Did Hillary over state her role in the peace process?
Toby Harden flagged up what looks like it could shape up into a major faux pas by Hillary Clinton as she tries to claw herself back into the political game. The trouble for Mrs Clinton is that Harden now the Telegraph’s US correspondent spent a long time in Northern Ireland, and places the ‘town hall’ meeting with women from the Ormeau Road in the Lamp Lighter cafe on the Ormeau Road. And it’s been picked up by one of the big blogs of Democrat politics in the US, the Daily Kos It’s part of the former First Lady’s self proclaimed role as having “helped to bring peace” to Northern Ireland. Brian Feeney says she was ancillary, the ‘lead U.S. negotiator’ described her input as “helpful”. The PoliGazette notes, it is the exaggeration makes her vulnerable. If you have any recollections of Mrs Clinton’s input, let us have them (keep it legal).
he had the balls to say no and you can’t get round that with “Hilery’s more meat” crap.
Say no to what? the war started five years ago, what vote are you talking about? Obama was not even in Washington back then. Is their nothing you people will not lie about.
Mick,
LMAO. Other Brits have called me worse so no hard feelings thick skin and all.
Not sure what you mean by “you people” every bit as patronising as “childish nonsense”. Maybe us dumb folks just don’t understand what’s really going on the way you do!Or should that be us neo-libs?
Even the most ill-informed conservative opponent would admit he has been on record as being against the war from the start. She gave W the green light ffs and her candidacy in the general election will give Mc Cain the green light in Iran.
BTW them ignorant ass po folks in Mississip what hasn’t been taught no better has just let Obama fools them too and by a huge margin.Lordy lordy.
>> BTW them ignorant ass po folks in Mississip what hasn’t been taught no better has just let Obama fools them too and by a huge margin.Lordy lordy
If Obama hadn’t been around then they would have voted for Clinton as they have done in the past for her husband.
Your argument is probably correct Latcheeco, because only white people can be racist.
Not sure what your point is Merrie but here’s mine.
The poorest, most persecuted, most down trodden people in this country are turning out in their millions to vote for this guy and what do we hear from the professional socialists: “They’re getting mugged by a snake oil/used car salsman because of his colour”.(And btw they know as much about getting used and mugged as anybody), why doesn’t Jeremy Paxman warn them quick? The insinuation is that they don’t know what they are doing. You can’t trust the lower orders to think for themselves you see. It’s not the socialist way. Not sophisticated enough to discern his obvious shallowness and vulnerability. They should go with Hilery and sure didn’t they before when there was no other option. they’re feckless.
Moment of zen from Mick:”such tosh doesn’t wash with U.S. blacks.”
>> The insinuation is that they don’t know what they are doing
That’s not my insinuation. I am simply saying some blacks are voting for Barack because he is black. Not all blacks, but some. The same reason why a lot of American Irish and Catholics voted for Kennedy in 1959 because he was a Catholic and of Irish descent. Perhaps in some instances racism is not necessarily a negative thing.
There is a symbolism in being an American president, but the role is not all symbolism. This article is interesting:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120519540222325779.html?mod=todays_columnists
Buried in there is a quote from Machiavelli which Obama should heed.
Mick Hall: I too am tired of the Obama team harping on about voting for Iraq. It seems to be the answer to nearly everything especially foreign policy. I get the impression that Obama has nothing much else to offer in argument and debate.
What has Hilery to offer, Merrie? What is her record? What are her successes that the novice Obama doesn’t have that you so admire? What does Tammy Wynette have to show for all her experience?Because I suspect, at root, many Irish Hilery supporters are really in love with her husband because of the peace process (when he helped bamboozle them into stormont,changing the Irish constitution and swapping a united Ireland for a united six counties)? Or is it because they feel they owe her one for having to stand at Belfast city hall in the cold listening to Eric Smyth preach about eemanyule the saviour
. Foreign policy and judgement are crucial in U.S. elections as is the devastation brought by trade agreements like Nafta and U.S. elections can be one issue affairs (flipflop).
Hey Latcheeco – for your answer maybe you should start re-reading this thread from the beginning.
Note I haven’t said I support Hillary.
The poorest, most persecuted, most down trodden people in this country are turning out in their millions to vote for this guy and what do we hear from the professional socialists:
latcheeco
We seem to be visiting old ground, but I have enjoyed our debate even if you refuse to answer any of the question merrie and I have raised. You claimed Obama voted against the war, when I raised that you reverted to the old Tosh such as, “everyone knows that he was against the war”. No I do not know that.
You also say the economically poor are voting for Obama in large numbers, I see no evidence of that but I am open to persuasion.
As to your old crap about socialists etc, it is just that diversionary crap. I have not asked anyone to vote against Obama or for his opponents. The only one asking for people to support a particular candidate is you and I have a nagging doubt about your motives, but that could be me being unfair.
What I am doing is expressing my personal opinion about Obama, if he becomes President and I am wrong I would be as happy as larry, but I fear I am not.
As to me being patronizing towards you, unbelievable! read you early posts to this thread, if I remember correctly, in your ignorance, you opened one with a patronizing comment about my age, thus by doing so you opened the door to a very hot kitchen, if you cannot stand the heat, by all means fuck off
If you attempt to take a chunk out of me, do not whine when I bite you back, its unmanly.
Now I have got all that out of the way, in fact you sound a very nice fellow who I would enjoy having a beer with, so I wish you no ill feeling. It would be nice to return to this debate after the Nov election and see where we three stand.
Mick Hall: “You also say the economically poor are voting for Obama in large numbers, I see no evidence of that but I am open to persuasion. ”
IIRC, Obama has two main pillers in his vote — liberal whites and the African American community. It is Hillary who is winning the blue-collar union voter.
Actually Mick I think yourself and Merrie were shaking heads at each other in mutual pity at us dumb fecks first and thats patronising no matter what way you spin it. I your refering to me saying “so young and so cynical.” I apologise for hurting your feelings (but I didn’t really think you were that young
and will be the first to admit to my ignorance.As for the heat, scorching! I’m off to the burns unit right away.
Merrie you implied she was the better candidate and our electoral system was a mess: hello, you have two first ministers ffs and you haven’t said how she is better.I have said why he appeals.
Anyway ar aghaidh chun bua!
Mick,
Why do you doubt my motives? I believe this country needs a black president called Barak Hussein Obama. I think its symbollically and materially important. Where have I refused to answer? Some people believe it needs a woman who was wife of a previous leader.Fair enough. Sounds a bit too aristocratic for me ( Never could warm to the idea of having a queen and the first iron lady left me jaded:)
Actually I said she voted for it but he “said” no to it. Didn’t mention him voting. But we’re just playing games
latcheeco: “Merrie you implied she was the better candidate and our electoral system was a mess: hello, you have two first ministers ffs and you haven’t said how she is better.I have said why he appeals. ”
He appeals because he uses soaring rhetoric and never deigns to descend into the nuts and bolts of how he is going to achieve what he says are his goals.
Or, as one wag put it, after uniting America and healing the world, will he be resting on the seventh day?
latcheeco: “Actually I said she voted for it but he “said” no to it. Didn’t mention him voting. But we’re just playing games
Why do you doubt my motives?”
Given the weaselly word games you acknowledged, why *shouldn’t* we doubt your motives?
latcheeco: “I believe this country needs a black president called Barak Hussein Obama. I think its symbollically and materially important.”
That belief and a couple of bucks might get you a Starbucks, but it isn’t worth much on its own. Symbols are important, but only to the symbol-minded.
Obama is a light-weight, long on rhetoric and short of substance — there is no there there. He says nothing in his speeches, but manages to look pretty good doing it.
The longer this drags out, the less likely Obama is going to win. His first best opportunity — winning outright on the delegates — is all but gone. Hillary’s wins in Texas and Ohio have all but frozen the superdelegates, at least publicly. Hillary is in a position to close with Obama on the popular vote. She is the likely beneficiary of any “solution” on Florida and Michigan.
Likewise, the bluster from some of Obama’s followers can’t be helping much — threats to make Chicago ’68 look like “a Sadie Hawkin’s Dance” aren’t going to win friends or influence people, at least not positively.
Time, for good or for ill, is on Hillary’s side.
Dread,”Weaselly words!.”LMAO So i’m a weasle now for supporting Obama.His record on the war has been vclear and it’s disingenuos to say its not.Is that all you’ve got? Na na nana na. Where did I mention word games?If there are any word games its the suggestion that the poorest aren’t voting for Obama or that he hasn’t been against the war from the start. Yall are gettin very tetchy. I’m stll waiting on the explanation for her weight.Was it her failure over healthcare the first time because she knew better than congressional dems?Or giving back congress to the republicans over gun control or standing by her man to get her hands on power or Is it her view that al quaida were in Iraq before the war?She is losing so she is the one dragging it out; she can’t win on elected delegates. Everybody should just roll over for the establishment candidate. Btw the real heavyweights on policy were dumped out of the primaries.
Dread
And while we’re on the subject of word games someone should ask the Clintons (cause she’s running on his record) when is genocide not genocide? Oh yes when it’s in Rwanda. Somebody should explain to all us mugs why with more states, more votes, more money, better polls he should roll over for her. Where again is her record better.
If you judge how she would run a country bye how she has run her campaign it aint lookin too hot is it? She was a shoe in last year and managed to feck it up royally and is trailing a rank outsider. Experience at work.The only possible way she can win is to override ordinary voters and pay off superdelegates with favors to get their votes Ohio’s reps have already presented a shopping lis(fair play to them). Of course Obama can take no credit for his success because its only a campaign any light weight without substance could motivate a million punters to give money. But that is of course irrelevent.
Symbols are important to most peoplethats why for example we’re proud of flags , well you may not be! ( btwSymbol minded-excellent,take a bow) , his election will be especially symbollic but it will also I hope prove to be materially better for the vast majority in this country.
latcheeco: “So i’m a weasle now for supporting Obama.”
Try reading what I wrote, rather that what you wished I written, latcheeco. You’re playing word games with Mick Hall — hell, you *admitting* to playing word games with Mick Hall. If the best argument you can conjure up is a wee bit of verbal legerdemain, then get used to being called on it.
latcheeco: “She is losing so she is the one dragging it out; she can’t win on elected delegates. Everybody should just roll over for the establishment candidate. Btw the real heavyweights on policy were dumped out of the primaries.”
Mayhap, but he’s not winning — in fact, the Dems primary system would seem designed to prevent anyone from winning outright, short of a complete collapse of all competition.
Unless Obama can carry about three-quarters of the remaining elected delegates, he’s not going to win, putting this into the hands of the super-delegates. At that point, I would have to give the edge to Hillary.
Now, as for Hillary’s weight, I would have thought a genteel individual such as yourself, being from Alabama and all, would know that it’s not polite to discuss a lady’s weight or age.
Likewise, I must point out, you seem to be suffering from a failure of logic — pointing out that Obama is a light-wight makes absolutely no comment on whether or not Mrs. Clinton is or is not a light-weight.
On matters of substance, however, she has explained how she plans to implement her stated goals — I think she’s unrealistic as all hell in her numbers, as do a number of economists who question her math, but at least there is a framework there to debate and discuss, as opposed to Obama’s empty rhetorical flourishes.
As for the “policy heavyweights,” most of them were out even before they were in… Dodd was doing a victory lap prior to retirement, with hopes of rehabilitating his father’s reputation… Biden brought all the old problems back to the table, droning on foreign policy in an election year that is going to be more about domestic policy… Kucinich was still hoping people would learn to spell his name… Richardson was busy running for vice-president… I’m not wholly certain was Edwards thought he would accomplish, other than getting someone else to pay for his haircuts.
Me, I will be voting for myself, this year…
Cthulhu for President — why settle for the lesser evil?
Latcheeco
You say Obama’s position on Iraq is clear, but is it, as far as i can see he is not calling for all US troops to be withdrawn let alone setting a date for it. Has he not said his government would keep US troops in Iraq. Mission creep Obama style. imo there is absolutely no way to solve the problem that is Iraq without US troops etc pulling out completely.
I can see the need for UN troops in Iraq, just, but if Obama does not understand the above he clearly has no idea just how much the US government is hated in the middle east and Turkey. In the latter nation, Bush has eaten all the good will it took previous generations decades to build.
latcheeco: “If you judge how she would run a country bye how she has run her campaign it aint lookin too hot is it?”
Already noted in a previous post, latcheeco — neither side would appear to move from the lounge to play the big room at this point.
latcheeco: “She was a shoe in last year and managed to feck it up royally and is trailing a rank outsider. Experience at work.”
