home

Michelle Obama: I Would Have To Think About Supporting Clinton If She Is The Nominee

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:41:23 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

This is what we do NOT need

Imagine if Bill Clinton had said that? Michelle Obama needs to straighten this out immediately. Really bad stuff from the Obama campaign.

Update (TL): More than 300 comments, this thread is closing. Thanks for your thoughts.

< Jury Duty and Open Thread | Just Win, Baby >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Michelle Obama: I Would Have To Think About Supporting Clinton If She Is The Nominee | 306 comments (306 topical)
    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:43:58 AM EST
    And remember, Big Bad Mean Bill has been saying all this time that "we have no bad choices" in the primaries, and that "he will work hard" for the nominee.

    Someone has more class than the other person here. Can you decide which?

    here is another one (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:44:51 PM EST
    "If you can't run your house, you can't run the White House."

    Posted on MyDD

    [ Parent ]

    Who is surprised by this??? (none / 0) (#180)
    by IndependantThinker on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:32:38 PM EST
    Who here did not think this would be the attitude of the Obama camp??? I mean seriously!! Barack has already said in news conferences that "I am confident I could win her supporters, but I can't say the same this about my supporters."

    I know I have said that I would not support Obama if he is the nominee and this is part of the reason. His supporters are hateful.

    Women have been expected to pull together for the common good, but you know what? We have gained nothing by doing it. Even if this idiot has a women on the ticket as VP (and he would not offer it to Hillary), the party would abandon that women in 8 years when Obama is done for another man.

    [ Parent ]

    See my comment below (none / 0) (#233)
    by edgery on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:18:37 PM EST
    This video is by a user who just opened his/her/its YouTube account today, is clipped to omit the rest of what Mrs. Obama said.  I don't have a dog in the hunt between Obama and Clinton; I'm still voting for Edwards on 2/12. I just don't want to see this continued rending of the fabric of the party.

    Right after that Michelle said this in the interview:

    "Everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think we're all working for the same thing. Our goal is to make sure the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe Barack is the only person who can really do that."

    ABC News

    [ Parent ]

    The Unity Candidate? (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by MO Blue on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:51:03 AM EST
    Have we have gone from supporting the Democratic Party to supporting a third party? The Party of Obama.

    I see that it is part of ABC news but what does GMA stand for? Is this a small subset that will get no traction or something that could get more attention?

    Good Morning America (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:57:12 AM EST
    It's so weird to have this kind of crap spewing from a campaign built on unity.  Unity for everyone but Democrats seems like a weird message in a democratic primary.  

    [ Parent ]
    It is a big audience (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:59:32 AM EST
    and only a Media and a blogosphere intent on adulating Obama would ignore it.

    I do not know if this has been covered, but failing to is inexcusable by any Left blog.

    [ Parent ]

    Expected (none / 0) (#92)
    by koshembos on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:44:47 PM EST
    If Hillary wins, it is clear that Obama must be her VP. Otherwise, this kind of talk is expected and inherent in the Obama phenomenon. I expect major difficulties with the Obamaheads staying away from the polls in the general elections otherwise.

    All we have to do is look at the right wing mirror image to understand how bad the situation really is. This seems like Atwater's revenge.

    [ Parent ]

    What makes you think (3.00 / 2) (#106)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:51:21 PM EST
    Obama would do this. He and his wife seem to think they are entitled to the presidency. According to Newsweek she has been introducing him to African American audiences by saying it is "our turn". I'm afraid that they will be very angry if Barack is not the nominee and will probably not want to support Hillary, let alone run with her. After all, when the party leaders wanted him to sit with her at the SOTU address as a show of party unity she agreed but he refused. He used the lame excuse that she had not asked him.
    http://www.newsweek.com/id/96026
    http://thepage.time.com/2008/01/29/the-snub-before-the-snub/

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks, I said it's a third party (3.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:33:00 PM EST
    from the start -- but "Obamacrats" are more dishonest, taking and benefiting from pretending to be within the Dem party.  

    And look what Nader wrought.  But at least he was more honest about it.

    [ Parent ]

    Bad for Primary, Bad for General (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by BDB on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:53:26 AM EST
    This come on the heels of an NPR poll that shows, much as a recent LA Times poll, that Obama has trouble uniting the Democratic base againt McCain.  Hillary wins Dems against McCain 88-9, Obama wins them 77-18.  Now it's true that Obama does a couple of points better than Clinton do to independents and Republicans and he loses to McCain by one point, whereas Clinton loses by three (although both results are within the margin of error).  

