A New Politics? Maybe Not So Much

Barack Obama promises a "new politics." Jerome Armstrong wonders:

Is anyone shocked that the Obama campaign re-opened their PAC and started using it to dole out contributions in the early states? If this is not PAC-cynicism of the FEC regulations, nothing is:
in recent months, Obama has handed out more than $180,000 from the nearly dormant PAC to local Democratic groups and candidates in the key early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina, campaign reports show.
This is a pretty serious issue that Obama is going to have to confront. Maybe it's not a violation of the letter of the law (because since when is the letter enforced?), but it sure is a violation of the spirt of the law-- especially for a candidate that vows to not accept PAC money.
. . . Obama is stretching the rule to claim that his presidential campaign and his PAC activities have "no affiliation", especially given that 68% of the PAC's contributions are going toward officials in the states where his is campaigning 80% of the time.

I always thought the "lobbyists"/PAC nonsense from Edwards and Obama was phony. Now we see that Obama thought so too.

< Colorado's DeGette Endorses Clinton, Will Co-Chair Health Care Task Force | Trent Lott Resigning >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obama is often held to a higher standard (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Satya1 on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 08:05:39 PM EST
    I see this kind of transaction as significantly different from an industry PAC giving to a politician to buy access and thereby legislation.  This is political networking, Dems helping other Dems.  He supported other Dem candidates as early as 2004 by giving speeches nationwide to support Dem candidates.

    At the same time I didn't care to see this either.  I would prefer that the Obama campaign was pure as the driven snow and this suggests endorsements are bought.  I wish all candidates avoided this.  I accepted long ago that they weren't going to but that there would be some significant hallmarks the Obama campaign would follow and they have.

    But political favors among Dems is standard practice and I never criticized Sen. Clinton for retiring $400,000 of Vilsack's debt for him.  I think there are higher priorities in the campaign finance issue.  

    Will you and Jerome hold Sen. Clinton to the same standard as Sen. Obama?  If Jerome had an honest writeup he would put this in broader context instead of holding one candidate accountable for this legal but potentially dishonest practice that is nearly universally accepted.

    We are not going to get significant progress on campaign finance reform until it gravitates to a higher place on everyone's priorities.  BTD, this issue and related issues like open government, voter fraud and corruption appear to be missing from your list of key issues.

    an article with wider context (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Satya1 on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 08:19:04 PM EST
    is here:


    The article is 1 yeaer old but at least it gives more background on the practice of leadership PACs


    Indeed (none / 0) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:20:23 AM EST
    Seems to be missing from Obama's as well.

    Did you read my post?


    It's Obama's (none / 0) (#1)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 12:57:45 PM EST
    3-state Project.  He's very committed to the party.

    That's funny. (none / 0) (#2)
    by masslib on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 01:10:54 PM EST
    MSM takes it's own sweet time to report. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Artificial Intelligence on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:21:15 PM EST
    Jim Kuhnhenn opened this story up on November 15, 2007, when Obama's Hopefund filed its most recent report. Kuhnhenn just read the docs. The next day, Alex Knott at CQPolitics picked the story up and did some more analysis of the docs. It took another 10 days for John Solomon to pick up the thread and report his findings in today's WaPo. The Clinton campaign did not respond until today, after MSM had ten days to run with the info.

    Now, the Obama campaign is crying foul. Go figure.

    *http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/25/AR2007112501454.html?nav=rss_politic s
    *http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/_obama_camp_hillary_campaigns_attacking_us_because_shes_no_lon ger_frontrunner.php

    Here's my info http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Barack_Obama%27s_contributions_to_campaign_endorsers


    "PAC/lobbyist money"/"change" (none / 0) (#3)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 01:31:11 PM EST
    Yeah, the whole "I don't take money from lobbyists" thing annoys me. It is phony. See my diary on dKos.

    And then there's the whole "change" angle. It gets really old and tired. Not just from Obama, but also from people who tried that angle in the past (Hart, Bradley, etc).

    I have no problems in general with Obama's positions; he's a solid mainstream Democrat. But the whole "new politics" nonsense annoys me, and this is just another example of why it's just an angle, and nothing more than that.

