OK, I realize this may sound far-fetched, but let me piece together my reasoning for believing that Obama is backed by a vast conspiracy of powerful interests. I believe the DNC is being manipulated, because otherwise what they've done in ousting Hillary Clinton makes no sense whatsoever.
Why was the DNC in such a rush to stop Hillary's campaign? Why would it have been so horrible for her to go to the convention and let the superdelegates decide? The race was pretty much tied (Obama with a slight lead in pledged delegates, Clinton with a slight lead in popular vote). It makes no sense that she would be forced out so unilaterally.
Now, I've heard that the reason the DNC superdelegates are supporting Obama is that they believe it's more important to appease the new voters Obama brought in, even if that means risking the November election. But this makes no sense. Why piss off Hillary's supporters and risking losing an election if you don't need to?
Anyone doing any market research could easily go online and read the sentiments from Obama's supporters. By and large they lean farther to the left than Hillary's supporters. Obama's supporters are completely closed to the idea of voting for a moderate Republican. Thus, even if they had to hold their noses, Obama supporters would have voted for Hillary in November if Obama was not on the ticket.
Therefore, the smart thing to do would have been to put Hillary on the top of the ticket, with Obama as the VP. Hillary had already stated publicly she would do this.
A Clinton/Obama ticket would appease Obama supporters, who would, given a rallying speech by Obama on this point, back up the ticket enthusiastically. It would also have made Hillary's supporters happy. It would have garnered votes from the Reagan Democrats. Democrats who were concerned over Obama's experience would have felt fine with him as VP.
Polls and date repeatedly showed that Clinton was a lock for November. In the primaries, she won all the large states and swing states.
Thus, a Clinton/Obama ticket would have been a guaranteed landslide victory for the Democrats in November.
It would also have given Obama the opportunity to serve as VP for eight years and then as president for another eight years.
Why did the DNC fight so hard to bring Hillary down and shut off her options? A Clinton/Obama ticket was the sensible solution. That this was not brokered truly makes no sense whatsoever. And it shows me that there's something fishy going on here. Is the DNC simply filled with morons? Or is something else going on here?
So I am piecing together the following:
1. The DNC's concerted push to oust Clinton with complete disregard for 1) the old guard Democrats and base of the party and 2) the statistics showing Clinton to be the clear winner over McCain.
2. A media that has relentlessly complied with the ousting of Clinton, to the point of putting out false reports of her concession when her own website denied this.
3. A constant, repeated meme presented of Obama as another "JFK" before he has actually accomplished anything.
4. Obama's volatile supporters, who consist of three constituencies ripe for manipulation and easily mobilized: young people, the far left, and angry African Americans (note, I'm not saying all African-Americans).
5. A Republican candidate, McCain, who is universally despised by the far right and who is causing dissent among Republicans.
6. Obama's overwhelming support by large corporations and Wall Street financiers, topping even McCain in corporate donations.
7. Obama's shady Chicago-politics past, and his continued arrogance and confidence despite all the skeletons in his closet.
8. The fact that any inexperienced black man would rise to such prominence and power in this country so quickly...if blacks are truly suffering from discrimination in this country, it stands to reason that such a quick rise in power for a black man is suspicious.
9. The media's lack of in-depth scrutiny over Obama's past and his poor associations.
10. The utter willingness of the DNC to lose in November in support of Obama.
When I look at all of this and a bigger picture, here's what I see:
I think powerful people have decided to put Obama in power. I believe Obama is so arrogant and cocky because perhaps they are planning to rig the November election in Obama's favor.
Who are these powerful people? I believe they are the same people who put Bush and Cheney into power, i.e., the "NeoCons."
Let's be clear: The NeoCons don't like McCain. They can't control him. He does not do what they want him to do.
And in order to confuse the country, what better way to maintain control and power than to back a candidate on the opposite end of the political spectrum? In other words, dupe the very people (the far left) who have been fighting you for the past eight years.
I might not have actually bought this conspiracy hokum if I had not actually watched in disbelief as the press distorted facts on the last day of the primaries. Clinton was portrayed as conceding when she wasn't, and Obama was declared a winner way before the polls had closed based on his word that delegates had privately committed to him.
That scared the crap out of me! I knew something big was going down then.
But here's the kicker: If the NeoCons are indeed trying to put Obama in power, I don't think they mean to keep him there. I wouldn't be surprised if they plan on assassinating him at some point.
Think about it. Obama is backed by the group of people in this country most likely to riot: young people, the far left (white people who rioted at the WTO talks in Seattle), and a certain segment of the black population that rioted back in 1992. Obama has set himself up as a messiah. If he falls, his hard-core constituents, who are more like cult followers, will go berserk.
If Obama is assassinated, either before or after the election, complete chaos will ensue. In the midst of rising gas prices and an economic meltdown, the government may well institute martial law.
If an assassination occurs before the election, Bush has now every right to suspend the constitution and even stop the elections so he can remain in power.
It's possible, however, that they just plan to keep Obama in there as a puppet, and will keep him alive as long as he plays the game and they can pull the strings.
Now, I hope I'm wrong about this, but that's my bad feeling on the whole thing. But you have to admit, something really fishy is going on here.
We shall see.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
I don't think it's the neocons. I refuse to excuse the democracts, after seeing what they did with my own eyes. I think they used our righteous indignation at the Bush presidency to put together quite a propaganda and money machine and this is the first test run. They need a populist straw man to put up front so they can keep claiming to be the voice of the underdog. It's their shtik.
Are you fucking stupid? Because Obama won many states legitimately. The DNC wanted to push for the primaries to end sooner because of the fact that the Republicans already had their presumptive nominee who would be bashing both top candidates until one ended up the victor. The people legitimately voted for Obama and brought him the lead after Super Tuesday. Positive press allowed him to keep that lead among the people.
Obama/Hillary would still be a popular ticket, to be sure. But she's just not the right fit for his VP in my opinion. Their ideals are too dissimilar, although rooted in the same core ideal, and they'd butt heads in the process of the presidency.
While assassination has been threatened several times against Senator Obama, there is by no means reason to believe that any of this is legitimate, nor that the Secret Service would allow it. Even if this is a conspiracy theory it's the absolute worst thing you could do to believe that an assassination would happen. This is nothing more than a type of terrorism, Hillary-Supporter. Shame on you.
Obama won because he won more votes, more pledge delegates, more states. That's all. Simple. No conspiracy. Case closed.
did that idiot really just call you a terrorist? give me a break!
the thing that really gets me about obama supporters is that they actually seem to think they can bully people like me into voting for him. well, you can't.
if hillary isn't on my ballot come november, i'm voting for mccain!
thanks for the interesting read. :)
Voting for McCain? Are you serious or crazy? Anyone who claims themselves to be Hillary supporters who votes for McCain are SLAPPING HER IN THE FACE. McCain's policies are the opposite of what Hillary beleives in. By saying you will vote for mccain, you obviously do not care about any of the things she herself cares about. Grow up.
As soon as I read "He(Obama) has a slight lead in delegate, and she(Clinton) has a slight lead in popular votes"-I stopped instantly. Anyone who is STILL lying to themselves-and others- with the "Hillary won the popular vote" LIE doesn't deserve to to have me reading the rest of the article.
sigh
Here we go again:
1-4 Caucus states DID NOT report their vote totals. Perfctly legal and within the bounds of DNC rules. Delegates decide the winner, not popular vote anyway, so this metric(ie popular vote) is fatally flawed from the beginnig.
2-This 'magic number' was achieved also by not including Guam and the Virgin Islands, but does include Peurto Rico.Why? Because Puerto Rico went for Hillary, the other 2 did not.
3-Again, the LIE about Hillary having the popular vote hinges on Michigan. I don't even feel like discussing this anymore, but if you insist on being a moron, I guess I have to. Michigan DID NOT COUNT. Hillary said this right before the primary. They(Mich.) broke the DNC rules, were punished, and everyone agreed that Michigan wouldn't be counted amongst the final tallies.
Until,
Suddenly Clinton is on a nose dive after losing 11(12?42?) primaries and caucuses, and she decided that this would be her 'cause celebre' for moving forward. So she claims that, by counting Michigan's(abysmally low voter turnout, in relation to the turnout percentages of surounding states) totals of those who voted for her, and giving JACK SHMIGGITY to Obama, she found(somehow) a working metric that, through obfuscating, bending reality, and, yes, lying, comes out in her favor. But that really doesn't matter anymore, does it?
Unite and CONQUER!!!!!!
I really called it a terroristic expression to insist that the idea of an assassination is likely to occur on Obama. Terrorism isn't just blowing shit up. It's an insistence of fear, and assassination is a fear tactic, and the very idea of it occurring is a bad one.
It's not idiocy, it's just an understanding of the concept.
I'm not going to bully you into voting for Obama, nor am I going to really try much further than this post.
I believe that Obama's the superior candidate to Hillary Clinton. I'm sorry. If Hillary would have won, I would have been willing to vote for her over McCain. I just cannot see eye to eye with a man that claims a conservative fiscal policy, but raises costs and lowers taxes. He wants to increase military spending, he wants to push for a war in Iran, and he wants to cut the benefits of our soldiers.
I'm not saying not to vote for McCain in your bitterness. I'm just saying that I'd much prefer a nation of citizens that would take the time and weight the consequences of either choice, and then decide who they'll vote for.
If you actually prefer a candidate who's policies are going to be far different than your preferred candidate, that's your perogative.
ladiesfirst, I might agree with you that it was just the DNC pulling the strings on this, except the media (specifically, the AP) was clearly working overtime to try to announce Clinton's loss the last day of the primaries BEFORE the voting had ended.
As for the rest of you: Caucus states are yet another reason why the primaries were rigged for Obama. Clinton supporters around the Internet have continually reported how they were bullied or kept out of caucus voting.
And it's not an "act of terrorism" to speculate that a charismatic public figure may be in line for assassination. It is, after all, the very people behind Obama who are setting him up for this with their constant comparisons to him and JFK and MLK.
I think it's perfectly legitimate to speculate that if certain interests want to wreak havoc in America and come up with an excuse to take away our liberties, putting Obama up on a pedestal and then knocking him off it is one surefire way to do it.
Well by that mantra, Ron Paul should be the presumptive Republican nominee. The media constantly sought to discredit him, his supporters were scoffed, and they were bullied at caucuses.
Dennis Kucinich supporters, scoffed, bullied, and mocked.
Caucus situations are not rigged, sir. They're simply situations that require a willingness to stand in one area with like-minded people for a long period of time. Part of the strategy involved is to get people beleaguered by the simple act of standing. Legally nothing can be done upon you, you just have to have the will to stand there.
It's not rigging to try to insult someone and then urge them away from the mob. That's just how caucuses work. Tests of endurance. This isn't imposed by the DNC, it's imposed by those in the caucus. Survival of the fittest.
Now as for the "act of terrorism," I will stand by my insistence that it's terroristic in nature. The mere idea that the presumptive Democratic Nominee would be assassinated is one that is intended to instill fear, to provide an awful horrible idea, regardless if it could happen or not. It's fear. That's all terrorism is. Fear to push an agenda.
barack obama is a narcissistic, race-baiting sexist. there is NO way i will ever vote for him.
with his religious fanaticism (and don't give me "oh, it's just a black thing" crap) and messiah complex, HE's the one running for dubya's third term.
sorry, kid, you can't change my mind...
NO MEANS NO! NObama! NEVER!
Ad hominem much?
Obama's not narcissitic, he's admitted faults on more than one occasion on this campaign trail. Race baiting? Being black wasn't his choice, and the fact that a good majority of black voters have supported him so far this year has not been his choice, nor should any politician deny votes of any sort. Sexist? For continuing a campaign against a woman and speaking out against her policies? Obama has spoken good and bad of Hillary Clinton, but not once has anything he's said bad been "She's a woman, and she'll lead us into the ground on her period."
The religious fanaticism was his pastor, not him. Obama has repudiated those remarks, nor has he particularly agreed with all sermons that have taken place over the 20 years of his attendance of Trinity. It's not just a black thing, as reverends like John Hagee have made similar remarks. But I still find it absolutely reprehensible that Obama had to leave the church community he was a part of for 20 years, just because Fox news disagreed with two 5 second sound bites that entirely detracted the real meaning behind those sermons. While Jeremiah Wright may not believe it, Barrack Obama knows that AIDS was not invented by the US Government, nor is it something we're using as a tool to "keep the black man down." You don't choose a church because of the man at the pulpit. You choose it because you like the community that's there, anyone can read the Bible on their own and get an understanding of how they should be morally. Obama has no messiah complex, nor has he ever claimed to be anything near that kind of perfection.
Obama's not running on Bush's 3rd term. His policies would defer a great deal from Dubya's. From a real push for a more transparent Washington, to a movement to remove lobbying corruption from our Congress, he'd take steps for Universal Healthcare, and he'd try to get us to a point where we could get out of Iraq and to stay as much out of the Middle East as militarily possible.
Obama would be a diplomat, while Bush has been a shoot first, find answers later, kinda guy. What's McCain? Cut taxes without properly lowering spending. Let's support our troops by giving them great risk, rather than a proper chance at education when they return home. Let's not try to reason and negotiate with foreign bodies, let's not try to coexist in this world, let's not recognize the growing healthcare, climate, and economic crisis's with legitimate plans to fix them.
A vote for McCain is a bitchslap to everything that Hillary ever stood for, and if you truly believe that voting for him is the more intelligent thing for you to do as a supporter, you're a goddamned moron. A president is defined by the policies he will enact and the way that he interacts with the people. John McCain is less than eloquent, and has never voted against Bush policies any more than 25% of the time, and really that year was a fluke, it's been no more than 13% any of the other years.
Obama will be the closest fit to Hillary's policies and Hillary's values in the battle between John McCain and Barrack Obama. I only hope you see that come November.
Jinno, this is a pro-Hillary/anti-Obama blog. If you want to keep posting comments here then you need to quit calling people a moron who disagree with you.
I've given you a platform, to which you have called me a terrorist, and Hillary supporters stupid, among other hateful things. And yet you are trying to convince us to come over to your side?
If you cannot be respectful from this point forward, I'll nuke your comments.
Free speech does not mean I have to take your abuse on my own blog. Go start your own blog and post stuff there if you need to.
Thank you.
I would never vote for Obama, even if Hillary is on the ticket, even if she has endorsed him and says she will campaign for him. The idea of her saying this makes me want to throw up. Somehow, the Clinton supporters are supposed to fall in line like good little children and vote Democratic because we are told to. We are told that if we do not vote for Obama, President McCain will continue the war and will appoint right-wing Justices to the Supreme Court who might overturn Roe VS Wade. This can only happened with the complicity of the Democratic Congress. See www.NOQUARTERUSA.net and www.Stop-Obama.org for a closer look at the loser the Democrats have selected.
"Clinton supporters around the Internet have continually reported how they were bullied or kept out of caucus voting."
Sources, please. By that I mean newspaper articles, no links to a comment someone left anonymously at Noquarter or similar website.
Let me guess, you don't have corroborating evidence because the MSM is in the tank with Obama.
I read that argument before by Clinton's supporters but always without a shred of credible evidence.
Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun
It’s an amazing time to be alive in America . We’re in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won’t truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won’t arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He’s not. He’s the next George McGovern. And it’s time people learned the facts.
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America . But let’s look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial ‘beauty.’
Start with national security, since the president’s most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago.. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on ‘the rich.’ How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, ‘All praise and glory to God!’ but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have ‘hijacked’ - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois , he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood , and San Francis co values, not Middle America values.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don’t start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of ‘bringing America together’ means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they’re talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama’s radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.
It’s time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let’s first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
Subject: Kind of scary, wouldn’t you think Remember–God is good, and is in time, on time  every time
According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is:
The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal….the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??
I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media outlet…do it! If you think I am crazy,. I’m sorry but I refuse to take a chance on the ‘unknown’ candidate.
"Sources, please. By that I mean newspaper articles, no links to a comment someone left anonymously at Noquarter or similar website."
Oh, so I guess in OBAMALAND, if the mainstream media doesn't report something, that must mean it does not exist!
A full report on the caucuses is here, and this is not an anti-Obama website:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/27/92144/7994
To all Obama supporters, the author of this blog is right.. if you don't agree with them don't post comments here. Don't even this blog because you are promoting its idiocy and fanatical blindness. When a dog is intent on eating its faeces, the master's cane is of no use.
To the Clintonmaniacs (who are a little subset of Clinton supporters) supporters, good luck with your resolve to stay at home/ vote for McCain. If you think that because you didn't get the candidate of your choice (in an electoral system that has remained unchallenged since 1967)you can hold the nation at ransom, think again...
