GREEN CINE Already a member? login
 Your cart
Help
Advanced Search
- Genres
+ Action
+ Adult
+ Adventure
+ Animation
+ Anime
+ Classics
+ Comedies
+ Comic Books
+ Crime
  Criterion Collection
+ Cult
+ Documentary
+ Drama
+ Erotica
+ Espionage
  Experimental/Avant-Garde
+ Fantasy
+ Film Noir
+ Foreign
+ Gay & Lesbian
  HD (High Def)
+ Horror
+ Independent
+ Kids
+ Martial Arts
+ Music
+ Musicals
  Pre-Code
+ Quest
+ Science Fiction
  Serials
+ Silent
+ Sports
+ Suspense/Thriller
  Sword & Sandal
+ Television
+ War
+ Westerns


Public Discussions

topics
GreenCine General
Music
Discuss music itself, plus music videos, performance DVDs, concerts, opera, and so on. la la la o/^
16

Obama unites the Dead
Topic by: Vanamonde
Posted: February 3, 2008 - 7:19 AM PST
Last Reply: October 28, 2008 - 9:28 PM PDT

page  1  2  3  4  5      prev | next
author topic: Obama unites the Dead
kaream
post #41  on September 8, 2008 - 8:08 PM PDT  
The story of Max Cleland is particularly instructive.

Cleland is a triple-amputee Vietnam veteran, a hero elected to the senate from Georgia in 1996 as a middle-of-the-road moderate Democrat. Following 9/11, Democrats in Congress urged Bush to establish a Department of Homeland Security, but Bush was against it. Finally when it became clear that the idea was popular, Bush suddenly changed his mind, and touted the idea as his own. However, Bush insisted that for the first time, staff in this new department must be at-will employees without being given any civil service status. Cleland had fought to get the department established, but like nearly all Democrats in Congress, he choked on stripping an entire federal department of any civil service protections, and had to vote against the bill as it was written.

So guess what happened. When he ran for reelection in 2002, Republican Saxby Chambliss ran an ad comparing Cleland to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and defeated him.

Republicans are like that.
kaream
post #42  on September 9, 2008 - 1:24 AM PDT  
> On September 8, 2008 - 8:08 PM PDT kaream wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Republicans are like that.
> ---------------------------------

I concede Lyndon Johnson's 1964 "daisy" ad used against Barry Goldwater. Otherwise let's consider, just as other examples in addition to Chambliss:
--G. H. W. Bush's 1988 Willie Horton ad used against Michael Dukakis;
--Sen. Jesse Helms' 1990 "less qualified minority" ad used against Harvey Gantt, black former mayor of Charlotte;
--the swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004;
--the "Harold, call me" ad run by the RNC in 2006 against black Rep. Harold Ford of Memphis in his campaign for the senate.

We could also consider stolen elections. Again, I concede it's very likely that Richard Daley stole Cook County in 1960 to deliver Illinois for Kennedy against Nixon, but here we have two consecutive elections, first in 2000 where Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris illegally disenfranchised thousands of probable Gore voters -- this is a completely separate issue from the subsequent problems in voting and in counting votes -- and then in 2004 where Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell illegally disenfranchised thousands of probable Kerry voters. It's certainly arguable that G. W. Bush has never been elected president by legal means.
underdog
post #43  on September 9, 2008 - 11:56 AM PDT  
The Swiftboating thing against Kerry is still interesting to me, when you consider this year John McCain is, as conservative pundit Andrew Sullvan derisively said, using "a noun, a verb, POW" as the substance of everything he says. Why is John McCain an American hero and John Kerry wasn't?

Well, Kerry did speak out against the war in Vietnam when he came back, and while speaking out against something you think is wrong, even if you participated in it, is about as American as apple pie, a lot of conservatives don't see it that way. They acted like Kerry was some kind of conspiratorial communist, while McCain is a big hero. The GOP is also the party of family values, of course, never mind that McCain came back from being a POW and then cheated (with Cindy) on the wife who waited for him all those years.

Of course, hypocrisy is nothing new in this campaign. ("Hilary's a b---- ... but don't be sexist against Palin!")

