Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.
    • CommentTimeJan 20th 2008 edited
    Did anybody else read about Hilary's supposed tactics in the Clark County voting? I know it comes from Obama people, but it wouldn't fit with their campaign strategy so far if it was blown out of proportion reporting. If this is how she runs elections, how would she run the country?
    • CommentTimeJan 20th 2008 edited
    Why would closing the doors early necessarily benefit the Clinton campaign? Are Obama supporters all late-comers? It seems like the wrong time was printed in some of the caucusing manuals and it caused some confusion. The Hillary campaign, incidentally, doesn't have the power to open and close the doors. Only the democratic chair does.

    Woo, conspiracy. It's not like there aren't similar complaints about Obama supporters intimidating voters. The reality is that for both campaigns, the candidate doesn't have direct control over the volunteers who work polling days. Nor do they have control over people who endorse/claim affiliation with them but aren't paid to work for them.

    Updated to include link.
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeJan 20th 2008
    The problem here is that the claims of fraud in the 2000 and 2004 general elections (which in 2000 at least seem to have some credibility) have created an atmosphere where anyone who doesn't like the outcome of an election immediately claims fraud.

    I've seem Republicans make such claims about the 2006 elections and I expect that which ever side loses the general election this year will do the same.
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2008
    i think everyone agrees that our political system could use some revamping, but no one has hit on a perfect one yet. as previously noted, tony blair decided to retire and thus gordon brown took the office without ever having been elected to it. i understand that they elected the party into power well knowing that blair would be done sometime soon and brown was the heir apparent, but that doesn't change the facts. the primary season here, sadly, keeps getting earlier and earlier. we had people declaring their candidacy for president literally the day after the mid-term elections. the cave for iowa used to start a few weeks before the caucus, not a year before. i'm a political junkie with the best of them, and i'm almost fucking tired of the whole mess.

    the delegate count is a ridiculous thing, but more than anything else, it shows political clout for the upcoming convention. delegate count is what got george mcgovern nominated for his doomed '72 run against nixon. hillary (thanks in part to bill) has a large number of them in her pocket already, before their states hold any sort of caucus/primary. i still hold out hope that obama can pull through and help redefine the political landscape, but even that is a dubious presumption based more on my own preferences and prejudices than anything else.

    we've entered a time when any undesired result that can be challenged will have a vocal part of the population demanding it. gore (sadly, i think) lost his appeal in the supreme court thanks to a handful of people that his opponent's father placed in the most reputable job in the land, so for more than a few people those wounds never healed for more than a few people. i don't know that there are many pols who would be able to pull off cons of that size, but both the bush and clinton machines are on that short list. obama, i feel, is still green and idealistic enough that he feels he doesn't need it and if he did need it to win, he doesn't want to use it.
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2008
    what we need in this country is some one whom actually believes and fallow the constitution. but thats looking kind of impossible to find some one like that these days.
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2008
    That and we need to get away from this central bank run but unelected ungoverned rich bastards that are ruining our dollar .
  1.  (438.167)
    @Jess - You sound very defensive in your post there. If you read the link it explains the door opening / closing issues that supposedly happened. I'm not shouting conspiracy, I'm pointing out supposed irregularities. I always try to evaluate information from both sides before coming to my own conclusions - I didn't see reports of Obama people doing the same otherwise I'd have noted those too.
    Your post, however, is of a Union muscling it's members to support Obama. That is different from the supposed scenarios at the cacuses as there is no direct link to the campaign that has been shown. The Clinton people working the voting rooms could have been working under their own volition, true, but there were reports from all over the place. If it is true then it was organised well.
    • CommentAuthoralter alias
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2008 edited
    Jess, I should clarify, its not so much that I don't recognise she has achieved things by her own merit as that, and yes it is likely to be largely media bullshit, but I do hear a lot of things along the lines of; she has greater experience dealing with republican mudslinging due to being first lady while Bill was being impeached. Mostly I just dislike her due to her stance towards censorship and the fact that she seems a little to willing to compromise with the republicans, this probably skews my perceptions of things somewhat.
  2.  (438.169)
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    i hate linking people to CNN, but i found their site to easily inform you as to everyone's delegate count.

