Slashdot Mirror
Barack Obama Wins Democratic Nomination
An anonymous reader was one of many who noted that Barack Obama has claimed the Democratic nomination having secured enough delegates and super-delegates to claim victory. Of course, technically this assumes that the supers all vote as they say they will and they are free to change their minds. So no doubt we'll continue to hear debate on this subject until either the convention or Hillary steps down.
People don't seem to learn from history, which may be obvious. But I'm talking about you. All the intelligent people who think they know what they are doing and think that change is on the way .
I think it would be great if Obama was elected president. It would send a great message to the rest of the world that Americans are a diverse, caring and accepting people. And it would probably greatly inspire a lot of people who have felt oppressed over the past 8 years. But honestly, I don't think he stands a chance. Democratic voters are voting with their hearts and not their heads. From having watched many presidential elections from more of a neutral stance, I can say that to really win, you need to win the votes from both parties, not just your own. Sure, you can win by a narrow margin, but that is hardly marks the beginning of change. Change begins with the populace changing their attitudes. Leaving race out of the issue, how many republicans do you think would vote for someone named Barack Hussein Obama. A name that rings with the sounds of two recent so called enemies.
So Obama supporters have voted with their hearts and aren't realizing how idealistic they are being. Is it really worth the risk of having republican bullshit for the next 4 years? I don't think so. Obama supporters, you have risked too much. So don't come crying to everyone when he loses. I hope he doesn't
though.
Hasn't this guy been in the news enough for the last two years? Can't we get his name right yet?
Really? Based on what?
Calling his own grandmother a "typical white woman"? Is that caring and accepting? Or what about his spiritual advisor, who baptized his children and married him and his wife, saying that the white US Government created AIDS to kill black people?
What about his relationship with someone who has bombed United States buildings?
If you meant this would send a message on a purely superficial level because of his skin color, maybe. But anyone who has done research on this man doesn't want him as president.
Clinton has no practical reason to "go away" - Obama's victory was surprisingly narrow. Over the last few months the Obama campaign lost momentum - Clinton's victories were quite substantial in several key states that would be essential to a Democratic victory (Ohio and Pennsylvania especially).
Given Obama's weakness in three key Democratic demographics - women, white blue collar workers, and Hispanics - Clinton still has a substantial role to play in the election.
Her supporters are bitter about how they perceive Clinton's treatment versus how Obama has been treated by the press. I realize it's anecdotal, but talking to a number of my friends who were ardent Clinton supporters I've become worried that they simply won't vote Democrat due to what they perceive was the unfairness and sexism of the campaign.
Clinton's in a strong position to request the VP slot. If she concedes to Obama then she simply becomes an also-ran, and has no negotiating power.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
Well, the interesting thing is that in no primary in the US history has the outcome ever been so close. Obama has certainly won the primary, but just barely.
The party is truly split between the two candidates, and for the Obama team to take a small winning margin and run all the way to the general election while ignoring Hillary and keeping her out of the team, it will majorly turn off roughly half of the Democratic Party. The Obama team just wants Hillary to go away, but when she has the support of half the party, how can she just give up and disappear? That would be irresponsible to her supporters.
Another argument that the Obama team has been making for the past few months is that Clinton is ruining Obama's chances in the general election by keeping the election going, and that she's been mean to him with her campaign. The sad thing is that what Hillary has thrown at Obama is nothing compared to what the Republicans will throw at him starting now. If they cannot stand Hillary's attacks, they're going to crumple under McCain and the whole Republican propaganda machine.
It certainly is an interesting time in politics, seeing such a split in the Democratic party. Hopefully it can come together, but it won't happen if Obama just runs fully with it, leaving HIllary in the dust. Or, as you put it, to "make this woman go away".
make world, not war
The Clintons and the Bushes are like political Herpes. In my life time, we have had Reagan/Bush, Reagan/Bush, Bush/Quale, Clinton/Gore, Clinton/Gore, Bush/Cheney, Bush/ Cheney -- complete with all the usual suspects from the 80s and 90s... and the fucking Ford administration, too!!
