Friday Fire 2: What Does Barack Obama’s Win In Iowa Mean?
*If any of you have a Friday Fire topic you want discussed, hit one of us up via email.
As Obama wins in Iowa amid a huge democratic voter turnout (approx. 230,000 which doubled republican voters) you will hear how much of a historical win this is for Blacks.
When considering the initial groundswell of reports worldwide, is this the case?
Does it matter?
Watch closely how the race is reported from here on in. This could get interesting, but don’t bet the house on Obama even when considering Kerry (Edwards second) won Iowa in ’04.
*Relevance elicited amending the original question, but do comment on that topic.
This entry was posted on January 4, 2008 at 8:34 am and is filed under Barack Obama, Friday Fire, Hilary Clinton, Iowa Caucus, John Edwards, John Kerry. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
The Starting Five 
January 4, 2008 at 9:07 am
IS it deeper than that? Hell yeah, but the reasons why won’t come out till later
January 4, 2008 at 11:01 am
Maybe they like Obama. One could hope.
January 4, 2008 at 11:07 am
Your headline is misleading. Republicans are not caucasing for any Democrat, not by a long shot. You are also wrong that we would rather run against Obama — you assume that Republicans think Obama would never win the general election because he is black. Of course, most liberals like to think this way about conservatives — they could never imagine a black president! — even when liberals know this is not true.
There are two schools of thought. One is: IF a liberal must win the White House, I would prefer it to be Obama, because I dislike him the least amongst all the Dem candidates. (Even though he is black; yes, shocking!) In that sense, I Obama to take the nomination. The other is: the best way for a Republican to get in the WH is for him to run against Hillary, because never in a million years could I see her being elected to run this country. (She is a bona fide Socialist, after all). So in that sense, we want her to win the Dem nomination.
Either way, though: no conservative worth his suit would ever dream of “wishing” a Dem like Obama take the WH. Lieberman, maybe: but not Obama. At any rate, there is no “racial conspiracy” as you and Vito both hint at. It’s purely a numbers game. (Much like Dems wishing Huckabee wins the Republican nomination).
January 4, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Friedman…and I’ll elaborate later as others comment…it is ALWAYS about race. If you actually think America doesn’t see a Black man first when they look at Obama, you are straight foolish.
As far as me “hinting” at anything, the purpose of Friday Fire is to stimulate a discussion.
*The original question was What is with republicans caucusing for Obama?
January 4, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Sitting in the UK watching the American presidential race unfold and I am hoping beyond all hope that a democrat takes the White House. However, I worry that the central belt of the US (Texas, Alabama etc.) and the down right ignorant and small-minded will come out in even greater numbers to vote republican if their boy is up against a black man. Because, you know, it would be against their ‘religion’ to see a dark-skinned gentleman in control of their beloved country. Is the other race more appealing, white-morman man vs socialist lady? Who knows.
It just appears, looking at both policy and candidates, that the democrats have evolved and represent a present, more global view and a broader cross section of society. Republicans, well, all I see is fat cat white men.
So, for the sake of the world, could the US please somehow make sure a Democrat gets in to Arlington Av. because the past eight years of GW have left nothing but a sour, evil taste in everyone’s mouths.
January 4, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Whoops not arlington avenue (my ignorance is deplorable). In my bid to be creative with my word play that movie with Jeff Bridges popped into my head. So, substitute Pennsylvania Avenue for Arlington, that’ll do it.
January 4, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Not to throw in sports analogies, but Obama winning(and Huckabee for that matter) is the equivalent of the Arizona Cardinals coming out and starting the season 3-0. Yes its a big deal because historically they don’t have success, and yes it lead to more momentum, but right now its just too soon to get too excited or too down. One game(primary) at a time baby..
January 4, 2008 at 6:53 pm
I think its a “nice” feat that Obama has won in a heavily populated white liberal state such as Iowa. That proves that as a mulatto he can get the white vote, the odd thing is he consistantly loses the black vote to the Clintons. He can only hope that his success in Iowa can lead to more blacks believing that he can win, and then he will have the democrat ticket locked up.
As a Republican, I know for conventions and dinners that I have gone to, that we want Hilary to win the democrat nomination. We want her to win because she and her husband are loathed by conservatives that it usually causes a high conservative turnout. She leading the democrat ticket or even being on it as a VP would guarantee huge Republican turnout to the ballot boxes and give our candidate a bump, whoever that cadidate is.
@ Thoughts from the UK
No one here gives a damn what you brits think. We don’t care about who you have for Prime Minister or you parties so why don’t you just butt the hell out of our politics.
January 4, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Damn…DMac chill. We welcome all here.
January 4, 2008 at 7:58 pm
UK — how about you worry first about the Islamists taking over your side of town, before worrying about our elections over here? You will be praying 5x/day to Allah before you know it.
Mizzo it’s not about race (as liberals always love to make it about), it’s about politics. If Obama had Rudy or Mitt’s stance on the issues, I’d vote for him in a second.
January 4, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Dude quit with the Liberal bs. My aim is to give TSF something to talk about.
The way you talk there aren’t any racial injustices in America–yet you continue to comment on this site. Hmmm.
Do we have a bet that you have to write a piece if Tennessee wins this weekend?
January 4, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Thoughts from the UK – you’re really expressing thoughts from the rest of the planet….and those thoughts are quite justified.
January 4, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Davidmac it isn’t because Iowa is liberal. You do realize that Iowa is just down the road from Illinois. So a Illinios senator winning Iowa isn’t surprising.
Now for him to win SOUTH CAROLINA…………..is a whole different animal.
January 4, 2008 at 8:16 pm
And UK I feel everything you just said.
January 4, 2008 at 8:22 pm
@Origin
Yes it is a big deal, I say liberal because those are who he is counting for to vote for him seeing as this is the democrat caucus. Iowa is an extremely liberal place, very left leaning, and he outbeat Edwards and captured the white vote, which is a first. Jesse couldn’t do that.
Illinois is going to be harder for him because he has a huge problem getting the black vote, hillary beats him in states with large black voting population.
South Carolina is not a big deal either, Jesse Jackson won S.Carolina. Remember this is primaries for the Democrats. He is again going to have a hard time with SC because of the huge black voters in the state.
Iowa is great for him because it might be a symbol to blacks that he can win with whites, which may weaken the Clinton Democratic stranglehold on blacks.
