He's inexperienced, but hell, he can win. And I'm still pissed at Hillary for criticizing my Grand Theft Auto.
5 Comments:
Avanese said...
Yeah, not to mention that Hillary has never found a stupid imperialistic US war that she doesn't like, or a beleaugered group of Americans she wouldn't screw over to get a few more campaign funds from corporate bigwigs.
The Democratic rank and file should fight her as intensely as they would combat any conservative Republican candidate. She's an impostor with an abhorrent anti-Progressive record, and she needs to be stopped from getting the 2008 nomination. If she does get that nomination, then loyal Democrats need to bolt in 2008 and support a viable Third Party or parties-- or hold our noses and prepare to fight again in 2012 for an actual progressive. Hillary is an enemy of everything the Democrats stand for.
Don't know enough about Obama (except what I see on TV). Do we want another unknown quantity in the White House?
Remember Dubya?
As for Hillary; don't care for her warmongering but maybe she'd be okay to fix healthcare and decouple Social Security from health costs. The real bogeymen on the American landscape are the military-industrial complex in a tight race with the health care industry.
Anywho, what the hell is wrong with Feingold with Kucinich for VP? Or Stewart/Colbert?
But no third party! The only third party that will work will be after the revolution!
Maybe Obama is an unknown quantity, but in his first senate race other politicians were riding his coattails. That's nothing short of a meteoric rise and, barring some horrible personal secret, the sign of an excellent politician.
Hillary, besides being way more right wing than everyone thinks (avanese is right), is divisive, and will be an uphill battle all the way.
Between those choices, I guess I'm choosing the devil I don't know.
Finally, ted, I hope you're joking about Kucinich and Feingold. I like them, but they've got about as much chance of winning as Larouche. We need stealth liberals, not obvious liberals.
I like them, but they've got about as much chance of winning as Larouche. We need stealth liberals, not obvious liberals.
Well, I'm just being idealistic. And stupid. But if we can't get real progressives in this election cycle, we're fucked. The next go-around for progressives will be when the global warming shit hits the fan and at that point, I'll realistically decide it's too late for progressivism and switch over to survivalism.
There is an off chance that if liberals could take both houses they could lay the groundwork for increasingly progressive ideals, but I won't hold my breath. That would entail a plan AND less fellating of business interests, and I don't see that in the works.
I don't understand your use of the word divisive. Are you suggesting that some liberal would get more than the minimal support? A liberal that has the capability to draw more than 51-53%? With Diebold machines in use?
For Hillary by divisiveness I mean the absolute and total hate people have for all things Clin-ton. The baggage she brings with her is just so tiresome, and everyone is convinced she's some total evil liberal fiend when in reality she's way right of Lieberman or most mainstream democrats, even voting for the torture bill (for which I won't forgive her).
5 Comments:
Yeah, not to mention that Hillary has never found a stupid imperialistic US war that she doesn't like, or a beleaugered group of Americans she wouldn't screw over to get a few more campaign funds from corporate bigwigs.
The Democratic rank and file should fight her as intensely as they would combat any conservative Republican candidate. She's an impostor with an abhorrent anti-Progressive record, and she needs to be stopped from getting the 2008 nomination. If she does get that nomination, then loyal Democrats need to bolt in 2008 and support a viable Third Party or parties-- or hold our noses and prepare to fight again in 2012 for an actual progressive. Hillary is an enemy of everything the Democrats stand for.
2:58 AM, October 23, 2006
Don't know enough about Obama (except what I see on TV). Do we want another unknown quantity in the White House?
Remember Dubya?
As for Hillary; don't care for her warmongering but maybe she'd be okay to fix healthcare and decouple Social Security from health costs. The real bogeymen on the American landscape are the military-industrial complex in a tight race with the health care industry.
Anywho, what the hell is wrong with Feingold with Kucinich for VP? Or Stewart/Colbert?
But no third party! The only third party that will work will be after the revolution!
8:43 AM, October 23, 2006
Maybe Obama is an unknown quantity, but in his first senate race other politicians were riding his coattails. That's nothing short of a meteoric rise and, barring some horrible personal secret, the sign of an excellent politician.
Hillary, besides being way more right wing than everyone thinks (avanese is right), is divisive, and will be an uphill battle all the way.
Between those choices, I guess I'm choosing the devil I don't know.
Finally, ted, I hope you're joking about Kucinich and Feingold. I like them, but they've got about as much chance of winning as Larouche. We need stealth liberals, not obvious liberals.
10:09 AM, October 23, 2006
I like them, but they've got about as much chance of winning as Larouche. We need stealth liberals, not obvious liberals.
Well, I'm just being idealistic. And stupid. But if we can't get real progressives in this election cycle, we're fucked. The next go-around for progressives will be when the global warming shit hits the fan and at that point, I'll realistically decide it's too late for progressivism and switch over to survivalism.
There is an off chance that if liberals could take both houses they could lay the groundwork for increasingly progressive ideals, but I won't hold my breath. That would entail a plan AND less fellating of business interests, and I don't see that in the works.
I don't understand your use of the word divisive. Are you suggesting that some liberal would get more than the minimal support? A liberal that has the capability to draw more than 51-53%? With Diebold machines in use?
12:09 PM, October 23, 2006
For Hillary by divisiveness I mean the absolute and total hate people have for all things Clin-ton. The baggage she brings with her is just so tiresome, and everyone is convinced she's some total evil liberal fiend when in reality she's way right of Lieberman or most mainstream democrats, even voting for the torture bill (for which I won't forgive her).
4:15 PM, October 23, 2006
Post a Comment
<< Home