New Lefty/Hippie Democratic Party slogan:

[Cherchez la Femme]

Obama: Better than Bush!

It'll GO places, Imatellinkyou!



Is everybody happy now?

[Fumesucker]

1. Careful you don't set that bar unreachably high..

:evilgrin:

[Cherchez la Femme]

8. LOL

:evilgrin: exactly!

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

2. yes but i regret dumping Hillery

[Cherchez la Femme]

3. You just 'haven't gotten over the primary', have you??

Just channeling what appears to be common knowledge around here :evilgrin:

[KILL THE WISE ONE]

4. yes i have but ... wonder ... and we will never know if it would have been worse or better

[Cherchez la Femme]

6. I think for LGBTQI: Better

Health care: Better (as Hillary would have certainly known the history of this old Republican plan that was signed into law, much to the outrage of Republicants).

Funding for programs to help the poor (food stamps, HEAP, etc.): Better.

As far as War, who knows? IMHO probably little change, or more hawkish. (Iran. But methinks the subject of Iran isn't done with yet.)

Corporatism/Bailouts: Who can imagine it being worse? Still, given her hubby signed in NAFTA, probably little change on the 'C' word.


That's all I can think of for now...

[sabrina 1]

11. It would have been the same.

There wasn't much difference between them in the campaign. Except for a couple of things.

Hillary supported Mandated Insurance. Obama did not.

Hillary waffled on whether or not she would completely reject torture as a policy.

Based on those two issues and her vote for the Iraq War, I could not support her, so I supported Obama.

However:

Now Obama does support Mandated Insurance
We are still in the business of torture.

Nothing would have been different, because we are finding out that we live under a 'system'.

The same way that the Soviet Union lived under a 'system'.

Ours is Capitalism, theirs was Communism. Elected or appointed officials won't change the system.

And to get to the point of being acceptable as a candidate you have to have agreed to uphold the 'system'.

The Constitution is no longer in effect which is why they don't care about violating it.

Democrat or Republican, not much is going to change. And it's getting harder and harder to hide the scam, the fact that there was a silent coup by Corporate interests and it is they, not US, who choose the leaders.

I don't have any more illusions that anyone will ever make it to the presidency, or stay alive if s/he did, who sincerely intended to 'change' anything.

The president is NOT the most powerful man in the world, he is merely a CEO for the Corporation that is the U.S.A.

Hillary, Obama or McCain, it didn't matter who got the job, they were all vetted beforehand as to how well they would represent the Corporate State. The semblance of Democracy is left only as a symbol. We get to choose from their top choices and that way we feel like we have some say in the process. But we don't.

Congress is our only hope and that is where we should focus our attention. Who is in the WH won't matter if Congress is truly made up of Representatives of the people. At this point, more than half of them have been bought also. We have to change that if we ever want a democracy again.

[Cherchez la Femme]

12. Torture. That's a good one I forgot

--do you recall what, if anything, she said about Guantanamo Bay? Extraordinary renditions?

Personally I think there is enough leeway, even with "a system", for variations within their platforms;
however, I do recall noting at that time that Yes, there was precious little difference between their two platforms. It just depended, IMHO mind you, if one thought the first 'Black' (not quite but I've never been one to think "a drop of 'black blood', one is therefore "black" -- may be splitting hairs) president was more important, earth-shaking, etc. than the first Female --of any race-- president.
Actually I called it for the first black, male pres --'male' being the operative word in that, constitutionally, it was over 50 years past black men getting the vote (Article/Amendment XIX:1868)until when women (Article/Amendment XIX:1920) finally got the vote.

The virulent strain of Capitalism that is currently approved of in the U.S. has not always been so (especially this huge pile of steaming crap that Wall Streets profits are private yet their losses are on the taxpayer) based at least on regulations, and lack of same,
nor will it necessarily always be so in the future -- just because the chestnut of "The Government's business IS Business" has been the (false) slogan since the Reagan years doesn't mean squat.

However if by 'upholding the system' you mean the electoral college; well, two things:
1) the electoral college, in this day and age, is obsolete including the Founding Fathers patriarchal and yes even elitist (land owners, and strictly male of course) objections to "mob rule" (to wit: Jefferson first comes to mind) but only given the proper and honest use of technology,
and
2) (Otherwise) I can't fault the Founding Fathers Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights, including checks & balances, separation of church & state (Treaty of Tripoli), etc.


Sadly, regarding "the scam" between the two parties, I wholeheartedly agree. I'll blame it on the DLC until I find any other, more legitimate source(s). As for 'the Constitution is no longer in effect", it truly breaks my heart that our current President, a Constitutional Attorney, appears to be in more of the 'Constitution is just a piece of paper' school than in the Defender of the Constitution, as avowed, school.

As to "I don't have any more illusions that anyone will ever make it to the presidency, or stay alive if s/he did, who sincerely intended to 'change' anything." I sadly agree; but it's even more disturbing that so many Reich-wingers seem to be gunning for our President even though he is carrying through many of the Dubya policies (Disclaimer Obama: Better than Bush! Yay!)

