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.
You may be right that Obama can't win, but in times like this I think sometimes you have to just roll the dice and go for it otherwise nothing changes.
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
I threw everything out the damn window that made me a Republican 8 years ago and until I see a positive change in that party I'm not going back. The Republicans dug the hole they are in. They have to dig themselves out now, and McCain is not the answer. He's already digging that hole deeper.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/06/mccain-id-spy-o.html
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.
Whats in a name.. Democrat.. Republican.. those are just names, the issues they stood for fell by the wayside long ago.
The current crop of politicians have their own agendas, and in many cases, those agendas cross the borders between the party lines, and in some cases, quite far across those borders.
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
"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.
Leftism is bad because it takes from those who earned and gives to those who don't deserve.
Uh, that's what the American government is all about. Right or Left, everybody's stealing from one group and giving it to some others, many of whom haven't earned it in any way. On the left you have the welfare system, which gives free money to poor people, and on the right you have super-rich tax breaks and "back room corporate deals", which gives free money to the fabulously wealthy.
You have two choices - either accept this premise, and decide which system of redistribution you think is "least unfair", or reject it entirely, and work to radically change our government and socio-economic system so that all kinds of involuntary redistribution are unnecessary and impossible to execute.
Because, for some unknown reason, a large portion of the people in the U.S. equate a person's religion with who they are. It's as if one of the reasons we broke from you folks has been completely forgotten.
Apparently, people believe that if you believe in some man-made myth of a supreme being who sits high in the sky watching everything you do, who tells you you must follow a set of rules they have set down or else you will be condemned to an eternity of pain and torture yet, who still cares and loves you*, you are somehow more worthy of an elected office than the atheistic heathens who do not believe in a supreme being.
And we can all see what a great job those religious-minded folks who have been elected to office have done.
*My apologies to George Carlin fans for not quoting his diatribe accurately. I just wanted to get the gist of his comments.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
I don't support him personally, but in your case, why not vote for Ron Paul? Vote for who you want to win, not some asshole who's convinced you he has the best chance to win. Better to stand for your principles and lose than abandon them to win. It's the latter choice (on the part of politicians and the public) that's given us the pathetic political situation we're in today.
If she is seen as reducing Obama's chances in the general election the harm to her reputation and the resulting backlash will keep her from ever having the support needed to try again.
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.
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.
I didn't turn my back on the Republicans. They turned their backs on me. I wanted fiscal conservatives. I got spending that made the liberals turn green with envy. I wanted strong foriegn policy. I got a war over non-existant WMDs, which has weakened both our military and our political capital with other nations. I wanted to escape the Democrats fear-mongering. I got Republican fear-mongering.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
The republican party does the exact same thing, it's just less honest about it. The democrats will tax you and then do whatever with the money, but at least you see the money coming out of your wallet. The republicans don't tax you, but still do whatever with the money, pretending like it magically grows on trees. Eventually it catches up with you as prices rise and your income doesn't, not to mention the mountains of new debt we're piling up daily. Either party is going to spend your money, but at least the democrats respect your intelligence enough not to lie to you about it.
The only type of conservatism that currently exists in the republican party is social conservatism, and I'd think that you as a libertarian would have some serious issues with that.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Yes. I wanna help my neighbors
Do you want to help your neighbors, or do you want to force me help your neighbors?
That's the difference between private charity, funded by people who want to donate to it, and government welfare, funded by taxes.
-- Support a free market in the field of government
Thank you for demonstrating once more that libertarianism is about childish selfishness at its base. What magical fairy land do you live in where everyone is born with the exact same opportunities?
Protip: we are a society, and without that society those who "earned" would have nothing. A society doesn't survive by kicking the less fortunate in the nuts. For every greedy welfare moocher (which I'm guessing you imagine make up the majority of the people on welfare) out there there are a hundred families who have fallen on hard times because the parents' employers care more about profit than about people.
Government exists to serve and protect the people. All of them. I suggest you get over yourself and get used to it.
Maybe leftists simply recognize that you pay one way or the other. You can have less inequality or you have to pay for more policing. You can have a public health service or you can have people who are sick and less productive.
I agree with you. I think it's a f-ing shame that McCain is being fed to the wolves as the nominee for this election. He's the only non-born-again GOP nominee who (currently) has the potential to get elected. However, the GOP needs a solid cleaning up and a resounding defeat this fall is the only way that's going to happen. They need to purge all the religious zealots, war mongers, and lobbyist puppets and get back to a base of solid fiscal conservancy and international trade. Right now, it's ironic that the Dems offer the best options for the above. I'm voting for Obama, because I expect him to run a tight ship and weaken the grip of lobbyists over DC. Time will tell how right I am, but right now, there's simply no better candidate in my mind's eye.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
Meanwhile, all that lost revenue in taxes affected many other people outside your immediate perception. I'm glad the tax cuts helped you personally, but plenty of people have been hurting under the tax breaks.
You must live in a reality where everything is black and white. Higher gas prices means fewer gas consumers whilst lower prices brings more consumption. We're witnessing that right now. For envirodems, lower consumption is a GOOD thing not a bad thing.
Moreover, higher gas prices means that other source of energy that are arguably "better" from a sustainability/environmental perspective but previously unworkable given the price of gasoline become much more appealing.
Besides, an increase in domestic production would have such a SMALL impact on the overall cost of gasoline and any impact would be fleetingly short lived. The US simply does not have enough oil reserves to make much of a lasting impact.
Finally, there's a really good argument that we should drain the cheap oil from other places first and keep our oil reserves until a time it actually matters. Using our reserves now would probably not give us a real good return on its value.
Do you want to be forced to pay pennies of your income to help my neighboors, or do you want them to turn to a life of crime to support themselves and wind up in a prison where you will be forced to pay dollars of your income to support them?
Public education, social responsibility, and the empowerment of all will help you more significantly than isolating yourself from society.
I'm not saying we should go all commie or socialist over here, but a balanced struggle between socialist and capitalist (and many other!) points of view in our government is what keeps it healthy. Falling in the trap of a single party (even a dual party like we have now) reduces our government's health.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
You've got to be kidding me. This is the #1 reason that I can't really be a libertarian. Altruism and having people "take care of the poor" on their own time is a fantastic idea, except that it DOESN'T WORK. Human Beings are assholes, and most would as soon kick a guy in the gutter before giving him a dollar, much less pick him up and help him find a job. Just admit that you don't give jack sh*t about people who through luck or mental illness are in a bad situation.
If you quit the welfare program tomorrow I guarantee you crime would rise through the roof and local charities wouldn't be able to do anything more than they already do. How do I know? Because I volunteer all the time, and most charities (especially for the homeless and battered women shelters) are full to the TILT every day, and have to turn away people. It really is sad.
"sometimes he felt that his whole life was a dream, and he wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it."
what's the price of gas over there? And you must live in an alternate reality where Democrats understand that the laws of supply and demand regulate gas prices and allow for increased production in addition to increased efficiency to bring the cost of oil down.
In the real world that I live in, I've heard Republicans screaming for increased domestic production and Democrats screaming, "NO!" Well , i'll tell you this . It doesn't matter whether it's democrat or republican . The result for the American people matters . So make a choice based on what changes you want , rather than on something as relative as a political position.
At least you have the ability to vote for it. I don't live in the US , so i can't vote for it.
Yet the consequences are for the entire world.
Slipping shoelaces ?
It doesn't matter if everyone is born with the same opportunities. I was born poor to a couple of crackhead parents. I went off on my own at 16 years old and did what I had to do. I'm sick of people saying 'ooh I was born into this ghetto and I can't get out there are no opportunities.' Cry me a river. Get yourself a pair and get out of that environment. I've worked at pizza places, temp jobs, telemarketing, and other jobs that most poor people won't even take because 'it doesn't pay me enough'. How can you justify handouts that are taken by force from the rich when most of the poor people I know won't even take a crap job? I've slept in cars, under bridges, on the el train, buses, you name it. I finally managed to land a full time job and buy a car after years of hard work. Childish selfishness? No, I call it the inability to comprehend why people can't pull themselves up by their bootstraps and thake care of themselves. Everybody wants something for nothing. In Libertarianism, there is no such thing as a free lunch. What, exactly, is wrong with that?
Without tax revenue, the bills from the excessive spending of the Bush administration cannot be paid . This is deferred debt. This is why tax cuts were irresponsible and not appropriate.
Everybody agrees that we should cut spending (on things that don't benefit them directly usually), but it's my view that we should spend only money that we have. That's how I manage myself and it keeps me happy and those who deal fairly with me happy.
Ever since the rabid warmongering of the paranoid years of Truman we've been digging this deficit hole and it's got to a point where we'll never get out, we'll just collapse one day because everybody's just too short sighted.
My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
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.
The idea that any finite amount of money could "Eliminate extreme poverty around the world" is a fraud and nothing else. Bad governments in the poorest countries will steal all the money and use it to strengthen the government and enrich the leaders. In relatively rich countries, most extreme poverty is due to personal waste and sloth, and no amount of money can fix that either.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Democrats should get rid of the Socialists, Enviro-Radicals, and Hollywood liberals if they want to clean up their party.
Sure, why not. The Radicals and the Sharon Stones are few and noisy. But which Socialists? Where are they? Last time I checked, Labor Unions were cut off at the knees. If anything, corporate capitalism is unhinged.
Take a look at many of Richard Nixon's domestic accomplishments during his presidency, he seems positively pinko even by today's Democrat standards. The shift to the right has been so massive in the United States that even right-leaning moderates (such as HRC) are regarded by the "general populace" (the proverbial "boiling frogs") as pseudo-socialists, and with each right-wing "victory", the "pinko bar" shifts along ever further in their eyes, until they're decrying reds in their beds for the most absurdly microscopic details, even as they ignore the fact that their children are blissfully sucking on Chinese toys with lead paint, which BTW entered the United States unimpeded and unchecked, all for the sake of (all together now:) Capitalism.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty