In a state with no delegates, where the Democratic Party was not participating and three major candidates had removed themselves from the ballot, the only major candidate failed to persuade 38% of voters that she was better than no one. 38% said that they were “uncommitted” rather than voting for Hillary Clinton, when her closest rivals were not an option. Between the ages of eighteen and forty-four, she actually lost to “uncommiteed”. Granted, she got the majority of votes, but in a country with an electorate as lazy as ours, and in a state that may hold a grudge against candidates that snubbed it, she only barely got a majority when no other major candidate was running! I find that amazing, and telling.
She hasn’t even done that well. Mitt Romney got more votes, and he is phoney. They don’t seem to understand; as the party of loose ends they have got to unite everyone, and while it is impossible for a white man to represent that party, still; who ever they do nominate has got to unite everyone. She can’t do it, and neither can Obama and together they may do worse. So, it is none sense, and a big part of that nonsense is that each denies the problem the nation suffers from, just by being considered for the job. There are enough women in government. There are enough Black millionaires, with others in power. They are not alone in having first class educations. The problem is obviously no problem if they can be nominated, so there is no reasaon to vote for them. The problem is not with them, but women considered as a class, and blacks considered as a class who will never be president and will never know equality or opportunity as they should. Blacks and women don’t need a cheerleader. They don’t need some one telling them one of theirs made it to the top. How does that tokenism help them? What they need is liberty and justice for all, whites blacks, men and women.
Isn’t that sort of self contradictory, playing up the fact that you see both Clinton and Obama as one-dimensional minorities, while saying that because they can be nominated they don’t need to be? If what you’re arguing is true, shouldn’t you evaluate them as candidates based on their policies, rather than focussing so blatantly on the aspects that you claim are least salient?
Sure; it is pardoxical, but many things about the Democrats are. None of them have any reason to trust the government, and yet they want the government to have every ones guns. They had the sense to back off of this some in the last debate, but that will not change the culture of thinking the government is better at reaching good conclusions than the people are. Still, if it were not for general injustice in this society there would be no democratic party, and yet what they hold up for us to vote for are examples of success against adversity; so if they can do it, why can’t all the blacks and all the women? It is an example of Democratic desires to make a point rather than make a change. As one smart fellow said: Red necks always voted democratic, and the democrats rewarded them by keeping their necks red. They don’t fix the problem. Clinton made the problem worse by putting the office up for sale, and making the white house into his own whore house. That got Bush elected, and the last thing we need is the past all over again.
Ultimately, parties cannot effect change. LIke all institutions, they are designed to resist change. But, in particular, the democrats play to play, and don’t play to win. They let ideals get ahold on their minds, and forget that ideas don’t change the world, but people do. You cannot unite america around divisive people or divisive ideas. They should remember that the republican party is the party of people with something to lose, and the only thing that hurts them is having too many of their people lose it all, and become democrats.
Now, I would have you consider why Obama won in Iowa. I think it is the simple fact that we know racism is wrong. I don’t want to say that race discrimination is based upon actual feeling of racial inferiority, or superiority. I do not think that thought is widely held, but there is a wide spread cultural preference and prejudice. In a public setting, in front of ones neighbors, one can be manipulated into doing the right thing. Not so behind closed doors. I have never been particularly injured by blacks, and I have put my life on the line for one, and my job on the line for another. So, If I get into a voting booth, am I going to have some particular reason to vote for a black person? Since no one will note how I vote personally, why should I? Is it to elect a democrat? What have they done for me? It is a much easier task to get people to vote for a candidate that they can identify with than one they have no reason to identify with. Not even the Blacks of America have a reason to vote for Obama. He is not the child of former slaves. He did not have to overcome the greatest obstacle of all to success -in a slave mentality. He does not see in the face of all whites the slavers who snatched his sires from their former existence and harnassed them to plows.
Clinton for her part is unrepresentative of women, and has made a point of pointing that out in the past. She has cried in public in a country which has always demanded toughness in her presidents even when it did not demand intelligence. So she has shown her vulnerability, and that vulnerability is her vulnerability. And what right has she to tears? She did exactly what kerry did in voting for war to keep from being attacked upon that subject. Who gives that kind of power to a moron without some ground rules? So she could be president, she gave the president the power to kill hundreds of thousands of them and thousands of our own while pissing away our national treasure. She, like many others might well learn that putting their interest before the interest of america, or the world is not leadership, but is criminal. And this happens a lot, and usually because a democrat does not have the nads to spoil the game like the republicans.
