from commenting here further. I prefer a little more intellectual honesty from my friends than you seem prepared to display.

From:

ginmar.livejournal.com

Because of course there's no difference from a war-dodging rich daddy's boy who's fucked up every single damned thing he's done and a woman who's fought for everything she's attained. Yup, I can totally see the resemblance----if, of course, I were a twittish twentysomething with no real experience of war, life, childbirth, marriage, or politics. Go you!

From:

No coincidence at all. They went heavily for Clinton because she chose to continue to campaign in both even after agreeing not to and even after the other candidates (at least the major ones) pull their names OFF the ballot.

Frankly Clinton is no people's Democrat. She is a big corporation shill and about as Democratic as Ronald Ray-gun.
But that's just my opinion.

From:

Agreed!

From:

First, my apologies to winterbadger, my "No coincidence at all" comment was supposed to be a reply to flewellyn's original comment. I am not sure how it got itself attached to the main posting...

Second, ginmar has responded to my comment, but I am not seeing it here. It was probably suppressed for foul language and personal attack, both of which indicate the state of mind of the commenter far more than they have any relevance at all on the current discussion.

Winterbadger, feel free to "unsuppress" ginmar's offensive and poorly thought through comment if you are simply protecting me. On the other hand, your blog, your rules - if you are not happy with the language - keep it suppressed or edit it.

For my part H.R. Clinton seems more like a light-weight Republican than a Democrat. I have thought this for many, many years, and it is very carefully thought about and checked on repeatedly. I do think she'd be better than G.W. Bush, not in philosophy, but in intellect and reason. I do not think she is much different than early (while he still had some wits) Ronald Reagan. Both are hawks, both are pro-corporate power and greed, both are tough on labor and small business. She has a good plan for health care, he was good for people in active-duty military (though he completely screwed veterans for a generation). So in my book, yes H. Clinton is equivalent to R. Reagan. I stand by that, it does NOT make me stupid, or a wimp.

Bush and his cronies are systematically tearing apart our constitution and our democracy, the must be stopped. Whomever wins the oval office next will have a horrible job, and there is no way they can look good even if they are successful at turning around 1/2 of Bush's evil plans in their first term. People want progress, not recovery... and I don't think even a super-hero could accomplish that.

Heck, it took two decent mayors of Washington to repair the damage Barry did, and only now is a mayor getting some respect (though his predecessors did a LOT of repair).

My point is that whomever wins is not likely to get re-elected four years later unless American voters suddenly become more insightful than they have been the last dozen elections. What matters is who can/will run in 2012 and how much can the person who wins now repair damage for 4 years. Tough job. Anyone willing to do it should be applauded, except that usually anyone seeking the office is out for gain and should be disqualified... hmmm.

It is long past time for real change. Obama may or may not be that change agent, and he may be leading it or simply surfing on top of a ground-swell of real democracy in action... it really matters very little. Neither McCain nor Clinton represent any kind of change at all, except perhaps some minor corrections to the Bush regime.

From:

ginmar's comment was not visible because she is not an LJ friend of mine, so it was screened. I've unscreened both of her abusive and unpleasant comments, but I've also banned her.

She is an angry, unpleasant person who uses her status as a veteran as a stick to beat other people with, a trait worthy of a rather sick Robert Heinlein.

From:

OK- understood. I do not know her, and followed her LJ just now to see a really funny idea about dressing Obama up to annoy the wack-jobs who are not sure if they will continue voting Huckabee or join McCain.

You rock and who would have guessed that your posting of the Ferraro comment would get this much traction... do you feel like the guy who struck a match for a bit of light and discovered he's in the gunpowder storage shed? ;-)

From:

Indeed. I had no idea trolls were lurking in the shed...

From:

ginmar.livejournal.com

Wow, you're fucking stupid. You lived through Ronnie Raygun and you can't see the fucking difference? You graduated the same year as me, you picked military----well, okay, you picked the Air Force---and you still make that claim with a straight face?

Dude, get laid now and then. Let go of high school. It's okay that you joined the Girl Scouts of the military. I'm a girl and I still joined the Army and saw combat. Fuck is your excuse? A pathetically small dick?

From:

Scott, I apologise for this obnoxious person being allowed to comment in this abusive and offensive way. It won't happen again.

From:

Nah - no worries - forgive and forget - we are all a little passionate about the election right now... which IMHO is a good thing. An uncaring populace gets the leadership it deserves...

Clearly people care.

From:

Passion is no excuse for abusiveness.

From:

For the record, I didn't exactly pick the military; my (lack of) finances did. I was faced with a decision between military or prison guard because of Reaganomics. I knew full well why the economy was in the crapper, and I knew full well that Reagan would have to help at least the active-duty military members out a little or look bad. So I chose the branch where I'd be least likely to have to do anything violent (I am a pacifist after all). In hindsight, I should have considered Coast Guard, though I am against the drug war too.

Through 10 years of Air Force propaganda (most of it Army, btw), I always knew I was reading/seeing/hearing only one side of the story, and my critical thinking skills (given to me by excellent parents) enabled me to call BS on most of the junk they were trying to sell us as facts. I know what a screw up Reagan was, and was one of several troops disciplined in 1986 for turning backs on him rather than saluting when he visited my base (we were particularly incensed that he was sheltering Ferdinand Markos at tax-payer expense).

Yes, I hate Reagan. His administration represents a great deal of the self-loathing that educated Americans must deal with today.

And I repeat my comparison with H.R. Clinton and Reagan, with a straight and disgusted face, further more I stand by it. While I disagree with our host winterbadger on comparing her to Bush (IMHO she's clearly better than Bush, but that's not saying much). I totally think she is much alike with Bush the senior and Reagan. She is pro-corporate profits, pro-rich, and not good for labor.

From:

gr-c17.livejournal.com

Are there not sveral states that went for Obama, but do not cout becouse they do where punshied for not following the rules?

Every election in this country has low turnout, why should we care what those who can't be bothered to vote really think?

By the way when did they dig up Ferraro? I thought she was bagged and dumped on the roadside after the election?

From:

I agree--it's a bedrock principle of democracy that if you don't care enough to vote in an open election, then you get the government that the rest of the electorate chooses.

From:

magaidhbhan.livejournal.com

Oh, Geraldine Ferraro was on NPR's On Point this afternoon -- she really rubbed me the wrong way. I actually started fussing at the radio (which is something I don't think I've ever done before, ever). Even though she was saying that everyone was entitled to an opinion, anyone whose opinions were different from her own was clearly wrong. She buldozd through genuine, interesting question and answered with empty, inflammatory rhetoric. I wish I could remember what she said that had me shouting across the room at her, but I think I've blocked it out. I don't even really object to Clinton, and I do agree that there's a lot of undiagnosed sexism that her campaign's been subject to -- and I'm predisposed to like her a bit because she's my mother's candidate of choice (and I trust my mother's political sense way more than I trust my own -- my gradfather was a congressman, so my mom pretty much grew up on Captiol Hill, and my past experience is that she's got a great political radar). But the Clinton supporters seem to be on the rabid side.

Ick.

From:

Yeah - I heard that bit too, and it had me mad. Really mad, because I have liked and respected Ms Ferraro in the past, enormously... but she was actively blocking the progress of meaningful dialogue in the talk show... and that had me pissed. She came off as rapid, and that does NOT make me a sexist, it means she had a bad night speaking over the moderator and ignoring very interesting questions from a friendly moderator. Sigh.

It is time for a woman President, hell - I wish all the world's leaders were women, we'd do more talking and less shooting (Thatcher-types excluded), but not this woman. The sense of entitlement they are all pissed about losing is very interesting. Yes Clinton has "served" for many decades. Some of that has been honest public service, but she has done well for herself as well. I'm sorry, but it takes more than service to recover from the Bush Inc disaster our country is in now... it takes bold leadership. Not seeing it in the Clinton candidacy this time around.

To be fair, I am not seeing it from McCain either, and frankly a lot of Obama's statements could be pure rhetoric and pandering to the popular sentiment... but if that turns out to be the case, we fire him too and move on.

From:

"I wish all the world's leaders were women, we'd do more talking and less shooting"

I really don't buy that. There's this popular concept that women are more nurturing and sustaining, more peaceful and nonconfrontational. It's BS. Women are just as confrontational and combative as men; they just accomplish their violence in different, less blatant ways.

What makes me sick about Clinton is her obvious manipulation of the double-standard accorded women. I was out of the country for the famous "tears" incident, but it is only because she is a woman that that very calculated gesture didn't sink her campaign. Am I the only person who remembers Ed Muskie and the "melting snowflakes"? But Clinton took something that is a liability for a man in her position, turned it into and advantage, and cynically used it, knowing that anyone who called her on it publicly would be seen as "beating up on a woman". Same with the "piling on" comment after the early debate where several candidates attacked her positions--"Look, poor lil lady being ganged up on by the Boyz!" Now the ridiculous accusation about Obama's "periodically when she's feeling down" remark.

Her campaign is adept at playing games (look at the business of the Somali photograph), but they are like a tournament gamer whose only interest is in playing the game to win, rather than playing fair. The Clinton campaign gives no indication that they are interested in the issues or in appealing to voters on the merits of their platform--they just want to beat the other people into the ground. That's one of the reasons I don't see much difference between the Clintons and the Bushes--they both want to have power, and to hell with getting it by convincing the people they have a good plan for America, they'll just cheat and steal their way in if that works.

From: