yeah me too, but I'm getting really worried... and wondering how she keeps winning these primaries and shit. now I'm afraid to turn on the news.
for what reason? this is the problem with so many obama supporters. you don't hear hillary voters talking about fearing an obama or edwards presidency. obama is feeding off of the anti-hillary support, a lot of which is coming from gop converts and from independents who don't like the gop contenders but see hillary in the same negative light as they did Bill when they voted against him in the 90s elections... and from people that maybe couldn't deal with a female president[/b].
sayin.
Can we inversely say that all the anti-Obama negativity comes from people that maybe couldn't deal with a black president[/b]
Or that these SAME people are wiling to support a Black president but NOT a White female president?
What the fuck imaginary world do you people live in?
Sip deeply from the kool-aid.
i didn't say that all[/b] the hillary-bashing comes from people that don't like her bc she is a woman. that said, i'm astounded by the way that people throw around "bitch" when discussing her with such ease and levity, faulting her for being - what? - intelligent, power-driven, manipulative, "shady," etc...exactly like all of the other candidates!! what would a man be called for being such things? maybe a shrewd politician?
not that i'd necessarily vote for her, or anything...
men get called shady all the time, wtf are you talking about bill clinton is a shady ass motherfucker too
"Let us examine briefly some of the tricky strategy used by white liberals to harness and exploit the political energies of the Negro. The crooked politicians in Washington, D.C., purposely make a big noise over the proposed civil rights legislation. By blowing up the civil rights issue they skillfully add false importance to the Negro civil rights "leaders." Once the image of these Negro civil rights "leaders" has been blown up way beyond its proper proportion, these same Negro civil rights "leaders" are then used by white liberals to influence and control the Negro voters, all for the benefit of the white politicians who pose as liberals, who pose as friends of the Negro.
The white conservatives aren't friends of the Negro either, but they at least don't try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the "smiling" fox.
The job of the Negro civil rights leader is to make the Negro forget that the wolf and the fox both belong to the (same) family. Both are canines; and no matter which one of them the Negro places his trust in, he never ends up in the White House, but always in the dog house.
The white liberals control the Negro and the Negro vote by controlling the Negro civil rights leaders. As long as they control the Negro civil rights leaders, they can also control and contain the Negro's struggle, and they can control the Negro's so-called revolt. The Negro "revolution" is controlled by these foxy white liberals, by the government itself. But the black revolution is controlled only by God."
"Let us examine briefly some of the tricky strategy used by white liberals to harness and exploit the political energies of the Negro. The crooked politicians in Washington, D.C., purposely make a big noise over the proposed civil rights legislation. By blowing up the civil rights issue they skillfully add false importance to the Negro civil rights "leaders." Once the image of these Negro civil rights "leaders" has been blown up way beyond its proper proportion, these same Negro civil rights "leaders" are then used by white liberals to influence and control the Negro voters, all for the benefit of the white politicians who pose as liberals, who pose as friends of the Negro.
The white conservatives aren't friends of the Negro either, but they at least don't try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the "smiling" fox.
The job of the Negro civil rights leader is to make the Negro forget that the wolf and the fox both belong to the (same) family. Both are canines; and no matter which one of them the Negro places his trust in, he never ends up in the White House, but always in the dog house.
The white liberals control the Negro and the Negro vote by controlling the Negro civil rights leaders. As long as they control the Negro civil rights leaders, they can also control and contain the Negro's struggle, and they can control the Negro's so-called revolt. The Negro "revolution" is controlled by these foxy white liberals, by the government itself. But the black revolution is controlled only by God."
Hillary is hardly a foxy white liberal. Kucinich's wife is a foxy white liberal.
"Let us examine briefly some of the tricky strategy used by white liberals to harness and exploit the political energies of the Negro. The crooked politicians in Washington, D.C., purposely make a big noise over the proposed civil rights legislation. By blowing up the civil rights issue they skillfully add false importance to the Negro civil rights "leaders." Once the image of these Negro civil rights "leaders" has been blown up way beyond its proper proportion, these same Negro civil rights "leaders" are then used by white liberals to influence and control the Negro voters, all for the benefit of the white politicians who pose as liberals, who pose as friends of the Negro.
The white conservatives aren't friends of the Negro either, but they at least don't try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the "smiling" fox.
The job of the Negro civil rights leader is to make the Negro forget that the wolf and the fox both belong to the (same) family. Both are canines; and no matter which one of them the Negro places his trust in, he never ends up in the White House, but always in the dog house.
