Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

898 comments

So (-1, Troll)

Malevolent Tester (1201209) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648538)

Is there going to be a bag limit on trolling Freepers?

Ron Paul Not A Troll (4, Insightful)

fishdan (569872) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648820)

Well, Ron Paul SHOULD still be in at this point. That's not trolling.

There are a lot of Republicans who just WON'T vote for McCain. Ron should and will stay in the race, and those McCain haters are going to vote for him, just like they did for Huckabee. Hopefully they'll also learn something. The current election is always about the next one for the candidates who don't win. I think that inspite of what we know here, and the best efforts of many on this board, there are about 300 million citizens in the US [census.gov] who don't know anything more about Ron Paul's positions than that he is completely against the Iraq war. If the nation becomes better informed about the REAL cost of lowering interest rates and devaluing the dollar [fishdan.com] , things might actually change.

Re:Ron Paul Not A Troll (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 6 years ago | (#22649062)

the problem for paul now is mathematical certainty that McCain has enough delegates now to not worry about any of the primaries from here on in. Paul could win them all and still not be a threat at the convention.

why is texas a win for her? (3, Insightful)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648540)

she left the state with fewer delegates.. I'm trying to understand what a "win" means in this race.

Re:why is texas a win for her? (1)

MazzThePianoman (996530) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648594)

Because the super delegates are coming to the realization that they should vote with the public instead of shooting themselves in the foot.

Re:why is texas a win for her? (1)

Adult film producer (866485) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648680)

what does that have to do with my question? and if I'm not mistaken, Obama is ahead in the popular vote so far (by nearly a million before last night.)

Re:why is texas a win for her? (4, Informative)

ourcraft (874165) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648804)

In the foot...
Obama leads in actual vote overall by 600,000. After all is said and done last night Obama leads by about 150 Delegates.
Before last night, Obama lead by more than 160 Delegates, and 1000 delegates where left to picked, about a third were picked last night. Clinton picked up about 10 possibly 15. Clinton needs =/- 150 delegates from the remaining =/- 660 delelgates available. Obama would need to be kept to about 200 for HRC to win. Meaning she would need, on average, to win roughly 70% of the vote. Although it is not a statistical absolute, I cannot imagine Obama to start getting 30%.

The race is over, Obama has won, except for the ugly fighting that is about to come. Im sure you can see what kind of tactics are about to be launched.

Re:why is texas a win for her? (4, Insightful)

AoT (107216) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648636)

It means that she won the popular vote, which is translated by the media into a win these days. Obama is set to win the caucuses. What this is really is the media finally turning on Obama. From Russert's vile line of questioning about Farrakhan, "Why won't you say that you would stab him in the face, huh?" He would never have asked Kerry about the endorsement from LaRouche, yet he feels the need to act like Farrakhan actually matters.

No, it NEEDED to be asked (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22648936)

From Russert's vile line of questioning about Farrakhan, [...]

I'm sorry, but that question was very legit, and many of us were very happy with Russert asking the tough questions. I was growing tired of Obama getting all the softball questions.

FWIW, I do think that Obama answered it quite well, though.

--

On a side note, is /. ever going to fix the -1 AC bug that has been plaguing this site for nearly the last week?

Re:why is texas a win for her? (0, Redundant)

fishdan (569872) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648638)

She has more delegates now. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX [cnn.com]

Texas has 228 total delegates, 126 tied to March 4 primary, 67 tied to March 4 caucuses and 12 superdelegates

She will have even more delegates after the caucuses finish.

Re:why is texas a win for her? (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648716)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX [cnn.com]

Looks like so far, Clinton is ahead by six and is the projected winner, although there is a lot of room until the other 202 delegates are awarded. (I'd prefer Obama, myself...)

Re:why is texas a win for her? (4, Interesting)

callistra.moonshadow (956717) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648734)

Well, Texas has a caucus. She took the primary but Obama took more in the caucus which is a smaller percentage of the delegates. As to her actually *winning* one must wonder if Rush Limbaugh may have contributed to Republicans cross-voting just to up the contention between Clinton and Obmana and further muddy the outcome for the Dems. --cally

Re:why is texas a win for her? (5, Interesting)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 6 years ago | (#22649052)

one must wonder if Rush Limbaugh may have contributed

I just have to wonder if Limbaugh's advice is counterproductive.

From what I've seen in this election cycle, more than any other is that people are basically led around by the talking heads on TV. The will vote for whoever is getting the most press. With the Republican nomination cynched by McCain, the only thing that will be in the news will be Obama/Clinton. Come November, people will be saying, "McCain? Who is that?"

It isn't a matter of the media reporting badly about McCain. It is a matter of them simply overtly shutting him out of the news coverage altogether, like they did with Paul, Kucinich and later Huckabee. The talking-head, 24-hour news cycle is an extremely powerful tool that amounts to free political adds for whoever the network controllers consider a "front-runner", whether that be Giovanni or Thompson. Having Obama/Clinton being the "news of the day" for the next few months will not help McCain.

Re:why is texas a win for her? (1)

Rohan427 (521859) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648828)

It really doesn't matter what a win is. Looking at the candidates for both parties, We The People will lose no matter who is elected. After all, the voting public just continues to vote for the same two sides of the same bad coin. On the one side is Fascism, on the other Socialism. Pick your poison.

PGA

Re:why is texas a win for her? (1, Funny)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648880)

"On the one side is Fascism, on the other Socialism."

So you feel that Clinton and Obama are your only choices?

Re:why is texas a win for her? (5, Informative)

fishdan (569872) | more than 6 years ago | (#22649010)

Both sides are fascism. As Ron Paul said : "We're not moving toward Hitler-type fascism, but we're moving toward a softer fascism: Loss of civil liberties, corporations running the show, big government in bed with big business. So you have the military-industrial complex, you have the medical-industrial complex, you have the financial industry, you have the communications industry. They go to Washington and spend hundreds of millions of dollars."

Ralph Nader put it best: Republicans and Democrats are competing to serve their corporate masters.

Obama has it in the bag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22648546)

There are less than 600 delegates remaining in the race and Obama has a 100 delegate lead. You do the math. There is no way for Clinton to win the nomination without a miracle.

Damn (1)

masdog (794316) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648558)

I was hoping Obama would have been able to further his lead last night and put another nail in the campaign coffin of the Clintons, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Thankfully, Democratic primaries are proportional instead of winner take all, so even with these wins, Clinton won't be able to catch up to Obama.

Re:Damn (4, Interesting)

aredubya74 (266988) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648700)

Indeed, not counting the Texas caucus results (which are likely to favor Obama), Clinton's likely to come out of last night's victories net'ing less than 10 delegates, and possibly even losing ground if the caucus goes particularly well (60-40 or better) for Obama.

I'm not a registered Democrat, though I do vote for their candidates more often than not. The inconsistencies of the state party mechanisms, plus the proportional voting, does seem highly illogical. In the general, it's winner-take-all, and there's no superdelegates (unless you count the Supreme Court - 2000 election says hi). I hope the party recognizes this flaw in the system, which only stands to keep them stigmatized as the party of political procedure and not of coherent action.

That all said, if John McCain makes it through to Election Day without a single health scare, I would be very surprised. He's 72, and has a relatively poor health history. I certainly wouldn't wish ill health on him, but I do think there's a strong likelihood of at least one incident on the road.

Re:Damn (4, Interesting)

MLCT (1148749) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648702)

The super delegates will decide it all - the actual raw numbers don't make much difference. Winning Ohio and Texas wasn't important to Clinton due to the number of delegates she would win, but rather has very strongly reinforced the stall she is going to set out to the supers, namely "I win in the "big" states, Obama wins in the "little" states". A piece in the NYT laid it all out yesterday, pointing out that if she lost both Texas & Ohio it wouldn't make a vast difference to the numbers - due to PR - but it would leave her with virtually no storyline to present to the supers. Since she won them she has now quite a potent storyline to present - and it may end up handing her the title.

Re:Damn (5, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648900)

There is no "thankfully" to it. This pretty much ensures an ugly floor fight which will fracture and humiliate the Democratic party and put John McCain in the White House. It's truly amazing just how far Democrats will go to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Even in the face of the most unpopular war since Vietnam and the most hated Republican president since Nixon, the Democrats still can't pull it together for a win. And even when they do win (as they did in 1992, 1996, and 2006) they immediately fracture, cave-in, sell-out, and generally squander any potential for any real improvement thanks to their laughably weak party discipline.

Frankly, I wish they would just go the way of the Whigs (and take the Republicans with them while they're at it). This country desperately needs a REAL party for liberals, libertarians, and progressives. And God knows neither the undisciplined, spineless Democrat party nor the bible-thumping, war-mongering Republican party are truly serving the people.

Ron Pual (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22648560)

Ugh... As an outsider looking in (Canadian), I really wish Paul won on the Republican side. His "radical" ideas help me sleep at night.

Meanwhile... (-1, Troll)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648562)

While Clinton takes 1,191 delegates, Obama takes 1,314, and McCain takes the Republican nomination, the American public gets ready to take it up the rear. Sit back, relax, and watch your rights vanish before your eyes.

Re:Meanwhile... (3, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648674)

Sit back, relax, and watch your rights vanish before your eyes.

That statement is only valid for the few rights that haven't already been annihilated by the current administration.

Which would leave one to assume that the situation can only get better, but that was also what we thought when approaching the 2004 presidential election. Yet somehow we were proven wrong.

Re:Meanwhile... (1, Insightful)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648780)

"Which would leave one to assume that the situation can only get better..."

How do you come to that conclusion? Have you seen the same ads I have? "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper" - "Healthcare for everyone". This can only translate into more of my labor going towards strangers.

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Re:Meanwhile... (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648870)

"Healthcare for everyone". This can only translate into more of my labor going towards strangers.

Probably, but not necessarily. You're already paying for healthcare for everyone (if you spend anything on healthcare) in the form of high costs that have built in the assumption that something like 40% of the patients will never pay. Don't even get me started on emergency rooms.

It's not impossible that a universal healthcare solution could actually reduce the amount of money most people spend on healthcare.

Re:Meanwhile... (4, Informative)

Spad (470073) | more than 6 years ago | (#22649042)

The US spends more than twice as much per capita on healthcare than the UK.

Re:Meanwhile... (5, Insightful)

dasunt (249686) | more than 6 years ago | (#22649026)

How do you come to that conclusion? Have you seen the same ads I have? "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper" - "Healthcare for everyone". This can only translate into more of my labor going towards strangers.

As opposed to the current system where the ER is often the first, last and only choice for the poor, resulting in increased medical bills that are unpaid and passed onto wealthier hospital patrons who do have insurance?