January 4, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Please Davidmac Obama will win Illinois hands down. That where he has been living for awhile.
January 4, 2008 at 8:48 pm
What’s the preferred word nowadays — since “liberal” is so dirty — “progressive”? Most people who vote DEM are very liberal, it’s a fact.
I love this site, Mizzo – you know that!
Fine, we have a deal. But if your boy VY starts, expect another 10-22, 176 yard, 0 TD, 2 INT performance in a 24-10 loss.
January 4, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Nitpicking on your part, but to keep the discussion sane, political labels (TSF readers in this context) just don’t fit here.
This is not a who you are voting for question. I want to make that clear.
I don’t want to get off topic but in one reply, what’s your precedent for a 24-10 loss?
January 4, 2008 at 8:57 pm
@origin
There is no guarantee he will win Illinois. He has a problem with staes with black votes and was trailing behind Hilary in those states. I’m telling you origin, he has problems winning the black democrats not the white ones. Hopefully the win in Iowa will help him with potential black voters, but we will not know until South Carolina.
January 4, 2008 at 9:13 pm
I’m glad it happened, but Obama’s win in Iowa means very little. Remember, this is the same state that rendered itself irrelevant in ’00, I think, when the bigoted fear-monger Pat Roberston won the caucus there.
The more provacative question this morning is, “what does Huckabee’s win in Iowa mean?”
It means that elements in this country are STILL divided straight down the middle between the centrist slightly left leaning politics of someone like Obama, and the regressive isolationist stance of someone like Huckabee. It is the very identity of this country which is at stake – and that’s why the comments by the cat from the UK are important.
Not to downplay the significance of Obama’s race and Muslim name, both of which will ultimately be his downfall, I think. In fact, with this “victory” in Iowa, I think Obama has a better chance to be dead in a year than he does to be President.
January 4, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Poet Happy New Year to you brotha. Unfortunately, that last statement may be the truest.
I was having a conversation with some white political writers recently who couldn’t understand Black fear for Obama’s safety if he wins. It has nothing to do with our political stance on Barack.
January 4, 2008 at 9:21 pm
@ DavidMac
Personally I would rather not give a damn about the US presidential election, but the way your White House has affected the global community over the past eight years forces me to.
As for being a Brit, I am plying my trade here, but am only a humble kiwi from New Zealand, a small, diminutive country somewhere south west of South America. I oft yearn for its green and plesant way of life, its politics and ideals seem so simple by comparison – can you point to it on a map?
January 4, 2008 at 9:21 pm
@TheLastPoet
What are you talking about, what does pat robertson have to do with obama. pat won the republican caucus and obama won the democratic one. There two different events.
As for huckabee, obviously you don’t know anythign about him and are just rambling at the mouth about what you think. Aside from abortion and Jesus, Huckabee is as liberal as John Edwards and Obama.
As for Obama being centrist, he isn’t a centrist at all, that is Hilary. Obama is way more left leaning than her, that is probably why he lost the state. Iowa has extremely left leaning democrats compared to other states.
As for the UK guy, his comments aren’t important at all. He has nothing at stake with our government. He and his ilk love to always come and put their noses in business that doesn’t belong to them, then cry that we Americans need to stop trying to rule the world, and such garbage. How about stop trying to influence or throw your two cents in to an election that is happening outside your country. Like Friedman said how about they get their damn country under control before talking about US politics.
As for the black man getting killed stuff, cut the crap, its mindsets like yours that hurt him. I guess that is a good thing though, because we would definantly rather have Hilary in the national election than obama.
Oh well, keep that belief up TLP, no need to vote for obama, especially blacks, your just throwing your vote away and getting him killed.
January 4, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Look, I know Norv sucks as a coach, I mean, I really, really, really know this. Trust me, I’m not deluded that he suddenly learned how to coach. But…
The Chargers are just better. If it weren’t for the horrible coaches, this team is better on paper than last years. The secondary actually doesn’t suck balls for the first time in 5 years. I could go on, but your basically pinning the hopes of Tennessee on Fisher outcoaching Norv, which is basically a given, but the Charger players are just better.
Anyway, why are all the republicans so wrapped in religion? Huckabee is a preacher. Why are republicans so determined to make us a theocracy?
I always thought I was a republican til Bush won. He made me re-evaluate.
January 4, 2008 at 9:24 pm
I’ll let Poet respond before I personally reply to your comments DMac.
January 4, 2008 at 9:25 pm
@Thoughts from the UK
The white house hasn’t affected Britain, your inept government has affected you. No one made Tony Blair want to be the US’s bitch, I guess that is just in him. But again like said before, brits need to take care of their own country before commenting on US politics. It isn’t our fault you have muslims getting out of control there and trying to impose Sharia law on the whole country, it isn’t our fault citizens there have no rights at all to privacy, to bear arms, to live life freely, and etc.
If you are from New Zeland, why don’t you change your name to something to express that. As for where the nation is located, yes I can find it, most people could.
I’m from Montgomery, AL, can you find that city on a map. Wow its easy being a condescending little asshole, I should try that more often.
January 4, 2008 at 9:28 pm
Davidmac,
Come’on……you are not seriously telling someone from the UK to “stop trying to influence or throw your two cents into an election that is happening outside your country.”
Are you serious?? You can’t be….that was some sort of twisted sarcasm….right??
January 4, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Montgomery, AL? Ha.
My dad has stories from when he went to Senior NCO academy there. My dad wasn’t even white enough for those ass-backwards people. Only 15 years ago, was not all that impressed with the mindset of the people there.
Of course, he was born and raised in San Diego, and has never been able to understand the south.
January 4, 2008 at 9:40 pm
“Regressive isolationist” – goodness, TLP, you’d be hilarious if you weren’t so delusional. Why do I have the feeling that you WANTED Obama to lose, so that you’d be able to come on here with your “See, America will never elect a black man!” nonsense? Also, DMac is right, Huckabee is probably the most liberal of all the Republican candidates, minus his religious nonsense.
The UK dude should really save it – you are of no importance to our elections. Again, deal with the radical Islamists in your country before worrying about anything over here.
Mizzo, five words why TEN will lose: Vince Young on the road.
