Rialian ([info]rialian) wrote,
@ 2007-07-13 18:55:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Share this!  Next Entry
Current music:Gossamer - Hollow Eyes, Hollow Soul

Ah...I now know of two folks that shall not be getting my vote.
Unaware that their microphones were still on following an NAACP Presidential Forum in Detroit on Thursday, Senator Hillary Clinton and former Senator John Edwards agreed to try to eliminate other Democratic Presidential candidates from future debates

===Well, Clinton was already on that list, but Edwards is now fully on that list as well.


(17 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]fendahleen
2007-07-13 11:09 pm UTC (link)
Fox news inadvertently reports truth, full story at six.

(Reply to this)


[info]heron61
2007-07-13 11:12 pm UTC (link)
These people are in the race to win and as long as they aren't doing anything illegal, I don't see why there is a problem. Edwards is definitely my first choice, largely because he's more of a liberal than the other front-runners and I don't have the lingering distrust of his views about queer and abortion issues that I do of Kucinich's (who if he both wasn't in nearly last place and didn't worry me about those issues would be my first choice, since I very much like his economic views).

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]alobar
2007-07-14 12:30 am UTC (link)
Getting competetors out of the debate sure seems to me like it should be a felony. I say they should both be removed from all future debates, tried on felony charges, and tossed in the clink, this preventing them both from holding any office in the future.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]heron61
2007-07-14 01:21 am UTC (link)
By using illegal means, most certainly otherwise, why? It seems an obvious and sensible tactic, and they aren't doing anything illegal, I quite literally fail to see any problem.

Despite his idiocy with Vietnam (and it was a great deal of idiocy, even if he's not the one that got us into that horrid war), one of my favorite presidents in Lyndon Johnson. JFK talked a lot, but Johnson was a shrewd and ruthless politician who used every angle he could find, including all manner of threats in order to greatly reduce both segregation and poverty in the US and he did wonders and his efforts literally halved poverty in the US in 3 years. (although most of his gains against poverty were reversed in the Republican-controlled 80s and early 90s). Also, as far as anyone can tell Johnson didn't break any laws doing any of this.

We live in a nation where there are far too many Dominionists and they have far too much power and where the Supreme Court is controlled by 5 deeply evil Republican appointees. I want a President who is as shrewd and as ruthless as Johnson, and who like Johnson has liberal ideas. Anyone who can show that they both have the correct ideals and the correct level of cleverness and ruthlessness, tempered by a determination to do things within the law has my vote.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]alobar
2007-07-14 09:10 am UTC (link)
> It seems an obvious and sensible tactic

It seems to me like conspiracy to fuck with the electoral process. Probably also would be considered domestic terrorism under Homeland Security.

LBJ? He was the man behind the faked Gulf of Tonkin incident which escalated the US invasion of SE Asia. How many lives did LBJ destroy with his lies? LBJ should have been tried for treason, then publicly executed.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]heronheart
2007-07-14 12:54 pm UTC (link)
By using illegal means, most certainly otherwise, why? It seems an obvious and sensible tactic, and they aren't doing anything illegal, I quite literally fail to see any problem.

It's quite possible to do something immoral without it's being illegal. To me this just puts Hilary Clinton furthur into the "mainstream" of political thought in this country. A mainstream of political thought which we could well do without. I may end up holding my nose and voting for Clinton but this and her association with Walmart ( http://www.politicalfriendster.com/showConnection.php?id1=206&id2=207 ) mean that the stench will be that much stronger.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]heron61
2007-07-14 07:08 pm UTC (link)
Clinton is my last choice of the 3. Edwards is more like an actual liberal than Clinton, and unlike Obama, I actually know what Edwards is for (and from what I've seen, Obama is also somewhat less liberal than Edwards). OTOH, given the alternative to one of these three winning is some Republican winning, I'll also vote for whoever gets the nomination, because the alternative is vastly worse.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]nobbyknees
2007-07-14 10:20 pm UTC (link)
I don't think it should be a felony--but maybe debates should be scheduled excluding them, and *all* the other candidates could unite in saying over and over again in the media how Clinton and Edwards are afraid to face them in debate.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]nobbyknees
2007-07-14 10:14 pm UTC (link)
I don't think Edwards is more of a liberal than the front-runners. He talks like one, but if you look at voting records, the scary thing is Hillary's is more liberal than Edwards'. Of course, I understand that he's representing a less liberal state than she is.
But the main way Edwards outdoes Hillary, IMO, is in personal character. I find Hillary to be a more frightening person to me than John Edwards, who seems to me like a garden-variety white Southern politician--with the caveat that he had to work harder, get luckier, and be more driven than most to go from working-class parentage to the Senate. I think Hillary's ice-cold, whereas JE is just an opportunist with a fairly ordinary mix of flaws and virtues for a political dude...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]dogemperor
2007-07-13 11:47 pm UTC (link)
Fortunately, I wasn't planning on voting for either of them (Barack Obama FTW), but yes, I agree, some folks need a good bitchslapping >_

(Reply to this)


[info]tlttlotd
2007-07-14 02:27 am UTC (link)
How is this any different from any other election? They just got caught this time.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]nobbyknees
2007-07-14 10:16 pm UTC (link)
The scary thing is, I remember when debates were actual debates. Didn't John Anderson get to debate Carter and Reagan? Or am I misremembering this?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]tlttlotd
2007-07-14 11:49 pm UTC (link)
I vaguely remember such a time...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]drchuck1968
2007-07-14 12:09 pm UTC (link)
Have you seen this?

http://www.lolpresidents.com/photo.pl?id=2797

Not trying to sway your vote, just trying to make you giggle. :-) The site has more with past presidents, too.

(Reply to this)


[info]kitten_goddess
2007-07-14 08:30 pm UTC (link)
Clinton was off my list after seeing Sicko, when Michael Moore revealed that she got bought off by the health care industry. I am either voting for Barack Obama or Ron Paul.

That reminds me, I need to switch my registration to Republican so I can vote for Ron Paul in the primary.

(Reply to this)


[info]nobbyknees
2007-07-14 10:22 pm UTC (link)
I'm still trying not to think about it (the presidential race). I know that jives oddly with my wanting to work in politics.

I'm mostly just concentrating on getting more progressives elected to Congress. I have a theory that if the Democratic majority increases enough, with a large enough influx of progressive Dean-style Democrats, the Dems in Congress might grow a spine.

That shoe not meant for those Congresscritters it doesn't fit--such as John Conyers and Russ Feingold.

(Reply to this)


[info]pixiebutt
2007-07-23 06:23 pm UTC (link)
You should be voting for Obama in anycase. :-)

(Reply to this)

(17 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Log in with OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…