There are places that capitalism fails. Healthcare looks like it is one of them. Even if doctors could refuse treatment until after they were paid (what a dystopic thought!), the lack of access to healthcare would decrease the total health of the population, resulting in a population that is more prone to infectious diseases and epidemics.

PS: We have the ability to wipe out polio from the world relatively easily. That's due to government, not private practice footing the bill. We also have the ability to eradicate the MMR trio if we are willing to push for an international campaign to do so.

SUUUUUURE McCain took Ohio and texas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22648574)

bastions of democracy those two states are.

Nash Equilibrium (3, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648590)

Clinton and Obama continue to fight over who's winning the Democratic nomination and meanwhile they become uglier as they turn on each other. Reminds me of Nash equilibrium [wikipedia.org] :

In game theory, the Nash equilibrium (named after John Forbes Nash, who proposed it) is a solution concept of a game involving two or more players, in which no player has anything to gain by changing only his or her own strategy unilaterally. If each player has chosen a strategy and no player can benefit by changing his or her strategy while the other players keep theirs unchanged, then the current set of strategy choices and the corresponding payoffs constitute a Nash equilibrium.
I cringe every time I hear either of them say something even mildly attacking the other--couldn't they agree to just stick to their own personal views and rely on those to win the nomination? But I guess that's politics.

It never ceases to amuse me how McCain supporters will paint Clinton & Obama as hardcore Democrats and call McCain a moderate conservative while Clinton & Obama supporters paint McCain as a hardcore Republican and argue their candidate being a moderate liberal. Because they know the moderate will garner the most votes. I guess one thing they're split on should be the war though if McCain's smart, he'll promise to remain strong in our fight yet distance himself from Bush's attitude towards it (somehow).

I keep hearing people telling me that I shouldn't worry, that everyone's fed up with the war and it's time for a change--there's no way the Democrats could lose this one! Unfortunately, it's shaping up to be all too much like the last election which left me pretty dissappointed, especially in retrospect. Well, at least Clinton & Obama aren't as stoic, wealthy and lifeless as Kerry was. One thing's for sure, I would gladly welcome McCain over Bush as president any day even if people call him a maverick senator.

Re:Nash Equilibrium (4, Interesting)

Da Fokka (94074) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648770)

The reason negative campaigning is used so much is basically because it works, no matter how much people hate it. Negative emotions tend to be more salient than positive emotions. In Dutch there is a saying 'Vertrouwen komt te voet en gaat te paard', which can be roughly translated as 'Trust arrives in little steps but leaves with large strides'. Politicians have to make a lot of good impressions to counteract a single bad impression.

I agree with your assessment that the Democrats will have a real challenge, regardless of the candidate they choose. McCain does not really suffer from the huge impopularity of president Bush as much as the other republican candidates (bar Ron Paul) would have. He's got some character, everyone from left to right has to respect a guy who survived five years of torture. And the republicans can start organizing while the Democrats are in disarray. I'm really rooting for Obama but it looks like there will be no Democratic candidate until the convention.

Re:Nash Equilibrium (1, Flamebait)

Edward Ka-Spel (779129) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648890)

The democrats can't keep from shooting themselves in the foot. They have a golden opportunity here. The Republican president has terrible approval ratings. The country in general is fed up with the current government. The Republican party doesn't even like their own candidate. All the Democrats had to do is pick a viable candidate and stroll into the white house. Any candidate would do. But they can't even do that right. All this bickering and smearing is just hurting the party. This is a great example of why the Democratic party has failed so miserably, and why the Republican party can be so stupid, yet win every time.

To go back to your game theory, this is a classic example of two greedy, competitive agents versus two cooperative agents. The competitive agents attempt to maximize their individual gain at all times, while the cooperative agents work to maximize the team gain at all times, understanding that one agent losing may win the team game. Obama and Clinton are obviously the competitive agents, while McCain and Romney are the cooperative agents. (Yes, Romney. Did anyone notice that Romney still has more delegates than Huckabee? He never was a real candidate).

In the end, I'm sick of both parties. Which is worse, the party that destroys the country or the party that is to busy arguing amongst themselves to stop the other party from destroying the country.

You'd think... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22648614)

...that hatred from many nations including what were once very close allies and an economy that's been falling and falling and falling would be enough of a clue that it's time to end the Clinton/Bush era, but apparently America is still not learning.

When will America realise that it's on a downward spiral and the only way to prevent that is to vote in someone that represents real change like Obama?

If Clinton gets in America can expect another 4 to 8 years of failure and decline. It's sad in a way because it's not that strong, proud, well loved country anymore that I remember from my childhood.

Re:You'd think... (1)

0kComputer (872064) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648910)

that hatred from many nations including what were once very close allies and an economy that's been falling and falling and falling would be enough of a clue that it's time to end the Clinton/Bush era

I call BS. Obviously the Bush era sucks, but Clinton was a hugely popular president from a global prespective, the economy wasn't too bad either. Either you were too young to remember or your'e just trolling.

I'm for the liger party (4, Funny)

Himring (646324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648618)

vote pedro....

Re:I'm for the liger party (1)

terrio_ns (1066818) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648684)

Here Here

.Sig (1)

Morosoph (693565) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648778)

"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
And, of course "Goodness unto others" (ubuntu) :o)

It's just an aside, as your sig made me think of a culture's values more generally...

