I can't think of an example of someone behaving worse than her at the moment. I'm starting to suspect that she's ACTUALLY insane, no-one's ego could be that monstrous surely?
- Features: * Hove Festival 2008: DiS diary, day four
- Features: * Hove Festival 2008: DiS diary, day three
- Features: * Hove Festival 2008: DiS diary, day two
- Features: * Hove Festival 2008: DiS diary, day one
- Features: * In Photos: Download Festival 2008
- Features: * The Weekly DiScussion: Is stadium rock back?
- Features: * Dot To Dot 2008: the DiS review
- Features: * Primavera Sound 2008: DiS's festival highlights
- Features: * Primavera Sound 2008: DiS diary, day three
- Features: * Primavera Sound 2008: DiS diary, day two
- Features: * Primavera Sound 2008: DiS diary, day one
- Features: * Primavera Sound 2008: the DiS preview
- Features: * Explosions' ATP: the DiS review
- Features: * Dot To Dot 2008: the DiS preview
- Features: * The Great Escape 2008: the DiS review
Drowned in Sound Event sponsored tours and events.
- * Her Name Is Calla, Glissando @ Leeds The Packhorse, 4/07
- * Club Fandango @ London The Wilmington, 4/07
- * Wild Beasts @ Leeds Cockpit, 4/07
- * Jaguar Love @ Brighton Audio, 5/07
- * Her Name Is Calla, Glissando @ York City Screen Basement Bar, 5/07
- * Her Name Is Calla, Glissando @ Birmingham Concrete, 6/07
- * Brainlove Alldayer @ Brighton Westhill Community Centre, 6/07
- * Her Name Is Calla, Glissando @ Newcastle upon Tyne Head of Steam, 7/07
- * White Denim @ Nottingham Bodega Social Club, 7/07
- * Ladytron, Interpol @ Manchester Apollo, 8/07
- * Jaguar Love @ London 100 Club, 8/07
- * The National @ Belfast Mandela Hall at Belfast University, 8/07
- * Her Name Is Calla, Glissando @ London The Enterprise, 8/07
- * Cryptacize @ Nottingham Bunkers Hill Inn, 8/07
- * Frightened Rabbit @ London Madame Jo Jo's, 8/07
Oh, and this, obviously:
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/desperate_hillary_to_obama
You do realise the onion is a joke website???
NO.
Of course, I was just pre-empting the inevitable.
But she is a war hero!
srsly?
NO
Stop misposting
10/10
They're all nutter all-American Presidential candidates
(well basically). What do you expect? They're all nuts. Every one of them.
Hilaryous
Hilary CLOLinton
Hilarity Clinton
I really thought she'd end up being president; she ticks the 'looking insane and usually somewhat evil in a lot of photos' tickbox that almost all US presidents and UK prime ministers exhibit.
http://a3.vox.com/6a00d414291430685e00d4142a9bf3685e-320pi
http://www.funfacts.com.au/images/george-w-bush.jpg
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/12/13/tony_blair_narrowweb__300x410,0.jpg
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39622000/jpg/_39622391_brown_smile203.jpg
At the outset
she looked like an odds on bet for at least the Democratic candidate, if not overall winner in the election. As thing stands, she seems to be increasingly trying to destroy any lingering hopes she may have had in being electable - as Alley says lower down, the longer she goes on like this, the more floating voters'll be turned off the idea of voting for her.
where's pocketmouse?
and what has hilldawg done now?
i want to throw my jissom down hillary's throat
She really is behaving poorly, and she has been for some time.
I would still vote for her if she was to be the nominee (which she certainly won't be), but I've been massively put off for awhile now, so imagine how swing voters must feel.
I don't know
She is blatantly going to play the swing-states card to the super delegates when she finally loses on numbers to Obama
She is going to play every card in the book, but I don't think the majority of superdelegates will g
They'd have to all be dense; if Clinton was the nominee, the Democrats would definitely lose out to McCain. And Obama's surpassed her in superdelegates at this point, with multiple superdelegates even switching over from her to him, and I think that trend will only continue.
My understanding of it though
is that as Clinton has won many of the states that will prove decisive in the actual election, she will be a more attractive candidate to those who want the Democrats to win the presidency at any cost. But then I don't really know too much and could have simplified this too much.
I certainly hope she doesn't win the nomination.
Yeah, mainly Ohio.
But trend-wise, in the next stage of campaigning, she will face an amazingly tough battle from the GOP, and she hasn't even been able to handle the Democratic race with grace; I don't see how she will come off any better against McCain. In addition to the fact that she wouldn't win anyway. I think Obama stands a much better chance of overcoming McCain. And not just because of abstaining from nasty behavior, of course, but as for this thread's subject.
Her arguement is weak though
Obama could redraw the electoral map. He could play in North Carolina, Iowa and Colarado and Virginia.
Hillary Clinton is saying she can win Ohio. This is exactly the plan Kerry made in 2004. He staked his campaign on Ohio. He didn't get it and we got 4 more years of Bush.
