Tête-à-Tête-Tête

I wonder what Hillary thinks of all of those “endorsements.” Will she reject or denounce them?

Shocking win? Joe she was once a 20 point favorite there.

Giuliani was up 25 in Florida before Iowa & NH. Sorry, but Obama is the presumptive nominee & it’s pretty much impossible for Clinton to win, Obama has a huge cash advantage, yet Obama still can’t win a big state. That *is* a rather large story, akin to if, say, Huckabee won Texas even though McCain pretty much had things sewn up to that point.

? By losing New Hampshire would Hillary have been put away?

For the most part - and much as it disgusts me - yeah. Again, Giuliani decided to go with the bigger states & ignore the smaller early primaries. Alas, you gotta win those, as stupid as it is to me.

I think Andrew Sullivan hit the nail on the head when he said

Actually, Sullivan is again relying on his emotion rather than logic. Limbaugh - and he has stated this on more occasions than I can count - has not endorsed Hillary as the nominee. He has stated, over and over again, that he is trying to stretch out the fight amongst the Dem candidates in order to make them spend their money and waste this time arguing against fellow Democrats instead of piling on the GOP nominee (whom Limbaugh REALLY doesn’t like). That Limbaugh’s plan is working to perfection is driving folks like Sullivan into fits of hysteria. Well, other folks, that is, Andrew’s always been prone to the emotional outbursts on par with a schoolgirl finding out that her favorite boy-band member has a new girlfriend.

Wow, just clicked on the link. So, the thrice married Limbaugh, he of the foul-mouth and famous interview in Playboy, the one who doesn’t even attend church, is a theocon.

The schoolgirl is really mad at the boyband’s girlfriend, isn’t she?

well sed, my frien! ye putt into wurds whut i bin tine to eggsplain to myself fer a while now.

I thought it was an amusing story in Pennsylvania when McCain lost 27% of the Republican vote.

And Hillary would French kiss John Hagee for a vote. She won’t reject or denounce anything or anybody that sings her praises.

I got a kick out of the theocon heading too and do not really understand it. Isn’t Rove an atheist?

But I still think the point is valid. The bigger guys on the right are snuggling up to Hillary and it has been a joy to watch.

I’m just glad I’ve talked myself out of caring about the result. My trust level for politicians is at an all-time low & that applies to Obama nearly as much as to the other two. I hope they all lose.

I think Scarborough & Company are terrified of Obama. They’ve been drooling at the thought of a Hillary run for years and have their gameplan (and I think they can beat her) all ready. But Obama? Too many unknowns. And they’ll end up playing the race card whether they intended to or not, because — well, when push comes to shove, they’re still a bunch of racists, and they can celebrate King day as enthusiastically as the next guy, but eventually, someone is going to slip and have another macacca moment.

But you’re right — they’re stumbling over themselves to defend Hillary. My favorite tack is when they whine about how Obama outspent her — and I’m thinking, of course, is well, why doesn’t she have as much money as he does? If she COULD, she sure as shit WOULD be outspending him, but she can’t, can she? That’s her problem, not Obama’s.

He had a hell of a good showing in a classic machine state with a large number of old, white, working class folks.

old, white, working class folks

Easy now… some of us are listening.

I like the old, white working class comment. I am constantly told that Obama cannot connect with them. He only connects with blacks and intellectuals. Last time I checked I was not black so I guess that makes me an intellectual but I could have sworn that I am an old, white working class male.

nd Hillary would French kiss John Hagee for a vote. She won’t reject or denounce anything or anybody that sings her praises.

Ahem, Rev. Wright & Mr. Ayers. Double-ahem.
Oh, yeah, and G*d d#mn America, too.

The bigger guys on the right are snuggling up to Hillary and it has been a joy to watch.

Eh, it’s not all that surprising. I have a lot of friends who are just as far on the right as me & they’re all of the same mindset: this is definitely not going to be a Republican year & if we’re going to have a Democrat, at least Hillary is somewhat more hawkish than most other Dems. Remember, we righties have terrorism & national security higher on our list of priorities than primary Dem voters (not a knock, just the facts) so it’s logical that Hillary would be more preferable. It’s no different than the love affair that the left had with McCain back in ‘00…they really didn’t want him to become president, they just liked him better than Bush, so they parrotted the ‘maverick’ thing around and went on and on wondering why more Republicans couldn’t be like him. Now that he’s the nominee, everything - everything - that was said back then has been redacted.

