|
Post by Supertramp78 on Jun 4, 2008 12:45:47 GMT -5
There are a few lines from a news story about her speech last that just cracked me up. It reads like The Onion but it is from The Washington Post….
In Defeat, Clinton Graciously Pretends to Win Terry McAuliffe, the campaign chairman, took the stage and read the full list of Clinton's victories, from American Samoa to Massachusetts. Introducing Clinton, he asked: "Are you ready for the next president of the United States?" This brought laughter from the reporters in the back of the room.
A crew from "The Daily Show" joined the party, and, hoping to keep Clinton in the race, struck up a cheer of "Four more months!"
[ROFL!!!]
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Jun 4, 2008 13:01:50 GMT -5
My Cynico Crystal Ball (patent pending) tells me that if Obama is elected and doesn't make everyones bobo all better in 90 days, the same wonderful patriots that: compromised a covert agent, cover company, associated assets and operatives for political payback and who were also blithely gutting the Justice Department filling it with malleable Right Wing Authoritarian Stepford lawyers from Liberty University and who also....oh never mind you know the drill- Anyway, I believe he will be given about 10 minutes to work before the Hell Hounds will be upon him blaming him for the deficit, the loss of our "national honor" in Iraq, high gas prices, Esteban, and lord knows what else. And my crystal ball also tells me that a sizable portion of the American public will soak it up like a sponge. Why? Because we are too stupid and dumbed down to think it out. He will be savaged and vilified and his successor will be an even more manipulative demagogue than we have just had. We are sliding toward fascism because we deserve it. But then again, I constantly lie awake at night wincing at the stupid things I have and continue to say and do, so this is very likely one of those...but you guys will cut me some slack and not throw it up in my face later...won't you?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2008 13:07:18 GMT -5
I have always been a conservative/independent. I think profit is good and all that free market sort of stuff. But I must sayI am totally impressed with Barak Obama. Politically, he is quite a ways left for me, but as a person, he is the fresh air our country needs badly (IMO).
McCain truly is just more of the same. Another old white guy with the same old ideas. The few times he did work 'across the aisle' , he damn near gave away the store.
I am just overall proud that my country has nominated an African-American with a very interesting past to run for Leader of the Free World. I don't know for sure how I'm gonna vote, but I'm sure I won't be disappointed if Barak is our next President.
Now, who's for VP? (please not Clinton!!!!!)
|
|
|
Post by Ann T on Jun 4, 2008 13:20:49 GMT -5
My Cynico Crystal Ball (patent pending) tells me that if Obama is elected and doesn't make everyones bobo all better in 90 days, the same wonderful patriots that: compromised a covert agent, cover company, associated assets and operatives for political payback and who were also blithely gutting the Justice Department filling it with malleable Right Wing Authoritarian Stepford lawyers from Liberty University and who also....oh never mind you know the drill- Anyway, I believe he will be given about 10 minutes to work before the Hell Hounds will be upon him blaming him for the deficit, the loss of our "national honor" in Iraq, high gas prices, Esteban, and lord knows what else. And my crystal ball also tells me that a sizable portion of the American public will soak it up like a sponge. Why? Because we are too stupid and dumbed down to think it out. He will be savaged and vilified and his successor will be an even more manipulative demagogue than we have just had. We are sliding toward fascism because we deserve it. But then again, I constantly lie awake at night wincing at the stupid things I have and continue to say and do, so this is very likely one of those...but you guys will cut me some slack and not throw it up in my face later...won't you? This may be true, but possibly as a result of how he has campaigned. He has been so nonspecific in the details, that people can write whatever mental picture of what he'll do ("change") that whatever he does wind up doing will not match their expectations. Then, they'll be upset. And his opponents will tap into this discontent, and fan the flames. And when he starts to do things that people did not expect, because no one really pressed him for details in the midst of all the cult of personality worship, people will realize they signed a blank check when they voted for him, and will be even more upset.
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Jun 4, 2008 13:23:10 GMT -5
Have we heard from Kari yet, or is she still sleeping off the victory celebration?
|
|
|
Post by patrick on Jun 4, 2008 14:55:48 GMT -5
This may be true, but possibly as a result of how he has campaigned. He has been so nonspecific in the details, that people can write whatever mental picture of what he'll do ("change") that whatever he does wind up doing will not match their expectations. Then, they'll be upset. And his opponents will tap into this discontent, and fan the flames. And when he starts to do things that people did not expect, because no one really pressed him for details in the midst of all the cult of personality worship, people will realize they signed a blank check when they voted for him, and will be even more upset. What, precisely, has he been non-specific about? At least on health insurance I know exactly what he intends to do. He's going to extend the same insurance plan that I have, that John McCain has, that Barack Obama has, that Hillary Clinton has, to everyone else who wants it. It's working pretty well for the 4 of us. And it apparently hasn't bankrupted any insurance companies. And hospitals and doctors seem pretty happy to see me walk in the door with my insurance. I get a bit frustrated when I hear someone say that any of the last three candidates "don't have any plans." Go to their web sites and read. They have plenty of plans. They have plans for problems you didn't know you had.
|
|
|
Post by sekhmet on Jun 4, 2008 15:02:06 GMT -5
Good for you guys, nominating the first "black" person to run for president. I didn't think I would live to see it. I'm glad I did.
It's a long way from the back of the bus. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YES!!!
As for his policies, anyone who cares to read about them in full will find them on his web site. I don't see anyone complaining about not knowing what McCain will do. He is just as specific as Obama in a speech. The details are too long for a speech. Of course.
|
|
|
Post by Ann T on Jun 4, 2008 15:06:49 GMT -5
This may be true, but possibly as a result of how he has campaigned. He has been so nonspecific in the details, that people can write whatever mental picture of what he'll do ("change") that whatever he does wind up doing will not match their expectations. Then, they'll be upset. And his opponents will tap into this discontent, and fan the flames. And when he starts to do things that people did not expect, because no one really pressed him for details in the midst of all the cult of personality worship, people will realize they signed a blank check when they voted for him, and will be even more upset. What, precisely, has he been non-specific about? At least on health insurance I know exactly what he intends to do. He's going to extend the same insurance plan that I have, that John McCain has, that Barack Obama has, that Hillary Clinton has, to everyone else who wants it. It's working pretty well for the 4 of us. And it apparently hasn't bankrupted any insurance companies. And hospitals and doctors seem pretty happy to see me walk in the door with my insurance. I get a bit frustrated when I hear someone say that any of the last three candidates "don't have any plans." Go to their web sites and read. They have plenty of plans. They have plans for problems you didn't know you had. I could declare that I have plans too: I could say I'm going to cure cancer, spread world peace, make everyone above average, etc. Everyone would cheer for these noble goals. The devil is in the details of making it happen, such as: how much will your taxes will go up to pay for it; how much will your cost of living for gas, food, utilities go up; how much will your business be regulated; how much will your daily life change? Most people wouldn't sign a document like mortgage papers, a house purchase, or a divorce agreement without knowing what he or she is signing and what it puts you on the hook for, or protects you from. Why shouldn't we insist on more disclosure from these candidates? That's what is frustrating me. And to say everyone should "check the web site" is somewhat elitist--it's not as if all the voters are internet savvy. A lot of retirees, low income, or people just not interested in computers do not use the internet. Something that affects the whole country needs to be brought out in the common media, to give all the voters a chance to hear the information.
|
|
|
Post by jdd on Jun 4, 2008 16:04:29 GMT -5
Most people wouldn't sign a document like mortgage papers, a house purchase, ...without knowing what he or she is signing and what it puts you on the hook for...
I disagree, I think this is a good part of why there are now so many repossessions happening--people signed without knowing.
(sorry for the tangent, back to Obama as the nominee)
|
|
|
Post by sekhmet on Jun 4, 2008 16:08:45 GMT -5
If it's elitist to expect someone to read if they want details we're in trouble. The ordinary news media has reported Obama's speeches, his policies, as much as they can - remember that few people will sit through a long news report any more than they want him to get out flow charts and budget papers in a stump speech. If the news media isn't covering Obama's policies to your satisfaction you can't blame that on the man.
I think this whole elitist thing is silly. I don't think that the people of the US want another president who can't pick out Europe on a map.
|
|
|
Post by RickW on Jun 4, 2008 16:11:38 GMT -5
I agree with Ann - like I said, he's not going to have a lot of options. Health care may be cheaper in the long wrong if it's universal - but it requires a lot of $$$ to set up. Not to mention the massive battles with all the entrenched parties. Just that alone could suck Mr. O dry over the next four years. And Iraq - no matter what he does, I don't think he can win. He'll either walk away, and it'll descend into a debacle, or he'll stay, and look like he's fudging, or doing nothing.
But, he may come with the excitment factor, enough to make some things happen.
|
|
|
Post by sekhmet on Jun 4, 2008 16:31:10 GMT -5
It's the elitist thing that bugs me.
First you criticize the man for not having any policies and when you find out that he has definite and published policies for all to see then it's asking too much for people to be expected to read.
People who don't want to read his policies on his web site won't read them in a newspaper or listen to a lengthy detailed interview in the media. You can't call him elitist because people can't absorb his policy by osmosis.
|
|
|
Post by Ann T on Jun 4, 2008 16:41:00 GMT -5
Listen, I spend plenty of hours on the internet, and read op-ed columns and political analyses every day because I like to. And I have a busy schedule.