January 4, 2008 at 9:47 pm
@gmp
I take major offense to you talking about my area of the country. He look if the city wasn’t fast enough for your dad or whatever fine. But no one here is anymore “backwards” than people there. Just because we aren’t cool with homosexuality and stuff doesn’t make us lower than you all. I have been up north, NJ, midwest, clevland and chicago, and out west las vegas, and in all of those places except for speech people have been pretty much the same, good people.
January 4, 2008 at 10:09 pm
It’s true, I have friends like Last Poet who want Obama to lose because the notion that an “African/black” man could win the nomination (let alone the presidency) damages their platform and their fundamental beliefs about this country. Spare me the uncle tom/Willie Lynch schtick. No one thinks Obama’s victory means the end of racism; racism is going nowhere (as long as there’s assholes and people look different, it’ll be around). But the automatic assumption that he’s being set up, or is certain to be assasinated is so self-defeating it’s depressing. Can’t you just enjoy this moment? I understand your skepticism, it’s well earned, but you can’t deny that this is progress. Iowa is 94% white, and no black man ever responded “Iowa” when asked where the brothas feel comfortable.
There is definitely a self-defense mechanism that exists for many that says, “as a black man in the U.S., I am limited.” For some reason, some brothas and sistas actually enjoy or embrace that notion. Imagine the message to young black children this sends; imagine if he wins. You would no longer have to patronize black children when they ask, “can I be president.”
Don’t worry, there’ll still be plenty of racism and injustice for you to get indignant about, EVEN IF Obama gets the nomination/presidency.
This ain’t the promise land. Even if he wins, it ain’t the promise land. But it feels a little better to be an American today…….Ignore that feeling if you must.
January 4, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Miranda is always funny. I’m glad she pointed out the irony in David Mac’s comments. Pakistanis would be proud.
January 4, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Did Last Poet say he wanted Obama to lose and I missed it? Cause I really missed that part of his comment. Wait, let me check his comments.
January 4, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Nope, Last Poet actually said this:
I’m glad it happened, but Obama’s win in Iowa means very little. Remember, this is the same state that rendered itself irrelevant in ‘00, I think, when the bigoted fear-monger Pat Roberston won the caucus there.”
Interesting that people took his expression of joy that Obama won and twisted into him not wanting Obama to win.
And when I say interesting, I really mean despicable.
“
January 4, 2008 at 10:13 pm
DavidMac,
You are wrong on so many levels, but I’m not going to get into a flame war with you, because that wasn’t the point, even if I did go after you a bit. But pointing out Montgomery, AL made me laugh.
So if they south is a place of cultural sensitivity, will anyone else agree? I know I see less mixed couples out here in South Carolina, where in Southern California all I knew was mixed couples, mixed people. There has to be people here from the south, perhaps they can set me straight on racial thought in the south.
I know what I see, I see teachers give me shocked looks everytime they see the white guy come pick up the “Mexican” kids. I have my kids come home and tell me all their teachers ask them if they speak English. I’ve had people come up to my wife and ask her to translate Spanish to some Mexicans. I’ve felt the looks at places where I’ve gone in with my not-so-white wife and kids. Also, my wife is Filipino, and not Mexican, and after 4 years of this, I’m becoming annoyed.
So you tell me it is the same in Montgomery, AL as it is in Orange County, CA? Montgomery is even more deep south than where I am in South Carolina.
But I’m not black, maybe some others could probably tell you better. Maybe southerners are just ignorant and anything not white or black is Mexican. Maybe I get the looks because I’m a sexy mf’er, who knows?
January 4, 2008 at 10:13 pm
What apparently happened was that Friedman decided he could read the mind of Last Poet, and that was then taken as fact by this GAM cat. Interesting.
January 4, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Allen, it’s implicit in his post, and many of his others. I never said that’s what TLP actually said, he just implied it. This statement says it all:
“In fact, with this “victory” in Iowa, I think Obama has a better chance to be dead in a year than he does to be President.” Entirely self-defeatist, entirely delusional.
And GAM is RIGHT on the money with his assessment.
January 4, 2008 at 10:25 pm
@gmp
Seeing mixed couples is not the end all be all of society being accepting. I see mixed couples in Montgomery in Birmingham in Biloxi and other places in the south. There are not a lot of them, so what, it is not an indicator of anything.
You feel looks and cry boo-fucking-hoo. Sorry but cut the crap. Southerners love our country and respect borders, forgive people for mistaking your kids as mexican, its not like mexicans and pacific islanders do not look similar at all /sarcasim. Your kids probably look hispanic and down here in the south we are recently receiving an influx of illegal hispanic immigrants sorry if your kids are getting caught in the current but that is what is happening in the nation, if you can’t handle it, sorry.
Yeah I can tell you that it is different culture and area in Montgomery and SC than it is in California. Again California is a lot more liberal in the way they live and act than people in the south, thats about it. Like I said there are assholes and racist every where. In orange country and in Montgomery and SC.
I wonder why you are so super sensitive. That must be the out west in you, nothing more pathetic than a self hating white guy trying to be “down” with the minorities.
Let me ask you a honest question. Do you think Manny Paciqou looks like a mexican or an asian?
off the bat he looks mexican as hell to me, its not crazy to confuse fillipinos with mexicans, stop trying to act like it is such a huge stretch.
@Miranda and Allen
What has the US done to Pakistan. Was the US behind Musharaff’s overthrowing of an elected official? Was the US the one who setup Bhutto to be killed? Was the US the one who gave Pakistan nukes? Tell me oh great conspiracy theorists what is the US doing behind the scenes.
As for the UK, why is it fall down funny to tell the British to stop interfering. I can’t wait to here this one Miranda. Please tell me, Im sure you know oh soo much stuff about the evils the US have committed against the British.
January 4, 2008 at 10:27 pm
It’s not an “expression of joy,” but there’s not joy at all…that’s the problem. It’s called being so consumed by the negativity aruond you that you ingore the potential rays of hope. Sure, I sound like a pollyanna, but I’ve bought into what the man is doing. He was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, he had to get elected into that position by his white, half conservative peers. I believe in his ability to reach people.
Also, I think you underestimate that while many whites would recoil at the thought of their daughter bringing home a black man, they have no problem with Oprah, or the bright young clean cut black man who works with them, or their favorite sports star. This doesn’t erase or excuse their prejudices, but from a pragmatic view, it provides an opportunity.