    To be fair. . . (none / 0) (#58)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 09:35:25 PM EST
    I don't think it's possible to have a political campaign these days without invoking the word "change" at least twice in each sentence.  Every single candidate does it -- incumbents do it.

    Change is the new apple pie.


    The whole lobbyist thing was (none / 0) (#4)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 01:38:09 PM EST
    never a big deal.  I think some safeguards should be taken when raising money from them, but this idea that lobbyists are actually some kind of demonic entity is the price we pay for encouraging overly populist rhetoric.

    As far as this story is concerned, yeah it's not particularly flattering, thought the campaign that asked Norman Hsu to do the same thing really shouldn't throw any stones.

    Funny (none / 0) (#6)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 01:53:50 PM EST
    You sound just like Clinton:

    ....but this idea that lobbyists are actually some kind of demonic entity is the price we pay for encouraging overly populist rhetoric....

    Isn't that sort of what she said in the first debate?


    No, she took the "see no evil hear no evil (none / 0) (#7)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:09:18 PM EST
    speak no evil" route.  Lobbyists are there to buy access, so campaigns should take some safeguards, e.g. not targeting them qua lobbyists.

    No (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:21:16 PM EST
    She said that lobbyists are people too and should not be demonized. She said that they represent voter's voice. Not that she would ever be swayed by the cash...

    What She Said (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:24:56 PM EST
    Over the weekend, Clinton was booed by an audience of liberal bloggers in Chicago when she defended taking money from Washington lobbyists, something both Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards have vowed not to do.

    "I don't think, based on my 35 years fighting for what I believe in, anybody seriously believes I'm going to be influenced by a lobbyist or a particular interest group," Clinton said.

    "A lot of these lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses, they represent social workers -- yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people."

    The former first lady said that she welcomed the debate on the issue.



    I don't pretend that lobbyists don't (none / 0) (#12)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:59:05 PM EST
    influence legislators, nor do I pretend that they represent ordinary Americans.

    Care to name (none / 0) (#59)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 09:38:25 PM EST
    an instance of Senator Obama being swayed by a lobbyist?

    Lobbyists do represent "ordinary Americans" -- AARP employs lobbyists, so does the AAA, so does the SEIU (or AFSCME to Bill Richardson).  It's lobbyists who represent narrow business interests that I think we're opposed to.


    Clinton has never been influenced by AIPAC? (none / 0) (#67)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:26:21 PM EST
    Well, how does one explain her vote against banning the use of cluster munitions on civilians?

    Oh, so when you said. . . (none / 0) (#83)
    by LarryInNYC on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 02:53:39 PM EST
    you were sure that legislators are influenced by lobbyists you meant all legislators other_ than the one you support?

    can you post about something people care about? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jgarza on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 01:52:54 PM EST
    Seriously you have like 10 posts on how awful it is to use the word crisis when referring to social security.  Now i take it you are going to obsess about this for a few months.
    How many things have you made a huge deal about that no one else cared about.
    I was watching MTP and Shrum(the professional election loser) was bringing up all the Obama "gaffes" that the beltway pundits (himself included)were sure would sink him.  He said its been taken to the voters and the voters didn't think they were gaffes.
    Funny thing was, they were all things BTD thought was a gaffe.  BTD can, of course, never explain why its a gaffe, but thats what Clintons people said, and they are the ultimate beltway insider so it must be right.

    I agree (none / 0) (#11)
    by DA in LA on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 02:43:42 PM EST
    It really is a meaningless point.  Maybe people believed him, I didn't.  I always knew he'd have to take money from somewhere.

    In the end, it just doesn't matter.  I don't care.


    As long as YOU don't care (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:17:19 PM EST
    That's what matters.

    But let me set you straight, I said it did NOT matter when Edwards and Obama said it did.

    Just like I say Obama and Edwards are fools to play the SS game and if and when one of them flops on it (oh wait, Obama already did) I'll point that out too.


    Lets get clear on what i said (none / 0) (#55)
    by Jgarza on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 08:09:08 PM EST
    Obama's Pac giving candidates money doesn't matter.   How does this conflict with anything he has said?  It goes back to this problem you have with no one being suffeciently "pure" enough to critisize Clinton.
    HRC being dumb enough to defend lobbyists was a gaffe and stupid and made her look bad, so it matters.