Well, being the general CEO of The United States of America IS a pretty big and powerful job! Onwards & upwards to Bilderberg! :(

Yeah, the powers-that-be finally gave the Democrats a little time on the catbird seat -- but will it be equal time?

Congress seems to be, in the main, just a stepping stone to richer fields; i.e. Lobbying.

Great post!

I'm sorry mine is such a long post, & sorry grammar -- can't think at this late hour any better way to put these things.

[sabrina 1]

13. She flip-flopped on torture.

Obviously she was trying to appear tough when she was running as the firs woman with a shot at getting elected. She claimed it could not be policy but that the president should have the power to order torture under 'narrow circumstances' (the ticking time bomb scenario). That was in 2006 when it looked she was definitely going to be the nominee. But she later backed away from that (her husband agreed re torture) when most of the other Dem. candidates came out firmly against it.

Re upholding the system, I was not thinking of the Electoral College. I was thinking of Capitalism. That a president will never do anything to interfere with private, corporate profits.

The Wall St. Bailout, The Health Insurance Corps bailout, the Privatization of the Education system, these were all things that needed to be done to save the Wealthy Elite who gambled away other people's money, because they can, and then needed a bailout.

In a rational world, they would have allowed to collapse, or the government would take them over and break them up. The perpetrators would be tried and convicted for fraud. But in a Capitalist world, that could not be.

No matter who had won the election, those things would have happened in exactly the same way, except that only a few Dems would have voted FOR the bailouts, just enough to make sure they passed.

I definitely agree regarding the DLC. They are the infiltrators into the Dem Party who will make sure the System remains intact without some 'people's party' getting in the way and passing some populist bills like a Single Payer Health Care system and putting the Insurance Middlemen out of business.

So, we the people have to stop falling for the propaganda that 'you will never get a progressive elected in (insert district) so we HAVE to vote for a DLCer.

Being a CEO is pretty powerful, but CEOs come and go, they get nice bonuses, but they are not the power, the owner of the Corporation.

Anyhow, thanks for a great response. I'm falling asleep also. But imho, our best bet is to focus like a laser beam on Congress and forget the PResidential Election which takes up far too much time and gets us in the end, only ONE Representative. In Congress we have a shot at getting hundreds of Reps who can keep the WH in check.

[Cherchez la Femme]

14. Correction

"it was over 50 years past black men getting the vote (Article/Amendment XIX:1868)"

--tis Article/Amendment XIV, same year.

Sorry

[metapunditedgy]

5. I guess we've switched back to the old talking points after Barney Frank's statement.

So "Blame it on Congress" is on the back burner again?

[Cherchez la Femme]

7. No, people are still

vociferously discussing it, both the outraged and those spinning of what Gibbs didn't say, but what he really 'meant' -- doesn't this slogan make everyone happy? I thought that was the big thing, what the defenders are so upset about: the commie/socialist hippie 'Obama = Bush' attacks (in every way)
against the Pres?
*puzzled*


Nor did Gibbs say one damn thing about Congress.


It was Gibbs who started this; then kept on, and kept on,
and kept ON about it (there could be reason to call him 'Smirky Junior', but I digress);
so there goes that spin.

Or am I mistaken?


But thanks for playing! :hi:

[old mark]

9. What sort of bush did you have in mind? nt

[Cherchez la Femme]

10. LMAO

Actually I'm pretty much a prude when it comes to dating (ZOMG, there are Lesbians who are Prudes? So porno isn't accurate?!)
but I surely can appreciate a bawdy joke when I (figuratively) hear one!!! :wink: :applause:

[old mark]

16. So - do you come here often? nt

[old mark]

17. FWIW, I was thinking along the lines of "bush" meaning pot, not the

pubic variety...wait - you mean not all lesbians wear lipstick and high heels 24-7?

I'm shocked...

:fistbump:

mark

[Cherchez la Femme]

19. Actually, this femme DOES wear lipstick & high heels

"Lipstick Lesbians" we're called.

When I first came out I had a lot of trouble dating as I didn't LOOK like a lesbian (of that era)
i.e. very short hair, no make-up, not 'dressed up' attire (moreso than just casual) etc.
And EVERY time I went to a gay bar I would be hit on by men... y'know, the kind that think they're going to 'get lucky' with at least a couple Lesbians.
That last word, Lesbians, never seemed to make it into their critical thinking!!! :rofl:

However, my High Heels are NEVER stilettos -- Ugh, I can't STAND those things, only meant to hurt the wearer. & it's like balancing on F'ing STILTS! So what I did is when the last time platform shoes with chunky heels were the heighth of fashion I went and bought every color to match any wardrobe so that when only spike heels came back in fashion & chunk heels were unfindable I'd be covered!

Out of fashion, but at least not having to wear (ugly -- IMHO anyways) flats!


& sorry for all the capitalizations... I just do not feel in the least like making all those Bold & Italic HTML's.


Hope I haven't bored you, mark :D

[Hannah Bell]

15. yay team! RAH RAH

[L0oniX]

18. Obama: At least he's better than Bush!