Hillary Clinton vs. Barack Obama: Of the two, who do you like?

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

More like say hello to Grampa President..even if all this did come to pass do you really think she could become President without the black vote?fat chance.

I think there is only the *assumption* that black people will, for whatever reason, refuse to vote if Obama is not the nominee. I don't think that is the case at all. Will she garner Bill Clinton-like numbers? Definitely not- Obama has inflicted too much damage- but I think she would still garner a vast majority over McCain. Another thing to consider is that many of the more heavily black population centers are located in southern red states which will be GOP anyway. But areas like DC and Maryland, which have relatively high black populations, are safely blue, even for Clinton.

By the way, I just read that the Michelle Obama "whitey" bombshell may stay in the vault a little longer- possibly until Obama becomes the undisputed presumed nominee or the general election. But I just read that this tape is from a TUCC panel session starring Michelle and Louis Farakhan! An inside source who has seen the tape described it as "stunning." The rumor is that FOX definitely has it (Sean Hannity), and that ABC may have it as well. The thing that worries me is that the Obama campaign, flush with gazillions in cash, may have the wherewithall to bribe the owner of the tape. After a weekend where Hillary mopped the floor with Obama in Puerto Rico and where she was given a renewed sense of purpose for starting a convention floor fight (after being robbed over MI), releasing this tape today would be SO perfect. I'm keeping my non-"whitey" fingers crossed!

[strandinthewind]

If the Whitey tape exists and is released - IMO, it will do nothing but embolden the black community to vote in larger numbers. I suppose it will embolden white people as well, but the white supporters of Obama already mostly turn a blind eye to the reverse racism of the Obama campaign - so, I think it will not matter to them and/or they will be pacified by whatever demurrer he and she proffer.

In the end, I think the D's are fools for chosing, albeit mostly through caucases and in states that are electorally irrelevant, Obama. But, the D party historically is not the swiftest

In the end, he may win though because people buy into what he says even though the facts rarely support what he says.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

If the Whitey tape exists and is released - IMO, it will do nothing but embolden the black community to vote in larger numbers. I suppose it will embolden white people as well, but the white supporters of Obama already mostly turn a blind eye to the reverse racism of the Obama campaign - so, I think it will not matter to them and/or they will be pacified by whatever demurrer he and she proffer.

In the end, I think the D's are fools for chosing, albeit mostly through caucases and in states that are electorally irrelevant, Obama. But, the D party historically is not the swiftest

In the end, he may win though because people buy into what he says even though the facts rarely support what he says.

The black community will vote in large numbers no matter what. But I think it's unfair to characterize all of them as being of the radical white-resenting Farakhan preaching left. I think many will be disgusted by what they hear and would realize that they were backing someone whose social mindset remains firmly in the painful past. Sure, Wright and Pfleger were pretty outrageous and controversial, but, as usual, people gave Obama the benefit of the doubt because those things were not spoken by him, despite the fact that there is every reason to believe that he espouses those views on one level or another. But to hear this nonsense coming out of the potential First Lady's mouth is just beyond the beyond! And it's not like Michelle has been some kind of retiring daylily in the press. She seems like the Queen of Mean, and that busted mug of hers does not help matters. The buzzwords "Farakhan," "muslim," and "whitey" are enough to deter any undecided voters out there.

[David]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

The black community will vote in large numbers no matter what. But I think it's unfair to characterize all of them as being of the radical white-resenting Farakhan preaching left. I think many will be disgusted by what they hear and would realize that they were backing someone whose social mindset remains firmly in the painful past. Sure, Wright and Pfleger were pretty outrageous and controversial, but, as usual, people gave Obama the benefit of the doubt because those things were not spoken by him, despite the fact that there is every reason to believe that he espouses those views on one level or another. But to hear this nonsense coming out of the potential First Lady's mouth is just beyond the beyond! And it's not like Michelle has been some kind of retiring daylily in the press. She seems like the Queen of Mean, and that busted mug of hers does not help matters. The buzzwords "Farakhan," "muslim," and "whitey" are enough to deter any undecided voters out there.

I'm so sick of identity politics I can't even describe it. If I hear the phrase "African American" or "Asian-America" (the Associated Press hyphenates the latter but not the former, for some reason unknown & unknowable to God & Man -- at Yale or elsewhere) or "diversity" one more time, I'm going to cut off my right hand & sight-read Ravel's piano concerto for the left hand at the speed of sap oozing down the tree trunk. I'm sick of people's congratulating themselves smugly on their ethnic & genetic traits. To get belligerent about it is only ten times as bad. It's time that each individual stood up on his own accomplishments (or lack thereof).

The single exception to all this identity politics **** is THE RED-HEADED LEAGUE by Conan Doyle. That's just plain funny.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by David

. . . It's time that each individual stood up on his own accomplishments (or lack thereof).