If you want an example of true leadership, it was Lincoln as a representative during the Mexican war. Sure he voted to fund the troops, but he also pointed out how illegal that war was, and history has shown it to have been the greatest training ground for Civil War generals. So we cannot reasonably expect one injustice will not lead to another. Lincoln paid a price for his opposition, but his argument against war in Mexico was as valid as against war in Iraq. We do not have any leaders willing to put their lives or their futures on the line for justice, right, or what is the long term good of this country. Not one of them is a leader.They are all followers.
Juggernaut, I think your post tried to make a ton of points that had little to do with eachother, did not answer the initial question, and provided little evidence for your assertions. I think you might want to address each of your ideas one at a time because each one is a long discussion in itself.
You’re still not evaluating Obama as a person. You’re evaluating him as a black man, and criticizing him becasue he’s too black for some and not black enough for others. What about his politics? What about his character? If race isn’t an issue, what is your issue with Barak?
I like the fact that Obama has been up front about things that most people would try and hide. We know he’s got something to do with Islam, and that his middle name is Hussien. He also told us that when he smoked pot, he inhaled. I mean come on, what’s not to like about this guy?
What is barrack’s opinion on Iraq? the last time I checked he wanted to bleed soldiers slowly out of Iraq, I still can’t believe this isn’t met with screams of outrage as its the worst of every possible world.
Obama is also sketchy because he claims against a non-nuclear pre-emptive strike, in the cold war a russian had a chance to nuke the states when the machinery envolved that he was observing singnaled an incoming nuclear strike, amazinlgy he didn’t send a strike back under the fear that the machinery was malfunctioning, from what I understand this personal decision saved thousands and thousands of lives, but history paints people’s actions, if it had been a nuclear strike, well, they would have been hit before they could defend themselves.
The fact of the matter is that under certain circumstances the intel is powerful enough to warrent nuking another nation, this is not like people invading iraq over weapons of mass destruction, which isn’t the clear cut case most people make it out to be.
on second thought i think obama might support it and it was mike gravel who critisized him for it, i hope thats the case.
Of course I am not evaluating Obama as a person. All I could possibly know is a personality. So, he is some guy who shows up on my bug light. Does that mean I know him. Who do we elect that we know? Considering the great power invested in the office, I think we should all know him a little bit better, and the rest too. They are all very selective about what they let you see. They are produced, polished, and presented. So; back to the question. Why should anyone vote for him, and why should some old white guy like myself vote for him? Do I owe it to him? What has he done for me? I am certain that one thing that gripes most whites about blacks is that they think we owe them something. Now, some do share my name, so it is possible some of mine were slavers, but some of mine also put it on the line on some of the most famous battlefields of this country in a war that ended chatel slavery, so for me the slate is clean. Yet, I have seen some college campuses where very few look like me, and every gas station I go to, every hotel I go to, and nearly every doctor I go to is foreign or foreign owned. I got more in common with Gomer Pyle Huckabee than I do with that black man. At least I have an idea of how he feels when he looks around a country he does not much own that is foreign owned. And here is the thing. I don’t think Black people are really going to identify with Obama, and if he is not elected they can go on believing they are oppressed, which they are, but if He is elected they are in no sense helped. So what is the point?
I am not trying to make race an issue. I am pointing out that it is an issue whether any one likes it or not. It is the democrats election to lose by nominating one of two people who will be unacceptable for many, many whites. And I don’t believe there need be a word spoken for most to hear that there is the chance to not do something nice for one who has never done nothing nice for them. Ultimately, why should anyone vote for either of those top two?
Honestly, if no worse than the president we got were some sort of recomendation, just about anyone on the planet could have my vote. As it should be easier for blacks, and women to vote for Obama or Hillary, it would be easier for me to vote for a man because a man is what I am, and easier for me to vote white because white is what I like. Don’t you think it possible that some one like Lincoln or Washington may actually have captured something in himself of the whole people, that the people could identify with? Since politics has become the business of selling personalities; Shouldn’t the dream merchants find some one that looks like everyone.
Forgive my typos. Blame the cat. I don’t know what he wants but he won’t leave the old dog alone.
No nuclear war saved billions of lives, but even if we do not have a first strike policy we still know if they fart in Russia so we don’t have to worry about being more than a few seconds behind them. The thing is that they studied the problem, and they put a lot of effort in to surviving a war. They protected buildings and factories with burms, and that sort of thing. The point is, Thermo nuclear war is unthinkable. And, still, if you can manage to frustrate a whole population, and yet blame their frustration on some enemy, then you can get elected on the promise to start armagedon. Leaders are never going to be smarter than they have to be to get office and get the loot. As George Bush demonstrates, we do not like leaders who are smarter than us, but it is dangerous to elect them stupid none the less.