|
Author
|
Topic: Only 600 days left of Bush Presidency!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Atavist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14189
|
posted 31 May 2007 08:15 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Why? And what is it about Edwards that would indicate a "return to sanity" that Clinton or Obama would not?
a) Because Hillary's last name is Clinton, and Obama's daddy was Muslim, obviously. It's not right, or fair, or even my fault, but it's the USA Presidency, remember? b) Both are, and have been anti-war. They are seen as serious contenders, with longstanding records of service and legitimacy in bipartisan circles, rather than just with the left. Personally, I would love to see Obama as running mate for either Kucinich or Edwards, but I don't think either is willing to take the risk. Then again, maybe Al Gore will decide to run and all this discussion will be moot?
From: "Sitting stoned, alone in my backyard..." | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Atavist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14189
|
posted 31 May 2007 08:28 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
And it won't be right or fair until Democrats who recognize how not right and not fair it is grow a backbone and refuse to back down and choose the Safe White Male every time.
Unfortunately, most (senators and congresscritters) are clearly much too occupied with getting re-elected and raising capital to do so. Sad commentary, but we all know it. On the bright side (where I try to live), I believe that as a direct consequence, we may see more votes cast for third-party candidates than ever before in 2008 (I would LOVE to see Al Gore running as a third party candidate with Nader as a running mate). People are very, very tired of the constant preening, posturing, politicizing, pandering and of course, partisanship...
From: "Sitting stoned, alone in my backyard..." | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 31 May 2007 08:34 AM
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
In recent pictures of her, she's come off as very frail. I think she's aged a lot in recent years. Vigor is an expected quantity in American presidents. Bob Dole had to put up with questions of his age, as is John McCain these days. If someone comes off as old and frail and weak, they'll have a harder time.
Hillary Clinton is 59 years old!!! You’re a young pup and 59 may seem “elderly” to you, but Reagan was 73 when re-elected in 1984, Bob Dole was 73 when he ran against Bill Clinton, and John McCain is 70. In addition to McCain, other possible candidates: Bill Richardson is 59, Newt Gingrich is 63, John Edwards if 54, Dennis Kucinich is 60, Al Gore is 58, Rudy Giuliani is 62, and Mitt Romney is 60. Barack Obama is the only widely-known candidate who is in his 40s (45). To describe Hillary as “elderly” and “very frail” based on her looks is absurd.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 31 May 2007 09:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Hillary Clinton is 59 years old!!! You’re a young pup and 59 may seem “elderly” to you, but Reagan was 73 when re-elected in 1984, Bob Dole was 73 when he ran against Bill Clinton, and John McCain is 70. In addition to McCain, other possible candidates: Bill Richardson is 59, Newt Gingrich is 63, John Edwards if 54, Dennis Kucinich is 60, Al Gore is 58, Rudy Giuliani is 62, and Mitt Romney is 60. Barack Obama is the only widely-known candidate who is in his 40s (45). To describe Hillary as “elderly” and “very frail” based on her looks is absurd.
I'm not concerned with her age per se, it's how she comes off. Richardson and Edwards and Romney don't come off as frail. Clinton does. Some have said Al Gore would need to lose weight to run.
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 05 June 2007 08:08 AM
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
I'm not concerned with her age per se, it's how she comes off.Richardson and Edwards and Romney don't come off as frail. Clinton does. Some have said Al Gore would need to lose weight to run.
Am not sure how accurate your interpretation of visual cues are. As, I watched a snippet of the Democratic debate last night on The Daily Show, and I thought Hilary looked great and perhaps looked on par for age gradient with Obama, actually. Obama slammed Edwards a good one over the Iraq mess. Actually, I doubt Gore would have to lose weight. He has been seen around the USA just as he is, and has been found more than acceptable. So, just who would this "some have said" be?
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 05 June 2007 12:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by 500_Apples:
... I liked the senator from alaska but he's too old and we all know he won't win.
Agism really isn't acceptable around here 500apples. And you have been using it quite heavily in this thread. Please do refrain from it in the future, thanks in advance. quote:
I didn't realize Obama was such a good speaker. I was a very impressed.
You sound surprised that he is, why would that be?
quote:
I hope if he gets the nod people are not too obssessed over his middle name. I hope for many unrealistic things.
