fayfreethinkers.com

I came back to the site to see what you all have to say about the Democratic Nominee Barack Obama and find it curiously absent of any reference at all. Is this something we don't talk about at the forum?

I also find almost nothing about Republican Nominee John McCain. He's gotten a free pass from the media throughout this long hard seemingly endless Bataan March to the end of the Democratic Primary, and I feel confident that all of his warts will soon be exposed. Maybe then (but likely not) McCain supporters will stop saying how wonderful he is.

Did any of you watch the speeches last night by all three candidates? Did you think, as I did, that McCain looked and acted like a speech-bot (speak now. smile now. speak now. smile now.) Did you think Hillary was ungracious? Did you notice that McCain had what looked like about 100 people in his audience, compared to thousands for Hillary and tens of thousands for Obama? I thought that was interesting.

I was wondering if one of you who researches information so thoroughly could do a side-by-side comparison of McCain's and Obama's flaws and achievements, positions, etc.

I'm also wondering if those here who supported Hillary will now get behind Obama, or will you either vote for McCain or not vote at all?

So, the purpose of this thread is to open discussion on our Democratic nominee and where we go from here. I look forward to your responses.

Betsy wrote:I came back to the site to see what you all have to say about the Democratic Nominee Barack Obama and find it curiously absent of any reference at all. Is this something we don't talk about at the forum?

Doug and Darrel, shall we say, lean way toward Hillary. They're driving most of the discussion here because -- until extremely recently -- I've been too busy to do any real participation.

Betsy wrote:I'm also wondering if those here who supported Hillary will now get behind Obama, or will you either vote for McCain or not vote at all?

I think that people in their right mind know that we have to get the Rethuglicans out of office regardless of who the Democratic nominee is. They've screwed things up so terribly, a Hitler reincarnation probably wouldn't be a step in the wrong direction. Perhaps this wouldn't be true if the McCain showed any promise of changing anything, but he's calling for more of the same.
The question is one of how many people are actually in their right minds. And because of the righty disinformation and slander attack, their push to eliminate education and requirement of critical thinking, and their constant fearmongering and warmongering, I think the "in their right minds" crowd is probably outnumbered.

I understand but I'm still surprised there's been no discussion of Obama at all - or even the primary. Maybe everybody's sick of it.

I should have also asked what everyone thought about Hillary as a VP - I'm hoping she'll have a prominent position and I'm sure she will; I just don't think VP is the right place for her.

I also wanted to point out the wonderful historic nature of both candidates - both of them have shattered prior limitations on race and gender, and to have Obama as a nominee says a lot about how our country has progressed in just the last 50 years.

I personally think any Democratic candidate would win by a landslide in November. There are still a lot of Republicans who just "fall in line" behind the Republican candidate, regardless of anything, but these are very dramatic times in our country that I think most people will want a dramatic change.

Betsy wrote:I came back to the site to see what you all have to say about the Democratic Nominee Barack Obama and find it curiously absent of any reference at all. Is this something we don't talk about at the forum?

DAR
Good heavens, I post political election stuff daily. So as to not overwhelm and push out the other topics I usually put it in the "quote of the day" or "political news bits of the day" threads." Read those. I try to not post the obvious stuff that is covered ad nauseaum by the mainstream media. I look for the obscure nifty bits, mostly culled from crooks and liars.
There is such little difference between Hillary and Obama and I have found most of the supposed "contention" manufactured by the media, and sometimes the two camps. Most of it has struck me as embarrassingly childish and boring. Gaffes and gotchas.

I have said I am about 60/40 for Hillary. That never changed much except to go a little more toward him. Now that Obama is the guy, I have no trouble whatsoever supporting him 100%. There was never a question in my mind about that. And it really wasn't even on the issues which are almost imperceptibly different (100% identical when you factor in political season fudging). I thought it was time for a woman.

When I register to vote I intend to check the independent box. I consider myself a independent non-republican. Maybe that will change someday and I will be able to fairly consider republican candidates. I am too mad at them right now. They're insane.

I also find almost nothing about Republican Nominee John McCain.

