The 2008 Presidential Campaign (was Obama Phenomenon 2)

Discussions of and about the historic 2008 U.S. Presidential Election
Locked
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

I've even seen it proposed in a blog or two that an advantage of picking Clinton as VP would be that she'd serve as a "poison pill"—anyone who hated Obama enough to kill him would probably hate her just as much or more, and killing Obama would make her President.
The same 'joke' Dems have been telling for eight years about Cheney. :(
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

I'm hoping that a President Obama would encourage the wide expansion of wireless broadband, with private or public programs to subsidize it for lower-income people.
Paid for with what, Prim?
User avatar
yovargas
I miss Prim ...
Posts: 15011
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:13 am
Location: Florida

Post by yovargas »

Cerin, I just wanted to correct myself - reviewing the discussion, you're right, your "Lexus" comment wasn't a "strawman". It felt very much like one at the moment but looking back at it, your argument was perfectly valid. On the other hand, sol's "They're the Rich, and so therefore inferior and Undeserving." was unquestionably a strawman tactic.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists


Image
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

solicitr wrote:
I've even seen it proposed in a blog or two that an advantage of picking Clinton as VP would be that she'd serve as a "poison pill"—anyone who hated Obama enough to kill him would probably hate her just as much or more, and killing Obama would make her President.
The same 'joke' Dems have been telling for eight years about Cheney. :(
I have absolutely no doubt that I spend more time reading Democratic and progressive blogs than you do, soli, and I have never read any suggestion of assassinating the president. "Poison pill" references to Cheney are about impeachment, not assassination.

Remember, we're all girlie men (or outright girlies) who are afraid of guns.

solicitr wrote:
I'm hoping that a President Obama would encourage the wide expansion of wireless broadband, with private or public programs to subsidize it for lower-income people.
Paid for with what, Prim?
Read my post, soli.
Last edited by Primula Baggins on Sat May 17, 2008 7:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

'Private' is self-explanatory, Prim- although if 'encouraged' by Pres. Obama implies some sort of tax incentive- and 'public' of course means tax monies. From where?
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

"Encouraged" doesn't have to imply a tax incentive; this is also more of a "utilities" thing that might best be handled locally.

Tax monies come from taxpayers, who pay for things the government does. If the government stops spending money on stupid things, there may be something left over to pay for things that are needed or useful. However, nothing like that can be accomplished if no one tries.

I am frankly sick of the neoconservative trope that no government expenditure, anywhere, ever, is anything but waste unless it's spent on "defense." Or that nothing, ever, can change for the better. Or that people who work to improve our country are weak whiners for believing anything but the policies of the past 28 years (minus that Clinton aberration) are going to produce propserity for everyone (except those who deserve to starve).
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

You know, I don't think there's a categorical division here on the tax debate: except perhaps for Hal, nobody disagrees that
Prim wrote:I also believe that the burden should rightly fall more heavily on those who can afford it.


In fact you're mistaken with
I imagine we part ways there.
Nobody rationally could suggest that it would be anything other than unjust to force those who can barely afford food, or not even, to pay more nondisposable income into the public kitty. (I fiercely deplore the injustice of the effective 'stupidity tax' of state lotteries).


Nel's wonderful post yesterday laid out the sides quite well- but where is the line to be drawn? Who can 'afford to pay more;' who isn't paying 'their fair share'?

I must say it infuriates me to hear some pampered celebrity megamillionaire like Rosie O'Donnell or Julia Roberts tell me that not only am I 'rich' and undertaxed, but that if I resent having more of my income confiscated I am 'greedy' and 'selfish.' How much does the top tax rate diminish their insanely lavish lifestyles (assuming, of course, that their clever accountants can't avoid paying it)? Whereas for me, 'wealthy' 95th percentile that I am, repeal of the Bush cuts will mean choosing between the college fund and a vacation (and, I admit, cost me half my inheritance)

But of course this very slippery definition of 'rich' has been played like a violin by Democratic equivocation - dare I say 'demagoguery?' - of the John Edwards sort. The implication, always just short of outright declaration, is that the Rich who are getting an unjustified free ride are always the sort the targeted voters see on Sweet Sixteen and Real Housewives ('real', hah!!): Cerin's '27th Lexus' gang. Often the term 'millionaire' is tossed out, even though today in some parts of the country a 'millionaire' is just someone whose mortgage is paid off (nonetheless s/he is or will soon be subject to the full fury of Estate Tax).

