Come the general election, I'd like to see a series of "single issue debates". Like, the candidates will have to answer tough questions - respond to the other side's talking points. You know, if we cover one issue per debate, we might have time to get into the details. The current debate situation is absolute shit - the candidates have about 3-4 minutes to give the entire breadth and depth of their positions. We the fuck do we learn from that? We know what their positions are, ask them to prove more strongly why it will fucking work. I mean, get questions from experts. Get questions from opposition pundits. Force the candidates to respond to the spin they know is coming.
Come the general election, I'd like to see a series of "single issue debates". Like, the candidates will have to answer tough questions - respond to the other side's talking points. You know, if we cover one issue per debate, we might have time to get into the details. The current debate situation is absolute shit - the candidates have about 3-4 minutes to give the entire breadth and depth of their positions. We the fuck do we learn from that? We know what their positions are, ask them to prove more strongly why it will fucking work. I mean, get questions from experts. Get questions from opposition pundits. Force the candidates to respond to the spin they know is coming.
I like that idea. And it will help prevent the "do you love America" or "why did you sit next to that neo-nazi back in kindergarten" questions
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I was reading an article in the Guardian just now on an Obama "mistake" and thinking it was dumb, before I checked the author's profile and found she writes for.. Shakespeare's Sister. They've escaped the blog!
Oh and if any of you have a chance to catch it, watch the HBO film Recount about the 2000 Florida recount. It actually does a good job of portraying both sides. Laura Dern's playing of Katherine Harris seems spot on and almost makes her look human in some instances.
NRO was steaming over it, so it can't be all bad.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I was reading an article in the Guardian just now on an Obama "mistake" and thinking it was dumb, before I checked the author's profile and found she writes for.. Shakespeare's Sister. They've escaped the blog!
So wait, have you all discussed the amusing "give half of the uncommitted MI vote to Clinton even though she was actually a vote choice" line her crew is throwing out?
Because I think that actually broke this campaign right into absolute absurdity.
I wish I had recorded every last second of cable news Television as well so that I could put together a few minutes of clips of people making poor quotes and make it about Obama.
We all know there has been sexism. We got that. It's unfortunate.
To say that she's the only one who has had to endure hardships from the media is just ... absurd. A youtube video of things said about Obama simply on the subject of Wright would probably make for just as long a video as the one linked (With the dramatic music and powerpoint-style quotes thrown in for good measure)
Talking constantly about what powerful women wear is only a compliment at the very shallowest level of understanding.
Really?
What I took away from that video was basically that sexism in America doesn't have the same malice in it as racism, and videos like that are just trying to blow things out of proportions.
That is to say, it's a terrible video. Probably made by some woman.
I must have missed the day it was decided that examples of sexism directed at a presidential candidate stopped being a worthy topic of discussion.
Why?
Because it's not on every channel? Because it hasn't had so profound an effect on the election that it's actually determine who has won some states, the same way racism has?
I wish I had recorded every last second of cable news Television as well so that I could put together a few minutes of clips of people making poor quotes and make it about Obama.
We all know there has been sexism. We got that. It's unfortunate.
To say that she's the only one who has had to endure hardships from the media is just ... absurd. A youtube video of things said about Obama simply on the subject of Wright would probably make for just as long a video as the one linked (With the dramatic music and powerpoint-style quotes thrown in for good measure)
In case you didn't notice, the clip wasn't exclusively about Clinton though. And considering what douche bags Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly and Pat Buchanon are, I have a hard time thinking that was the full extent of the sexism in the media. Your second point is true though, I'd be interested to see how much racist bullshit manages to make it on air.
Focusing on a woman's appearance to the extent where her worth is determined largely by how she looks is a common and overwhelming problem for the female sex, whereas comments about how men look are generally limited and also one of the last things used to decide whether or not a man is qualified. Frankly, you can't equivocate between the two, because even if it seems like the same things are being said in both instances (and no, nobody has complained about Obama showing cleavage or looking too terrible for the job) the fact still remains that comments about men generally have no lasting effect whereas comments and judgments about women which zero in on their looks and never dare to examine anything else about them have held them back for generations and continue to do so, even when a woman is seeking the highest station in this country.
I think it's interesting that all of it is distinguished as sexism. I thought sexism was a belief or attitude that the other sex was invaluable or inferior in some way - and whether or not the people in the video think or express it outright some of what they said didn't seem 'sexist' to me in that definition of the word.