The right still doesn’t like Hillary. She’s just more of a hawk than Obama. [Don't ask me to explain Buchanan, I stopped trying years back]

Ah, politics. I’ve come to believe that the actual definition should be changed to “don’t pay attention to what I said, pay attention to what I need”, since it’s more fitting.

, when push comes to shove, they’re still a bunch of racists,

Sometimes, I wonder why I even bother.

at least Hillary is somewhat more hawkish than most other Dems. Remember, we righties have terrorism & national security higher on our list of priorities than primary Dem voters (not a knock, just the facts) so it’s logical that Hillary would be more preferable.

It only follows logically that hillary is the better candidate if the Republicans also harbor the unfortunate notion that “hawkishness” is an important quality for national defense and terrorism.

Of course, most of them do, so the logic stands… but that point wasn’t made. Without including that premise, one could not draw such a logical conclusion.

Of course, most of them do, so the logic stands… but that point wasn’t made.

I know, that’s why I made it.

A lot of you guys (Obama supporters) are parlaying the angle that anyone who dares to think Hillary is preferable is doing so because (a) they’re racist; (b) they’re scared of Obama & think Hillary is easier to beat. And, that about covers the entire list.

I would think the pertinent thing to do would be to look at why someone says they endorse such-and-such and then go from there. I’ve heard PLENTY of ‘big righties’ say that at least Hillary would be more adept at winding things down in Iraq than Obama, so…..I tend to think that’s why they’d prefer her to him. Not everyone who says something that oen disagrees with is doing so for nefarious causes. Chances are that Joe Scarborough - who supported the war in Iras (just as the ‘04 Dem nominee did) - would prefer Hillary because he’s seen her at work close up & agrees with him more on an issue that he, at least at one time, felt strongly enough about to give the President the okay to follow through, instead of his being a racist (which, in a few short weeks will be the overlying theme of the left wing blogosphere, by the way…..enjoy it while it lasts because it’s going to pull down the cred of blogs & push the entire genre closer to jumping the shark, IMO).

Ok… first you say she’s more hawkish, then you turn around & say she’d be more “adept” at winding down the war in Iraq (something the hawkish people have shown little ability for in the last few years and, IMHO, little motivation* for).

Unfortunately, I think you were closer in saying that righties prefer her in terms of her hawkishness than in terms of her ability or motivation to wind down the Iraq war.

I do agree with you on your basic premise, though. If you will allow that there is a vocal, if small, contingent of righties who say they prefer Hillary because they simply want to drag out the Democratic primary process and increase McCain’s electoral chances, and a small contingent of Republicans and Democrats that just can’t swing their support to a guy who they think of as “different” in a bad way, then I’ll concede that righties who like Hillary better than Obama often do it for similar reasons to the ones I have for liking McCain better than Bush.

* I don’t mean to say that in a perfect world they would not want to wind Iraq down - only that they imagine the result of staying there will be a great deal better than result of getting out. In other words… Keep fighting boys, there’s gotta be a pony in there somewhere!

Ok… first you say she’s more hawkish, then you turn around & say she’d be more “adept” at winding down the war in Iraq

Eh, purposefully done because I’m of the assumption that you’re more apt to liken “hawk” to “warmonger” instead of what we righties currently consider it to be, “kill the radical Islamists since they can’t be reasoned with and have a goal of eradicating those who disagree with their warped sense of thinking”, so I reworded it to include running the whole shebang and serving the entire CIC capacity in Iraq. We’re windin things down, so…..

If you will allow that there is a vocal, if small, contingent of righties who say they prefer Hillary because they simply want to drag out the Democratic primary process and increase McCain’s electoral chances, and a small contingent of Republicans and Democrats that just can’t swing their support to a guy who they think of as “different” in a bad way, then I’ll concede that righties who like Hillary better than Obama often do it for similar reasons to the ones I have for liking McCain better than Bush.

Of course.

One thing that has to be sinking in right now among many: the level of people within the Democratic party who are members of a party that supports affirmative action, but whose members are made up of about the same level of disdain for “different people” as pretty much any other group. Not many have been wanting to admit that, but it’s becoming clearer & clearer with every primary.

And when I say “different people”, I don’t just mean whites not wanting to vote for blacks. Hillary’s gotten single digits from blacks for a reason & it’s not simply policy choices.