The white liberals control the Negro and the Negro vote by controlling the Negro civil rights leaders. As long as they control the Negro civil rights leaders, they can also control and contain the Negro's struggle, and they can control the Negro's so-called revolt. The Negro "revolution" is controlled by these foxy white liberals, by the government itself. But the black revolution is controlled only by God."
Clinton simply didn't do anything worth remembering.
Lately he is reminding me of every white lie he told during his term. Apparently I was too forgiving of the man. Back then the lies were kind of silly ... didn't inhale, definition of "is" is, not have sex, etc. Now his version of the truth has become extremely nasty, unbecoming of an ex-president and damaging to his legacy. Someone was asking why the Clintons are hated, I now have a deeper understanding of the reasons.
I have been very disappointed with the distortions of the current administration and outright lies of individuals like Alberto Gonzales. I have seen a lot of the same behavior in Hillary's campaign -- doublespeak, half-truths, malicious smears, general selfishness, trivial complaining, etc. --- and I am not in the mood for 4-8 more years of that crap. I can not support Hillary Clinton or any politician/party that endorses her.
Where's Al Gore when we need him? (Joking. Or maybe not).
if only Bill had 'helped out' Al Gore this doggedly in 2000
Gore, and Kerry, asked Bill not to campaign for them, or limited his campaigning. Al ran away from the Clinton legacy, like it was something to be ashamed of. Then he picked a far right wing hawk as his running mate. Still he won the vote.
Then he picked a far right wing hawk as his running mate.
i wonder why KVH doesnt defend poor Lieberman? I would wager that his voting record (other than his voites on the Iraq war) are just as (if not more) liberal than Hillary's. And they are certainly longer held than Obama, since Lieberman was probably casting votes while Obama was in gradeschool.
Then he picked a far right wing hawk as his running mate.
i wonder why KVH doesnt defend poor Lieberman? I would wager that his voting record (other than his voites on the Iraq war) are just as (if not more) liberal than Hillary's. And they are certainly longer held than Obama, since Lieberman was probably casting votes while Obama was in gradeschool.
i can't stand lieberman, what are you talking about? liberman has always been a conservative, gore picked him because he was worried about tight-asses being offended by the lewinsky scandal and lieberman had already made speeches blasting clinton in the senate.
and please with the "liberal voting record" as it refers to any of the candidates. they make hundreds of votes a year (as Obama pointed out), lets take a look at their policies and positions, not some arbitrary compilation that includes liberal v. conservative stats on votes about who-knows-what.
I have seen a lot of the same behavior in Hillary's campaign -- doublespeak, half-truths, malicious smears, general selfishness, trivial complaining, etc. --- and I am not in the mood for 4-8 more years of that crap. I can not support Hillary Clinton or any politician/party that endorses her.
she doesn't want your endorsement, you sound like a moron. you're not going to vote democrat if she wins? her policies mirror those of Obama on nearly every major issues when taken in perspective to those of the gop candidates. but your gonna sit home or vote for mccain on election day because of hillary's "trivial complaining" and "general selfishness".
sorry its only a 75% compared Hillary's 95% (Lieberman is a regular Archie Bunker). Of course, this is just a record of how they actually voted, and i see you are more interested in how they spin those votes.
P.S. in 1990 Gore received only a %78 to Libermans 83%, so I dont see how Liberman could be chosen to "balance out the ticket" in that respect.
"Let us examine briefly some of the tricky strategy used by white liberals to harness and exploit the political energies of the Negro. The crooked politicians in Washington, D.C., purposely make a big noise over the proposed civil rights legislation. By blowing up the civil rights issue they skillfully add false importance to the Negro civil rights "leaders." Once the image of these Negro civil rights "leaders" has been blown up way beyond its proper proportion, these same Negro civil rights "leaders" are then used by white liberals to influence and control the Negro voters, all for the benefit of the white politicians who pose as liberals, who pose as friends of the Negro.
The white conservatives aren't friends of the Negro either, but they at least don't try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the "smiling" fox.
The job of the Negro civil rights leader is to make the Negro forget that the wolf and the fox both belong to the (same) family. Both are canines; and no matter which one of them the Negro places his trust in, he never ends up in the White House, but always in the dog house.