Malcolm wrote about being elected his elementary school President in “Mascot.” He wrote that while his mostly white classmates loved him as the school mascot and the vehicle for making them feel progressive, they never once made any attempt to invite him to be their friend or get to know him……
I see parralles to white America today. Obama can be the “mascot” in a sense. White America may still not want blacks at the dinner table, but who wants to eat with them anway. They are ready for this “black jesus” to come and in a sense “wash away 400 years of sins.” They really want to believe this and if you watched the coverage on MSNBC after his speech, you really got that feeling.
Allen:
Comparing this to Pat Robertson is like apples and oranges. The Iowa republican caucus is completely different than the Democratic and the cirmcumstances are drastically different. Robertson was not running against an opponent deemed the “inevitable one.” But if you want to shit on this…that’s your right.
January 4, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Miranda, touche.
DavidMac, your vitriol is palatable and it’s head in the sand to think people from outside the US aren’t interested in this election. It affects more than the residents of the US.
I’m assuming you’re well read so would be aware of how what goes on in the US affects the rest of us around the globe, and how your current administration has destroyed the US’s international reputation by interference and non-cooperation in a number of important areas.
I’ll skip Iraq, enough’s been said for the past several years about that one, suffice it to say that foreign aid and international intervention in situations involving genocide and the like have suffered immeasurably as a result.
How about Climate Change? If the Bush administration had not continually discredited the unanimous view of scientists around the globe about climate change and directly defrauded the US public as to the effects of carbon emissions and reductions on your country’s economy, then perhaps the Kyoto Protocol would have been binding and we’d have agreements in place that would seriously sort out our warming planet. Instead we have a loosely worded piece of gumpf from the UN Bali talks that was pulled out of the hat at the last minute because the US delegation decided to change their mind and join the rest of the globe after getting some stick from Papua New Guinea. Nothing binding though, lets agree to agree that something needs to be done – that agreement is night on 10 years too late.
Your current leader and his cronies with blatant lies and misinformation have managed to screw up many things in the past few years that have had a direct impact on areas outside of the US, so we have every reason to care who takes the reigns of your country afterward.
To my mind everyone outside the US is rooting for the dems because Bush, whether it’s right or wrong, has tarnished the entire replublican party and everyone’s scared sh*tless of having anything associated with the last eight years in there again.
January 4, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I’ll second our friend from the UK, like it or not, we are still the world hegemon and our government effects EVERYONE. No one beside the delusional 27% of the country that still thinks Bush is a good president wants another 8 years of this BS, that goes for the whole world. I was very interested in Gordon Brown’s election and I would actually be shocked by any ‘educated’ person ANYWHERE in the world who was not concerned and interested in our election.
January 4, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Yo, Friedman. You don’t think that there are enough really sick people in this country who would rather see Obama dead then as the president. I mean, didn’t he have to get a Secret Service detail earlier than any candidate in history because of the level of threats he and his family were receiving?
I know I read about that.
January 4, 2008 at 10:38 pm
DMac, there is really no reason to reply to our Brit friend, his positions and biases can be summed up one quote:
“Bush administration had not continually discredited the unanimous view of scientists around the globe about climate change”
Unanimous except for the 400 prominent scientists who don’t agree with it, eh? Clearly you are an al-Gore alarmist who considers global warming a religion of sorts.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
January 4, 2008 at 10:38 pm
And GAM
I was excited as fuck that Obama won. That doesn’t mean I didn’t wonder if he had signed his own death warrant, or if him winning in Iowa really meant he had a shot in the general election.
I can be excited and pragmatic at the same time.
And my post was pointing out that everybody ran with the idea that Poet wasn’t happy that Obama won, when that wasn’t what he wrote. At least not the way I read it. That’s what Friedman wrote, which he gleaned from what was “implied” in the article. What’s amazing is that Friedman raises a holy shit storm if anyone sees any implied comments in his own postings. That’s some funny stuff right there.
January 4, 2008 at 10:39 pm
In 1984 weren’t some people planning to kill Jesse Jackson when he was running for president?
January 4, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I knew Friedman was going to post that article.
I say ask the effing polar bears on the discovery channel about global warming. That shit is real to them.
January 4, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Allen, I don’t doubt the threats on Obama’s life. They’re probably about half of what Bush sees.
Well, al-Gore invented two things: the Internet, and Global Warming. No wonder he’s a darling on the left.
January 4, 2008 at 10:45 pm
@Thoughts from the UK
Our election is our election, if you don’t like the effects of US power on your country ally yourself with another world power such as China or Russia, but I forget, half the little worthless countries out there crying about America this America that, have no problem taking in American dollars to do things for their own country. So cut the BS. The US elections are decided by US CITIZENS, if you aren’t one butt the hell out of the conversations and try to work in your own political process instead of whining about us.
What about Climate Change asshole, I knew a little weasel like you would come up with some lame ass shite such as that. Why don’t you point out how the US has lower emissions growth than over 75% of the countries that signed the Kyoto Treaty. Why don’t you comment on how other worldwide industrial giants like India and China didn’t have to sign the treaty?
More facts of your pathetic treaty, go here http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_schmyoto.html
No I will not admit that climate change is a real threat, you are nothing more than a weak minded sheep. There is no scientific evidence at all to suggest that “global warming” is occuring or that it is even a threat. Keep believing in the boogey man.
our Leader is just that OUR LEADER, again if you don’t like it don’t try your damndest to get US money to invest in your country, don’t try to be US allies if you hate us so much, the US has not done a damn thing to the UK or to New Zealand that the governments in those countries did not choose to do.
Again like I said before what you foreigners believe is no concern to me, your opinions are worthless. Take care of your own country first.
January 4, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Indeed. And you’d be naive in the greatest sense of the word if you thought there’d be no one who’d like to kill this man. But you’d be naive to think no one wanted to kill Bush, or Clinton, or Reagan (almost).
The man will be protected. I tend to think the forces of terrorism and international conflict are a greater threat to the life of political figure than some lunatic fringe white supremecist.
I bet you think I am naive.
I guess this is a good barometer of where you think the country is. You’re entitled to that opinion. I think it can happen. If wrong, I will sadly come here and write “GAM is a naive fool…” 500 times. But I saw the old ass white folks in the crowd with tears in their eyes; it validates nothing, but gives me hope. I know it’s tacky and cliche given the man runs on the word “hope,” but if you go to youtube and watch his speach from last night, I don’t know how you can’t possess some hope that it might be time…..America might not be ready, but I believe he’ll make them ready.
