Obama will probably be the Dem Nominee: What now?

The 13 Wise Buttlords · Sun May 25, 2008 5:33 am

Against expectations even on this board, Obama pulled ahead of Hillary Clinton and is probably going to be the dem candidate. Also, McCain is also a much weaker candidate than I would've guessed.

But anyway, what does that mean as far as the election goes? Me, I'm excited that the corporatist wing of the party was served a stinging defeat and Rahm is on the run. What do you think?

I would've voted for Obama in the Washington primary even if he was a weak candidate like McCain, since I was voting for a movement rather than the man, but I guess being a decent candidate is also a plus.

Yay.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sun May 25, 2008 6:59 am

Yes, the only annoying bit in the remaining campaign is that while Obama has a lear reputation in the press... Race still pulls more references than gender. So we have regular uses of misogynist references to Clinton, but nearly none of the same for Obama.

Another annoyance is that while Obama polls more liberal than Clinton, his votes in the Senate are the same and his on paper proposals are much weaker. So he still didn't cinch the nomination because he failed to be Liberal enough.

Ugh.

And McCain can still win; he's a media darling. Look up barbeque.

-Crissa

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sun May 25, 2008 7:14 am

Obama is the tallest of the three, of course he'll win the election.
American elections work like Irken elections, right?

JonSetanta · Post by **JonSetanta** » Sun May 25, 2008 7:38 am

Oh? Good news, then.

But let's see if Florida fucks up yet another election.

Absentminded_Wizard · Post by **Absentminded_Wizard** » Sun May 25, 2008 8:03 am

Basically, the popular vote this year is almost sure to go to the Democrats this year. The question is whether it will be a narrow enough victory for electoral college weirdness to put McCain in anyway.

Calibron · Post by **Calibron** » Sun May 25, 2008 9:28 am

I'm fairly happy with both McCain and Obama. Though I prefer Obama. I'm thinking that the Democrats will have a wide enough lead in the actual election that we won't have any edge case shenanigans from the electoral college; a decent number of republicans prefer Obama over McCain. The only real worry they would have is if there are some major sour grapes among the Clinton supporters and they don't go out and vote for their party's candidate in November like good little Dems. Hopefully that won't happen.

The 13 Wise Buttlords · Sun May 25, 2008 2:50 pm

Another annoyance is that while Obama polls more liberal than Clinton, his votes in the Senate are the same and his on paper proposals are much weaker. So he still didn't cinch the nomination because he failed to be Liberal enough.

I'm not sure what this means. Please elaborate.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Sun May 25, 2008 8:53 pm

If anyone is happy with McCain, I'll be happy to disillusion them.

No one should like the man this year.

Unless, of course, they're happy with W's performance. And then, I can't really help them.

-Crissa

I'm not sure how to elaborate on a three-part statement. That could go on and on... Elaborate about his Senate voting record, which is exactly like Clinton's? There's votes he didn't attend and only one that he cast that are different. Elaborate about polling? Do you think he's liberal? Does he talk liberal? The answer is probably 'yes'. Elaborate about his paper proposals? They're all weaker copies of Edwards or Clinton plans. It would take some time to dredge up a point by point comparison, so I can't just one-off it.

If you'd asked me to elaborate about misogyny in the campaign, that has articles nearly every other day, much easier to find.

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Sun May 25, 2008 9:51 pm

I loved the "Will Women Voters Betray Their Gender And Vote For Obama?" and "Will Black Voters Betray Their Race And Vote For Hillary?" editorials. Or the best, "Will Black Women Voters Betray Their Race Or Their Gender?"

I don't think the writers even realized how bigoted they were being.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Mon May 26, 2008 12:25 am

Because let's face it, it's all about race and sex here. Democrats have to either be racist or sexist when they vote.

It's so much easier for republicans. No matter who they vote for, they're just retards.

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Mon May 26, 2008 2:23 am

I saw the american news they regularly screen here on SBS the other day.

They did a story on the whole "Clinton, she is a woman, in what ways can we say this is bad for democrats" topic.

A few points jumped out at me.

Clinton being a woman who failed to make the nomination is bad for Obama because now he had better be extra careful with women, or else! It was not even considered it might be bad for Bob "Beat the bitch" Mccain who gets a free pass to treat women like shit.