I am SO FUCKIGN GLAD its not going to be another 8 years of Clinton -- followed by what, Jeb Bush then Chelsey Clinton?
Bush Sr. and Clinton palling around...
but yeah, study hard, stay away from drugs and out of cyber-porn on the internet and YOU could be President of the United States some day.... pfft
sure.
Anyway, Obama would be demonized with any name, and regardless of his hue. No matter who he is, if he's a D and he's running, then he'll be the "single most liberal member of Congress" since Che Guavera or whoever, an "elite" know-it-all who is out of touch with the heartland of America, will have gotten a "free pass" from our "overwhelmingly liberal media," would put us in danger of "appeasing" the terrorists, "emboldening our enemies," etc. It's the same script, every time, all the time. The Republicans always use the same words to galvanize their base, because, well, it works. Who or what Obama is or isn't has little to do with how the Republicans will vote.
Hillary (like Bill) is hyper-ambitious and a sore loser. Right now she's still steaming and trying to plot a new course for the only person she ever cared about in this election (herself). She'll be back in a new form soon enough (no doubt trying to strong-arm her way into the VP spot).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
You do know that if you don't vote then you don't have any 'moral' right to complain about the result.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
For the love of God, man! If you don't like the Republican/Democratic candidates, don't sit at home: vote for a third-party candidate. Surely there has to be one out there who you agree with, and anything whatsoever is better than not voting.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
"if you don't vote then you don't have any 'moral' right to complain about the result."
That's a quaint assumption backed up by no rationale whatsoever. I am a taxpayer and a US citizen, so I have every right to persuade other members of society to effect changes I desire. Voting is a right, not a gateway to other rights. On its own, it also happens to be the least effective method of bringing about change. I would rather use my freedom of speech to persuade the public to bring about a candidate that will uphold everyone's rights rather than trample them. Until such a candidate exists, there will be no acceptable choice for president.
"Surely there has to be one out there who you agree with, and anything whatsoever is better than not voting."
Both of those assumptions are false. I will only support a candidate willing to uphold the rights of the citizenry. Show me such a candidate. My vote is of little consequence, especially when it is a vote for a candidate who cannot get a majority. Freedom of speech is the more effective route: persuading lots of members of the public to eventually bring about a viable candidate.
It is also important, for the marketing folks, to have an idea of what the site's readers policitcal leanings are. This helps the article selection process be more accurate by selecting articles that will generate either a lot of 'me too' comments or a lot of enraged counter commentary.
This reminds me I need to re-up my subscription.
I read the political articles more for entertainment than anything else. Slashdot has a lot of high school and college age users and I find their optimism fun to read. Most of them have been paying attention to the political world only through the W years, maybe the last of Clinton's. They just aren't ready to admit to themselves that these new guys will be just like the old guys.
I actually hope Obama wins so when he signs some new **AA sponsored bill I'll get to read all the heartbroken comments. It'll be like the Google articles, only with more page hits.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
I think George W. has pretty much ended the Bush legacy. It will be a long time before voters can even stomach the thought of another of his ilk.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Yes. We should remind people that it doesn't matter if you're black or white. The only color that matters is green.
an "elite" know-it-all who is out of touch with the heartland of America
Elite: 1. A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status. 2. The best or most skilled members of a group.
Why is it that people think "elite" is bad? Would you rather have a president who is smarter than the average citizen or just average? For the past 8 years we've had a president who is as dumb or dumber than most people (or at least he likes to pretend he is).... and that didn't do anything good for the country.
Exactly. The Republican Party is not "conservative". That word is only used to get votes. In fact, the Republican Party has put the U.S. government into far more debt.
There are, in effect, two Republican Parties. One is a real political party. The other is extremely corrupt and merely says anything necessary to get control. The real purpose is control, not managing the U.S. government for its citizens. For example, search digg.com and reddit.com for the term "martial law".
There has been conflict of interest because of the fact that the president and vice-president and their families and friends and associates have a history of investment in oil and weapons. The purpose of invading Iraq was to get control of the oil supply, so that the price of oil would rise. Saddam Hussein was not cooperating; he was selling as much oil as he wanted.
The reason for the U.S. government's plan to invade Iran is to further restrict the supply of oil. If the U.S. government invades, the price of oil could easily become $8 per gallon; it is necessary to have oil to make our societies function; people would have to pay any price.
Also, his name is "Barack" Obama, as others have noted. I wish Slashdot editors could be real editors, and check their work.
I just wish for once a person would run on something other than a slew of social issues that they have no power to change. And worse yet, I wish people would stop voting for canidates based on their stance on abortion or gay marriage or anything else. The ideal person, for me, is the person who can evaluate situations as they come along and apply a little bit of common sense in government. Maybe this describes Ron Paul, maybe it doesn't. In the end, I know that this is just a dream because the large parties will never nominate someone who goes against their social agenda and people will never vote for someone who goes against their beliefs.
I'm generally a conservative. I hesitate to call myself a republican, though that is the party I'm registered with, but of the two majors, they are closer to what I believe in. A libertarian might be the right term, though they tend to be rather... Extremist. The point is, I'm not a Democrat and didn't get to vote in that primary.
Regardless I am what you might call a moderate conservative. I have and will certainly cross party lines. I vote based on who I think will do the best job, not a D or an R. So I'm the kind of voter that the democrats need to be after. In my case, I'll almost certainly vote for Obama if he's nominated. If not, I'll probably vote for McCain. I don't like Clinton at all. She seems very totalitarian, in that she thinks she knows what's best for the economy, for you personally (her video game stance for example) and so on. That is opposite to what I think. I think in general government should try and stay out of things, when practical. They should be a force that guides the economy, not controls it, and that ensures people have freedoms but that they don't infringe on others, not that hands out a list of what is right and wrong.
So for me, Obama is good. I don't agree with him 100%, but then I don't agree with anyone but myself 100%. However over all I like his policies, and I think he'll be good for the nation. Clinton, no, sorry, I won't go that route. While I don't think McCain is as good a candidate as Obama, I think he's better than Clinton.
I'm not the only person I know who's the same way either. I have a number of friends with similar political views and the thing I hear is "I hope Obama wins because I'll vote for him, but if not I'll vote for McCain."
Hardcore republicans are a lost cause. They'll vote R no matter what. So while they might hate Obama more, it doesn't matter since they won't vote for Hillary either. They are all R all the time. The people who matter are those who come down on the conservative side, but aren't caught up in party dogma.
Now I have no empirical evidence as to who will vote what way, but this assumption that Clinton has the ability win win republicans where as Obama doesn't is just silly. Neither will win the party voters, and I and my friends are proof that there are at least some out there who feel Obama yes, Clinton no. We probably aren't the only ones either.
No candidate is going to have a walk in the park this time around, all of them have something that a non-trivial portion of America has a problem with. However that doesn't mean Obama has no chance, in fact I'd say it is quite the opposite.
I still want to know what he is going to change? I haven't really been able to figure out much of what he plan's to change?
I can't vote (I am not an American Citizen, have never been to America ... ) but the result *will* effect me ... to whom do I complain!
Puteulanus fenestra mortis
Well, here's the quote:
I guess you and I just read things differently, because I got a bit more nuance out of his statements, and "people only like guns/religion because they're poor" doesn't quite capture it. Seeing the economic viability of your community crumble, seeing the way of life of your parents crumble, can be a polarizing experience, and yes, people cling to things, things they consider symbolic of their way of life. I don't see anything especially patronizing about saying that people are pissed off and that when they're pissed off the symbolic things matter more than they might in times of prosperity.