Classy? No. Intelligent? Probably not.
Though, saying that a woman has 'interesting cosmetics' or talking about her shirt is not really expressing that she is somehow less valuable or inferior. It's a discussion about a shirt. It might refer to some implications about her personality, sure. Are these implications always positive? No, it's cable news. Is it saying that her being a woman makes her weak and feeble? No. ( I realize at points they do in fact say things like, 'men hate women rabble rabble rabble' )
Yes, there's sexism in this video. Some. Sexist people? Probably.
But it's not all sexism. Some of it is just stupidity. Some of it is just ignorance. Some of it is sexism. Please don't tell me anybody believes that all of that is sexism - not that anybody here has suggested that.
I must have missed the day it was decided that examples of sexism directed at a presidential candidate stopped being a worthy topic of discussion.
Why?
Because it's not on every channel? Because it hasn't had so profound an effect on the election that it's actually determine who has won some states, the same way racism has?
Because if it has no significant effect on the election, then it's not relevant to the thread.
That's a really narrow definition of "sexism", Ronaldo. Saying "women should be protected" isn't "sexism" by that strict definition, but we all know it is. Men's clothes just aren't analysed.
1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.
2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; esp., such discrimination directed against women.
I must have missed the day it was decided that examples of sexism directed at a presidential candidate stopped being a worthy topic of discussion.
Why?
Because it's not on every channel? Because it hasn't had so profound an effect on the election that it's actually determine who has won some states, the same way racism has?
Because if it has no significant effect on the election, then it's not relevant to the thread.
I must have missed the day it was decided that examples of sexism directed at a presidential candidate stopped being a worthy topic of discussion.
Why?
Because it's not on every channel? Because it hasn't had so profound an effect on the election that it's actually determine who has won some states, the same way racism has?
Because if it has no significant effect on the election, then it's not relevant to the thread.
Are you being sarcastic?
Ok, let me do it this way:
Have we established that sexism is a significant force when it came up the last 300 times, and is not mitigated by racism? Y/N
If Y: Relevant to the thread and worthy of discussion
If N: Tangential and not relevant
That's a really narrow definition of "sexism", Ronaldo. Saying "women should be protected" isn't "sexism" by that strict definition, but we all know it is. Men's clothes just aren't analysed.
Saying "women should be protected" implies that they are inferior and need our protection. It is most assuredly sexist under the definition I previously posted.
Though yes, it is a little bland for a D&D topic, and for that I apologize - but I think it's inefficient to paint everything with the same brush. Why mark all stupid behavior as one particularly nasty form of behavior? All it does is empower people to speak out about sexism. Sexism exists, and people should be aware of it and try to abstain from making comments or even thinking in such a fashion. Wishful thinking, I know, but it seems to get more attention with more exposure, and by branding -all- of this as sexism the message gets out there and maybe something will be done about it.
Which is fantastic.
But as an end product we'll have a much broader definition of sexism, and things that weren't sexist will become sexist - it will be sexist to evaluate, observe, or comment on a woman in any way that is not within a narrow range of what is found to be respectful. It's a weak hypothetical, but it's why I think we need to keep sexism as what is intentionally sexism and not start lumping all of it together and just calling it sexism.
Like I said, all of this stuff was at the least very stupid. Some of it was jaw-hanging "what are they thinking?" I'm ready to call them all jerks just the same, but I just want to distinguish things ... perhaps pointlessly.
Mens clothes are analyzed all the time. They talked about Obama's suits, his flagpin wearing, etc.
That's a really narrow definition of "sexism", Ronaldo. Saying "women should be protected" isn't "sexism" by that strict definition, but we all know it is. Men's clothes just aren't analysed.
That's a really narrow definition of "sexism", Ronaldo. Saying "women should be protected" isn't "sexism" by that strict definition, but we all know it is. Men's clothes just aren't analysed.
Only the price of their barber.
Which is then framed as "they're like a girl, eww!"
That's a really narrow definition of "sexism", Ronaldo. Saying "women should be protected" isn't "sexism" by that strict definition, but we all know it is. Men's clothes just aren't analysed.
Only the price of their barber.
Which is then framed as "they're like a girl, eww!"
If John Edwards is wrong, I don't want to be right.
