Ads by Google. BlueOregon doesn't control the content, and we know that sometimes the ads are really wrong. Sometimes, they're right on.
Over the weekend, Senator Hillary Clinton finally started airing ads in Oregon. Here's her first Oregon-specific ad:
I was fairly shocked when I heard this ad over the weekend.
She advocates that the "oil companies" be made to develop alternative energy sources.
The OIL COMPANIES????
That along with her position on the gas tax has me really wondering. (The oil companies collect the gas tax, then write a check to the government. If you stop the gas tax, and make the oil companies pay it for you, they are still writing exactly the same size check to the government. How exactly does that lower the price of gas at the pump?)
So, it looks to me that Clinton will give preferential treatment to the oil companies, and not look elsewhere to develop alternative energy. A slip of the tongue?
Where is she going to be when visiting Oregon on Thurs/Fri and why haven't they announced the particulars?
Hummm? Sounds like allot of good stuff. Couldn't she of done at least some of it while being Senator the last seven and half years? Even one? Too bad I've watched her so long that I think she'd change her mind 180 degrees in a New York minute on each and any issue if the corporations ask her nicely while handing her a nice fat contribution or job offer for Chelsea or a speaking fee for Bill.
and you thought Merkley's ads were boring as shit...
well, yeah, that too.
it really is a new age in politics isn't it? there was a new yorker blurb in "the talk of the town" about how bill is out fighting hard for his wife, and doing a much better job of connecting with voters than either her or obama, but how he just doesn't get how things have changed.
what with teh interwebs and youtube and all that.
You guys might not believe me when I say that I like Merkley as candidate. (Just because Novick's The Man, and just because it pisses me off to see some of the "sages" around here attack him, doesn't mean I have to dislike Merkley). But Hillary? Man, I just can't stomach her candidacy. Hopefully, it will end soon.
Bend Bulletin just came out in support of Hillary!!!!a scathing indictment of Barrack Obama " This country would be better off under the leadership of a pragmatic realist than a Celebrity Politician whose legislative record-such as it is-contridicts his oratory" sorry, you'll have to read the rest your self-
When is your man obama coming to town-or maybe he doesn't care about oregon?????how many times has he been here-once-bet he has ALOT of plans for oregon....
What has Obama done while he has been in the senate?
Oh yah NOTHING!!!!!!!
Last thing we need is a motivational speaker for president. Especially one who consults god for answers.
The power of prayer
Chad, why worry about someone consulting God? Don't they all? I'm not a religious person, but I don't have a problem with anyone consulting God for answers. For most this isn't a literal "and God told me to bomb Iraq" kind of experience.
Anyway, I think Hillary looks great, sounds boring and won't win a lot of votes with this ad.
Nice call, Bend Bulletin. Others out there still trying to make a decision, please know that Obama is pro-Nuke -- big time pro-Nuke in Illinois. If he does return to Oregon, please pin him down on this! Also, as we all know, he voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill. He's out of step with Oregon, no matter how much star appeal he has.
It was ok. Kind of generic. I'm not just saying that as an Obama supporter, it was just "meh". I hope Sandra is able to find a support group when this is all said and done.
Obama had an ad run on a local channel yesterday as well. Pretty low key. Perhaps the idea was to tailor their ads to our laid back nature ?
I have a great support group now-its full of positive upbeat hillary supporters-we are all at the beach-watching the TIDE TURN....
"Bend Bulletin just came out in support of Hillary!!!!a scathing indictment of Barrack Obama " This country would be better off under the leadership of a pragmatic realist than a Celebrity Politician whose legislative record-such as it is-contridicts his oratory" sorry, you'll have to read the rest your self-"
No thanks. I'm one of those East Coast elitists with a college degree who Hillary has contempt for. I don't even want $28 back for my gasoline bill this summer. And strangely enough, I opposed the war from the beginning.
I think if you're a Hillary fan, you might want to see if there's a blog called "Red Oregon." I bet they support stupid wars and pander to uneducated people over there. Check it out. It might at least be entertaining.
So Steve, let me get this straight: you oppose a plan that would "make the oil companies invest in new clean energy"?
Don't get me wrong, if I had my way we'd nationalize the oil companies, but I also recognize that it's not likely to happen any time soon...