And, no, I don’t mean that as a smear against Dems or the party. I’m just saying - as I have long maintained - that being for/against tax cuts/hikes, strong/weaker federal gov’t, for/against universal health care and the like, does not marry up with “don’t like the blacks”. GOPers weren’t faking their love for Condi or Watts any more than Dems are faking their love for Obama.

We are just….people, after all.

Maybe, one day, we actually can have that discussion on race. It won’t happen until someone can disagree with a minority on the issue without being pilloried as a racist (and if someone denies that’s the current case, then I’m wasting my time).

Bill Clinton is no racist, yet he’s been accused of quasi-racist actions by Obama supporters. Bill freaking Clinton.

Nope, things won’t get any better…..and it’s going to get worse when folks like Bill Clinton have to tip-toe their language around ‘certain people’ as though their sensibilities are to be treated as faberge eggs.

[/end rant] Have a great weekend, buddy. Mine will be full of an 8 year old playing baseball.

have a great weekend RW! see you in the next match!

RW - What did you think of Obama’s speech on race? I think he took it to a level rarely - if ever - seen in mainstream media.

RW - What did you think of Obama’s speech on race?

I’m reminded of what Buck said earlier about Hillary: “She won’t reject or denounce anything or anybody that sings her praises”.

We all know why he woudn’t denounce Rev. Wright (can’t denounce a black guy, even if you’re half-black, because….well, they’re black & thus held to a different standard). We see things differently, h sofia, and that’s just fine. Some folks see fine art and think “masterpiece” while I think “looks like a dude threw paint at a canvass….when’s lunch?”. Obama saw racial division leading to “the Reagan revolution”, according to his speech. I - like much of America, in my opinion - saw a failed presidency on a level that has rarely been seen in this nation (akin to the 2nd term of 43) & thus voted to fire Carter and voted for Reagan.

If Senator Obama - and he is certainly someone that I respect - is ready to actually have a discussion about race, then fine. But, there is more to the discussion than saying that blacks have been screwed (they were) and that whites are pissed off at some blacks and, oh yeah, his grandmama is a racist.

I look forward to our nation having a discussion on race. Nothing would help this country more in my opinion. We’re not going to have an honest one, though, due to politics. I remember what happened to William Bennett when he made a pro-black statement about abortion, all based on politics. When we can remove the politics from the discussion, then we can get on to repairing the race thing.

Not.
Gonna.
Happen.

After seeing the Moyers / Wright interview on PBS Friday night I would consider it a great honor to have as my President a man who had Wright as a preacher for 20 years.

Go to the PBS website and watch it in its entirety and then come back and tell me exactly why anybody would describe Wright as a “wackadoodle”.

We know he could not say “God Bless American for racism” or “God Bless America for the killing of innocent babies” but in retrospect what he should have said was “God forgive America for racism and God forgive America for the killing of innocent babies”.

I like the guy.

After seeing the Moyers / Wright interview on PBS Friday night I would consider it a great honor to have as my President a man who had Wright as a preacher for 20 years.

Bill Moyers. Wow, I guess Bill Maher was unavailable to interview the guy. I’m guessing that the whole “it was taken out of context thing” went over well with Moyers. Too bad for him that the entire sermon has now been released for airing & the people can now decide if saying that we’re the same as Al Qaeda, just under a different flag, is something that was taken out of context.

Buck, I’ll gladly step up & say the guy is a whackadoodle, right down to his claims that the US gov’t introduced AIDS in order to kill blacks. He’s a nut and it’s a darn shame that politics has bastardized things to the level where someone like Randall Terry is rightly called a nut but Wright is being fellated right now in the press (especially CNN).

Actually, whackadoodle is being kind. He deserves to be called the anti-American bigot that he is.

It’s always nice when you get to give your side of the story to a slobbering Nina Burleigh-esque “news” person, willing to play the role of water carrier, though. Helps with the PR, especially when you’re caught on tape comparing the United States with the people who crucified Jesus (someone wake me when the networks - who went ape#$%% when Bush said the Jesus was his favorite political philosopher - actually mention this thing).

Let’s all waive our arms & get a wide eyed look on our faces.
Then chant, on the Sunday after 9/11….

“THE CHICKENS
ARE COMING HOME
TO ROOST….”

Yeah, sweet guy.

holy cow… I think Wright’s remarks were out of line, dumb, and not to be defended. But to compare him to Randall Terry? That’s defamation of character.