DAR
I've posted lots. Check the two above mentioned threads.

Did any of you watch the speeches last night by all three candidates?

DAR
I didn't. I understand even Faux News said McCain did horribly.

I was wondering if one of you who researches information so thoroughly could do a side-by-side comparison of McCain's and Obama's flaws and achievements, positions, etc.

DAR
I am sure there will be lots of that coming up. I expect McCain to get creamed:

a) He's very old in a young man's sport
b) Not a good communicator
c) Short tempered
d) A terrible fund raiser because he's
e) Completely uninspiring
f) Humorously unfunny

And this rose to the top of the republican pile.

I'm also wondering if those here who supported Hillary will now get behind Obama, or will you either vote for McCain or not vote at all?

DAR
Anyone who says that is marginal and dumber than a Nader voter. I know it floats around a lot but I really don't buy that claim. I think it's bluff 95% of the time. Thank goodness this is over now and the Demo's have 5 months to get in line and create a winner.

D.

Betsy wrote:I understand but I'm still surprised there's been no discussion of Obama at all - or even the primary. Maybe everybody's sick of it.

DAR
That's so not true. Betsy, pop "obama" into the forum's search engine.

I should have also asked what everyone thought about Hillary as a VP - I'm hoping she'll have a prominent position and I'm sure she will; I just don't think VP is the right place for her.

DAR
It would be good if he can bring himself to offer. I think it would be a great ticket, if she can get into the role. I think it is unlikely.

...these are very dramatic times in our country that I think most people will want a dramatic change.

DAR
I was going to post this earlier today but got distracted. Check it out:

***
But it’s probably worth keeping in mind that the Dems have reason to be excited about congressional races, too:

Democratic pollsters released what they characterized as a “dramatic” survey showing the possibility of a Democratic wave in Republican congressional districts this fall.

The poll of 1600 voters in 45 Republican congressional districts showed on average a 33% approval rating for President Bush, a 38% approval rating for the incumbent Republican and a strong desire for change.

In the 45 Republican districts the poll found 55% of people said they wanted to vote for a Democrat for Congress, compared to 49% in January. Just 37% of respondents said they would vote for their Republican incumbents, who were named.

“What’s stunning about this is not just that the race has moved over the last three months,” said Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. “There’s no reason to believe this won’t continue to move.” He is a founder of Democracy Corps, a non-profit that conducted the poll.

A wave started rolling in 2006 … and it’s not done yet.

LINK

And check this out.

D.

DOUG
I think Obama must offer the VP slot to Hillary.

I am very unhappy about the fact that any little remark anyone made that made reference to blacks regarding Obama was interpreted--or at least said to be--racism. And yet Hillary was savaged by the press--her "cackle," her clothes, her determination, etc. etc. was all not only fair game, people could freely disparage her and there were no negative consequences.

===========
The radio clown Glenn Beck called Hillary a "stereotypical bitch" and yet is treated as if he had something serious to contribute to CNN Headline News and ABC.

MSNBC gave a platform to the magician-cum-comic-cum-crank Penn Gillette, who said Hillary did well in March because it was "White Bitch Month."


Alex Castellanos, on a night when Hillary was winning a primary by 35 percent, told CNN's audience that Hillary is called "a bitch" because, well, some people deserve to be called by that epithet.


MSNBC's Chris Matthews said Hillary owed her entire career to her husband's marital mistakes (and then, manfully, apologized).


The Washington Post broke the news flash that Hillary, in fact, has cleavage.


Her figure, her clothes, her hair, her voice - all of it mocked and savaged in a way unimaginable if she were a man. She has not only endured the jeers and the sneers and the smears, she has triumphed over them. She never answered their hate with rage. She just went on winning.

See here.
======================

Now Hillary is being disparaged because she didn't immediately come out and kiss Obama's ass last night even though she one one of the two states quite handily.

And the Obama camp is saying that they do NOT want her on the ticket.

Obama and the media have behaved like such misogynistic assholes that I am not sure whether I will vote at all. I sure won't vote for McCain. I am really fed up with the "process."

Now I know how Tony feels all the time...