So you would oppose stronger regulation? I'm not sure I get what you're trying to critique.
Like so many of the anti-Clinton posts here, I think what you're really saying is that you don't believe her. Which is fine, but to cloak it in policy terms suggests that Obama has a record to run on that surpasses Clinton's, which of course is patent hogwash.
So let's concede that for Obama's supporters this election comes down, not to issues (since we don't believe it anyway), but to which candidate you think actually believes in the positions they're running on.
Every voter will make up their own mind, but I have 100% trust that Hillary Clinton will use her Presidency to end the war in Iraq and get people the healthcare they need. This is a person who has fought against the right wing for decades, and she has my vote because I believe that she will continue to do so.
Other voters will trust, based on a wish and a prayer, that their candidate will, uhm... bring us together? Does he have a record of doing so? Well, no. Any issue he's championed? Well... no.
So the reply becomes: "B-b-but Hillary's evil" and we're back at square one again, where substance is irrelevant.
Who's on first? I don't know... Third base...
Would that be the same Bend Bulletin that endorsed Republican Ron Saxton over our Democratic Governor Kulongoski last election?
Or perhaps it's the same Bend Bulletin that fired one of its own reporters when that reporter wouldn't write a rosy enough story on the Bend area's world-class housing crash.
I don't know if you're an Oregonian or not, but the Bulletin is widely regarded as the most retrograde paper in Oregon on most progressive issues. Whether it's environmental policy or health care, the Bulletin's editorial board is about as progressive as David Reinhard or William Safire.
I'm not sure why they went with Clinton, but I wouldn't be shouting it from too many rooftops.
In the general election, they will support McNasty.
Well, wtf, 30 second soundbites: is one actually supposed to be impressed by these things one way or another? If she had spent the 30 seconds ridiculing Obama or talking about Jeremiah Wright, I don't think too many Oregonians would have been impressed. So instead she spent 30 seconds delivering platitudes. That's fine, just uninspiring.
Hey John Mulvey. Nice post. You hit the nail on the head....... many people just don't believe what Senator Clinton says at any given time about any issue. That is a Clinton problem, not a Obama problem. Does Obama walk on water? Hell no. But with Mrs. Clinton history of right-leaning legislative twists and turns; I mean, come on. Is she the one to save the earth or the on person to order to obliteration of Iran? Which is it?
She has finally morphed into a "populist". Well, it just looks so authentic since its at least her third or fourth morph in this campaign, including my favorite, a "Margaret Thatcher type;"
Obama sure ain't Jesus, but I have tired of all things "Clinton." If you believe as a sizable number of Americans do that she is a political opportunist, if not a downright liar, that doesn't bode well for her chances of being elected.
I remember her working hand in glove with republicans in the senate, not 'fighting' them.
It just so happens desc. county has now more demos registered than republicans..but still close-so even more impressive they came out with such a strong article in support of Hillary, I personally was astonished-which goes to show-again-hillary is better able to bring together democrats and republicans, build a coalition, and get the kind of legislation passed we need. Voters who have been undecided are breaking for Hillary because of her experience-which is what the bulletin did and I congradulate them for stepping out of the box. What relevance does a story on real estate have do do with this??? Apples and lettuce heads. Daniel, i hope you are just vacationing here, I hear the East Coast has a search party out looking for their lost elitist.
And when it comes time to decide on the candidates in the general election, the Bend Bulletin will endorse McCain, Smith, Walden, and all the Republicans on the ticket.
John M. -
I think what Steve is trying to say is that the oil companies might get preferential treatment in terms of subsidies and tax breaks for the development of clean energy technology while all the smaller upstart companies get screwed. Part of developing a good sustainable energy plan is to make it local. Oregon is already moving towards that future. If established industry giants get the government incentives, the groundwork our legislature and businesses put in is all for not. Plus, why would we want to entrust our energy future to the people that show utter disregard for the environment and rational geopolitics?
I mean... I hope that the oil companies work hard on development of clean energy, but they don't operate very well for the people when they have the monopoly. Instead they screw us out of every last cent. Let's allow some friggin' competition in the system.
Sandra- your posts here are toxic. Getting a conservative editorial board's endorsement has nothing to do with building coalitions, and everything to do with political alignment. Especially when the endorsement comes from the Bend Bulletin, or Richard Mellon-Scaife's papers, or any of the other right-wing spouts!