Last I heard, he didn’t wait outside of the 9/11 victim’s homes and harass them as they walked to their cars.

I don’t think he or his remarks merit any further media attention whatsoever, positive or negative. It’s old news. What should be in the news, if there has to be a race angle is that blacks are incarcerated in America at a much higher rate than whites. Or that they are executed at a higher rate. Or that the death penalty is pursued more often when a victim is white than when he is black. Or that black people who apply for a job with the same or better credentials as a white applicant have less chance of getting it.

The media is playing Bobby & Whitney. McCain and Clinton are cheering. And Obama has only platitudes to add to the discussion.

But to compare him to Randall Terry?

Not really a comparison, per se. Just using one “political fringe nut preacher” juxtaposed against another. You didn’t see many people saying that Terry was just taken out of context (even prior to his stuff after the war started). I’d forgotten that it was his group protesting the funerals, though, so I tip my cap to your point. My emphasis was “nutty preacher” involved with politics. Mea culpla.

What should be in the news, if there has to be a race angle is that blacks are incarcerated in America at a much higher rate than whites

Blacks commit felonies at a higher rate than whites, so that is the logical outcome. One can argue sentencing guidelines, but, let’s keep in mind that most of this is drug related (insert obligatory drug conversation somewhere). Why not state the obvious BIG issue: if the illegitimacy rate of blacks were on par with the the national average, most of the negative statistics go away. The solution isn’t reversing mean whitey passing racist laws (why isn’t Pelosi & co. doing that? Don’t Dems run things in most cases, now?), racist crackers wrongly arresting black drug pushers, eliminating white flight from the high crime inner cities…those are feel good band aids. Reinvigorate the concept of the nuclear family in the black community (let’s forget what caused it to go awry & focus on the positive) and everything else will work itself out. If only one action could be implemented that would make the biggest change in the USA, across all boundaries, that would be it, IMO. I don’t care who is to blame, just getting it fixed would move us forward.

Or that black people who apply for a job with the same or better credentials as a white applicant have less chance of getting it.

Uh-unh. That one’s not gonna fly. It is the official LAW of the USA that a black with the same credentials (or close) as a white is mandated to get the position, else the EEOC gets involved and levies sanctions. Not just the practice, that is the law.

That’s part of the ‘equality’ that you mentioned that libs want in your earlier post referring to Hawkins’ list. It’s just that some are more equal than others. Arguing that it is a necessary thing is fine. But, we officially discriminate in a manner the polar opposite of the scenario that you propose. It is the law.

I don’t think he or his remarks merit any further media attention whatsoever, positive or negative. It’s old news.

That’s what all the Obama supporters are saying. Limbaugh doesn’t want to talk about oxycontin, either.

The media is playing Bobby & Whitney. McCain and Clinton are cheering

True, although that guy’s commentary IS newsworthy. The precedent has been set: if Falwell was newsworthy, if Robertson is newsworthy, if Bob Jones University was a month long major news story, this guy is a news story. If Barack Obama didn’t want this guy included in the campaign the Barack Obama shouldn’t have run on a theme of post-racial transcendence & reconciliation.

This is the big leagues, buddy. I don’t think Obama is on board with that kind of rhetoric, but let’s remember, they went back and did oppo research on the type of movies that Clarence Thomas watched while in college, for Pete’s sake.

Obama, who I still think is a stand-up guy, should’ve just said “the guy said some hateful things and I regret that I didn’t quit sooner. I officialy renounce my membership with that church, even though I still love my fellow brother in Christ, just as other Christians still loved Jerry Falwell after his unfortunate post-9/11 comments about gays & lesbians”. Story over, dead, kaput, finis, done.

In the mean time, why George Soros doesn’t just donate a few million to Wright and tell him to go to Tahiti for a year & STFU is beyond me. If Obama loses to McCain, this is why.

My 2 cents, anyway.

By the way, I left out the part about black kids & white kids learning with different parts of their brains.

And the guy gets a standing ovation…..

Uh-unh. That one’s not gonna fly. It is the official LAW of the USA that a black with the same credentials (or close) as a white is mandated to get the position, else the EEOC gets involved and levies sanctions. Not just the practice, that is the law.

The problem is that it isn’t the practice.

