View Story | 77 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
I kind of agree with you - I think it is silly. The problem is, I am seeing a lot of Obama supporters, at least here, who seem more focused on destroying the Clintons than on getting Obama elected.
Thus, the poll
Space is where the future is Donate for Space to Obama
by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:27:41 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
Are you really paying attention?
I am an undecided voter who has decided to back Obama. Until very recently, I was undecided because I was equally comfortable with both candidates.
Then Hillary and her team convinced me to vote for Obama.
I will not go through the laundry list of the absolute bullshit she and they have done recently. I will mention only the tipping point: when she endorsed McCain over Obama, she lost me utterly and forever. I have been following presidential politics since Kennedy/Nixon. You remember Kennedy? The junior senator with limited experience whose critics labelled him a dilletante? The best president of my lifetime? That Kennedy.
In all that time, I have seen some bare-knuckled, no-holds-barred primaries. But I have never seen a potentially viable candidate from one side say, "Vote for me or vote for the other party; but don't vote for our front-runner because he is not qualified."
Tell me again about Obama supporters trying to destroy the Clintons.
Si se fucking puede! - Melody Townsel
by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:34:32 PM PDT
by Endangered Alaskan Dem on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:39:28 PM PDT
If not, may I suggest you read it, and some of IndianaDemocrat comments?
I know not all of them are that way - im just curious if most of them are.
by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:41:21 PM PDT
You typed: "when she endorsed McCain over Obama, she lost me utterly and forever." She effectively said what you typed, "Vote for me or vote for the other party; but don't vote for our front-runner because he is not qualified." She lost alot of fence-sitters with that bullshit. I still can't believe she tried to split her own party over her raging desire to be President.
Also: "You remember Kennedy? The best president of my lifetime? That Kennedy." I see elements of Jack in Barack. They're certainly not idealogic twins, but he's sure as Hell alot closer to JFK than Hillary will EVER be - or ever could be. Jack used the party machine to get where he wanted to be, but kept his populist principles intact and didn't sell out to the machine. Hillary is married to the machine - and I don't mean Bill.
Celtic Merlin
Sorry I couldn't take your call. I'm using my cell phone to make pancakes. Leave a message.
by Celtic Merlin on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:51:04 PM PDT
I am seeing a lot of Obama supporters, at least here, who seem more focused on destroying the Clintons than on getting Obama elected.
Look at your poll. You're obviously not seeing a lot of people who seem more focused on destroying the Clintons than on getting Obama elected.
In other words, you're projecting that in order to feel more comfortable with yourself about one thing or another.
And before you disagree with me, it's YOUR poll!
It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.
by Fishgrease on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:37:47 PM PDT
that say that Clinton doesn't deserve anything. In countless diaries. That the only deal is that she needs to accept the outcome, and get over it. And that her supporters will fall in line, and vote for Obama
I am not at all convinced of that, and have suggested that, as a method of uniting the party, a deal be made, where by Obama is the nominee, and Clinton would get to be something like Majority Leader, or Supreme Court Justice, assuming Obama wins.
I consider that a good solution, and a way to bring unity to the party. And I've had a number of people say she shouldn't get anything. I can provide links, if you want.
by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:45:57 PM PDT
Look at your poll. Looks like 13% feel as you're describing.
That's not nothing, but calling 13% "a lot of people" is poor use of language.
And besides that your hyperbole has made it impossible for you to back up what you're saying with links.
In countless diaries
You can't link countless diaries.
by Fishgrease on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:55:45 PM PDT
many (although I can't remember everyone).
However, more to the point - yes, I have seen it a lot. But I admit, I had no real way to gauge it - whether it was really substantial, or not. But I did see a lot of it. So, I figured the one sure to have an idea, was to post the poll.
What would you have done?
by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:59:41 PM PDT
I was wrong about your poll. Now that I see what you're looking for, I have to say it's very good.
My bad, as far as that goes.
by Fishgrease on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:01:34 PM PDT
:D
Don't worry about it to much. Of course, if your feeling really guity about it, can I suggest you read about the space economy?
by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:09:21 PM PDT
I'm against manned space flight for the next 50 years. Can you change my mind on that?
I'm NOT in favor of cutting funds, however, just using unmanned vehicles to accomplish so much more with the same money.
by Fishgrease on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:17:07 PM PDT
Reason your against it, if you don't mind?
by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:20:56 PM PDT
as well as it's cost effectiveness in performing real science.
