[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ With Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, no one will be able to run for Congress without kissing some serious Obama butt. Rahm is founder of the DCCC and an old hand at recruiting candidates, raising funds, and organizing races. If you don't play ball with Rahm, you don't play. DO NOT LIKE. Aside from some snarkiness about Obama throwing progressives under the bus with his choice of Rahm Emanuel, I would think the PUMAcrats would otherwise be delighted that such an important member of the Clinton machine is being brought on board in such high-ranking capacity. What am I missing here?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ With Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, no one will be able to run for Congress without kissing some serious Obama butt. Rahm is founder of the DCCC and an old hand at recruiting candidates, raising funds, and organizing races. If you don't play ball with Rahm, you don't play. DO NOT LIKE. Aside from some snarkiness about Obama throwing progressives under the bus with his choice of Rahm Emanuel, I would think the PUMAcrats would otherwise be delighted that such an important member of the Clinton machine is being brought on board in such high-ranking capacity. What am I missing here? Well, first, what exactly is your definition of PUMAcrat? If you think it's a general term that applies to anyone who supported Hillary and didn't support Obama, you've got another think coming. And second, what on *earth* makes you think that having been a Hillary supporter means that one mindlessly approves of anyone who ever worked for Bill Clinton? That seems kind of insulting, Alex, and not like you. I've never liked Rahm Emanuel. Goodness knows Obama needs someone who knows where the levers of power are and how to work them. But Emanuel hardly seems to embody Obama's endless promotion of the notions of bipartisanship and cooperation. Emanuel doesn't just have sharp elbows, he's got machetes for arm joints.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ With Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, no one will be able to run for Congress without kissing some serious Obama butt. Rahm is founder of the DCCC and an old hand at recruiting candidates, raising funds, and organizing races. If you don't play ball with Rahm, you don't play. What am I missing here? That we are entering the age of Ra(h)m Raj, obviously.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley j_alexander_stanley@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog raunchydog@ With Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, no one will be able to run for Congress without kissing some serious Obama butt. Rahm is founder of the DCCC and an old hand at recruiting candidates, raising funds, and organizing races. If you don't play ball with Rahm, you don't play. DO NOT LIKE. Aside from some snarkiness about Obama throwing progressives under the bus with his choice of Rahm Emanuel, I would think the PUMAcrats would otherwise be delighted that such an important member of the Clinton machine is being brought on board in such high-ranking capacity. What am I missing here? Well, first, what exactly is your definition of PUMAcrat? If you think it's a general term that applies to anyone who supported Hillary and didn't support Obama, you've got another think coming. My question arose after browsing the reactions to Rahm on some of the various PUMA blogs, and I find the people on them display no less 'zoidal groupthink than the hardcore Obamazoids. I was surprised by the reactions, and I bounced my question off your post because it was a convenient launching point. And second, what on *earth* makes you think that having been a Hillary supporter means that one mindlessly approves of anyone who ever worked for Bill Clinton? That seems kind of insulting, Alex, and not like you. My apologies, then, if I mistakenly lumped you in with the hardcore PUMAzoids.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please don't disturb the trolls! They're already super touchy after having to share their bridges with hordes of illegal aliens... Seriously, maybe if we can get the trolls to go back whence they came, we could lift the terrible censorship that over a thousand people have had to endure because their antisocial behaviors, digital terrorism and karmic crapola. The trolls here serve an important spiritual function. They teach other posters what they still have to work on. If the trolls can push your buttons and cause you to react to them, then that's a hot button that still owns you. If you can not react, or react only with humor, it owns you less.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 steve.sundur@ wrote: , authfriend jstein@ wrote: Oh, geez, now Vaj has gone over the edge. What is it about Obama that makes his supporters grandiose, paranoid, and hallucinatory? What a second. What a second. Do we have a grammatical error here.? Should it be make, instead of makes? Why a plural verb?? The subject is What, singular: What makes his supporters... Perhaps lurk expected, for some peculiar reason, the present subjunctive verb form? But a more likely reason might be that the object (supporters) is in plural...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
On Nov 6, 2008, at 4:09 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please don't disturb the trolls! They're already super touchy after having to share their bridges with hordes of illegal aliens... Seriously, maybe if we can get the trolls to go back whence they came, we could lift the terrible censorship that over a thousand people have had to endure because their antisocial behaviors, digital terrorism and karmic crapola. The trolls here serve an important spiritual function. They teach other posters what they still have to work on. If the trolls can push your buttons and cause you to react to them, then that's a hot button that still owns you. If you can not react, or react only with humor, it owns you less. That's what psychologists are for.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 6, 2008, at 4:09 AM, TurquoiseB wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajradhatu@ wrote: Please don't disturb the trolls! They're already super touchy after having to share their bridges with hordes of illegal aliens... Seriously, maybe if we can get the trolls to go back whence they came, we could lift the terrible censorship that over a thousand people have had to endure because their antisocial behaviors, digital terrorism and karmic crapola. The trolls here serve an important spiritual function. They teach other posters what they still have to work on. If the trolls can push your buttons and cause you to react to them, then that's a hot button that still owns you. If you can not react, or react only with humor, it owns you less. That's what psychologists are for. Yeah, but the trolls won't go to the psychologists. They don't think there is anything wrong with them. :-) And they're not going away, because frankly they have nothing else going on in their lives. So that leaves us with figuring out a way to live with them. Mine is to notice when (and these days it's a rare occurrence) something one of them says pushes some residual attachment button in me. My guideline is that if a post from one of the known trolls causes me to instantly reach for the Reply button, I shouldn't. So I don't. Pretty much the only posts I instantly reach for the Reply button on now are the ones that provide me with an opportunity to say something funny or silly. That may be another kind of attachment or samskara on my part, but that one I can live with. :-)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I'm glad that that