NationStates Jolt Archive

4 rilz.

For me, I think the whole experience thing is a bit of a wash. On one hand, it's nice to know what you're getting into when you start a new job. On the other, you're right; experience hasn't brought us a whole lot of positive recently.

The 'experience issue' isn't an issue - it's an excuse. And not even an honest one.

The contrary position, of course, is that 'experience' hasn't necessarily done us any favours, and maybe, a little less being tarred by the Washington brush might actually be a point in favour?
I'm looking at Obama the same way I would look at a brand new graduate applying for a job. Experience isn't there. Is the grad talented? Does he have initiative? Does he have the basic skills? And so on.

The lack of any meaningful activity in the US Senate tells me that Obama isn't there to work. Talent? Maybe. Initiative? Not so much. Can he get a bill passed in the Senate? Doesn't look like he has the skill to do that.

I'd like to see Bob Barr in the townhalls, if only to have someone representing the idea that the government DOESN'T have to solve every problem.

It's not a horrible idea to include him, although I'd say they should probably include Nader at that point as well.

If only Bob Barr would also represent the idea that the government should stay out of our personal lives and live up to the ideals embodied in the Constitution. That'd be a libertarian I could like.


But he is inexperienced. How can anyone overlook the fact that Obama's yet to finish his first term as senator? :/

You don't have to overlook it to point out that finishing a term as a senator isn't necessary to be president. Many presidents never were senators at all.

I'm looking at Obama the same way I would look at a brand new graduate applying for a job. Experience isn't there. Is the grad talented? Does he have initiative? Does he have the basic skills? And so on.

The lack of any meaningful activity in the US Senate tells me that Obama isn't there to work. Talent? Maybe. Initiative? Not so much. Can he get a bill passed in the Senate? Doesn't look like he has the skill to do that.

I notice you say "look at a brand new graduate applying for a job"... you don't have any real respect for the ability or the experience, you admit as much right there - all you want is 'looks good on paper'.

You say "lack of meaningful activity"... like participation, getting the presidential nomination, and grassroots involvement are all somehow distractions from what he should have been doing. You say "initiative" as though it were lacking, in a guy who has basically set the standard for beign a hotshot in an industry that favours narcolepsy... legislature in 96, senate run in 03, presidential run (maybe president) in 08. Lack of initiative? I think you are being more than a little partisan.

Can he get a Bill passed in the senate? Like that matters in a president?

It's not a horrible idea to include him, although I'd say they should probably include Nader at that point as well.

If only Bob Barr would also represent the idea that the government should stay out of our personal lives and live up to the ideals embodied in the Constitution. That'd be a libertarian I could like.



You don't have to overlook it to point out that finishing a term as a senator isn't necessary to be president. Many presidents never were senators at all.
The thing about Bob Barr is that he may well have changed his tune on government involvement with private issues, but I doubt he can ever shake it. The threshold that I've heard mentioned that would include any third party candidates is that they must be polling 15%. For that reason alone, I'll tell every poll taker I see that I'm voting for Bob.

I notice you say "look at a brand new graduate applying for a job"... you don't have any real respect for the ability or the experience, you admit as much right there - all you want is 'looks good on paper'.

You say "lack of meaningful activity"... like participation, getting the presidential nomination, and grassroots involvement are all somehow distractions from what he should have been doing. You say "initiative" as though it were lacking, in a guy who has basically set the standard for beign a hotshot in an industry that favours narcolepsy... legislature in 96, senate run in 03, presidential run (maybe president) in 08. Lack of initiative? I think you are being more than a little partisan.

Can he get a Bill passed in the senate? Like that matters in a president?
Well you're full of crap and you've probably never hired a person in your life. When the candidate has experience, you judge by that. When a new grad applies for a job, you have to look for other cues to see if they're suitable. Experience can't be one of them.

The simple question is "Can Obama do the job?" He has given no evidence that he can do anything more than win elections. Of course, we can always believe in hope. But that's not the way to hire a CEO.

Well you're full of crap and you've probably never hired a person in your life. When the candidate has experience, you judge by that. When a new grad applies for a job, you have to look for other cues to see if they're suitable. Experience can't be one of them.

The simple question is "Can Obama do the job?" He has given no evidence that he can do anything more than win elections. Of course, we can always believe in hope. But that's not the way to hire a CEO.

Okay, here are your options for CEO: "Spent 3 years in a small job in the company" or "spent 8 years being the 95%-of-the-time yes-man of the CEO that drove the company into the ground, promising to keep on the policies that did so.". You don't have other options.

Your hand, sir?

Well you're full of crap and you've probably never hired a person in your life. When the candidate has experience, you judge by that. When a new grad applies for a job, you have to look for other cues to see if they're suitable. Experience can't be one of them.

The simple question is "Can Obama do the job?" He has given no evidence that he can do anything more than win elections. Of course, we can always believe in hope. But that's not the way to hire a CEO.

I have. I was the vice president of a small company at 19. I owned my first business at 21, just after making sergeant in the USMC. (The same year my fiance attempted suicide and I burned out to some degree.)

I've had a role in hiring decisions since I began working. Hiring decisions are no small part of my current consulting work. And, if someone told me, that the only way you should be hired into a role is if you have experience in that role I would laugh at them and then tell them to get out. I recommend hiring people based on relevant experience (which is not often direct) and based on the qualities of the applicant. It's more difficult to accomplish, but thus far I've never had an employee that I, personally, chose that I wasn't incredibly impressed by.

I find it amusing that you suggest such simplistic and ineffective hiring practices, practices that people pay me to help them break out of, and then criticize your opponent for not being as narrow-minded.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/opinion/04dowd.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

This is really really fucked up. Clinton shouldn't be allowed to walk in public anymore.

You know, the trust and bridge building has to start somewhere. Frankly the party has had it with this fight, and if she has a trick up her sleeve I doubt she'll get the players she needs. This seems like really a gesture that's worth making. While she didn't win, she did run a historic campaign, they still put the silver medalist on the podium. He's going to have to reach out (and he has been, but still), you don't gain anything by punishing the loser. Give it to her, she earned it. Then we can move on.

I have. I was the vice president of a small company at 19. I owned my first business at 21, just after making sergeant in the USMC. (The same year my fiance attempted suicide and I burned out to some degree.)

I've had a role in hiring decisions since I began working. Hiring decisions are no small part of my current consulting work. And, if someone told me, that the only way you should be hired into a role is if you have experience in that role I would laugh at them and then tell them to get out. I recommend hiring people based on relevant experience (which is not often direct) and based on the qualities of the applicant. It's more difficult to accomplish, but thus far I've never had an employee that I, personally, chose that I wasn't incredibly impressed by.

I find it amusing that you suggest such simplistic and ineffective hiring practices, practices that people pay me to help them break out of, and then criticize your opponent for not being as narrow-minded.
What part of "look for other cues" is simplistic and narrow minded?

I started, ran, and sold my company for a lot of money. Now, I run an engineering department. In order to have a good staff of engineers, you have to hire two types of people. You need those with experience to fill immediate needs and those with talent to fill future needs. Interviewing someone with experience is easy. They have things to talk about and common experiences that I can ask about. New grad hires are a lot more difficult, but I like using bright new and recent grads to fulfill the second type of hire. Many times, they work out better than I expect and grow into different jobs than I've hired them to do. Most new grads don't really know where they fit and I like to have several places in mind for them.

The problem with new and recent grads is that they don't have much work experience beyond some summer jobs and some co-op jobs. They can't point to the XYZ project and tell me how they saved it, or how it resulted in this innovation, either of which saved their company a bunch of money. New grads can only demonstrate that they have done well in school, possess an aptitude for solving problems, are honest, and are willing to work.

Tell me what else a brand new 22 year old college graduate can be evaluated on.

Tying this back to Obama, I don't think he has the aptitude or the character to do a good job as President based on his track record in the United States Senate.

Tying this back to Obama, I don't think he has the aptitude or the character to do a good job as President based on his track record in the United States Senate.

The alternative is Bush's yes-man and maverick-that-isn't, McCain.

The alternative is Bush's yes-man and maverick-that-isn't, McCain.
At this point, it looks more like damage control is in order. I absolutely expect the Democrats to dominate Congress. If McCain is elected, there's less chance that he will pass any big policy initiatives. On the other hand, if Obama is elected, there's every chance that he may actually get some of his lame-brained proposals passed. That would certainly not have a good effect on the Republic.

At this point, it looks more like damage control is in order. I absolutely expect the Democrats to dominate Congress. If McCain is elected, there's less chance that he will pass any big policy initiatives. On the other hand, if Obama is elected, there's every chance that he may actually get some of his lame-brained proposals passed. That would certainly not have a good effect on the Republic.

The only politicians that did damage to America AND the world in the last 8 years were Republicans. They must be ousted. The proposal to keep troops in Iraq is WAY worse than anything, and so is McCain's implicit proposal to keep the cowboy diplomacy going, his proposals to further limit freedom in the US, to further mix Church and State...

I look at Obama and what he is trying to do with transparency in what lawmakers are doing and give everyone a forum in which to voice their thoughts and see a man who is working toward giving all citizens the power to move the country in the direction they want rather than what the corporations want. A more informed populace sounds like just what our country needs.

He doesn't promise to change things single-handedly, rather he promises to empower the general populace. It looks to me like he sees exactly what many of us see regarding the greedy bastards who do not have our countries interest at heart but rather their own.

I see a brilliant strategist - a charismatic sweet-talker, yet humble man who is willing to work cross-party and make compromises to get things done - someone who really cares about helping the most downtrodden in our society - and a person who will stand up for what he thinks is right when it isn't politically correct (i.e. against dumb wars)

EDIT: Also he seems to surround himself with people because they are good at what they do rather than because they are yes-men.

The only politicians that did damage to America AND the world in the last 8 years were Republicans. They must be ousted. The proposal to keep troops in Iraq is WAY worse than anything, and so is McCain's implicit proposal to keep the cowboy diplomacy going.
First, I find no reason to accept advice from foreign citizens. Wisely, we do not let them participate in our electoral process.

Second, if you think the Democrats are going to present the world with any different situation in Iraq, you're wrong. They can't withdraw until some stability is achieved and they are no better suited to decide how to produce that stability than are the Republicans. In fact, there is really no such thing as stability in SWA and we probably should just leave Iraq, but that would be a huge mistake.

Ahem:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7436989.stm

Clinton will quit and back Obama

Hillary Clinton will withdraw from the race to become the Democratic candidate for the US presidency, and back her rival Barack Obama, her campaign says.

On Tuesday, Mr Obama gained enough delegates to win the nomination, after the final votes of the primary season.

Mrs Clinton has still not admitted in public that she lost the contest, but on Saturday she will do so "and express her support for Senator Obama".

Mr Obama has already announced a team to help select his running mate.

Reports that Mrs Clinton was ready to concede came after she made a conference call to senior Democrats in Congress.

At a Democratic Party event in Washington, Mrs Clinton will also "express her support... for party unity", her communications director Howard Wolfson said.

Earlier, it had been announced that the event would be held on Friday, but Mr Wolfson said it had been delayed a day "to accommodate more of Senator Clinton's supporters who want to attend".

The BBC's Jane O'Brien in Washington says that as Mr Obama was claiming victory, Hillary Clinton stunned even her own supporters with a speech that offered no indication that she was giving up.

There is speculation that the delay in conceding was an attempt to position herself as a possible vice-president, our correspondent adds.

Clinton 'open'


DELEGATE COUNT
Winner: Needs 2,118 delegates
Super-delegates: Obama, 389; Clinton, 282
Total delegates: Obama, 2,154; Clinton, 1,919
South Dakota and Montana (early results): Obama, 15; Clinton, 13
Source: AP projections at 1000 GMT on 4 June

Mr Obama's three-member panel to look for a presidential running mate comprises Caroline Kennedy, daughter of President John Kennedy, former deputy Attorney General Eric Holder and Jim Johnson.

Mr Johnson performed the same selection task for John Kerry in 2004.

"Senator Obama is pleased to have three talented and dedicated individuals managing this rigorous process," said Bill Burton, a spokesman for the Illinois senator.

"He will work closely with them in the coming weeks but ultimately this will be his decision and his alone."

Earlier, Mr Obama had paid tribute to Mrs Clinton and hinted that she would play a role in any future Obama administration.

Mrs Clinton has said she would be "open" to the idea of being Mr Obama's vice-presidential running-mate.

Referring to a brief conversation he had held with his defeated rival, the Illinois senator said: "I'm very confident of how we're going to be able to bring the party together."

The Republican party's candidate, John McCain has challenged Mr Obama to take part in debates in 10 town hall meetings before August's Democratic convention, and the Obama team is said to be considering the invitation.

The final primaries of the season were held on Tuesday - with Mr Obama winning Montana and Mrs Clinton winning South Dakota.

A candidate needs 2,118 delegates to secure the nomination and Mr Obama now has the support of 2,154 delegates. Mrs Clinton has 1,919.

Ahem:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7436989.stm
Guess that puts a lid on this thread.

Well you're full of crap


I'm not the one using the lowest common denominator tactics.

Seriously, ad hominem is going to be your opening gambit?


...and you've probably never hired a person in your life.


On the contrary - I was running a company at 20.

Your opening phrasing was "I'm looking at Obama the same way I would look at a brand new graduate applying for a job". If you're not liking what is being said about you, you have no one to blame but yourself - it was your wording I was quoting.


When the candidate has experience, you judge by that. When a new grad applies for a job, you have to look for other cues to see if they're suitable. Experience can't be one of them.


Because, of course, graduates are all kids. Because only old men can have experience?

Or some other crass generalisation based on nothing?


The simple question is "Can Obama do the job?" He has given no evidence that he can do anything more than win elections. Of course, we can always believe in hope. But that's not the way to hire a CEO.

Winning elections is politics. President is the biggest political job in the game. One could say "being a politician" is pretty much the sum and substance of president, and everything else is gravy.

The problem here is - you're apparently under the delusional impression that the CEO in this job needs to be a technician - when what we're mainly looking for is a PR rep.

Ahem:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7436989.stm

Are we sure this time? She's not going to come out and say she's actually won because if you take all the names of the states she's won it'd be a higher Scrabble score?

(sorry, I'm just bummed I didn't come up with that one earlier...)

First, I find no reason to accept advice from foreign citizens. Wisely, we do not let them participate in our electoral process.

Neither did YOU have any right to dictate any terms in Iraq. You did. So I get to say whatever I wish, and you get to listen.

Ding-dong!

Ahem:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7436989.stm

This changes nothing. I will continue to fight against Obama in the general election.

This changes nothing. I will continue to fight against Obama in the general election.

WAIT! WAIT!

Do you hear this?

That's the sound of everyone not caring.

This changes nothing. I will continue to fight against Obama in the general election.

So you were full of crap earlier when you said you'd back Obama if Clinton did?

They are going to fem-boat Obama. :eek:

So you were full of crap earlier when you said you'd back Obama if Clinton did?

Oh, man... You shouldn't have done this. Now he'll claim Obama supporters were meanies to him, and that this makes it all right to shoot himself in the foot by backing McCain...

They are going to fem-boat Obama. :eek:

Surely you mean fembot?
http://www.geocities.com/hollywood/set/6172/photos/fembot5.jpg

Ahem:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7436989.stm

/thread.

This changes nothing. I will continue to fight against Obama in the general election.

Yeah.
When Roe v. Wade is overturned, denying abortion rights to a generation of women,
When thousands of people don't come home from Iraq, their lives ended forever,
When homosexuals continue to be treated as subhuman second class citizens,
When more and more people are shipped off to be tortured in Gitmo,
When the middle class continues its permanent disappearance into poverty...

I hope you'll be happy.

But he is inexperienced. How can anyone overlook the fact that Obama's yet to finish his first term as senator? :/

You do realise he's more experienced than Lincoln was, and while have problems with Lincoln I still think he was one of the top 5 presidents.


This changes nothing. I will continue to fight against Obama in the general election.
So you were full of crap earlier when you said you'd back Obama if Clinton did?

I'll point out that that poster openly admitted he's compromising his morals for a falsehood...

Oh, man... You shouldn't have done this. Now he'll claim Obama supporters were meanies to him, and that this makes it all right to shoot himself in the foot by backing McCain...

If asking for some level of consistency is being a meanie, I guess I'm guilty as charged.

*shrug*

You know, the trust and bridge building has to start somewhere. Frankly the party has had it with this fight, and if she has a trick up her sleeve I doubt she'll get the players she needs. This seems like really a gesture that's worth making. While she didn't win, she did run a historic campaign, they still put the silver medalist on the podium. He's going to have to reach out (and he has been, but still), you don't gain anything by punishing the loser. Give it to her, she earned it. Then we can move on.
You are right....she has earned it and frankly speaking, I think it would be the best solution for the Democratic party. It would be extremely difficult for Obama to try and promote his American unity policy if he can't reach out and make accord with someone who agrees with 95% of his policies.

If asking for some level of consistency is being a meanie, I guess I'm guilty as charged.

*shrug*

Nah, it's not about that.

It's by SUPPORTING OBAMA that one's being a meanie.

Nah, it's not about that.

It's by SUPPORTING OBAMA that one's being a meanie.

Don't be so elitist.

You are right....she has earned it and frankly speaking, I think it would be the best solution for the Democratic party. It would be extremely difficult for Obama to try and promote his American unity policy if he can't reach out and make accord with someone who agrees with 95% of his policies.

It becomes far easier for him to promote unity by making accord with someone who agrees with 70% of his policies, such as, for instance, Mike Bloomberg.

It becomes far easier for him to promote unity by making accord with someone who agrees with 70% of his policies, such as, for instance, Mike Bloomberg.
I think you missed the point.

