“Not worth a bucket of warm piss,” according to John Garner.
Stranger
Try telling that to Dick Cheney.
And risk being Force-choked, electrocuted with Force-lightning, or shot in the face?
You first. I’ll be right behind you.
Caraças counts as behind, right?
Dick isn’t a Vice-President; he’s a puppet master with his hand up Junior’s rectum. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, isn’t going to let anybody put anything into her body orifices, which are doubtless protected by cybernetic dentata.
And having left you with those images burned into your collective consciousness, I bid you good day.
Stranger
I’m picturing the Wicked Witch of the West* skywriting “SURRENDER OBAMA.”
*Margaret Hamilton, that is. You didn’t think I meant Hillary, did you?
You know, if I were a Democrat, and Karl Rove and the Republicans were telling me over and over and over again that Obama was going to be a disaster, and that Hillary was the only logical nominee, well, I’d probably ask myself exactly why all these Republicans were so excited about the prospect of Hillary being the Democratic candidate.
Didn’t she have the hots for Canada’s Foreign Minister Peter MacKay at one point? She did say their relationship was broad and deep
Rwowwwwrrr!!!
Well, Slate seems to agree with the OP.
". . . Hillary Clinton isn’t going to drop out. There simply isn’t a function in her assembly code for throwing in the towel.
Obama, on the other hand, is fully capable of it. And if he’s really serious about representing a new kind of politics, now is the time for him to prove it in the only meaningful way left."
This logic, if you want to call it that, makes baby George Washington’s head explode.
I responded to that in the comments. Hve a read of a few of them…Lot’s of Obama love in there nailing the author to the pole.
Bingo. Black folks and young folks don’t have to go anywhere. If they dislike both of the candidates, they just have to sit on their couches and not vote.
This Youtube video seems apt…
I’d buy that for a dollar.
Actually, I think if the Founding Fathers were to come back today and observe the electoral process, there would be a pyrotechnic display of fountaining blood that would be visible along most of the Atlantic Seaboard.
Stranger
Indeed. “You let men with no property vote?! Begad, sir, you’ll be letting negroes vote next! What?!” [head explodes]
Looking at the entirety of that Slate article, I have to wonder just what the writer was smoking.
Just for one detail: I don’t think that Obama’s supporters would ever trust him again, if he were to yield when he’s in the front position for the Democratic nomination. And that’s just one thing that I think the writer missed.
ETA:
Rats. You mean we wouldn’t get to mention women voting before their heads explode?
Point of note: prior to the ratification of the 15th Amendment, giving sufferage to (male) citizens of all races, the federal government did not have authority to regulate voting rights, which was dictated by the individual states in the manner of a confederation of independent authorities. Some states did, in fact, permit free blacks to vote, though this was often discouraged by other means. Surprisingly, however, you don’t mention women’s suffrage, which was not universally imposed until the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920; prior to that, suffrage for women was limited to only ten states, and further limited within.
Placed in historical context, however, the United States was at least as progressive in this regard as the majority of Western nations; some nations in Northern and Eastern Europe adopted universal suffrage after World War I, but many top shelf nations such as France, Italy, Germany, and Switzerland did not have universal suffrage (denying for women, creeds, or ethnicity) until after World War II.
I was, however, thinking more in regard to the opposition by the majority of founders–in particular George Washington–to the formal establishment of political institutions, engagement in foreign military adventurism, the formation of obligatory military alliances with European powers, the establishment of a large permanent army, and so forth. The Founders were well aware of some of the particular morally ambiguous but then conventional aspects of their fledgling republic and were reliant upon time and changing public opinion to address those rather than fracturing the still shaky confederation by attempting to impose social and political reform all at once. We have, of course, subsequently acknowledged the moral horror of human slavery, the unfairness of denying suffrage, et cetera; unfortuantely, we’ve also ignored some of the more sagacious principles about not getting involved in the internal affairs of foreign governments, typically to our peril and regret.
Stranger
The problem with the idea of avoiding being involved in internal affairs of foreign governments, as an ideal, is that while it could work in the mostly agrarian, and even early industrial economies of the past, I’m not so sure it’s possible to disentangle ourselves, now. The modern global economy has entangled us far more thoroughly than Washington and his contemporaries could ever have imagined possible. Just for a relatively benign example: pressuring trade partners to maintain certain product safety standards is meddling in their internal affairs, if we’re trying to get that government to enact and enforce those standards.
This doesn’t mean that I think all current international actions being carried out by our government are inevitable, nor that they’re all benign. Just that the ideal that Washington espoused is no more attainable than a bar against usury would be.
As I note here, a major fundraiser for Clinton ($500K) has deserted her for Obama.
You were saying, OP?