Posts by Richard Llewellyn
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Having an in-house TV critic probably excuses you.
I've got one of those too :)
-
Yowza - good deal from Orcon. But danged if I can open their home page at www.orcon.net.nz
-
Plus, are you sure it was Bill'O? Not Limbaugh? Taking such a partisan position doesn't really seem like Bill'O
Doh! - you are correct.
-
On that note, it would also be interesting to see some stats on Dems who turned out to vote this year only because there was a candidate who was perceived (rightly or wrongly) as outside of the party orthodoxy.
-
If the Dems were determining this, Clinton would likely be winning.
Hmmm, thats an interesting claim Graeme, if true, I'd love to see the evidence.
While its true that Republicans and Independents can vote in some states (which is bizarre) I've heard plenty of people point out that this allows tactical voting from Republicans, who have been exhorted by the likes of Bill O'Reilly to vote for Clinton to ensure she wins the nomination (on the basis that many Republicans believe HRC will be easier to beat). If anything, there is an argument that suggests that this anomaly has actually benefited HRC. It would be good to see some facts and figures around the non-Democrat voting patterns .....
-
I should add, regardless of the outcome of this fascinating race, I'd have no issue with Clinton or Obama (or McCain for that matter) as Prez - I'm sure any one of them would be infinitely better than the incumbent :)
-
Ah well Neil, I don't buy into the Saint Obama view either (he's not the messiah etc), but my take on the Clinton camp behaviour is so different to yours that we must be either reading different sources or coming at it from a different base. Might have to agree to differ there.
By scorched earth I mean, for example, Hillary's recent suggestion that only she and McCain are experienced enough to do the job - with its sub-text that if she doesn't win the nomination that a Republican would be better than a Democrat. Or her use of a proxy like Ferraro to raise the race card again, or her cleverly worded denial that Obama is a Muslim "as far as I know", or her attempts to change the rules in Florida after the fact etc etc.
Now I'm sure you can item examples where Obamas camp has returned fire or wallowed in the mud, but the point is that *most* of this Democratic friendly-fire has come from Clinton. Yes its all politics, and yes she and her family are steeped in this sort of tactic, and yes its a rough tough blood-sport. But at what point does a losing candidate put the interests of the party above their own?
I just don't buy the line that this protracted battle helps the Dems come Nov. Say that Clinton does twist enough Super Delegate arms to overturn the pledged delegate vote and give her the nomination, while one could argue that this is the very function that the Super Delegates are there to provide, it seems the antithesis of the notion of a democracy - and I'd say exactly the same if the candidate positions were reversed.
-
I dunno Neil, I mean I get that to some extent all politicians share certain expediencies (and most political systems encourage it), but I just don't see Obama and Clinton as having particularly similar styles or MO's (which is part of the reason that this seemingly even-matched race is so enthralling).
From where I've been standing, it seems fairly clear that the vast majority of the dirty pool and negative politics has been coming from the Clinton camp - which to my mind just reinforces the argument that this is a classicly pitched battle between old establishment and something that, at least for now, has the refreshing appeal of change (much like the appeal of Tony Blair after decades of Thatcherism, heh :)
And while I'm sure Obama is not the messiah (or even a naughty boy), given that it already seems mathematically impossible for Clinton to win the nomination on the basis of a popular vote, the willingness of her camp to fight on with such a scorched earth policy strikes me as being against the interests of the Democrats, and probably against the interests of a healthy US democracy - 'welcome to the best democracy that your Super Delegate mates can deliver'.
That, in a nutshell, is why I'll be glad to see the back of her and her dynastic ambitions - not, mind you, that I am for a minute assuming that her and Bill will cede power to anyone unless it is prised from their cold dead hands :)
-
Madness indeed.
Completely off-topic, and without vouching for its veracity, I am finding the current Clinton spin about a change in momentum interesting to say the least in light of this
-
There are US states where taking a leak down an alley at night can get you on a sex offenders' register.
Isn't that a Jimmy McGovern script?