2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber language law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

One more thing: what is the story with this obama means change thing? What is that supposed to mean? What kind of change? Change what? How? Are we talking light bulb here? Does it want to change? Obviously Obama has read Lykoff's book, but change is not a value. It's meaningless rhetoric and as old as politics itself.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Scottmil, love your answers. A breath of fresh air. Logic. You go, whomever. I think Hillary as VP is a nonissue. I don't think either of them would consider it. One of the reasons Hillary may have stayed in the race is to pick up the pieces of the Democratic party when Obama crashes and burns in the general election. Obama was groomed for the role of usurper from the more centrist wing of the Democratic party represented by the Clintons. The fact that Obamas policies are no better (and often not as good) as Clinton's is ironic and telling. The fact that he lost his first election with the label of "elitist" (his opponent was an ex Black Panther) and his other win was the result of his legal team eliminating signatures from his opponent's petitions (a foreshadowing of the rules committee legal rangling) foreshadows his weaknesses and his ruthlessness. His record in the Illinois legislature is due to the speaker funneling bills to him for sponsorship so he can look good. This is all a bit scary to me. The extent the left wing of the party is going to in order to push this guy could backfire in their faces. And his followers are beyond belief! The Rev. Wright is not going to be a problem. His inexperience is not going to be a problem. It reminds me of my time in the Left iin the 70's. We thought the revolution was coming! Spend some time with different people. Test reality. Resist the Kool-aid.

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context

Cognitive dissonance, a human way of saying hypocrisy. I'm with Scott. The Clinton campaign has been derided for derisiveness, but doesn't anyone read the Huffington Post or listen to Air America? With the exception of Lionel, they've all drunk the Kool-aid with "b" and "w" words "liberally" sprinkled. How dare anyone in the Obama campaign talk about the Clinton campaign unless they've confronted their own supporters. I worked on the Clinton campaign and I would defend Obama if I thought the person on the phone had incorrect information (ie. that he was Muslim) As Bill Clinton says, "You ought to vote for whomever you want, but first you should know the facts."
Fact: Clinton was the presumptive candidate going into this race, Obama was the usurper, not vice versa.
Fact: If the Democrats ran their campaigns like the Republican (eg. winner take all,) Clinton would have won on Super Tuesday.
Fact: Its not about the superdelegates, or even the popular vote, it's about the electoral college, and the states that Clinton won handily are the ones that will count in November
Finally, I do not consider the Clinton campaign divisive because experience is a real issue and will still be one in the Fall. To me, and perhaps this is cognitive dissonance, the Obama campaign was the one that played the race card by reading race into every comment (ie. starting with the "fairy tale" fiction and ending with the Bobby Kennedy distortion--perhaps Clinton was saying that Bobby Kennedy would have been in the race past June if he had lived.) At the very least, Obama did nothing to dampen the nasty character assassination on the blogs until recently. Now the line is "be nice to Clinton supporters."
Some of us are angry because we take this character assassination, as women, personally. I haven't made up my mind whether I will vote in the presidential campaign. My significant other will not, because he doesn't not admire or respect Obama because of his campaign. As for the supreme court, he doesn't think that Roe v Wade would ever be in danger and if it were overturned, it would be a nail in the coffin of the Republican party.
If Obama looses in the Fall, he has only his self to blame.
(As to the people who have said that Hillary changed message, give me an example. She might have emphasized different things to appeal to different areas since her campaign was based on policies and not warmed-over Bush rhetoric like "Change" and "Bipartisan.)
(As to the people who have asked what has Hillary done; she has sponsored more bipartisan legislation than anyone else in Congress. Ask New Yorkers, who overwhelmingly reelected her, what she did. I don't want to bore you with a list.)

posted 4 years, 11 months ago
view in context