There's more to U.S than blind feminism, veiled racism and fear mongering.
To all Obama supporters, the author of this blog is right.. if you don't agree with them don't post comments here. Don't even visit this blog because you are promoting its idiocy and fanatical blindness. When a dog is intent on eating its faeces, the master's cane is of no use.
To the Clintonmaniacs (who are a little subset of Clinton supporters) supporters, good luck with your resolve to stay at home/ vote for McCain. If you think that because you didn't get the candidate of your choice (in an electoral system that has remained unchallenged since 1967)you can hold the nation at ransom, think again...
There's more to U.S than blind feminism, veiled racism and fear mongering.
"Oh, so I guess in OBAMALAND, if the mainstream media doesn't report something, that must mean it does not exist!"
No, it does not mean that.
TalkLeft is down or I can't access it right now.
Don't worry, I'll read it. I am not afraid of reading things who go against my beliefs. On the contrary, I like it.
It sharpen my intellect.
"A vote for McCain is a bitchslap to everything ..."
nice use of sexist language, jinno.
guess what?
i'm still voting for mccain!
To interpret words and phrases as offensive, is to propel offense where it is not actually occurring.
As bitchslap is defined on urban dictionary "To slap someone (particularly but not necessarily female) who is being rude or nasty, perhaps screaming a lot (i.e., being a bitch). The idea is to get them to calm down and behave. It doesn't necessarily mean you really hit the person; there is such a thing as a verbal bitchslap."
I wasn't using it as a sexist remark, you, as someone looking for an excuse to find fault in the things I say, took something out of context. In this case, being that by voting for McCain who is against repealing the Patriot Act, against pulling out of Iraq, against Universal Healthcare, and against many other policies that Hillary supports, you are the one who is not supporting the things she stands for, merely standing for her.
The only way to avoid discrimination is to not worry about what someone is, but instead what they stand for. A vote for McCain merely insures that you never supported Hillary as anything more than a female. You are the sexist.
Not me.
let me help you understand what sexist language looks like, jinno:
"perhaps screaming a lot (i.e., being a bitch)" is the sexist equivalent of the racist, "perhaps stealing a lot (i.e., being a nigger)."
get it? b*tch and n*gger are both hate speech.
it's just this sort of ignorance, insensitivity, disrespect and denial that's going to cost you folks dearly in november.
you've got a problem with women (and enlightened men), jinno, and so does barack obama.
and guess what?
i'm still voting for mccain!
lunatic, please give us some solid examples (by this I mean not something that was said and can be interpreted several different ways) of how Obama has a problem with women and enlightened men.
Any legislation that he has proposed, policies he has put forward, concrete examples of misogynistic things he has done during the campaign, that kind of thing. Because I haven't heard or seen anything to show that he has a problem with women or enlightened men so I'm always curious as to what leads anti-Obama people to put this forth as a reason not to vote for him. And please do not site the "present" votes as these were a voting tactic used in the Illinois Senate, and one that he used while working with Planned Parenthood in Ill. This tactic was also originally endorsed by the Chicago chapter of NOW.
Thanks.
I often work on my intuition, facts, and just a plain old gut-feeling and something feels wrong. I am African-American and I would love nothing more than to see an African-American come to the presidency just as I would have liked to see a woman do the same. Ladies and Gentlemen, please excuse me, but this just doesn't feel right. I don't know if it's because now I won't have anything to complain about. I don't know if it's because I'm worried about his safety. I don't know if it's because he's inexperienced, but it just doesn't feel right. I have no empirical data to back up these feelings at all, but some others will understand. I have a really bad feeling about all this.
Point 1: Hillary Clinton LOST! Get over it already. She gained the least amount of delegates, she won the least amount of contests, she had the least amount of support. No one stole the nomination from her, she just lost fair and square.
Now on to my next point........
Do you people know ANYTHING about politics, or were you just "voting for the woman"? I ask only because it seems as if the Clinton supporters that now say they will be voting for McCain haven't an idea about the platform of either candidate. I say this because if you had indeed done the research, you would know that the policies and platforms of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are not that different in comparison. However, John McCain's policies compared to that of Hillary Clinton are like night and day.
Enough said, on to my next point....