The white liberals control the Negro and the Negro vote by controlling the Negro civil rights leaders. As long as they control the Negro civil rights leaders, they can also control and contain the Negro's struggle, and they can control the Negro's so-called revolt. The Negro "revolution" is controlled by these foxy white liberals, by the government itself. But the black revolution is controlled only by God."
This couldn't be more appropriate...
Actually, this could...
...
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.[/b]
I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress. I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all its ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light, injustice must be exposed, with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion before it can be cured. ...
Then he picked a far right wing hawk as his running mate.
i wonder why KVH doesnt defend poor Lieberman? I would wager that his voting record (other than his voites on the Iraq war) are just as (if not more) liberal than Hillary's. And they are certainly longer held than Obama, since Lieberman was probably casting votes while Obama was in gradeschool.
Civil Rights: Clinton Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record.
Liberman Rated 40% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record.
Enviorment Clinton Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.
Lieberman Rated 42% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment
Go down the list, not even close. JL Is a right wing nut job who only says he's a dem because it's easier for him to win elections as a dem.
so are the people who are co-signing the Malcolm and Martin speeches doing so because they think hillary has some secret agenda or do you also believe that Obama is out there crusading for blacks?
up until south carolina, obama has made an effort to NOT appear among all black audiences or discuss black issues. i've been saying this since the first obama thread popped up, but this was co-signed last night when, among the congressional black caucus, and an audience filled with black voters, obama never talked about racism in America! he neutralized every question. some may think that is what they want, but to me that seems like .
there is an op-ed in today's nyt that talks about the prevalence of racisim in south carolina and criticizes all the candidates, including obama, for being silent on it.
so are the people who are co-signing the Malcolm and Martin speeches doing so because they think hillary has some secret agenda or do you also believe that Obama is out there crusading for blacks?
up until south carolina, obama has made an effort to NOT appear among all black audiences or discuss black issues. i've been saying this since the first obama thread popped up, but this was co-signed last night when, among the congressional black caucus, and an audience filled with black voters, obama never talked about racism in America! he neutralized every question. some may think that is what they want, but to me that seems like .
there is an op-ed in today's nyt that talks about the prevalence of racisim in south carolina and criticizes all the candidates, including obama, for being silent on it.
You think it might be because story spinning mf's like you might say he's playing the race card or that he might give Blacks beneficial treatment in office?
STFU. You're preaching to a choir of one, yourself.
so are the people who are co-signing the Malcolm and Martin speeches doing so because they think hillary has some secret agenda or do you also believe that Obama is out there crusading for blacks?
up until south carolina, obama has made an effort to NOT appear among all black audiences or discuss black issues. i've been saying this since the first obama thread popped up, but this was co-signed last night when, among the congressional black caucus, and an audience filled with black voters, obama never talked about racism in America! he neutralized every question. some may think that is what they want, but to me that seems like .
there is an op-ed in today's nyt that talks about the prevalence of racisim in south carolina and criticizes all the candidates, including obama, for being silent on it.
My point being: I don't trust any of these motherfuckers but shit, after 8 years of the wolf (and a unbelievably incompetent wolf at that), I'm willing to see how the fox does. That said, Clinton/Obama/Edwards - it's hard not to be cynical that they're just variations on a theme.
I'm not Cashless btw, but your Hillary stan-dom isn't serving your interests well. There's probably people around here who are genuinely undecided but your hardcore partisanship to Hillary is off-putting. You might consider a more nuanced route.
You think it might be because story spinning mf's like you might say he's playing the race card or that he might give Blacks beneficial treatment in office?
STFU. You're preaching to a choir of one, yourself.
so are the people who are co-signing the Malcolm and Martin speeches doing so because they think hillary has some secret agenda or do you also believe that Obama is out there crusading for blacks?
up until south carolina, obama has made an effort to NOT appear among all black audiences or discuss black issues. i've been saying this since the first obama thread popped up, but this was co-signed last night when, among the congressional black caucus, and an audience filled with black voters, obama never talked about racism in America! he neutralized every question. some may think that is what they want, but to me that seems like .
there is an op-ed in today's nyt that talks about the prevalence of racisim in south carolina and criticizes all the candidates, including obama, for being silent on it.
My point being: I don't trust any of these motherfuckers but shit, after 8 years of the wolf (and a unbelievably incompetent wolf at that), I'm willing to see how the fox does. That said, Clinton/Obama/Edwards - it's hard not to be cynical that they're just variations on a theme.