    Just like I say Obama and Edwards are fools to play the SS game and if and when one of them flops on it (oh wait, Obama already did)

    really he did?  ..ohh I guess one of Clinton's "agents," was telling democratic circles he "flopped on it," and since Clinton's campaign team is the gold standard for you wannabe Washington insiders.. IT MUST BE TRUE!

    Is their anyone allowed to criticize your supreme leader? If JE or BO do it they are sexist, hypocrites, if a reporter does it, racist.  You admit that there are things she should be criticized for, but you attack the massager if anyone does.  I love it.  She has flaws, but if you point them out BTD will call you a Hill hater.


    you realize, don't you, (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by taylormattd on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 09:58:12 PM EST
    that BTD said just a few days ago that if he had to choose to vote for right now, it would be Obama?

    yes (none / 0) (#69)
    by Jgarza on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:36:14 PM EST
    i know who he says he supports and i can read his posts and its obvious who he actually supports.

    Funny how I had to come to (none / 0) (#13)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 05:08:33 PM EST
    TalkLeft to read about this. I searched all over DailyKos but couldn't find anything but about twenty Hillary bashing diaries. Today I found out that her moral character is lacking because she didn't divorce her husband. On a Democratic blog no less.

    Well, there really is a lot less scandal (none / 0) (#16)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 05:47:58 PM EST
    here than John "Hit Piece" Solomon pretends there is. (Solomon is known for rebranding Republican and Clinton oppo research).

    The donations are legal, none of that money was raised during 2007, and helping other Democrats raise money is a sine qua non of party leadership.

    Clinton had Norman Hsu raise money for a ton of her supporters, so her campaign is living in one fragile, glass house when it comes to this.


    It is a big nothing (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 05:58:49 PM EST
    EXCEPT for the gross hypocrisy.

    This is what leadership PAC's are for. (none / 0) (#19)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:07:07 PM EST
    People don't form leadership PAC's because they are loyal players.  They're a means of currying favor within the party.

    That's why John Edwards does fundraisers in North Dakota.

    That's why Hillary Clinton had Norman Hsu bundle donations for Harkin and Lynch.

    Note that this does not involve Obama taking money in exchange for influence, but rather raising money for other Democrats.  


    Come ON (none / 0) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:15:43 PM EST
    You do not seriously think that do you?

    Think what? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:20:48 PM EST
    Of course these leadership PAC's are a means to further one's own personal ambition.

    Now, if the issue is the fact that this PAC took $$ from lobbying firms, you may have a point.

    But that was known in 2006.


    There are many points (none / 0) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:29:09 PM EST
    The main one is the feigned campaign finance purity.

    I never got the impression he was about (none / 0) (#35)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:32:37 PM EST
    campaign finance purity.  I can see where folks might have gotten that impression about him, but I've always understood him as someone who works within the system instead of divorcing himself from the reality of the system.

    They got the impression (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:07:36 PM EST
    because he GAVE the impression!

    My gawd, there was an Obama suppoter post cackly over the racist WaPo fundraising story! And telling how wonderful Obama was on this.

    Dude, keep the stiff upper lip over there.

    You can be honest over here. No one will tell.


    And, the only GROSS hypocrisy (none / 0) (#21)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:12:32 PM EST
    is Jerome Armstrong, former employee of Mark Warner's Forward Together PAC, pretending to be outraged by this kind of thing.

    Jerome can speak for himself (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:15:11 PM EST
    I have no brief for him.

    I am talking about Obama's hypocrisy.


    I guess I don't see (none / 0) (#28)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:22:16 PM EST
    "a new kind of politics" as some kind of idyllic purism.  

    Raising money for other Democrats is one of those hoops one must jump through to move up in the party.


    It is the campaign finance purity (none / 0) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:28:29 PM EST

    Come On.


    There aren't any pure candidates (none / 0) (#32)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:31:01 PM EST
    running.  He's taken money from lobbyists up until this point, so it's not like he can get too preachy about it.

    Edwards has been a lot more "you SUCK if you take money from lobbyists."


    Obama was right there with him (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:32:04 PM EST
    But no doubt, Edwards is by far the worst.

    I admit I have come to detest him.


    Me too. You would be troll rated (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:35:33 PM EST
    all over if you were still posting there. I'm down to Clinton and Obama. Edward's went way too negative for someone who has done a complete about face in three years. How can anyone take him seriously?

    I could also jump over to Dodd if he gains any traction.


    Geek, it's just the nature of that place (none / 0) (#34)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:32:04 PM EST
    right now. I don't see this as that big of a deal either but I'm just imagining if Sen. Clinton did this...what would that site look like? Iceberg's diary on the Hispanic fundraising had over 500 comments, including yours and AdamB's in it. When people there pointed out that it was a racist diary, like BTD did the Post article, they were troll rated.

    I didn't think it was racist (none / 0) (#38)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:36:23 PM EST
    myself.  I think the story stuck out for a couple of reasons:

    1.  Cantu came out and said "I'm trying to buy influence."  Most bundlers aren't that stupid.

    2.  He comes from a very poor part of the country, yet raised a huge amount of cash for Clinton there.  To put things in perspective, Cantu by himself raised more there than John Edwards raised from Fortress and its prime brokers.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:03:56 PM EST
    Then you simply have a lowerawareness on the issue of racism that I do I think.

    Honestly, it is a no brainer for me.


    Icebrgslim (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:16:51 PM EST
    is posting stone cold racist crap now.

    Do you recognize it or do you put blinders on to excuse it?

    This is McClurkon Redux.

    And you folks made a big fuss about Harvey Milk.

    Hypocrisy again.


    And there's a new one now. (none / 0) (#49)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:30:21 PM EST
    She is right in the middle of it proclaiming it is dirty money from da hood. Kos really needs to pin her down BTD or I'm over that place. And I like Obama and may vote for him. And now I'll quit bashing that site. I'll sure be glad when (if) it gets back to normal.

    Ask the racist Icebergslim (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:36:11 PM EST
    If this is dishwasher money:

    "Democrat Barack Obama tapped wealthy fundraisers in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands on Monday during a Caribbean visit.

    In St. Thomas, the Democratic presidential candidate attracted more than 100 supporters to a one-hour reception that cost up to $2,300 to attend.

    Obama, who represents Illinois in the U.S. Senate, then flew to Puerto Rico for a short meeting with Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila and to greet
     about 100 people at a fundraiser in the colonial district of Old San Juan."

    Must have been some dishwashers no? Because Puerto Rico and the VI are poorer than MISSISSIPPI.  What a racist jerk that person is.

    A tip to a racist Obama supporter, STFU.


    Ok, I did. If I get my first ever (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:46:22 PM EST
    troll rate, I'll blame you! And I'm sure I will.

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:49:13 PM EST
    Well, if you really want to impress me, you weill write a diary demanding poblano be banned for his racist remarks about Indian Americans.

    After the gay bashing, now the recism against immigrants.

    Obama supporters are reaching new lows.

    BTW, Adam is no friend of mine. I believe on campaign issues he is utterly dishonest. He should not post on the FP at daily kos imo.


    Well, dariag just linked your (none / 0) (#53)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:58:44 PM EST
    original post from here so maybe someone else will see this and write a diary. I have never taken part in any war over there and I'm way too chicken to do that. I'll be up all night watching for my TR.

    I really do miss you BTD. By the way, my niece is married to a soldier who's parents were born in Puerto Rico and he's on his third tour in Iraq. The finest person I've ever met and I love him dearly.


    I believe the dishwasher reference (none / 0) (#70)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:38:46 PM EST
    was from the Chinatown story, wherein actual dishwashers were donating large sums to Clinton.  (The DOJ's criminal division is investigating those donations, btw).

    Icebergslim is a black woman, fwiw.


    I see (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:15:24 AM EST
    nothing bigoted in her comments? Did you read them?  Dude, you should be ashamed of yourself.

    And as for her being black, are you positing that non-whites are not capable of racism?

    Great. Nice for me to know for myself.


    um (none / 0) (#57)
    by taylormattd on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 09:02:10 PM EST
    I tend to agree with you on this issue, but did you actually see the HarveyMilk diary? It was the most vile, overtly racist diary I've ever seen at Daily Kos.

    That has no bearing on the hypocrisy. (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 10:36:33 PM EST
    I was responding (none / 0) (#65)
    by taylormattd on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:15:31 PM EST
    to BTD's comment which speaks of a "big fuss" over HarveyMilk's diary.

    Rather than there necessarily being a case of "hypocrisy" in differential responses to the two diaries, another possibility is that any racism presented in the two diaries was different by orders of magnitude.

    For example, when I read iceberg's diary (which I didn't recommend) I didn't even notice use of the phrase "Dishwasher money" and/or it didn't occur to me that it was racist. Upon reflection, however, I believe BTD is correct.

    But iceberg's diary was in no way comparable to HarveyMilk's diary. Not by any stretch of the imagination. IMO, anyone honestly comparing iceberg's diary and HarveyMilk's diary would note that HarveyMilk's diary was vile, beyond the pale, and not even in the same league as iceberg's diary.


    It's not hypocrisy if one diary (none / 0) (#66)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:19:48 PM EST
    isn't as racist as the other? I'd like to think that I have only one standard for racism: either it is or it isn't.

    are you telling me (none / 0) (#71)
    by taylormattd on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:53:52 PM EST
    you really don't understand how folks would have a worse reaction to HarveyMilk's diary than to iceberg's diary?

    No, go back to my original point (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:56:26 PM EST
    the level of offense doesn't have any bearing on the hypocrisy.

    well this is getting (none / 0) (#73)
    by taylormattd on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:04:02 AM EST
    a little circular.

    My point is that a differential reaction between the diaries doesn't necessarily mean "hypocrisy".

    Instead, a differential reaction between iceberg's diary and HM's diary might be because they were materially different.


    NO REACTION (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:36:03 AM EST
    is what Iceergslim's bigotryt has produced from Obama supporters.


    Soory, no free passes.

    Harvey Milk was rightly ripped.

    GEEK defends Icebergslim.


    UGLY kind.


    do you (none / 0) (#80)
    by taylormattd on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 08:48:19 AM EST
    see any difference between HM's diary and iceberg's diary?

    I do (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 08:59:54 AM EST
    Harvey's work was patently execrable.

    Icebergslim's had a slight patina of respectability.

    But once one took a moment, hers and her susbewquent comment all over the site, are clear bigotry.

    The hypocrisy is that no
    Obama supporter will say so.


    As I said (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by taylormattd on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 10:15:04 AM EST
    earlier, I admit I didn't even notice the phrase when I first read the diary. But upon reading your assessment, I looked again and I understand where you are coming from.

    perhaps (none / 0) (#74)
    by taylormattd on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 12:05:04 AM EST
    I'm not understanding.

    What are you saying is "hypocrisy"?


    Only certain bigotry (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by andgarden on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:26:41 AM EST
    produced any reaction other than defensiveness in certain people.

    What bundler isn't trying to (none / 0) (#39)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:01:52 PM EST
    buy influence? Do you think Obama or Edwards would have turned down his money? Until we get public financing, as long as they play by the rules, I don't really care where they get their money.

    The reason I consider it racist is because they had an article pointing this out - what is different from all the other fund raising going on that made that particular one worthy of the Post's (and Iceberg and all the posters over there) attention? Just poor brown people? Had this been an Edwards bundler, no one at Kos would have cared.

    I don't mean to take my frustration out on you but you are normally objective enough to admit that place is a little nuts right now. I'm tabbycat in tenn over there, by the way. I hate that user name and when I joined here several years ago, I used my real name.


    I wish the guy was an Obama supporter (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:05:25 PM EST
    for the point of my post.

    I guarantee you no one would have had a problem seeing the racism then.

    The Hillary thing again.


    The point was that it was an extremely (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:32:58 PM EST
    poor district--36% living below the poverty line.  

    Another diary crunched the numbers, and Clinton has raised some hugely disproportionate numbers from poor zip codes.  Now, it could be that she's just able to tap into every single household with that kind of $$ to spare in those zip codes, but it does stick out.


    Are you effing serious? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 07:24:32 AM EST
    My gawd, you do not see the bigotry in what you just expressed?

    Funny? (none / 0) (#14)
    by RalphB on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 05:26:19 PM EST
    I've read that stuff myself, about her not divorcing her husband, being one of the main reasons that lots of women won't support Sen Clinton.

    Considering that state of marriage in the US, I can't see how that could possibly be true.

    Maybe conservative women but at (none / 0) (#15)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 05:37:23 PM EST
    the largest Democratic blog we have? I am simple amazed by that train wreck of a place right now. I am still undecided at this point but the anti-Clinton rage at that place is driving me nuts.

    Nuts (none / 0) (#17)
    by RalphB on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 05:58:47 PM EST
    It's driven me way past nuts.  I don't go there at all anymore, except to browse some titles.  I never believed I would see so many republican smear tactics and bogus stories from the 90s being used by democrats against one of our own.

    It's really sickening and is one reason I'm voting for Sen Clinton in the primaries and I'll write her in for the general if Obama or Edwards gets the nomination.


    I think that's awfully unfair. . . (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 09:46:45 PM EST
    to Obama and Edwards, who are not nearly as bad as some of their supporters are.  (Okay, maybe Edwards is as bad).  Although actually some Clinton supporters are beginning to lose it now too.

    defend this (none / 0) (#63)
    by RalphB on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 10:59:52 PM EST
    This is a posted comment from the WAPO story about Hillary being endorsed by NH Gov Lynch's wife Susan. I remember her from Doctors for Dean in '04.   What is this crap and where does it originate?   Or is this guy just a nutbag?

    Even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record , just as Senator Clinton insists.
    The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where torturing people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and protect the citizenry.
    Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
    Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
    Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
    Would you vote for a President who has signed nonagression deals with the KKK or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKK and Nazi Party.
    We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
    If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post.

    Posted by: avraamjack | November 26, 2007 11:41 PM "


    Why would I want to defend that? (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 11:04:15 PM EST
    I'm not defending the nutbag supporters -- even the sane ones, who are worse than this fellow who sounds genuinely nuts.

    I'm saying that the candidates themselves are not nearly as bad as these people.  If you're thinking of boycotting Edwards or Obama in the general election because of anonymous statements made by their supporters on blogs then you're being unfair to the candidates.


    So, you're a member of America for Clinton, (none / 0) (#20)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:07:42 PM EST
    and not the Democratic party?

    You too now? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:13:18 PM EST

    So Primary Idiocy will be accelerating in the next 40 days.

    Duck and cover.


    Ooops (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:14:29 PM EST
    Sorry. I misread who the comment was directed at.

    I agree with your view there.


    For the record, if Clinton (none / 0) (#29)
    by Geekesque on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:23:02 PM EST
    is the nominee of course I'm voting for her.

    party? (none / 0) (#36)
    by RalphB on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 06:33:11 PM EST
    I'm an Independent, not a registered democrat. Though I generally vote democratic, more than some of my democratic friends in fact, unless someone shows me something other than vaporous BS or personal attacks, they're not going to get my vote.

    Of the top 3, Clinton is the only one I would unquestionably vote for.  I would vote for Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, or Joe Biden but they won't be the nominee.

    A little history. I supported Howard Dean in 04 with contributions, writing letters to Iowa, making phone calls for the campaign.  As a social liberal, fiscal conservative who would keep big government off my back, he was after my own heart.  Of course I liked him a lot better when he was governor of Vermont than after his internet makeover when he became the progressive hero.


    Fair enough (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:02:43 PM EST
    I disagree with you.

    You need to vote for Obama or (none / 0) (#42)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:04:01 PM EST
    Edwards if they get the nomination. Don't make a big mistake by wasting your vote.

    waste (none / 0) (#45)
    by RalphB on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:15:23 PM EST
    Maybe but I think we all need to vote our own conscience.  To each his own but I think if we all did that, the country would be just fine.

    waste expanded (none / 0) (#47)
    by RalphB on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:19:20 PM EST
    Let me expand on that a bit.  I think if Iowa voters in 04 had voted their conscience, Dean would have won. But they didn't, they voted for what they assumed was electability as expressed in the MSM.  Then Kerry went on to be a disaster of a general election candidate.

    Vote your choice in the primary but use (none / 0) (#48)
    by Teresa on Mon Nov 26, 2007 at 07:27:41 PM EST
    your head in the general Ralph. We really need to win this election.