And cut the crap with the elitist garbage. This isn't the O'Reilly Factor or Hannity & Colmes where people tolerate anti-Democratic faux populism. If you want to support Hillary Clinton, that's fine, but dare to do it on the merits. This isn't 2004 anymore. Hillary may be running an anti-intellectual, GOP-style campaign but I'll be damned if BlueOregon has to swallow that dreck.
Wow. The posts on this thread seem to be indicative of the feelings that Hillary brings out in people. A lot of hardened support and admiration, yet an equal amount of spite and bad feelings.
With all due respect, that is a recipe for further division and deadlock while our problems go unsolved. It is also a formula for turning everyday people off on politics and continuing to allow profit-driven special interests to fill the void to our peril.
I was very pleased to fill out my ballot tonight casting my vote for Barack Obama.
Have a great night everyone. And an especially warm shout out to all of you Hillary supporters who are admirably passionate about your candidate. We will need your help in solving these problems long after Barack Obama is elected as our next President.
That may sound like a mocking overconfident statement on the eve of some hard fought primaries. But its not. I realize that tommorrow may not be a perfect day for my candidate. However, I have been watching this very closely for some time now. And I believe that in the end the American people will be able to seperate the spin from the substance, the media's agenda from the real issues, the wheat from the chaff, the right path from the wrong one. So there will be some bumps along the way no doubt.
But we will get there nonetheless. And our Country will need all of us onboard if we are going to solve these problems.
What surprises me is she doesn' talk down to Us like we're rubes from Indiana or North Carolina. I'm afraid I'm too elite for Hillary, I paid attention over the past 20 years...
Sandra, you might try that
BTW, I lived in Indianapolis once...
It seems to me that the Longshore workers have done more to end the war in Iraq
than Hillary Clinton has.
WASHINGTON, May 4 (Reuters) - Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on Sunday dismissed the "elite opinion" of economists who criticized her gas tax proposal, using a term that has dogged rival Barack Obama in recent weeks.
Which begs the question, just what kind of economist would she trust? Perhaps the "C" student economists? I think Bush has used up all of those who got Ds and Fs.
Personally, while I was lucky to get a C in both micro and macro economics (Sorry Professor Bible), I'll rely on the elite guys with the Nobel prizes. I want elite economists, elite diplomats, elite fighter pilots, elite legislators and Oregon State to make the "elite eight" next spring. OK, that last one is a reach. Maybe apples to cabbages.
PS: Sandra, I mention the reporter who was fired because it was the editor who fired him. In a paper the size of the Bulletin, those are often the same folks who write the editorials. Oh yeah, I too had heard that in Deschutes Co. Democratic registration now exceeds Republican. All I can say is "it's about time". I only hope it stays that way after the Limbaughphiles conduct their mischief.
From the Bulletin's Clinton endorsement:
When she cast that vote in 2002 [to authorize the use of military force in Iraq], Clinton knowingly took a significant risk in the interest of bipartisanship and national security. That took real courage.
I really wouldn't parade around the Bulletin's endorsement as worth anything more than the paper it was printed on. The paper praises her for the courage she had to vote for the Iraq war for heaven's sake. "Courage" would not have been the word I would have used...perhaps you can come up with your own descriptor.
C'mon 'board to the Real People Train of 2008. We'll give the white male bobbleheads (Tweety - aka Chris Matthews, Punkinhair - aka Tim Russert, The Blonde R Bimbos- you insert name of current Quartet, ANN Coulter is the star.....
the ride of their lives and assist Senator Clinton in search of The Real Orygonian. This is a Different Species than that which is found in Indiana and N. Carolina. Training is needed.
This tour will start in Sweet Home and proceed South to hippieville (Eugene, aka Univ Calif at Eugene) east to Bend, south to KFalls, then back to Medford and the valley with a party at The Orygun Vortex.
Gift bag with Patchoulli included.
Sandra has been trash-talking Obama all over the blogosphere for 6 months. What good has it done, except to show she has no life. She has not helped Hillary - she has driven people far away.
If Sandra were from here, she'd know that we call it "the coast" not "the beach."