EDIT: I was promised a jet ski if I made this post. I have not yet received my jet ski.
That's a really narrow definition of "sexism", Ronaldo. Saying "women should be protected" isn't "sexism" by that strict definition, but we all know it is. Men's clothes just aren't analysed.
Only the price of their barber.
I've seen discussions of what color ties people are wearing, or the choice of casual dress over a suit, but it's usually not in the same context that discussion of what women wear is.
Look, there's more to sexism than variations on the sentence "women are inferior in some way".
If a woman, say, invents a cure for cancer or runs for president, and a person's primary reaction to that is "cute blouse" or "what shade of lipstick is that" or "boy howdy there's some tits on her", that too is sexism.
This is in no large part what caused Clinton to lose the nomination, although it certainly happens frequently enough.
So wait, have you all discussed the amusing "give half of the uncommitted MI vote to Clinton even though she was actually a vote choice" line her crew is throwing out?
Because I think that actually broke this campaign right into absolute absurdity.
Look, there's more to sexism than variations on the sentence "women are inferior in some way".
I agree. I just worry that the more vague we make our definition, the more it is open for people to just paint any negative comment or idea towards a woman as being 'sexist' - luckily I am on the PA forums and amidst intelligent people, perhaps I am just being overly cautious or ignorant.
If a woman, say, invents a cure for cancer or runs for president, and a person's primary reaction to that is "cute blouse" or "what shade of lipstick is that" or "boy howdy there's some tits on her", that too is sexism.
Saying such things can be sexist (particularly the last one, pretty much all of the time - unless maybe you are in bed with them) but I think I am prepared to make a distinction that it can be sexist or not given the context of their discussion. If they're saying it in a derisive way and are just passing off the persons accomplishments or individual merits to devalue their accomplishments or character ... then yes, that's sexist. If little comments like that are disjointed additions to a bigger conversation, or (quasi)legitimate little points of notice then I find it more to be just having a poor choice of topic or something else like that.
If I think a blouse is cute and I say it's a cute blouse, I don't always deep down mean that I wish women would never leave the kitchen or laundry room. Sometimes, I just think a blouse is cute. I'm getting off topic, though - and I guess I will let my peculiar stance on the subject hang so we can get back to primary discussion. I don't want to be any more harrowing than I might have already been.
This is in no large part what caused Clinton to lose the nomination, although it certainly happens frequently enough.
Wait they're actually saying that some of the uncommitted delegates who correspond to votes that specifically did not choose Clinton should be given to Clinton?
So wait, have you all discussed the amusing "give half of the uncommitted MI vote to Clinton even though she was actually a vote choice" line her crew is throwing out?
Because I think that actually broke this campaign right into absolute absurdity.
I quite like that they've been making that proposal. It basically admits right out that the vote wasn't fair.
Come the general election, I'd like to see a series of "single issue debates". Like, the candidates will have to answer tough questions - respond to the other side's talking points. You know, if we cover one issue per debate, we might have time to get into the details. The current debate situation is absolute shit - the candidates have about 3-4 minutes to give the entire breadth and depth of their positions. We the fuck do we learn from that? We know what their positions are, ask them to prove more strongly why it will fucking work. I mean, get questions from experts. Get questions from opposition pundits. Force the candidates to respond to the spin they know is coming.
How broadly do you define 'issue'? Do you, for example, use "the economy" or "foreign policy" (the latter of which is already used in general election debates), or do you narrow it to "housing" and "Iraq", or even further to "foreclosure" and "Blackwater"?
The thing I'd like to see is a marathon debate. Get a good moderator or two, and tell them they have the floor as long as they see fit. The only use for 3-minute summaries would be soundbites. The moderator can keep you there until dawnbreak if he still wants answers he believes he hasn't gotten.
who turned out in record numbers though they were told their votes didn't count, were not responsible for the rules violations, and don't want to be disenfranchised
That's like walking into school on a saturday and demanding credit.
I was told my being here would not count, but because a lot of people came, it should count.
There was absolutely sexism in this primary. It was flaunted about publicly by many in the media, and it drifted through vote after vote like a rancid chili dog fart. Sexism definitely exists, and it definitely informed people's votes. If Hillary had been running against an Old White Dude, she would have a defensible case that sexism cost her the election.
But.
But.