dangerous old coot is not going to be president and continue the failed policies of Dumbya, but if there had not been an economic collapse, this election could easily have been taken by the red states. The NYT is saying about 55 mil voted for Obama, 51 mil for McCain -- this was a close race in popular terms, even if distorted by the vagaries of the electoral system, and fortunately, it's the economy, stupid saved the day for the dems. The economy, and the fact that McCain ran an unexpectedly awful campaign and screwed up royally in his choice of Palin. Plus which, the Republicans unaccountably didn't haul out Rev. Wright again until the very last minute, when it was too late to do any serious damage to the Obama groundswell. I'm so relieved it's over that it's hard to sort out my other feelings. Like Bob, I'm glad McCain lost. Once the economy crashed in September, it became obvious that another Republican administration was an untenable risk. Fixing the Democratic Party will have to wait until the economy recovers. The monumental symbolic value of Obama's win is undeniable; it's impossible not to rejoice in that, in and of itself. It's an almost inconceivably huge positive step for the country. I can only cross my fingers and hope that he comes anywhere near living up to its promise. My misgivings about his abilities and his character are unchanged. It would be an equally monumental tragedy if he turns out to be inadequate to the challenge and to the idealism and good will that put him in office. Maybe the office itself will change him; maybe the faith the voters have invested in him will compel him to rise above his own limitations. His restrained, solemn, almost withdrawn demeanor during his victory speech suggested to me that he was coming to grips with what had just happened in a new way and beginning to feel the full extent of the awsome, terrifying responsibility that has settled on his shoulders. I've never wished anybody well so hard in my life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: snip I'm glad that that dangerous old coot is not going to be president and continue the failed policies of Dumbya, but if there had not been an economic collapse, this election could easily have been taken by the red states. The NYT is saying about 55 mil voted for Obama, 51 mil for McCain -- this was a close race in popular terms, even if distorted by the vagaries of the electoral system, and fortunately, it's the economy, stupid saved the day for the dems. The economy, and the fact that McCain ran an unexpectedly awful campaign and screwed up royally in his choice of Palin. I'm actually going to agree with you on pretty much every point you make in this post, but not this one. I truly believe McCain would have got 5% less votes had he not chosen Palin. Remember that when John McCain became the Republican nominee, Ann Coulter went on record saying that not only would she vote for Hillary but that she'd campaign for her (the last part, of course, said in jest and quickly retracted by her). This represented the sentiment of a very strong core of the Republican base; McCain had proven over the years that he simply wasn't one of them. Talk radio was in revolt, many saying they would actively work for the Libertarian candidate. Remember also that McCain apparently tried to cross the floor back in 2001. As a libertarian, I regard McCain-Feingold as a blatant attack on free speech. There was not much to like about John McCain, most Democrats now forget, was, before the election campaign, the man who most Democrats loved to say was the one Republican I would vote for. Then along came Palin. Conservatives went ape-shit over her. And a whole lot of Libertarians, too. And that whole Alaska Independence Party connection -- for less central government people like myself -- wasn't a negative but a positive! And I still maintain she's more qualified than all three of the men combined. Her choice by McCain energized the base and got Republicans out to vote and participate who would otherwise not. At McCain's concession speech last night, she got the most applause of anyone when McCain thanked her. Plus which, the Republicans unaccountably didn't haul out Rev. Wright again until the very last minute, when it was too late to do any serious damage to the Obama groundswell. Totally agree. I'm so relieved it's over that it's hard to sort out my other feelings. Yes, thank god it's over. Like Bob, I'm glad McCain lost. So am I! Not that I am happy that Obama won, but I've never been a fan of McCain's. This election was a lose-lose for me. Once the economy crashed in September, it became obvious that another Republican administration was an untenable risk. Fixing the Democratic Party will have to wait until the economy recovers. The monumental symbolic value of Obama's win is undeniable; it's impossible not to rejoice in that, in and of itself. It's an almost inconceivably huge positive step for the country. It's an exciting, compelling story. Hard not to get caught up in it. I can only cross my fingers and hope that he comes anywhere near living up to its promise. My misgivings about his abilities and his character are unchanged. It would be an equally monumental tragedy if he turns out to be inadequate to the challenge and to the idealism and good will that put him in office. Yes. I'll be more than happy to be proven wrong. Heck, the weight of the world will be on the guy's shoulders soon enough. I think all 300 million Americans truly extend their hopes and prayers to him. Maybe the office itself will change him; maybe the faith the voters have invested in him will compel him to rise above his own limitations. His restrained, solemn, almost withdrawn demeanor during his victory speech suggested to me that he was coming to grips with what had just happened in a new way and beginning to feel the full extent of the awsome, terrifying responsibility that has settled on his shoulders. I've never wished anybody well so hard in my life. Well said.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
gullible wrote: Guess a few whites voted for him, eh, Bob? Women, Hispanics, Blacks, and what's left of the middle class voted for him. Score one for the average Joe the plumber in the class war. So, women, Hispanics, and Blacks voted for Obama and now we're in a class war against the above average?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
I'm so relieved it's over that it's hard to sort out my other feelings. Shemp wrote: Yes, thank god it's over. Except that it's just the beginning: now Obama will have to work with a 'do-nothing' Congress whose approval rating is 9. It's going to be difficult to agree on how to redistribute the wealth, what's left of it. The auto industry and the unions are going to be holding out their hands for some big time payback. WASHINGTON An economy in deep trouble, with rising unemployment, a financial sector in crisis, and a government budget deeply in the red, all face Barack Obama when he takes office in January. Read more: 'Deep economic crisis faces president-elect Obama' AFP, November 5, 2008 http://tinyurl.com/595fej
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Fixing the Democratic Party will have to wait until the economy recovers. Some are saying it's already fixed. Comments from a message board: Consider what else Obama accomplished besides winning the election - which is HUGE. 1. Destroyed the old DNC political machine built by the Clintons which dictated election strategy for 4 election cycles. 2. Destroyed the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) which was Clinton's baby. Good riddance. 3. Destroyed any number of election myths, i.e. young people won't turn-out to vote, the so-called Bradley effect, that Latinos won't support an African-American, etc. Not bad for 22 months of work I would have to say. It would appear that there are two polarities within the Democratic Party with very different definitions of fixing the Democratic Party.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
His restrained, solemn, almost withdrawn demeanor during his victory speech suggested to me that he was coming to grips with what had just happened in a new way and beginning to feel the full extent of the awsome, terrifying responsibility that has settled on his shoulders. I wouldn't read too much into how any of them appeared last night. They just finished a travel campaign push in the last 48 hours that was inhuman. I though both McCain and Obama looked like two tough guys who could go through all that and still deliver great speeches. I was especially impressed with McCain, both for his pulling this schedule off at his age, and for giving a gracious positive speech. This was the wrong role for him but he still has a lot to give the country he obviously loves. I enjoyed seeing Michelle and Barack's chemistry and warmth as they left the stage. I think she is going to be a fist lady to be proud of and I am looking forward to seeing how she uses this position. She won't just be re-decorating the White House I'll bet. Thanks to everyone on FFL who made this my most engaging campaign. I really appreciated all the links people provided and perspectives shared. Kumbaya baby. Oh yeah, to Sarah, Bu by, Bu by. I hope I never see you on the international stage again. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: snip I'm glad that that dangerous old coot is not going to be president and continue the failed policies of Dumbya, but if there had not been an economic collapse, this election could easily have been taken by the red states. The NYT is saying about 55 mil voted for Obama, 51 mil for McCain -- this was a close race in popular terms, even if distorted by the vagaries of the electoral system, and fortunately, it's the economy, stupid saved the day for the dems. The economy, and the fact that McCain ran an unexpectedly awful campaign and screwed up royally in his choice of Palin. Plus which, the Republicans unaccountably didn't haul out Rev. Wright again until the very last minute, when it was too late to do any serious damage to the Obama groundswell. I'm so relieved it's over that it's hard to sort out my other feelings. Like Bob, I'm glad McCain lost. Once the economy crashed in September, it became obvious that another Republican administration was an untenable risk. Fixing the Democratic Party will have to wait until the economy recovers. The monumental symbolic value of Obama's win is undeniable; it's impossible not to rejoice in that, in and of itself. It's an almost inconceivably huge positive step for the country. I can only cross my fingers and hope that he comes anywhere near living up to its promise. My misgivings about his abilities and his character are unchanged. It would be an equally monumental tragedy if he turns out to be inadequate to the challenge and to the idealism and good will that put him in office. Maybe the office itself will change him; maybe the faith the voters have invested in him will compel him to rise above his own limitations. His restrained, solemn, almost withdrawn demeanor during his victory speech suggested to me that he was coming to grips with what had just happened in a new way and beginning to feel the full extent of the awsome, terrifying responsibility that has settled on his shoulders. I've never wished anybody well so hard in my life.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Fixing the Democratic Party will have to wait until the economy recovers. Some are saying it's already fixed. Comments from a message board: Consider what else Obama accomplished besides winning the election - which is HUGE. 1. Destroyed the old DNC political machine built by the Clintons which dictated election strategy for 4 election cycles. 2. Destroyed the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) which was Clinton's baby. Good riddance. 3. Destroyed any number of election myths, i.e. young people won't turn-out to vote, the so-called Bradley effect, that Latinos won't support an African-American, etc. Not bad for 22 months of work I would have to say. It would appear that there are two polarities within the Democratic Party with very different definitions of fixing the Democratic Party. Yes. In some of the election night coverage, after it became increasingly clear that Obama was the winner, it was pointed out that Obama and his operation are now essentially the leadership of the Democratic Party -apart from- the establishment machine you mentioned above.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
Fixing the Democratic Party will have to wait until the economy recovers. Some are saying it's already fixed. Comments from a message board: Consider what else Obama accomplished besides winning the election - which is HUGE. 1. Destroyed the old DNC political machine built by the Clintons which dictated election strategy for 4 election cycles. And lost two of them. And would have lost a third. 2. Destroyed the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) which was Clinton's baby. Good riddance. 3. Destroyed any number of election myths, i.e. young people won't turn-out to vote, the so-called Bradley effect, that Latinos won't support an African-American, etc. Not bad for 22 months of work I would have to say. It would appear that there are two polarities within the Democratic Party with very different definitions of fixing the Democratic Party. And, as I suggested once before, one of those polarities is using the word fix as if they learned it in Veterinary School.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wouldn't read too much into how any of them appeared last night. They just finished a travel campaign push in the last 48 hours that was inhuman. I though both McCain and Obama looked like two tough guys who could go through all that and still deliver great speeches. I was especially impressed with McCain, both for his pulling this schedule off at his age, and for giving a gracious positive speech. This was the wrong role for him but he still has a lot to give the country he obviously loves. I agree. He didn't write that speech, any more than he wrote any of his others, but he delivered as if he had. And it was a good one, with exactly the right tone. I enjoyed seeing Michelle and Barack's chemistry and warmth as they left the stage. I think she is going to be a fist lady to be proud of and I am looking forward to seeing how she uses this position. She won't just be re-decorating the White House I'll bet. I certainly won't bet against you on this one. Thanks to everyone on FFL who made this my most engaging campaign. I really appreciated all the links people provided and perspectives shared. Kumbaya baby. Second that. Pass the 'smores. Oh yeah, to Sarah, Bu by, Bu by. I hope I never see you on the international stage again. I don't think that's going to happen, or that it should. The world badly needs people to laugh at, and she is one of the best.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The economy, and the fact that McCain ran an unexpectedly awful campaign and screwed up royally in his choice of Palin. McCain might have gotten more independent voters and men with Romney but he would never have energized the base like Palin. The left hated her but she drew huge right wing crowds and they loved her even without rock concerts, brats and beer. This was going to be a bad year for Republicans no matter who he picked. Even if McCain had picked up OH, FL, VA, NC, IN, were only slightly blue and MO the tie, still would have lost at 260. It's surprising he did as well as he did. Plus which, the Republicans unaccountably didn't haul out Rev. Wright again until the very last minute, when it was too late to do any serious damage to the Obama groundswell. I doubt it would have helped. He couldn't get much traction from Ayers either. Fixing the Democratic Party will have to wait until the economy recovers. With the DNC completely digested by the Chicago Combine, I doubt it's fixable. With Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, no one will be able to run for Congress without kissing some serious Obama butt. Rahm is founder of the DCCC and an old hand at recruiting candidates, raising funds, and organizing races. If you don't play ball with Rahm, you don't play. The monumental symbolic value of Obama's win is undeniable; it's impossible not to rejoice in that, in and of itself. It's an almost inconceivably huge positive step for the country. Yes, it's a huge accomplishment that we can see beyond race to elect a president, but it's just as important that we see the character of the man inhabiting the skin. I can only cross my fingers and hope that he comes anywhere near living up to its promise. My misgivings about his abilities and his character are unchanged. It would be an equally monumental tragedy if he turns out to be inadequate to the challenge and to the idealism and good will that put him in office. Fingers crossed not double crossed. Maybe the office itself will change him; maybe the faith the voters have invested in him will compel him to rise above his own limitations. His restrained, solemn, almost withdrawn demeanor during his victory speech suggested to me that he was coming to grips with what had just happened in a new way and beginning to feel the full extent of the awsome, terrifying responsibility that has settled on his shoulders. I've never wished anybody well so hard in my life. I feel you.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: The economy, and the fact that McCain ran an unexpectedly awful campaign and screwed up royally in his choice of Palin. McCain might have gotten more independent voters and men with Romney but he would never have energized the base like Palin. The left hated her but she drew huge right wing crowds and they loved her even without rock concerts, brats and beer. This was going to be a bad year for Republicans no matter who he picked. Even if McCain had picked up OH, FL, VA, NC, IN, were only slightly blue and MO the tie, still would have lost at 260. It's surprising he did as well as he did. You're absolutely right. Palin was worth at least 5 percentage points to McCain's success. Without her, many Repubicans would simply have stayed home...or voted for Bob Barr. This woman is NOT going away...and I for one hope she doesn't. I'm putting my money on her being the candidate in 2012... And, yes, McCain did well. This was NOT a landslide or a blow-out. Plus which, the Republicans unaccountably didn't haul out Rev. Wright again until the very last minute, when it was too late to do any serious damage to the Obama groundswell. I doubt it would have helped. He couldn't get much traction from Ayers either. Fixing the Democratic Party will have to wait until the economy recovers. With the DNC completely digested by the Chicago Combine, I doubt it's fixable. With Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, no one will be able to run for Congress without kissing some serious Obama butt. Rahm is founder of the DCCC and an old hand at recruiting candidates, raising funds, and organizing races. If you don't play ball with Rahm, you don't play. The monumental symbolic value of Obama's win is undeniable; it's impossible not to rejoice in that, in and of itself. It's an almost inconceivably huge positive step for the country. Yes, it's a huge accomplishment that we can see beyond race to elect a president, but it's just as important that we see the character of the man inhabiting the skin. I can only cross my fingers and hope that he comes anywhere near living up to its promise. My misgivings about his abilities and his character are unchanged. It would be an equally monumental tragedy if he turns out to be inadequate to the challenge and to the idealism and good will that put him in office. Fingers crossed not double crossed. Maybe the office itself will change him; maybe the faith the voters have invested in him will compel him to rise above his own limitations. His restrained, solemn, almost withdrawn demeanor during his victory speech suggested to me that he was coming to grips with what had just happened in a new way and beginning to feel the full extent of the awsome, terrifying responsibility that has settled on his shoulders. I've never wished anybody well so hard in my life. I feel you.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
On Nov 5, 2008, at 10:09 AM, shempmcgurk wrote: You're absolutely right. Palin was worth at least 5 percentage points to McCain's success. Without her, many Repubicans would simply have stayed home...or voted for Bob Barr. This woman is NOT going away...and I for one hope she doesn't. I hope she doesn't either! Far too much entertainment value there. I'm putting my money on her being the candidate in 2012... I am too, shemp! Finally something we can agree on. And, yes, McCain did well. This was NOT a landslide or a blow-out. Since neither was an incumbent, that would probably have been unprecedented. McCain did do better than I imagined he would. Sal
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Alex Stanley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: Fixing the Democratic Party will have to wait until the economy recovers. Some are saying it's already fixed. Comments from a message board: Consider what else Obama accomplished besides winning the election - which is HUGE. 1. Destroyed the old DNC political machine built by the Clintons which dictated election strategy for 4 election cycles. 2. Destroyed the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) which was Clinton's baby. Good riddance. 3. Destroyed any number of election myths, i.e. young people won't turn-out to vote, the so-called Bradley effect, that Latinos won't support an African-American, etc. Not bad for 22 months of work I would have to say. It would appear that there are two polarities within the Democratic Party with very different definitions of fixing the Democratic Party. Yes indeedy. The polarity I favor is the one that wants the Democratic Party to return to fighting for progressive goals, those Hillary stands for, women's rights and respect for working people and constitutional principles in particular; and for fair and honest party primaries. Nobody likes machine politics, but I'll take the Clinton machine over the Obama machine any day. The latter is already corrupt after less than two years.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: His restrained, solemn, almost withdrawn demeanor during his victory speech suggested to me that he was coming to grips with what had just happened in a new way and beginning to feel the full extent of the awsome, terrifying responsibility that has settled on his shoulders. I wouldn't read too much into how any of them appeared last night. They just finished a travel campaign push in the last 48 hours that was inhuman. Indeed, but usually the winner manages to pump up some exuberance for his victory speech. Hillary's *concession* speech had far more energy than Obama's victory speech. McCain was relaxed, looked relieved, but he seemed far more open, a lot warmer. And it isn't just the last 48 hours where Obama is concerned. There were two pieces in the NYT a couple days ago about the mood of the candidates. The one on Obama said he had been noticeably more withdrawn in the past several weeks. His tendency to keep everything locked up inside worries me. I'm not sure his inscrutable calm is a good thing. Take a look at the photo on the NYTimes front page-- the Web site--this morning. That expression is more than just exhaustion. snip I was especially impressed with McCain, both for his pulling this schedule off at his age, and for giving a gracious positive speech. *Very* classy speech. Too bad his supporters had to ruin it with boos and jeers when he mentioned Obama.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
i agree with both of you-- its too rare that the good guys win, but they did last night. the only thing i didn't get was you were talking about someone named sarah. sarah who??;) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: I wouldn't read too much into how any of them appeared last night. They just finished a travel campaign push in the last 48 hours that was inhuman. I though both McCain and Obama looked like two tough guys who could go through all that and still deliver great speeches. I was especially impressed with McCain, both for his pulling this schedule off at his age, and for giving a gracious positive speech. This was the wrong role for him but he still has a lot to give the country he obviously loves. I agree. He didn't write that speech, any more than he wrote any of his others, but he delivered as if he had. And it was a good one, with exactly the right tone. I enjoyed seeing Michelle and Barack's chemistry and warmth as they left the stage. I think she is going to be a fist lady to be proud of and I am looking forward to seeing how she uses this position. She won't just be re-decorating the White House I'll bet. I certainly won't bet against you on this one. Thanks to everyone on FFL who made this my most engaging campaign. I really appreciated all the links people provided and perspectives shared. Kumbaya baby. Second that. Pass the 'smores. Oh yeah, to Sarah, Bu by, Bu by. I hope I never see you on the international stage again. I don't think that's going to happen, or that it should. The world badly needs people to laugh at, and she is one of the best.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: The economy, and the fact that McCain ran an unexpectedly awful campaign and screwed up royally in his choice of Palin. McCain might have gotten more independent voters and men with Romney but he would never have energized the base like Palin. The left hated her It was more than just the left. McCain lost a lot of influential Republicans because of her who would otherwise have been big McCain cheerleaders. but she drew huge right wing crowds and they loved her even without rock concerts, brats and beer. This was going to be a bad year for Republicans no matter who he picked. True enough. But *with* Romney or some more reasonable Republican instead of Palin, and *without* the economic crisis, and if only the campaign had featured the old McCain, the real maverick, the charmer, the McCain who gave the concession speech last night--I'll bet he would have won, although it would have been close. snip With the DNC completely digested by the Chicago Combine, I doubt it's fixable. Depends on how Obama does in office, I think. With Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, no one will be able to run for Congress without kissing some serious Obama butt. Rahm is founder of the DCCC and an old hand at recruiting candidates, raising funds, and organizing races. If you don't play ball with Rahm, you don't play. DO NOT LIKE.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: Nobody likes machine politics, but I'll take the Clinton machine over the Obama machine any day. The latter is already corrupt after less than two years. How so, Judy? How is the Obama organization corrupt? Thanks.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: True enough. But *with* Romney or some more reasonable Republican instead of Palin, and *without* the economic crisis, and if only the campaign had featured the old McCain, the real maverick, the charmer, the McCain who gave the concession speech last night--I'll bet he would have won, although it would have been close. The odds were stacked against him. McCain was outspent 8 to 1 in some cases and the media never got over their love affair with Obama.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, raunchydog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: True enough. But *with* Romney or some more reasonable Republican instead of Palin, and *without* the economic crisis, and if only the campaign had featured the old McCain, the real maverick, the charmer, the McCain who gave the concession speech last night--I'll bet he would have won, although it would have been close. The odds were stacked against him. McCain was outspent 8 to 1 in some cases and the media never got over their love affair with Obama. i was wondering about the love affair with obama too, especially since every time i turned on the tube in the last month all i saw was mccain, on nearly every channel. i think people were so damned sick of bush there was basically no way to elect mccain. also let's remember that obama outspent mccain because millions contributed to him. sure mccain comes across as a nice gracious guy, especially during his i lost speech. but just nice guys don't cut it anymore. we learned that under reagan, who came across as everyone's favorite grandfather, but demonstrated he didn't give a damn about the poor, the environment, and countries in which the majority were brown.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: Nobody likes machine politics, but I'll take the Clinton machine over the Obama machine any day. The latter is already corrupt after less than two years. How so, Judy? How is the Obama organization corrupt? Thanks. Basically, Obama's campaign and the DNC were complicit in gaming the primary caucus system. raunchydog has posted several links to documentation on this. For that matter, there are questions as well about how Obama got elected to the Illinois and then the U.S. Senate--not illegal, but pretty smarmy ethically speaking. Some of Obama's connections to Chicago machine politicians aren't too savory either. (I'm not including ACORN in this, BTW. I think that's a Republican tempest in a teapot.) And as far as just plain dirty politics is concerned, it's hard to beat painting the Clintons as racists during the primary. Thank GOD there don't seem to have been any major election foulups or chicanery--on either side--that might have been claimed to have affected the outcome, for the presidential contest, at any rate. That was my worst nightmare.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: Nobody likes machine politics, but I'll take the Clinton machine over the Obama machine any day. The latter is already corrupt after less than two years. How so, Judy? How is the Obama organization corrupt? Thanks. Basically, Obama's campaign and the DNC were complicit in gaming the primary caucus system. raunchydog has posted several links to documentation on this. For that matter, there are questions as well about how Obama got elected to the Illinois and then the U.S. Senate--not illegal, but pretty smarmy ethically speaking. Some of Obama's connections to Chicago machine politicians aren't too savory either. And the Clintons are NOT machine politicians? That's the first thing I said when friends asked for me to vote for Bill Clinton in 1992 was that he was a machine politician. I voted for him anyway and again 1996. Better the devil you know than the one you don't know.