Re:I'm for the liger party (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22648980)

Screw pedro and all of his wetback friends

Don't blame me. . . (4, Funny)

MistaE (776169) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648624)

I voted for Kodos.

Re:Don't blame me. . . (2)

Neotrantor (597070) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648686)

slashdot is declining because the humor never moved pasted 1998 simpsons episodes

Re:Don't blame me. . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22648784)

Who bent your wookie?

Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (5, Insightful)

JustASlashDotGuy (905444) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648642)

Now that McCain has clinched the nod, expect all those that would have voted for McCain 'when it mattered' to now vote for Clinton when possible. Clinton is by far the easier candidate to beat and everyone knows it. It's very possible the republicans are what helped Clinton win in the Texas primary.

We will now see McCain attacking Obama, Clinton attacking Obama, and republicans voting for Clinton all at once. I hope Obama is up for the fight.

Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (3, Informative)

Pizaz (594643) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648742)

the good news is that in Pennsylvania they have a closed primary. Only Democrats can vote for other Democrats. Unfortunately in Texas and Ohio, they had open primaries. I'm hoping the media will pick up on these stories because it's important that people understand what's going on.

Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (1, Informative)

shoemilk (1008173) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648746)

Ummm... You do know that you have to be registered with that party to vote in it's primaries, right?

Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (5, Informative)

spleen_blender (949762) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648766)

Not in Texas and Ohio, hence OPEN PRIMARIES.

Carry on.

Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (1)

shoemilk (1008173) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648794)

D'oh! stupid texas

Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648802)

That depends on the state, actually. Texas had open primaries. Pennsylvania does not.

South Carolina took the easy way out and had open primaries, but on different days for Democrats and Republicans.

Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648782)

We will now see McCain attacking Obama, Clinton attacking Obama, and republicans voting for Clinton all at once.

I think you're assuming that voters, overall, think a bit more strategically than they do.

Not that what you're saying isn't happening, but as often I've heard Republicans say that they were going to vote in the Democratic primaries for Obama because it's "anyone but Clinton" for them.

Misperceptions and odd prejudices cast more votes (for anyone) than real logic or issues.

Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (1)

curmudgeous (710771) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648984)

I think you're assuming that voters, overall, think a bit more strategically than they do.

The voters may not think strategically but the party machines certainly do. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that a few of the higher-ups placed calls to some of their minions who then spread the word to others, etc.

Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (1)

Junior Samples (550792) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648808)

Rush Limbaugh was openly promoting this strategy to get republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary in the primary and then defeat her in the fall election on his talk show. Looks like it may be working.

Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (2, Interesting)

dattaway (3088) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648876)

Clinton and McCain are like the frat brothers Bush and Kerry. Its a scorecard power players really like.

Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22648878)

I guess that depends on the state... I know that here where I live, you can ONLY vote in the primary for the party you've declared. Doubt too many folks are willing to change party affiliations just to vote against Obama.

That's part of why I'm officially an Independent - I have no interest in partisan politics. I want the freedom to vote for the individual that I feel is most qualified - Democrat, Republican, Whig, Federalist, whatever ....

Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (2, Insightful)

cfulmer (3166) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648888)

Don't forget the press, which until now has pretty much given him a free ride. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/press-gives-obama-a-rougher-ride-over-free-trade-and-chicago-politics-791347.html [independent.co.uk]

I'm not at all certain that Obama is the tougher candidate to beat -- he's looked good so far, but that's partially because the press hasn't been hounding him. That's beginning to change.

The bigger problem for both of them is that they both have to keep left to win the primary, delaying their inevitable tack back to the center to try to win the independent vote. But, McCain is already in the center. Part of their strategy is going to be to pain him as a right-wing extremist, but that's going to be a hard sell when bills with names like "McCain-Kennedy" and "McCain-Feingold" floating around. So, instead, they're going to trot out a tried-and-true political tactic: character assassination. See, for example, ahref=http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Howard_Dean_John_McCain_flawed_candidate_0302.htmlrel=url2html-25095 [slashdot.org] http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Howard_Dean_John_McCain_flawed_candidate_0302.html>

Re:Expect a Clinton surge per the Republicans (1)

dasunt (249686) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648908)

Is Clinton the easier candidate to beat?

Sure, Obama is popular, but doesn't his popularity come from a demographic that has a horrible voting track record?

Clinton does poll well with older white women, who do tend to vote.

I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton vs McCain would be better for the dems than Obama vs McCain. OTOH, the polls go either way on who is the stronger candidate...

Vermont - it's not here (1)

Push Latency (930039) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648652)

There is no Vermont. Go home.

Democrats (2, Insightful)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648692)

As much as I'd like to see a woman or a (excuse the wording) black man in the White House, because it'll do the world as a whole a lot of good, I really don't think the slagging match that the Democrats are having is doing them any favours. Showing Obama wearing a turban (I think it was a turban) and making racial slurs is not a good way to win votes at election time.

Hilarious! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22648756)

That's what it will be. Get ready for a very entertaining six weeks. Even better, a brokered convention. Or best, all the ultra left (on either side) going nuts when "their" guy/gal doesn't get the nod. I predict riots.

Re:Democrats (3, Insightful)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648830)

"As much as I'd like to see a woman or a (excuse the wording) black man in the White House, because it'll do the world as a whole a lot of good

How does that follow? Unless you mean it literally, in the sense that these individuals will send more of our taxes overseas to support the underprivileged. Other countries have had their share of female and black presidents, both good and bad (and very bad: Idi Amin).