    <a href=""></a>

    I just wanted to add:

    What the hell do people consider "experience" cause honestly, if your talking about elected/world experience(i.e. dealing with foriegn leaders) than the only canadite that has any would be McCain, and thats frightning.
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2008 edited
    Synth -- Your comments that these are "Hillary" tactics, as if she orchestrated this personally, and that she would somehow behave in the white house in X way because of this strike me as really conspiracy-ish. The Clinton people were absolutely not organized to shut the doors early. The time was wrong in some caucus books, and in a number of other public papers. This is confusion, not an organized tactic. It is disingenous to claim that multiple supposed instances of people being unsure about when to close the doors means that the behavior is somehow orchestrated for some kind of evil ends. First of all, the Hillary Clinton campaign has no control over the doors being closed. Second, there is absolutely no reason why Hillary Clinton would benefit from closing the caucus doors early. Are you suggesting she just decided to disenfranchise random voters for the hell of it? Is there something I don't know about Obama supporters in which it's predictable that they will arrive between the 11:30 and 12:00 window? The answer is no, there isn't, and it's just political spin.

    For the record, I linked to one specific instance of Obama supporters misbehaving, as it were. This does not mean that there were not other instances of shady tactics going on. I'm sure you're aware of the radio ad, which Obama should have at least denounced if he did not directly endorse. But there were posters by precinct leaders suggesting that people switch parties to oust Hillary. Have a look around the web. Again, the candidates can't always control this kind of behavior.

    Alter -- I'd encourage you to look up the voting records of all the candidates. It's useful to see how many issues they differed on, and I think it establishes that they're all fairly liberal when it comes down to it.
  3.  (438.171)
    Hate to interrupt the Hillary/Obama tussle... but some news on how deeply Huckabee is tied in with the nastier elements of Dominionist Xtian activism have come to light.

    He's actually a member of a cultic offshoot of the 'Joel's-Army-with-guns' tendency. Details (researched by DogEmperor) are found here - the short version is that the rants we've seen so far are just the tip of a very nasty iceberg.

    If America gets him as President, it'll make Bush look like Carter by comparison.

    (I've known DogEmperor for several years, working at the Dark Christianity LJ group. She is not prone to exaggeration.)
    • CommentAuthorLyons
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2008
    If this Huckabee/Dominionist stuff is true then I am the biggest sucker alive and need to be kicked in the head repeatedly. My God: that stuff is really beyond the pale, and anyone aligned with it needs serious mental help.

    I can at least be thankful that McCain looks like he might have a realistic shot against the Rom-bot and the martinet. If the party establishment doesn't fuck him first.
  4.  (438.173)
    @Jess - I never said 'Hillary tactics', I just said tactics. Organised tactics don't have to be a conspiracy - they're just organised tactics. You use the word conspiracy, not me, so who believes in conspiracies more? Plus, why concentrate on the door issue? There are other issues mentioned.I DO know of the radio ad you mean, yes. Hardly shady, just a little confrontational.

    I agree that all candidates use dirty tactics, I was just pointing out some that sounded a little TOO over the top. Sorry if that raised your heckles. Do I take it you're a Hillary supporter?
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2008
    Synth: My use of the word conspiracy doesn't make me a conspiracy theorist. If I say the word "orange" several times in a day, does that make me a citrus fruit? Your assumption that whatever went on with supposed door closing was purposeful strikes me as you jumping to conclusions. The last line that suggested that she would thus behave badly in office pretty much clinched that for me.

    The radio ad made it seem that Hillary Clinton filed that lawsuit, when supporters of hers unaffiliated with the campaign did. From there, it accused her of being racist. Personally, I characterize this as shady.

    And yes, I am a Clinton supporter who is mildly irked at the disproportionate amount of seriously out there accusations about her campaign. Though if Obama is the democratic candidate, I plan on supporting him in the general elections.
  5.  (438.175)
    Jess, you introduced the word "conspiracy" into the conversation. I see your point, but you don't get to be surprised when it's turned back on you.

    I think we can all agree that any professional politician at this level will, at the very least, have staffers who aren't shy about being shady.
  6.  (438.176)
    Thank you Mr. Ellis.

    I think we're talking about a different radio ad - I'd be interested in seeing the link, thanks.

    I'm not a US citizen so I can't vote for anyone (or should I say, have my vote perused and then taken into account or discarded by the delegates who then decide who they want) but, as America's situation can affect us all, I take an interest. I'm neither Republican nor Democrat in my thinking, just someone who likes to see the whole story and take it from there - that infuriates most of my US friends no end. Heh heh.
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2008 edited
    Warren, I'm not surprised at all. I still don't buy the logic behind me believing in conspiracies, but I'm not exactly letting the comment prevent me from sleeping at night. That being said, the use of the word "conspiracy" was introduced with the interest of illustrating that there wasn't one going on. There seems to be a notion that the Obama campaign can do no wrong, and in contrast, any wild assumptions about the Clinton campaign are readily accepted. Obviously, this isn't true across the board, but I run into it frequently enough that it's bothersome. In any case, the accusations are getting to the point where it's become dangerous for the party as a whole, in my opinion. The last thing we need is another Republican in office. In the event that Hillary is the candidate, I fear that people will be hesitant to support her. The same applies if Obama is the candidate.

    I'll back off, though, since I assume that's what you're getting at.
    • CommentTimeJan 21st 2008 edited
    Okay, I read this whole thing and still felt compelled to chime in. Honestly, without checking out everyone's bios, it's tough to see who are 'Merkans (and thus effected by the sick medicine show they call Campaign '08) and who are still-effected bystanders from a dubiously safe distance. So, I take a lot with a grain of salt and a sip of whatever is handy before diving in.

    In the spirit of disclosure, I was a Kucinich surrogate in '04 and am still a strong supporter, though I am realist enough to know that my vote is probably better spent elsewhere for a candidate semi-close to my positions with a whisper of a chance. Kucinich may not have a chance, but if enough actual progressives (read: borderline pinkos) check his box or one with the same ideas, the Democratic party may actually have to do some hard thinking, which is not necessarily a bad thing in the scheme of things. Yeah, I do have a terribly bad habit of tilting at windmills too.

    In the Dem camp, Hillary gives me some serious squicking. Bill oversaw NAFTA and a host of horrific developments along those lines. (BTW, when did Democrats get so damned corporate anyway?) She's like choosing Reagan-lite, and who the fuck needs that shit?!? Obama is good, only if you completely disregard the cliche "all sizzle, no steak". I mean. I'd like to like him, but he is not nearly as exciting or progressive as his devotees would like to think he is. I know it's fab to have a Democrat as appealing as "The Big Dog", but Clinton the 1st was not so great. despite his appeal either. I'm burdened with a mind that insists on knowing the details of policy and Obama's are no different than a host of other warmed-over middle-of-the-road guys they've been forcing on us for years. So, why would I get excited over this guy, just because it might make a positive racial statement? I'm about as likely to do that as heed the call the Hillary camp has been making to my uterus lately. Sorry, I vote with my head. despite what the party leadership would like.

    On the Republican side? *bbbbbbuuuuuuhhhhhhhh* Usually, there is at least one of them I don't find appalling. Not this time.

    If I can't have my drothers (Kucinich), I've got to say, the next best thing (though a let down) would be Edwards. I may just have to hold my nose and vote for him of the 5th, if just to vote for a candidate I like well enough with a whisper of a chance instead of dreaming impossible dreams.

    Someone earlier bagged on Kucinich for not being so aesthetically pleasing. Wow! Anyway, I created a graphic for the '04 campaign I think is relevant. It was pictures of Gandhi, Mandela, and Kucinich with a caption refering to peace and true beauty. I'll take the right mind with a face that could stop time over the pretty meat-puppets we get served, thanks.
    • CommentAuthorLyons
    • CommentTimeJan 22nd 2008 edited
    I've just taken a close look at the "evidence" that "dogemperor" has on Huckabee's relations to Gothard and the dominionist nuts, and calling that evidence "thin" might lead to a new rise in obesity rates.
    • CommentTimeJan 22nd 2008
    For myself, I am against Hillary just from the stand point that I don't want the same two families in charge of my country for over two decades. I don't think things are going well, and though most of the candidates lack the possibility of the "change" they all are fond of promising while explaining ideas that walk the old school road, I know it won't get better under her command.

    I say this as someone who would love to have a woman President. Just not that one. Some of the best commanders I had in the Army were women. True Story.

    I like Obama's enthusiasm but aren't excited at his policies. Or at least his hypothetical policies.

    And I won't vote for the Smiler because Edwards belongs in TRANSMET.

    On the Republican side I won't vote for someone who spouts Bushisms about how we're going to fight for the long haul and skull fuck our enemies, yadda yadda yadda.

    I don't know what the answer in Iraq is, but it isn't more of the same bullshit that got us there in the first place.

    Yes, I'm a Vet who desires for peace. Go fucking figure.

    I like a lot of what Ron Paul says, regardless of some of the other things. Just that he voted against the Patriot Act every time allows me to say, "At least he might only be mostly crazy and not all the way."

    Which makes him appealing only in that he approaches insanity by a different road.

    I was coming up with a list of comic characters the candidates look like.

    Maybe I'll post them later.


This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.