But I know a lot of people who don't use the internet at all, and depend on TV for their news. A lot of what gets on TV is the rah-rah fluff, the cheering and handshaking, and not the meat of it. At the risk of sounding elitist, how many of the voters in the hills of West Virginia do you think are researching political policies on the internet? But still, they are voters, and I think due diligence needs to be made to inform them. To hide it in a policy page on the internet isn't cutting it. In medicine, we call this stuff "informed consent." You are supposed to go over risks and benefits with patients when you do procedures, and answer their questions, not tell them to read a long brochure--which they may not do, or may not understand.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Jun 4, 2008 16:51:47 GMT -5
I suspect "informed consent" is like reading someone their Miranda rights. It's a legal and/or insurance company requirement.
Poiticians aren't required to say anything that is actually true.
And Sek, we ain't niminated anybody yet. (Hillary hasn't said a thing about what she's going to do).
It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, won't it ?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2008 16:56:27 GMT -5
I'm not sure having a whole bunch of specific plans for how things will or should be done is necessarily a good thing anyway. Yes, all the candidates have them thoroughly spelled out on thier sites. But, how much of any of that is it likely will get done as it is written? By the time Congress and the Senate get through with it, even Dem to Dem, it will be all screwed up and have another bridge to nowhere attached to it.
I think Obama's best characteristic is his ability to fire people up. In my opinion, we Americans could use some firing up!
Our Congress has proven to be a practical waste of time, regardless of which party is controlling it. In the final analysis (IMO) it's only the people, the voting public, that can scare the Congress into doing something decent. And Obama is the sort of person who could generate and lead that sort of pressure.
I see it as entirely possible that under Obama's leadership, we could see some real positive results come out of Washington. And wouldn't that be a real trip?!?
|
|
|
Post by sekhmet on Jun 4, 2008 17:00:55 GMT -5
I think I have handle on "informed consent".
People who don't have the internet could read his book, The Audacity of Hope.
Ann, your beef is with the news media?
|
|
|
Post by Ann T on Jun 4, 2008 17:09:45 GMT -5
I suspect "informed consent" is like reading someone their Miranda rights. It's a legal and/or insurance company requirement. Yes, a lot of it is required by lawyers/insurance policies, but it is also covered under medical ethics--ethically, you don't do stuff to people without their informed consent, unless you have a court order and even that gets really dicey. And I think that ethics should extend into what politicians tell the voters. But I'm not naive enough to think that we'll ever be able to count on it. I sincerely hope that whomever gets elected does right by the country. We're really hurting right now, in many ways.
|
|
|
Post by Ann T on Jun 4, 2008 17:12:58 GMT -5
I think I have handle on "informed consent". People who don't have the internet could read his book, The Audacity of Hope. Ann, your beef is with the news media? Well, there's plenty of blame to go around: politicians who are cagey, news outlets that looks for splash over substance, voters who don't care. We're not going to fix it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2008 17:17:56 GMT -5
Listen, I spend plenty of hours on the internet, and read op-ed columns and political analyses every day because I like to. And I have a busy schedule. But I know a lot of people who don't use the internet at all, and depend on TV for their news. A lot of what gets on TV is the rah-rah fluff, the cheering and handshaking, and not the meat of it. At the risk of sounding elitist, how many of the voters in the hills of West Virginia do you think are researching political policies on the internet? But still, they are voters, and I think due diligence needs to be made to inform them. To hide it in a policy page on the internet isn't cutting it. In medicine, we call this stuff "informed consent." You are supposed to go over risks and benefits with patients when you do procedures, and answer their questions, not tell them to read a long brochure--which they may not do, or may not understand. blahblahblah...what are you talking about? he has the information online for those interested enough, and he does not control what TV will show, unless he starts his own channel. Also, who does this when campaigning? You dont see a candidate walking into a hall of 20,000 people bringing out the bar charts and peppering their talk with order statistics of income as a Poisson-distributed random variable. This just sounds like a desperate attempt to find fault. He surely has faults, but I do not think that can even begin to count as one of them. So, if you are annoyed that the man's image is possibly bigger than him, I am with you. But I do not classify this as a point against him. Its like not liking a song because its at the top of the charts -- well, is it a good tune? Thats what matters. And, with all due respect, those who cannot find the information online (or have someone find it for them) will not understand this information when they eventually do find it.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 4, 2008 17:28:56 GMT -5
I wonder how many voters decide how to vote based on detailed analyses of the respective candidates' positions. I don't. I've read Obama's book and I mostly (though not entirely) agreed with his positions. But I didn't need to read his book to know that, in general, his outlook on government and public affairs is a whole lot closer to mine than is John McCain's. Conversely, a lot voters will correctly conclude that they're closer to McCain without parsing the fine points. I don't see a problem in that.
I agree, though, that Obama can't accurately be faulted for not getting specific. The specifics are there for whoever wants them.
|
|