The latest poll I saw
had Clinton beating McCain by a bigger margin than Obama.....
Where?
Not sure that it was this one, but it's recent enough
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-poll10-2008may10,0,6816866.story
Yes, it's close to identical, but it's not as if Obama is far ahead there, is it?
rasmussen
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/general_election_match_up_history
Yeah, I think he has a better chance of overcoming McCain.
I think the longer the race goes on, the less attractive she'll be to swing voters.
Most voters haven't really thought about their vote though.
In the early summer of 2007 Clinton was leading Obama 70-30 among blacks. This is now a group that now votes for Obama 92-8. The explanation is that most African Americans didn't know Obama was black.
The polls now do not reflect an electorate that will be voting in November.
"The explanation is that most African Americans didn't know Obama was black."
Err, what the fuck? How does that work? That sounds like the lamest, most disparaging explanation ever. Laying aside the crapness of such racial profiling in the first place, how about they simply decided they preferred Obama?
People are stupid
i think
Obama will get the nomination, McCain will win the election, and Clinton will win next time round, in four years. But, i'm always wrong.
Hilary Clinton will NEVER be President.
OK could you please sum up
why she is bad/awful (Im not denying it, I just dont know anything bout why she's particularly bad)
She isn't
Just lots of people are stupid and like cult-like stuff, and not people who know what they're doing.
Fuck me, you're showing all of the arrogance of a Labour party activist..........
It's one thing to support a particular candidate or indeed a political party, but to maintain that everyone else is making a mistake and would clearly realise this if only they were intelligent enough to share your incredible insight is absurd.
You hold a minority viewpoint and you're supporting the losing side, deal with it. That's democracy!
That's why I think democracy is stupid
Get help.
That doesn't sound terribly democratic
I'll pass. But thanks anyhow.
heh
well I actually agree with you on that one. Democracyis a nice idea, but in practice ever since getting it countries who 'practice it' seem hell bent on trying to get around its strengths by using ploys, which end up crippling it.
So what do you propose instead?
PocketMouse dictatorship
And if anyone disagrees with her decisions, she calls them stupid. What could go wrong?
:D
Can we test this on DiS first
I can run it as a mni-dictatorship to see how ready I am. I'm not entirely sure I could do it right now...
You can be in charge of me for a couple of days
in the name of political experimentation?
Okay, sure
Don't do anything stupid.
I'm in way too deep
I think it would work if I was your
Dick cheney and you were my puppet
I'll dick your puppet Cheney
And I, for one,
would welcome that
Better democracy
Not just what I propose, but by making sure that its 'supporters' stop taking the piss.
Just for a starter prop rep.....why not? what can be the possible reason?
Also everyone is sick of party politics taking up most of the time rather than administration and good policy formation. People hate the gain saying and fear of blame for doing whats right.
so surely policy should be made by all elected mps, not just the winning party.
Work should be done by cross party working groups to take the work done by government (for the country) is in the countries best interest (not electioneering party stuff) it
Lots and lots of obvious (but rather mundane stuff actually)
Whips to be abolished and canes to replace them etc etc.
Direct injection of ideas and solutions and questions (from the public) to be able to be squited directly into the debating chamber without having one particular party sponsering it (so it can be treated seriously and honestly.....Im being brief but broad here and therefore obviously lacking in depth........just take it as read that there is depth and detail behind my ideas.......believe me I could make this post exceedingly long
Many denigrators to
democratic government are not directly all politicians fault, many are due to media (press) and tv/radio soundbite tendancy. Advertising and quickly paced tv progs have done much to reduce peoples attention (boredom) threshold so that to get teh majority vote you must be able to communicate stuff in a soundbite and 'look good' this is entirely different to the idea of reasoning.....no one seems to like uncertainty (even if this were the truth....it looks better to be certain (even if youre not.....which means that politicians are encouraged to lie and distort the truth in an atempt to get elected)
Basically there are certain mechanisms in our society that almost demand that politicains are dishonest (or economical with the truth) if they want to win the election.......which means what? that the electorate is making decisions on lies.....how is that good?
well it does mean that the government cannot just torture and kill us to stay in power....democracy means they have to win a puplicity/popularity contest....
It should be a primary concern of parliament that it should always be trying to lesson the effect of those mechanisms that will encourage politicians to lie.
Parliament seems to have no such ethos or functional department.....how can I consider that democracy is taken seriously given this.....its just a sop to you all Haw Haw (Nelsons voice)
^ used some wrong words in that like
'denigrators' should have said 'negative factors'
Your post shows a fundamental lack of understanding of this primary season.
Hillary Clinton supporters are holding as much of a minority view point as Barack Obama supporters.
Both candidates are garnering around 45% of the Democratic party. Obama is ahead in delegates due to a really good run of states in February that gave me serious momentum. Momentum he hasn't seen in a while. His support is not crossing 50% these days and until it does his supporters are still in the minority.
