Log in

No account? Create an account
. ..: .: ..::.: ..:.:.....: ...::: ...::.

April 2011
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

gwen [userpic]
Hillary, we're not stupid.

So, I'm not anti-Clinton like I know many are. I just want to preface my post with that understanding. I think she has a lot of fine qualities, and would make a good president ... at another time (not because of her gender, because of her politics). So, with that, I'm going to rant about something she's been saying:

“The fact is we have to include Michigan and Florida — we cannot claim that we have a nominee based on 48 states, particularly two states that are so important for us to win in the fall,” Mrs. Clinton said on Monday in Maysville.

Oh, come on! Seriously, you didn't take your name off the ballot in either of those states, and no one campaigned there. You got a default win because you were not taking "the higher road" of withdrawing from their races. Now, that's fine, you didn't want to piss off the people in those states, that's OK.

But to claim now that you're the winner there when you were the only one (of the top candidates) on the ballot? Especially when you're trying to claim you're the popular vote winner? No, I'm sorry, this is slimy politics, and this is not what people want right now, they're too sick of that sort of "cover up my disastor with a pretty cover and maybe no one will notice" crap from GWB.

I mean, I know the people of this country have been gullible, but I really hope that people notice that trying to prove your case using a farce like Michigan and Florida's no-op votes is truly ludicrous.

Current Mood: quixoticquixotic

The part that I find the most offensive is that she wants to claim a win in the popular vote . . . And the only way that she can make the numbers come out that way is to count Florida and Michigan, and not count any of the caucus states. So Florida and Michigan "must be counted" to be "fair" to them (when they knew they were breaking the rules), but those states that followed the rules but didn't vote for her don't matter?

There was a time that I respected her, even if I didn't feel that she was necessarily the best choice. That respect is pretty much gone at this point.

Eight years ago, Hillary Clinton and McCain both looked much better. In both cases, it seems like since then they've learned entirely the wrong lessons from watching Bush be President: lying to the voters, misleading them and ignoring them, and selling out when you think voters aren't looking are the way to win... and winning is the only part that matters.

Yup. Eight years ago, I thought McCain was fairly progressive (for a Republican) and I might, despite my strongly commie-pinko-leftist leanings, have even considered supporting him if he had been the nominee (as, quite frankly, Joe Lieberman gave me the heebie-jeebies even back then, and I was suspicious of Al Gore due to Tipper's involvement in the PMRC in the 80s). Now . . . I kinda can't believe the words coming out of his mouth are from the same guy. Sad, really.

Much as Obama may be untested and lack experience (though I still question Hillary's claims that her relevant experience is that much greater), at least he seems to actually believe and be willing to stand up for what he's saying.

Seriously, it drives me nuts every time she says it.

Good job, Hillary, you beat Dennis Kucinich.

I believe Kucinich also withdrew his name. :)

(no subject) - (Anonymous)

What amuses me is that if Obama had retained his name on the ballot for Michigan, he'd probably have won pretty handily. That state is entirely his two main demographics (urban African-Americans and educated upper middle class), and further it's got the proximity to his hometown.

So, yah, her statements are totally unfounded in so many ways.

Oh, btw, California can vote Republican given the right Republican. The southern half is very conservative, actually, and much of Silicon Valley is socially conservative. And that's the hefty majority of the state's population between those two. However, the conservative that appeals to them is the Reaganite sort, not the Neocon sort... so McCain is seriously not pandering to them.

(no subject) - (Anonymous)

I disbelieve, since Ahnahld is the Guvernator. If Tom Selleck were to run for office in the next cycle, he might very well appeal to California.

"That state is entirely his two main demographics (urban African-Americans and educated upper middle class)"

Care to explain where this statement came from? Because it doesn't seem to correlate with what I've read and heard. A large portion of Michigan's population is still made up of auto-workers and ex-auto workers. That's skilled labor, but not "educated upper middle class". Census data from 2000 would seem to indicate that Michigan is, overall, less educated than Pennsylvania, a state in which Clinton did quite well (21.8% with Bachelor's or higher in MI compared to 22.4% for PA). Household incomes are fairly comparable between the two states as well.

"much of Silicon Valley is socially conservative."
I'm guessing you meant to say fiscally conservative rather than socially conservative, because Silicon Valley most certainly is not socially conservative in the least! But it does have a very strong Libertarian bent.


Yah, those statements were made very off the cuff, not thought out. I'm kinda distracted today with busy-ness.

As for MI, my problem is that when I think of it, I think of Detroit, and specifically the Detroit race riots of the 70's, and I think of upstate MI, which is haughty. But yah, neither of those reflects all the small southern towns built around the auto industry which is the majority of the population.

As for Silicon Valley, I think it's much more conservative than its reputation. Realize, I'm still bitter about the Referendum banning gay marriage passing in those counties... so take as you will. But yes, it is Libertarian, and Libertarians are Reagan Conservatives in disguise.

Proposition 22 didn't pass in Silicon Valley, as I recall. The rest of the state, yes, but as much in Silicon Valley.

I was in Silicon Valley when San Francisco decided that according to the state Constitution, Prop 22 was unconstitutional, and so started handing out same-sex marriage licenses. San Jose's response was to declare that they'd recognize same-sex marriages licensed elsewhere. Whenever a voting map was shown, Silicon Valley was very, very liberal in general, though the tech industry and wealth makes it leans towards wanting fewer business regulations and fewer taxes. But the area is definitely socially liberal.

As a side note, it's also worth noting that Prop 22 wasn't exactly passed by a majority of voting age adults - just a majority of voting age adults who actually bothered to vote. It was passed during a Primary Election in which the Democratic Nomination for President was already sewn up. According to the Census, the 61% who voted in favor of Prop 22 was only 19% of the adults in California at the time.

Silicon Valley voted yes to Prop 22. However, San Jose and San Francisco voted no.

Winning a largely uncontested election doesn't really make much of a statement does it? And that she thinks the results should be important is just amazing.

Yeah, I have to say, when the process started, I'd have been happy with several of the democratic contenders making it. Now, I actively don't want her to get the nomination because she is playing some slimy politics. I like her less and less as this all goes on.

I'm not a knee-jerk anti-Clintonite either, but she's really managed to turn me off to her. The only other person I can think of who has a similar mentality is Karl Rove, and that really makes me angry.