Indiana Jonesing
315 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 13 Newer→ Last
-
Ironically, he might win the popular vote there by half a percent, get exactly the same number of delegates as if he lost it by half a percent, and one way it'd still be game on, and the other it'd be the ball game.
-
McCain's not sitting around with his thumb up his arse until the Democrats make up their mind. He's on the campaign trail now, and it would be nice if the media got their heads around that.
Yes, I agree with you there. However the US media (and most of the rest of us) are more interested in the shit fight amongst the Democrats for now.
There's a saying about men not dying in their sleep cos they can't do two things at once. The political media seems a bit like that.
When the focus shifts to the main event, McCain will come under the scrutiny you want to see. First things first.
-
Staring at what could be a very narrow defeat, the Clinton campaign have declared themselves the winners. They know that it's too close to call, but they've done it anyway - this could be embarrassing.
-
Ironically, he might win the popular vote there by half a percent, get exactly the same number of delegates as if he lost it by half a percent, and one way it'd still be game on, and the other it'd be the ball game.
The punditocracy seems to be saying it's game over for the nomination. Hillary first cancelled her network TV interviews for tomorrow morning, then all public events tomorrow. There will be some talking going on.
-
Reports from Gary are claiming that they had 95% voter turnout that broke %75 for Obama. Those numbers are so unbelievable that . . . I kind of don't believe them. Very dodgy.
A few blogs are reporting that Clinton has cancelled all her public appearances for tomorrow. If she's going to throw in the towel then she might have held back on begging for donations earlier tonight. Wouldn't that piss you off if you threw the [insert gender neutral insult here] a couple of hundred dollars and she withdrew the next day?
-
Reports from Gary are claiming that they had 95% voter turnout that broke %75 for Obama. Those numbers are so unbelievable that . . . I kind of don't believe them. Very dodgy.
You're not the only one to think that. But it's apparently for real -- the Republicans overseeing the count have taken the unusual step of vouching for the validity of the result.
Gary does have a large black population, and a popular mayor who seems to have been full-time campaigning for Obama.
-
So Clinton wins Indiana in the end. But only juuuuuust.
The calls for her to quit will only get louder now. And I guess the supers will turn to Obama pretty quickly.
-
I kind of don't believe them. Very dodgy.
I don't know. As Russell pointed out, Gary has a large black population and perhaps using Wright as an offensive (in every sense) weapon had some blowback on Clinton.
I've also got to say, and no hint of gender-bias here, that listening to both Obama and Clinton on Checkpoint he was pitch perfect (talking about uniting the party, no matter who won) while Clinton... not so much. I know it's easy to say while sitting in a comfy armchair ten thousand miles away from the action... but it just seemed tonally off for someone with a 1.4 point margin.
-
It might come down to a city called Gary
LOL, That is brilliant.
-
The thing about Obama, of course, is that you can blame his wife for the links to black nationalism, and thus get the 'ooh blacks are scary' and 'oooh wives are manipulative' sexist/racist two-fer.
-
WH,
The Audacity of Hope is okay, the chapters on race and faith are thoughtful and well written. Obama impresses me when I hear him speak.
Judging from what he's said and written, I'd guess that Obama would dissociate himself from childish personal criticisms, especially when the target is a fellow Democrat. You know, on his way to uniting the country and changing the tone in Washington and stuff.
I know its hard to make sensible, evenhanded contributions when you feel strongly about something, but its usually worth the effort.
-
I can't help but feel that that last comment was directed at me, so I will expand on what I said.
In the context of a discussion in which the race- and gender-bias both of contributors here (in the form of gendered insults, for instance) and in the much broader political discussion has been an issue, I find it interesting that Christopher Hitchens should use an undergraduate sociology thesis written by Barack Obama's then-21-year-old future wife in 1985, in which she uses a definition of separationism developed by a black activist in the 1960s, and who, after Michelle Obama wrote her thesis, gave a speech at the same conference in which another black activist made inflammatory comments about Jews, to buttress claims that Obama is a black nationalist, or at least that there are radical elements within his cohort who will further black nationalist goals in spite of his own professed moderateness.