The reality of course is that when the actual tax proposals are examined, the 'rich' threshhold always seems to include people like Nel and myself.

Yet I would not object (very loudly) to seeing the Bush cuts expire, at direct personal cost, were my sacrifice to be for the sake of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget- or even a serious and responsible attempt to avert the coming Medicare/Social Security cataclysm. But all I'm hearing from Obama, Pelosi and the DNC are ever more lavish ways to spend all that money and more.

To introduce some empiricism what I need to post is a breakdown of the share of taxes paid by income sector- but it will have to wait since I have to take my daughter to riding lessons (no, we don't own the horse). Bye for now.
Last edited by solicitr on Sun May 18, 2008 12:00 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

But all I'm hearing from Obama, Pelosi and the DNC are ever more lavish ways to spend all that money and more.
Ending the war isn't going to save any money? (And no, I don't believe that the cost will vanish, maybe not ever. But it will decrease from the present drunken-pirate level.)

Sure, undoing the damage of the past eight years is going to be expensive. But ending the war and ending the tax cuts (which will also cost me money, of course) will make money available to work toward restoring necessary government services and facilities that have been allowed or encouraged to fall into disrepair.

That was part of the neocon agenda, after all: break successful programs by starving them of funds and appointing incompetents to run them, then point to them and say, see? Government programs don't work.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

I am frankly sick of the neoconservative trope that no government expenditure, anywhere, ever, is anything but waste unless it's spent on "defense." Or that nothing, ever, can change for the better. Or that people who work to improve our country are weak whiners for believing anything but the policies of the past 28 years (minus that Clinton aberration) are going to produce propserity for everyone (except those who deserve to starve)....That was part of the neocon agenda
Prim, speaking as one of the more guilty parties here and a contrite sinner :oops: , it really hasn't helped either the tone or the productivity of this discussion for everybody to keep indulging in 'strawmen' or 'hyperbolic caricatures of opposing viewpoints' or however one wants to term the tactic. All it produces is duelling snarkiness: sound and fury signifying nothing. I think it would be a good idea to let everybody define their own positions, rather than try to (advantageously) define them for them.

That was part of the neocon agenda, after all: break successful programs by starving them of funds....
"Starve the Beast" is hardly neo; it was the David Stockman theory a generation ago. (It would also please the pedant in me if the term (or insult) Neocon be confined to its correct definition, which is a school of foreign policy and military doctrine).
.....and appointing incompetents to run them, then point to them and say, see? Government programs don't work.
Do you really, honestly believe that? It sounds to me just another element of the Randi Rhoades 'Republicans are Cruel and Evil' rhetoric. Brownie was *not* placed in charge of FEMA just to ensure that some disaster-relief effort was miserably botched. Now, GWB has been entirely sui generis and unprecedented in his appointment of incompetent cronies and hacks, but this was a function of selecting for ideological purity over professional qualification. Historically this tendency (to a less marked degree) has been a Democratic hallmark: GOP administrations tend to be slightly more efficient (pre-2001), since the old appointment pool of party faithful tended to be Rotarians and Chamber of Commerce sorts- i.e. businessmen. (Ironically, this was also the pool Bill Clinton availed himself of).

Your assertion would have more force if you could cite a successful program which has been so treated: the counter would be manifestly unsuccessful programs which some in Congress (not all of them Democrats) simply refuse to kill off. The classic here is the system of agriculture subsidies and farm quotas; but I would also bring up an archaic regulatory regime which doddered along for almost 40 years - the insane system of regional fuel distribution that produced the Carter gasoline lines, which lines disappeared with a stroke of Reagan's pen.*

(A quick aside- I remember the miserable Carter Seventies with unmingled horror. What could you possibly find to be nostalgic for about them?)
Ending the war isn't going to save any money? (And no, I don't believe that the cost will vanish, maybe not ever. But it will decrease from the present drunken-pirate level.)


Considering the ungodly size of the deficit, why don't I hear anyone from the out-of-Iraq side propose saving the money and not spending it at all?

No, $150-200 billion per year is Real Money, even by DC standards; but it's nowhere near the budgetary Gargantuas like Medicare and Medicaid. Or, to put things in perspective: total defense expenditure, on-budget and off, including both wars, is still only *half* the Cold War average, as a percentage of GDP. In fact only a third of the figure during the Fifties Golden Age of prosperity and upward mobility- when non-defense Federal spending, IIRC, consumed a much smaller percentage of the national substance.

