Campaign '08: Now With 100% More Hatin'!

[diesel_powered]

The McDougal thing is nonsense, but this seems fairly current:

Further, the story says that Clinton will keep $20,000 in donations from Wal-Mart executives, and that former President Bill Clinton has regular private meetings with Wal-Mart's current CEO.

[Nick]

What do the Clinton backers think about this?

[Good Intentions]

There are definitely reasons one might think Clinton is the better candidate, but the idea that Obama's policy platform is any less defined just shows that you don't know shit about Obama *or* Clinton.  I agree with TSKS that the uncritical spouting of outdated conventional wisdom is beneath you.

Christ in heaven, guys. Less patrolling for the thought police, OK?

[Antero]

You wanna trace how people were making their money twenty years ago, there's gonna be more than enough shame to go around.

That's not necessarily true, but more to the point it shouldn't be true and demanding so little is depressingly cynical.

[elpollodiablo]

You want to talk about how the American political landscape has gotten too cynical? Or perhaps we could discuss like how it's cold outside in February?

[dieblucasdie]

There are definitely reasons one might think Clinton is the better candidate, but the idea that Obama's policy platform is any less defined just shows that you don't know shit about Obama *or* Clinton.  I agree with TSKS that the uncritical spouting of outdated conventional wisdom is beneath you.

Christ in heaven, guys. Less patrolling for the thought police, OK?

Well, I mean, I'm not going to hate if someone likes Clinton's positions over Obama's, but to say they're more detailed is simply false.

[elpollodiablo]

dbd if you'll read the post in which I pointed out your fucktardedness upthread you'll notice that it has more to do with Obama's ability (or lack thereof) to clearly define those positions over the course of the campaign.



*I really don't wanna be all nasty with you or Andrew man but I feel like you guys attacked me unprovoked for stating my preference & opinion. If I was a big vague or made an unqualified statement I apologize, but you guys are so fucking quick to jump down the throats of anyone not on the Obama wagon it's ridiculous.

[Good Intentions]

Well, I mean, I'm not going to hate if someone likes Clinton's positions over Obama's, but to say they're more detailed is simply false.

You didn't say it's false, you said it's indicative of being ignorant of every relevent fact and betrays an unthinking attitude. Such hysterics does not reflect well upon you outside of your echo chambers.

[dieblucasdie]

Yeah, maybe I need to clarify my position here; I'm not trying to hate on Clinton supporters.  I'd be extremely happy with either an Obama or Clinton presidency.  Neither is my dream president, but either would be irrefutably the most progressive president in at least a quarter of a century, and I think that would be victory enough to celebrate, if not quite usher in an era of radical "change."

My main beef here is the repetition of a false cable-news-punditry-level swipe against Obama: one that the Republicans would almost certainly employ in a general election.  The "he doesn't have any concrete positions" accusation is untrue; his positions are no more or less defined than his opponents (nb I think the problem here is not so much an underestimating of Obama as an overestimating of Clinton).  It's analogous to the "flip-flopper" half-truth leveled against Kerry from the Iowa caucus on, and damned if I'm going to let it pass without comment.

Like I said, there are good, concrete reasons one might choose Clinton over Obama. (A lot of people prefer her healthcare plan, or her Iraq withdrawal plan).  And fair enough.  We can argue about that or we can disagree.  But repeating sound-bite smears is not something I'm interested in.

[dieblucasdie]

Also I'm going to get my "The More You Know" on here a minute and remind everyone to check with their various local bar associations on judicial nominees.  Those down-ballot races are closer and will have more effect on your actual life than Obama vs. Clinton ever will.

[Andrew_TSKS]

And you're way too much of a decent guy to generally act like a patronizing dickhead whenever someone espouses the slightest doubt about Obama's viability or endorses Clinton in any fashion

What it comes down to is I don't think Obama's the best candidate, so i will not be voting for Obama

no no, i was being a jerk i admit, but i was reacting to the mccain comment. and i think you meant as a person to have a beer with and not as a person to vote for, anyway, so i was misunderstanding you. but if you, a liberal, seriously do support mccain over both democratic candidates, i think you're getting the wool pulled over your eyes, and i stand by my previous comment.

but if, looking at it again, i'm now interpreting it correctly and you just meant that mccain is a nicer guy even if you don't agree with him politically very much, then ok, i see what you're saying, and i apologize for being a jerk.

