2008 Primaries Thread

broads be catty

hurting, i'm not a hillary hater as far as policy goes, but her campaign has been slimier than obama's in my mind, and i think that might piss people off

too moist

i've got to go.

haha my fiancee hates hrc, tho, adding on to the ladies hate cool h train

1 week til Nevada debate. Obama will be getting schooled, methinks.

loool @ ron paul's gender gap (11% male, 4% female)

98% racists

100% Sean Hannity haterz

yo bumrush the colmes

At least this will save us from all the Obama-is-the-12th-Imam slough. But a fine montage it is ...

http://home.att.net/~phildragoo/wsb/media/240742/site1119.JPG

wtf/lol @ 'NO ONE HAS REAL REASONS TO HATE HILLARY' try her war vote (still a big deal to me, fuck u dudes) and TRIANGULATING on EVERYTHING

My wife backs Hillary. I'm for Obama mainly because of the Iraq/Iran votes and a moment that turned me off in which Hillary made a really insensitive-sounding defense of the payroll tax cap.

I'm willing to take a gamble on the fact that an Obama presidency, would, in fact, be better than a Hillary presidency, but I'm skeptical. I'm not convinced Obama won't or hasn't made the same devil's bargains with corporate interests Hillary has. He's a better, more energetic speaker, and he talks a lot about hope and change, and he rattles off the same laundry list of problems any dem. candidate would and makes unrealistic claims that he's going to solve them. Which I forgive, to a extent, because he is campaigning.

Triangulating? Isn't Obama's whole "unity" and "non-partisan" schtick a re-branding of triangulation?

Triangulating? Isn't Obama's whole "unity" and "non-partisan" schtick a re-branding of triangulation?

-- Hurting 2, Tuesday, January 8, 2008 11:46 PM (19 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

no, not at all

deciding you're randomly against flag burning = triangulating
convincing republican lawmakers to go along with videotaping police interrogations = unity and nonpartisan 'schtick'

i don't see obama making the kind of moves that hillary has in the past that suggest she is much more prone to making decisions based on short-term political expediency.

so what's the tough talk on Pakistan if not triangulation?

convincing republican lawmakers to go along with videotaping police interrogations = unity and nonpartisan 'schtick'

-- deej, Tuesday, January 8, 2008 11:47 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

in CHICAGO nonetheless, the city known for torturing black suspects up into the mid-1980s

so what's the tough talk on Pakistan if not triangulation?

-- Hurting 2, Tuesday, January 8, 2008 11:50 PM (20 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

real talk?
im going to reiterate it totally makes sense that, should pakistan be unable to squash independent groups that are threatening the u.s. and we have ACTIONABLE intelligence to that effect, we should take action.

and no this is nothing like bush's iraq war strategy

I've been wondering about that, Deej. Say it wasn't Pakistan. Say it was England. Would you feel the same way?

The number of aggro white dudes who still hate Hillary with a seething passion is kind of amazing.

ILX to ILX!! WTF

daria how would you feel if someone claimed the hillary campaign's near constant attacks on obama were because of her racism?

Nobody is claiming Obama's campaign going after Hillary is anything other than politics. It was just that Obama's cutting little remark had a moment of training all the massive anger I've had over the coverage of this race onto him, which isn't fair to him, but sometimes it's just visceral. The media's fucking sexist, though. She's shrill. She cackles. She's cold and calculating. Oh, wait, now she's playing the victim and saying waaah, poor me. She can't win. Fuck 'em.

Hey, I'm not saying women don't do it too. A (female) colleague of mine was just saying today, oh, I heard her at the debate and she was so shrill, and then my boss was like, oh, and then she was crying, I can't believe it, and I said well, too bad I'm still voting for her.

????
if the IRA was threatening to nuke the u.s. and the uk couldn't stop the ira, yes

xp

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2007/12/14/wuspols114.jpg

wtf/lol @ 'NO ONE HAS REAL REASONS TO HATE HILLARY' try her war vote (still a big deal to me, fuck u dudes)

^^^

I got so caught up in defending my non-sexist position that I'd momentarily forgotten THIS. Her Clintonian campaign style is a distant second.

WAHT?!?!? xp

I also don't think Hillary would start a war like Iraq, even though she voted for it. Which, admittedly, reflects badly on her decision to vote for it.

maybe i'm assuming 'actionable intelligence' means something diff than u dudes do

"Actionable intelligence" = quick and precise strike, amirite?

hey daria, i can see why you'd want to take a break from ilx, but fwiw your posts on this thread are one of the only reasons i read it. and agreed on media coverage of clinton; sometimes i think i must be making it up.

????
if the IRA was threatening to nuke the u.s. and the uk couldn't stop the ira, yes

xp

-- deej, Wednesday, January 9, 2008 12:54 AM (3 minutes ago)

I think Daniel was probably more likely talking about the Islamic extremist groups that actually might conceivably threaten the U.S. from England. Like if the English P.M. claimed he was doing as much as we could and we said "that's not good enough" and sent in the bombers.

Of course we wouldn't do that because we couldn't and we might bomb Waziristan because we can.

PS, guys, the rabid Hillary hate started at least as far back as 1992. What pisses me off is seeing the so-called "liberal" bloggers picking it right back up because she might win an election.

Sorry I'm just not getting it, though. How would I know. There's always some reason to hate her, and it's never exactly sexism, but it's a funny thing how so many people at once find different reasons not just to not support, but to either hate, or just do the "lol this, lol that, hilarious" backhanded sarcastic shit, which is possibly more annoying.

Like if the English P.M. claimed he was doing as much as we could and we said "that's not good enough" and sent in the bombers.