Well I am going to go on out on a limb here and voice my support for Obama. I made my choice a couple of months ago base on a couple of things. I don't think I want another polictical dynasty. I know Bill was the president and now Hillary want to be but it just strikes a little close to George H. and George W.

One thing that I can not get over with Hillary is the fact that she did vote for the war in Iraq. I also believe that she may have made that decision based on some very bad information. Who of us has not done the same thing? But my problem is that when the facts came out she never stepped forward and said she made a mistake. Some times the beter part of valor is to admit a mistake and it seems she does not have that ability. I believe Hillary is an old politician, she may not have held office for years but she has been a mover and a shaker and may have to many interest to watch out for or axes to grind.

A couple of things I have liked about Obama. His statement about people turning to guns and religion when times where bad I think gave a little glimps of what is going on inside his head. I believe he maybe a little bit of a freethinker. He has been exposed to more ways of thinking and looking at the world than most people. I know that anyone running for political office above dog catcher has to play along some what to get elected because people will listen to the 30 second news blips to make a decision and I may be just a guilty. The other thing that I like about Obama was when Hillary and John McCain started talking about a gas tax holiday and Obama called it a "gimic" which I believe he was right. That could have been political suicide if the press or the other candidates would have picked up the ball and ran with it. He called a spade a spade.

I have been watching more news on the News Hour on PBS and they seem to spend more time letting the candidates speak. Most of the other news agencies give you very short bits of speaches that are made by the canidates but on PBS they will let them go on for several minutes. If you watch McCain you will see that he is an old man. I do not think he is up to the challenge of getting this country back on track.

My stance my not be very clear but I think out of this group I believe that Obama may be our best chance for some change. Although I think that this country has gone of the rails so bad I do not know if we can ever get back to any thing we might consider normal.

Doug Wrote

Now I know how Tony feels all the time...

Hehe! Yep, thats how I feel all the time. Maybe we can start our own club/Party. What to call it? The Cynical and pissed off progressive freethinker party?

I was excited about this thing for a while. A woman and a black man in an historic race that NOBODY could have predicted. The hits delivered by both sides, the media coverage, all of it put me right back in cynic mode pretty quickly. Some people just simply do not enjoy the circus....I'm one of them.

Here's hoping the wounds mend enough to kick the shit out of the Republicans in November. My energy and enthusiasm, though, is spent.

Tony wrote:Here's hoping the wounds mend enough to kick the shit out of the Republicans in November. My energy and enthusiasm, though, is spent.

DOUG
Just don't turn anarchist like Hogeye!

As I've already said, I've supported Obama ever since the race began. I also admired Hillary in the beginning, but she has undermined her credibility throughout this campaign with the sniper story, the gas-tax holiday, and the whining about Florida and Michigan, and the ways she's tried to change the rules in her favor. Honestly, demanding votes count in a state where Obama wasn't even on the ticket is hardly fair, and who wants an unfair president? Especially one who bends the rules to their benefit. Terry McAuliffe is also the most off-putting obnoxious character I've ever seen in a campaign. I didn't think her speech Tuesday was so horribly ungracious, but his introduction of her as "the next president of the United States" was absurd. And of course her campaign's strategy failed by ignoring caucus states. So unfortunately, although Hillary is a wonderful smart devoted public servant, her campaign missteps did her in.

Which, if you think about it, the way candidates handle their campaign is a good indication of how they will handle their job as president.

With regard to the sniper fire story that Hillary told - I don't understand how anyone can call that blatant lie a "miscommunication"! For some reason that I cannot fathom, Hillary supporters buy the "miscommunication" excuse - but I am very sure that if any other candidate told a completely made up story like that and then was completely busted on it, the same Hillary supporters would call that candidate a liar. That is just amazing to me.

I don't think McCain's age precludes him from being an effective president, I think his lack of intelligence and the fact that he's just a puppet for the Republican powers-that-be is his problem.

BTW, I didn't do a search on the site for Obama; I just scrolled down through the entire list on the politics board and the only Obama topic was about racism. So that's why I said there weren't any discussions about him with regard to this primary or his nomination.