Not really — she’s not got a great deal more experience than he does — and I don’t put a lot of weight into the presumptions of the press. What I can say is that, in 20/20 hindsight, Obama has had three opportunities to put this race away and muffed all three. He wins mostly caucases, which is not a good indicator of wide support, and wins them in states that aren’t likely to go blue, based on historical track-record.
The final decision is likely coming down to the super-delegates, meaning that the spectre of a “smoke-filled room” style brokered convention can’t be ruled out, meaning that the final candidate might be someone who didn’t even run in the primaries.
latcheeco: “Of course Obama can take no credit for his success because its only a campaign any light weight without substance could motivate a million punters to give money. But that is of course irrelevent. ”
The ability to fundraise is not a reliable surrogate or indicator for the ability to lead or accomplish goals or the ability to win in a tight election.
latcheeco: “his election will be especially symbollic but it will also I hope prove to be materially better for the vast majority in this country. ”
And there lies the problem — in summation, you have little to point at, other than a hope.
Mick,
He has said he will pull out, if it turns out he’s the same as every other pol. and renages then what is lost? Its just same old same old.I still think its worth the gamble. He has maintained that he will all the way through. Nobody here is going to countenence pushing helicpters off aircraft carriers again.No matter what happens the withdrawal will be phased.My point is Mick, the guy is playing the establishment at there own game and you’re not giving him a chance. If you were him, how would you play it to win?
Dread!
Glad we’ve now got to a point where we’re admitting they’re all light weight.So if they’re all of a muchness why not him?
Mick’s a big boy, he’s been about and he has been fighting and winning his own battles here for years. Humble apologies if that wasn’t your implication with weasle but if they’re calling you names you’ve usually won, you seemed to be as concerned with my ability as Obama’s. I’m no reflection of him
When did he have the opportunities to put it away? The press talked up ohio and tx but a month before they said they were soundly hilery and counted them in her camp.She/her camaign plannned for it to be over on Super Tuesday and wereleft flapping but you say it was Obama that didn’t put it away that night, so he’s lame. I think the boy did alright considering where he was six months ago or a year ago and he’s getting stronger. He wase always a long shot. But she getting a hell of a run for her money.
Latcheeco: “Humble apologies if that wasn’t your implication with weasle but if they’re calling you names you’ve usually won, you seemed to be as concerned with my ability as Obama’s.”
When I ever get angry enough to call names, you won’t have to wonder… as for the other, your question needed answering.
latcheeco: “Glad we’ve now got to a point where we’re admitting they’re all light weight.”
Ah, but we’re not. All I said was that I made no real representation regarding Hillary’s weight, metaphorical, political or other.
That said, I must concede that the last couple of elections have produced a disturbing crop of two-dimensional caricatures for candidates, albeit some heavier than others.
latcheeco: “When did he have the opportunities to put it away? The press talked up ohio and tx but a month before they said they were soundly hilery and counted them in her camp.”
Let’s see… there was New Hampshire, where the press said he was ahead in the polls… there was Texas and Ohio… I want to say there was one in the middle of those two scenarios.
latcheeco: “I think the boy did alright considering where he was six months ago or a year ago and he’s getting stronger. He wase always a long shot. But she getting a hell of a run for her money.”
Ah, but is that a matter of him doing better or her doing worse than expected, or, to be honest, a bit of both?
Frankly, I’d lay a share of the blame on the media, who seem to prefer a good story to a bland truth.
I think for the time being I have chewed this bone about all that I can, I would be happy to be proved wrong about Obama, time will tell.
On the wider issue of the quality of the candidates, this years crop seem especially weak. Can I ask this of the US sluggers, what do you feel lays behind this lack of real ability. Is it that rational and sane politicians will not run for Presidential office these day, either because it puts their private life under the media-spotlight, or because 2 years on the campaign trail, plus touting for cash is a lot to ask of anyone who has a life beyond politics.
Mick
Regards Mick,
btw I think the media here is guilty of dumbing down the message for mass consumption and talks to the audience like they are five year olds so very often what you see of the candidates is a response to this system rather than the candidates real intellect. I’d imagine being a Harvard Law Professor or even Rhodes scholar(or wife of one) might put you up therein intellect. Do you not agree though that there is a preconcieved European prejudice that yanks are generally dumb and shallow?