In the original post it was mentioned that all of the calls for Hillary to end her quest for the nomination was just a ploy by the DNC to oust her and catapult Obama as the frontrunner. Doubt it sweetie. So many people were calling for the end of her campaign because it was a complete and utter DISASTER! There was no conspiracy, no hidden agenda, or any of the things that have been mentioned.She spent too much time talking about why we SHOULDN'T elect Barack Obama and not enough time talking about why we SHOULD elect her. Her campaign thought they could win solely by attacking Barack Obama, and it backfired. People are just sick of that shit, and want a change of scenery from "politics as usual".
So, the moral of the story is this. For all of you Demopublicans that want to run to the other side of the fence because your candidate didn't win, remember this old saying before you do: "The grass ain't always greener on the other side". Remember we made the same mistake when we voted Bush in for a second time. Remember the travesty that became that second term, but most of all remember why you were voting for Hillary in the first place. I hope that it was not that she was a woman, but that her policies and stances were that of progression and not recession; that of providing universal healthcare; that of bringing our troops home and ending this senseless war. There is only 1 candidate that shares her same beliefs and that is Barack Obama. Her policies and beliefes are NOTHING like John McCain's so why on earth would people that were supporting her vision now support someone who hate's that vision.
Think about it people. You're tyrades aren't making any sense. You're engaging in the same sort of rhetoric that lost her the nomination. This is really not helping and it's soooooooo 2004.
Peace,
Admin Amy
"You're tyrades aren't making any sense."
And you think YOUR tirade is going to change my mind? When you are insulting and factually incorrect to boot (i.e., saying that Clinton had the least amount of support, e.g.)
On the surface, Clinton and Obama may share the same "beliefs" but I doubt Clinton's beliefs extend to the kind of totalitarian, winner-take-all mentality of Obama and his ilk.
Obama does not stand for issues of principle. He stands for getting himself elected at any cost.
Your rigid arguments do not sway me, they just remind me why that man needs to be stopped.
I wasn't trying to sway you sweetie, just trying to make you think.
You were obviously offended that I questioned your rationale in supporting John McCain, but I think to anyone politically involved, that was a logical question.
I am simply questioning the fact that just a few months ago you were supporting one of the greatest political minds that this generation has seen(Hillary), but now you support someone that is the TOTAL opposite? Just because she lost? REALLY?Have you studied her policies and platforms AT ALL compared with McCain? OR were you just supporting her because she was the first viable female candidate this country has seen? Do you now support McCain just for the sake of defeating Obama or do you really believe what he believes? Because if you really believe in his policies there is NO WAY you could've been a TRUE Hillary Clinton supporter.
The most important point is this, if you are a democrat and you do not agree with the democratic presidential nominee, just don't vote. Because voting for a potentially dangerous candidate just to keep the other potentially dangerous (or the one you don't like) candidate out of the way is POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS!
In closing, I want to raise one last question. If all of you people that were Hillary Clinton supporters who now support John McCain get your wish in November and he is elected, and in another 4years this country is in complete disarray and the economy is worse, and gas is sky high, and our death toll in Iraq is 10,000 U.S Soldiers, THEN WHAT? Whose fault will it be then? Will you still feel as if you've made the right decision? And I am asking genuinely, because I really want to know your thoughts. These are mine: I think if John McCain wins in November and in 4 years nothing changes, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and all of the other people that genuinely want change in Washington will be devastated. I think all of the true democrats and people that love this country will be devastated. And seriously, THEN WHAT?
Just my thoughts.
Admin Amy
P.S. Hillary or Bust, I never insulted Hillary in my post. I spoke the truth. The truth was she lost because she gained the least delegates, and that is what I said. So please don't make me out to be this anti-Hillary bashing fanatic, because unlike most people I think she actually gets it and she is a valuable resource for the democratic party. I just think her campaign and its tactics were a complete disaster. Get it right.
"If all of you people that were Hillary Clinton supporters who now support John McCain get your wish in November and he is elected, and in another 4years this country is in complete disarray..."
I think 4 years under Obama will be much worse than 4 years under McCain. Obama, in a short time, has managed to split and destroy the Democratic party and take it over for his own gain. Based on that alone, I'd say that 4 years with him as president would be a total disaster. He would use that time to consolidate his power/influence rather than fixing things.
