The Song Fight Bulletin Board

erik wrote:

mico saudad wrote:She is seen as a "fighter" and someone who doesn't ever give up no matter what the reality is. Haven't we figured out that's not really what we should be looking for in a leader right now?

I dunno, I think that Hillary being in the race up until a certain point is a good thing for the Democratic party. It keeps their party in the news, it keeps people talking, and it keeps focus away from the Republicans. I don't know if that makes for a good leader, but it makes her an awesome wingman.

I agree and I think part of the point here is that this race shows that we have two viable candidates. I think 'fighting for the nomination' is completely different from the definition of 'fighting a war' and I think thats a weak analogy.

What sucks is that while Obama has more delegates and everybody is crying that she should get out of the race... everyone forgets that Ohio and Florida practically have no say...

So when anyone says that he's doing so much better than her WHILE she is still WINNING STATES I feel compelled to point out that there are at least two states who 'dont count'

Hoblit wrote:

erik wrote:

mico saudad wrote:She is seen as a "fighter" and someone who doesn't ever give up no matter what the reality is. Haven't we figured out that's not really what we should be looking for in a leader right now?

I dunno, I think that Hillary being in the race up until a certain point is a good thing for the Democratic party. It keeps their party in the news, it keeps people talking, and it keeps focus away from the Republicans. I don't know if that makes for a good leader, but it makes her an awesome wingman.

I agree and I think part of the point here is that this race shows that we have two viable candidates. I think 'fighting for the nomination' is completely different from the definition of 'fighting a war' and I think thats a weak analogy.

What sucks is that while Obama has more delegates and everybody is crying that she should get out of the race... everyone forgets that Ohio and Florida practically have no say...

So when anyone says that he's doing so much better than her WHILE she is still WINNING STATES I feel compelled to point out that there are at least two states who 'dont count'

I agree that she should still be in the race. I think it's good for the party. That's not my point. I'm talking about the unprincipled manner in which politics is conducted.

That small tiny fragment of my point that you chose to comment on was about her evolving and contradictory justifications on this for the sake of 'fighting on' - her words not mine (I also think the war analogy is horribly overused and confuses the issue, hoblit). Either she believed that Michigan and Florida don't count as she herself claimed (back when it suited her). Or they do count. She can't on principle believe both. The only difference between now and then is self-interest. I don't want a leader who does things in self-interest. Or at the very least let's have leaders whose perception is that they don't do things in self interest so that when they do something in self-interest it hurts them politically.

I agree that it sucks that Florida doesn't count. Blame the republican party in florida who forced the statewide shift in primary day. Blame the democratic party for setting penalties that it never planned to carry out. It sucks that Michigan's vote didn't count, too. I have yet to see anywhere where the people who are responsible for these decisions are being called to accountability. I know why they haven't, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't.

But my real beef here is not with Hillary, it's that our society has no gag reflex to spin and deception and manipulation.

The whole Michigan and Florida deal sucks. Why did they agree to go ahead with elections knowing what would happen to their delegates?

Hillary's claims about the popular vote rings true to anyone who is still in disbelief about our President's first "win", but I think the vote would have been different if FL and MI knew they would "count". Perhaps she wouldn't have the popular vote in those states at that point.

roymond wrote:The whole Michigan and Florida deal sucks. Why did they agree to go ahead with elections knowing what would happen to their delegates?

but I think the vote would have been different if FL and MI knew they would "count". ...

Yes, perhaps more Clinton supporters would have voted. (You can't assume that all the people who didn't vote because it wouldn't count would magically be in Obama's camp)

Hoblit wrote:Yes, perhaps more Clinton supporters would have voted. (You can't assume that all the people who didn't vote because it wouldn't count would magically be in Obama's camp)

I wasn't making that assumption, just pointing out that it may have been different. The main point is the process was already contaminated by in-party bickering and bs. She claims it was a "fair" vote, and I disagree. And I'd still disagree if we somehow could know that she'd have gotten more votes.

I think it's really interesting that even when Hillary's doing well, the headlines read "Why can't Obama seal the deal?" or "Obama campaign falters." Why the de-emphasis on the woman herself? I support Obama, but jeez.


Speaking of supporting Obama, this contest was really neat. I spent an hour or so voting on the first round, and now the finalists are up: http://www.obamain30seconds.com/ The public did a whole bunch of :30 Obama spots, and now we get to vote on which one will get to air nationally.

One of the ads was done by my classmate's brother. Because he linked me straight to it, I wasn't allowed to rate it in the first round, but it's now a finalist (and still my favorite of the bunch), so yay for that. I'm curious to see if anyone can guess which one I'm talking about, so I won't say which one just yet.