This was quare craic,
Don’t give up the struggle mo chara
latcheeco
Fair point and no we Europeans do not think all yanks are dumb and shallow, somewhat insular perhaps, although we do think your president is shallow. Although I am sure you would agree, being well educated and intelligence do not always go together. One of the most intelligent and astute people I have ever met in my life, could not read and write.
Mick,
Incidently and we may have mentioned This but they tore up Kerry in 2004 for being too wonky on details.Obama’s game may be a reaction to this.
Absolutely agree on last point.I’ve been in company of educated fuckwits often. Although on the European attitudes point I think you are being too kind,and I don’t mind W so much as the morons that elected him I mean he got to the top job so who was who’s useful idiot.
Mick Hall: “On the wider issue of the quality of the candidates, this years crop seem especially weak. Can I ask this of the US sluggers, what do you feel lays behind this lack of real ability. Is it that rational and sane politicians will not run for Presidential office these day, either because it puts their private life under the media-spotlight, or because 2 years on the campaign trail, plus touting for cash is a lot to ask of anyone who has a life beyond politics.”
Homogenization… the glare of the spotlight, the proverbial microscope… the roar of the grease-paint and the smell of the crowds. The fund=raising / compromises / whoring a body has to make…
Frankly, its all of the above.
Would someone remind me of Bush’s qualifications?
The other question that one must ask is does the President really matter or is it the Executive that is important?
Crataegus: “Would someone remind me of Bush’s qualifications?”
Governor of Texas and President of the Texas Rangers (baseball team)… not necessarily in that order… he is one of the better advertisements for the benefits of name recognition.
Crat,
Bush was just Rove’s useful idiot. The qualification was that the other guys were too…. mmmm how shall i put this? Oh yeah heavyweight. It is argueable that the pres. has really little control over the economy indeed John Mc Cain freely admits to not understanding any of that mumbo jumbo.
Cheney tried to make his presidency all powerful
“When did he have the opportunities to put it away?”
If this question referred to Bill Clinton, Latcheeco, one would have to answer, “According to Monica (and others) it seems not very often”.
Nor does it seem that he often had the inclination to put it away either, though I believe he was often advised that this might be a good idea. Which – since I liked him – “doesn’t amount to a hill o’ beans” in my book.
I liked him too Rory.All droit de seigneur as far as I’m concerned
I wouldn’t exactly describe his conquests as deriving from droit de seigneur, Latcheeco.
I think it was simply a case of his finding it impolite to resist the many women who happened to find him simply irresistable. I expect that like me (and Bill) you also have had to suffer from the same difficulty and thus can afford to be understanding.
Exactly , to say no to them would just be bad form.
Dread & latcheeco
And there I was thinking that G W Bush had the best education that money could buy.
BA from Yale and MBA Harvard Business School.
Point is I wouldn’t put too much faith in qualifications.
There are several problems that I have with the current choice. Firstly none of them set my sole on fire. Obama is a chancer (NI term for trickster come opportunist}he is probably a dud, there is no real substance and no real scrutiny or testing of him. The press have been a lamentable failure. McCaim is past retirement and all the Vet stuff sits uneasy with me as does some aspects of his character. Not too sure (at all) about him and his war that could last 100 years. Then there is Hillary, very very driven and very focused. Boy does she want to be President.
Secondly there really is no over arching vision of where the USA needs to go. Repeating the word change is about as useful as chanting religious text.
Economics. The economy will dominate the next 4 years and none of them instil any real confidence.
Comparing them with people who will also run or who are likely to run shows a distinct lack of any real vision, purpose or idealism. Nader, Ron Paul, McKinney…. Not saying that these people are the answer just that you can be in no doubt that what drives them is a purpose, a belief. These people really do want change.
I find it hard to believe that a nation can fall for such nonsense as ‘Change, if you are up for it’ and Bob the Builder’s ‘Yes we can.’ What is the average IQ of those who vote?
It all makes one question Democracy and the unconditional right to vote.
Whilst I can see Hilary Clintons flaws, and she obviously wants this job badly.