I'm not Cashless[/b] btw, but your Hillary stan-dom isn't serving your interests well. There's probably people around here who are genuinely undecided but your hardcore partisanship to Hillary is off-putting. You might consider a more nuanced route.
Seriously though - are you so dim that you haven't yet figured out WHY Obama is careful about addressing "race issues"?
wtf are you talking about? there is a difference between making HIS race an issue and being a candidate who talks about racism and speaks to Black audiences. you think MLK jr. and Malcolm X, when they envisioned the first black president, had a guy in mind who, up until South Carolina, strategically avoided Black audiences, and when given the opportunity, doesn't even address the racism that all those people in the audience last night face on probably a daily basis?
i'm not saying Hillary is a crusader for Black causes, but to anyone that follows the democratic party, its pretty obvious that Edwards is the guy who is the real advocate for the positions that disproportionately face Blacks (poverty, min wage, job training programs, financial aid, healthcare, etc.).
Are you so dim that you would make the presumption that Obama is a liberal civil rights crusader who would be rallying for Blacks, but is putting up this neutral front just to get elected??? And, if that's the case, is that the candidate you want?
Seriously though - are you so dim that you haven't yet figured out WHY Obama is careful about addressing "race issues"?
wtf are you talking about? there is a difference between making HIS race an issue and being a candidate who talks about racism and speaks to Black audiences. you think MLK jr. and Malcolm X, when they envisioned the first black president, had a guy in mind who, up until South Carolina, strategically avoided Black audiences, and when given the opportunity, doesn't even address the racism that all those people in the audience last night face on probably a daily basis?
i'm not saying Hillary is a crusader for Black causes, but to anyone that follows the democratic party, its pretty obvious that Edwards is the guy who is the real advocate for the positions that disproportionately face Blacks (poverty, min wage, job training programs, financial aid, healthcare, etc.).
Are you so dim that you would make the presumption that Obama is a liberal civil rights crusader who would be rallying for Blacks, but is putting up this neutral front just to get elected??? And, if that's the case, is that the candidate you want?
there is a difference between making HIS race an issue and being a candidate who talks about racism and speaks to Black audiences.
He's not running for black president.
you think MLK jr. and Malcolm X, when they envisioned the first black president
strategically avoided Black audiences, and when given the opportunity, doesn't even address the racism that all those people in the audience last night face on probably a daily basis?
you sound white.
i'm not saying Hillary is a crusader for Black causes
Hillary is busy eating Nachos in Nevada.
Edwards is the guy who is the real advocate for the positions that disproportionately face Blacks (poverty, min wage, job training programs, financial aid, healthcare, etc.).
Are you so dim that you would make the presumption that Obama is a liberal civil rights crusader who would be rallying for Blacks, but is putting up this neutral front just to get elected???
Comments
HAHAAH Oh my Frickin' god this is perfect
bill clinton is a shady ass motherfucker too
"Let us examine briefly some of the tricky strategy used by white liberals to harness and exploit the political energies of the Negro. The crooked politicians in Washington, D.C., purposely make a big noise over the proposed civil rights legislation. By blowing up the civil rights issue they skillfully add false importance to the Negro civil rights "leaders." Once the image of these Negro civil rights "leaders" has been blown up way beyond its proper proportion, these same Negro civil rights "leaders" are then used by white liberals to influence and control the Negro voters, all for the benefit of the white politicians who pose as liberals, who pose as friends of the Negro.
The white conservatives aren't friends of the Negro either, but they at least don't try to hide it. They are like wolves; they show their teeth in a snarl that keeps the Negro always aware of where he stands with them. But the white liberals are foxes, who also show their teeth to the Negro but pretend that they are smiling. The white liberals are more dangerous than the conservatives; they lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf, he flees into the open jaws of the "smiling" fox.
The job of the Negro civil rights leader is to make the Negro forget that the wolf and the fox both belong to the (same) family. Both are canines; and no matter which one of them the Negro places his trust in, he never ends up in the White House, but always in the dog house.
The white liberals control the Negro and the Negro vote by controlling the Negro civil rights leaders. As long as they control the Negro civil rights leaders, they can also control and contain the Negro's struggle, and they can control the Negro's so-called revolt. The Negro "revolution" is controlled by these foxy white liberals, by the government itself. But the black revolution is controlled only by God."
Hillary is hardly a foxy white liberal. Kucinich's wife is a foxy white liberal.