Oh, and there's also the issue of money management within the campaigns - and how Hillary had to loan herself millions of dollars and is now in debt, while Obama managed his money and has plenty leftover right now....that didn't look too good on her...

Betsy wrote:
With regard to the sniper fire story that Hillary told - I don't understand how anyone can call that blatant lie a "miscommunication"!

DAR
I agree calling it a "miscommunication" is completely after the fact spin and damage control. It's ridiculous. But I don't consider it a lie either. Human memory is profoundly more malleable, imperfect and trickable than people realize. People who spend most of every day running their yaps in front of thousands and having every statement fact checked will make astonishing mistakes and say things that are not true. A lie is knowingly telling a falsehood. You can't show that and I think it is unlikely because it would be such an obviously stupid thing to do on purpose. Hillary is not stupid.

"You know the difficulty with a president when he makes a statement is that everybody checks to see whether it is true."
--Richard Nixon, at a National Prayer Breakfast, 1974

For some reason that I cannot fathom, Hillary supporters buy the "miscommunication" excuse - but I am very sure that if any other candidate told a completely made up story like that and then was completely busted on it, the same Hillary supporters would call that candidate a liar.

DAR
No, I believe the memory explanation is the best explanation. And I would believe that explanation if McCain or Bush or Obama gave it. Not lower level politicians however. They might think they could get away with it. Not presidential candidates. Definitely a memory fart. The human brain creates false memories all the time. I could give you many examples.

BTW, I didn't do a search on the site for Obama; I just scrolled down through the entire list on the politics board and the only Obama topic was about racism.

DAR
I did a search. He has been mentioned in 242 posts. Over half of those since February of this year.

Hillary had to loan herself millions of dollars and is now in debt, while Obama managed his money and has plenty leftover right now...

DAR
That's true. When you are worth about $100 million and want something as bad as you want this, I can see investing a chunk of your own money under the explanation that "all of these other people are investing in your campaign, why shouldn't you?"

D.

Betsy wrote: and the whining about Florida and Michigan

DOUG
Hillary was also in favor of a re-do on the voting. And it was not entirely the fault of the Florida Democrats that they voted early. The Republicans forced it on them.

There is a lot of myth and spin about Hillary thanks to the misogyny that has been driving the dynamics of the primary season. Anti-Hillary people have a caricature of her that they promote at every opportunity, and "whining" and bitching is part of that image.

I don't see it as whining to want to have two of the largest states have their votes count. If the primary season had been winner-take-all, as the Republicans do it, Hillary would have been the winner two months ago.

Doug wrote:

Betsy wrote: and the whining about Florida and Michigan

DOUG
I don't see it as whining to want to have two of the largest states have their votes count. If the primary season had been winner-take-all, as the Republicans do it, Hillary would have been the winner two months ago.

DAR
And isn't it also the case (or likely the case) that if Florida and Michigan had proceeded normally instead of with this kibosh, she would have won solidly in those states and thus also the nomination?

If so, this is another reason Obama people do not want to take any time to gloat or stick left over knives in Hillary. He is winning this by a whisker and there are several scenarios where if the wind blew slightly different on a certain day or the process went slightly differently, we would have the woman on top instead of the man on top. I'm happy either way.

D.

I hardly think that saying Hillary whined about Florida and Michigan, which I would have used the same word if she were male, is misogyny and I don't appreciate the implication. Apparently Doug thinks if I criticize her at all, I'm being misogynist. That's being oversensitive and off-base, just as many people were oversensitive about the RK assassination gaffe Hillary made, when she obviously was just pointing out that these things sometimes last until June. Please, chill.

I think Florida and Michigan should have been redone, with both candidates campaigning there and both candidates on the ballot. Unfortunately no one wanted to pay for it. What happened was not fair, broke the rules, and should not have been counted. For her to claim those votes and demand that they be counted or she was being treated unfairly was ... whining. Bill did a lot of whining in that regard too, especially when he started in about the media coverage being unfair.

What *might* have happened in Florida and Michigan is sort of a moot point, isn't it? And, if given the time to campaign in those states, who knows how the delegate count would have come out - probably splitsville, like almost all the other states.

Betsy wrote: I hardly think that saying Hillary whined about Florida and Michigan, which I would have used the same word if she were male, is misogyny and I don't appreciate the implication. Apparently Doug thinks if I criticize her at all, I'm being misogynist. That's being oversensitive and off-base, just as many people were oversensitive about the RK assassination gaffe Hillary made, when she obviously was just pointing out that these things sometimes last until June. Please, chill.

DOUG
You could have used the words "stated often" or "repeatedly claimed" or "declared on many occasions," etc. But she "whined." I never heard her bitching, moaning, whining, or any of that. Yet she is so quickly stereotyped in that way. Maybe I am oversensitive. But there is a definite bias in the media to label her negatively.

Betsy wrote: I think Florida and Michigan should have been redone, with both candidates campaigning there and both candidates on the ballot. Unfortunately no one wanted to pay for it. What happened was not fair, broke the rules, and should not have been counted. For her to claim those votes and demand that they be counted or she was being treated unfairly was ... whining. Bill did a lot of whining in that regard too, especially when he started in about the media coverage being unfair.

DOUG
a. Hillary offered to help pay for it. It was the Obama camp that worked to nix the idea. This is typical Obama. You may have heard how he hired some lawyers to contest signatures of his opposition when he was running for office in Illinois, and he was able to keep his opposition, both African-American, off the roster and run unopposed. This was standard Chicago-style dirty politics.
b. Did the party "whine" when they wanted the votes recounted in 2000?
c. OK, so you don't mean anything by saying she "whined"? But Bill whined too, right?

Betsy wrote: What *might* have happened in Florida and Michigan is sort of a moot point, isn't it? And, if given the time to campaign in those states, who knows how the delegate count would have come out - probably splitsville, like almost all the other states.

DOUG
She was way ahead.

DAR
John Stewart play a collection of nasty anti-Hillary misogynist comments from mainstream talking heads. I hadn't heard most of them. Pretty amazing really. The clip should be up here tomorrow.

D.

DAR
Excerpt from Slate

***
Hillary Didn't Lose. Barack Won.An idiosyncratic reading of today's presidential campaign post-mortems.

By Jack Shafer
Posted Wednesday, June 4, 2008

[BIG snip...]

But evidence that Clinton ran a fairly OK campaign, while Obama ran one that simply got better and better, can be found in a chart reproduced in the Journal story from Real Clear Politics data, which averages the national polls since October.



Here's my two cents, idiosyncratic as they may be: According to the chart, Clinton's national poll average was basically unchanged between the beginning of October and the middle of May, starting at about 41 percent and ending at about 42 percent. Although Clinton verged on 50 percent of the average poll and dipped to just below 40 before the New Hampshire primary, her numbers remained relatively steady. Meanwhile, Obama's numbers started at about 22 percent in October and rose faster than CO2 levels in the atmosphere, breaking 50 percent at the end.

One interpretation of the average poll data—my interpretation—is that as the field of candidates thinned and undecideds got off the pot, they migrated to Obama in huge numbers, first after the Iowa caucuses and then before Super Tuesday. Clinton, on the other hand, was a candidate whose market share was fixed. She never really expanded from her core of support, despite the many style, substance, and personnel changes she made during the campaign and no matter how much money she spent. And even then, she just barely lost the delegate count.

So the real story, which the Post and the Los Angeles Times detail nicely in their separate ways, is that Obama won by winning, not by Clinton losing.

Darrel wrote:DAR
Excerpt from Slate

***
Hillary Didn't Lose. Barack Won.An idiosyncratic reading of today's presidential campaign post-mortems.

DOUG
Interesting data. What might skew it a bit is that various events played into the poll data, perhaps boosting it when it would have otherwise gone down, and lowering it when it would have otherwise gone up, etc., giving the appearance of steadiness. But barring specifics, it looks compelling as an interpretation.

But what counts is the specific states, and in some states Hillary won by huge margins, losing by huge margins in others.

She did win all the big states that counted, except Illinois.