-- Hurting 2, Wednesday, January 9, 2008 12:00 AM (18 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

i think that would depend on whether it was good enough or not! if we have 'actionable intelligence' that we are under immediate threat then yeah i dont see whats wrong w/ protecting this interest. Or at the very least, i dont see whats wrong w/ that position for a presidential candidate - i think its not THAT much of a stretch to make the case for making a move into another country based on (again) 'actionable' intelligence. Like most things it depends on the circumstance

I think the sexism works like this - Hillary isn't the most likeable powerful female ever, granted, but often when a powerful female ISN'T disarmingly likeable the floodgates tend to open. Like as soon as there are other legitimate reasons not to like a powerful woman, the hate tends to be double.

Sorry I'm just not getting it, though. How would I know. There's always some reason to hate her, and it's never exactly sexism, but it's a funny thing how so many people at once find different reasons not just to not support, but to either hate, or just do the "lol this, lol that, hilarious" backhanded sarcastic shit, which is possibly more annoying.

-- daria-g, Wednesday, January 9, 2008 12:00 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

that sounds more to me like everyone here acknowledging that she doesnt have many supporters. the same way we go 'lol this, lol that' about mainstream serious republican candidates

daria is otm about the media and guys in gen. but on ilx, at least in this thread, id say most anti-hillary people have been pretty damn reasonable

daria i'm not a clinton supporter by any means but your posts about hillary have been the most worthwhile on this thread

-- and what, Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:24 PM (1 month ago) Bookmark Link

sayin though lets keep it cool

Liberal bloggers do it because she's not only too center-left for their tastes, but also a little hawkish.

I resent your characterization of me, a Hillary detractor, as still having some kind of buried misogyny that I'm trying to cover up by justifying other reasons to say not nice things. If Elizabeth Edwards were as viable as she was, and was running, I might not support her but wouldn't have a bad thing to say about her.

what deej said

And anyway, I'm not accusing anyone of sexism, I'm really not, it's just that.. as a woman it pisses me off to see a bunch of guys gleefully trashing a woman who, to my mind, has done nothing whatsoever to deserve it. I've seen it here, and in the media, and on the blogs, for months and months, and long before the race even got heated and anything you'd call questionable campaign tactics even happened. To "and what," maybe if you dropped into a thread of a bunch of white guys all trashing a black man for whatever reason (I know there are many of those on ILM, take your pick), wouldn't you step in and be a little pissed off about it just on the basis of.. demographics, say.

Chris Matthews on the gender gap "I wish we had more women on this panel to talk about it." ROFLs

daria, you admit you don't get it. maybe... you don't get it?

guys, here's a very simple theory of elections - people vote for the candidate that makes them feel the best

here is the application of the very simple theory of elections
1952, 56 - lol, everyone likes Ike
1960 - lol, no contest
1964 - :(, everyone feels bad about existing admin, sympathy vote
1968 - everyone feels bad about everything, no more sympathy for existing admin
1972 - nixon wants you to feel better than humphrey does
1976 - everyone feels bad about existing admin, no sympathy, other guy has funny grin
1980 - everyone feels bad about existing admin, no sympathy, other guy promises AM in USA
1984 - noontime in USA, with Bruce Springsteen
1988 - a lot of people still feel pretty ok about the admin; junior guy's kinda funny, but better than that dour guy on the other side
1992 - whoops, that didn't turn out so well; take a look at this sunny, optimistic new guy!
1996 - hey, this is great!
2000 - whoops, now lots of people hate the old guy, and lots of others hate the people who hate him; the junior guy's not as good, but alright, i guess; so's the new guy tho, maybe
2004 - holy fucking shit! lots of people love this guy, lots hate him. maybe we don't feel so good about him, but this new guy seems to want us to feel worse? he's not mr. personality or anything either.

who in this election's gonna make people feel good? this isn't hard.

Yeah, I'm cool. I think it's probably a few folks that really burned me and not most everyone, actually, but the ones that did made me pretty convinced I should just walk away.

done nothing whatsoever to deserve it?

There's always some reason to hate her, and it's never exactly sexism, but it's a funny thing how so many people at once find different reasons not just to not support, but to either hate, or just do the "lol this, lol that, hilarious" backhanded sarcastic shit, which is possibly more annoying.

FWIW (not much, I realize), I don't hate HRC at all. I respect her. But I don't support her in the primary, for two reasons: (a) she was -- to me -- on the wrong side of two key war votes (Iran/Iraq) and her advisory team and rhetoric suggests that she'd have a more hawkish foreign policy and a more overreaching view of executive power than I'd like and (b) I don't think she can win in a GE (especially against John McCain). But those criticisms are based on her policies and likelihood of success, not her gender.

At times I've felt that Joe Lieberman was targeted for extra hatred in part because he's a diminutive Jew. That said, I FUCKING HATE JOE LIEBERMAN!

guys can I just lock the thread? I mean look at what gabbneb just posted. lol voeting amirite

Daniel I hear you, that's totally fair.

guys, did you know kerry has a big chin? and botox? and metrosexual hair? and looks like frankenstein? and isn't the kind of guy you'd want to have a beer with? and is french? and gay? and yellow? and a card-carrying member of the cultural elite? all because he's a woman, of course.

I think Daniel was probably more likely talking about the Islamic extremist groups that actually might conceivably threaten the U.S. from England. Like if the English P.M. claimed he was doing as much as we could and we said "that's not good enough" and sent in the bombers.

Rt. So what if a dangerous Islamic extremist group -- that announced its intention of getting nuclear weapons and using them against the West -- was found to have a hub in London and we had good "actionable intelligence" on where it's key leaders would be at a given time. We ask London to take action, but for internal political reasons, it refuses and objects to our taking any unilateral action.

So, do we fire missles or send troops/special ops into London?

gabb i think it might be time to go to bed

gabbneb seriously stfu