And if Hillary had more local supporters, then she might have known to get her campaign ads, stickers, signs etc up and running BEFORE so many of us voted on May 3.
but still close-so even more impressive they came out with such a strong article in support of Hillary, I personally was astonished-which goes to show-again-hillary is better able to bring together democrats and republicans,
Editorial boards don't change just because their customer base has changed. They're still going to endorse McCain in the general. Also, Barack is getting crossover voters not Hillary. Where are you getting your information? Since you never prove your facts or speculation with anything I'll assume you don't have any.
i hope you are just vacationing here, I hear the East Coast has a search party out looking for their lost elitist.
I've found her Sandra! Her name is Hillary Clinton. She made over $100 million dollars over the last 6 years and has been living in mansions for the last 22. If you'd like to find your East Coast elitist I'm sure you can consult her website for her farewell tour. I hear she's coming to Oregon pretty soon but her campaign was a little short on cash for gas so she may just be teleconferencing in.
John Mulvey writes, "So Steve, let me get this straight: you oppose a plan that would "make the oil companies invest in new clean energy"?
Don't get me wrong, if I had my way we'd nationalize the oil companies, but I also recognize that it's not likely to happen any time soon..."
John, let's be honest here. That isn't exactly what Hillary conveyed with her ad. There are wind turbines spinning behind her when she says that she would make the oil companies invest in clean energy. I for one have no desire to take the monopoly that the oil companies already have with "dirty" energy and allow them to extend a monopoly over the alternative "clean" energy sources we are developing.
Look again at what she says. She is not saying that the oil companies should be forced to clean up their acts. She is saying that oil companies should invest in "clean" energy.
John, you have misread what the message was.
As far as the Bend Bulletin goes - I sat in on the Editorial Board meeting two years ago when Carol Voisin was running. I have never seen anything as horrible as that. The Bend Bulliten is so completely biased Republican that they will and do deliberately distort the positions of Democrats.
What has Obama ever done? Some assume nothing. Never mind that in the US Senate he headed up a bipartisan effort to round up Nukes in Europe. Never mind a record as a State Senator. If we just don't look at the things he has done, ignore that these things exist, then we can say he has done nothing. ~~ Where I come from (Oregon) we call that a bold faced lie.
selenesmom, great point. We don't call it the beach. Dead giveaway that sandra is a transplant, most likely a californicator.
I love that so many Obama supporters point out that he never voted for the war.
He did however endorse those who voted for the war. In 2004 he endorsed Kerry. He had no problem with it then.
I know, Kerry was the democratic nominee and what else would he have done? Endorsed the republican!!!! Hell no!!!!! But to claim that his judgment is such a big issue for him when his judgment is not consistent seems a bit of a stretch.
According to him he knew we shouldn't go to war almost immediately. However he had no problem endorsing those who voted for it in the first place.
Consequently it took him 20 years to realize his preacher and he did not see eye to eye. And I still can't understand why he had a problem with J. Wright, other than the fact that the media was trying to blow it out of proportion. But that’s what they have always done.
I have actually looked for some of the records for his time in the state senate, and I have not been able to find much. Could you please post some for me?
Also, I agree with you on the importance of cleaning up the nukes in EUROPE. I for one could barely function because of that threat. Now that that has been taken care of I think I will start looking for a job.
I do not know what Clinton means by "making the oil companies invest in new clean energy", but if she is suggesting that some of the obscene profits made from post-peak oil sales be directed to developing sustainable energy sources and new fuel systems, then she has a good idea. I would prefer some of those profits be taxed, and that revenue be directed to research and development not under oil company control, but in our dire circumstances, any sustainable energy develop quickly is better than the best program executed too slowly and too late.
The price of oil leapt through the $120 barrier for the first time
You make good points about Obama having a record behind him. My question is: what is that record? 137 present votes in Illinois State Legislature and 143 days as a US Senator? This is qualification to run as President? I realize President Lincoln didn't exactly come to the table with a lot of experience but I'd argue that times are a bit different now and the attacks from the Republicans will be harsher and more focused than any dispute between the Democrats. I am worried we will lose the White House because of Barack Obama.
That said I'm sad watching this unfold. It's become depressing, not watching the candidates but rather their supporters, become malicious, bickering fools – on BOTH sides.
Somehow I'm struggling to understand my Obama friends who are so star struck with his personality. I wonder, after this is all over, will we be able to have dinner together again? I know we will probably end up as Democrats but will we be friends?
It's gotten so bad I now have to plan parties around who supports which candidate. The banter is so vile that I can't get people in the same room for fear of the exchange and what it might do to my daughter. So I understand that Obama supporters want his nomination to move forward and Clinton supporters want her nomination to move forward; passions are high right now and many people are just throwing things out there, oddly most don't have a clue as to the history they are referencing.
Before we move forward attacking each other let's all remember that two things are true about this primary season.
1) We are registering more Democrats in every state.
2) States are breaking voting records in huge numbers.
Do we honestly believe that this is bad for the country? For the party? Did we moan when Jessie Jackson took his bid to the convention in 1984? Did we demand Kennedy get out of the race when going to the convention against Carter? In his speech at the convention Kennedy was pointing out that Democrats welcome differences and they do not and cannot divide us:
There were some -- There were some who said we should be silent about our differences on issues during this convention, but the heritage of the Democratic Party has been a history of democracy. We fight hard because we care deeply about our principles and purposes. We did not flee this struggle. We welcome the contrast with the empty and expedient spectacle last month in Detroit [Republican Convention] where no nomination was contested, no question was debated, and no one dared to raise any doubt or dissent.
Why now? Why, when all the cards are favoring the Democrats, we choose now to attack one another? (And yes, Obama is doing it too!)
Hillary should stay in the contest. It is what we've done before; it is what her supporters voted for. The Democratic party will endure this!
As for the Obama supporters just up and leaving the party, where would they go?
Become Independents? They would still have left leanings and the Democrats would get their votes.
Not vote? They wouldn't have been dependable for the party anyhow.
But the Clinton supporters? They are dependable voters who turn out consistently; let's upset them, it sounds like a great game plan.
Sorry, this should have been in quotes. It is taken from the speech that Kennedy gave at the Democratic convention in 1980.
Oh yeah, I too had heard that in Deschutes Co. Democratic registration now exceeds Republican.
I believe District 54 (Bend) might have more Democrats than Republicans; although, some of these "Dems" might be temporary who will return to NAV status after the election. District 53, the rest of Deschutes County is most likely heavily Republican.
This is considered "Oregon-specific"? She says the word "Oregon" at the beginning of the ad, and everything else is generic. She probably made about eight of these... ("Indiana knows... North Carolina knows... Guam knows...")
Re the McCain Clinton gas tax holiday "proposal"
From today's Seattle Times:
Gas Tax Holiday would total $126 million in Washington
The federal gas tax holiday proposed for this summer by presidential contenders John McCain and Hillary Clinton would reduce federal funds for Washington state highways by $126 million.
The head of the state Senate Transportation Committee, Mary Margaret Haugen of Camano Island, says the money has already been spent or committed with the understanding it would be coming from the federal Highway Trust Fund.
She says, losing the money would affect highway maintenance work.
The federal gas tax is 18 cents a gallon. That's in addition to the state tax of 36 cents a gallon. The 54 cents a gallon in taxes gives Washington the seventh-highest gas taxes in the nation.
Wonder what it would cost Oregon---
Information from: Seattle Post-Intelligencer, http://www.seattle-pi.com/
I really don't understand what you are saying.
You write in your second response above: I for one have no desire to take the monopoly that the oil companies already have with "dirty" energy and allow them to extend a monopoly over the alternative "clean" energy sources we are developing.
There is not a monopoly in oil--not since we broke up Standard Oil more than a century ago. There is a lot of competition in the oil industry--this is why the price moves so rapidly at the pump.
Besides, I really wonder who you think has the technical know how, financial resources, and delivery infrastructure to develop alternative energy sources that are going to move around our single passenger vehicles in the next 25 years.
Why demonize oil companies? Isn't it a lot smarter to bring them on board the alternative energy train?
They HAVE to be part of the solution. Small local companies just aren't going to cut it, not for a global economy as large, diversified, and energy dependent as ours.
I would argue that there is very little correlation between the number of days that a candidate has logged as a member of a legislature (the only measure of experience that you seem interested in) and their success as a president.
Presidential power, according to Neustadt, is the power to persuade.