Even Bush's country accent is fake--he's not really a country boy, not really a rancher, etc. But the populism button keeps on spitting out the votes. As cynical as I am, I still find it depressing.
"More taxes means less freedom"
So it follows that places like Afganistan and Sudan are on the top of the freedom list and the scandanavian countries are near the bottom?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Yes.
What part of "black" did you not understand?
When he's not Bush Light, McCain understands this.
"Change we can believe in" is the tag line, but I've heard nothing that won't raise my taxes at least 50% and further bankrupt our country.
The changes I believe in are:
- Personal responsibility
- Personal Freedom
- The right to privacy
- Minimal Government
- Equal Protection under the law
George Washington wouldn't live in the country that we've become. He would leave after seeing what we've done to it, crying.
Obama will get us out of Iraq. But he's not a mindless pacifist (no reasonable leader ever should be). There's a big difference.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Certainly not immediate withdrawal from Iraq
... if any, are we going to take military action?
Ooh not "immediate" withdrawal. It'll be fast enough for most of us.
at what point
Oh yeah, that's a terrible threat there. "There may or may not exist a point where we would want to use military action to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons". Wow, so hostile there, compared to Bush's peace offerings.
Considering that he has also been heavily criticized for saying he would speak directly with Iran's President, i.e. use diplomacy, this 'threat' seems pretty irrelevant.
is recent vote for allocating $165 billion for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan (including $51 billion dollars for veterans' education) tell me that he, like any other corporate-funded Democrat, have no principled objection to war or to these wars in particular.
Funding a war in progress -- and in particular caring for our people damaged by this war -- is completely different from not objecting to it. Guess what? It'll cost money to get our troops out of Iraq too, so when he proposes a spending bill that includes this money, don't lump that in with "supporting the war".
Democrats deserve no slack, and should be given none.
I don't hold the actions of Nixon or Reagan against Bush Jr; I see no reason to hold the actions of JFK against Obama. Because that makes no sense.
The enemies of Democracy are
Hard to believe, but never the less, true.
A second piece of wisdom. You do yourself a disservice praising and quoting a piece liberally sprinkled with the following kinds of phrases: "Magic Negro", "Negro clown", "young gentleman of color is claiming to have had a sexual encounter with Saint Barack", "because Obama is a socialist, a Democrat, and - especially - a Negro". It strongly suggests that you yourself are quite comfortable with overt racism and pathological hate. And it leads me to the conclusion, Mr. Cornelius, that you are engaged in a crude form of psychological rationalization for your own unstated racist sentiments.
A little self-introspection may be in order.
I don't think that anyone claimed that taxes are the only factor contributing to the level of freedom. They do, however, make up a pretty significant factor.
And if no one runs that I feel I can vote for? I'm not allowed to complain that all of the candidates suck equally? Where was the vote that I missed to get a candidate who doesn't suck? Your logic makes no sense at all.
That said, I'm voting for Obama come November.
Remember, open source is free as in speech, not free as in bear.
He has a delegate lead. He would not have an actual majority until the non-bound delegates vote. Of course, now they'll look like idiots if they do anything other than vote for Obama. It's on the news that he won, you know.
This is like one big exit poll, and everyone wants to be first to project the winner. Without Barack saying "I have won the nomination" or "I am the nominee" or Hillary saying "He won" or "I lost", the media has decided based on their informal count of delegates or on what their rival station/newspaper is saying. They decided.
Now it's true. That's how it works .
The media decides who gets name recognition. Why do you think Ron Paul did so poorly in the 'scientific' polls? Because he didn't have name recognition due to the media having a near blackout on info about him in the early part of the Republican race, and then once he started wiping the floors with the other candidates at the debates, they did everything they could to make him seem like a lunatic/crazy old man. The media has a monopoly on who gets recognized by the public, and subsequently who gets elected.