Don't be so elitist.

Stop (insert buzzword here)ing me, you (insert buzzword here) (insert buzzword here)! I'm not gonna (insert buzzword here) nor will I allow you to (insert buzzword here) me!

I think you missed the point.

I think you lacked one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/opinion/04dowd.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

This is really really fucked up. Clinton shouldn't be allowed to walk in public anymore.
So you won't vote for Obama if his VP is Clinton?

So you won't vote for Obama if his VP is Clinton?

He, just about every independent... So yeah.

I think you lacked one.
I guess if that is the essence of your debate then you really have nothing to debate.

He, just about every independent... So yeah.
You speak for Corny now?

I guess if that is the essence of your debate then you really have nothing to debate.

Clinton will unite a LOT of people against Obama by being the VP. So, yeah.

You speak for Corny now?

Not really, but if he allows...

Anyways, my point was that it would cost Obama more votes than it would give him.

Bearing in mind that he outright SAID he wouldn't vote for Obama if his VP is Clinton on the other thread, and I pleaded with him to reconsider. So I guess I'm pretty free to speak out for him on this one subject.

You are right....she has earned it and frankly speaking, I think it would be the best solution for the Democratic party. It would be extremely difficult for Obama to try and promote his American unity policy if he can't reach out and make accord with someone who agrees with 95% of his policies.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that she at the very least has a responsibility to meet him half way. She started this fire, the least she can do is help put it out.

Clinton will unite a LOT of people against Obama by being the VP. So, yeah.
So, what do Democrats think about it (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/13/majority-of-dems-want-clinton-to-be-vp/)?

Even as the prolonged Democratic presidential race has become more divisive in its final stretch, a majority of Democrats want Barack Obama to choose Hillary Clinton as his running mate, according to a new poll out Tuesday.

A new Gallup poll shows 55 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents surveyed think Obama should offer the New York senator a spot on his ticket. That number is significantly influenced by Clinton's supporters — close to 75 percent of her backers want the No. 2 spot to be offered, while only 43 percent of Obama supporters feel the same.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that she at the very least has a responsibility to meet him half way. She started this fire, the least she can do is help put it out.

Don't be silly. It's clearly all Obama's fault. Him and his evil meanie-head supporters.

So, what do Democrats think about it (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/13/majority-of-dems-want-clinton-to-be-vp/)?

What do the Independents that will be crucial think?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that she at the very least has a responsibility to meet him half way. She started this fire, the least she can do is help put it out.
The finger pointing as to who started the fire should cease and they should work to a solution to putting out the fire.

The finger pointing as to who started the fire should cease and they should work to a solution to putting out the fire.

Dude, you're the fire.

What do the Independents that will be crucial think?

This independent thinks it may be suicide for Obama to pick her as a running mate. Literally it may be made to look like a suicide.

America should be destroyed, and I truly hope the americans will elect a president that will fullfil the destruction.

What do the Independents that will be crucial think?
I don't know. You seem to have all the answers, just what do they think?

Reminder from article that In posted:

A new Gallup poll shows 55 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents surveyed think Obama should offer the New York senator a spot on his ticket.

What do the Independents that will be crucial think?
I don't know. You seem to have all the answers, just what do they think?

Reminder from article that I posted:

A new Gallup poll shows 55 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents surveyed think Obama should offer the New York senator a spot on his ticket.

America should be destroyed, and I truly hope the americans will elect a president that will fullfil the destruction.

Okay, folks, we have someone here who's voting for McCain...

Dude, you're the fire.

Burn! :p

I don't know. You seem to have all the answers, just what do they think?

Reminder from article that I posted:

First you claim he needs to reach across the aisle by getting as VP someone that "agrees 95% with him". Then someone that pleases... the Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.

I know what "reaching across the aisle" means. Do you?

Let's not lose sight of the fact that she at the very least has a responsibility to meet him half way. She started this fire, the least she can do is help put it out.

Indeed so.

This independent thinks it may be suicide for Obama to pick her as a running mate. Literally it may be made to look like a suicide.

If she take's what Obama offered, Obama and 11 others would have to Vince Foster all at the same time... Might look a tad suspicious...

This independent thinks it may be suicide for Obama to pick her as a running mate. Literally it may be made to look like a suicide.
When was the last time you voted for a Democrat at the Presidential level?

Never?

First you claim he needs to reach across the aisle by getting as VP someone that "agrees 95% with him". Then someone that pleases... the Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents.
The fact that they are one and the same person is win-win.

The fact that they are one and the same person is win-win.

Somebody's getting an idiom dictionary for his birthday...

When was the last time you voted for a Democrat at the Presidential level?

Never?

Somebody's getting an idiom dictionary for his birthday...

When the hell did this thread go from yelling and screaming to testy wordplay? Who dialed it down from 11?

I don't know. You seem to have all the answers, just what do they think?

Reminder from article that In posted:

I know statistics aren't a big thing with you, but if the Clinton supporters are pulling that poll at 75%, theres a pretty heavy tug in the other directions from non-supporters. I can't find the poll on Gallup's website, so I can't say definitively about what it says.

Ultimately force feeding Obama a Clinton VP will be an erosion, I've outlined it before. Certainly she has the ability to force the subject, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

When was the last time you voted for a Democrat at the Presidential level?

Never?

...because you think you can determine that based on someone's opinion of Clinton?

I'm an independent who voted for Kerry in the last election. I think Clinton is a poor choice for the VP slot.

When the hell did this thread go from yelling and screaming to testy wordplay? Who dialed it down from 11?

Heh. I first read that "11" as "II", as in the "International Incidents" forum. Considering II's infamous for it's "I nOOK jOO!" "Nu-uh! I double nOOKed jOO first" style, that's appropriate. It's also apt seeing as some of the biggest bomb throwers here are our international observers.

Anywho, this thread is about to be dialed all the way back to 0 shortly.

I know statistics aren't a big thing with you, but if the Clinton supporters are pulling that poll at 75%, theres a pretty heavy tug in the other directions from non-supporters. I can't find the poll on Gallup's website, so I can't say definitively about what it says.

Ultimately force feeding Obama a Clinton VP will be an erosion, I've outlined it before. Certainly she has the ability to force the subject, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Indeed so.

...because you think you can determine that based on someone's opinion of Clinton?
No, based on Marrakech II's track record.

I'm an independent who voted for Kerry in the last election. I think Clinton is a poor choice for the VP slot.
So, you are not going to vote for Obama if Hillary is his running mate?

So, you are not going to vote for Obama if Hillary is his running mate?

I didn't say that. It would be a disappointing move, but I'd still vote for the ticket.

I'm not so sure the same can be said of others, however. I don't think the "ZOMG, THEY STOLE THE ELECTION FROM CLINTON!" camp is going to be satisfied with her in the VP slot. If anything, they'll likely see it as the same sort of condescension and sexism they imagined during the primaries. And using her would damage his campaign as a non-establishment type.

I think there are people who would round out the ticket far better than Clinton.

The way out as I see it, and reasonable people can disagree, is for him to find a 'Cheney,' and I don't mean a shadowy sinister mastermind, I mean a Vice President not interested in the presidency. Clinton supporters aren't looking to the 'power of the Vice Presidency,' though we all know that she would build on Cheney's precedent of building the power of that office, they're concerned that if Obama has a good run, 2016 will go to Obama's VP. They still want her to be President if not now, later.

If Obama has a VP that isn't eying the office themselves that leaves the door open for her, especially if she has a powerful position in the party to rebuild some of that good will. Obama is not force fed a VP that the Republican's will paint as Obama's Ms. Daisy, Clinton has her clear shot to follow him. It's nuanced, it's a little bit of gamesmanship, but it's a solution.

What part of "look for other cues" is simplistic and narrow minded?

Because it IS experience. That's the point. You discount experience that isn't exactly the job you're hiring for. And it is simplistic and narrow-minded.


I started, ran, and sold my company for a lot of money. Now, I run an engineering department. In order to have a good staff of engineers, you have to hire two types of people. You need those with experience to fill immediate needs and those with talent to fill future needs. Interviewing someone with experience is easy. They have things to talk about and common experiences that I can ask about. New grad hires are a lot more difficult, but I like using bright new and recent grads to fulfill the second type of hire. Many times, they work out better than I expect and grow into different jobs than I've hired them to do. Most new grads don't really know where they fit and I like to have several places in mind for them.

The problem with new and recent grads is that they don't have much work experience beyond some summer jobs and some co-op jobs. They can't point to the XYZ project and tell me how they saved it, or how it resulted in this innovation, either of which saved their company a bunch of money. New grads can only demonstrate that they have done well in school, possess an aptitude for solving problems, are honest, and are willing to work.

Tell me what else a brand new 22 year old college graduate can be evaluated on.

Tying this back to Obama, I don't think he has the aptitude or the character to do a good job as President based on his track record in the United States Senate.