Re:Democrats (4, Insightful)

db32 (862117) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648898)

(excuse the wording)? What the hell? This is what is wrong with America. I swear to God I am so sick of this political correct cry baby crap. He is black, call him black. I am white, why the hell is it perfectly acceptable to call me white instead of "Irish-American" or some other hypenated nonsense, but its a big deal to call a black guy black. Why the hell would you need to be excused for calling him black?

Lets put this stupid liberal guilt shit to rest. A black man has been tearing up the campaign trail and looking like a possible win on the Democrat side if not the whole race for the top. Can we PLEASE get over this sensitivity crap. I think having a black man with a pretty viable shot at the oval office pretty much means that the whole slavery thing is long over. It's time to quit the apologizing.

Stunningly ironic is that the party that goes on about those "poor minorities that need our help" has a black man making a damned good run. Seems kinda counter to the nonsense about the minorities need our help and handouts.

Re:Democrats (5, Insightful)

thegnu (557446) | more than 6 years ago | (#22649020)

Dude, the problem with the nomenclature "African American" is that not all black people are a)Africans or b)Americans. So calling them black is ok. Negro is out (though it too means black), and "colored people" sounds a little too much like "little people." And calling someone "a colored" seems insulting, as well. Black is directly analogous to white, and is the least presumptive about someone's ethnic heritage, which I think is important.

I grew up in Mexico, and often refer to Hispanics. My girlfriend at the time gave me crap because some group of them (I'm assuming it was The Council of the Wise) decided that Hispanic reminded them of the Spanish conquest, and they preferred Latino. Which I think is ridiculous, because when I say Hispanic, I mean a Spanish-speaker (which excludes Brazilians), and when I say Latino, I mean a Latin American (which excludes Spaniards).

Also, Iranians are caucasians, so calling white people caucasians is stupid. So hey everybody, let's just stop being insulted by things that aren't insulting, and stop bowing to unfounded, ridiculous reactionary pressure. And if you find out that one person prefers Latino over Hispanic, use the word they prefer when referring to them. It's super easy.

(I think it was a turban)

Close enough for the popular opnion.

Republicans voting against Obama (4, Insightful)

Pizaz (594643) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648698)

There's plenty of evidence that in both Texas and Ohio, Republicans are voting for Hillary in order to "bloody Obama" politically. Rush Limbaugh has been urging his listeners to do that for weeks. http://www.middletownjournal.com/hp/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/03/04/mj030408switchweb.html [middletownjournal.com] Similar stories are coming in about Ohio. The political machine is starting to conspire against Obama from both sides. But I still believe that Obama will win the nomination because Hillary has a math problem. http://www.newsweek.com/id/118240 [newsweek.com] But the feeling of dread comes from the notion that even if she loses the delegate count, that she'll still be able to pull out a victory via her usual shenanigans. She's going to fight to have Michigan and Florida's delegates seated even though in Michigan for instance, Barack's name wasnt even on the ballot.

Re:Republicans voting against Obama (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22648926)

Hahah! YEAH! Tap those coffers dry Dems! Keep beating each other up in these lame primaries! And keep the delegate counts REAL tight all the way until convention day! I'm looking forward to watching all your dirty stinking hippies, anti-globalists, and party wonks fighting and rioting in the streets outside the convention center. You jackballs and your know-it-all, "change" talk. How the hell is the party with "Super Delegates" a change party again?? What a joke, you people are like cartoons or teletubbies. If I were a Dem, I'd be embarrassed.

In reality, you're all just political animals looking to make a buck or butt into people's lives in order to control them. Just go to hell all of you.

Goddamn you Hillary (1, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22649040)

Hillary's blind hyper-ambition will put McCain in the White House in 2008. An ugly floor fight at the convention will fracture and humiliate the Democratic party, while McCain just sits back on a pile of cash letting them do all his mud-slinging for him. And in the Fall, even in the wake of a hugely unpopular war and despised president, another Republican will waltz into office with his bible and rifle in hand.

Wasn't it bad enough that her husband spent 8 years undercutting and selling-out the liberals in his own party? Must she now be a Brutus as well? IS Chelsea already planning how SHE is going to fuck us over too?

Re:Republicans voting against Obama (1)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 6 years ago | (#22649050)

"The political machine is starting to conspire against Obama from both sides."

No, the Republican political machine is conspiring against Democrats in general. If the delegate counts were reversed, the crossover Republicans would be voting Obama. A brokered convention is inevitable at this point as long as both candidates remain in the race. Neither candidate can get enough primary and caucus delegates to win outright and you can't count super delegates before they're seated at the convention since their pledges have no real bearing before that. The idea is that a brokered convention will be bad for the Democrats.

I think that plan might backfire though. There will be a whole lot of press surrounding a brokered convention given the rarity of it. If the Democrats can play it right, they'll come out ahead. Attempting to get the Democratic Party to hurt itself is playing not to lose. Republicans would be better off playing to win.

Rudd FTW! (1)

Thornae (53316) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648710)

Go Kevin!
Down with John Howard!

... wait, what? Which country now?

No resolution (1)

Degreeless (1250850) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648712)

The problem for the Democrats is that as the race wears on they risk looking childish and disorganised, as two candidates prone to infighting that have split their own party. McCain and the Republicans could easily steal the march by projecting the presence of a party united behind one candidate with a clear vision for his campaign and potential White House tenure. If I were a Democrat I would be hoping at the moment for a speedy resolution.

Primaries and Caucuses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22648728)

Remember folks, in the Primaries, republicans can vote for democrats... In caucuses, democrats vote for democrats. The results from the caucus have yet to be counted, (at least for Texas (cnn.com)). IMHO, the republican base came out in droves for HRC because she doesn't stand a chance against McCain, whereas Obama would probably defeat McCain. This is my opinion on Texas anyway... In Ohio, on the other hand, I would guess it's pretty much a win for HRC. Republicans see a McCain / Clinton race as a McCain win... so they do everything they can to give HRC the nomination.

Lest ye forget (3, Informative)

drsmall17 (1240792) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648738)

Umm, did you all forget that Ron Paul is still running in the race as Republican?? McCain has sealed nothing yet..

Re:Lest ye forget (1)

Reader X (906979) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648800)

Your troll-fu is weak, my son. The proper moment for this post was over two weeks ago.

Re:Lest ye forget (1)

Kierthos (225954) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648824)

And lest ye forget, you only need a certain number of delegates to seal the nomination. McCain got there last night.

And Ron Paul has something like a whopping 17 delegates.

Re:Lest ye forget (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648838)

Uh... McCain has enough delegates to win even if he doesn't get any further.

Add to that, realistically, candidates that already dropped out that asked their delegates to support McCain.

Be realistic here. At this point, [i]even if John McCain dies today[/i], Ron Paul has zero chance to be the Republican nominee this year. I don't know who all those delegates would pick in that case, but I'm sure it's not Ron Paul.

Re:Lest ye forget (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648866)

That was sarcasm. I'm pretty sure.

Re:Lest ye forget (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648948)

You're probably right.

Ron Paul on slashdot though, man. You know there's a dozen people reading this who actually still think he has a shot this year.

Re:Lest ye forget (1)

Edward Ka-Spel (779129) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648968)

What's really sad is that I could believe this came from a perfectly diligent Paul supporter.

Re:Lest ye forget (1)

OrochimaruVoldemort (1248060) | more than 6 years ago | (#22649056)

mccain has the number of delegates for the nomination. ron paul is dead in the election

Good for Clinton (2, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648752)

...bad for the party. While Clinton and Obama continue to squabble and waste $ fighting each other, McCain will have months to raise money and slowly pound away at both of them (using their own attacks against one another for ammunition). The smart thing to do right now would be for Obama and Clinton to form a unified ticket (with either Obama or Hillary as vice president), but they're both too ambitious and proud for that (typical hyper-ambitious) politicians.

Sometimes I really hate being a Democrat. Sitting back and watching party leaders who seem determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory time and time again can make you want to weep.

Re:Good for Clinton (1)

justleavealonemmmkay (1207142) | more than 6 years ago | (#22649018)

They're not wasting $. Their verbal battles are increasing the Democratic mindshare. In the mid term, a debate between two views of how your country can be run leaves more marks in the mind of Joe Sixpack than non debating landsliding McCain who in hindsight was the only republican worth remembering.

I'm not an American. Using the radio and TV media, I have some basic clues what Obama vs Clinton stands for. I have no clue about the republican platform. This is probably because there was NO fight at republican side. I'm confident US Joe Sixpacks have no more clues than me. Therefore by default, they will not vote for McCain, they will vote against Bush.

Re:Good for Clinton (1)

JBMcB (73720) | more than 6 years ago | (#22649046)

There are two episodes of This American Life from about six years ago - one about the Republican national convention and one about the Democratic national convention. Ira Glass is, pretty obviously, very liberal, but he was surprised to find that, though he didn't agree with their politics, he liked the Republicans better than the Democrats. The Dems argued and took potshots at each other, and were, in general, very clique-y, while the Republicans just seemed to just get along with each other.

It may be a problem endemic to the Democratic party - it just seems like they don't get along very well.

Don't Worry (1)

Tsoat (1221796) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648758)

I for one am hoping that Hillary gets into office because then the Second Coming will happen

Re:Don't Worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22648932)

I for one am hoping that Hillary gets into office because then the Second Coming will happen

You mean her husband only got it once while there, and the spot on the blue dress was it?

Re:Don't Worry (1)

Tsoat (1221796) | more than 6 years ago | (#22649008)

Oh,Sorry I thought everyone on /. was mature >. my bad. Second Coming isn't a "sexual" reference it's actually an even that will happen in the future it is also commonly called Armageddon

Diebold has to keep the results close... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22648772)

...to achieve the strongest influence over the final winner.

Still about Florida and Michigan. (4, Insightful)

Average (648) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648774)

The nifty thing for Obama, is that he is far enough ahead in pledged delegates that he still doesn't have to go sharply negative. Notice the things he hasn't talked about. Tax returns? Bill's last minute pardons (against the advice of the Justice Department, but for people who paid consulting fees to Hillary's brothers)? Kazakhstan? Clinton library donors? Lincoln bedroom guest list? Norman Hsu? Trying to win the nomination without getting these matters in the mainstream media is a kindness to the Democratic Party that the superdelegates would be blind to ignore.

The only question left is Florida and Michigan. Particularly the latter. If she manages to seat her Michigan delegates and none for Obama (since he wasn't on the ballot), I will be disappointed if Detroit doesn't take to the streets.

McCain the big winner (1)

Intarwebmaster (1152941) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648776)

Not only did McCain seal his own party's nomination, he gets to take free shots at both Clinton and Obama for 7 weeks while they try to destroy eachother.

Texas is hardly a win (4, Insightful)

Dekortage (697532) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648790)

TFA: In the Texas primary, [Clinton] won with 51 pecent of the vote compared to 48 percent for Obama.

3% is winning the state? Remember that Democratic state delegates are divided up by vote percentages, unlike the Republican "winner take all" delegate process. So Clinton's win in Texas is fairly thin, and frankly a poor showing after all the money and campaigning she's spent lately in a state that was always considered an automatic win for her.

Ask and ye shall receive (4, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648814)

Politics continues to sicken me, although not more than before. I'll even go so far as to say that I'm less sickened that I was in the past, because I now place the blame on where it should be placed: on the voters.

I don't vote (actually, I anti-vote, writing my own name in where possible). Voting is an act that provides the PTB a simple request from the voter: "Lead me as you think I should be led." I don't need a leader. My life is in my hands, as are the lives of my family. Instead of spending out of control, we save. Instead of relying on insurance for regular medical visits, we pay cash on the barrel and pay a low insurance premium just for emergencies. We eat healthy, exercise, and try to stay in shape so as not to need expensive medical visits and medication that many of our friends take (and want discounts for). Rather than being angered by people that are different from ourselves, we travel the world every year and meet those that the PTB say are our enemies. Most of the time they are people not so different from ourselves.

The country demands a leader, and they'll get one. Individuals, even the most pious and charitable, generally look out for themselves first. A leader is no different. A leader generally doesn't listen to those that he/she leads. A leader may only have said position for a few years, but will always be thinking about what they will do after their leadership position is over. In some situations, the most egomaniacal leaders may be thinking about how history will support their positions and actions.

The surprise to me is that we United States citizens believe we need a leader, at least in government. The Constitution doesn't give the President power to lead, only to execute the laws which we wanted put in place; equitable laws that infringe on everyone equally, rather than giving preferential treatment to the few at the cost of the many (or vice versa). The President is not the Commander-in-Chief until Congress actively declares war. We declared war in WW2, but since then, we have not had a legal CiC. The President is not there to save the economy, or even care about the economy, because economic issues are the domain of Congress, or even more preferably the States. The President isn't supposed to take positions on what he or she will support or wants to do, because the President merely reviews signed bills and their Constitutionality, and only then making the decision to support future execution of said bills into law if the bills mass Constitutional muster. Most don't.

It is sad when people demand a leader, but are too fearful of being leaders themselves. This is why I am disgusted -- not with politics -- but with you voters who have your head so far up your rears that you think your leader can lead me. I'll be forced to follow.

Re:Ask and ye shall receive (3, Insightful)

InvisblePinkUnicorn (1126837) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648904)

"The President is not there to save the economy, or even care about the economy, because economic issues are the domain of Congress, or even more preferably the States."

Unfortunately, the public is never going to get this through their thick skulls as long as they thing their candidate will set up a system whereby they are able to get things slightly cheaper at other people's expenses. Everyone thinks they'll cheat the system but they're only cheating themselves as long as they let the government have its fingers in the economy.

Ok, I'll ask and hope to receive (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22648958)

No one cares what you think. Seriously.

It seems every time I see a rambling, incoherent, logically empty post, the chances are extremely high that it's you spewing your moronic opinion on the page.

Why is it that every single fucking time you post, you have to include a personal history 2 pages long? Are you really so incredibly arrogant and self absorbed that you think people give a fuck about your health care choices, failure to understand basic ecoOnimcs, or lack of comprehension regarding politics and international relations?

NO ONE HERE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOU.

Let me tell you what's really sad, a (presumably) grown man like you who finds the need to repeatedly share the details of his life on a technology web board.

So I'll ask "GO THE FUCK AWAY". Will I receive?

Re:Ask and ye shall receive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22648966)

Word.

Re:Ask and ye shall receive (1)

Scruss (1130173) | more than 6 years ago | (#22649030)

Amen, A freaking men. I agree with this 110%, you couldn't be more right.

In the end, does it reallyl make a difference? (1, Interesting)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648832)

On one hand you have Socialists and on the other you have Fascists running for President. If the Socialists wins, it will mean higher taxes on corporations, more government spending and more of a nanny state.


If the Fascists wins, it will mean higher taxes on individuals, more unregulated business monopolies and more of a Big Brother state.

The candidates can say all they want to get elected, but as history has shown, words are cheap.

When I see the candidates, all I can think of is the line from 'Armegeddon' where Bruce Willis' character sees who NASA wants to send up and he comments:

And this is the best that you - that the government, the *U.S. government* could come up with? I mean, you're NASA for crying out loud, you put a man on the moon, you're geniuses! You're the guys that're thinking shit up! I'm sure you got a team of men sitting around somewhere right now just thinking shit up and somebody backing them up! You're telling me you don't have a backup plan, that these eight boy scouts right here, that is the world's hope, that's what you're telling me?

In my case, all I can think is:

This is the best we can do? I mean, we're the United States of America. You're telling me that of all the people in the country eligible to run for President, these shills are the best we can do? That's what you're telling me?

Re:In the end, does it reallyl make a difference? (4, Insightful)

m0llusk (789903) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648996)

Is this the best we can do?