Because she lost the nomination a long time ago
but is refusing to concede, thereby endlessly drawing out the nomination process and delaying Democratic preparations for the Presidential election.
Well she was a victim of her own sucess.
When Obama was winning lots of states that were naturally very friendly to him. Hillary says my wins will be big ones in Texas and Ohio. She does ok in Ohio but only squeaks a win in Texas. This doesn't undo the wins Obama has accumilated so she is behind - she hasn't done enough. But she's just won the second biggest state and the most crucial swing state so she can't quit.
This has been her story. Mediocre wins that aren't good enough to overtake Obama but press-worhty enough to keep her campaign legitamate.
In summary
negative campaigning + blatant lies. (That's quite simplistic, but roughly sums it up)
I'd take negative campaigning over
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgqgmXASpHs
(stupid video, but the point is there)
Plus, she's basically been forced into negative campaigning by the media. And all the negativity in the Obama camp is always ignored.
Kaka's just been reported dead
He choked on a frozen baguette. He was practising fellatio.
That video is utter bollocks
What point does it make? That fake money can't buy you anything? Shock horror
I said the video was stupid
But the point stands, that the whole Obama campaign is built around cult stuff, chanting and HOPE. I hate that hope more than anything. I'm not going to introduce universal healthcare, but you have my hope. That's great, really.
All American elections have some levels of cult
I admit, that the aura surrounding Obama takes it to another level, but its not really any different. People are excited by him, and I think that the american people are fed up of bush/clinton domination of the last 20 years. They seem to want a change.
As a person, I see Clinton as someone who has put her pride and career before her dignity. How many other women would have stood by their husband after what Bill Clinton did?
That's a load of shite.
I am so sick of Clinton and Co. trying to portray Obama as just some sort of incompetent charmer. He didn't get to be where he was before the election by being incompetent, but OH, having charm. And he's not gotten to where he is in the race now by that either. He has got views and plans, though I know you will insist that he doesn't, as you always do. But you are wrong. And it is massively ridiculous to conclude that all the people who have gotten behind his campaign have done so just because of "chants and hope." If you think the majority of people are so stupid, you shouldn't be so concerned about who they vote for; they're all fucked anyway, eh? Who cares?
No, I do want the best for people
I just don't think people are good at deciding what it is that is best for them.
So whta are his views and plans then?
What makes you good at deciding what is best for 'them'?
In fact, what makes anyone 'know best' or better than the people who are affected?
I know better because
I'm not stupid?
:D
Oh you've won me over with that one Mousey.
Some short answers:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ (follow the links for more, it's fairly extensive)
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/issues/index.html (one outside source, for now)
Can I post more later? I have work soon.
WOAH
Middle-class overload.
That just sounds liek someone sayiong what they think will get them elected to me....
Clinton talks about the middle class all the fucking time.
And Obama is well-reasoned; he's not pandering. Clinton, though, panders quite a bit. Though I'm thinking more of her campaigning than her policies with that statement. Anyway.
I know she does
She also does far more to appeal to low-income / blue-collar voters than Obama does. She knows you need to win the middle class to win nomination / presidency. Obama knows that too, so he does it. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. But you're saying Obama is more principled and more honest, and then replying with "But Hillary does it too!!". That doesn't make sense.
I didn't say too.
You said he's only pandering, I said he's not. Then I said that Clinton does though.
So his principles are that
it's the governments responsibility to help the middle class in every way, and not really do anything for the people who need it?
Wow.
She never lies
Only misspeaks
Oh come on
a) How is it even a big deal, if it's the worst they can come up with, then great
b) It's probably speech writer stuff
c) If Obama had been in the spotlight for years he'd no doubt have tons of these, in fact he probably does, but like the media would ever dig those up...
I'm sorry
You've mistaken a glib remark for something much more politically charged.
But by the by, being a good, convincing liar and thinking on your feet are unfortuneately necessary to be a good politician.
She could have used dozens of terms
to get around a blantant lie. "Misspeak" isn't one of them. Even outright saying "I made a mistake, I shouldn't have said that" would've served her better than claiming she misspoke. She's not only admitted trying to mislead the American public, but also failed to admit that to do so quite so blatantly was wrong. How on earth can you expect people to trust her when she's that obvious about it?
I do think it was handled badly
But I fail to see how something so insignificant should change my opinion on someone. The Obama healthcare booklet which came out at the same time and therefore was swept under the carpet I think was far, far worse.
If she's willing to try and
mislead the Amemerican public so blatantly **AND THEN TRY AND JUSTIFY DOING SO**, how can you trust anything else she says again?
Because I do
And even if she 'misspeaks' again (and again and again) I still trust that she's a good person trying to achieve good things. But like I've said, people hate the truth whether it's good or bad.
But we've established
that she wasn't telling the truth and was deliberately trying to mislead - indeed she pretty much admitted it. Like it or not, she's a proven liar. That's a major flaw in someone that you're expecting people to trust with running their country for four years.
I was using misspeak
in the way you were meaning it (lying) in that post. Hence the speech thingys.