I have no sympathy at all with the drunken-pirate spending of the last 8 years. Very few economic conservatives do, and we despise GWB for it. After all, the Iraq war is costing less per year/week/day/minute than interest on the debt! But are you looking for President Obama and a Democratic congress to restore fiscal discipline? I'm not holding my breath. If tax cuts are the cheap and easy way for Republicans to buy votes, so unfunded domestic programs are for Democrats (and earmarks and pork for all-- while eliminating earmarks may not save a whole bunch of money (and even $80 billion ain't chump change)- then at least if the line items have to go through the committee process it might serve as a reminder that they're spending citizens' wages, not Monopoly money).
Sure, undoing the damage of the past eight years is going to be expensive.
Could you elaborate? I'm not quite sure what, aside from the behemoth deficit, the 'damage' on the domestic front has been.



*A current analogue, which is estimated to add 50 cents per gallon at the pump, is the fact that refiners have to produce 14 different gasoline formulations to comply with a patchwork of state regulations, rather than a single national standard.
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

soli, I don't have time to respond properly today, but I just wanted to acknowledge that you're quite right: I shouldn't snarkily characterize other people's views for them. I sincerely apologize.

As for "neocons," I did not mean to misuse the word. Thank you for providing a further definition.

As for the rest, I will do some research and see how well I can back myself up. For now I have to go get ready to see my son play Cosmo Brown again. :D
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Jnyusa
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:04 am

Post by Jnyusa »

[removed]
Last edited by Jnyusa on Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
User avatar
solicitr
Posts: 3728
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Engineering a monarchist coup d'etat

Post by solicitr »

Actually, Jny, I wasn't thinking of the big-name Cabinet-level appointments, but the nameless thousands of department heads and regional administrators and middle-high managers who lie within the political spoils purview, just above the Civil Service, and actually superintend the disposition of the res publica.

(And, terrible to relate, Wolfowitz also was operating off a theory. A crappy one.)
Jnyusa
Posts: 7283
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:04 am

Post by Jnyusa »

[removed]
Last edited by Jnyusa on Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
halplm
hooked
Posts: 4864
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 7:15 am

Post by halplm »

Don't mean to go off topic from the current discussion, which is interesting, of course, but Obama's comments about both "laying off his wife" and minimizing the "thread" of places like Iran, are going to cause him some serious problems.

McCain is going to win that battle hands down. Obama had a golden opportunity after Bush's statements in Isreal last week. He could have applauded the sentiment, and then driven home how his own strategies (in contrast to Carter's) would be to establish diplomacy with places like Iran, and so forth and so one, and show how that would work.

Instead, he claimed to be a victim of an attack. I know what he was trying to do, of course, and he probably succeeded. He wants this race to be him against Bush, which he would win easily. The problem is, he's now locked into a foreign policy stance for the Campaign. McCain is going to hammer this so hard, it will be THE defining issue in the election.

Saying the countries that fund terrorism and supply the bombs killing our soldiers in Iraq are a small problem... that's not going to win him votes.

And this nonsense about not questioning his Wife comments is also absurd... you can't keep playing that card...
For the TROUBLED may you find PEACE
For the DESPAIRING may you find HOPE
For the LONELY may you find LOVE
For the SKEPTICAL may you find FAITH
-Frances C. Arrillaga 1941-1995
User avatar
Voronwë the Faithful
At the intersection of here and now
Posts: 46171
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
Contact:

Post by Voronwë the Faithful »

Obama wrote:You know, there is a spirit that brought us here tonight - a spirit of change, and hope, and possibility. And there are few people in this country who embody that spirit more than our friend and our champion, Senator Edward Kennedy. He has spent his life in service to this country not for the sake of glory or recognition, but because he cares - deeply, in his gut - about the causes of justice, and equality, and opportunity. So many of us here have benefited in some way or another because of the battles he's waged, and some of us are here because of them.

We know he is not well right now, but we also know that he's a fighter. And as he takes on this fight, let us lift his spirits tonight by letting Ted Kennedy know that we are thinking of him, that we are praying for him, that we are standing with him, and that we will be fighting with him every step of the way.

Fifteen months ago, in the depths of winter, it was in this great state where we took the first steps of an unlikely journey to change America.

The skeptics predicted we wouldn't get very far. The cynics dismissed us as a lot of hype and a little too much hope. And by the fall, the pundits in Washington had all but counted us out.

