Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: Barack Obama, culture, politically correct, pop culture
There’s nothing on this site about pet clothing, pictures of kitties with a hat, that kind of thing. A work in progress I hope.
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/01/19/8-barack-obama/
http://www.catsandbeer.com/music/the-top-10-rap-songs-white-people-love
Filed under: Obama, carny life, democrat, election, politics, republican, war | Tags: Barack Obama, caucus, caucuses, culture, Hillary Clinton, news, Obama 08, President, presidential election
Nevada’s Democratic Caucus Stirs Lawsuit
By BRENDAN RILEY – 11 hours ago
CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) — The Nevada caucuses are becoming a proxy for the racially tinged fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, with Barack Obama’s campaign criticizing Hillary Rodham Clinton’s allies for a lawsuit that could prevent some minorities from participating.
On Friday, six Democrats and a teachers union connected to Clinton filed a lawsuit claiming the rules enabling Las Vegas Strip waitresses, dishwashers and bellhops to caucus inside nine resorts violate state law and federal equal protection guarantees. Other caucus-goers lack the same access, the suit argues.
The Clinton campaign has said it’s not involved in the lawsuit. The Obama campaign says it may not be a coincidence that Clinton’s allies are the plaintiffs.
Obama also suggested the timing was notable, since the suit was filed Friday — two days after he was endorsed by the powerful Culinary Union. That group’s 60,000 members make it the largest union in the state, and nearly 40 percent of its members are Hispanic, its leaders say.
Stuff like this just drives me further from the Clinton camp. You mean to tell me the Clinton Campaign Machine didn’t know about this months ago? Suddenly it’s an issue for them? As often as can be said for a group that includes Bill Clinton in it’s number: Bullshit. This is the sort of pettiness I’ve come to expect from Karl Rove and George W Bush. Suing your own party for what amounts to vote crumbs and something you no doubt already knew about can only be called Rovian. The lowest sort. Bloody pathetic.
Coupled with her attempts to accuse Obama of being inconsistent in his opposition to the Iraq War while being simultaneously for it is confusing and obstructionist. The kind of thing I’d expect of Bush. You can’t be for something and against something at the same time, honey. It invokes the ghost of the John Kerry, Mrs. Scrooge. Something that should be avoided. Fuse the confusion of Kerry with the stupidity of Bush and you’ve got one unsavory candidate there. A retarded combination that should be avoided lest the Obama camp take notice (hint, hint). We’ve wasted the past 8 years with a similar formula. I’d like to avoid a repeat of the same.
By the Hammer of Thor I’ll have none of it. If she gets the nomination I’ll consider going rogue and (gulp) vote outside the Democrat party. All Jack Bauer style and stuff. Her tears of passion for this country were genuine, I think. Her campaign for it is anything but.
Post updated 10:12 pm EST
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080117/ap_on_el_pr/nevada_caucus;_ylt=AkmjQZld9RReF6HuUSq5unSyFz4D
The rules were unanimously approved by the state Democratic party last March and ratified by the Democratic National Committee in August.
But last Friday, six Democrats and a teachers union, which has ties to the Clinton campaign, sued to shut the sites on grounds they allocate too many delegates to one group. Of roughly 10,000 delegates to Nevada’s presidential nominating convention, more than 700 could be selected at casino caucuses, depending upon turnout, which could make them more valuable than some sparsely populated Nevada counties, the lawsuit said. Four plaintiffs are on the committee that approved the sites.
The DNC petitioned to join the suit on behalf of the state party Tuesday.
The Clinton campaign has denied any involvement in the lawsuit, but Obama noted it was filed two days after he was endorsed by the powerful Culinary Workers Union Local 226, which has organized many workers along the Strip. The union is the state’s largest with 60,000 members, more than 40 percent Hispanic.
Filed under: carny life, politics, psychology | Tags: Barack Obama, culture, feminism, Hillary Clinton, news, politically correct, President
Maureen Dowd jumps on the jump-on-Hillary band wagon (a little). Still, she’s got a point or two.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/opinion/08dowd.html?ex=1200632400&en=a5abb2c497df69f3&ei=5070
Salon pimp slaps (or is it ho’ slaps?) Chris Matthews and rightfully so.
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/01/09/hillary_nh/index.html
Feminist Philosophers wont vote for Hillary but dislikes the the double standard, too.
http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/exactly-what-is-the-acceptable-way-to-behave/
And Gloria Steinem schools us all
So why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one? The reasons are as pervasive as the air we breathe: because sexism is still confused with nature as racism once was; because anything that affects males is seen as more serious than anything that affects “only” the female half of the human race; because children are still raised mostly by women (to put it mildly) so men especially tend to feel they are regressing to childhood when dealing with a powerful woman; because racism stereotyped black men as more “masculine” for so long that some white men find their presence to be masculinity-affirming (as long as there aren’t too many of them); and because there is still no “right” way to be a woman in public power without being considered a you-know-what.
