Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
The following excerpt comes from a recent interview with Harry Reid. Something about it just doesn't sit right with me. www.lvrj.com/news/16948521.html Question: Do you still think the Democratic race can be resolved before the convention?
Reid: Easy.
Q: How is that?
Reid: It will be done.
Q: It just will?
Reid: Yep.
Q: Magically?
Reid: No, it will be done. I had a conversation with Governor Dean (Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean) today. Things are being done.
It could be shady, but I think it could be really good too. Like say if after PA all the SuperD's decide to coalesce around Obama. That would be fantastic. And Hillary can go cry in a corner.
I agree - frankly, if they come out and tell us what they're going to do, then they would have to implement it immediately and I'm sure there are some reasons for not doing so.
There's open government and then there's letting people talk amongst themselves to come up with the best plan before announcing it to the world.
And considering that these days, as soon as someone does anything slightly shady they're immediately removed from office - no chance to defend themselves or right their wrongs - I sure as hell wouldn't want to say anything too quickly.
At first I was like, YEAH PA!!! Until I read further down that alot of people that were switching from republican to democrat were doing so to give McCain a better chance at winning in November. Hmmm, I wonder who they'll be voting for.
Same thing happened in Ohio. Voters there were required to sign an affidavit in order to switch to the Democratic party in which you swear loyalty to the party for a certain amount of time. Prosecution is not probable... but it should be. Thats a felony!
I was just listening to NPR and they had a political pundit on (female) talking about how Clinton is being treated so wrongly. That a man would never be expected to drop out and how demeaning it is to women to see Hillary treated so badly. She was then followed by a slew of female callers decrying the abuse of Hillary. Most said they could not vote for Obama after the system mistreated Hillary so badly and literally begged Clinton not to step down.
The way I see it, anyone but Hillary would have been forced to step down long before now. The only reason she is still in is because she is the Establishment candidate and the Establishment will end up deciding this. The Super delegates would have let Obama, Edwards, Richardson know to step down a long time ago.
Hillary is quickly succeeding in splitting the Dem Party into 2 camps set on a war of attrition. Both sides are getting so angry and feeling so abused, I'm beginning to wonder what can be done. Even if Dean or Gore stepped in now to settle things, one side is going to feel they were misused. Either the older women feel downtrodden or the young and black do.
I was amazed (and things don't surprise me too often) at how offended and angry the "mainstream" pundit sounded. She was obviously livid that a women should be asked to cede the nomination. She and ALL the women callers took Hillary's candidacy personally and an Obama victory as a personal afront, as if men once again forcing women to subjugate themselves.
This is getting very scary. I'm afraid that we are quickly approaching, if not past, the point of reconciliation.
I know all this has been said before but the vehemence of all the callers and the supposedly unbiased pundit shocked me.
Last Edit: Mar 26, 2008 13:57:49 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
I This is getting very scary. I'm afraid that we are quickly approaching, if not past, the point of reconciliation.
I know all this has been said before but the vehemence of all the callers and the supposedly unbiased pundit shocked me.
Yeah, that's pretty much what I read everywhere. Those that support Clinton are increasingly saying that they'll never vote for Obama and vice-versa. I saw a poll on ABC news that had like 35% of Hillary supporters saying that, and 26% of Obama supporters saying that.
To me Hillary is sounding more and more like Bush. Delusional, irrational, "misspeaking", shrugging off so called "facts", doing whatever she has to do to get what she wants. I don't see how these Hillary supporters can't see that. It seems like some of her supporters are the same way as some of the gung-ho Bushies I've come across. She can do no wrong in their eyes.
Much of what some of Hillary's supporters are experiencing is analogous to what Obama spoke about last week. As a white male I may be presumptuous talking like this but just as there is a "black experience" and "white experience", there is also a "female experience."
Many females appear to be tying all their experiences with opression and suppresion on the Hillary candidacy and externalizing their experiences onto Hillary now. It makes for an emotional connection which is impossible to break with logical arguments. (Man, do I sound like a pop psychologist or what?)
Hillary is definitely playing on this to coalesce her support. The danger is the divisive nature of this and how every disagreement becomes a personal affront. It will inevitably lead to emotional injury and a split in the Party. Even if Hillary concedes and tries to make nice later, the emotional scars will remain and many will not vote for her "oppressor."
Once again the Dems are trying to find a way to lose.
**Please know that I am not directing this at all women, or even most women. This is just my opinion of some Hillary supporters, many of then older women, who seem to frame this election thru the lens of the feminist movement. If I have offended anyone I sincerely apologize.
Last Edit: Mar 26, 2008 15:07:36 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
No offense from this woman. I completely agree that there is a female experience. There is also a lobby whose #1 goal is to get a woman in the White House by 2012. And part of that is just to get the country to realize that no, a woman is not going to set off a nuclear bomb just because she has PMS.
I DO think that Hillary has done this, even if she doesn't get the nomination. Just as Barack has done that for black people even if HE doesn't get the nomination. Just as Kennedy did for Catholics. And so on. People get into these snits over inconsequential things and forget about the larger issues.
I think McCain is the one we have to worry about pushing the button... Shouldn't Hillary already be past "the change" so we couldn't blame any bombings on PMS?
Let's just nominate Oprah. The people with the female experience and the black experience will all be satisfied.
There's a new NBC/WSJ poll out. Here some interesting tidbits
Personal approval Rating (Pos-Neg)
O 49-32 C 37-48 Clinton getting close to Bush M 45-25
In General election McCain beats Clinton by 2, loses to Obama by 2.
And one shift I noticed and relates to previous dicussions, 3 weeks ago the number of whites who said the person with the electoral and popular vote lead should get the nomination (not let the Super delegates decide ) was 40 -30. Today it is 37-36. Clinton is convincing whites that she should win no matter what the voters say. Bad sign IMHO. (I wish they had broken it down in male-female)
And so the cleaving of the Dem Party goes on...
Last Edit: Mar 27, 2008 7:28:42 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
I don't know about that. She's invested so much into this race and clearly doesn't intend to step aside easily. It's quite possible she could go all-in. The Clintons haven't lost an election yet, and I don't think they're quite ready to give up on this one.
Waiting until 2012 poses the risk of running against an incumbent Democrat. I don't know if she'd be willing to wait and see.
Hopefully she won't pull a "Leiberman." I don't think she will. I don't see her taking VP either (unless she has a plan to get rid of Obama once they're in. half joking)
I think she will try for Senate majority leader (sorry Reid) and wait until the next opportunity, be it 2012 or 2016.
I really think her plans don't go much further than getting the nomination even if it means destroying the Party. So she can't win the general. She'll worry about that next.
Last Edit: Mar 27, 2008 8:54:12 GMT -5 by troo - Back to Top
How about the minor parties? I haven't heard much from them outside of Nader, who's an independent sans party nomination.
Greens - Cynthia McKinney is the only name I've heard mentioned so far. Libertarians - Ron Paul? I don't know if he'd do it this year, but they asked him to if he didn't win the GOP nomination. Constitution Party - I am only mentioning out of fairness, since they did better than the Greens in 04.
Has any of you even ever actually met a Constitution Party voter?
I'm sure Paul will stay a Rep, too. This election cycle's enhanced what he can do with that seat.
I like the thought of Mike Gravel as a Libertarian. I'm ideologically closest to he or Kucinich, and will be plenty sick of the bipartisan party come November. I just might get behind that.