January 4, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Allen I concur. And Friedman, as much as I would love Al Gore to be my uncle who came around every Sunday for tea and crumpets and regaled me with stories about the burning globe, the fact is the globe warms, we have the power to stop it, but Bush and his friends in the oil industry have done plenty to make sure nothing happens.
You know I laughed when Arnie got governor, my how I was wrong. Still love the NBA though.
January 4, 2008 at 10:50 pm
UK – how about you address your “unanimous view” of climate change comment before you go any further.
January 4, 2008 at 10:51 pm
@Thoughts from the UK
Post scientific facts that support that the globe is warming, dont let the real truth get in the way. http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.37 You know that scientific data actually points that the Earth has cooled in the last 60 years.
You are an ignornat fool. Keep such stupid talk in the UK or NZ.
January 4, 2008 at 10:52 pm
DavidMac-
Personally ensitive? Me, hardly. And as stated before, I’m from nowhere, I’m just a military brat, my roots are just as much in Germany and New Mexico, or more so, than California. Self loathing white? no, I don’t mind being white, and I don’t mind you being white… I mean black?. I’m pretty comfortable being me. I don’t ‘try’ to be down with anyone, but nice try. But I do have a pretty good awareness of my surroundings, I do pay attention. Maybe I am overly sensitive of the way people react to my kids, I’m a parent.
Anyway, why is it a conservative thing to totally disregard global warming as a myth? Yes, the planet has gone through warming/cooling cycles for its whole history. But you think pumping tons of chemicals into the air is good? I mean really, conservatives treat environmentalists like they’re making stuff up. I’d go to the beach and the signs tell you not to swim, the water isn’t chemically safe. Whatever. Making all that stuff up, world is cleaner now than it was 200 years ago.
January 4, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Weasel? By gosh DavidMac, it’s almost like you’re throwing insults Pride and Predjudice style.
Anyway, India and China are light years behind where the US is now. Your country has the scientists, the technology, the know how, the strong eonomy… etc. to make things happen in this area but sadly an unwilling administration and its duped followers.
Peace to all, a true Friday Fire indeed. Ups to Obama.
January 4, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Concur with GMP… you know people aren’t just making this carbon stuff up for sh*ts and giggles. It’s a good thing to reduce carbon emissions.
DavidMac/Friedman. Read “We are the weather makers” by Tim Flannery, it may open your eyes a little.
January 4, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Hmmm….is there any country where the US doesn’t interfere with their elections? Hell….isn’t damn near all of the US foreign policy based on whether the US “approves” of a government or not??
January 4, 2008 at 11:02 pm
GAM
Check my posts again. I listend to that speech and like Eugene Robinson said, my wife and I both got goosebumps. I hope Obama wins, because despite his flaws, I truly believe he would be the best president for this country.
However, I’m not so certain everybody else believes that. They might, but they just might not. Friedman and David Mac certainly don’t.
January 4, 2008 at 11:03 pm
UK, how about you read the link I just provided you and you can open your own eyes a little. Please, I’d like you to elaborate on your “unanimous view” comment.
Miranda, the in-house conspiracy theorist. Amusing, at least.
January 4, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Miranda, you and I know that. Shit, anybody with a basic understanding of foreign policy knows that.
David Mac knows that. That’s why his comments are ironic. He knows what’s going on, but acts like it doesn’t matter.
January 4, 2008 at 11:06 pm
@gmp
There is a difference between polluting the environment and global warming. The US has made great strides to limit the damage that is done to the environment through pouring chemicals in water supplies, emissions from cars and factories, and etc.
Global warming is in no way shape or form related to any of that. Global warming is a belief system that has no scientific backing whatsoever, it is nothimg more than a tool by liberals to attempt to control the masses.
Fact is when you get down to it global termperatures have really only recently begun to be studied indepth. There is no scientific evidence at all to suggest that the earth is warming up uncontrollably, especially since the average temperature of the world have been on the decline.
I mean hell look at the UK kid, he throws out a book by a paleotolist, but not a climitologist. The book has been ripped to shreds in the scientific community even by global warming supporters because there is no scientific evidence provided by the book.
January 4, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Friedman, you’re not stupid.
You know that the U.S. supports certain factions in other countries based on what we think is best for our country.
Shit, the most popular conservative president in history was embroiled in a huge brouhaha because of that basic fact.
Come on, denying that is just silly.
January 4, 2008 at 11:08 pm
So David Mac, you really don’t believe that global warming is a problem?
Interesting. I thought conservatives thought it wasn’t a major problem, not that they believed it didn’t even exist.
January 4, 2008 at 11:08 pm
DMac relax and keep the conversation sane please.
January 4, 2008 at 11:08 pm
@Allen and Miranda
Man how did we corrupt the Canadian’s election? how about Putin’s re-election tell me the great secret of how we put him into power, must be for that oil. What about Venezuela, we tricked those people, we had them believing that we hated Chavez, but that was just an act, right?
Bring some evidence about current election rigging in other countries.
January 4, 2008 at 11:15 pm
•”There’s no need to be worried. It’s very interesting to study [climate change], but there’s no need to be worried.”
Anton Uriarte, a professor of physical geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071221/NATION/844993096/1002&template=nextpage
January 4, 2008 at 11:15 pm
Mizzo….too late.
January 4, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Love the conversation here. Thank you all especially our friend from abroad.
GAM you brought up a great point on Malcolm’s mascot. This cannot be discounted and shows just how primitive socially some folks are in this nation.
January 4, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Allen,
Thanks for your clarifications in trying to assist the reading-impaired. But why bother when you KNOW your words will fall upon deaf ears?
Mizzo,
Don’t wait for me, my man, you should know by now that I do not aim comments toward either DMac or Friedman, unless it’s to laugh at their mutt and jeff routine. In fact, I’m laughing right now at Fried’s weak effort to put words in my mouth. To reiterate: I absolutely could not care less about how a couple of morons interpret my words. But then somebody called GAM comes along and does the same? It’s the best of times, it’s the worst of times…
January 4, 2008 at 11:25 pm
@TLP
Why make comments that are wrong and refuse to stand behind or explain them? That is cowardice, you are not rising above the fray, you are running from discussion.