It’s the law that people don’t drive over 35 mph in residential areas. It’s the law that Congressional subpoenas have to be answered. Or has Bruce Hornsby put it,

Well they passed a law in ‘64
To give those who ain’t got a little more
But it only goes so far
Because the law don’t change another’s mind
When all it sees at the hiring time
Is the line on the color bar

This makes the point one way.

this makes it another way.

I think if white people got excersized over this the way they do the illegitimacy rate in high poverty ethnic communities… If they got on their radios & teevees and talked about finding a solution to the problems they have a direct hand in, they might get a more sympathetic ear when they talk about how “we” need to fix the illegitimacy rate of the black community.

… and I guess I should add… if we as excited over a justice system that treats blacks and whites unequally as we do over the remarks of a bitter pastor, then we might have some credibility when we decide what Obama “should have done” with regards to his church membership and affiliation with said pastor.

then we might have some credibility when we decide what Obama “should have done”

Yikes.

Relax, buddy. We’re just talkin’, er, typin’. Nothing untoward was ever hinted, intended or otherwise on my end. Honest. No backsides, no snide under-the-table offerings, nothing hidden, just me typing.

How about a joke to lighten the mood: George W. Bush destroyed America and then…..end of joke. Okay? Olive branch?

I didn’t mean to come off hard on that… I know where you (individually - RW) come from. But it’s good to back up some times and look at what really constitutes a cause for grievance.

Man I have absolutely missed the part where Wright is being fellated. Must be on the same channel where Obama is being told that he must be proud to have had him as a pastor.

I still like the guy and agree with him on more issues than I disagree with him on. Chickens did come home to roost on 9/11. The CIA called it blowback. The chickens are still coming home to roost on the economic front. Lots of chickens out there. And to compare today’s footsoldier with the Roman footsoldiers is not out of line. We are the modern day equivalent to Rome. Had Jesus been in Abu Ghraib I guarantee you we would not have hesitated to sic the dogs on him. Especially when He started talkin’ all of that turn the other cheek bullshit.

Buck, Bill Moyers served as an audio stenographer. Plus, there’s CNN trying to quell things before the flames got too hot.

It appears that the Messiah will now give a racial unity speech that will put things to bed, once and for all. Even though we were told that he did that before and that he couldn’t throw his rev under the bus.

But, that was then. The chickens really are coming home to roost.

And to compare today’s footsoldier with the Roman footsoldiers is not out of line.

Okay, today’s Marine is the equivalent of those who mocked Jesus. Duly noted.

Seems to me that Pilate gave in to a cheering throng that was out for vengence & overwhelmed with hatred….which sounded a lot like the folks who were cheering the statements yesterday that even Obama - who was the ONE member of the church who never heard that stuff, we’re to assume - can take any more.

Then again, maybe it’s not the chickens coming home to roost for a country that needed a good terrorist attack, but the internal polling for a candidate that is now on the ropes?

An interesting example of how the world of politics can change on a dime, or in this case less than one week: the first comment on this thread: “I wonder what Hillary thinks of all of those “endorsements.” Will she reject or denounce them?”

Now, Hillary is the one sitting back & watching her “opponent” (they’re on the same team, just battling for the same ‘job’, so I have trouble calling them atual opponents since they’ll be endorsing the eventual nominee at the convention) attempt to denounce the guy that he said he couldn’t denounce a few days ago. And, really, who thought one year ago that the nominee for the GOP wold be John McCain? Or that Hillary would be almost out of money in April? Or that Giuliani would be an afterthought before March? Or that we’d be praying for gasoline to get back DOWN to $3/gallon by summer?

Seems to me that Pilate gave in to a cheering throng that was out for vengence & overwhelmed with hatred

Reminds me of a speech the current President gave in the rubble of the Twin Towers. Remember the, “we are gonna get the people who knocked these buildings down” while the people cheered. Seems like a lost eternity ago.

Okay, today’s Marine is the equivalent of those who mocked Jesus. Duly noted.

A soldier is a soldier Ricky. Whether in 2,000 BC of 2008 AD. They do as they are told and don’t get paid for thinking. If you listen really hard you can almost hear Lynndie England giggle as Spc. Charles Graner Jr. says to Jesus, “Come over here Pal and I’ll show you what we do to the other cheek”.

Forgive them Father. They know not what they do.

But back to the election, I don’t care who wins the election. I know Obama is unelectable and that is one of the main reasons I will vote for him if he is allowed the nomination.

Hillary / McCain……..McCain / Hillary……one is six the other is half a dozen.

Wake me when it is over.