In the same breath as a mention of some action by Nancy Pelosi, a woman who has gotten to a prominent leadership position in the democrats on her own steam. Their dumb ass pundits actually said as the very next line that it was sad Clinton had failed because there are absolutely no other potential female candidates on the horizon!

That after what happened to Clinton these other female candidates (who apparently don't exist) wouldn't want to try anyway. I mean what woman would want to attempt to become a democratic candidate for president when the last one, very nearly succeeded. There is nothing more discouraging than a very damn good chance that on the next attempt you might succeed! Anyway, people said mean things about her, so you other girls better not take a strong chance to become president!

And they too had the audacity to state there has been no overt racism.
None
, none at all
its not like this stuff is easy to find or anything , absolutely not
its certainly not like there are
major fears, hype and political attacks based on a potential racist assassination
and no way is it a major line of Republican smear tactics
...

edit: I wonder why I called him Bob Mccain? Damn you alliteration DAMN YOU!

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon May 26, 2008 8:29 pm

what now? I get ready to vote for Obama in November, unless Clinton takes the political Cupie doll and becomes his vice president, then I seriously follow the shirt I'm wearing to the booth and voting Megatron.

Calibron · Post by **Calibron** » Mon May 26, 2008 8:47 pm

Do you hate Clinton so much that you'd waste your vote like that? I'd vote for McCain over her, but as a Vice President to Obama I'd still vote democrat this year.

Though if Megatron actually had a shot, I think I might be following your lead.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon May 26, 2008 9:39 pm

Yeah, hating Clinton and voting Obama doesn't make much sense.

...Because as I said, he's voted exactly like her. None of the other candidates shared as many votes.

-Crissa

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Mon May 26, 2008 9:45 pm

I don't like Hillary. I like Obama. I don't usually vote Democratic, so it's not their voting record that's getting me to the polls - it's the fact that I like Obama.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon May 26, 2008 9:51 pm

Maj wrote:I don't like Hillary. I like Obama. I don't usually vote Democratic, so it's not their voting record that's getting me to the polls - it's the fact that I like Obama.

same. Some political pundit said that people vote for the person they'd rather have a beer with, and it's true. Yes, I hate that harpy bitch enough that'd I'd throw away my vote.

Calibron · Post by **Calibron** » Mon May 26, 2008 10:04 pm

Crissa, it's fine that they have similar histories, but I don't like what Hillary says in debate, getting her to actually answer the question that was asked is like removing an impacted molar. Not just that though, if that was the only problem she'd be my second choice. The way the three of them say they're going to handle things like education, welfare, and other things. I tend to like Obama and McCain's proposals the most, different ones in different areas; Clinton tends to be similar to Obama, but tends to not go far enough, go to far, or veer off to the side compared to my views.

Beyond that Obama has the whole schtick about doing everything he can to change the system; Hillary seems to just want to work within it to accomplish her goals. I, and many Americans, don't like the way the system is, and just about any change is viewed as good.

On top of all that, I just don't like her.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Mon May 26, 2008 11:51 pm

I don't get it.

On one hand, we have at least two here who don't care what a candidate does, only what the media says about them. Also, one is an avowed misogynist hate that harpy bitch...

Look, you can be idiotic if you want. But you're still being idiots. Tools. Choose some issues, look at the answers. Not at the media varnish.

Caliborn, you like McCain's proposals? And Obamas? What fuck drugs are you on that make you think there are parallels between the two, except that one is like our current president and one is not?

-Crissa

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon May 26, 2008 11:58 pm

Crissa wrote:I don't get it.

On one hand, we have at least two here who don't care what a candidate does, only what the media says about them. Also, one is an avowed misogynist hate that harpy bitch...

I'm not a misogynist... and calling a woman a harpy and a bitch is not misogynistic, she is a fucking harpy, and a bitch. Would I be a racist if I didn't like Obama and called him a svartalf bastard? I don't want her in the white house, partially because she comes off as a man-eating/hating monster, and also because nothing has shown me otherwise.

Look, you can be idiotic if you want. But you're still being idiots. Tools. Choose some issues, look at the answers. Not at the media varnish.

