Buckeye State Blog - What the Hell's Going On Here? - Comments

Don't Try to Pretend

Nick D — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:48:21 -0700

Evolin, don't try to pretend that Hillary hasn't insulted Obama numerous times. Like her pushing the Muslim rumor or continuing to inflame the Rev. Wright story, or her 3 AM phone call ad.

There is plenty of blame for both sides. All I'm saying is, let's stop it. Because according to your statement "We believe anyone who runs a campaign in that manner is not fit to run a country." then Clinton isn't fit to run the country either, leaving us McCain by default.

It is late in the game

evolin — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:28:36 -0700

evolin Hillary and her supporters have been insulted too many times on this blog and on most every other blog. Obama and his supporters have spit into the wind and they will get blow back. We believe anyone who runs a campaign in that manner is not fit to run a country.

Hmmm

andro — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 14:23:50 -0700

What the hell is going on? It's probably the same thing in 1980 when Ted Kennedy did all work for Ronald Reagan in defeating Jimmy Carter. It’s probably the same thing as 2000 when Bill Bradley challenged Al Gore for no apparent reason and weakened him against Bush. Probably the same thing this year...wing Democratic Party wars. The young folks should learn about the history of the party they’re involved with.

It's sad. Republicans always unite around their common hatred of Democrats. Democrats never unite because they hate other Democrats. I completely understand the calls from the Obama camp for Clinton to quit. He's winning, the math makes it difficult for her to come back; this is doing no good for the party and it's fomenting hate. But, she can still win.

Imagine though for a few minutes if the party would have stayed united around Clinton and the unity the party possessed before Obama arrived remained inviolable. Everyone was united around her going into November, then it switched and you have a split party. We should embrace Obama and the new people he is bringing to the party and respect them, though.

But let's also remember what wing of the Democratic Party has proven they can win the White House in the modern era and be so good they have to have it stolen from them through the disenfranchisment of voters, and be respectful of others in the Democratic Party who have invested in Clinton. The Clinton's, uh, have permanent secret service and have been serving the country and the Democratic Party since the 60's. They presided over the most peaceful and prosperous era in the history of the country. They have brought new people to the party for decades, and they continue to do so today.

The Obama supporters have done a lot to alienate many in the Democratic party and those who will swing to Clinton, and since Clinton went on the offensive, her supporters and herself are percieved to have done the same. That's where those poll numbers come from. Obama started the divide, however, in the debates and campaign leading up to New Hampshire, accompanied by some who have subsequently endorsed him. New Hampshire is where she was forced to fight back.

Has Obama attempted to reach out to Clinton supporters? That is the fundamental difference. She reached out to Obama supporters continually with a hope and change message early in the course of this election and admitting what they wanted to hear and knew was true. This is a major mistake Obama and his supporters have made.

Some don't want a speech on his abbreviated judgment in who he chose to associate with for 20 years that will potentially place him and the party in the fringe ultimately in a general. Clinton supporters want an explanation as to why they should start unifying around him. They've been watching, and they know what is going on. When he chooses to step up to the plate and tell some the truth most know, he could win friends and influence people. But to cite victories is not going to do it and the augmentation of his arrogance in failing to address such has permanently damaged such a future message.

A leader is someone who can admit a mistake and it goes along way as we're all human, but it appears some can't acknowledge the same. The country can't afford another George Bush where the only difference in Obama is rhetoric and style but with the same superficial catapulting into a leadership role where an admission of being human in that exact leadership role would deflate what is otherwise an empty suit.

Personal failures before stepping into the public service realm don't equate. George Bush did the same thing. Some aren't invested for token candidates; they're invested because they know what they're getting. I hope Obama supporters can say the same.

Usually when you plan, set goals, and stick to them--things come together as planned, of course with a few potholes in the road. However, we're beyond potholes. The Democratic Party is stuck in a crater, again.

What the hell is going on? Those who saw a Democratic majority under Clinton now see a primary mess that could end in general election disaster. We'll see what happens. Hope for the best while preparing for the worst.

Santos for President!

JDewey — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:05:34 -0700

Seriously, this is all too similar to how The West Wing ended. The Clinton-Obama debate is getting quite a bit of coverage, and will continue to do so until a nominee is decided. Once that's over, then we'll be hearing more of McCain and his senior moments and I think most people will come around. Right now many are passionate for one over the other, and are probably saying that not as an educated decision that they agree with McCain, but an exaggeration of support for their preferred candidate. It's hard to keep your eye on the ball when you're distracted by which shiny bat you want to use...

The still-forming minds of youth

Johnny Springfield — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 00:48:09 -0700

Just about everything one can think of is at stake this November. If John W. McBush and his beer heiress wife get to move into the White House because young voters who are fawned over because they are "engaged" like never before either stay home or turn Repubicanoid because their candidate isn't the standard bearer, it will only prove what we have learned about their brains -- they aren't fully formed enough to see the big picture.

The consequences for any of them who cry for Hillary or swoon for Barack ("Berry" to his old buds) and then turn their brains off and vote for McBush ought to be a session of waterboarding with Mountain Dew and Red Bull for going so totally Britney on the Dems down the stretch run.

It all depends on which candidate the media will back and which one it will beat up on. As the media goes, so goes the country. Courting the youth vote is like handling a baby: one minute it's all smiles; the next minute its taking a crap on you.

What the Hell's Going On Here?

Nick D — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:49:31 -0700

<DISCLAIMER> This Blog post is not Ohio-specific </DISCLAIMER>

The lead story on tonight's edition of Countdown with Keith Olbermann was a discussion of a new survey by Pew Research that revealed that 32% -- nearly one out of every three -- Hillary Clinton supporters said they would vote for John McCain in the general if Barack Obama was the nominee. Similarly, 28% of Obama supporters stated that they would vote for John McCain in the general if Hillary Clinton was the nominee.

I thought about those numbers and I said to myself, there's no way they can be right. What Democrat would want a third Bush term? But then I thought about the blog postings around here lately. Modern and Russo slugging it out about Obama vs. Clinton, and meanwhile John McCain gets a free pass. Did anyone write a blog to call him out on his bullshit assertion that Iran is helping al-Qaeda? As if a Shia nation would help support a Sunni terrorist organization? And then, did anyone write a blog about how Brit Hume attempted to explain this BS assertion away as a "senior moment"? As if it's okay for a Presidental candidate who is running as a national security "expert" to have "senior moments" about important facts pertaining to the War in Iraq?

After considering that, I thought maybe it is possible that some Democrats have taken their eye off the ball because of the primaries, and forgotten what's at stake. I admit, I haven't helped up to date. But that stops right now. I can't make changes to this blog because it isn't my blog, it's Jerid's, but I will do my best to call out any obviously fratricidal BS on here from now on.

Let's remember what's a stake. John Paul Stevens is 87 years of age. He will die someday, and if a Republican gets to appoint his replacement, then the Supreme Court will have a clear majority in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. John McCain wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years. He has no plan to fix the economy (how about somebody blog about that?), no plan to fix the Medicare trust fund which will be broke in 10 short years, no plan to fix Social Security, no plan to repair our nation's infrastructure, no plan to balance the budget and begin to repay our massive national debt, no plans to do much of anything except maintain the status quo for four more years. And that status quo is one that 70% of Americans don't approve of, and they'll realize that as soon as we stop cluttering up the airwaves beating the snot out of one another.

Let's keep our eye on the ball people. This shit ends right now.