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: Nobody likes machine politics, but I'll take the Clinton machine over the Obama machine any day. The latter is already corrupt after less than two years. How so, Judy? How is the Obama organization corrupt? Thanks. Basically, Obama's campaign and the DNC were complicit in gaming the primary caucus system. raunchydog has posted several links to documentation on this. For that matter, there are questions as well about how Obama got elected to the Illinois and then the U.S. Senate--not illegal, but pretty smarmy ethically speaking. Some of Obama's connections to Chicago machine politicians aren't too savory either. And the Clintons are NOT machine politicians? Try putting on your specs and reading what I wrote that's quoted at the top, Bhairitu.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: snip I'm glad that that dangerous old coot is not going to be president and continue the failed policies of Dumbya, but if there had not been an economic collapse, this election could easily have been taken by the red states. The NYT is saying about 55 mil voted for Obama, 51 mil for McCain -- this was a close race in popular terms, even if distorted by the vagaries of the electoral system, and fortunately, it's the economy, stupid saved the day for the dems. The economy, and the fact that McCain ran an unexpectedly awful campaign and screwed up royally in his choice of Palin. Plus which, the Republicans unaccountably didn't haul out Rev. Wright again until the very last minute, when it was too late to do any serious damage to the Obama groundswell. I'm so relieved it's over that it's hard to sort out my other feelings. Like Bob, I'm glad McCain lost. Once the economy crashed in September, it became obvious that another Republican administration was an untenable risk. Fixing the Democratic Party will have to wait until the economy recovers. The monumental symbolic value of Obama's win is undeniable; it's impossible not to rejoice in that, in and of itself. It's an almost inconceivably huge positive step for the country. I can only cross my fingers and hope that he comes anywhere near living up to its promise. My misgivings about his abilities and his character are unchanged. It would be an equally monumental tragedy if he turns out to be inadequate to the challenge and to the idealism and good will that put him in office. Maybe the office itself will change him; maybe the faith the voters have invested in him will compel him to rise above his own limitations. His restrained, solemn, almost withdrawn demeanor during his victory speech suggested to me that he was coming to grips with what had just happened in a new way and beginning to feel the full extent of the awsome, terrifying responsibility that has settled on his shoulders. I've never wished anybody well so hard in my life. You have a strange way of wishing someone well... Responsibity doesn't need to be terrifying, if you have a vision and if you have deep faith. I see Barack Obama, as a man who has a deep faith in the good of humanity. This is the really revolutionary spark that has moved this nation and the world. The spark of hope, and the example of focused determinism led President elect Obama victory, miraculous as it seems... R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bob_brigante no_reply@ wrote: snip I'm glad that that dangerous old coot is not going to be president and continue the failed policies of Dumbya, but if there had not been an economic collapse, this election could easily have been taken by the red states. The NYT is saying about 55 mil voted for Obama, 51 mil for McCain -- this was a close race in popular terms, even if distorted by the vagaries of the electoral system, and fortunately, it's the economy, stupid saved the day for the dems. The economy, and the fact that McCain ran an unexpectedly awful campaign and screwed up royally in his choice of Palin. Plus which, the Republicans unaccountably didn't haul out Rev. Wright again until the very last minute, when it was too late to do any serious damage to the Obama groundswell. I'm so relieved it's over that it's hard to sort out my other feelings. Like Bob, I'm glad McCain lost. Once the economy crashed in September, it became obvious that another Republican administration was an untenable risk. Fixing the Democratic Party will have to wait until the economy recovers. The monumental symbolic value of Obama's win is undeniable; it's impossible not to rejoice in that, in and of itself. It's an almost inconceivably huge positive step for the country. I can only cross my fingers and hope that he comes anywhere near living up to its promise. My misgivings about his abilities and his character are unchanged. It would be an equally monumental tragedy if he turns out to be inadequate to the challenge and to the idealism and good will that put him in office. Maybe the office itself will change him; maybe the faith the voters have invested in him will compel him to rise above his own limitations. His restrained, solemn, almost withdrawn demeanor during his victory speech suggested to me that he was coming to grips with what had just happened in a new way and beginning to feel the full extent of the awsome, terrifying responsibility that has settled on his shoulders. I've never wished anybody well so hard in my life. You have a strange way of wishing someone well... No, actually, I don't. You have a strange way of dealing with opinions that are different from yours.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues curtisdeltablues@ wrote: His restrained, solemn, almost withdrawn demeanor during his victory speech suggested to me that he was coming to grips with what had just happened in a new way and beginning to feel the full extent of the awsome, terrifying responsibility that has settled on his shoulders. I wouldn't read too much into how any of them appeared last night. They just finished a travel campaign push in the last 48 hours that was inhuman. (snip) Barack Obama is one strong human being...on the eve of his election, his beloved grandmother passed away...he is taking on tremendous karma of his race and all of the nonesense of crazy American politics. His traveling schedule had been non-stop for months and months... His wife, Michelle, commented that she doesn't know how he does it... I do hope he takes the rest he needs, as he does have an amazing ability to remain calm, which will serve him well in this postion of President. R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I do hope he takes the rest he needs, as he does have an amazing ability to remain calm, which will serve him well in this postion of President. As we have learned -- or should have learned, following Fairfield Life these last few months -- this is the most important quality that ANYONE could have. Its absence makes a person victim to whomever can push his or her buttons. Its presence makes them...dare I say it...invincible.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: Nobody likes machine politics, but I'll take the Clinton machine over the Obama machine any day. The latter is already corrupt after less than two years. How so, Judy? How is the Obama organization corrupt? Thanks. Basically, Obama's campaign and the DNC were complicit in gaming the primary caucus system. raunchydog has posted several links to documentation on this. For that matter, there are questions as well about how Obama got elected to the Illinois and then the U.S. Senate--not illegal, but pretty smarmy ethically speaking. Some of Obama's connections to Chicago machine politicians aren't too savory either. And the Clintons are NOT machine politicians? Try putting on your specs and reading what I wrote that's quoted at the top, Bhairitu. Why not instead of being so contentious just saying oh, you missed what I said at the top of the message. That's far less abrasive. It's pretty easy to miss things given the way posts come up on FFL even with the amount of control I have using an email client over the web site. My specs are just fine, thank you. Rather recent prescription too. And I'll take the Obama machine over the Clinton machine. I think Hillary lost the nomination before she started simply because of being a machine candidate and a lot of people including Dems do not like the Clintons because of that even if they voted for Bill. Barack was a new kid on the block and I knew a year and a half ago watching how his young twenty something following he was going to be an important candidate and probably president. We've had our day, there needs to be something for the kids.