January 4, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Because some times to enter the fray serves only to deflect from a larger point.
Also it serves no use to discourse with people that refuse to discourse with you. Two people yelling at each other does not a conversation make.
January 4, 2008 at 11:31 pm
David Mac makes me laugh.
I actually pointed out that the U.S. policy of meddling and cited one of the most prominent instances in history.
However, you seem to be turning the convo from meddling to outright election rigging. That’s an amazing attempt by your part. By using those works instead of your original words, which were advising a “foreigner” to butt out of our politics, you change the whole tenor of the discussions.
Good attempt.
January 4, 2008 at 11:32 pm
GMP is an all right cat. We may not always agree or see the world the same way, but I like how he types.
January 4, 2008 at 11:33 pm
Let’s all try to get back on the subject matter instead of the constant barbs. I know it’s Friday people and you want to get the hell out of work, but damn 😉
January 4, 2008 at 11:44 pm
@Allen
I asked you to provide some evidence about current election rigging in other countries.
You did not.
Instead you allude to Reagan and Iran, which was not about elections at all, just an attempt for you to try to bad mouth the USA.
@gmp
That is such a weak excuse. We shared an exchange in this same thread earlier, you came with your beliefs I responded, its no big deal. To act like you are above the fray is ridiculous. This is a message board, I’m sure people do not come on here to simply “preach to the choir”
I was always told if you cant defend what you say, you shouldn’t say it.
January 4, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Allen…..you noticed that spin move too?? Do they take a class or something?
January 4, 2008 at 11:46 pm
DMac,
I’ll admit it, this time around, your initial comment after my post was not as wrongheaded and stupid as your posts usually are. But if you really want to have a “discussion” with me, then you must first read and respond to the words I have actually written, and not to the image you have of me in your curiously affected mind.
Case in point, you began your comment with some reasonable objections to the things I’d written, fair enough, but your last two stanzas (the “black man getting killed stuff”) is a complete misrepresentation of what I wrote. I refuse to “talk” to anyone who would blatantly lie about the things I’ve written in an attempt to advance their own argument.
So either you’re a liar or you simply cannot read well enough to have any subsequent discussion about what you’ve read. Call it rising above the fray, call it cowardice, or call it intelligence, but stupid is stupid does, and I’m not stupid; so until you “cut THAT crap” we won’t be having anymore conversations… unless, again, I’m laughing at you, which I often do!
January 4, 2008 at 11:53 pm
@TLP
well run away then, I was paraphrasing your post, but if you get that bent out of shape go on and leave the thread.
January 4, 2008 at 11:59 pm
DMac where you do you work? Goodness they must have a stack of aps.
January 5, 2008 at 12:20 am
@Mizzo
🙂 I work for the state right now, nobody has a broken computer, that plus people are out for the week.
January 5, 2008 at 12:27 am
[Laughing… a lot] Yeah I run away from ignorance and stupidity like Carl Lewis ran the 100 meter dash. You can’t see nuthin but my backside, DMac. How do you like the view?
January 5, 2008 at 2:21 am
Miranda, I’m glad you peeped it too. That was classic.
January 5, 2008 at 2:29 am
Allen, that’s why I just ignored it……all of a sudden we were on international election rigging and I realized that swirling vortex was trying to pull me in and i said “oh no, not today”.
January 5, 2008 at 2:33 am
Miranda thanks for the Friday laugh. I needed that.
January 5, 2008 at 3:17 am
“is there any country where the US doesn’t interfere with their elections?”
Miranda, they are your words: don’t back away from them. Or maybe you’d just like to define “interference.”
January 5, 2008 at 3:46 am
@friedman
No need to talk to the conspiracy theorist. They shy away and deflect when you confront them on what they present. Typical.
January 5, 2008 at 3:47 am
Personally, I like Mr. UK dropping in. I would think that an international perspective is something to be embraced — even if we disagree with it.
Personally, I think that the Obama victory AND the double-Dem turnout is the best possible news. If Obama rides this wave to New Hampshire it might be a wrap (a big if). It is hard not to be captivated by the man — especially after having to endure the dryness of Gore and Kerry in successive elections. In my mind, Gore, then Kerry, and most of all Bush himself have aligned the past to make an Obama presidency a real possible.
January 5, 2008 at 3:49 am
how would Gore and Kerry effect Obama being the president?
January 5, 2008 at 3:50 am
On another note, one thing that is incredibly annoying on the part of DMac and Friedman is this almost lethal case of “partisanitis”. Like right out of an Anne Coulter playbook, all you hear is “liberals” this and “liberals” that. All these silly little labels do (add “conspiracy theorist” to the mix) is dumb down any real attempts at productive discourse. Call it the “Cross-Firization of America”. The notion that you can simplify the world by throwing people in one of two arbitrarily-assigned camps — and that the complexities of any one person’s thought patterns are shared with 50% of the population — is beyond ridiculous. …I don’t vote Democrat because I’m in that “tribe”, I generally select the lesser of two evils (see John Kerry).
I really could give a shit if anyone calls themselves a “liberal”, “conservative”, “independent”, “radical” or whatever. At the end of the day you have to stand on your own two feet and your own logic. And if you are full of shit, logic and reason will expose it. Just because simplistic labels have been seared into our brain since birth doesn’t mean we have to resort to a political tribalism that is only theoretical rival by “Crips” and “Bloods”. But that is continually the M.O. of DMAC and Friedman. It gets tiring.
January 5, 2008 at 3:57 am
@MODI
In politics, whether you want to admit it or not there are two and only two spectrums. Conservative and Liberal. While you may fall different degrees away from the center, you are either going to be on the liberal side or the conservative side. Stop trying to cry like liberal or labels in general are derrogatory. They do fit. White and Black are labels. Male and Female are labels. You accept those but you shy away from your own beliefs when they are correctly labeled, that is utterly pathetic.
Modi you are a liberal, that is a fact, reading your posts on here and your own site it is clear to see that. So instead of crying about being correctly label, why not embrace that as a fact and stop acting like it is terrible.
I am a conservative and proud of it.
January 5, 2008 at 4:27 am
“White and Black are labels. Male and Female are labels.”