It's fascinating to study. If we weren't so nervously attached to it, it would be fascinating to study, that is.
Battie
post #44  on September 9, 2008 - 3:44 PM PDT  
> On September 9, 2008 - 11:56 AM PDT underdog wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> The Swiftboating thing against Kerry is still interesting to me, when you consider this year John McCain is, as conservative pundit Andrew Sullvan derisively said, using "a noun, a verb, POW" as the substance of everything he says. Why is John McCain an American hero and John Kerry wasn't?
>
> Well, Kerry did speak out against the war in Vietnam when he came back, and while speaking out against something you think is wrong, even if you participated in it, is about as American as apple pie, a lot of conservatives don't see it that way. They acted like Kerry was some kind of conspiratorial communist, while McCain is a big hero. The GOP is also the party of family values, of course, never mind that McCain came back from being a POW and then cheated (with Cindy) on the wife who waited for him all those years.
>
> Of course, hypocrisy is nothing new in this campaign. ("Hilary's a b---- ... but don't be sexist against Palin!")
>
> It's fascinating to study. If we weren't so nervously attached to it, it would be fascinating to study, that is.
> ---------------------------------

Kerry speaking out against Vietnam is both anti-conservative-values (where American war is never wrong, no matter how badly planned) and shows that, while he understands duty, he also had something of a moral compass. I bet that have conservatives nightmares.

As for sexism...I'm an equal-opportunity hater. Hilary is a b--, but Palin is a freakin' psycho. She makes Hilary look like Mama Harper with less bite.
kaream
post #45  on September 9, 2008 - 8:20 PM PDT  
> On September 9, 2008 - 3:44 PM PDT Battie wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> As for sexism...I'm an equal-opportunity hater. Hilary is a b--, but Palin is a freakin' psycho. She makes Hilary look like Mama Harper with less bite.
> ---------------------------------

So what's wrong with being a bitch? (You'd probably be bitchy too, if you lived with Bill.) You want a president who's clear-eyed and somewhat cynical, who's smart, and who takes to heart the admonition to hold your friends close and your enemies closer (which BTW antedates Mario Puzo by at least 1000 years). In all seriousness I hold Richard Nixon to have been the best Republican president of the past century*, and I say that as an old-time Nixon-hater ('Tricky Dick the fighting Quaker') with full knowledge of his days on the House Un-American Activities Committee and his psychotic rantings on tape, and everything in between. For all that, he was a pretty good president, for a Republican. A cynical bastard, but pragmatic, never rigidly following right-wing dogma.

After all, you are not electing somebody you'd most like to hang with over a beer or four.

*Well, the next best, after TR, that is.
Battie
post #46  on September 9, 2008 - 8:42 PM PDT  
> On September 9, 2008 - 8:20 PM PDT kaream wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> So what's wrong with being a bitch? (You'd probably be bitchy too, if you lived with Bill.) You want a president who's clear-eyed and somewhat cynical, who's smart, and who takes to heart the admonition to hold your friends close and your enemies closer (which BTW antedates Mario Puzo by at least 1000 years). In all seriousness I hold Richard Nixon to have been the best Republican president of the past century*, and I say that as an old-time Nixon-hater ('Tricky Dick the fighting Quaker') with full knowledge of his days on the House Un-American Activities Committee and his psychotic rantings on tape, and everything in between. For all that, he was a pretty good president, for a Republican. A cynical bastard, but pragmatic, never rigidly following right-wing dogma.
>
> After all, you are not electing somebody you'd most like to hang with over a beer or four.
>
> *Well, the next best, after TR, that is.
> ---------------------------------

Calling Hilary a bitch is a simple way for me to say I have no respect for her. She wouldn't have made a good president. From what I've seen of her, she tries to bow to whatever she thinks will get her power, as opposed to Obama who sounds like he actually has something of a moral compass and practically (or he just hides political cynicsm a lot better than she did - either works for me). There were moments during her campaign when she acted exactly like a lot of "bitchy" women. She suggested a Clinton-Obama ticket when he was ahead of her. When she was beginning to lose, she was suddenly Michigan's ally. Not only was discounting the votes "disenfranchising the voters" but they'd clearly spoken that they wanted a Clinton president (nevermind that she had no competition on the ballots and had swore that every state had to hold to the rules).

While all of that may reflect a natural and desirable quality in a ruthless leader, ruthlessness is only good when it's disguised as fairness and objectivity. Without the latter being present or faked, Hilary's choices just seemed to lack an acceptance of reality and a certain petulance over not getting what she wanted.