Even if Obama was sincere (which I do not believe he is), I do not believe he has the wherewithal to turn this country around. Hillary, I believe, did. But not Obama. So I think we're just as screwed with Obama than McCain, and most likely a heck of a lot worse.
PS Using terms like "sweetie" isn't helping your argument.
"PS Using terms like "sweetie" isn't helping your argument."
OOOOOOkay? Girlfriend! Bet you were rolling your neck on that one huh?
You are so pissed off that your candidate didn't win that you are virtually incapable of seeing the intelligence of anyone's posts but your own and people that agree with you. That's so sad.
Anyhoo, I really was genuinely wanting to know your opinion on what happens in four years if things don't work out. Glad you could answer that.
Good luck with that anger thing!
Admin Amy
P.S Children argue, Adults debate. (Thus the use of the term "sweetie".)
~Signing off
AA, I have a hunch that you're a lot more pissed off than I am...I'm resolved, not angry.
"P.S Children argue, Adults debate. (Thus the use of the term "sweetie".)"
You got that one right, though not in the manner you intended.
"AA, I have a hunch that you're a lot more pissed off than I am..."
REALLY? Why would I be pissed? My candidate won the most delegates, and my blog features intelligent debating, not temper tantrums. I'm elated.
As I said before, I really just wanted the intelligent opinion of a fellow blogger on why some democrats are now demopublicans since Hillary lost. Not the "sister-girl" back and forth rhetoric.
But I enjoyed it! Happy Blogging.
Amarest Lewis-Spivey
(a.k.a Admin Amy)
Resolved, not angry...Is that what they're calling it now?
~Signing off (I'm serious this time, I'm sure you'll have the last word.)
"REALLY? Why would I be pissed? My candidate won the most delegates, and my blog features intelligent debating, not temper tantrums. I'm elated."
Really? Then, why do you need to come on my blog and have a hissy fit here? What do you care? If your guy is the winner and people like me aren't an issue, then go off and be happy in Obamaland.
Enjoy your trip!
"Really? Then, why do you need to come on my blog and have a hissy fit here? What do you care?"
Here's what I care:
This year I broke my students into 2 groups for a debate at the beginning of the semester. It helps me gauge the tone of the class, before we get into debating techniques. This year the topic was of course the 2008 election. One group was for Republican Hopefuls and the other Democratic Hopefuls. I wanted them to study blogs to see what bloggers were saying, formulate their own opinions, then gather 5 CREDIBLE sources to support their positions, and then debate.
As I was listening to each side state their opinions it sounded like everything I had heard on tv. It seemed like no one had an original opinion.
So since studying public blogs was apart of the assignment, and based on the outcome, I wanted to see how others outside of the educational and political arena debate. Now I see, and next semester when I give my new students the assignment at the beginning of the semester, my expectations won't be so high.
But because I have to teach the art of debating to students that don't know how to debate properly, I care. No matter what your stance is there's an intelligent way get it across.
They're goes your answer.
Off to Obamaland!
"But because I have to teach the art of debating to students that don't know how to debate properly, I care. No matter what your stance is there's an intelligent way get it across."
Well, that's really scary that you are putting yourself up as someone who can teach "debate" because you absolutely failed here.
Go re-read your first comment here. You started off immediately by being condescending and attacking. You immediately start off on the offensive by writing: "Hillary Clinton LOST! Get over it already." You resorted to the derogatory "sweetie" in your first comment as well.
What kind of intelligent debate is that? You don't have any solid answers to any of the complaints against Obama. You don't bring anything intelligent to the table. You've just been spewing anger and belligerence at Hillary supporters from day one here.
You don't even have the facts backing you up. The facts aren't that Clinton ran a "shit" campaign. That's your opinion, and it doesn't really hold up to the light of reason. If she ran such a "shit" campaign, why did she keep beating him by large numbers in most of the states at the end of the primary?
So now you're trying to backtrack and suggest that you somehow hold the monopoly on "how to debate intelligently." Sorry, I don't see it here. You haven't written anything here that in any way smartly or honestly answers the points I brought in my original article above.
No real debate would include one side calling the other side "sweetie" or saying "get over it already." That's not debate. That's called flinging petty insults. All you've put forth here is based on your own emotionalism, not facts or reason.
I can't say I'm surprised - it's the state of education in our country today that leads to people like Obama being put into power.
Post a Comment