She wasn't running against an Old White Dude. She was running against a Young Black Dude. And while Hillary fell prey to the condescending sit-com sexism of the Beaver Cleaver era, Obama fell prey to the spiteful Hang-That-Fucking-Darkie-From-A-Tree racism that slinks about the backwaters of Appalachia. Sexism is undoubtedly more prevalent in our country, but racism is more pernicious. And when you consider that the more egregious examples of the former also likely suffer the latter, you wind up with a situation in which Hillary gets a lot of votes from folks who would never vote for a woman, except when the alternative is an uppity n****r.
Beyond this, Hillary has a built-in counterbalance to the sexist vote in the form of 55% of the electorate being women. For every three guys voting against Hillary because she's a chick, you have two gals voting for her for the same reason. Somehow, I doubt Obama has access to this handy-dandy mechanism in the regions of our nation that still skitter under a rock when you turn on the light.
So yeah, Hillary dealt with sexism. But this whole primary has been Battle of the -Isms, and everybody who's been paying attention knows that she was on the lucky side.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Come the general election, I'd like to see a series of "single issue debates". Like, the candidates will have to answer tough questions - respond to the other side's talking points. You know, if we cover one issue per debate, we might have time to get into the details. The current debate situation is absolute shit - the candidates have about 3-4 minutes to give the entire breadth and depth of their positions. We the fuck do we learn from that? We know what their positions are, ask them to prove more strongly why it will fucking work. I mean, get questions from experts. Get questions from opposition pundits. Force the candidates to respond to the spin they know is coming.
How broadly do you define 'issue'? Do you, for example, use "the economy" or "foreign policy" (the latter of which is already used in general election debates), or do you narrow it to "housing" and "Iraq", or even further to "foreclosure" and "Blackwater"?
The thing I'd like to see is a marathon debate. Get a good moderator or two, and tell them they have the floor as long as they see fit. The only use for 3-minute summaries would be soundbites. The moderator can keep you there until dawnbreak if he still wants answers he believes he hasn't gotten.
I'd like to see a broad topic like 'foreign policy' that the moderators narrow appropriately and shift the focus around to varying regions/issues under that umbrella. Meaning Gwen Ifill and Robert Siegel have to moderate every debate.
Or, go all Lincoln-Douglass where they each get one debate leading off.
Wait they're actually saying that some of the uncommitted delegates who correspond to votes that specifically did not choose Clinton should be given to Clinton?
Depravity
You must have missed the Shakespeare article arguing that giving Hillary all her MI delegates and then splitting uncommitted evenly between her and Obama was unfair. To Clinton. Because he didn't earn those.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Come the general election, I'd like to see a series of "single issue debates". Like, the candidates will have to answer tough questions - respond to the other side's talking points. You know, if we cover one issue per debate, we might have time to get into the details. The current debate situation is absolute shit - the candidates have about 3-4 minutes to give the entire breadth and depth of their positions. We the fuck do we learn from that? We know what their positions are, ask them to prove more strongly why it will fucking work. I mean, get questions from experts. Get questions from opposition pundits. Force the candidates to respond to the spin they know is coming.
How broadly do you define 'issue'? Do you, for example, use "the economy" or "foreign policy" (the latter of which is already used in general election debates), or do you narrow it to "housing" and "Iraq", or even further to "foreclosure" and "Blackwater"?
The thing I'd like to see is a marathon debate. Get a good moderator or two, and tell them they have the floor as long as they see fit. The only use for 3-minute summaries would be soundbites. The moderator can keep you there until dawnbreak if he still wants answers he believes he hasn't gotten.
I'd like to see a broad topic like 'foreign policy' that the moderators narrow appropriately and shift the focus around to varying regions/issues under that umbrella. Meaning Gwen Ifill and Robert Siegel have to moderate every debate.
Or, go all Lincoln-Douglass where they each get one debate leading off.
This whole thing sounds like a great idea until you realize that they'd have a 90 minute L-D debate devoted to flag pins.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic. “Now obviously, something had really affected him deeply, but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,” Obama said. “That’s why this idea of making sure that every single veteran, when they are discharged, are screened for post-traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need – that’s why it’s so important.”
Except, as far as anyone seems to know, it was the Russians who liberated Auschwitz.
Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic. “Now obviously, something had really affected him deeply, but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,†Obama said. “That’s why this idea of making sure that every single veteran, when they are discharged, are screened for post-traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need – that’s why it’s so important.â€
Except, as far as anyone seems to know, it was the Russians who liberated Auschwitz.
Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic. “Now obviously, something had really affected him deeply, but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,†Obama said. “That’s why this idea of making sure that every single veteran, when they are discharged, are screened for post-traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need – that’s why it’s so important.â€
Except, as far as anyone seems to know, it was the Russians who liberated Auschwitz.
Huh, that might be one of his very few genuine gaffes. I can't see how he can explain that - I mean, Auschwitz is in Poland.
Obama also spoke about his uncle, who was part of the American brigade that helped to liberate Auschwitz. He said the family legend is that, upon returning from war, his uncle spent six months in an attic. “Now obviously, something had really affected him deeply, but at that time there just weren’t the kinds of facilities to help somebody work through that kind of pain,†Obama said. “That’s why this idea of making sure that every single veteran, when they are discharged, are screened for post-traumatic stress disorder and given the mental health services that they need – that’s why it’s so important.â€
Except, as far as anyone seems to know, it was the Russians who liberated Auschwitz.
So he's admitting to be a commie?
The Soviets got most all of the Polish camps while the US got the German ones. Maybe he was thinking of Buchenwald instead of Birkenau?
Posts
Come the general election, I'd like to see a series of "single issue debates". Like, the candidates will have to answer tough questions - respond to the other side's talking points. You know, if we cover one issue per debate, we might have time to get into the details. The current debate situation is absolute shit - the candidates have about 3-4 minutes to give the entire breadth and depth of their positions. We the fuck do we learn from that? We know what their positions are, ask them to prove more strongly why it will fucking work. I mean, get questions from experts. Get questions from opposition pundits. Force the candidates to respond to the spin they know is coming.
I like that idea. And it will help prevent the "do you love America" or "why did you sit next to that neo-nazi back in kindergarten" questions
NRO was steaming over it, so it can't be all bad.
Wow, that was as terrible as suggested.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Because I think that actually broke this campaign right into absolute absurdity.
We all know there has been sexism. We got that. It's unfortunate.
To say that she's the only one who has had to endure hardships from the media is just ... absurd. A youtube video of things said about Obama simply on the subject of Wright would probably make for just as long a video as the one linked (With the dramatic music and powerpoint-style quotes thrown in for good measure)
Really?
What I took away from that video was basically that sexism in America doesn't have the same malice in it as racism, and videos like that are just trying to blow things out of proportions.
That is to say, it's a terrible video. Probably made by some woman.
Why?
Because it's not on every channel? Because it hasn't had so profound an effect on the election that it's actually determine who has won some states, the same way racism has?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
In case you didn't notice, the clip wasn't exclusively about Clinton though. And considering what douche bags Chris Matthews, Bill O'Reilly and Pat Buchanon are, I have a hard time thinking that was the full extent of the sexism in the media. Your second point is true though, I'd be interested to see how much racist bullshit manages to make it on air.
Classy? No. Intelligent? Probably not.
Though, saying that a woman has 'interesting cosmetics' or talking about her shirt is not really expressing that she is somehow less valuable or inferior. It's a discussion about a shirt. It might refer to some implications about her personality, sure. Are these implications always positive? No, it's cable news. Is it saying that her being a woman makes her weak and feeble? No. ( I realize at points they do in fact say things like, 'men hate women rabble rabble rabble' )
Yes, there's sexism in this video. Some. Sexist people? Probably.
But it's not all sexism. Some of it is just stupidity. Some of it is just ignorance. Some of it is sexism. Please don't tell me anybody believes that all of that is sexism - not that anybody here has suggested that.
Because if it has no significant effect on the election, then it's not relevant to the thread.
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Are you being sarcastic?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
Ok, let me do it this way:
Have we established that sexism is a significant force when it came up the last 300 times, and is not mitigated by racism? Y/N
If Y: Relevant to the thread and worthy of discussion
If N: Tangential and not relevant
Saying "women should be protected" implies that they are inferior and need our protection. It is most assuredly sexist under the definition I previously posted.
Though yes, it is a little bland for a D&D topic, and for that I apologize - but I think it's inefficient to paint everything with the same brush. Why mark all stupid behavior as one particularly nasty form of behavior? All it does is empower people to speak out about sexism. Sexism exists, and people should be aware of it and try to abstain from making comments or even thinking in such a fashion. Wishful thinking, I know, but it seems to get more attention with more exposure, and by branding -all- of this as sexism the message gets out there and maybe something will be done about it.