That and the politics involved with trying to get science done in the manned program.
Those two little Mars rovers say more than I can.
by Fishgrease on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:23:52 PM PDT
manned flight isn't about science. I know most people think that is all space can offer - is science. But the truth is that manned spaceflight is about development, and colonization.
So arguing against manned spaceflight because it doesn't produce good science is like arguing against school lunch programs because they don't provide low interest college loans - thats not its purpose.
And we are fully ready and have the technology to develop outer space, and use it as an economic engine, to help our economy.
And then there are things like space based solar power, which I admit is a little bit further down the road, but I don't think its too far.
We have the technology, and we don't necessarily need to invest huge amounts of sums to get it
by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:34:43 PM PDT
But I can tell already I'm not going to agree.
Looks like interesting diaries though.
by Fishgrease on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:41:11 PM PDT
I'll be interested in your response
by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:53:39 PM PDT
The goal is to bring about populist change in our nation's capital.
Those who hate the Clintons can rest assured that after 8 years of President Obama, Hillary will be far too old to be considered "electable" and the Clinton's WILL fade from the political spectrum.
Personally, I loved Bill's first term, but feel that he capitulated to the Republicans in his second term, making him less effective and ruining what would have been one Helluva run as President.
Hillary.....I don't hate the woman. I feel that she's a carpet-bagger and that she's FAR too well connected to the jackals of K street (lobbyists) to represent the BEST interests of the individual Americans living in this country.
McCain??? My GOD, no! Who in their right mind wants another four years of GWBush?
Elect Obama first, THEN worry about the rest of the issues you raise.
by Celtic Merlin on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:39:38 PM PDT
Seriously?
I don't even know where to start with this. Clinton is the one going around telling the voters of Pennsylvania -- a crucial swing state -- that McCain is more qualified to be president than Obama, who will probably be our nominee!
We're just trying to get her to stop!!
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right." - Salvor Hardin
by Zackpunk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:47:51 PM PDT
Im not even a supporter, as I said - I am an uncommitted Dem, who wants us to win. And I would like to see those kind of comments stop.
Thats why I've said a deal should be offered - like Senate Majority Leadership - its not a bad deal IMHO. It would unite the party, and we could really go after Mccain, after the primaries.
I just worry that, to many people are more interested in getting her (and Bill) out of politics, than in getting the nominee elected.
I'd love to be wrong - I just worry that Im not
by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:56:26 PM PDT
You don't reward someone for trying to screw up the election. That's not a deal, that's extortion.
by Zackpunk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:12:22 PM PDT
a realization that she could hurt the Democrats, and it can be part of a carrot and stick approach, to get her to stop these kind of attacks.
The carrot is something like Senate Majority Leader. The stick is political warfare from the Democratic party on her.
Its just standard negotiating.
by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:15:52 PM PDT
You're talking about her like she's an airplane hijacker, or a mafia informant. And I don't entirely disagree with the framing.
Why should we reward her for lack of party unity?
by Zackpunk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:22:25 PM PDT
I don't agree that I am framing it that way. I'd argue its more like bilateral relations between countries - she can hurt us, but she can also help us.
She makes a much better ally than enemy, IMHO. And yes, I say again, I am not at all convinced that the 12+million who have voted for Clinton will fall behind obama, and vote for him, in Nov
by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:25:46 PM PDT
When did she become an "enemy"? Look -- John McCain is the "enemy," right? Why don't we make him majority leader?
To use your international negotiations analogy, it would be like working out a treaty with Ohio. Ohio is already a state. We shouldn't have to be banging out treaties within our own union.
by Zackpunk on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:46:15 PM PDT
not yet, I agree. But she can hurt us. and that should be avoided.
As far as banging out treaties with our own union - thats standard practice, for a number of things - Look at the push by California to be able to regulate carbon, but the EPA didn't want to.
by FerrisValyn on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 08:57:28 PM PDT
but she has to be taken out - sooner is better. She is doing nothing but harm - driving up Obama's negatives. She can't win unless the Supers nullify the voters' decision, so she is hanging around for self-aggrandizement at the expense of the party. She is not in any sense of the word a viable candidate any more. She is conducting a hateful, mean-spirited and nasty campaign - against the number one choice of her own party.
So - destroy is too strong. But, if she scorches the earth so bad that she keeps the Republicans in power she will have earned the undying disgust of all progressives.
Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.
by dpc on Tue Mar 11, 2008 at 07:54:46 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 77 comments