However, she also understands the importance of free health care at the point of need; and that which ever US President introduces it will go down in history as one of the Presidential greats. [Just as Attlee and his Health Secretary Bevan have in the UK]
At the beginning of Bills Presidency she bit off more than she could chew on Health and withdrew from the fray hurt, but she must have learned a great deal and to her credit is up for a rematch.
Whilst I was born into a world where there was no NHS/etc, I have lived most of my life under the protective umbrella of free health care at the point of need, and I cannot imagine the hardships and worry one must suffer when this does not exist, especially if you have a young family.
Hilary is the only candidate who has a long history of fighting for a decent system of health care and this is the reason why in my heart I favor here.
[she also understand the damage bills private part did to his Presidency; and say what you will about her she is a woman who manages to keep her knickers firmly pulled up;)
Crataegus: “And there I was thinking that G W Bush had the best education that money could buy. ”
You can bring fella to college, but you an’t make him think. A sheepskin is nice and a good start, but its not the keys to the kingdom.
Also, completing a course of education does not necessarily make a fellow completely prepared for their chosen profession — physicians have internships and residencies, lawyers need to pas the BAR exam and politicians don’t get to start at the top.
Crataegus: “There are several problems that I have with the current choice. Firstly none of them set my sole on fire.”
Blacked cajun fish, or a hot-foot?
Crataegus: “Secondly there really is no over arching vision of where the USA needs to go. Repeating the word change is about as useful as chanting religious text. ”
Less, actually… most religious texts say what you should and shouldn’t do…
Crataegus: “Comparing them with people who will also run or who are likely to run shows a distinct lack of any real vision, purpose or idealism. Nader, Ron Paul, McKinney…. Not saying that these people are the answer just that you can be in no doubt that what drives them is a purpose, a belief. These people really do want change. ”
Nader is a self-promoter of the first water who is more interested in Nader than any ancillary good he does (or doesn’t) accomplish. McKinney is just a whack-job. Paul… I wish Paul wasn’t that far out there and attracting folks even further out than he is — he is a wee bit like Pat Buchannan — half the time he says things that are important and need saying and the other half you want to call the fella in the white coats to take him away.
Crataegus: “I find it hard to believe that a nation can fall for such nonsense as ‘Change, if you are up for it’ and Bob the Builder’s ‘Yes we can.’ What is the average IQ of those who vote? ”
IQ isn’t the problem, or at least not the main one (and I fear it drops with each election).
The problem is the increasing intellectual laziness of the electorate… and, in some cases, the elected.
Crataegus: “It all makes one question Democracy and the unconditional right to vote. ”
Don’t kid yourself… there are conditions.
WILL CRY FOR VOTES
WILL LIE FOR VOTES
the dowie
Nothing wrong with a few tears, a laugh, a smile or a frown.
It is the lies, half truths and misrepresentations that really annoy me.
Obama didn’t vote for the war, well no he couldn’t so plain misleading. He will bring the troops home; no he won’t. The NAFTA gaff, an admission of deliberately misleading.
Rezko was bone headed; well someone selling you a piece of land for considerably less than they paid for it is called something else where I come from.
Exelon Corporation (nuclear-power) is Barack Obama’s fourth largest patron. I wonder who helped to vote down an amendment that would have ended loan guarantees for power-plant operators?
None of them are angels but the degree of hypocrisy surrounding Obama is equalled only by the amount of blind faith placed in him. It is a tragedy.
Mick HallDread
I don’t disagree with you.
I was looking at some Obama clips trying to comprehend what it is about him that appeals to people.
His style is very much like one of those born again preachers. His following really is like blind faith, and no one is more zealous than the newly converted. Boy are they going to be disappointed.
Crat,
Churchill said the best arguement against democracy is talking to the average voter for five minutes, I’m not sure that the north with two first ministers elected mostly by tribe is the exception to that rule btw before we cast stones. I imagine the pravince is where your cynicism really comes from.
Your point on Bush is good but the trend is generally the opposite else we wouldn’t have our kids go to university would we?
Mick as regards Hil’s pants she may just be waiting to meet the right girl;)
When the media get anything real on Obama they’d bury him : its about the money and pullitzers for them and not idealism,and I know I’m biased but I still think it’s true.
Mick its not universal at the point of need its universally paying insurance there’s a difference.
The war arguement is a lost cause crat.
Dread did you watch Oberman savage her last night?
