USA Presidential Politics - 2008

[roni]

Originally Posted by Jacko

This notion of claiming the ideas of one whom I associate with are in fact my ideas as well.....well, we have heard this used before quite often in this primary election...I am a bit sensitive about it...if you are responding to my posts and speaking to me...please do not generalize other "Obama supporters" opinions as if they were mine..it is not clear..and it is not accurate and I certainly expect better from you than this.

(and if "bizarre thinking" is to be considered an insult, did you not first make that insult prior to my post?)

I made no such claim. I referred to "Obama supporters here" I did not refer to you specifically.

I said the notion of Hillary thinking her turn was "stolen" seemed bizarre to me. I do not consider that an insult. Here is the whole post in which I used the bizarre word, just for context which seems so quickly lost here.

Originally Posted by roni

I think most human behavior is complex and motivated by multiple factors. I do not believe most of our decisions can be attributed to just one thing, and many times not even to one main thing.

That is what I think. I do not think, however, that she believes her "turn" was stolen by an upstart. That seems bizarre to me - particularly considering that she came of age when that upstart Kennedy won the presidency. Of course she wants to win, that is a given. Most all of them except Gravel and maybe Dennis felt they had a legitimate shot at winning.

T

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

I made no such claim. I referred to "Obama supporters here" I did not refer to you specifically.

I said the notion of Hillary thinking her turn was "stolen" seemed bizarre to me. I do not consider that an insult. Here is the whole post in which I used the bizarre word, just for context which seems so quickly lost here.



T

Well, roni, I just find that extremely disingenuous of you to claim..the inference in the context that you wrote that in was quite clear......you truly disappoint me here..you are normally much more clear and precise in your thinking and your language than the statement you made there.

You claimed the previous posters thinking seemed bizarre to you in that post and later somehow got offended when I claimed your later thinking seemed bizarre to me...is that not a "pot calling kettle" conflict for you? Why is it okay for you to claim bizarre thinking and not me? You understand that I too, did not consider that comment of mine as an insult...

[roni]

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by melliedee

She believes it alright, but in her scenario she wins the general election despite the damage to the party from the primary. That is the only thing I think she could be thinking at this point, that or she's angling for VP or for Obama to be her VP.

Again for me, at least, it's hard to imagine that a candidate of her high intelligence with her decades of experience in politics and obviously high level of astuticity when it comes to politic situations could believe the former. She'd be widely derided as the illegitimate candidate on both sides of the aisle and blacks and the young brought in through Obama's campaign would be two main demographics the Dems need to win who would be thoroughly alienated by this move. Just doesn't add up...

And for me, it's about equally hard to imagine the latter. I don't think she wants to play second fiddle to anybody, and certainly not to an upstart who has shocked and I think really embarrassed her with the degree of success his campaign has had, taking him from almost out of nowhere to the nomination despite her much, much higher profile and connections and (at least initial) funding sources and so on.

Originally Posted by melliedee

If she wins the nomination with a nefarious move like overturning the pledged delegates or popular vote, she'll be counting on enough old school Dems to vote for whomever the nominee is. Then, she'll appease the tender, young shoots and new voters (mostly Obama supporters) by offering him the VP slot in a AM I NOT MERCIFUL moment.

Well...

I, for my part, don't think so.

Originally Posted by melliedee

No thanks to her and her insistance on claiming that unelectibility case for him. You really think this is a selfless act for the good of the party and not about wanting to win, or feeling her "turn" was stolen by an upstart?

There's a question after my own way of thinking, however!

And again, don't forget: there's always 2012, if he wins the nomination but loses the election, at which point he'd probably be out of favor and she'd be back with a powerful "I told you so!" argument.

I mean, really, if in fact she really believes stuff like that she can win every state from here on out 2-to-1 or that the superdelegates will risk killing the party and losing the election because of hypotheticals about how she's more electable and dubious math and talk of popular votes and so on, is it such a stretch to think that she might be thinking in terms of a Dem loss this year and a chance to run again (but not against him!) in 2012?

Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

Again for me, at least, it's hard to imagine that a candidate of her high intelligence with her decades of experience in politics and obviously high level of astuticity when it comes to politic situations could believe the former. She'd be widely derided as the illegitimate candidate on both sides of the aisle and blacks and the young brought in through Obama's campaign would be two main demographics the Dems need to win who would be thoroughly alienated by this move. Just doesn't add up...

And for me, it's about equally hard to imagine the latter. I don't think she wants to play second fiddle to anybody, and certainly not to an upstart who has shocked and I think really embarrassed her with the degree of success his campaign has had, taking him from almost out of nowhere to the nomination despite her much, much higher profile and connections and (at least initial) funding sources and so on.



Well...

I don't think so.

There's a question after my own way of thinking, however!

And again, don't forget: there's always 2012, if he wins the nomination but loses the election, at which point he'd probably be out of favor and she'd be back with a powerful "I told you so!" argument.

I mean, really, if in fact she really believes stuff like that she can win every state from here on out 2-to-1 or that the superdelegates will risk killing the party and losing the election because of hypotheticals about how she's more electable and dubious math and talk of popular votes and so on, is it such a stretch to think that she might be thinking in terms of a loss this year and a chance to run again (but not against him!) in 2012?

Steve

Why..its all just...well, its just so bizarre!

[roni]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Well, roni, I just find that extremely disengenous of you to claim..the inference int he context that you wrote that in was quite clear......you truly disappoint me here..you are normally much more clear and precise in your thinking and your language than the statement you made there.

You claimed the previous posters thinking seemed bizarre to you in that post and later somehow got offended when I claimed your later thinking seemed bizarre to me...is that not a "pot calling kettle" conflict for you? Why is it okay for you claim bizarre thinking and not me?

Go back and read the context Jacko. I said the notion that a guess that Hillary thought her turn was "stolen" from her seemed bizarre to me. It does. That is not an insult.

You said

Originally Posted by Jacko

I think there is plenty that is bizarre in her thinking (and yours)

You may not see a difference. I do.

Good night. Get a good night's sleep. I am sure you have important tasks to accomplish tomorrow.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Why..its all just...well, its just so bizarre!

The whole situation is what made me remember Stewart's quote from the last election year, actually, and that moved me to put it in my sig file. It's not debate, it's theater. It's not honest. It's hurting America. I wish it would stop. Etc.



Steve

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by roni

Go back and read the context Jacko. I said the notion that a guess that Hillary thought her turn was "stolen" from her seemed bizarre to me. It does. That is not an insult.

You said

You may not see a difference. I do.

Good night. Get a good night's sleep. I am sure you have important tasks to accomplish tomorrow.

I have corrected your post with a more accurate quote which might serve to clarify your thinking just a bit....but maybe not G'nite Ron.

G'nite any cabal members still awake!

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by ryberg

The whole situation is what made me remember Stewart's quote from the last election year, actually, and that moved me to put it in my sig file. It's not debate, it's theater. It's not honest. It's hurting America. I wish it would stop. Etc.



Steve

Stop. Stop hurting America . . . you're doing theater, when you should be doing debate, which would be great . . . It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery.

It is an Assault on Reason

[Jacko]

Steve,....austuticity??

[roni]

Originally Posted by Jacko

I have corrected your post with a more accurate quote which might serve to clarify your thinking just a bit....but maybe not G'nite Ron.

G'nite any cabal members still awake!

My post was correct. My thinking is clear.

Good night, even though I am not a cabal member.

[ryberg]

Originally Posted by Jacko

It is an Assault on Reason

Well, indeed. I mean obviously other people have different views that seem more sympathetic, even among Obama supporters, like it sounds like you may have, Melliedee. But I keep running up against the wall of all that political experience and awareness and also just obviously high intelligence, and I can't get that. Seems to me she has to understand and recognize these things, even given the tendencies for psychological self-delusion that must be so high when a run at something this huge is involved. Then that leaves room only for some sort of much more macchiavellian interpretation, unfortunately..

And good night, Jacko.

Steve

[Just Lucky]

Originally Posted by roni

My post was correct. My thinking is clear.

Good night, even though I am not a cabal member.

It's not as if one can resign your cabal commission or something. The cabal is a responsibility.

Good night.

[roni]

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

It's not as if one can resign your cabal commission or something. The cabal is a responsibility.

Good night.

I thought he was referring to the PI Obama cabal.


Good night