Which is fantastic.
But as an end product we'll have a much broader definition of sexism, and things that weren't sexist will become sexist - it will be sexist to evaluate, observe, or comment on a woman in any way that is not within a narrow range of what is found to be respectful. It's a weak hypothetical, but it's why I think we need to keep sexism as what is intentionally sexism and not start lumping all of it together and just calling it sexism.
Like I said, all of this stuff was at the least very stupid. Some of it was jaw-hanging "what are they thinking?" I'm ready to call them all jerks just the same, but I just want to distinguish things ... perhaps pointlessly.
Mens clothes are analyzed all the time. They talked about Obama's suits, his flagpin wearing, etc.
Only the price of their barber.
If John Edwards is wrong, I don't want to be right.
EDIT: I was promised a jet ski if I made this post. I have not yet received my jet ski.
I've seen discussions of what color ties people are wearing, or the choice of casual dress over a suit, but it's usually not in the same context that discussion of what women wear is.
If a woman, say, invents a cure for cancer or runs for president, and a person's primary reaction to that is "cute blouse" or "what shade of lipstick is that" or "boy howdy there's some tits on her", that too is sexism.
This is in no large part what caused Clinton to lose the nomination, although it certainly happens frequently enough.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10614.html
That's the story about it I could find, by Lanny Davis, who was a Special Counsel for the President for Bill Clinton.
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/adventures-in-lannyland.html
That's the rebuttal that's currently linked from Lanny Davis' wikipedia page.
Depravity
Do you want me to link to every discussion we've had in the history of this thread which would fall under N, or can we just pretend I did?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
How broadly do you define 'issue'? Do you, for example, use "the economy" or "foreign policy" (the latter of which is already used in general election debates), or do you narrow it to "housing" and "Iraq", or even further to "foreclosure" and "Blackwater"?
The thing I'd like to see is a marathon debate. Get a good moderator or two, and tell them they have the floor as long as they see fit. The only use for 3-minute summaries would be soundbites. The moderator can keep you there until dawnbreak if he still wants answers he believes he hasn't gotten.
Also, hillaryis44 got a knock on the door from guys in black suits.
That's like walking into school on a saturday and demanding credit.
I was told my being here would not count, but because a lot of people came, it should count.
But.
But.
She wasn't running against an Old White Dude. She was running against a Young Black Dude. And while Hillary fell prey to the condescending sit-com sexism of the Beaver Cleaver era, Obama fell prey to the spiteful Hang-That-Fucking-Darkie-From-A-Tree racism that slinks about the backwaters of Appalachia. Sexism is undoubtedly more prevalent in our country, but racism is more pernicious. And when you consider that the more egregious examples of the former also likely suffer the latter, you wind up with a situation in which Hillary gets a lot of votes from folks who would never vote for a woman, except when the alternative is an uppity n****r.
Beyond this, Hillary has a built-in counterbalance to the sexist vote in the form of 55% of the electorate being women. For every three guys voting against Hillary because she's a chick, you have two gals voting for her for the same reason. Somehow, I doubt Obama has access to this handy-dandy mechanism in the regions of our nation that still skitter under a rock when you turn on the light.
So yeah, Hillary dealt with sexism. But this whole primary has been Battle of the -Isms, and everybody who's been paying attention knows that she was on the lucky side.
I'd like to see a broad topic like 'foreign policy' that the moderators narrow appropriately and shift the focus around to varying regions/issues under that umbrella. Meaning Gwen Ifill and Robert Siegel have to moderate every debate.
Or, go all Lincoln-Douglass where they each get one debate leading off.
You must have missed the Shakespeare article arguing that giving Hillary all her MI delegates and then splitting uncommitted evenly between her and Obama was unfair. To Clinton. Because he didn't earn those.
This whole thing sounds like a great idea until you realize that they'd have a 90 minute L-D debate devoted to flag pins.
Obama talks about Uncle helping Liberate Auschwitz:
Except, as far as anyone seems to know, it was the Russians who liberated Auschwitz.
Buchenwald
So he's admitting to be a commie?
The Soviets got most all of the Polish camps while the US got the German ones. Maybe he was thinking of Buchenwald instead of Birkenau?