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: Maybe the office itself will change him; maybe the faith the voters have invested in him will compel him to rise above his own limitations. His restrained, solemn, almost withdrawn demeanor during his victory speech suggested to me that he was coming to grips with what had just happened in a new way and beginning to feel the full extent of the awsome, terrifying responsibility that has settled on his shoulders. His demeanor seemed in keeping with his personality, and with his desire not to alienate the other side, as well as the awesome task ahead. But your remarks makes me think of a teaching by an MIU classmate whose latest book is called Extreme Leadership. Steve Farber worked with Tom Peters before opening his own management consultancy and public speaking practice. His latest book has a secton on the importance of the OS!M, which is the moment when you realize that you've undertaken something so awesome and extreme that you can hardly believe what you've done. Steve gives the example of tobogganing or luging down a steep, icy slope. You slip over the crest and start your descent, and at that moment, you think, Oh shit! That's the Oh Shit! Moment, or OS!M for short. Steve's point is that extreme leadership demands these OS!Ms. He writes about them here: http://www.stevefarber.com/read/#pursue That expression on Obama's face last night - that acceptance speech that George Stephanopoulos said was the most subdued he'd ever seen - may have been influenced by his own OS!M. I've never wished anybody well so hard in my life. I know what you mean.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam jpgillam@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: Nobody likes machine politics, but I'll take the Clinton machine over the Obama machine any day. The latter is already corrupt after less than two years. How so, Judy? How is the Obama organization corrupt? Thanks. Basically, Obama's campaign and the DNC were complicit in gaming the primary caucus system. raunchydog has posted several links to documentation on this. For that matter, there are questions as well about how Obama got elected to the Illinois and then the U.S. Senate--not illegal, but pretty smarmy ethically speaking. Some of Obama's connections to Chicago machine politicians aren't too savory either. And the Clintons are NOT machine politicians? Try putting on your specs and reading what I wrote that's quoted at the top, Bhairitu. Why not instead of being so contentious just saying oh, you missed what I said at the top of the message. That's far less abrasive. Look at what you wrote, Bhairitu. That's just as abrasive. I was responding to your tone. You could have said, Well, the Clintons were machine politicians too. It's pretty easy to miss things given the way posts come up on FFL I very rarely have any trouble. I just make sure I've checked out whatever was written and quoted, especially if I'm coming into an exchange in the middle, as you were. even with the amount of control I have using an email client over the web site. You don't have enough control--or savvy, or courtesy-- to put a blank line between what you're quoting and your response (I put in the one above). You don't format your posts so as to keep the lines from breaking, and you put extra blank lines where they don't belong. Trying to read one of your responses is a pain in the ass.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: Maybe the office itself will change him; maybe the faith the voters have invested in him will compel him to rise above his own limitations. His restrained, solemn, almost withdrawn demeanor during his victory speech suggested to me that he was coming to grips with what had just happened in a new way and beginning to feel the full extent of the awsome, terrifying responsibility that has settled on his shoulders. His demeanor seemed in keeping with his personality, and with his desire not to alienate the other side, as well as the awesome task ahead. But your remarks makes me think of a teaching by an MIU classmate whose latest book is called Extreme Leadership. Steve Farber worked with Tom Peters before opening his own management consultancy and public speaking practice. His latest book has a secton on the importance of the OS!M, which is the moment when you realize that you've undertaken something so awesome and extreme that you can hardly believe what you've done. Steve gives the example of tobogganing or luging down a steep, icy slope. You slip over the crest and start your descent, and at that moment, you think, Oh shit! That's the Oh Shit! Moment, or OS!M for short. Steve's point is that extreme leadership demands these OS!Ms. He writes about them here: http://www.stevefarber.com/read/#pursue That expression on Obama's face last night - that acceptance speech that George Stephanopoulos said was the most subdued he'd ever seen - may have been influenced by his own OS!M. That's it, exactly! I suppose in one sense, it would have been worrying if he *hadn't* been having an OS!M. I just hope he's able to talk about it with Michelle or someone else very close, rather than keeping it all bottled up. Because that ain't likely to be the last one he's going to have. I've never wished anybody well so hard in my life. I know what you mean. What a long, strange trip it's been...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: authfriend wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu noozguru@ wrote: authfriend wrote: Try putting on your specs and reading what I wrote that's quoted at the top, Bhairitu. Why not instead of being so contentious just saying oh, you missed what I said at the top of the message. That's far less abrasive. Look at what you wrote, Bhairitu. That's just as abrasive. I was responding to your tone. You could have said, Well, the Clintons were machine politicians too. Now does anyone else here think that asking and the Clintons are NOT machine politicians is abrasive? It's just a question. You are projecting something into it. Your response was obviously abrasive. You could have been more humorous about it but you seem to have lost any sense of humor you ever had. It's pretty easy to miss things given the way posts come up on FFL I very rarely have any trouble. I just make sure I've checked out whatever was written and quoted, especially if I'm coming into an exchange in the middle, as you were. Of course, we all know you're perfect. even with the amount of control I have using an email client over the web site. You don't have enough control--or savvy, or courtesy-- to put a blank line between what you're quoting and your response (I put in the one above). You don't format your posts so as to keep the lines from breaking, and you put extra blank lines where they don't belong. Trying to read one of your responses is a pain in the ass. On Thunderbird there is a blank line between. Yours actually gets displayed as two blank lines. Thunderbird does this formatting automatically. I can't help how screwed up Yahoo is. An apology please. PS: it's so funny that Thunderbird tries to spell correct authfriend to friendship. What a hoot!