Yes. They are. But they are not ARBITRARY. You have a penis or you don’t. Period. There are 1001 ingredients that go into ones political belief system. For example, my belief that teachers unions have a negative stranglehold on our educational system or that games like “Grand Theft Auto” have “a negative affect on our youth would certainly not fit into the little political box that you have probably assigned for me. Yet they are my beliefs. I can give more example that cross this arbitrary paradigm, but if I continue it might come off that I really care about how you perceive me as opposed to simply trying to make a point.
But for the record, i don’t think that “liberal’ is a bad word to run from. I just believe that the willingness to slap on labels serves absolutely no purpose but to stifle discussions.
January 5, 2008 at 4:28 am
Liberals are embarrassed to embrace their political affiliation, because liberals:
1. support the killing of unborn children (abortion)
2. want the government to pay for everything, from birth until death, because they cannot pay (earn) for things themselves
3. sympathize with, enable, defend, and sometimes outright support known enemies (terrorists) of the United States, i.e., “rights” for enemy combatants (see: ACLU)
4. aspire to social and financial mediocrity, and denigrate (and tax to death) anybody who attains financial success (unless it hurts them politically)
5. do not believe in the idea and the law supporting a national border, and welcome all illegal aliens with open arms, no matter the burden it lays on actual American citizens
6. blame any and all things (the weather, i.e. Katrina; natural climate change, i.e. global “warming”; 9/11, i.e. it was an inside job!), on BusHitler.
And it’s no wonder why liberals are not comfortable identifying themselves.
MODI, if you’d like more examples, so that you can better identify your own political beliefs, I’d be happy to provide them.
January 5, 2008 at 4:29 am
What does Obama’s win in Iowa mean? We won’t know until later in the campaign. I’d like to see someone other than a white male as president. Obama’s never excited me. I hear about this message of hope, but it doesn’t move me. I’d much rather hear how he’s gonna try to solve problems, than a cryptic message on giving America hope. That’s my major beef with the man. I would like to hear some specifics. I don’t expect him to talk about “black concerns” much. If he ever does that, he can kiss a lot of those white votes good bye. I’d be a bit concerned if I were the Dem’s. Republicans have been giddy over Obama winning Iowa. Remember, in Iowa, they are allowed to switch parties before they get to choosing.
January 5, 2008 at 4:31 am
“how would Gore and Kerry effect Obama being the president?”
After the losses of Gore and Kerry, many Democratic voters said to themselves: No more! No more stiff-as-an-FBI-agent candidates, and no more purely pragmatic voting. So for example, many who were more politically aligned with Bill Bradley in 2000 voted for Gore because they thought him to be more “electable”. Many who shared the passion and conviction of John Edwards or Howard Dean in 2004 voted for Kerry because they thought they couldn’t win. Now the feeling is that if I’m going to cast a losing vote anyway, then fuck it, let me vote my heart and my conscience! Enter Barack Obama at the perfect time. Like Edwards, Obama is running on a “hope ticket” — usually a recipe for political failure. But the combination of two close losses in 2000 and 2004 PLUS the debacle that is George W. Bush aligns all the stars for someone like Obama, and to a lesser extent Edwards, to make a credible run at the presidency.
I’m convinced that 4 years ago, Obama wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell and 4 years from now, the moment will have evaporated. And it is a peculiar moment in American history that just might allow a black man to be prez. And given 8 years since a Dem nominee has even a morsel of charm, Obama’s incredible ability to connect with audiences is that much more enhanced. To paraphrase Obama’s speech last night. “This is the moment”.
January 5, 2008 at 4:33 am
DavidMac, I believe Friedman’s subsequent post made my point better than i could have ever articulated. Perhaps you will even look past tribalism to see this fact.
January 5, 2008 at 4:36 am
MODI, if you’d like to distance yourself from those great pillars of the left, then by all means, go ahead.
You’ve got to love all these Obama supporters. He’s a good public speaker! He has charm! He connects with audiences! He as hope for a better future for all! Good god, how is anybody over the age of 18 voting for this empty suit? Oh, it’s all those idealists, a.k.a., the liberals, that’s who.
January 5, 2008 at 4:54 am
Friedman, i have absolutely no desire to distance myself from anyone but you. Distancing has and never was the issue. Having productive discourse is. All labels do is create presumptions about positions before actually inquiring about them (see your 4:28 post for a prime example).
Believe it or not, i have actually had productive discourse with people of almost opposite political views. Only one thing is required: a sincere quest for truth — not defending turf according to a playbook that was given to you. After reviewing many of your posts, I’ve come to the conclusion that you are simply more interested in battle for its own sake than any positive discourse that might lead to mutual understanding or greater understanding as to where views diverge from one another.
BTW, I can lay out a whole slew of concrete Obama positions for you if you like, but I didn’t mention them because it wasn’t pertinent to the last discussion which was based on the lack of personality of Gore and Kerry. The last thing Obama is is any empty suit and can run intellectual circles around our current president. It is not too much to ask that our president be smart AND personable. A president must meet and engage with leaders all over the globe. In my opinion, Obama’s diplomacy combined with his ability to connect with ALL people make him the perfect candidate to undo so much of the global hate that this current administration has caused.
January 5, 2008 at 5:00 am
“I’ll admit it, this time around, your initial comment after my post was not as wrongheaded and stupid as your posts usually are. ”
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLL!!!!!!
I have absolutely no desire to waste my time actually ‘discussing’ politics with Friedman and DM, And it ammuses me, although I do understand the temptation to do so, that highly intelligent people actually do. But the above made me laugh!
January 5, 2008 at 5:09 am
KD, forgive me as I am surely a sucker for a trap. Always desparately searching for that one “breakthrough”… call it the downside to “the Audacity of Hope”…
January 5, 2008 at 6:12 am
Ain’t madatcha Charles. You’ve far more patience than I. Just don’t waste too much time on the fool.
January 5, 2008 at 6:24 am
I’m honestly worried about politics. The more and more I watch the news, read and do my own research I get the feeling that less and less will actually get solved by whoever wins the damn election.
I’ll vote because its my right and people have fought and died for it…but when is anything really going to get solved and we can look back and all agree that “fill in the name” was a good president….
January 5, 2008 at 6:30 am
Its all about the Senators and Representatives, they get most of the stuff donw nationally.