Once again, you fail to recognize that experience does not have to be in the role you're hiring for. And I hired engineers, too. Most of the ones I who were graduating college had tons of experience. Finding engineering students like myself who went to college after beginning their career is easy. But, then, you act like such experience doesn't count. Again, because you're taking the narrow-minded approach you didn't even notice that I was talking about EXPERIENCE just not direct experience. You're entire post basically supports my claim that you fail to recognize appropriate experience.

I do love how your fallacious comparison gets more extreme as your arguments fail. First, Obama's compared a "new college graduate" ignoring that he's a constitutional professor who was a community organizer and has been in public service for decades. Then when that embarrassing comparison failed it becomes a "22-year-old college graduate'. See, college graduates often have experience. Not everyone who attends college is some rich kid who never did anything else.

Your last sentence is a non-argument. I don't think McCain has the aptitude or the Character to be the President based on his experience in the Senate. See, we can both make claims without supporting. It's not actually rational debate, but, hey, you're not looking for that, are you? Or, you could, you know, say something relevant and support it.

In fact, there is really no such thing as stability in SWA and we probably should just leave Iraq, but that would be a huge mistake.

Did you read this before posting it? We should probably just leave Iraq but it would be a huge mistake. Think about that sentence for a minute and if after a minute you still think it makes sense that we should probably make a huge mistake, assuming it is a huge mistake, then you should probably just stop typing.

Four years ago, I remember all the Democrats here at NSG rallying around John Kerry. It was a pitched battle between the Republicans and Democrats.

Yet, Kerry lost the election in 2004.

Two years ago, all the Democrats here were once again united and determined to win back the House and the Senate and success!!

This year, the pitched battle seems to be Democrat vs. Democrat, AND Republican vs. Democrat. The attitude has been divisive in nature and it has been a very hostile environment. I don't think it is going to change for the better. Even though Obama has won, I still see a hostile environment towards Hillary supporters. I think this contempt will be extremely costly.

Obama is saddled with a divided party AND also has to deal with something that John Kerry didn't have to face:

Obama Faces Uphill Climb vs. McCain Among White Voters (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107416/Obama-Faces-Uphill-Climb-vs-McCain-Among-White-Voters.aspx)

Calling Clinton supporters "racists and sexists" is NOT going to help the cause.

Blaming Clinton is NOT going to help the cause.

Calling Clinton every dirty name under the sun is NOT going to help the cause.

Obama has enough obstacles to overcome as it is. IF the party remains fractured, and I believe it will, then it will be more difficult for Obama to overcome the other challenges, because he will be too busy trying to stop the internal bleeding.

Four years ago, I remember all the Democrats here at NSG rallying around John Kerry. It was a pitched battle between the Republicans and Democrats.

Yet, Kerry lost the election in 2004.

Two years ago, all the Democrats here were once again united and determined to win back the House and the Senate and success!!

This year, the pitched battle seems to be Democrat vs. Democrat, AND Republican vs. Democrat. The attitude has been divisive in nature and it has been a very hostile environment. I don't think it is going to change for the better. Even though Obama has won, I still see a hostile environment towards Hillary supporters. I think this contempt will be extremely costly.

Obama is saddled with a divided party AND also has to deal with something that John Kerry didn't have to face:

Obama Faces Uphill Climb vs. McCain Among White Voters (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107416/Obama-Faces-Uphill-Climb-vs-McCain-Among-White-Voters.aspx)

Calling Clinton supporters "racists and sexists" is NOT going to help the cause.

Blaming Clinton is NOT going to help the cause.

Calling Clinton every dirty name under the sun is NOT going to help the cause.

Obama has enough obstacles to overcome as it is. IF the party remains fractured, and I believe it will, then it will be more difficult for Obama to overcome the other challenges, because he will be too busy trying to stop the internal bleeding.

You see, the problem here is YOU HAVE NO POINT.

You'd have a point if it were Obama who was responsible for the Party divide.

You'd have a point if just about all Democrats but Clinton's die-hards weren't willing to vote for Obama in order to stop McCain.

You'd have a point if Obama didn't have a LOT of Independent appeal.

You'd have a point if the people that wouldn't vote for a black man didn't almost all vote Republican in the first place.

And most of all, YOU'D HAVE A POINT IF CLINTON HADN'T BEEN PLAYING VICTIM AND GETTING YOU TO DO SO AS WELL FOR THE BETTER PART OF THE LAST FOUR MONTHS.

Also, your own link points out that Obama makes up for any deficit he has... Heh.

You see, the problem here is YOU HAVE NO POINT.
The problem is that you are too blind to see the point, and as such, your counterpoints are part of the problem and offer nothing for the solution.

The problem is that you are too blind to see the point, and as such, your counterpoints are part of the problem and offer nothing for the solution.

No, you actually HAVE no point, when the very source you point also points out that Obama makes up for whatever deficits he has against Clinton, and that without rallying the Republicans AGAINST him.

Four years ago, I remember all the Democrats here at NSG rallying around John Kerry. It was a pitched battle between the Republicans and Democrats.

Yet, Kerry lost the election in 2004.

therefore it is hopeless, eh?

and yet obama would still win if the election was held today, even with a bunch of whiners refusing to support him for the moment. when they get over it and vote for him in the fall, it ought to be huge (assuming all else goes according to plan, obviously). the only thing keeping obama's numbers as low as they are is the irrational branch of clintonites, and apparently he doesn't really even need them.

The only politicians that did damage to America AND the world in the last 8 years were Republicans.

Small problem. The Republicans did not control the Congress from 2000-2002 nor from 2006 to current.

They must be ousted. The proposal to keep troops in Iraq is WAY worse than anything, and so is McCain's implicit proposal to keep the cowboy diplomacy going, his proposals to further limit freedom in the US, to further mix Church and State...

Grow up. :rolleyes:

Ahem:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7436989.stm

HURRAY!!!!

This changes nothing. I will continue to fight against Obama in the general election.

So you are going back on your word that you'd back Obama if Hillary backs Obama.

You sir are a fucking liar.

So you won't vote for Obama if his VP is Clinton?

No I won't. She souldn't even be anywhere near the Chain of Command if you want my Opinion. Especially not the number 2 slot.

So, what do Democrats think about it (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/13/majority-of-dems-want-clinton-to-be-vp/)?

We're not talking about Democrats here CH. I guess you forgot that there are Independents out there. Not surprising really that you ignore them.

Okay, folks, we have someone here who's voting for McCain...

Get off it Heikoku. It really does drag down debate and I know you are capable of civility.

Small problem. The Republicans did not control the Congress from 2000-2002 nor from 2006 to current.



Grow up. :rolleyes:

1- Wow. Nearly-split. Just wow. Though yes, after 2006, the American people came to their senses.

2- Why, don't they have a track-record of doing exactly what I pointed out?

Get off it Heikoku. It really does drag down debate and I know you are capable of civility.

Meh.

We're not talking about Democrats here CH. I guess you forgot that there are Independents out there. Not surprising really that you ignore them.

The article specifically mentioned democrat leaning indies.

The problem is that you are too blind to see the point, and as such, your counterpoints are part of the problem and offer nothing for the solution.

And yet...you do not have a point.

And yet...you do not have a point.

Wait, I'm too blind to see something that isn't there?

I'm too blind to see something that isn't there... Mmm...

I don't know if I just made a koan or if my head will explode.

1- Wow. Nearly-split. Just wow. Though yes, after 2006, the American people came to their senses.

Did you know that over many years, there have been split congresses? It is not so much coming to their senses Heikoku but more like a mood swing. Give it a few more years and the Republicans will be back in control. One should never have one political party dominate for a long period of time. Look at Canada and Japan for examples.

2- Why, don't they have a track-record of doing exactly what I pointed out?

So do the Democratic Party if you bothered to look at history.

The article specifically mentioned democrat leaning indies.

That still leaves alot of regular independents Khadgar.

Did you know that over many years, there have been split congresses? It is not so much coming to their senses Heikoku but more like a mood swing. Give it a few more years and the Republicans will be back in control. One should never have one political party dominate for a long period of time. Look at Canada and Japan for examples.



So do the Democratic Party if you bothered to look at history.

You do, of course, realize that you just named two first-world countries that are quite prosperous, the first being known for its good living quality and the second, known for its technology and being one of the top economies in the world? Not that I favor one-party systems, but the dispute should be between Democrats and someone more to the left than they are.

And yes, I'm aware of the fact that Japan's dominating party is conservative.

Also, as bad as Bush?

You do, of course, realize that you just named two first-world countries that are quite prosperous, the first being known for its good living quality and the second, known for its technology and being one of the top economies in the world?

You also realize how much corruption they had and why the ruling party was ousted?

Should I point to the Election of Hamas that ousted Fatah because of Corruption?

Also, as bad as Bush?

Yes.

You also realize how much corruption they had and why the ruling party was ousted?

Should I point to the Election of Hamas that ousted Fatah because of Corruption?



Yes.

I should begin taking a longer while to make the posts instead of editing them...