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
(snip) Look at what you wrote, Bhairitu. That's just as abrasive. I was responding to your tone. You could have said, Well, the Clintons were machine politicians too. Now does anyone else here think that asking and the Clintons are NOT (snip) Well, what is a 'Political Machine' anyway... Is it like a 'Family Business', sort of like the Mafia? Or could it be a dynasty, like a China-Roman-like-Family, inhereted rule, like the Bush Dynasy, or the Kennedy Dynasty, or the Clinton Dynasty... Aren't they composed of like-minded people to assemble a political party to hang their banner on... Now we have a different machine...The Barack Boom Boom Obama, new team, fast moves, quick thinking...a new generation of leadership; Steady like FDR...deep thinker, great writer, able to think a thought through to it's logical conclusion, a great gift of a leader... R.G.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
On Nov 5, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Look at what you wrote, Bhairitu. That's just as abrasive. I was responding to your tone. You could have said, Well, the Clintons were machine politicians too. Now does anyone else here think that asking and the Clintons are NOT machine politicians is abrasive? It's just a question. You are projecting something into it. Your response was obviously abrasive. You could have been more humorous about it but you seem to have lost any sense of humor you ever had. There's a huge amount of Clinton attachment from a lot PUMAs who couldn't let go of Hillary's defeat, so it wouldn't have been surprising a while back. But when you have people still perseverating on the last seasons defeats and losses, it's more about them and their own issues. If the person has a long history of holding onto a lot of personal baggage already (think Paris Hilton on extended vacation) and projecting it on to others, then it's best to just not respond to such patterns, as it's more about the persons own undigested angst that you're letting them burp up in your face, like some maladjusted dry- drunk (who just happens to have internet access and a subscription to FairfieldLife). I don't know about you, but I don't just let anyone into my home.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
Vaj wrote: On Nov 5, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Look at what you wrote, Bhairitu. That's just as abrasive. I was responding to your tone. You could have said, Well, the Clintons were machine politicians too. Now does anyone else here think that asking and the Clintons are NOT machine politicians is abrasive? It's just a question. You are projecting something into it. Your response was obviously abrasive. You could have been more humorous about it but you seem to have lost any sense of humor you ever had. There's a huge amount of Clinton attachment from a lot PUMAs who couldn't let go of Hillary's defeat, so it wouldn't have been surprising a while back. But when you have people still perseverating on the last seasons defeats and losses, it's more about them and their own issues. If the person has a long history of holding onto a lot of personal baggage already (think Paris Hilton on extended vacation) and projecting it on to others, then it's best to just not respond to such patterns, as it's more about the persons own undigested angst that you're letting them burp up in your face, like some maladjusted dry- drunk (who just happens to have internet access and a subscription to FairfieldLife). I don't know about you, but I don't just let anyone into my home. I pretty much limit my responses to trolls here, even ones from New Jersey. ;-) Most of the time I even ignore them.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 5, 2008, at 5:45 PM, Bhairitu wrote: Look at what you wrote, Bhairitu. That's just as abrasive. I was responding to your tone. You could have said, Well, the Clintons were machine politicians too. Now does anyone else here think that asking and the Clintons are NOT machine politicians is abrasive? It's just a question. You are projecting something into it. Your response was obviously abrasive. You could have been more humorous about it but you seem to have lost any sense of humor you ever had. There's a huge amount of Clinton attachment from a lot PUMAs who couldn't let go of Hillary's defeat Uh, that would be utter and complete bullshit, Vaj. You're becoming as bad a fantasist as Barry. You know who's perseverating here? You are. You're stuck on the silly PUMA meme, and you never did know what it was about in the first place. No wonder you get it so embarrassingly wrong when you try to pin it on people (women) you don't like.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
On Nov 5, 2008, at 8:16 PM, Bhairitu wrote: I pretty much limit my responses to trolls here, even ones from New Jersey. ;-) Most of the time I even ignore them. Please don't disturb the trolls! They're already super touchy after having to share their bridges with hordes of illegal aliens... Seriously, maybe if we can get the trolls to go back whence they came, we could lift the terrible censorship that over a thousand people have had to endure because their antisocial behaviors, digital terrorism and karmic crapola.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 5, 2008, at 8:16 PM, Bhairitu wrote: I pretty much limit my responses to trolls here, even ones from New Jersey. ;-) Most of the time I even ignore them. Please don't disturb the trolls! Troll: Anybody who says something Vaj or Bhairitu disagrees with. They're already super touchy after having to share their bridges with hordes of illegal aliens... Seriously, maybe if we can get the trolls to go back whence they came, we could lift the terrible censorship that over a thousand people have had to endure because their antisocial behaviors, digital terrorism and karmic crapola. Oh, geez, now Vaj has gone over the edge. What is it about Obama that makes his supporters grandiose, paranoid, and hallucinatory? I think somebody needs to start a support group for these people before they do serious harm to themselves.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, geez, now Vaj has gone over the edge. What is it about Obama that makes his supporters grandiose, paranoid, and hallucinatory? What a second. What a second. Do we have a grammatical error here.? Should it be make, instead of makes? Please advise
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, lurkernomore20002000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: , authfriend jstein@ wrote: Oh, geez, now Vaj has gone over the edge. What is it about Obama that makes his supporters grandiose, paranoid, and hallucinatory? What a second. What a second. Do we have a grammatical error here.? Should it be make, instead of makes? Why a plural verb?? The subject is What, singular: What makes his supporters...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend wrote: Maybe the office itself will change him; maybe the faith the voters have invested in him will compel him to rise above his own limitations. His restrained, solemn, almost withdrawn demeanor during his victory speech suggested to me that he was coming to grips with what had just happened in a new way and beginning to feel the full extent of the awsome, terrifying responsibility that has settled on his shoulders. His demeanor seemed in keeping with his personality, and with his desire not to alienate the other side, as well as the awesome task ahead. But your remarks makes me think of a teaching by an MIU classmate whose latest book is called Extreme Leadership. Steve Farber worked with Tom Peters before opening his own management consultancy and public speaking practice. His latest book has a secton on the importance of the OS!M, which is the moment when you realize that you've undertaken something so awesome and extreme that you can hardly believe what you've done. Steve gives the example of tobogganing or luging down a steep, icy slope. You slip over the crest and start your descent, and at that moment, you think, Oh shit! That's the Oh Shit! Moment, or OS!M for short. Steve's point is that extreme leadership demands these OS!Ms. He writes about them here: http://www.stevefarber.com/read/#pursue That expression on Obama's face last night - that acceptance speech that George Stephanopoulos said was the most subdued he'd ever seen - may have been influenced by his own OS!M. I've never wished anybody well so hard in my life. I know what you mean. I remember thinking that thing, which you're speaking of, twice, with John Lennon. 1st on the 'Ed Sullivan' show, the first one, where he looked like, I can't believe, this is happening!' Another time, was a more subdued version, but was the same feeling: During the 1st 'Telstar Satellite Worldwide Broadcast LIve' of 'Love is All You Need'...Mick Jagger was part of that group; it's a total classic, forever! R.G.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Mr. UnElectable just won...
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And it looks like it has the makings of a landslide. Guess a few whites voted for him, eh, Bob? Sal ** I'm glad that that dangerous old coot is not going to be president and continue the failed policies of Dumbya, but if there had not been an economic collapse, this election could easily have been taken by the red states. The NYT is saying about 55 mil voted for Obama, 51 mil for McCain -- this was a close race in popular terms, even if distorted by the vagaries of the electoral system, and fortunately, it's the economy, stupid saved the day for the dems.