But the people of Iowa had a different idea.

From the very beginning, you knew that this journey wasn't about me or any of the other candidates in this race. It's about whether this country - at this defining moment - will continue down the same road that has failed us for so long, or whether we will seize this opportunity to take a different path - to forge a different future for the country we love.

That is the question that sent thousands upon thousands of you to high school gyms and VFW halls; to backyards and front porches; to steak fries and JJ dinners, where you spoke about what that future would look like.

You spoke of an America where working families don't have to file for bankruptcy just because a child gets sick; where they don't lose their home because some predatory lender tricks them out of it; where they don't have to sit on the sidelines of the global economy because they couldn't afford the cost of a college education. You spoke of an America where our parents and grandparents don't spend their retirement in poverty because some CEO dumped their pension - an America where we don't just value wealth, but the work and the workers who create it.

You spoke of an America where we don't send our sons and daughters on tour after tour of duty to a war that has cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars but has not made us safer. You spoke of an America where we match the might of our military with the strength of our diplomacy and the power of our ideals - a nation that is still the beacon of all that is good and all that is possible for humankind.

You spoke of a future where the politics we have in Washington finally reflect the values we hold as Americans - the values you live by here in Iowa: common sense and honesty; generosity and compassion; decency and responsibility. These values don't belong to one class or one region or even one party - they are the values that bind us together as one country.

That is the country I saw in the faces of crowds that would stretch far into the horizon of our heartland - faces of every color, of every age - faces I see here tonight. You are Democrats who are tired of being divided; Republicans who no longer recognize the party that runs Washington; Independents who are hungry for change. You are the young people who've been inspired for the very first time and those not-so-young folks who've been inspired for the first time in a long time. You are veterans and church-goers; sportsmen and students; farmers and factory workers; teachers and business owners who have varied backgrounds and different traditions, but the same simple dreams for your children's future.

Many of you have been disappointed by politics and politicians more times than you can count. You've seen promises broken and good ideas drown in the sea of influence, and point-scoring, and petty bickering that has consumed Washington. And you've been told over and over and over again to be cynical, and doubtful, and even fearful about the possibility that things can ever be different.

And yet, in spite of all the doubt and disappointment - or perhaps because of it - you came out on a cold winter's night in numbers that this country has never seen, and you stood for change. And because you did, a few more stood up. And then a few thousand stood up. And then a few million stood up. And tonight, in the fullness of spring, with the help of those who stood up from Portland to Louisville, we have returned to Iowa with a majority of delegates elected by the American people, and you have put us within reach of the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.

The road here has been long, and that is partly because we've traveled it with one of the most formidable candidates to ever run for this office. In her thirty-five years of public service, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has never given up on her fight for the American people, and tonight I congratulate her on her victory in Kentucky. We have had our disagreements during this campaign, but we all admire her courage, her commitment and her perseverance. No matter how this primary ends, Senator Clinton has shattered myths and broken barriers and changed the America in which my daughters and yours will come of age.

Some may see the millions upon millions of votes cast for each of us as evidence that our party is divided, but I see it as proof that we have never been more energized and united in our desire to take this country in a new direction. More than anything, we need this unity and this energy in the months to come, because while our primary has been long and hard-fought, the hardest and most important part of our journey still lies ahead.

We face an opponent, John McCain, who arrived in Washington nearly three decades ago as a Vietnam War hero, and earned an admirable reputation for straight talk and occasional independence from his party.

But this year's Republican primary was a contest to see which candidate could out-Bush the other, and that is the contest John McCain won. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% of Americans that once bothered Senator McCain's conscience are now his only economic policy. The Bush health care plan that only helps those who are already healthy and wealthy is now John McCain's answer to the 47 million Americans without insurance and the millions more who can't pay their medical bills. The Bush Iraq policy that asks everything of our troops and nothing of Iraqi politicians is John McCain's policy too, and so is the fear of tough and aggressive diplomacy that has left this country more isolated and less secure than at any time in recent history. The lobbyists who ruled George Bush's Washington are now running John McCain's campaign, and they actually had the nerve to say that the American people won't care about this. Talk about out of touch!

I will leave it up to Senator McCain to explain to the American people whether his policies and positions represent long-held convictions or Washington calculations, but the one thing they don't represent is change.

Change is a tax code that rewards work instead of wealth by cutting taxes for middle-class families, and senior citizens, and struggling homeowners; a tax code that rewards businesses that create good jobs here in America instead of the corporations that ship them overseas. That's what change is.