Referring to centrists like Hillary and Obama as Socialists indicates an intense and pervasive ignorance of all matters social and political. Socialism does not encourage private property or corporate participation, just for starters. You really should visit some places that embrace Socialism before you make pronouncements like that, but like most Americans staying fearfully within your own borders is as much as you can handle. With ignorance on this scale being commonplace it is amazing that we can do this well.

If I were a democratic strategist... (3, Insightful)

downix (84795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648836)

The economy is tanking due to the Republicans. Whomever the next president will be is about to oversee the greatest collapse we've seen since the Great Depression, as the only thing shoring up our economy at the moment is over $600 billion of loaned capitol which is going to baloon to $2 trillion by years end at the current pace. If I were a strategist, I would throw the election, to let the Republicans take it, and watch as everything collapses around them.

Alternatively, put forth the strongest dream-team, a Regan/Bush 1980 style team. Idealist speechgiver as the main ticket, the strong and reasoned seasoned senate veteran in the VP chair. Push forward using the collapsing economy as your footprint. Forget the war, people don't think of war when they're worried about their jobs! It's the economy stupid!

Expected it (5, Insightful)

cryptoluddite (658517) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648842)

The media was playing it up as Clinton's "last chance", so naturally that will energize people who are emotionally involved with that candidate and get them out to vote... just like in New Hampshire, where women came out strong for their candidate.

Personally, I find the level of racism and sexism involved in propping up Clinton's campaign disgusting. I'd like to think of Democrats as above and beyond that. If you look at the facts, Obama is a better speaker, more motivational, more liked overseas, less divisive. Obama has more experience in public service, he's made better decisions, and he's more likely to win against McCain. He's run a more organized and effective campaign. So given that he pretty much outclasses her in every way as a candidate, you have to ask yourself why people are voting for Clinton, and is it right.

Some people say that Obama is benefiting from being half-black by winning the black vote 10:1. I don't think that's really true, I think he'd be winning the other groups that much if not for the factors working against him. For instance, the Hispanic community has historically been at odds with African Americans. And whites and women, obviously, have a bias for a white woman. It seems to me that by merit he should be winning close to that ratio among most groups.

weird election (1)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648846)

The Republican leadership doesn't seem to want McCain but the rank and file have forced him upon them. I guess they're going to suck it up and start supporting him. Since he's so frickin' old, I'm guessing they're going to seriously consider his VP as the next president of the United States. Even Reagan didn't seem this old.

On the Democrat's side, I agree that a contested convention is going to be a bad deal since the Republicans are already rallying behind their man while the Dems don't even know who their's is. I think that Obama has been very civil in his criticisms of Hillary, sticking to the record and the facts. Hillary's attacks are ad hominem and only serve to hurt Obama and by extension the party if he gets the nomination. I thought it was very telling the way she phrased that one statement, praising herself and McCain for "having foreign policy experience while all Obama had was a speech in 2002." She's pretty much saying that of the three choices involved, she's the best, McCain would be an acceptable second-best, and Obama shouldn't even be in the consideration because he lacks qualifications.

If she does manage to gain the nomination through seating banned delegates and other legalistic chicanery, I do believe this will split the party. It will be seen as a deliberate thwarting of the will of the people. "I hear what you are saying, I understand what you want, and the answer is 'fuck you, we're doing it my way.'"

Looking Forward.. (2, Interesting)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648860)

Pennsylvania on April 22. If Clinton can take Pennsylvania then she will most likely get the nomination. :=)
It is about time Obama had to face some of the issues instead of a free media pass. What is all this change he keeps carping on? All talk and no substance. His campaign is staffed by some seriously questionable folks as well. So remember.. Pennsylvania on April 22'nd folks.

Re:Looking Forward.. (1)

tetrahedrassface (675645) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648946)

Let me re-strategerize (To clone a Rovian saying):

Pennsylvania on April 22'nd.. (Looks good for Clinton)

A redo of Florida and Michigan: (Clinton takes FL, most likely Michigan as well barring anything major).

Clinton gets the nomination. End of story.

We lose no matter what (2, Interesting)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648918)

At a minimum we'll lose by either having a cranky old geezer who likes to throw his weight around in office through wars and limits on the Bill of Rights. The flipside is that we will end up with two tax-and-spend leftists who are both weak on civil liberties.

Those of us who remember the Clinton years from a civil liberties side remember that it was only less bad that the Bush years because the Clintons didn't have the convenient excuse of terrorism. OKC doesn't count because they dismantled the group responsible for that without much effort. McVeigh did not have the sort of connections that justified making him into the sort of boogeyman that Bin Laden could be.

I for one am sick and tired of hearing about change from everyone. No one is proposing change, unless by change you mean making us worse off than we already are. Here's a thought for all three: real change would be running on a campaign to severely limit the ability of the federal government to tax and regulate American citizens' lives instead of coming up with grandiose policies for spending our money and telling us what to do.

As I said, we'll lose no matter who wins, short of all three of these candidates dropping dead and Ron Paul being the last man standing with appeal to both sides.

Nooooooooo (2, Funny)

krovisser (1056294) | more than 6 years ago | (#22648972)

My videogames... my precious videogames!

Pizza Day for the Republicans? (1)

LecheryJesus (1245812) | more than 6 years ago | (#22649064)

Then again, come the election they could still get the (fish) finger....

http://www.mccain.com/ [mccain.com]
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...