Doug C Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 That '68 campaign didn't even really start until March, which is when LBJ dropped out and RFK threw his hat in. The timeframe for the nomination process was totally different then. Even if that's all Hillary meant (and though that was of course the main point, I'm still not at all convinced that she did not purposely evoke the assassination), it's still a misleading comparison.I get no respect. See page 37. http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/500/ Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 sorry bout that Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted May 29, 2008 Share Posted May 29, 2008 John Stewart Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 When I heard that story for the first time, I had a vision of Hillary taking off her mask to reveal she was one of those V aliens, and then eating a live puppy.I think I may have told you about the fevered nightmare I had where HRC morphed into Hubert "Triple H" Humphrey. No less frightening (imo). Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 I think I may have told you about the fevered nightmare I had where HRC morphed into Hubert "Triple H" Humphrey. No less frightening (imo).That dream would send me straight to the shrink. Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 man this Reverend Pfleger guy is a RIOT... i'd go to church every day of the week if my Pastor was that damn funny sign this man up for Last Comic Standing, he's in the wrong profession Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 man this Reverend Pfleger guy is a RIOT... i'd go to church every day of the week if my Pastor was that damn funny sign this man up for Last Comic Standing, he's in the wrong professionYea, the Chicago clergy are right up there with the greats, Richard Pryor and Lenny Bruce. Sadly Pfleger is pretty much of a grandstander (a white Jesse Jackson) and since he is a fixture in the black community he sometimes forgets he is also white. Most of his antics are for the good (reducing gun violence, improvement of schools in poor communities, etc.) but in this case even I think he overstepped his bounds. I simply don't think Hillary needs to be kicked that bad now that she is down. Yea, she has done and some said things I strongly disagree with, but she still would be better than John "Bush third term" McCain. The most amazing thing about Pfeger is that he has been able to stay at St. Sabina all these years, since priest need to move every few years. (I forget how many, but I am thinking 7.) He has now pissed off Cardinal George so he may get the boot. We shall see. LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 yeah, in the interest of Obama, certainly not a fan of this guy popping up now, but still, his delivery, energy, and content, dude seriously did crack my shit up Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 yeah, in the interest of Obama, certainly not a fan of this guy popping up now, but still, his delivery, energy, and content, dude seriously did crack my shit up Oh yea...I don't disagree with that.....but he is a bit of a "white Negro" at some level. (Hell he may be more black at other levels then Barak......) LouieB Link to post Share on other sites
solace Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 yeah, that's part of why i found his sermon so amusing i think Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted May 30, 2008 Share Posted May 30, 2008 I've seen Pfleger speak before and I like him. Obviously he was out of line here, though--and he's said as much. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 Definately liked the way he handed that Fox News guy his ass a month or so back when the reporter tried to trick him into badmouthing Rev. Wright. Pfleger pwned that guy to the extreme. Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 Today's the big day folks. Remember when we were debating if the FL/MI fiasco was gonna be a big deal? Seems like a looong time ago. Well, the day is here and it certainly IS a big deal! I hope they get this mess sorted out. Link to post Share on other sites
H-Bomb Henry Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 Can someone please inform me...Did Hillary agree with not counting delegates from Mich and Florida or did she just agree not to campaign there? Either way I still think she will stop at nothing to be elected. Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 Did Hillary agree with not counting delegates from Mich and FloridaLong-short of it: yes. Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 If they count FL/MI and she gets the nom, it's going to kill the democratic party. Now, there just needs to be something to kill the republican party and we'll have some real change in this country. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 I am AGAINST counting Florida and Michigan. They were warned they were violating the rules and they went ahead and did it anyway. The results are not valid because neither candidate treated it as if it was a real election - Obama even took his name of the ballot in Michigan. The Dem voters in that state need to take it up with the dumb party leadership who decided to break the rules in the first place. Link to post Share on other sites
Beltmann Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 There's no way to change rules mid-stream without invalidating the entire process. You can't play an exhibition game, and then near the end of the regular season somehow claim that your exhibition win ought to count towards your record. It doesn't compute. Besides, neither election in FL or MI were truly representative, and not just because Obama wasn't on the MI ballot and not just because no campaigning occurred in FL. The real problem is much larger: Since voters in each state knew the primary wasn't going to count, many voters stayed home who might otherwise have participated. (Can we blame them?) The reason the January elections aren't valid is because they are already tainted by widespread disenfranchisement, and seating those delegates would only condone such disenfranchisement. For Clinton to now refer to them as "legitimate" elections is, in my view, pandering--or delusion--of the first order. Having said that, I don't think Michigan and Florida voters ought to be ignored simply because their state political leaders are buffoons. (It wasn't voters who chose to break the rules.) In the interests of fairness and democracy, some kind of compromise must be reached. Link to post Share on other sites
tugmoose Posted May 31, 2008 Share Posted May 31, 2008 So now we get the Democrats making a fiasco of the primary selection process. They are bound and determined to lose this unloseable election. Link to post Share on other sites
Edie Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 I think, Ickes/Clinton threat to take this to the credentials committee notwithstanding, that this ended up going well today. The unanimous vote on FL and the greater than 2/3 vote on MI will finally put this to rest and sets the stage for a mostly unified party. Obama should be the defacto nominee by this time Wed. Hillary can keep on pushing and risk the scorched earth label that will likely kill any future political future, or accept her loss and work to get Obama elected (and get her name firmly into the hat for the VP position). I am sincerely hoping she chooses the latter. Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 This whole thing amazes me. What are the chances of the democratic party unifying after all this smoke clears? I thought early on they were going to kick butt and get this election wrapped up. Am I the only one that cracks up when they see Dean as the "head" of the DNC? Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 No, he's a good party chair, IMO. Way better than McAulliffe was. Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 No, he's a good party chair, IMO. Way better than McAulliffe was.Yep. I consider McAuliffe to be the most 'spun' of all spin doctors. I think most folks just think of Dean as "Screamin' Howard" which is kinda unfair. Another example of being defined by sound bites. Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 This whole thing amazes me. What are the chances of the democratic party unifying after all this smoke clears? I thought early on they were going to kick butt and get this election wrapped up.It's not impossible. Will the Reagan Democrats vote for Obama? The only dead-lock-cinch candidate the Dems could have put up was the one who did not run - Al Gore. Link to post Share on other sites
Tweedling Posted June 1, 2008 Share Posted June 1, 2008 It's not impossible. Will the Reagan Democrats vote for Obama? The only dead-lock-cinch candidate the Dems could have put up was the one who did not run - Al Gore.I don't disagree but simply mentioning Bush and McCain in tandem will not be enough. McCain is by no means a GOP puppet. Some of his biggest critics are republicans claiming he's not conservative enough. I believe the Dems best chance was HRC. BHO brings a little baggage. I also don't believe the "Reagan democrats" are the same group they were in the 80's. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts