Go to Ask.com


enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Page 1 of 3 (38 items)   1 2 3 Next >
For HRC supporters who prefer McCain to Obama: two words
by Irrelevant
+3 Reply

Supreme.

Court.

Re: For HRC supporters who prefer McCain to Obama: two words
by Smarmalade

For Hillary Haters, who dislike BLOND AMBITION!

Hillary Clinton can not win the Democratic nomination for president. The numbers tell the story. Even with robust victories in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia and Kentucky, Hillary will trail Obama in popular votes and pledged delegates as they enter the convention hall in Denver.

<link>

and...lest if be not noted that so many others are intimating a fact of nature...here is this little snippet:

Has the time come when a black man or woman can be elected President? Yes, of course. If former Secretary of State Colin Powell, or current Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, were to seek the Republican presidential nomination they would stand an excellent chance of winning the nomination, and, if nominated, they would likely be elected. The difference is, they would be elected on the basis of their qualifications and on their right-of-center political philosophy, not on the color of their skin.

It leaves Democrats with two major dilemmas. First, after spending the better part of 50 years convincing African Americans that they are victims of modern day racism and that, without the aid and sponsorship of Democrats they have no chance to participate in the American Dream, they are now confronted with a black candidate who tends to prove all of that to be a lie.

And finally, their unique system of “super delegates,” made up of party bigwigs and elected officials, now turns out to be the party’s own private minefield.

The “super delegate” system was designed to mirror the U.S. Electoral College. Its purpose was to prevent the party’s unruly mobs from making what might otherwise be a fatal mistake. But now, as the party drifts irretrievably toward an Obama candidacy, an almost certain loser in November, the super Delegates are prevented from playing the role they were intended to play. Why? Because Barack Obama is black and the “super delegates” dare not fulfill their purpose by short-circuiting the fortunes of a black candidate.

Any reasonable analysis of the past three General Elections will show the importance of the black vote to Democratic success at the polls. With blacks representing roughly 17% of our population, if they voted in roughly the same percentages as the rest of America...52-48 percent, or 53-47 percent for Democrats over Republicans, or vice versa...the balance of power in the United States Senate would now be, roughly speaking, 75 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Independent.

That, in a nutshell, is how important the black vote is to the Democrat Party. The continued viability of the party depends on their ability to let Barack Obama have the 2008 presidential nomination...no matter what.

On those rare occasions when a liberal Democrat speaks the truth it should be cause for celebration. Instead Geraldine Ferraro has been driven out of the Clinton campaign and probably into the footnotes of American political history. She spoke the truth, it cannot be denied.

<link>

Now, never be it said that political warriors will not play war like anyone else, even like Genghis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, Stalin or so many other gullibles and gutless wonders of this american nation.

Frankly, they are so good, they have flummoxed just about everyone who is anyone.

Perhaps...but...the Supreme Court?

I wonder what the challenge would be?

Florida?

Michigan?

Yegads!

Because Obama will surely do better by us there...
by Dawn Coyote
right?: <link>

Re: For HRC supporters who prefer McCain to Obama: two words
by Irrelevant

Actually I was thinking of the fact that sometime during the next four to eight years, it is very likely that there will be at least one and possibly as many as five vacancies on the court.

Whom would you prefer to be in position to nominate the replacements for justices Kennedy, Stevens, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsburg....?

Re: Goddam him!
by Lono

He thought about voting to approve Roberts! And after considering it further, he voted the right way! What a schmuck!

Re: Because Obama will surely do better by us there...
by Irrelevant
So McCain would be preferable to Obama then? Okay.....
Re: That works both ways.
by Lono

I think Obama supporters need to consider that very same thing.

Re: That works both ways.
by Irrelevant
Quite true. They aren't making as the same amount noise about voting for McCain instrad of HRC, but they are every bit as wrong-headed.
Re: Because Obama will surely do better by us there...
by Dawn Coyote
He also has Zbigniew Brzezinski as his foreign policy advisor. That individual was on TV the other night saying Hillary Clinton running for president was like Mamie Eisenhower running for president. Because she was just a wife. Tucker Carlson is in the background cackling like a deranged dog.

Given the vitriol directed at Clinton, I understand how some Clinton supporters would find it hard to vote for Obama.

Also on Violet's blog, read about the daily Kos writers' walk-out over unconstrained Hillary-bashing.
Re: Because Obama will surely do better by us there...
by Irrelevant
Yes, there is plenty of unseemly bashing going on in both directions, but in the end we have to forget that shit and get practical about what we want this country to look like five, ten, twenty years from now. And appointments to SCOTUS are among the most important and persistent decisions any president makes.
Voting-schmoting
by Gregor_Samsa

So Obama thought about voting for an anti-abortion judge before voting against him. Rapist! Murderer! Misogynist!

Hillary voted for Bush's war before... thinking about running the 3 a.m ad, before... regaling us with stories about ducking bullets in Bosnia! I suppose it's penis envy, not presidential aspirations. Peace be upon us.

OK...I get ya...
by Smarmalade

Definitely, conservatives on the SCOTUS is a bad thing for women ?

For everyone, most likely....so...OBAMA must be elected you are saying?

It's quite a quandary...you have posted.

Hmmmmm...lemme think about this a bit...

Right, because I've been saying things like that
by Dawn Coyote
all along.

No, not "rapist murderer misogynist", but perhaps, "d'oh...n't care about women's issues".

If that nominee had been supporting racial segregation, would Obama have noticed before considering an endorsement, or saying that he didn't want to vote along ideological lines?

He would have, right? Because the stench of racism is easy to pick up, but who gives a rat's ass about women's issues?
Re: Because Obama will surely do better by us there...
by Irrelevant

"Besides, Obama said, if he were president he wouldn’t want his judicial nominees opposed simply on ideological grounds."

An idealistic sentiment, surely, but chump, clown, and absurd are pretty strong words.

What words are there for McCain's "Yea" vote on both Roberts and Alito?

How about for Clinton's "Yea" for Roberts? Does that make her a chump too? Unconcerned about women's issues, do you think?

Brava.
by SpeakerNancy
Thank you for the reminder that Sen. Neophyte Obama does not always live in the real world. And of why so many women voters are wary (to say the least...) of him. (Interesting link)
Page 1 of 3 (38 items)   1 2 3 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML