<![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote - Gawker Comments]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote - Gawker Comments]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: Well done, Peter Cushing person.

Helman

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @Helman: Well, as a card-carrying atheist, you're predisposed not to believe it; and the experience falling well outside of the realm of the empirically demonstrable, it'd be awfully frickin' stupid to even think about making a case as to why you should. ;-)

Moff

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: This line did it to me: "But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth." I simply don't believe it's true. Or if he actually had this (born-again) experience, I'm sorry, but that freaks me out.

That said, I will concede that as far as religious-themed speeches go, this was pretty good -- truly progressive. It just saddens me that this kind of talk is a prerequisite to holding national office.

Helman

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: Um, in case I wasn't clear, the fallibility part was necessary for him to say because you have to reiterate human imperfection to make a strong case against mindless dogma.

Moff

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @Helman: Do you mean this part?

"You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey."

That's the only part I could find that refers to Jesus and sin. And while it sounds scary and fundie-ish on its own, I think from the context it's clear that he's not evangelizing, not saying "Everyone needs to come to Jesus to be washed clean of sin" -- he's making a case to against fundamentalism; his point is that church is a place you go because you're fallible, not a place to go to act like you aren't.

Which, speaking as a Christian who shares Obama's "healthy skepticism of organized religion," I have to say is something that needs to be said over and over again.

Taken as a whole, it's a great speech, really, because it focuses on approaching religion from a positive, "What should I be doing?" standpoint, rather than a negative, "You can't do that" place -- also something that needs to be repeated, for the good of the state and the church. Basically, it's an argument for thinking over dogma. I think this part really sums it up:

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason."

Given that religion isn't going away anytime soon, that seems like the sort of approach to it even the staunchest atheist can get behind.

Moff

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> So she turned down the opportunity to be on the cover of Vogue but she'll do SNL? Forgive me, I thought a big classy magazine feature during a campaign might have been desirable.

3dsunglasses

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: Just read his letter to the gays. Excellent. But I also just read this: [obama.senate.gov]
which which freaks me out, being a card-carrying atheist. Do you suppose he believes what he says about Jesus and sin? Or is he saying it because he has to?

Helman

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @TheLorax: I agree good campaign = good president is not an airtight proposition by any means. I think there are things you can look at, like how organized a candidate is, but campaigns and executive branches are probably pretty different beasts.

But I think bad campaign = bad president is a safer bet, at least when it comes to the things I see as problems with Clinton's campaign, like the rumors of cronyism, yes-mannery*, nontransparency, and inability to communicate problems. Totally debatable, though.

@Helman: I hear ya, but all I meant was that the geeky girl would have been well served putting a consistent, more likable image out there, especially since it seems like she can be likable when she's herself. Like it or not, working the media is part of the job.

Moff

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> Only two members of Arcade Fire were born in Texas. The rest were born in Canada.

That's two out of seven.

omnomnomnom

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: Hmmmm. I'm feeling disoriented and ... woozy now.

themediatrix

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @themediatrix: My fiancée said the same thing, and as a result I'm pretty careful to use "Clinton" instead of "Hillary," even though I think there's a reasonable reason, which is that there are two Clintons involved in her campaign (and Bill gets referred to as "Bill" now, too).

But, um, I felt kind of silly for being worried about it once I realized that she's not:


She's such a chauvinist.

Moff

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @A.T.Elle: Why "Hilary" and "Obama?" Why not "Clinton" and "Obama" or "Hilary" and "Barack?" Sexism. It's that simple.

P.S. I am the media, so that's why I can call it that.

themediatrix

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @magneticfields: 'enthusiasm' and 'Texas' usually warrant careful monitoring of any sociopolitical situation they apply to.

HiredGoons

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @Helman:
It's just that that shade of red makes her look like a clown.

CreativeUnderclass

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @themediatrix: And if you reversed the race, she never would've been married to a president to get her 'experience', so please spare us. Two more days! Then its adios Hillary (I don't mean to sound cocky. But already, voters are in Texas and Ohio are showing their enthusiasm by early voting. And we all know what enthusiasm means this year).

magneticfields

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> I can't get over the fact that people STILL act surprised when their favorite politicians turn out to be, well, politicians. Go fig.

HiredGoons

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> We must have different definitions of "entirely embarrassing".

Putney Swope Sequel

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: Agree to disagree. Will never vote for the hottie running for senior class president who promises no school on Fridays over the geeky girl who can get things done.

Helman

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: I need to qoute you on that, the pudding comment. so well said.
foreal.

scarletmenace

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: @TheLorax: Yeah I'm done too. Happy Sunday everyone!

TheLorax

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: Your presumption is that good campaign = good president. How valid is that really?

Many people do embrace that as a given, without noticing that it is a sweeping claim, requiring explication and defense. You do explain in your next post, but I just want to point out what a mighty leap it is, probably too large to accept without a lot of thought, reflection, historical examples to buttress, and so on.

If Obama is the nominee, I urge Hillary supporters to sing Viva Obama! - I will, nomatter how shamefully bad my Spanish pronunciation.

TheLorax

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @TheLorax: I don't know -- I'm naturally skeptical when people say "You cannot." There are things you cannot do, but too many great inventions and developments have happened in spite of a chorus of naysayers. If I were gonna start pushing health care on the GOP, I'd do it with a big ol' bunch of love-thy-neighbor arguments. He's done that when speaking at a church and someone asked about Teh Gays, and I guess it got a decent reception. The last seven years have certainly shown a willingness on the Republican side to spend a shitload of money, so he's got a solid rebuttal to the "too expensive" argument. But in any case, I won't believe we have anything like universal health care until I see it.

@Helman: It is shitty and unfair. I think a real part of her problem has been branding, and again, I think she could have locked this up if she'd trusted more in who she was and less in what her handlers were telling her -- I mean, I've heard the same thing cassandra said. Her inability to present herself as herself consistently has made me feel like she's too willing to listen to bad advice, which is not a quality I want in a(nother) president.

OK, I must do some work now. Thank you for listening to my verbosity (or not), folks.

Moff

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @cassandra: The drinks thing is totally true. As for the rest, I'm not sure. I mean, I'm basing my argument on an admittedly basic notion of how human organizations work, the idea being that conflict is often worthwhile but that cooperation is possible and healthy, too. And I think saying that the government has always worked a certain way is different from saying it can only work that way. I also think the idea that Obama would be totally stymied, or more stymied than Clinton, by an inability to work with the GOP is silly. He seems like a flexible thinker to me.

But I dunno. An Obama presidency could be a total wash. I just think there's enough reason to believe that it won't be, and I'd rather take that calculated risk on something better. Clinton's campaign makes me think she's still living in the 20th century, which makes me think her presidency would still be stuck there, too. A lot of good things happened when Bill was in office, but the biggest thing I hear cited is the economy, and I don't think the Internet is going to get invented again. A lot of bad things happened, too, and it just seems all too likely to me that, among other things, her presidency would get bogged down in scandal after scandal. The fact that they haven't released their tax records and other papers does nothing to assuage that worry.

Moff

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: Ok. I can't really complain about your position, since it is, well, fair. One of the things that rankles, though, is the fact that all of these repubs who HRC has been dealing with since she became a senator have remarked on how surprised they have been by her ability to unite the parties. And, yet, in light of this, the left of the party (of which I count myself a member) (falsely) decries her as being more conservative, while these same people talk about Obama's ability to work across the isle to "get things done". She just can't win. And it feels shitty and unfair.

(I don't like her position on the Florida/Michigan delegates either, I have to say. But don't worry; she will give up on Wednesday. I honestly think she would have been better. But I think he's great, too. )

Helman

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: Improving the health-care situation will not be done with Republican help, it will be done despite their opposition. Edwards never failed to press this point, and why oh why couldn't he have been the nominee? You cannot conciliate Republicans while simultaneously moving in a progressive direction. It's one or the other.

No need to answer, Moff, it's just the problem I have with the unification talk.

TheLorax

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @CreativeUnderclass: Oh for fuck's sake. Don't do her lipstick. So Maureen Dowd.

Helman

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: So also, here's my thing: does reaching across party lines really work? I'm actually asking, because I can't think of a single administration where cooperation was the case. The way government seems to work is by having two armies on completely different sides of the issue clash until something is hammered out. There is negotiation, but no cooperation as far as I can see. If Obama goes in there trying to be everybody's friend he'll just get eaten alive. You've got to take a strong stand just to start the conversation. The whole "I dunno, what do you want to do?" thing just won't fly.

The system thrives on opposition, not cooperation, which Hillary has learned. Besides, they all go out together and get drinks anyway so they're friendly no matter how they vote. The opposition is purely policy-based.

cassandra

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @She Blinded Me With Omniscience: She's actually really charming in person and then a complete virago when she's giving speeches. It makes no sense.

cassandra

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> Her delivery stinks, Hillary is beyond a hack. And what's with the Hooker Red® lipstick?

CreativeUnderclass

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @themediatrix: Well yeah, if you reverse genders and Obama is suddenly a black woman running against a white man, of course the media would laugh that off. The fact that "the media" has referred to this being a black man running against a woman (as opposed to referring to her as a WHITE woman)has contributed to the unfair racist slant from the beginning. Someone please tell me why we never refer to Hillary as the "white woman" opposing a black man in this race.

A.T.Elle

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @VirusWithShoes: No! It's coffee that doesn't kill the rain forest. The fiancée made us switch. It's good, though.

@Helman: Do you remember the look on her face when I said I was blowing up Alderaan anyway? Priceless. Now that's bastardly. As for Vader, it wasn't really like a "choosing" thing.

Moff

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @Helman: It's maybe a Sith thing. Which is a lot easier to type than say aloud.
@themediatrix: My mother thanks you, my father thanks you, and the bears thank you.

VirusWithShoes

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @Helman: Well, both. I really like him. I'm not under the illusion that he's perfect, and I'm sure he's not going to deliver on half of what he's promising, given that he's a presidential candidate; but I think he has a better shot at delivering on, say, health care than Clinton, because he does the working-across-party-lines thing a lot better. I mean, substantially improving the health-care situation is going to take getting some serious Republican help, and fair or not, the reality is that Clinton's relationship with the GOP is, um, a smidge acrimonious. I also think he's got some great people on his side (I know very little about Samantha Power, for example, except that wise people seem to cream their pants over her), and I loved his letter to the gays last week (for reasons elucidated here).

And admittedly, I also don't like her, although that started as far back as 1992. But I went into the primary season, as so many people did, thinking we we'd get a great candidate no matter what, telling myself I needed to get over my instinctive dislike for her because she was smart and capable. Honestly, though, her campaign so far has just underlined all the stuff I was trying to put out of my mind: the arguing over Michigan and Florida, because she was concerned the voters there would be disenfranchised -- except she didn't voice her concern until it looked like she'd need those delegates; the same spiel when it came to the voting locations in Nevada; the apparent money mismanagement within her campaign and the reports that she didn't hear about it because people were scared to speak up; Harold Ickes trash-talking Mark Penn the other day, while the race is still on.

I just think that three things the president has to be very good at are (1) managing their staff, (2) managing money, and (3) reading the pulse of the American people. The empirical evidence from the primary season so far suggests that Obama's better at all three. I'm sure Clinton's smart, but I feel like she keeps saying, "The proof is in the pudding. No, not this pudding -- the pudding I'm going to make later. Trust me."

Moff

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> If you reverse the genders, Obama would be laughed out of the contest by the media. It's sexism, pure and simple. She's held to a different standard for being a woman.

Having said that, I'm voting for viruswithshoes. Because of the bear story. (Or Hilary. One or the other. But because of the bear analogy, for sure.)

themediatrix

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @VirusWithShoes: @moff: Well? What's the deal with Alderaan? And why did you chose to make DV your overlord?

Helman

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: Is "shade-grown coffee" a drug-reference? Like "Fair-trade hashish"?
@Helman: Ask Moff about the Alderaan question.

VirusWithShoes

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: I can't tell from your posts if you really like him or if you just don't like her. I suppose it could be both. (With your avatar, I feel like I am talking to my grandfather, albeit my grandfather who I could make stop breathing by using my darth vadar powers).

Helman

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @Richard: Yeah!

Helman

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> Does SNL really support Hillary, or does Lorne Michaels just want Amy Poehler's candidate to win so he doesn't have to trot Fred Armisen's mediocre Obama out for four more years?

By the way, don't watch this video. Watch the streaming clip on NBC, because now in doing so, you support the writers! Right?

thecomicscomic

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @VirusWithShoes & Richard: I can't wait until this is all over and my earnestness can find another outlet, like pushing for shade-grown coffee. I'm going to go get another cup of shade-grown coffee.

Moff

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @Richard: I agree, but I think there's a bit of nuance -- and nuance, of course, has no place in American politics. The Martha analogy is really apt; there's something about both of them and the way they carry themselves that makes a lot of people overly gleeful whenever they appear to screw up.

But that said, I also think part of the media's treatment of Clinton of late closely correlates with the simple fact that her campaign's screwing up a lot. I mean, she replaced her campaign manager amidst allegations of overspending and lack of communication, she lent herself money while some of her campaign staff were going without pay, her people's spin on why all of the Obama victories don't really count is getting beyond ludicrous, and the most recent flap -- the long, uncomfortable pause after the Slate reporter asked her spokespeople to name an example of a foreign-policy crisis where she really shined -- was just another example of terrible, terrible preparation on their part, given that they're pushing her as the tested candidate.

Obama's gotten flak, too, but I dunno -- if none of it's really stuck, I think it's 'cause it hasn't been that sticky. The plagiarism stuff was way overblown, the public-financing thing is hard to push since he was fairly clever in how he worded his pledge and since most of his funding has been from quote-unquote average Americans anyway, and the Clintons of all people do not want to go down the Rezko road.

Gosh, I do go on. Sorry. Anyway, I think the biased-media charge is true, but only part of her problem. This was the same media that tagged her inevitable not that long ago. I have a feeling that if she'd played a more careful, organized game from that point, she'd have the nomination locked up by now. The fact that she didn't is what concerns me about her becoming president, not her bitchiness or Barry's Rainbow Magic™.

Moff

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @VirusWithShoes: Actually, no woman should scare a man right now more than Rachel Marsden. I don't see what men keep flocking to her. I also don't see why ostensably educated and intelligent people flock to a Preacher Man with big ears. Regarding Hillary, what's so scary about a smart woman who let her husband get away with a random bj?

Michael Jahn

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @VirusWithShoes: I was once attacked by Barbara Bush riding a wolverine. But then, like at the end of Jurassic Park, my foe was foiled by another foe. Nancy Regan atop Mamie Eisenhower.

Richard

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @Richard: Seconded. Most of the Media is ran by men. And nothing scares a man more than a powerful, intelligent woman. Apart from a powerful, intelligent woman riding a bear. Of course, she'd have to use some kind of harness to control the bear, but Hillary riding a bear that she controls is most men's worst nightmare.

Just imagine - Hillary riding a bear, bursting in on you while you're having a shower - the bear roars loud enough to burst your eardrums, while Hillary rears up and issues a guttural demand for discussion on healthcare reform, then flushes the toilet to get you out the shower as you're taking far too long and both her and the bear need to go badly. Terrifying.

VirusWithShoes

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: That said, I do, genuinely, feel that Hillary is getting the Martha Stewart bum's rush and has been embarrassingly mistreated by "THE MEDIA."

Richard

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> Politics aside, I like Hillary.

BenderingTime

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @notthatpopular: Well, we all have hidden depths - perhaps you can find that hate in yours?

VirusWithShoes

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> This is a big problem. That was the first time I have ever seen her act human. How am I supposed to hate her for being so cold.

notthatpopular

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> I still can't make up my mind if she'd be really good in bed, or really bad. Sometimes I get a good whiff of her as a woman, and really want to fuck the caucus off her - other times, I'd run away with shrinkage. And also - what's the deal with Russia? Is it full of dog-men, or is that just a dream I had last week. I can't shake these thoughts of cereal from me, sometimes. Milk confuses me too - is it a drink, or a food, or an untested lubricant for the space programme? What went through John Glen's mind as he cut his lawn back in '82?

I hate Sundays.

VirusWithShoes

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @Richard: This is good, because we'll have plenty of common ground.

Moff

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: If we ever meet, you'll come to see that I have little to no idea what I'm talking about.

Richard

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @Richard: It's weird how your Hillary support weirds me out so much. But also, I need to get a life.

Moff

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> I'm going to offer a dignified, measured response.

GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!

Richard

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @She Blinded Me With Omniscience: Yeah, she was really good -- it's too bad she seems to have so much trouble coming across that way in most broadcasts. Still, using an SNL appearance to demonstrate your heretofore unappreciated warm side just before a set of crucial primaries, when you've spent the whole race ragging on your opponent for being all show and no substance, was a neat trick, in my humble opinion. But no neater than being a famous sitting New York senator with an ex-president husband and still managing to portray yourself as an underdog. Gah.

Moff

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> Yeah I guess the media really does fawn all over one of the presidential candidates. I hope she loses really big on tuesday and we're done with her.

scarletmenace

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @sculling: Yep. That's me taking back a comment. Thanks.

VirusWithShoes

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> Her throaty voice is pretty sexy, I'll admit. Her ability to read from cue cards - not so.

VirusWithShoes

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> Actually, only two of Arcade Fire's members (Win and Will Butler) are American. All the others are Canadian born and bred.

electriclight2008

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> If you just listen and don't watch, her theatrical vocal intonation is very reminiscent of Lucille Ball.

sculling

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> Bitch is the new black!

richardmarxhatesmyhair

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> I forgot to say: the SNL clip was surprisingly funny. That's the most relaxed and genuine I've ever seen her.

Lysergic Asset

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> @moff: If she gets elected, I'm moving to Mexico. (Oh, wait. I already live here.)

Lysergic Asset

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> Out, damned spot

regimentkhaki

]]> <![CDATA[If You've Visited Canada, You Can't Vote]]> What a strange coincidence: If she ends up getting elected, I'm moving to Canada.

(Get off my back. I've always wanted to see what living in Canada was like.)

Moff

]]>