We're not being idiots, we're deciding who to vote for on the only thing that matters, who we like. Nothing is going to change other than the face and the personality sitting in the chair regardless of who's in power. And what a fitting term, it's all a power game that fucks the common person in the ass no matter who wins, so why not vote for an anal rapist that you like?

Fwib · Post by **Fwib** » Tue May 27, 2008 12:22 am

I am fairly sure that hating one woman does not make you a misogynist.

Am I failing to remember previous tirades against women?

[edit] darn. ninja'd

PhoneLobster · Post by **PhoneLobster** » Tue May 27, 2008 12:29 am

comes off as a man-eating/hating monster

And right there you are falling for the standard anti feminist attack vs women in leadership spiel hook line and sinker.

Hillary is a perfect example of it.

When she is doing anything strong or ambitious she is accused left right and centre of being a cold hearted emasculating man bitch. And all the pundits mutter about how unlikable and unfeminine she is and how much that hurts her chances and why you should dislike her for it.

When she shows even the slightest bit of emotion, femininity or tenderness she is accused of being far too weak, soft and womanly. And all the pundits mutter about how she isn't strong enough and people don't want a woman they can feel empathy for and how much THAT hurts her chances and why you should dislike her for it.

Hillary is actually pretty tough, and that is fine, but she is certainly NOT just a Margaret Thatcher clone out to eat your own personal testicles.

angelfromanotherpin · Tue May 27, 2008 12:32 am

Prak_Anima wrote:We're not being idiots, we're deciding who to vote for on the only thing that matters, who we like. Nothing is going to change other than the face and the personality sitting in the chair regardless of who's in power.

Not with that attitude.

You really think the person behind the desk doesn't matter? You think the specific measurable distinctions between the Clinton years and the Bush years is a coincidence?

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue May 27, 2008 12:33 am

You used misogynist language to hate one woman. I don't care your views on other women. They're irrelevant to your misogynist language.

Don't use misogynist language, then you won't be called a misogynist. It's pretty simple.

And yes, saying 'I don't care their record, I just care [what the media says about them]' means you're just being a tool of those with money. EG, an idiot.

Next you'll be telling me you don't care if your food is garbage, you just care that it looks good in the ad on TV. And then arguing that you aren't an idiot for having such a view.

Don't act like an idiot and then complain about being compared to one.

-Crissa

(added a quotation mark)

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue May 27, 2008 12:47 am

Ok... I'm going to fess up here, I'm 21 as of last week, guess how many of those years I've actually paid much attention to things, probably about 7. So all I've really seen is the bush admin(ie, all I've really watched, I of course have seen one other, but, I was too young to care). Let me put it this way, of Obama and Clinton, who apparently differ very little as far as politics go, I prefer Obama, and I think Clinton is just trying to get back in the white house so she's on easy street for another four to eight years, and then "not quite as easy, but pretty damn good" street after that, especially since both she and her husband will have the "former president" salary. So of the dems, I prefer Obama(question, crissa, if they're so similar, why do you care who's in and who's out? Is it because Clinton's a woman?). Of the Republicans, wait... there's only one and while it'd be cool to have a lich in office... I'd want said Lich to at least be honest...

So, yeah, I'm voting Obama, unless Clinton becomes his running mate, in which case I'm throwing away my vote because it doesn't fucking matter. If I vote dem, Clinton gets back in the white house and plays the same wormtooth game as Cheney supposedly did, and if I vote republican, there's a lying(or at least hypocritical) bastard who'll probably croak while taking the oath of office.

SphereOfFeetMan · Post by **SphereOfFeetMan** » Tue May 27, 2008 1:52 am

Crissa wrote:Yeah, hating Clinton and voting Obama doesn't make much sense.

Why not? Why do you assume that voting records are the only relevant thing a voter should judge a candidate by? Why not judge her by the fact that she is a proven liar? Why not judge her by the fact that the the only reason she is a serious contender is because of her celebrity from being first lady?

Crissa wrote:...Because as I said, he's voted exactly like her. None of the other candidates shared as many votes.

Yeah. Except for that one vote. But it concerned an insignificant matter, didn't it? I can see why you are downplaying it so much.