[elpollodiablo]

Haha, actually I just meant that McCain seems 1000x a better person than any of the other republican candidates

[Andrew_TSKS]

oh, jeez, i REALLY misinterpreted. sorry again!

What do the Clinton backers think about this?

I find her and her husband's Wal-mart connections distressing.

on this one, i can't really get that uptight about it. after all, hillary clinton was a college republican who campaigned for barry goldwater in 1964, and only left the republican party when they went for nixon instead of rockefeller in 1968. but dude, that was a long time ago.

[elpollodiablo]

Yeah, maybe I need to clarify my position here; I'm not trying to hate on Clinton supporters.  I'd be extremely happy with either an Obama or Clinton presidency.  Neither is my dream president, but either would be irrefutably the most progressive president in at least a quarter of a century, and I think that would be victory enough to celebrate, if not quite usher in an era of radical "change."

My main beef here is the repetition of a false cable-news-punditry-level swipe against Obama: one that the Republicans would almost certainly employ in a general election.  The "he doesn't have any concrete positions" accusation is untrue; his positions are no more or less defined than his opponents (nb I think the problem here is not so much an underestimating of Obama as an overestimating of Clinton).  It's analogous to the "flip-flopper" half-truth leveled against Kerry from the Iowa caucus on, and damned if I'm going to let it pass without comment.

Like I said, there are good, concrete reasons one might choose Clinton over Obama. (A lot of people prefer her healthcare plan, or her Iraq withdrawal plan).  And fair enough.  We can argue about that or we can disagree.  But repeating sound-bite smears is not something I'm interested in.

Dude WHAT THE FUCK: I've tried to address this shit three times now. Get off your damn high horse. No need to go around all chest out cuz you read the Economist and shit. You don't gotta go all super pedant on me for stating a damn opinion--that Obama has done a pretty shitty job of getting his stance on specific points out there. Like with the Kerry flip-flopper thing, there's a kernel of truth to every one of these bits of soundbyte pundit fodder. Your boy has been frustratingly vague while out on the campaign trail, at least in those instances that have seen national broadcast on NPR or CNN or Fox News or whatever. And publications like the New Yorker and Salon and such seem more interested in Obama as a campaigner than as someone with big ideas for the future. Every time I see or hear someone endorsing him, they mostly just spout platitudes about hope and change. So it's not really about his level of definition on certain issues--I'm sure he's a pretty resolute guy. But that doesn't come across in the campaign.

[Andrew_TSKS]

fight continued here.

[guanajuato]

dbd if you'll read the post in which I pointed out your fucktardedness upthread you'll notice that it has more to do with Obama's ability (or lack thereof) to clearly define those positions over the course of the campaign.



*I really don't wanna be all nasty with you or Andrew man but I feel like you guys attacked me unprovoked for stating my preference & opinion. If I was a big vague or made an unqualified statement I apologize, but you guys are so fucking quick to jump down the throats of anyone not on the Obama wagon it's ridiculous.

one of the things that scares me about clinton, elpollo, is that she believes in the same diplomacy as our recent leaders. you only sit down and discuss things with dictators you have under your thumb while you ignore dictators who present a threat (real or imagined). if i gotta choose one, i want the one who will talk to iran, and al quada, and obama has stated that he'll have a sit-down with anyone. i think we gotta retreat from a hundred years of bellicose posturing and take on the position of the reluctant superpower ready to talk, if we want to build the love. i think obama's a big fake in a lot of ways but he has got the precision scalpel of charisma that might be able to pull a thorn out of the middle eastern bear's paw. shit, from what i've read about his popularity, they'd elect him in germany and japan. i feel like we need to ride this dudes segway.

[jebreject]

yeah, hillary's attitudes toward war and presidential authority fucking scare the shit outta me

[jebreject]

Er, sorry, Andrew.

fight continued here.