Crataegus: “You are right about health provision, I don’t think there is any doubt that Hillary Clinton is genuinely interested in that issue and like yourself I think it is of major importance especially for young families and the elderly. No one knows when tragedy can strike and I don’t trust insurance. ”
Yeah, but do you want your healthcarerought to you by the same people who dreamed up the USPS and the IRS? Likewise, access to a waiting list does not constitute access to healthcare. As someone who works on the finance side of government provided healthcare, as much as I like the notion of guaranteed employment for life, it’s not a winning idea.
Crataegus: “Obama’s one difficult press conference where he was ask a few questions about Rezko gave a very real indication as to his lack of ability to address difficulties on the hoof. In my opinion he is not up to the job. ”
He’s already had it, slinking off whilst whimpering that he’d answered, “like, eight questions already.”
The problem is that the media is drinking the kool-aid and Obama running aground or melting down kills the race and no few of these news outlets rely on the interest in the elections — the more competative the election, the more political ads they sell.
Crataegus: “His style is very much like one of those born again preachers. His following really is like blind faith, and no one is more zealous than the newly converted. Boy are they going to be disappointed. ”
The possibility of Chicago ’68 exists as a non-zero proposition…
latcheeco: “Dread did you watch Oberman (sic) savage her last night? ”
No — I prefer information to polemic. Olbermann rants, he doesn’t inform.
Dread
Your right on Olberman.But it was interesting if a bit strong (even for me!)because they are opinion formers to many and how they slant it is important to the race.
All the t.v news here is either preachy or inane and often both. O.K. maybe not PBS and Fox
Where are these bias free organs you speak of? (other than slugger:)
Your point on the long race being a media business opportunity is fair enough but I think the individuals still want to be Woodward and Bernstein.
latcheeco: “Your right on Olberman.But it was interesting if a bit strong (even for me!)because they are opinion formers to many and how they slant it is important to the race. ”
Not really — Olbermann is pretty small beer, ratings-wise and influence-wise — hell, MSNBC is small beer around the clock. Even Fox, the cable news ratings gorilla (by audience numbers), doesn’t break two million sets of eyes on any given night. Olbermann’s audience tunes in to hear what they believe affirmed, not because he is some important opinion-maker.
latcheeco: “All the t.v news here is either preachy or inane and often both. O.K. maybe not PBS and Fox
”
Eh. They all preach, some are just subtler than others… except PBS, which alternately begs and whines.
latcheeco: “Where are these bias free organs you speak of? (other than slugger:) ”
Oh, they’re not bias free — the sources I prefer just aren’t frothing at the mouth, ala Olbermann. I’m usually good for about six news-papers a day (two NY tabloids (referring more to format than content), two national broad-sheets and two local broad-sheets), along with a few national and internation news sites. The trick isn’t to be bias free, it is to find off-setting biases.
latcheeco: “Your point on the long race being a media business opportunity is fair enough but I think the individuals still want to be Woodward and Bernstein. ”
Thank you, latcheeco… the perfect segue…
I completely agree that they want to grow up to be W&B;, but with one proviso… W&B;didn’t set out to topple a president or change the world or any other such foolishness or hubristic fantasy. They set out to get a story and the story they got toppled a president and changed the world. I think today’s “journalists” don’t understand the difference.
Dread,
reading all those papers.So its you that buys them; that’s impressive. Don’t you find them big words put you off though?. Did you say you worked for the government are you a researcher?
I wish I had your job
Olberman prefaced his piece with reference to a couple of people who do apparently pay attention to what he says? And there are one or two repubs. who might disagree about the New York papers frothing at the mouth.
Joe public’s viewing numbers may or may not be relevant or important but who really watches these shows closely are other networks and journalists and professional punditry and the campaigns themselves and they take their cues from each other. So they have influence even if we find that influence a tad lowbrow and yawn worthy.
latcheeco: “I wish I had your job
reading all those papers.So its you that buys them; that’s impressive. Don’t you find them big words put you off though?. Did you say you worked for the government are you a researcher?”
It comes down to a couple of things… First, speed-reading, believe it or not, was one of the educational fads in play when I was in middle-school. Secondly, your implied insult (the average American news-paper is written on the sixth-grade level, if you’re lucky…) has been noted.
I work as a contractor in government funded healthcare. The office is awash with papers that get passed around. Between the style of writing and my background, most of the papers are a quick read.
‘Hilary is the only candidate who has a long history of fighting for a decent system of health care and this is the reason why in my heart I favor here.’
And this will be the reason why many of the big insurance companies may favour Obama as the Democratic Candidate not in the hope that he will win but on the greater probability that he could lose against McCain in the electoral college vote .
Based on the results so far those traditional Republican States would have 216 Electoral College votes (ECV’s) Democrats 183 ECV’s if these states go as expected . The 12 swing States account for 142 ECV’s .
Assuming all the primary States so far voted for Democratic candidates only – Obama would have 247 ECV’s and Clinton 273 ECV’s
When we subtract the definite Republican ECV States from both Obama and Clinton based on the primary results to date Obama’s ECV’s would be down to 120 and Clinton’s to 202 . Reason for Obama losing out more here is that he won many of his primaries in traditionnally Republican States -These States will vote McCain in November .
When we look at the 12 swing States, again based on the Dem Primary results Obama would win 57 ECV’s and Clinton 85 ECVs . This would leave Clinton with 287 potential ECV’s against Obama’s 177.
On balance the Democratic party would do better to choose Clinton over Obama based on a purely ECV approach . In the above exercise I have assumed Clinton wins the Pennsylvania primary.
The States of Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania with a total of 85 Electoral College votes between them will be absolutely critical in this election . This is why the Democrats now seem to be favouring re votes or some solution which does not antagonise or alienate the potential democratic vote in Florida and Michigan .
Obama would do well to settle for VP on this occassion and hope to go again later with a few years of hopefully ‘recognised’ experience under his belt . McCain’s men will hope to defeat Obama in Florida , Ohio and Pennsylvania and that is probably all they will need to ‘steal’ the next election . It’s conceivable with Obama as candidate he could do a Gore i.e win the plurality of votes but still lose the Electoral college . With Clinton that looks less likely IMO.
Apologies Dread!
You picked up the wrong insult:). It was in regards to the shallowness of us t.v. watchers who are not bright enough to “take the Times” and get fed their news through a drip.
Greenflag,
I may be reading this wrong. It’s been a long day and when it comes to math I’m with John McCain in special ed. but are you suggesting that losing a primary equates to losing the state in the election.Surely the point is that because Hil. can’t get more than 48% of the country to like her it’s the independents that count and Barack is winning there so far. The problem now is that she has made this so bitter with her “throw the kitchen sink” strategy that a no-hoper like McCain might win because now half the dems are going to hate her/Obama as well( rightly or wrongly) and McCain doesn’t raise their. fury way Bush does.
latcheeco
I couldn’t put in print what I truely think of NI politicians and the local electorate. I wasn’t raised here and often live elsewhere. Politics here is the politics of fear and ingrained hatred and mistrust. You can put all sorts of gloss on it but that is what it boils down to.
What I said about Bush was, “that he had the best education that money can buy.” In these parts that could be construed that his qualifications were bought rather than earned! Of course the young should get whatever education and training they can.
Dread
On health care I think that the Health Service in Britain and many other European Countries are not bad. Fall ill or if you are in an accident you get treated no question. If you have kidney failure you will get dialysis three times a week every week. No worry no stress it is there. This is one area where I am glad to see proper provision for all. I may argue about efficiently and how it is delivered but not the basic principle.
A repeat of Chicago 68 would be highly entertaining. Not getting nominated is the least of the problems for the acolytes. They could blame that on the selection being rigged and stamp off in righteous indignation. Worse would be for Obama to be nominated and then be tore apart in the Presidential race, or for him to be elected and prove either useless or insincere and a real disappointment.
Cheers Crat, no offence btw
Just fun and (weasel word)games. Your absolutely right about Bush and he is only the tip of the iceberg here in terms of nepotism and one of my minor motivations against Clinton is that it smacks of aristocracy. Again for all his faults I’m willing to give the boy a chance. He’s not going to be worse and he could be better.As one wag put it he’s the first contender since U.S. Grant to actually write his own book.(its supposed to be fairly well written btw). We’re going agree to disagree on Obama/Hilery but our ends/motivations seem to be the same.
latcheeco
Whoever gets in has got to be an improvement on Bush. They can’t be worse can they?