Anyways, I don't favor one-party systems, but Democrats would be known anywhere else as Center-right and Republicans as extreme-Right.

And do name one Democratic president that claimed God told him to invade a country. One that denied scientific evidence whenever he sees fit. One that fucked up TWO wars. One that played with words to change the definition of torture. And so on. The one Democratic Presidents I truly HATE would be LBJ and the other ones in the '60's, and that's because he and they supported a coup in my country and others. But your '60s presidents all did that, so the Republican ones would get it too.

Along with Kissinger, who I hope dies a slow and painful death. Preferably before I go to NY and being buried there, so I can hock a loogie on his grave.

Which reminds me, I have to check where LBJ is buried...

I should begin taking a longer while to make the posts instead of editing them...

Maybe you should.

Anyways, I don't favor one-party systems, but Democrats would be known anywhere else as Center-right and Republicans as extreme-Right.

I don't consider the Republican Party to be extreme Right but you are right about the democratic Party

*snip*

Nice move of the goalposts. In answer, LBJ lied to get us into Vietnam. Carter pretty much fucked over the military. FDR prolonged the recession. President KKK Wilson campaigned on staying out of World War I and then turned around and brought us into it then slammed out the republicans at the peace talks! (Pretty much the reason why we rejected the Treaty of Versialles) Do not get me started on Clinton because his foriegn policy was just plain awful while using the military to keep what was happening domestially off the airwaves.

Nice move of the goalposts. In answer, LBJ lied to get us into Vietnam. Carter pretty much fucked over the military. FDR prolonged the recession. President KKK Wilson campaigned on staying out of World War I and then turned around and brought us into it then slammed out the republicans at the peace talks! (Pretty much the reason why we rejected the Treaty of Versialles) Do not get me started on Clinton because his foriegn policy was just plain awful while using the military to keep what was happening domestially off the airwaves.

Well, now you have a President that did just about ALL of these or their equivalents in ONE person. :p

As for LBJ, trust me, I probably dislike him more than you do. But if your trips ever take you to Stonewall, Texas, there's a favor I'd like to ask...

Grow up. :rolleyes:

You sir are a fucking liar.

Get off it Heikoku. It really does drag down debate and I know you are capable of civility.
Hmmm I wonder what that word means:

Civility is a reasonable way to distinguish acceptable conduct from unacceptable conduct.

A pattern of gross incivility, however, is highly disruptive, and may result in warnings or blocks. Of course, one single act of incivility can also cross the line if severe enough; for instance, an egregious personal attack, a threat against another person, or extreme profanity directed against another contributor are all excessive enough to result in a block without any need to consider the pattern.
* wonders about the poster's capability of being civil?

*snip*

Pessimism is NOT going to help the cause.

Pessimism is NOT going to help the cause.
You people are NOT showing me any valid reasons for optimism.

You people are NOT showing me any valid reasons for optimism.

Yes, we ARE but you don't wanna see them.

(One all-caps word per post it is...)

You people are NOT showing me any valid reasons for optimism.

You decide what you think is valid. It isn't my fault that you reject all strengths of Obama's out of hand and continue repeating, "He's gonna lose. He's gonna lose. DOOM DOOM DOOM!"

You decide what you think is valid. It isn't my fault that you reject all strengths of Obama's out of hand and continue repeating, "He's gonna lose. He's gonna lose. DOOM DOOM DOOM!"
The thing is, we don't know what his strengths are. He has the most partisan agenda of any Democrat I can remember, yet he preaches bipartisanship. His political agenda is in sync with the most left wing special interest groups in the party.

To borrow from the WSJ, "Early on he gave a bow to merit pay for teachers, but that quickly sank beneath the waves of new money he wants to spend on the same broken public schools. He takes the Teamsters line against free trade, to the point of unilaterally rewriting Nafta. He wants to raise taxes even above the levels of the Clinton era, including a huge increase in the payroll tax. Perhaps now Mr. Obama will tack to the center, but somehow he will have to explain why the "change" he's proposing isn't merely more of the same, circa 1965."

In three years, not a single piece of legislation, initially sponsored by Obama has made it to the floor for a Senate vote, let alone become law. Maybe this just reinforces that "strength" of inexperience, but it might also point towards ineptitude or an agenda inconsistent with more rational people.

You people are NOT showing me any valid reasons for optimism.

Not our fault that you seem to ignore logical reasons in favor of illogical ones.

In three years, not a single piece of legislation, initially sponsored by Obama has made it to the floor for a Senate vote, let alone become law. Maybe this just reinforces that "strength" of inexperience, but it might also point towards ineptitude or an agenda inconsistent with more rational people.

If anything left of the Democrats is irrational, how come many, MANY countries in which Obama would be considered right-wing, such as most of Scandinavia, are thriving?

You people are NOT showing me any valid reasons for optimism.

Dude, you're the one pissing and moaning, you're the one throwing the toys around the room. I've talked at length about how to integrate her back into the party respectfully. And how about Obama?

Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she is a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.

congratulate here on her victory in South Dakota and I congratulate her on the race she has run throughout this contest.

We've certainly had our differences over the last 16 months.

But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning - even in the face of tough odds - is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as First Lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fuelled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency - an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be.

And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, and we will win that fight, she will be central to that victory.

When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen.

Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honour to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And what about his campaign? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10863.html)
Press aides were told not to comment on the speech, which did more to whip up her supporters than encourage party unity. Clinton congratulated Obama for an “extraordinary” race and called him a friend, but those lines were overshadowed by others. She sounded very much like a candidate, reiterating the claim that she’s won more votes than any primary candidate in history and eliciting cheers from the audience of “Denver, Denver,” the site of the Democratic National Convention in August.

David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, shrugged his shoulders when asked early Wednesday morning aboard the campaign plane from St. Paul to Washington whether the speech bothered Obama.

“We are mindful of the fact that they have gone through an epic struggle,” Axelrod said. “It is challenging. There are hard feelings.”

Axelrod almost seemed prepared for the less-than-conciliatory posture, saying earlier Tuesday that he “wouldn’t begrudge anyone those feelings. People invested in Clinton’s candidacy have every right to be unhappy tonight … and nobody would deny that.”

Confronted by reporters at the Capitol, Obama didn’t take the opportunity to criticize.

“I thought Sen. Clinton, after a long-fought campaign, was understandably focused on her supporters,” Obama said Wednesday. “I just spoke to her today, and we are going to be having a conversation in the coming weeks. I am very confident about how unified the Democratic Party is going to be to win in November.”
...
Obama aides said Clinton deserved to make decisions on her own timetable.

“How much time has it been, really? It’s only been a few hours,” Douglass said Wednesday afternoon. “[Obama] is very much opposed to pressure in this situation, any pressure on anybody. What is the point? It has only been a few hours. She ran this spectacular campaign and she has a right to proceed here as she chooses.”

If Obama was irked after Clinton’s speech, he wasn’t showing it early Wednesday morning aboard his campaign plane. He stood in the front cabin, surrounded by close Chicago friends and immersed in conversations that prompted smiles and laughter.

He was happy, supporters said, but reluctant to celebrate.

"You don't cut down the nets at the conference finals," Obama said twice last night, according to his friend and fundraiser James Crown.

But even when news reports circulated early Wednesday evening that Clinton would drop out of the race Friday, the initial reaction was muted.

"No comment," said an Obama aide.

The Clinton campaign had not yet made contact with the Obama campaign, another aide said outside an evening fundraiser in Manhattan.

Meanwhile?

She took the stage Wednesday at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference — minutes after Obama spoke from the same dais — and barely mentioned him, vouching only for his commitment to Israel. Associates elsewhere in Washington were floating her name for vice president, yet Clinton did not even acknowledge that most of the political world had conferred the presidential nomination on her opponent.

The uneasy dance put the Obama campaign in a fix. Even in their moment of triumph, aides were still navigating the Clinton waters, underscoring the extent to which Obama may not be able to fully immerse himself in the general election campaign until the New York senator steps out of the race.


And more (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/176jjbkz.asp)
The effect was to inject a sharply negative and divisive element in the already bitter race at the very moment that Obama was making history by becoming the first African-American to win a major party's presidential nomination. Her goal, from all indications, is to force him to choose her as his vice presidential running mate. And her tactic is political hardball.

So rather than concede or even acknowledge that Obama had captured a majority of the delegates who will decide the nomination at the party s convention in Denver in August, Clinton sent him an unmistakable message.

It was this: The primaries are over, but I can still drag this contest all the way to the convention, denying you the opportunity to concentrate on your Republican opponent, John McCain. I can try to flip delegates who ve lined up with you by persuading them I would have a better chance of beating McCain in the general election. And there's only one way you can stop me and that's by making me your running mate.

In her speech after winning the South Dakota primary by a surprisingly comfortable margin last night, he focused on how well she--and not Obama--had done.
She mentioned four times that she d won 18 million votes, the most ever by a candidate for a presidential nomination.

The assumption in the political community was she'd take a conciliatory posture, figuring that would be the best tactic in seeking the vice presidential nod. Indeed, leaks from the Clinton campaign had indicated that would be her approach. It turned out not to be--far from it.

Now Obama is left in an awkward position. From all accounts, he s not eager to bring her on the ticket, particularly because of the presence of her husband, former president Bill Clinton. The fear is he'd be a disruptive force in the campaign and, if Obama wins this fall, in his White House.

But Hillary Clinton can cause trouble. She has almost as many delegates as he does, giving her the ability to keep him from uniting the party and presiding over a harmonious Democratic convention.

So why not pick her? He may wind up doing that. But if he does, he might look like a weak candidate unable to stand up to the Clintons. And you can imagine what Republicans would say: If he knuckles under to the Clintons, how could he stand up to hostile world leaders?

As she often boasts, Clinton is a fighter. She has moxie. To get her way, she's willing to make life unpleasant for Obama by forcing his hand on the vice presidency when he's barely begun to consider running mates. Last night, she encouraged supporters to send her their advice, no doubt expecting they'll insist she be on the ticket.

This is surely not the position Obama anticipated he'd be in after defeating Clinton, once dubbed the prohibitive favorite to the win the nomination. For him, it's a moment of peril, not joy. And the whole world is watching.

And more- (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/04/noshamenogain)
Here's an interesting point for you. Barack Obama's speech, which featured a long and gracious nod to Clinton toward the beginning, was posted on various websites as early as 8:10pm East coast time. That means that Clinton - who didn't start speaking until 9:31pm, noticeably missing her introductory cue - and her staff had more than an hour to read Obama's speech and see that he was going to be more than kind to her.

But Clinton, who did not post her speech in advance, gave Obama a much briefer and more perfunctory nod. She congratulated him on his well-run campaign, but not on his victory, which is historic and assured. She told her crowd that, though she is now defeated, she "will be making no decisions tonight." She urged her voters - naturally nudged up to 18 million, which exaggerates the matter by about a half a million votes - to visit her website and send her messages, a piece of demagoguery that merely ensures that a week hence, if she wants to, she'll be able to say, "more than 10 million of my supporters have written to encourage me to go on to Denver". And speaking of the convention city, when her audience began chanting its name, she did not of course try to stop them and say that a convention fight was not in the interest of party unity.

What's her game? It's this, I think. It's not merely to be vice president. Although apparently it is that. I take it she and Bill have decided that being Obama's vice-president for eight years is the most plausible path to the presidency. But she did not on Tuesday night merely try to make a case for herself as a good vice-presidential candidate. She held a rhetorical knife to Obama's throat and said, in not so many words: I'm still calling some shots, buddy. You offer me the vice-presidency, or I walk away. But she has also forced Obama into a situation whereby if he chooses her now, he looks weak. So that's the choice she is hoping to impose on the nominee: don't choose me, and Bill and I will subtly work to see that you lose; choose me, and look like a weakling who can't lead the party without the Clintons after all. Now that's putting the interests of the party first, isn't it?

Democrats had better understand what this means, and they'd better not kid themselves. With any person other than a Clinton, this whole thing would have been over in late February - that is, any other candidate who lost 11 primaries in a row and ran out of money would have been shamed out of the race at that point. Or if not then, after May 6 (North Carolina and Indiana), when it became obvious that she could not come within 100 delegates of Obama, no matter what happened with Florida and Michigan.
EDIT: Forgot one more (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/clintons_talks_her_way_out_of.html)
Clinton did declare it an "honor" to have Obama as an opponent and "to call him my friend," but she made no acknowledgment of the historic nature of her opponent's achievement. The Democratic Party, whose ranks once included die-hard advocates of slavery and arch segregationists, had just taken the decisive step toward making Obama the first African American to be a major-party nominee for president. But Obama was not really on Clinton's radar screen.
...
Clinton's partisans argue that all this, plus the passionate devotion of a large constituency, gives her leverage. That is true. Obama needs Clinton and her supporters. He must reach out to women who believe that Clinton was mistreated in an onslaught of misogyny. Arguing over the exact role of sexism in her defeat is beside the point. The anger that so many of her followers feel is a political fact rooted in certain realities of this campaign. It must be attended to.

But politics is also about signals and gestures, doing the right thing at the right moment, dealing with outcomes not to your liking.

Clinton's choice was to present Obama with an implicit critique that might be seen as a set of demands. Clinton told her supporters: "We won, together, the swing states necessary to get to 270 electoral votes." Message to Obama: You failed to do that, and you need me to get it done.

She also offered an argument she made during the campaign that John McCain is certain to use, over and over, against Obama. "Who will be the strongest candidate and the strongest president? Who will be ready to take back the White House and take charge as commander in chief and lead our country to better tomorrows?" Whose purpose did she serve by repeating this?

"To the 18 million people who voted for me, and to our many other supporters out there of all ages, I want to hear from you," she said. "I hope you'll go to my Web site at HillaryClinton.com and share your thoughts with me and help in any way that you can."

Perhaps this was a final pitch for funds, understandable in light of her campaign debt. But it also seemed to have echoes of Richard Nixon's Checkers speech. She appeared to be inviting the faithful to pressure Obama to give her the second spot, and some of her backers moved quickly to create an informal Clinton-for-vice-president campaign.
...
But gaining the vice presidency by invoking leverage just can't work. It makes the presidential candidate look weak. It breaks in advance the trust that running mates need. It can only presage conflicts and power struggles in a new administration.

Hillary Clinton is an enormously talented public servant. Many who ended up supporting Obama once hoped to support her. But Clinton's political future requires her to accept that Obama has prevailed, that the primary campaign is over and that graciousness in defeat can, paradoxically, be turned into the most powerful leverage of all.
[/edit]
You can crow all you want about reaching out, but all the reaching out in the world means jack fucking shit if the person you're reaching out to doesn't reach back. The fact of the matter is that Obama and his supporters are bending over backwards to mend bridges with a candidate who is still setting fires. You're right, the party is divided, the least Clinton and her supporters can do is stop hammering the wedge.

The thing is, we don't know what his strengths are. He has the most partisan agenda of any Democrat I can remember, yet he preaches bipartisanship. His political agenda is in sync with the most left wing special interest groups in the party.

To borrow from the WSJ, "Early on he gave a bow to merit pay for teachers, but that quickly sank beneath the waves of new money he wants to spend on the same broken public schools. He takes the Teamsters line against free trade, to the point of unilaterally rewriting Nafta. He wants to raise taxes even above the levels of the Clinton era, including a huge increase in the payroll tax. Perhaps now Mr. Obama will tack to the center, but somehow he will have to explain why the "change" he's proposing isn't merely more of the same, circa 1965."

In three years, not a single piece of legislation, initially sponsored by Obama has made it to the floor for a Senate vote, let alone become law. Maybe this just reinforces that "strength" of inexperience, but it might also point towards ineptitude or an agenda inconsistent with more rational people.

Who was the last president you liked and what experience did he have that made him a good president?

This changes nothing. I will continue to fight against Obama in the general election.

Hillary is supporting Obama. You said you would support him and vote for him if Senator Clinton endorsed him. You lied. This is why I asked CH, and yourself, if "your word is not good" regarding MI and FL. Go ahead and support McCain. You will be to blame for the Democratic Party's "sure thing" loss. You will become ostracized from the rest of the party. If you'd like to poison your own party and risk being shunned...then you will reap what you sew.

If anything left of the Democrats is irrational, how come many, MANY countries in which Obama would be considered right-wing, such as most of Scandinavia, are thriving?
The problem with comparing America to any place else is that we aren't any place else. We have a different history and that doesn't make the comparison easy. Or maybe even valid.

The problem with comparing America to any place else is that we aren't any place else. We have a different history and that doesn't make the comparison easy. Or maybe even valid.

I can point to Canada, which doesn't have all that different a history from the US, then. My point remains that you can even claim it doesn't SUIT you, but claiming it's "irrational" is just trying to create a new buzzword to mean "I don't wanna".

Who was the last president you liked and what experience did he have that made him a good president?
Really liked? Calvin Coolidge. In recent years? There haven't been any. Kennedy was good, but that was back when the Democrats were more eager to govern and less eager to confront. He had a successful stint in the military and Senate, both.

I can point to Canada, which doesn't have all that different a history from the US, then. My point remains that you can even claim it doesn't SUIT you, but claiming it's "irrational" is just trying to create a new buzzword to mean "I don't wanna".
Suit yourself.

Four years ago, I remember all the Democrats here at NSG rallying around John Kerry. It was a pitched battle between the Republicans and Democrats.

Yet, Kerry lost the election in 2004.

Two years ago, all the Democrats here were once again united and determined to win back the House and the Senate and success!!

This year, the pitched battle seems to be Democrat vs. Democrat, AND Republican vs. Democrat. The attitude has been divisive in nature and it has been a very hostile environment. I don't think it is going to change for the better. Even though Obama has won, I still see a hostile environment towards Hillary supporters. I think this contempt will be extremely costly.