I’m not advocating a competition for who has it toughest. The caste systems of sex and race are interdependent and can only be uprooted together. That’s why Senators Clinton and Obama have to be careful not to let a healthy debate turn into the kind of hostility that the news media love. Both will need a coalition of outsiders to win a general election. The abolition and suffrage movements progressed when united and were damaged by division; we should remember that.
I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule. I’m not opposing Mr. Obama; if he’s the nominee, I’ll volunteer. Indeed, if you look at votes during their two-year overlap in the Senate, they were the same more than 90 percent of the time. Besides, to clean up the mess left by President Bush, we may need two terms of President Clinton and two of President Obama.
Jaysus I’m not a big Clinton fan but that’s a good argument. All the challenging perspectives I’ve been looking for are summed up in this essay. I still think Obama is the better candidate, but now I think I see why I think so. Steinem seems to be the only one left still backing Hillary Clinton.
These are the top 3 most email articles on the NY Times website at this time.
Maureen Dowd: Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back to the White House?
Op-Ed Contributor Gloria Steinum: Woman are never Front-Runners
Corpse Wheeled to Check-Cashing Store Leads to 2 Arrests
Does anyone else see the correlation?
Filed under: Obama, carny life, democrat, independent, libertarian, politics, republican, war | Tags: Barack Obama, culture, news, Obama 08, President
A few months ago you could not have told me that Hillary Clinton would not win most of the primaries and Democratic nomination. I was kinda partial to her. Beyond her experience within and without government I really appreciated her turn from the dark side. Her previous personality (which surely still lurks under the surface) would have melted tar and had a similar odor. Tar has it’s uses, but not as a personality. She’s come far enough to be a convincing candidate. But it was still very early in the primaries and the race wide open.
John Edwards. Eh. Call me misanthropic, but if it’s apparent Hillary can beat him up, I don’t want him as my candidate. Kucinich can take him in a fight. This is not the standard I use for all candidates, but it seems valid just the same. That’s all I have to say about that.
(Hillary could also take Kucinich, Chris Dodd. Mitt Romney, Bill Richardson, maybe Huckabee and she’d try Thompson. She’d lose but she’d try. Anyone else I’ve forgotten, they’d meet the same fate.)
(And she needs to beat up Brownback. On general principal.)
Ron Paul. Like the libertarian. Don’t like the crazy.
As for the rest (and maybe Huckabee, definately Obama and against some serious misgivings), are rational enough that 1) I don’t hate them 2) don’t see any significant problems. They talk a good game, but won’t actually be as crazy as they sound. Either McCain, Huckabee or Giuliani will get the Repub nomination. John McCain. I’m kinda fond of the old fogie. Despite his reputation I don’t think he’s crazy. He has a low tolerance for bullshit. Five years as a P.O.W will do that. Low tolerance for B.S. should be a standard trait if you want to be president. Bottom line , I’ll vote Democrat by default, otherwise if it’s right. None of the above are ideal but we’ve lived with much worse (George W Bush).
All things being fair, Hillary, equipped with her newly deodorized personality and undeterred by her testy nature, would be hard pressed to beat Obama’s seemingly genuine, decent demeanor. More importantly…
I interrupted: “Politically it makes sense—”
He finished the sentence: “—to not tell people what we really think?”
Because it’s still early in the process, this may change. I kind of hope it doesn’t.
No matter what we say modern-day politicking is as much about popularity as it is about quality. Questions of experience are relevant. Competence and problem solving abilities, more-so. Lord knows we’ve lived with much, much less (George W. Bush). Obama is smart enough to find the right cabinet. More than smart enough to the make up the difference. Charisma-wise he’s no Clinton (42), but I’m willing to sacrifice some popularity for something approaching consistent optimism, truthfulness and behavior. And, prude though I’m not, no Lewinskis.
Most of the other candidates aren’t subtle enough to lie for an extended time. Almost none of them can tell the truth in a inspiring or convincing way. I’ve yet to see Obama not tell the truth first, obfuscate later. It’s unfortunate we’ve come to expect worse from our candidates, but that’s an amazing level of honesty from a recent public servant.
We are smart enough to handle the truth. Some problems may be difficult but, within the framework of the Constitution and general moral standards, I don’t care how they are solved. I’d prefer most things be accomplished within a certain price range and my civil liberties intact. I think Obama will do that and more. Recently that’s been asking too much (George W Bush).
Obama versus Hillary. I believe Obama wins. Obama versus Republican-yet-to-be named may be a different story. He stands for something. Not just for what polls well. Broad statement, subtle meaning. I hope the average person still understands. Barack Obama may not be the Democrat’s nominee, but he is the best choice for President of the United States.