Change is a health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants; that brings down premiums for every family who needs it; that stops insurance companies from discriminating and denying coverage to those who need it most.

Change is an energy policy that doesn't rely on buddying up to the Saudi Royal Family and then begging them for oil - an energy policy that puts a price on pollution and makes the oil companies invest their record profits in clean, renewable sources of energy that will create five million new jobs and leave our children a safer planet. That's what change is.

Change is giving every child a world-class education by recruiting an army of new teachers with better pay and more support; by promising four years of tuition to any American willing to serve their community and their country; by realizing that the best education starts with parents who turn off the TV, and take away the video games, and read to our children once in awhile.

Change is ending a war that we never should've started and finishing a war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan that we never should've ignored. Change is facing the threats of the twenty-first century not with bluster, or fear-mongering, or tough talk, but with tough diplomacy, and strong alliances, and confidence in the ideals that have made this nation the last, best hope of Earth. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy.

That is what change is.

That is the choice in this election.

The same question that first led us to Iowa fifteen months ago is the one that has brought us back here tonight; it is the one we will debate from Washington to Florida, from New Hampshire to New Mexico - the question of whether this country, at this moment, will keep doing what we've been doing for four more years, or whether we will take that different path. It is more of the same versus change. It is the past versus the future. It has been asked and answered by generations before us, and now it is our turn to choose.

We will face our share of difficult and uncertain days in the journey ahead. The other side knows they have embraced yesterday's policies and so they will also embrace yesterday's tactics to try and change the subject. They will play on our fears and our doubts and our divisions to distract us from what matters to you and your future.

Well they can take the low road if they want, but it will not lead this country to a better place. And it will not work in this election. It won't work because you won't let it. Not this time. Not this year.

My faith in the decency, and honesty, and generosity of the American people is not based on false hope or blind optimism, but on what I have lived and what I have seen in this very state.

For in the darkest days of this campaign, when we were dismissed by all the polls and all the pundits, I would come to Iowa and see that there was something happening here that the world did not yet understand.

It's what led high school and college students to give up their vacations to stuff envelopes and knock on doors, and why grandparents have spent all their afternoons making phone calls to perfect strangers. It's what led men and women who can barely pay the bills to dig into their savings and write five dollar checks and ten dollar checks, and why young people from all over this country have left their friends and their families for a job that offers little pay and less sleep.

Change is coming to America.

It's the spirit that sent the first patriots to Lexington and Concord and led the defenders of freedom to light the way north on an Underground Railroad. It's what sent my grandfather's generation to beachheads in Normandy, and women to Seneca Falls, and workers to picket lines and factory fences. It's what led all those young men and women who saw beatings and billy clubs on their television screens to leave their homes, and get on buses, and march through the streets of Selma and Montgomery - black and white, rich and poor.

Change is coming to America.

It's what I saw all those years ago on the streets of Chicago when I worked as an organizer - that in the face of joblessness, and hopelessness, and despair, a better day is still possible if there are people willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it. That's what I've seen here in Iowa. That's what is happening in America - our journey may be long, our work will be great, but we know in our hearts we are ready for change, we are ready to come together, and in this election, we are ready to believe again. Thank you Iowa, and may God Bless America.
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

He's only just started, hasn't he?

Sheesh! Put up a spoiler notice! :D
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
Inanna
Meetu's little sister
Posts: 17719
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 5:03 pm

Post by Inanna »

As expected Obama takes Oregon, Hillary takes Kentucky. Nicely, Obama crosses over the majority of elected delegates threshold.

Prim, I must say, the more I hear about yr state, the more I like it. :)
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
User avatar
WampusCat
Creature of the night
Posts: 8464
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 2:36 pm
Location: Where least expected

Post by WampusCat »

Thank you, Prim, and your fellow Oregonians!
User avatar
Primula Baggins
Living in hope
Posts: 40005
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
Contact:

Post by Primula Baggins »

It was a pleasure. :twisted:

Also, Portland elected an openly gay mayor. No decision yet on the Senate primary; I voted for the short guy who opens beers with his hook.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
User avatar
vison
Best friends forever
Posts: 11961
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:33 pm
Location: Over there.

Post by vison »

I had CNN on for a few minutes and the name "Eugene" popped up and I said, "Hi, Prim!"

Didja hear me?

I heard Mr. Clinton on the radio today. He sounded weird.
Dig deeper.
Locked