Also people seem to always over look their state and city elections, these elections always have low turnout, but effect lives the most.
I think changing your focus from national to state will help you get rid of the hopelessness Cevidence.
January 5, 2008 at 6:49 am
Cevidence,
I am still in shock that Obama won in Iowa and I am skeptical about the road ahead. I have to agree with you about politics. We need to have a national debate about the realistic role of government and what we actually expect from these political and government leaders. I mean, what makes a good president ?? I know what makes President Bush a horrible president. I’m sorry I can be snobbish when it comes to intellect, but I like smart people. You couldn’t be dumb in my family. You had to have street and book smarts.
Maybe being President is like being a quaterback, you need a good offensive line, good recievers and a good running game to be successful in the position.
January 5, 2008 at 8:57 am
Friedman Says:
January 5, 2008 at 4:36 am
MODI, if you’d like to distance yourself from those great pillars of the left, then by all means, go ahead.
You’ve got to love all these Obama supporters. He’s a good public speaker! He has charm! He connects with audiences! He as hope for a better future for all! Good god, how is anybody over the age of 18 voting for this empty suit? Oh, it’s all those idealists, a.k.a., the liberals, that’s who.
Wow. All you have to do is change a few words, and you’ve got a perfect description of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. And I’d like to correct a few points made earlier by folks. 1. Pat Robertson didn’t win Iowa, he finished second. 2. Obama will win Illinois’s primary, I doubt anyone else will even contest it. 3. Friedman’s list of “liberal” views is so transparently stereotypical it is not worth anybody’s time trying to refut it. 4. And David Mac, if you’ve been following the elections, you’d know that Obama is doing quite well in the polling in SC. If Barack wins NH, he will kill Hillary in SC.
January 5, 2008 at 9:17 pm
@mark
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/south_carolina/election_2008_south_carolina_democratic_primary
I know you like to believe what you are typing but the fact is Hilary was killing Obama in SC, while her lead has dropped to even now, with Obama because he is starting to pick up more of the black vote. We will see if he can pick up even more of the vote with his win in Iowa, but who knows.
January 5, 2008 at 11:07 pm
David, I never said Hillary wasn’t doing well in the past. But who cares? Right now, Obama is in great shape, both in SC, and nationally. If he wins NH, and the latest track there shows up UP 10, he’s going to roll Hillary in SC. And if that happens, I don’t see how he loses the nomination.
January 6, 2008 at 5:46 am
“Friedman’s list of “liberal” views is so transparently stereotypical it is not worth anybody’s time trying to refut it”
You are a liberal, obviously: tell me, which of those six do you disagree with? You’re against abortion? You don’t hate Bush? Which is it, pray tell.
January 6, 2008 at 5:49 am
Friedman you can’t actually think your president has done a decent job. God help you if you do.
January 6, 2008 at 6:23 am
The word “liberal” is right up there with “race card”. Its nothing more than a smoke and mirrors attempt to discredit someone when debating. Nothing more. If someone agrees with those points listed, that means they share an opinion, point blank.
As for the job that Bush has done…nah, I honestly don’t think he’s done a good job, not at all. I honestly believe that not only is America worse off, but so is the other parts of the world.
I hope that the next president comes in and worries about domestic issues first and foremost. There’s just too much going on. All you hear people argue about is Abortion and Gay Marriage and those are MINOR issues in my opinion, in contrast to some of the stuff going on in America today. Stuff like this is what lessens my faith in politics.
January 6, 2008 at 10:29 pm
@mark
I posted my link because you tried to say I didn’t follow the dem race. My point is to show that Obama was weak amongst blacks and was losing in SC, a point you initially said I was wrong about. I was just correcting you and letting you see that that is not the case, and it is only recently that he has become competitive, in SC.
@Cevidence
I disagree with you liberal is not a code word, it is a correct title of political philosophy. I don’t understand why people who are liberal try to disassociate yourself from what you are and act like it is a bad word. It makes no sense, most of you all ARE LIBERAL. To act like it is being misused is ridiculous to me, because either you really do not like being called what you are or you do not know what a liberal is.
January 7, 2008 at 4:03 pm
“I don’t understand why people who are liberal try to disassociate yourself from what you are and act like it is a bad word.”
DMAC, we can disagree on 1000 points, but this statement is completely disngenuous. You know full well that the word means a whole lot of different things to different people and how Republican politicians have successfully transformed the meaning of it into a one-size fits all curse word amongst so many of its followers. There is a reason why Anne Coulter is a best selling author many times over and the manipulatiuon of this “word” has a lot to do with it. You are simply playing dumb here — which is even more annoying than just being wrong.
But I’ll explain this one last time but real slow. I reject the label three times over.
1 – On productive discourse grounds: Cevidence is completely right when saying its a “smoke and mirrors attempt to discredit someone when debating.” The word and all its loaded meaning to whoever uses it acts as a “discussion ender” (again see Friedmans post I alluded to earlier). Perhaps 30 years ago before the word’s political transformation and before our “Crossfire Culture” this wasn’t the case. But it certainly is now and to ignore the perceived meaning of a word is utterly ridiculous.
2 – On labeling grounds: I generally reject political labels as they are simply not necessary either way. If your logic is tighter than mine (or anyone else) on any given issue than you should have no problem articulating that. I don’t need to call you a “conservative” to deconstruct a comnonsensical statement. Try letting your logic stand on its own two feet.
3 – On intellectual grounds: The artificially created brushstroke is far too broad whether it be “conservative” or “liberal”. There is no such thing as “a political philosophy” that can encompass half a nation. The notion is absurd and is only believable because we have been so brainwashed with the “conservative vs. liberal” paradigm since we came out of the womb that it goes unquestioned. If we were born into a let’s say – 4-party political system. Then you would slap on one of 4 labels that you were taught to divide the world into and we would be having the very same discussion except that I would be telling you how ludicrous one of those four labels were.
January 7, 2008 at 7:12 pm
@MODI
The fact is regardless of what you type, the word Liberal will never ever be a derogatory word. Ann Coulter is a conservative of course she would view liberals as being a negative, it is according to her political philosophy. The fact though, is that like I said, there are 2 political ideologies in the world, only two, liberal and conservative, either you lean left or right of center and the distance off the center varies, but those are the only two.
If you are too dense not to see this, I would recommend you take a poly-sci or government course.