I suspect it's the same everywhere, but sore losers are despised in the South. And a lack of grace in a woman is even worse (which is sexism, but also true).
kaream
post #47  on September 9, 2008 - 9:10 PM PDT  
There's never been any doubt in my mind that of all the people running this year, Clinton would have been the best and most effective president. She knows how government works, how the bureaucracy works (Truman said of Eisenhower that when the general got into the Oval Office he would say, do this! do that! -- and nothing would happen); she knows how the Senate works, and has gone out of her way to make friends and allies in Congress; she knows what levers to pull to get things done; she's not afraid of pushing people; and she's learned her lesson from the 'Hillary-healthcare' fiasco.

By the same token, but for different reasons, I think that Obama could be an excellent president.

The problem, of course, has always been that the chance of either of them actually getting elected has been vanishingly small. (At least we were spared the humiliation of 'the white guy', John Edwards, having won the nomination.) As I've seen it, this election was always ours to lose, but only with an electable candidate. I think the country was ready -- more than ready -- for Al Gore this time around. He too has learned lessons from 2000, and this year Americans would have been much more receptive to his message on climate change. But he didn't want to run, damn him.
kaream
post #48  on September 9, 2008 - 9:16 PM PDT  
> On September 9, 2008 - 8:42 PM PDT Battie wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Calling Hilary a bitch is a simple way for me to say I have no respect for her. She wouldn't have made a good president. From what I've seen of her, she tries to bow to whatever she thinks will get her power, as opposed to Obama who sounds like he actually has something of a moral compass and practically (or he just hides political cynicsm a lot better than she did - either works for me). There were moments during her campaign when she acted exactly like a lot of "bitchy" women. She suggested a Clinton-Obama ticket when he was ahead of her. When she was beginning to lose, she was suddenly Michigan's ally. Not only was discounting the votes "disenfranchising the voters" but they'd clearly spoken that they wanted a Clinton president (nevermind that she had no competition on the ballots and had swore that every state had to hold to the rules).
>
> While all of that may reflect a natural and desirable quality in a ruthless leader, ruthlessness is only good when it's disguised as fairness and objectivity. Without the latter being present or faked, Hilary's choices just seemed to lack an acceptance of reality and a certain petulance over not getting what she wanted.
>
> I suspect it's the same everywhere, but sore losers are despised in the South. And a lack of grace in a woman is even worse (which is sexism, but also true).
> ---------------------------------

Oops, I didn't see your post while I was mulling over mine. Your points are well taken, but I still think you're more addressing the issue of her electability than of her effectiveness in office.
kaream
post #49  on September 9, 2008 - 9:52 PM PDT  
> On September 9, 2008 - 9:16 PM PDT kaream wrote:
> ---------------------------------
Your points are well taken, but I still think you're more addressing the issue of her electability than of her effectiveness in office.
> ---------------------------------

I think that a lot of the increasing and unseemly -- bitchy -- desperation on the part of both Clintons was simply a conviction that regardless of the springtime love affair with Obama, there was no way he could survive the November election. And they were right. (Of course they also did their best to make sure that would be a self-fulfilling prophecy.) What they never acknowledged to themselves was that the same applied to her -- there was never any way she could win in November. As much as the Clintons wanted to return to the White House, I really think they deluded themselves that Hillary was honestly trying to save the Democratic party from a humiliating defeat again this year.
underdog
post #50  on September 10, 2008 - 10:39 AM PDT  
Definitely: Al Gore would've won this election in a cakewalk had he decided to run. He'd probably had enough of presidential elections after the last nightmare though, the 2000 debacle, and is doing pretty well for himself these days so it's hard to blame him.

Looking at the latest electoral map projections based on delegate polling and so on, Obama is winning and it's close. The election will remain close up to and on election day. If you have concerns about that, get every friend and family member you know who is on the fence or doesn't often vote, to vote. Guilt them into it if you have to.
Battie
post #51  on September 10, 2008 - 12:18 PM PDT  
> On September 10, 2008 - 10:39 AM PDT underdog wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> Definitely: Al Gore would've won this election in a cakewalk had he decided to run. He'd probably had enough of presidential elections after the last nightmare though, the 2000 debacle, and is doing pretty well for himself these days so it's hard to blame him.
>
> Looking at the latest electoral map projections based on delegate polling and so on, Obama is winning and it's close. The election will remain close up to and on election day. If you have concerns about that, get every friend and family member you know who is on the fence or doesn't often vote, to vote. Guilt them into it if you have to.
> ---------------------------------

Again, that'll only be useful in swing states. Or states that don't have a 'take-all' electoral voting process.