It is not the power to draft legislation--that is done by your staff. It is not the power to manage agencies--that is done by your cabinet.
A president's power ultimately rests on his or her ability to convince the public, interest groups, other politicians, and other national leaders to join coalitions and not to work against his or her aims.
As such, personality and leadership qualities have ALWAYS been far more important in determining presidential success than any measure of "experience," and certainly not a measure based on the number of days spent in Congress.
I'm glad to see, however, that you and I agree that the supporters are becoming far too harsh. The first few comments slam Clinton mercilessly; followed up by brutal attacks on Obama.
I've written before and I'll write again: I'll be proud to vote for either of these candidates in November, and it would be a cold day in hell before I'd abstain or vote for John McCain over either of the Democratic contenders.
I'd hope that most posters here would take a similar pledge.
paul g. wrote:
"Why demonize oil companies?"
Ha. Ha ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
I'll be proud to vote for either of these candidates in November, and it would be a cold day in hell before I'd abstain or vote for John McCain over either of the Democratic contenders.
I sure as hell won't be proud. I'll suppress my gag reflex and support Clinton for one reason only.
Supreme Court appointments, with both legislative branches in Dem hands, are likely to be no worse than very conservative Democrats.
Not something to look forward to with geeful anticipation.
I agree time in office is not necessarily the defining characteristic of what kind of president someone might become but I will say that taking passes on votes because they are controversial leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
As far as convincing the public or the other party to back certain policy or work towards a new day well, I see it like this: Either one of these candidates can do that job. Both Senators can obviously motivate people and bring them to the table. (look at our turnout around the country) As far as working with leaders around the world only one candidate has done that.
It is not just what our political friends are saying to one another, it is much deeper. Not many years ago I convinced some Independents to re register as Democrats arguing that we were the fiscally responsible party; we cared about hearing voices in our communities. A few weeks ago I spoke with those voters and I heard alarming things. They are remaining Democrats to vote in our primary and then returning to the Independent world. Why, I asked. They are disgusted with the leadership or lack thereof of the DNC; arguing that Democrats have allowed the party to be hi jacked by fanatics. Wow! Further, they complain that the Democratic Party was more interested in their opinions when they were registered as Independents. Claiming that now the Democrats take their vote and their opinions for granted.
I agree with you paul, this race has become nasty within the grassroots of our party. I don't see the campaigns as becoming terribly awful but I do hear (daily) friends on both sides being horrible to each other.
I'm with you - let's quit attacking each other, realize that the Democratic Party has been here before (and survived) and start realizing that we have two candidates that are motivators, two candidates that would be historical and two candidates that are worthy of our attention but not our sniping.
I believe the best candidate is Hillary Clinton and she will have my vote. I have many friends who agree and disagree with my decision and they can exercise their civic duty and their choice on Election Day. Here’s to the best woman winning!
Okay, just one more post... Salon.com just put this up.
Okay, just one more post
When you use the 137 present votes meme, you're again being intentionally dishonest.
137 out of how many total votes during his time in the lege. Over 4000.
Doesn't look nearly as dramatic that way, but I understand that enlightened discourse is not your goal here.......
Obama supporters are the future of the party. Piss them off and it's going to take another 20 years to fix. Clinton supporters are typically older. That's fact.
You've obviously caught me. I've only dedicated years to this party but somehow I have an interest in being dishonest about a man who may very well be the nominee.
<i>I understand that enlightened discourse is not your goal here.......</i>
Way to yet again prove the point that the first thing Obama supporters do when they disagree is attack or insult.
I don't see any post showing that there were 4000 votes. In any case, it really isn't the number of votes but rather the issues a candidate refuses to take a stand on.
Kimberly you commented that you have friends leaving the party because they feel as if they are being taken advantage of.
I for one agree with this. I have voted democrat nearly every single election. The only time I did not was in 92 I voted for Perot. Why, because he seemed to me to be less religiously motivated than Bill or George.
My big problem is religion, hence the reason I vote mostly Democrats. But recently I feel as if the Democratic Party is embracing the religious groups in ways which make me want to run.
I believe in the democratic values way more than anything on the republican side. But I have for years hated the mix of religion and politics. And as long as a candidate can run a campaign without discussing their religion I will be open to voting for them. This season may be different. I can’t stomach McCain and Obama has already tied himself up in religion so bad I feel like I am stuck.
Many of my friends also call upon the fact that the Supreme Court is on the line. But if our Democratic president decides that those who sit on the court should be highly religious as he is, then what is the likelihood a democratic congress should reject a nominee from their own party president.
Nader just keeps looking better and better, unless of course Obama puts out a statement that religion will play no role in his nominating decisions. And I feel that is very unlikely, especially just to gain my support. I am already a registered democrat, and will likely vote that way, so who cares.
Why demonize oil companies? Isn't it a lot smarter to bring them on board the alternative energy train?
That would be like inviting the Mafia to join the police commission in a big city to clean up crime.
Two things: First, I am also dismayed by the constant pandering to religiosity by candidates; having said that, it would appear that Obama sincerely has a religious faith, but I have seen no evidence that he has any interest in shoving it down the people's throats. No Office of Faith Based Initiatives from an Obama Administration. (Or Clinton for that matter.) Second, NOTHING could make Nader look better to me. I made the mistake of voting for him once. All of his blather about the importance of pushing his agenda notwithstanding, evidence over several election cycles suggests he is an egotist who is not only uninterested in actual governance, but who scorns most of his countrymen as ignorant rubes. You want elitism? Forgot Obama and go with Nader.
Forgot Obama and go with Nader.
In what is now appearing a more unlikely event in which Hillary gets the nomination there is a good argument for voting for Nader or anyone else who won't be elected. If the choice is between her and McCain then voting for a third person is a way for the American people to say they are sick and tired of having to choose who is the lesser evil along the line of Peter Finch in "Network" saying he would take it (this crap) any more.
The only thing that would persuade me to vote for Hillary is the prospect that she would make tolerable choices for the Supreme Court as opposed to McCain tilting that body ever more to the right. Otherwise, what significant difference is there between "obliterate Iran" and "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran"?
Health care? That will be determined by Congress and how many of its members are whores for the health care corporations.
On nukes, there are the plants, and there are the bombs.
Anyone who is willing to throw around rhetoric of "obliterating" another country for political advantage is unfit to be president. That would be Senator Clinton.
But Obama is very much subject to energy corporation interests, the claim that he is not affected by special interest politics is bunk. Hillary's just a bit more so. But Obama won't be changing those politics as usual.
But Hillary is unfit to be president if she's willing to to play political games with threatening to obliterate other countries.
Paul, you're right, we should not demonize oil companies. We should just tax hell out of their windfall profits, dividing the proceeds between investing in clean energy and paying for the damnable war conducted by an oil-industry dominated administration for the sake of dominating the world oil supply. Oh, and repeal their lucrative but antiquate special tax breaks.
We should also be highly critical of the massively pro-corporate biases of the political system and go for deep reform in the legal bases of corporations. Who we should demonize is the giant companies that maintain that system against the interests of the rest of us. Oh, I guess that means we should demonize the giant oil companies :->. Just not by themselves, but along with the other giant demon companies.
A couple of first steps: Remove the legal standing of companies as "persons." Redefine the purposes of public corporations so that they have responsibilities to the public as well as shareholders, in exchange for the limits on liabilities that the shareholders get to encourage their investments.
But Steve, the "oil" companies are in any case retooling themselves as energy companies -- BP for one is looking a lto at renewables. The big underlying questions though have to do with actually reducing what we consume, not just in fuel, but in stuff. Tonight I saw a Ford ad touting their greenness for working out how to make a substitute for plastics-based car upholstery foam -- out of soy beans. Less plastics - good. Substitute food crops to make fuel and consumer products - bad.
We have to change our standard of living, use less stuff.
Daniel Spiro, your comment about "uneducated people" is disgusting & not worthy of most of your comments or your intelligence (as opposed to your education). One of the smarest men I know had to leave school at 8th grade during WWII to help his family with his labor. He and his wife by dint of hard work and smarts (including not getting suckered into massive debt by the blandishments of the Carter administration, unlike many families later done down by Reagan policies because Carter policies had left them vulnerable) became successful family farmers in a time when that was hard. He has retired comfortably, along with his wife, having put four kids & his wife through college (one Ph.D. history professor at a small Portland liberal arts college, one M.S. critical care nurse in the V.A. system, one school counselor with special ed. training in the Kennewick Public Schools, and one upper middle-manager is a major food company, who went to WSU in ag-econ & decided against trying to farm despit his lover for it. His wife became an English teacher in the local high school for ten years, to get them insurance, and later served on the school board. She started college the same year as their youngest child). Their grandchildren will have significant cushions against potential hardships & help in going to college themselves when the time comes.
There are stupid people with Ivy League degrees. There are smart people with 8th grade educations.
QuarkXpress would never threaten to obliterate anyone. Unfair to Quark!
...and perhaps Hillary's last TV spot in Oregon...
Garrett, old people and middle-aged people are also the future of the party, the old people for 20 years on average and the middle aged ones for 40 years on average -- today's young will be the future of the party without both of the older groups only when they themselves are old.
That's a fact.
Older people and middle aged people vote in the present in greater proportions than young people, even after the Obama motivation factor. And the election is this November. Obama needs the old and middle aged people to win. He knows it and doesn't write them off.
Ageism and generation-war rhetoric hurt the party. They also run completely opposite to the Obama theme of bringing people together.
Those are facts.
Young people care about their parents and grandparents, and the quite young now will understand in a decade or 15 years why the older young and middle aged are worried about their parents, and why the old and middle aged are worried about their children and grandchildren.
Those are facts
In decent societies, the generations care about an for one another. I have my criticisms of Barack Obama, but I am quite certain that his humane vision, which I believe genuine, includes strong intergenerational ties.
Promoting generational warfare, such as trying to turn young people against elders with fear-mongering about Social Security, is a grotesque phenomenon reflecting moral and social decadence.
Those are opinions.
Up to now that moral decadence mainly has been the purview of the Republicans. Let's keep it that way, shall we? Drop the anti-old people rhetoric. Please.
That's an honest plea.
Chris Lowe | May 7, 2008 12:09:54 AM
Very well said, Chris.
Hillary, Hillary, Hillary.
Oregon is a Hillary Clinton house.
Latinos for Hillary
Garrett has a point that is not just ageism. Beyond the historic presence of a woman and an Afro-American as top-running presidential candidates, the most significant factor so far in this election is the ability of Obama to engage young people who have been largely alienated from the electoral process. These new young voters may or may not continue to take part in electoral politics. If they feel that their candidate is pushed aside by a corrupt undemocratic political system, they may, indeed, get "pissed off" and withdraw for 20 years or more.
Young voters may be called selfish, immature, or unrealistic for such behavior, but that does not change the effect on the nature of the electorate or do anything to repair the damage done to the democratic process.
Note: None of this is meant to express disagreement with Chris Lowe's reply to Garrett's comment.
Hillary will be our next president . Hillary is the best candidate for Oregon.
I will vote a million of time for Hillary and never for Obama.
Hillary is the candidate Oregon is needing.
Jeff Mapes, Oregonian
Portland's high water quality helps boost fluoride opponents to victory
David Sarasohn: On U.S. Senate rules, a prospect of a nuclear July
Portland Voters Soundly Reject Fluoride
Merkley Introduces Amendment To Close GMO 'Loophole'
Bill aims to return Hatfield to D.C.
"Sit-Lie" Bill, Backed by Portland Business Alliance, Clears Another Hurdle
Senate confirms Michael McShane, Oregon's newest federal judge - and makes a little history
Jeff Merkley caught red handed asking the IRS to do its damn job
Small Businesses and the EITC Part 2: It's spent in the community
An undervote for democracy
Small Businesses and the EITC Part 1: Renewing and improving the EITC is the right thing to do
What comes after ObamaCare? John Kitzhaber's air conditioner...
OR Lege: Hostages, Hatfield and other observations
Top Ten Reasons the Republicans Won't Deal
Michele Bachmann, Move to Eugene!
A Brief Tutorial on Sampling Error for Reporters
An extraordinary legacy: Tom McCall at 100. Posted by Kari Chisholm, on March 22, 2013.
Watch more video.
So, You Wanna Write? We want a diversity of voices 'round the water cooler. Submit your guest column here.
Jo Ann Hardesty
Patch Adam Perryman
© 2013. BlueOregon is published by Mandate Media. Learn more.