Obama is saddled with a divided party AND also has to deal with something that John Kerry didn't have to face:

Obama Faces Uphill Climb vs. McCain Among White Voters (http://www.gallup.com/poll/107416/Obama-Faces-Uphill-Climb-vs-McCain-Among-White-Voters.aspx)

Calling Clinton supporters "racists and sexists" is NOT going to help the cause.

Blaming Clinton is NOT going to help the cause.

Calling Clinton every dirty name under the sun is NOT going to help the cause.

Obama has enough obstacles to overcome as it is. IF the party remains fractured, and I believe it will, then it will be more difficult for Obama to overcome the other challenges, because he will be too busy trying to stop the internal bleeding.

I (like many others here?) don't really see the problem.

Personally, I preferred Clinton over Obama, for a number of reasosn.. which are no longer important, if Obama is the heir to the throne.

So I, like many others, will throw support behind the other contendor.

Yes - while it was Obama v's Clinton, I backed Clinton (and before that, I backed Gravel... things change, eh?)... but once it's Obama-and-ticket versus whatever lines up on the other side, this house is no longer divided.

You support the candidate you think will be best. As the field narrows, you support the candidate you think will be best of what is left on offer. Opinions were very closely divided between the two Democrat hopefuls, but it's erroneous to believe that Clinton supporters will automatically still not support Obama now that things have changed.

I (like many others here?) don't really see the problem.

Personally, I preferred Clinton over Obama, for a number of reasosn.. which are no longer important, if Obama is the heir to the throne.

You supported Clinton?

Why didn't you show up on the thread earlier so all of those who supported Obama could have someone to have a reasonable discussion with?

I don't consider the Republican Party to be extreme Right.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong. America doesn't have any left-leaning boats in this race.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong. America doesn't have any left-leaning boats in this race.

To be fair, he only didn't consider the Republicans EXTREME right. He agreed with me that Dems are center-right, and he knows Republicans are to the right of Democrats, so I'm assuming here he KNOWS America doesn't have any left-leaning boats in the race.

As for Republicans being extreme right, I personally agree with you.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong. America doesn't have any left-leaning boats in this race.
All politics is local. A famous Democrat said that. Anyhow, what's left and right only matters in context. The world doesn't vote on our candidates, so what the Belgians or Brazilians think LEFT should be, just doesn't apply.

It's a lot like "rich" and "poor". That varies tremendously around the world, but we have no problems with the local definitions.

The problem with comparing America to any place else is that we aren't any place else. We have a different history and that doesn't make the comparison easy. Or maybe even valid.

Everyone has a different history.

On the world stage, you can say there is a division between 'left' and 'right' leaning nations. On the world stage, the US swings in somewhere (pretty far, at the moment) right of that line. The US has two 'opposing' parties, but neither of them would honestly even approach the centre, let alone cross into 'left' territory.

You are entitled to your opinion, but you're wrong. America doesn't have any left-leaning boats in this race.

Uh...please point to where I said we did?

The world doesn't vote on our candidates

Considering that the world gets screwed over in war and global warming when YOU vote for the morons, maybe the world SHOULD.

You supported Clinton?

Why didn't you show up on the thread earlier so all of those who supported Obama could have someone to have a reasonable discussion with?

Heh. I've been busy, and - to be honest, I tend to avoid these political threads. I like to debate rationally, and these threads have a tendency to become slanging matches.

All politics is local. A famous Democrat said that. Anyhow, what's left and right only matters in context. The world doesn't vote on our candidates, so what the Belgians or Brazilians think LEFT should be, just doesn't apply.

It's a lot like "rich" and "poor". That varies tremendously around the world, but we have no problems with the local definitions.

Utter wank.

Is a far-right candidate LESS 'right', just because he's running against another candidate who is even MORE far-right? Is a leftist candidate less leftist because there are more extreme candidates in another nation?

No. In the US, by US standards, we have one party slightly less right-wing than the other... but that doesn't make either of them left-wing. Both of them oppose the kinds of policies that would make a party leftwing, both of them tend to embrace the kind of politics that make a party right-wing. So - it isn't about world comparison versus local... neither of them behaves like a 'leftwing' party.

Uh...please point to where I said we did?

Okay. Babysteps at dawn?

You said "I don't consider the Republican Party to be extreme Right."

What you 'consider' is irrelevent. The US has two rightwing parties, one more rightwing than the other. There are no leftist parties in this game.

Whether or not you 'consider' the Republicans to be extreme right is a matter of personal opinion... not of fact.

Okay. Babysteps at dawn?

You said "I don't consider the Republican Party to be extreme Right."

What you 'consider' is irrelevent. The US has two rightwing parties, one more rightwing than the other. There are no leftist parties in this game.

And your point is? Just because one party is a bit more right-wing than the other does not make said party part of the extreme Right. Is that difficult to understand?

And your point is? Just because one party is a bit more right-wing than the other does not make said party part of the extreme Right. Is that difficult to understand?

Apparently pointing out that there are none even in the direction of 'left' was "too difficult to understand", no?

We've had politics from the recent Republican party that allowed secret-police-style illegal monitoring, the many ills and evils of the Patriot Act, a slew of nationalistic and nationalist-like legislation, the removal or suspension of a number of civil rights. A net increase in big government, a net increase in the ability of government to intervene. Apart from being entirely fiscally irresponsible, it's been pretty much text book.

Short of changing the flag to a swastika, I don't really see what else would be needed.

Short of changing the flag to a swastika, I don't really see what else would be needed.

Okay, Clinton is conceding, the race is over, and this thread is DEFINITELY not a top-tier one. It, however, lives on. If Godwin won't close the thread, nothing else will. :D

Not that I disagree with you...

Okay, Clinton is conceding, the race is over. If Godwin won't close the thread, nothing else will. :D

Not that I disagree with you...

Nah, not a real Godwin. :)

(And, of course, invoking a Godwin to close a thread is considered a self-defeating Godwin anyway...)

Both of them oppose the kinds of policies that would make a party leftwing.

I'm interested, what policies are these, and are you talking about economic left/right or social left/right?

I'm interested, what policies are these, and are you talking about economic left/right or social left/right?

Yes.

:D

I'm interested, what policies are these, and are you talking about economic left/right or social left/right?

Speaking on an economic level, we can definitely say both parties are right wing, though the Democratic party is much closer to centre on that.

On a social level, though, the Democratic party is ALMOST centre, I'd say.

Considering that the world gets screwed over in war and global warming when YOU vote for the morons, maybe the world SHOULD.
Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

Maybe, but given that these precise policies make you all too less safe against the very dangers you're supposed to be protecting against, it sucks harder to be you.

Hillary is supporting Obama. You said you would support him and vote for him if Senator Clinton endorsed him. You lied. This is why I asked CH, and yourself, if "your word is not good" regarding MI and FL. Go ahead and support McCain. You will be to blame for the Democratic Party's "sure thing" loss. You will become ostracized from the rest of the party. If you'd like to poison your own party and risk being shunned...then you will reap what you sew.

Senator Clinton had no other choice. I do. I resist Obama primarily because of his supporters, who I suspect reflect him.

Maybe, but given that these precise policies make you all too less safe against the very dangers you're supposed to be protecting against, it sucks harder to be you.
Maybe, but I don't think so.

Senator Clinton had no other choice. I do. I resist Obama primarily because of his supporters, who I suspect reflect him.

For you as well. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13745399&postcount=2852)

Senator Clinton had no other choice. I do. I resist Obama primarily because of his supporters, who I suspect reflect him.

Well, they do in the sense that they committed the grievous sin of disagreeing with you over which candidate is better.

Which you somehow twisted in your mind into being rude, or hateful, or elitist, or what-the-fuck-ever.

But do feel free to whine some more in 11/5, after Obama's elected.

There's nothing you can do.

It will happen no matter what you do or say.

Senator Clinton had no other choice. I do. I resist Obama primarily because of his supporters,.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/guiltbya.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by-association.html

who I suspect reflect him

How exactly do a couple Obama partisans who are assholes reflect Obama himself, who has been extremely generous to both Senator Clinton, President Clinton, and her campaign?

How exactly do a couple Obama partisans who are assholes reflect Obama himself, who has been extremely generous to both Senator Clinton, President Clinton, and her campaign?

Let's bear in mind for a moment that the poster in question assumed the role of the victim over the fact that people disagreed with him and threw much worse at everyone else, all the while whining about how he was being treated and calling us (insert buzzword here).

Well, they do in the sense that they committed the grievous sin of disagreeing with you over which candidate is better.

Which you somehow twisted in your mind into being rude, or hateful, or elitist, or what-the-fuck-ever.

But do feel free to whine some more in 11/5, after Obama's elected.

There's nothing you can do.

Your will means nothing in this.

It will happen no matter what you do or say.
______________________

Let's bear in mind for a moment that the poster in question assumed the role of the victim over the fact that people disagreed with him and threw much worse at everyone else, all the while whining about how he was being treated and calling us (insert buzzword here).

Y'know, there's really no reason for you to reenforce his opinion of Obama supporters just to get bragging points on the internet...

Y'know, there's really no reason for you to reenforce his opinion of Obama supporters just to get bragging points on the internet...

There's one: No matter what I do or say, no matter what ANYONE does or says, he's shown time and again that he'll act in the SAME way. So it's quite meaningless to try and make nice to a person that'll keep playing the victim no matter what. I'll be civil towards him. That much I have to. But I don't have to be nice. That part, he squandered early in the thread when he answered my polite post with "To hell with you".

Also, could you edit out the parts I changed in the post you quoted? Thanks.

Senator Clinton had no other choice. I do.

So, again, you were being dishonest when you said you'd support him if she did? You know even then that, in order to continue her Democratic career, she'd have to endorse the nominee if it wasn't her.

I resist Obama primarily because of his supporters, who I suspect reflect him.

Does that mean that your behavior reflects on Clinton?

Does that mean that your behavior reflects on Clinton?

Well...

There's one: No matter what I do or say, no matter what ANYONE does or says, he's shown time and again that he'll act in the SAME way. So it's quite meaningless to try and make nice to a person that'll keep playing the victim no matter what. I'll be civil towards him. That much I have to. But I don't have to be nice. That part, he squandered early in the thread when he answered my polite post with "To hell with you".

Also, could you edit out the parts I changed in the post you quoted? Thanks.

Two wrongs don't make a right.Seriously, you don't have to resort to ad hominem attacks on him which derail the thread, just stick to refuting the arguments he makes without the "omg victim complex".

Oh, and done.

EDIT: Your posts are being fed through a time machine, it seems.

Two wrongs don't make a right.Seriously, you don't have to resort to ad hominem attacks on him which derail the thread, just stick to refuting the arguments he makes without the "omg victim complex".

Oh, and done.

EDIT: Your posts are being fed through a time machine, it seems.

No, but three lefts do. :p

Also, I'm not resorting to ad hominem. I think.

Finally, the problem is he makes statements, not arguments.

And thanks.

Also, yeah.

More. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aPKtsGLZmHZM&refer=politics)

Barack Obama's campaign is open to paying off some of the more than $20 million in debt accrued by defeated rival Hillary Clinton, a top adviser said.
...
Money for Clinton to retire her campaign debt -- $11.4 million of which is owed to herself -- may help smooth relations between the two camps following a 16-month primary campaign where the candidates at times exchanged personal attacks. The urgency for Clinton, 60, is she has until the Aug. 25-28 Democratic convention to pay off her $11.4 million personal loan. Otherwise, by law she can recoup no more than $250,000.
...
Obama, 46, an Illinois senator, is barred by federal law from using his own treasury to pay off Clinton's debts. He could host a fundraiser for the New York senator or ask some of his 1.5 million donors to help her out.
...
``The reality is she's going to go out there and ask people to help pay off her debt,'' said former FEC General Counsel Larry Noble. ``She is going to have to go to new donors, most likely people who supported Obama and other candidates, and get them to contribute.''

That big nebulous group of meanie heads are at it again, helping settle Clinton's enormous debt. Have they no shame? Let's hear another lecture about how Obama and his supporters need to reach out.

That big nebulous group of meanie heads are at it again, helping settle Clinton's enormous debt. Have they no shame? Let's hear another lecture about how Obama and his supporters need to reach out.

Well, given that she managed to paint Obama as a sexist over holding a chair for her, there IS one way to spin this...

it's crazy in a good way how Obama is working towards getting the DNC to stop taking PAC and lobbyist money.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080605/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_money;_ylt=At3.06wtWtXwXEBEsnd3Euph24cA

Hmmm I wonder what that word means:
* wonders about the poster's capability of being civil?

I found a site. Rehash this (http://www.myspaceantics.com/images/funny/buy-a-vowel.jpg).

The answer is none of you have room for criticism.

The answer is none of you have room for criticism.

I have. And jell-o. There's always room for jell-o.

More. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aPKtsGLZmHZM&refer=politics)



That big nebulous group of meanie heads are at it again, helping settle Clinton's enormous debt. Have they no shame? Let's hear another lecture about how Obama and his supporters need to reach out.

Do you have any clue why they mentioned her age? What an odd thing to do.

I thought the same thing

Do you have any clue why they mentioned her age? What an odd thing to do.

It is. They did that to him, too. I see that every once in a while, where they mention either obvious or irrelevant biographical data like that. I honestly think its a journalism 101 thing, that they include in stories, some set of biographical data about who ever their talking about that they do it even when it's irrelevant, obvious or whatever. I can't say for sure. I took some journalism in college, but I was a columnist. So I didn't think I had to pay attention.

It is. They did that to him, too. I see that every once in a while, where they mention either obvious or irrelevant biographical data like that. I honestly think its a journalism 101 thing, that they include in stories, some set of biographical data about who ever their talking about that they do it even when it's irrelevant, obvious or whatever. I can't say for sure. I took some journalism in college, but I was a columnist. So I didn't think I had to pay attention.

Eric, who sometimes masturbates to images of volcanoes erupting, agrees.

Eric, who sometimes masturbates to images of volcanoes erupting, agrees.

Oh, he does that too?

Eric, who sometimes masturbates to images of volcanoes erupting, agrees.

My collaborater issued this challenge a while ago which we have yet to succeed, to write something where sex is a metaphor for trains going into tunnels, rockets taking off, and volcanoes erupting.

My collaborater issued this challenge a while ago which we have yet to succeed, to write something where sex is a metaphor for trains going into tunnels, rockets taking off, and volcanoes erupting.

100 miles from Mt. St. Helens. Horrified observers look on as it blows its load.
Al: "My god, he's fucking the sky!"
Bob: "Just finished, and going for a cigarette, looks like."

My collaborater issued this challenge a while ago which we have yet to succeed, to write something where sex is a metaphor for trains going into tunnels, rockets taking off, and volcanoes erupting.

Easy enough.

"The rocket raped the atmosphere as it thrust itself into the unsuspecting air. Had the rocket been a little quieter, one could most assuredly have heard her screams of protest. We opened our umbrellas when the rocket finally finished and she began to weep."

100 miles from Mt. St. Helens. Horrified observers look on as it blows its load.
Al: "My god, he's fucking the sky!"
Bob: "Just finished, and going for a cigarette, looks like."

The earth blew it's load across of grassy stretch of its belly.

Easy enough.

"The rocket raped the atmosphere as it thrust itself into the unsuspecting air. Had the rocket been a little quieter, one could most assuredly have heard her screams of protest. We opened our umbrellas when the rocket finally finished and she began to weep."

You use the word rocket too many times. You really should just use the pronoun, or a synonym that lets you avoid looking repetitive.

"The rocked raped the atmosphere as it thrust itself into the unsuspecting sky. Drowned in ejecta, the sky's screams of protest went unheard as the jets penetrated upward. Then came the crying, as the ship finally finished its dirty deed and left."

You use the word rocket too many times. You really should just use the pronoun, or a synonym that lets you avoid looking repetitive.

"The rocked raped the atmosphere as it thrust itself into the unsuspecting sky. Drowned in ejecta, the sky's screams of protest went unheard as the jets penetrated upward. Then came the crying, as the ship finally finished its dirty deed and left."

You didn't notice I was trying to make it as hackneyed as it would be if I was comparing sex to a rocket taking off or a train going into a tunnel.

You didn't notice I was trying to make it as hackneyed as it would be if I was comparing sex to a rocket taking off or a train going into a tunnel.

Yeah, but I made it look good.

Best hijack ever.

Yeah, but I made it look good.

Sadly, Deus Malum didn't realize that in the dictionary, next to hackneyed, you'll find his picture. He stared at the screen, realizing the post was about him and, yet, unable to wipe the moronic grin from his face.

Ooookay, enough with the sex metaphors.

Ooookay, enough with the sex metaphors.

They are rocket and volcano metaphors, thank you very much.

They are rocket and volcano metaphors, thank you very much.

Yeah! *Puts back the whipped cream and the leather crotchless panties*

Sadly, Deus Malum didn't realize that in the dictionary, next to hackneyed, you'll find his picture. He stared at the screen, realizing the post was about him and, yet, unable to wipe the moronic grin from his face.

Yeah? Well...face!

How's that, rocket-cockboy?

My collaborater issued this challenge a while ago which we have yet to succeed, to write something where sex is a metaphor for trains going into tunnels, rockets taking off, and volcanoes erupting.


I was going full steam ahead. As fast as I could, I drove my train into her delicious wet vagina.











oh well:D

Ooookay, enough with the sex metaphors.

I'm just going to insert myself in here, dismissively take your idea to its knees, stuff it's mouth with my sweetness, and inform you that you don't have to ENJOY it...


:p

GO TO YOUR ROOMS THIS INSTANT!

You're all grounded until you're 80.

iLock.