Sayin'. I'd let her control my revolution anytime.
This couldn't be more appropriate...
I have been very disappointed with the distortions of the current administration and outright lies of individuals like Alberto Gonzales. I have seen a lot of the same behavior in Hillary's campaign -- doublespeak, half-truths, malicious smears, general selfishness, trivial complaining, etc. --- and I am not in the mood for 4-8 more years of that crap. I can not support Hillary Clinton or any politician/party that endorses her.
Gore, and Kerry, asked Bill not to campaign for them, or limited his campaigning. Al ran away from the Clinton legacy, like it was something to be ashamed of. Then he picked a far right wing hawk as his running mate. Still he won the vote.
i wonder why KVH doesnt defend poor Lieberman? I would wager that his voting record (other than his voites on the Iraq war) are just as (if not more) liberal than Hillary's. And they are certainly longer held than Obama, since Lieberman was probably casting votes while Obama was in gradeschool.
i can't stand lieberman, what are you talking about? liberman has always been a conservative, gore picked him because he was worried about tight-asses being offended by the lewinsky scandal and lieberman had already made speeches blasting clinton in the senate.
and please with the "liberal voting record" as it refers to any of the candidates. they make hundreds of votes a year (as Obama pointed out), lets take a look at their policies and positions, not some arbitrary compilation that includes liberal v. conservative stats on votes about who-knows-what.
she doesn't want your endorsement, you sound like a moron. you're not going to vote democrat if she wins? her policies mirror those of Obama on nearly every major issues when taken in perspective to those of the gop candidates. but your gonna sit home or vote for mccain on election day because of hillary's "trivial complaining" and "general selfishness".
sorry its only a 75% compared Hillary's 95% (Lieberman is a regular Archie Bunker). Of course, this is just a record of how they actually voted, and i see you are more interested in how they spin those votes.
P.S. in 1990 Gore received only a %78 to Libermans 83%, so I dont see how Liberman could be chosen to "balance out the ticket" in that respect.
Actually, this could...
Civil Rights:
Clinton Rated 60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record.
Liberman Rated 40% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record.
Enviorment
Clinton Rated 89% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes.
Lieberman Rated 42% by the LCV, indicating a mixed record on environment
Go down the list, not even close. JL Is a right wing nut job who only says he's a dem because it's easier for him to win elections as a dem.
up until south carolina, obama has made an effort to NOT appear among all black audiences or discuss black issues. i've been saying this since the first obama thread popped up, but this was co-signed last night when, among the congressional black caucus, and an audience filled with black voters, obama never talked about racism in America! he neutralized every question. some may think that is what they want, but to me that seems like
there is an op-ed in today's nyt that talks about the prevalence of racisim in south carolina and criticizes all the candidates, including obama, for being silent on it.
You think it might be because story spinning mf's like you might say he's playing the race card or that he might give Blacks beneficial treatment in office?
STFU. You're preaching to a choir of one, yourself.
http://www.shutupbill.com/billclinton.html
YES
My point being: I don't trust any of these motherfuckers but shit, after 8 years of the wolf (and a unbelievably incompetent wolf at that), I'm willing to see how the fox does. That said, Clinton/Obama/Edwards - it's hard not to be cynical that they're just variations on a theme.
I'm not Cashless btw, but your Hillary stan-dom isn't serving your interests well. There's probably people around here who are genuinely undecided but your hardcore partisanship to Hillary is off-putting. You might consider a more nuanced route.
Amen.
There can only be one...
Amen.
wtf are you talking about? there is a difference between making HIS race an issue and being a candidate who talks about racism and speaks to Black audiences. you think MLK jr. and Malcolm X, when they envisioned the first black president, had a guy in mind who, up until South Carolina, strategically avoided Black audiences, and when given the opportunity, doesn't even address the racism that all those people in the audience last night face on probably a daily basis?
i'm not saying Hillary is a crusader for Black causes, but to anyone that follows the democratic party, its pretty obvious that Edwards is the guy who is the real advocate for the positions that disproportionately face Blacks (poverty, min wage, job training programs, financial aid, healthcare, etc.).
Are you so dim that you would make the presumption that Obama is a liberal civil rights crusader who would be rallying for Blacks, but is putting up this neutral front just to get elected??? And, if that's the case, is that the candidate you want?
He's not running for black president.
you sound white.
Hillary is busy eating Nachos in Nevada.