As for Hilary being able to effectively run the presidential office, I doubt it. Bill had an amiable charm that could convince people to work with him. Hilary has none. I also think that she'd have wanted to run again had she actually, by some miracle, won. So her first term would've been spent trying to stay in power, as opposed to trying to fix problems with congress.
underdog
post #52  on September 10, 2008 - 1:27 PM PDT  
So how does Obama convince on-the-fence former Hillary supporters to vote for him instead of either voting for McCain or not voting at all? A lot of Hillary supporters have committed to him, as we saw at the DNC, but there are apparently still quite a few out there who are still disgruntled or whatever. Some efforts are being made to remind them of Sarah Palin's opinions on abortion/choice, education, sex education, and so on. There are also concerted efforts on the part of Gov. Sibelius and other women to go on tour as it were. Florida seems to be one key place that may be difficult for Obama to make in roads with these voters, at least according to one writer.
kaream
post #53  on September 10, 2008 - 4:13 PM PDT  
If McCain were 10 years younger I wouldn't worry nearly so much -- not that I'd be happy -- but as it is, this has got to be the scariest election in any of our lifetimes.

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis, 1935
Battie
post #54  on September 10, 2008 - 8:35 PM PDT  
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/10/gina-gershon-parodies-sar_n_125522.html

Rotfl. Gotta love Gina Gershon.
Catullus
post #55  on September 11, 2008 - 4:38 PM PDT  
FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP

more like lie and lie some more

Liar
Nenufar
post #56  on September 11, 2008 - 4:46 PM PDT  
> On September 11, 2008 - 4:38 PM PDT Catullus wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP
>
> more like lie and lie some more
>
> Liar
> ---------------------------------

This one's much newer (from this week) and looks at McCain's campaign ads.
kaream
post #57  on September 11, 2008 - 9:18 PM PDT  
> On September 11, 2008 - 4:46 PM PDT Nenufar wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> > On September 11, 2008 - 4:38 PM PDT Catullus wrote:
> > ---------------------------------
> > FLIP FLOP FLIP FLOP
> >
> > more like lie and lie some more
> >
> > Liar
> > ---------------------------------
>
> This one's much newer (from this week) and looks at McCain's campaign ads.
> ---------------------------------

It seems to me there are really two different things going on here.

First, McCain isn't totally in charge of his own campaign, and is putting himself in the hands of GOP pros to get himself elected -- pros like Roger Ailes, Karl Rove, etc, etc -- all the same old dirty ugly fighters who play for keeps. That's how he ended up with somebody like Palin on his ticket instead of someone he himself felt comfortable with. This is sort of the same thing that Battie was complaining about Hillary Clinton -- there are no silver medals in politics, so you do whatever it takes to win. It's a shame, because I really don't think McCain personally is a bald-faced liar; but it's becoming clear that he's put his destiny in the hands of people who have no compunctions about saying anything at all, no matter how outrageous.

Second, and far scarier to me, is that I think McCain is getting confused -- like that business about blaming Iran for Al-Qaeda in Iraq. And when he contradicts himself, as in these YouTube clips, it's more a memory deficit than simply lying. This is extremely bad news because it means that in the White House he would need to depend more and more on this same kind of ruthless true believers who believe that running the US government is their God-given right and destiny. And then at some point, instead of continuing to be increasingly manipulated, he would have to step aside in favor of his vice-president. I think this is what's really going on.
kaream
post #58  on September 11, 2008 - 11:49 PM PDT  
Here we go again.

I'm not sure this link will work properly, but here's a new (online only) Newsweek article by Jonathan Alter about the same kind of voter suppression going on right now that we saw in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004 -- but nationwide this time, thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision on Indiana election law (and guess which Justices voted which way in this decision).

'Jim Crawford' Republicans
kaream
post #59  on September 11, 2008 - 11:57 PM PDT  
Here is the Brennan Center site that the article refers to. Check it out. Republicans play for keeps.
Catullus
post #60  on September 12, 2008 - 5:53 PM PDT  
honestly much later on down the road (and I still think massive tampering and cheating went on in the 2000 and 2004 elections) I was happy Al Gore did not win the presidency.

Only because I think Joe Lieberman is the worst kind of scum. I absolutely hate this guy, probably more than Bush and Cheney combined.
page  1  2  3  4  5      prev | next

about greencine · donations · refer a friend · support · help · genres
contact us · press room · privacy policy · terms · sitemap · affiliates · advertise

Copyright © 2005 GreenCine LLC. All rights reserved.
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®, a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.