It is interesting because 1) Hitchens is the last person on earth who should be doing anything like that, given the evolution of his own political ideas since he was an undergraduate student 2) it furthers the fear-mongering surrounding Obama's ancestry by not only politicising his skin colour but also, through the extremely tenuous connection to Louis Farrakhan, reminding us all of the 'Obama is secretly Muslim' meme and 3) crosses the race/gender divide that has characterised much of the discourse surrounding this primary election by painting Michelle Obama as a Lady Macbeth figure, manipulating her husband for her own political ends.
Again, the evidence for this claim is one paragraph in an undergraduate thesis (Hitchens doesn't mention that it's the work of an undergrad, btw), which is trying to find a working definition for one aspect of how the author might conceive of African-American experience at Princeton in the 1980s. He doesn't, for instance, mention the following paragraph in which she develops a definition of integrationism, nor does he accuse her of ideological associations with Websterian philologists when she commits the classic undergraduate error of using a dictionary definition of 'comfort'.
The point is that, in the to-ing an fro-ing over race, gender and class that has made this primary race so unique and long-lasting, Hitchens appears to have found a novel way of combining all three (once you add the 'Princeton' thing, which, given the number of typographical errors the type-written thesis, has already gone on to complaints about Affirmative Action). I have no doubt that these Lady Macbeth claims will continue as time goes on, so that, even if, contra Hitchens, we're not getting a 'two for one' in the White House, we're certainly getting a two-for-one in the race and gender politics.
-
I am a bit late to the game but never mind. After reading the previous posts one thing that stands out as interesting is the change in views about Hillary Clinton over the past few months. Now she is not so well thought of by the majority of posters at PAS.
Hillary in 2008 is exactly the same person she has been since 1992, when she first came onto the national scene. What took so long to figure out that she has many apparent problems, such as her troubled relationship with the truth? It has been abundantly obvious for years, 16 years in fact.
As for where it goes from here, Obama has won the Dem nomination; he really won it back in Feb when he had that string of 11 or so wins that gave him an uncatchable lead in delegates.
As for the general, who knows, not me that's for sure. Obama could win 40 states or implode spectacularly. I think the long campaign season (primary and general) works against Obama as people tire of his shtick and find out more about the difference between his lofty talk and how he has lived his life, or more specifically who he has lived his life with. Why did it take you 20 years to decide you don't like Rev Wrights rantings? Most people could have figured that out in 20 minutes or less.
Black Liberation Theology is in play, and it doesn't go over so well with moderate Dems or independents, populations with which Obama has to do well to win in November.
I think his wife will end up being a problem for Obama. Americans are optimists, angry and bitter doesn't sell well. Sorry darling, don't give me all this hard done by shit after you went to Princeton and Harvard. You ought to at least be grateful for the incredible opportunities you have had, not all pissed off and bent out of shape as you apparently are.
-
Sorry darling, don't give me all this hard done by shit after you went to Princeton and Harvard.
There's nothing I find more hilarious than a transplanted guy from New Zealand patronisingly telling *an African-American woman* how she should be feeling about discrimination in her own country. Are you fucking kidding me dude?
-
Why did it take you 20 years to decide you don't like Rev Wrights rantings? Most people could have figured that out in 20 minutes or less.
Well, James, I'm not the only person who detects a certain amount of disingenuousness from the right when it comes to the differeing responses to Jeremiah Wright and John Hagee -- whose endorsement McCain solicited despite his anti-gay, anti-Muslim, anti-Catholic ravings. And would would have guessed that Hurricanie Katrina was God's punishment on New Orleans for allowing a gay pride parade to sully its streets?
Nor do I recall Jerry Falwell becoming persona non grata in right-wing circles, after he blamed the 9/11 attacks on (can you guess?) teh gayz and teh feminnists.
Black Liberation Theology is in play, and it doesn't go over so well with moderate Dems or independents, populations with which Obama has to do well to win in November.
Perhaps not, James. But do you also think its possible that the GOP is going down the toilet -- and there are serious indications that the Dems are going to solidify and expand their majorities in House and Senate -- because the theo-con hijack of the Republicans is terminal? And as I've tried to point out on Kiwiblog (to a hostile audience), unless McCain does a lot better than the gas-tax holiday bullshit he's going to be no help.
-
There's nothing I find more hilarious than a transplanted guy from New Zealand patronisingly telling *an African-American woman* how she should be feeling about discrimination in her own country. Are you fucking kidding me dude?
You ain't seen nothing yet - wait 'til Obama's the democratic nominee and you'll have James dropping by to rant about how he's a drug-dealing, muslim terrorist pimp. THAT'S gonna be the funny stuff.
-
Remember when...Obama wasn't black enough and Hillary Clinton was polling at least even with African Americans?
Combination of Rev. Wright + Bill Clinton's crassness seems to have changed that.
-
Why did it take you 20 years to decide you don't like Rev Wrights rantings? Most people could have figured that out in 20 minutes or less.
It's an interesting question, even Orpah saw through Wright after just a few years. Most likely he was a little bit blinded because of the strong mentor role Wright played or it was politically expedient at the time not to saying anything critical. Or a combination of both. Either way it just shows he's human and has the usual human failings, he doesn't share any of Wright's crazier ideas.
(I think Hitchen's theory is that Obama didn't ditch Wright earlier because of his wife but his evidence is underwhelming).
-
The goss is that they believe they have a majority on the party's Rules and Bylaws committee and could force through a decision to seat the delegates. Which would not go down well.
Obama's reasoning may be that he'd rather not go into the election with the Democratic Party in flames.
I see, so the very worst interpretation for Clinton based on the goss and the best interpretation for Obama based on speculation.
It's no secret that Clinton wants those delegates seated and it's no secret Obama doesn't. They're both motivated by self-interst here but in judging the morality of their resepective positions it's worth considering who doesn't want votes counted and who does.
If it's true that Obam now wants to deal on this issue then that is a change of position - a change that comes about becasue he's pretty secure. He's dealyed any sloltution to Michigan and florida until it suits him.
But I agree that one reason he wants to do a deal is not to damage the Dem party. Which he would if he continued to be obstructive. He will need the Florida votes and the rest of Clinton's support base come Nov.
-
(I think Hitchen's theory is that Obama didn't ditch Wright earlier because of his wife but his evidence is underwhelming).
We've ruminated on sexist commentary of Hillary in his thread. Hitchens' screed is a spectacular example of sexist commentary directed at Michelle Obama. Gawd, he's a horrible man ...
-
(once you add the 'Princeton' thing, which, given the number of typographical errors the type-written thesis, has already gone on to complaints about Affirmative Action)
They're attacking her for her bad typing? Does America have an affirmative typing action programme that they've been keeping secret? Is good typing a requirement of getting into Princeton?
Inquiring minds want to know.
-
Perhaps not, James. But do you also think its possible that the GOP is going down the toilet -- and there are serious indications that the Dems are going to solidify and expand their majorities in House and Senate -- because the theo-con hijack of the Republicans is terminal?
There are some hugely worrying trends amongst younger voters for the Republicans. Pew identified a generational shift in attitudes last year: young voters are more liberal, more Democrat-leaning than they've been in decades.
In the end, it's good news for everyone. A couple of spankings for the theocons and the Republican party will drift back towards the centre (or, as I suspect Craig would see it, towards the established conservative tradition) out of sheer need for relevance. Hopefully.
-
which, given the number of typographical errors the type-written thesis, has already gone on to complaints about Affirmative Action
Irony.
-
Gawd, he's a horrible man ...
we agree on something. but he's consistantly horrible. he never much liked the Clintons.
-
we agree on something. but he's consistantly horrible. he never much liked the Clintons.
He hated them to a degree that was simply deranged. Has he transferred his hostility or simply expanded it?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.