I agree. But, when you tell the black community that, they cry foul and never want Federal programs, like Affirmative Action, to end. They want the leg up on other groups all in the name of correcting the ills of the past. I think that is wrong and the test for eligibility for the leg up should be poverty instead of race. But, I have been branded a horrible racist for even suggesting that. Interestingly, no one branding me as such can give any coherent answer for what future generation will have to stop paying for or benefiting from the sins of the past.

Originally Posted by David

The single exception to all this identity politics **** is THE RED-HEADED LEAGUE by Conan Doyle. That's just plain funny.

As a brunette : American, I object.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

. . . But I think it's unfair to characterize all of them as being of the radical white-resenting Farakhan preaching left . . . .

I did not mean to do that. You are correct. I was trying to say that the polls demonstrate that the vast majority of black voters (mostly D) are voting for Obama, seemingly with little care or regard to Wright's statements. That indicates to whatever degree that these same voters may give him the same pass when it comes to Michelle Obama's statements. I know many of my black friends might view the term "whitey" as part of the black culture and not something white people can really realte to. Note - I am speculating here and not saying all black people are like this, though I think many are likely to be more willing to give Obama a pass on this.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

. . . (after being robbed over MI) . . . .

I disagree in the sense that FL and MI knew the rules before they played the game. I think the D made the wrong decision when it chose way back when to disqualify the TWO OF THE LARGER TRADITIONALLY D STATES ELECTORALLY over a technicality. But, those were the rules. I think the far wiser thing now would have been to have a fairly inexpensive mail in revote in those two states. That Obama was staunchly against this is very telling.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I disagree in the sense that FL and MI knew the rules before they played the game. I think the D made the wrong decision when it chose way back when to disqualify the TWO OF THE LARGER TRADITIONALLY D STATES ELECTORALLY over a technicality. But, those were the rules. I think the far wiser thing now would have been to have a fairly inexpensive mail in revote in those two states. That Obama was staunchly against this is very telling.

She was totally robbed for the following reasons:

1. Under the rules of the DNC, states that are in violation may have 100% of their delegation restored if they repaired their violation, i.e., a revote. Obama staunchly refused to allow this to happen despite attempts by MI and Hillary to conduct a revote. Here he is yet again exploiting an arcane loophole in the process for his own personal gain at the expense of the will of the voters.

2. Obama intentionally removed his name from the MI ballot; it was there initially. He did this to appease voters in Iowa, who were peeved that MI moved up their primary (even though four other states moved up their primaries without any penalty). I would also venture to guess that he did this to help ensure that, in view of his catastrophic loss in MI, he sought to invalidate the primary by making it look like Hillary was running unopposed.

3. The RBC on Saturday apportioned 59 "uncommitted" delegates to Obama, even though the DNC rules explicitly indicated that "uncommitted" votes should be treated just like an actual candidate and should not be divied up/allocated to any candidate. The DNC had the utter gall to impute the will of the people by giving votes that were not cast for Obama to Obama. Their rationale for doing this was based on exit polling. This is absolutely unprecedented in the history of the United States. This is what has become of the (un)Democratic party.

4. This type of "punishment" is unconstitutional. I understand that Arlen Specter (R) is actually mulling a legal challenge to the DNC ruling on the grounds that every vote, even in primaries, equals one vote. Although there is probably a GOP-centric reason for doing this, e.g., prolonging the primary fight, I think Specter, as a legal scholar and a citizen of the U.S., is appalled by these banana republic-like antics.

In a nutshell, it is so blatantly obvious that Dean/Pelosi/Reid/Brazille all worked in collusion to ensure that the so-called "rules" were twisted, re-interpreted and bent so that their golden boy walked out of there almost unscathed. And to add insult to injury, they actually removed 4 of Hillary's won pledged delegates and handed them to Obama because they felt that would be "fair." Arbitrarily, of course! They applied one line of reasoning for MI, but used another for FL. Hillary has every right to have this nonsense appealed and end this with a floor fight in August. It's not like this party can be any more divided.

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

In a nutshell, it is so blatantly obvious that Dean/Pelosi/Reid/Brazille all worked in collusion to ensure that the so-called "rules" were twisted, re-interpreted and bent so that their golden boy walked out of there almost unscathed. And to add insult to injury, they actually removed 4 of Hillary's won pledged delegates and handed them to Obama because they felt that would be "fair." Arbitrarily, of course! They applied one line of reasoning for MI, but used another for FL. Hillary has every right to have this nonsense appealed and end this with a floor fight in August. It's not like this party can be any more divided.

Fukcing Howard Dean. I'd take Terry McAuliffe back in a heartbeat at this point.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

She was totally robbed for the following reasons:

1. Under the rules of the DNC, states that are in violation may have 100% of their delegation restored if they repaired their violation, i.e., a revote. Obama staunchly refused to allow this to happen despite attempts by MI and Hillary to conduct a revote. Here he is yet again exploiting an arcane loophole in the process for his own personal gain at the expense of the will of the voters.

2. Obama intentionally removed his name from the MI ballot; it was there initially. He did this to appease voters in Iowa, who were peeved that MI moved up their primary (even though four other states moved up their primaries without any penalty). I would also venture to guess that he did this to help ensure that, in view of his catastrophic loss in MI, he sought to invalidate the primary by making it look like Hillary was running unopposed.

3. The RBC on Saturday apportioned 59 "uncommitted" delegates to Obama, even though the DNC rules explicitly indicated that "uncommitted" votes should be treated just like an actual candidate and should not be divied up/allocated to any candidate. The DNC had the utter gall to impute the will of the people by giving votes that were not cast for Obama to Obama. Their rationale for doing this was based on exit polling. This is absolutely unprecedented in the history of the United States. This is what has become of the (un)Democratic party.

4. This type of "punishment" is unconstitutional. I understand that Arlen Specter (R) is actually mulling a legal challenge to the DNC ruling on the grounds that every vote, even in primaries, equals one vote. Although there is probably a GOP-centric reason for doing this, e.g., prolonging the primary fight, I think Specter, as a legal scholar and a citizen of the U.S., is appalled by these banana republic-like antics.

In a nutshell, it is so blatantly obvious that Dean/Pelosi/Reid/Brazille all worked in collusion to ensure that the so-called "rules" were twisted, re-interpreted and bent so that their golden boy walked out of there almost unscathed. And to add insult to injury, they actually removed 4 of Hillary's won pledged delegates and handed them to Obama because they felt that would be "fair." Arbitrarily, of course! They applied one line of reasoning for MI, but used another for FL. Hillary has every right to have this nonsense appealed and end this with a floor fight in August. It's not like this party can be any more divided.

All true - but I think MI and FL knew that the D threatened to strip them of the votes and they did it anyway. So, they knew before. I could be wrong though.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

All true - but I think MI and FL knew that the D threatened to strip them of the votes and they did it anyway. So, they knew before. I could be wrong though.

Oh, they definitely knew. But in the case of FL, the republican-lead state senate voted to move up the primary, penalty or not. The general feeling is that the GOP did this intentionally to screw with the DNC (and it worked!). Basically there was nothing anyone in the DNC could do to stop the trainwreck. I believe a similar thing happened in MI, but I'm no 100% sure. I think MI wanted to get permission to move up their primary, like SC, NH, IA and NV, but ultimately they were told "no," but they did it anyway for some reason.

Anyway, now the rumor is that Hillary's speech in New York on Tuesday night is either going to be a concession speech or a joint announcement with Obama (who will also be in New York) regarding a dream ticket. I hope it's NEITHER!

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by HejiraNYC

. . . I hope it's NEITHER!

Maybe Obama will utter the single word "present" while Michelle in the back ground and with a manical laugh sticks pins in a white doll resembling Hillary.

[HejiraNYC]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

I disagree in the sense that FL and MI knew the rules before they played the game. I think the D made the wrong decision when it chose way back when to disqualify the TWO OF THE LARGER TRADITIONALLY D STATES ELECTORALLY over a technicality. But, those were the rules.

Another thing to mention is that the rules indicate that the penalty for moving up the primaries may be losing 50% of the delegation. It was Donna Brazille, the so-called "undeclared" superdelegate and chair of the RBC, who fought vociferously for MI and FL losing 100% of their delegation, which is contrary to the aforementioned rule. Somehow she managed to twist everyone's arm into believing this. Clearly, she knew that her boy was going to get kicked to the curb in FL and MI, so she did whatever she had to do to make sure they didn't count. It should be noted that South Carolina moved up their primary too, but they were given a pass because SC was considered to be such a "diverse" state. And we all know how the SC primary turned out. .

It should also be mentioned that, I think disenfranchising votes in the Democratic primary is unprecedented. Sure, states have violated the primary date before, but I don't think any of them were stripped of their delegation. It's just that this year they happened to actually enforce, quite arbitrarily, this arcane rule on a couple of states that were bad for Obama. And it should also be mentioned that Obama should have forfeited his FL delegates because, contrary to his pledge not to campaign, he did run cable TV ads as well as holding a fundraiser/rally in Tampa.

Also, yes, states should be punished for moving up their primaries. Why can't they punish them by some other means besides stripping votes and disenfranchising voters? Why can't they push FL and MI back into June for the next presidential primary, for example?

[strandinthewind]

The fact that the D party would in any way alienate to any degree the voters in Florida (27 electoral votes) and Michigan (17 electoral votes) is irrational. Certainly they must know that although Michigan likely will vote D, Florida is not a sure thing by any stretch and it is very hard to get elected President without those 27 votes, no matter how many Iowas (7 electoral votes) you MAY win.

Once again, the D party looks like a confederacy of dunces.

[David]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

The fact that the D party would in any way alienate to any degree the voters in Florida (27 electoral votes) and Michigan (17 electoral votes) is irrational. Certainly they must know that although Michigan likely will vote D, Florida is not a sure thing by any stretch and it is very hard to get elected President without those 27 votes, no matter how many Iowas (7 electoral votes) you MAY win.

Once again, the D party looks like a confederacy of dunces.

All those damn Liberals shooting us in the foot.

I support John McCain & a second surge.