Not knowing what his middle name is, nor any of the rest of the candidates, I would say; "who cares", let alone be obsessed about it. And ending on a negative note, like that above, definitely slants your postings and makes them appear that you are insincere. Why would you think it would be unrealistic for people NOT to obsess about his unimportant middle name? Again I ask, who are these people that think Gore should lose weight?
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
500_Apples
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12684
|
posted 05 June 2007 12:24 PM
quote:
Originally posted by remind:
Not knowing what his middle name is, nor any of the rest of the candidates, I would say; "who cares", let alone be obsessed about it. And ending on a negative note, like that above, definitely slants your postings and makes them appear that you are insincere. Why would you think it would be unrealistic for people NOT to obsess about his unimportant middle name? Again I ask, who are these people that think Gore should lose weight?
Hi Remind, unfortunately my internet crashed so I lost most of what I wrote. 1) I consider age to be very important. FDR died in office and Reagen had early alzheimers. These are problems to be avoided. Additionally, vigor helps. 2) Google "Barack Hussein Obama" and you'll get 116, 000 links. John F. Kennedy's catholicism was a big problem in 1960. Obama might be innoculated if he ends up running against the Mormon Mitt Romney. My impression is that he's the best speaker in American politics since Bill Clinton. He's very smooth, good vocabulary, his voice projects and commands authority. I'm always surprised when anybody does much better than the rest, unless I knew them to begin with. I was surprised when Alexander Ovechkin won the Calder trophy, same thing. Among the people commenting on Al Gore's weight as an obstacle to his presidency is Donna Brazile
From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 05 June 2007 02:55 PM
quote:
Both are, and have been anti-war.
What war would that be? Vietnam? They are both firm believers in and unwavering supporters of the AmeroSupremecy project, and both stand unerringly behind the diplomacy of superior firepower. Do you honestly think that either one of those weasels would dare close the permanent bases in Iraq and pull out? Not if they don't want to take a short ride through Dallas in a convertible they don't. If there had been no insurgency, you can bet that both would grin gleefully behind Bush for photo ops. Dead muslims are always a winner on the campaign trail in the US. It just so happens that Hillary and Obama are frothing at the mouth to kill Persian muslims, since Cheney called dibs on Iraqis. And besides, killing Iraqis is soooooo 2003. But what really counts in American elite political circles isn't Iraq, or pro or anti war. It is the slavish devotion to Israel that wins office. And both are falling all over each other to do Likud's bidding.
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289
|
posted 05 June 2007 05:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
I look forward to the inevitable massive disintegration of the Republic, which may be the only thing that can save humanity.
An interesting way to pass the time is trying to figure out just what the short and long term impacts upon Canada will be when this happens. As it will happen. In my most cynical moments, I believe that they will attempt another hysteria provoking security breach so the cabal can stay in power and prevent a change in government. However, that may not be the case any longer, I have to admit, with Wolfowitz losing his position at the world bank, it may mean they are far too late to attempt such a thing.
From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wage zombie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7673
|
posted 07 June 2007 10:19 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Why? And what is it about Edwards that would indicate a "return to sanity" that Clinton or Obama would not?
IMO Edwards is noticeably better than either Obama or Clinton. -Edwards is calling for a full withdrawal, Clinton and Obama are not -Edwards was very vocal calling for Congress & Senate to send the same war funding bill with withdrawal dates that got vetoed back to Bush, meanwhile Obama and Clinton have not been showing much leadership lately on putting pressure on bush -Edwards talks about "the two Americas" and the Dem establishment is starting to smear him with charges of 'class warfare'. He's the only one (of the 3) talking about poverty. -i think he may be talking about renegociating NAFTA but i am not sure on this one This is off the top of my head, but i will find more when i have time in the next few dayss to dig up some links
From: sunshine coast BC | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pepper-Pot
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13391
|
posted 07 June 2007 10:40 PM
Yes, it seems as if Edwards and Kucinich are the farthest to the left of the Republicultian political paradigm.Edwards is for universal health care, progressive taxation, higher minimum wages, and a pullout from Iraq. He really has been the anti-poverty crusader, firm and genuine. His religiosity creeps in however, and he waffles on the issue of same-sex marriage, seeming to support some prominent elements of Falwellian doctrine and socially puritanical prohibitionism. Which is precisely why Kucinich was glowing in the applause and ovations he recieved during the CNN debate : he is the only one to forcefully and stubbornly pull the democratic party to the left, Edwards is doing it on a less consistent basis, but he does deserve some credit as well.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Email this thread to someone!