    It seems to me, however, that no Democrat can win next year without uniting the Democratic base.  First, there are more people who identify as Democrats than Republicans.  So a united Democratic base gives an advantage going in.  Second, independents and Republicans can be a fickle bunch, especially after what is sure to be a very brutal, negative general campaign.  A lot of independents preferred Kerry for the nomination, too, but then abandoned him in the GE.

    What's more, I don't understand why Michelle Obama would say this the day before Super Tuesday.  Is it a dogwhistle to the Hillary haters to cross over?  Is she politically tone deaf?  She certainly isn't stupid.

    She's had a sharp tone from the start (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:35:13 PM EST
    and was the first to raise race, even before the first caucus:  "Ain't no black people in Iowa!"

    McClatchy newspapers today, finally, are starting a focus on what the other of the two Obamas has been saying, below the radar.  It is not good -- for Dems, anyway.  It seems to have been good for the two Obamas.

    [ Parent ]

    do you have a link to any articles (none / 0) (#78)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:38:27 PM EST
    in those newspapers??

    [ Parent ]
    I just got it as a cut-and-paste on email today (none / 0) (#193)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:42:14 PM EST
    so no URL, but it was a story on Saturday, 2/2 by a Margaret Talev; headline was, I think, "Spouse vs. spouse" -- if that helps to get it via google.

    Several quotes there also give pause.  And the reporter writes this:  The other "Obama has gotten an easier ride" with little attention paid, especially, to what she says before AA and especially AA women's groups.  "But some of Obama's edgier comments could have exploded into controversy if she'd rolled them out before different audiences, say, during a general election campaign aimed at attracting swing voters."


    [ Parent ]

    i beg to differ. so called smart people do and say (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:46:14 PM EST
    very stupid things. witness the comments obama makes. we don't need any more arrogance in the white house.

    [ Parent ]
    It's inexperience (none / 0) (#107)
    by djork on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:51:22 PM EST
    This is the first truly tough election Obama has faced. They do not yet know what it feels like to take a punch, hence are reacting this way to getting knocked around a bit by a tough opponent.

    It's why Hillary and Ted K. are friendly to each other after he ripped her in his Obama endorsement speech. They understand that it's politics and at the end of the day, Dems are on the same side. Obama still has to learn that.

    [ Parent ]

    obama has plenty of time to learn it. (none / 0) (#273)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:09:46 PM EST
    he just refuses to do so.

    [ Parent ]
    shhh (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Plutonium Page on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:07:30 PM EST
    don't post anything negative about godheads!

    I think I am the only one (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:10:11 PM EST
    not genuflecting yet.

    One would think that the blogs where Nader is a dirty word might be interested in this.

    [ Parent ]

    Most people have their fingers in the wind (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by andgarden on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:31:42 PM EST
    It's pretty disappointing, actually.

    [ Parent ]
    it's easier to keep your head up your butt (none / 0) (#200)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:47:39 PM EST
    when your finger is in the wind

    [ Parent ]
    Out of context (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:16:31 PM EST
    Whoa.  I saw this interview.  This is out of context.  She said she would support the nominee of the democratic party.  When asked specifically about whether should would campaign for Clinton - and work to help her - she said she would have to think about it.  Watch the entire interview and it's clear she would support the nominee but would have to think about whether she'd campaign for them.  Two very different things.

    Parsing (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:20:12 PM EST
    You always campaign for the nominee and you don't do the qualifiers she did. Amateurs or wonderful manipulators. She got her jibes out, all personal.

    [ Parent ]
    EXACTLY. (none / 0) (#62)
    by mad clamor on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:28:22 PM EST
    I watched the video clip alone and I could tell that her comments were limited to the question of whether or not she would actively work to promote Hillary, if she got the nomination.  This characterization is absurd, and senselessly divisive.

    [ Parent ]
    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#65)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:29:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Rediculous? (none / 0) (#70)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:33:11 PM EST
    BTD - the title of your post includes a quote you have attributed to Michelle Obama.  You say Michelle Obama said: "I Would Have To Think About Supporting Clinton If She Is The Nominee"  

    She did NOT say this at all in the interview.  If I am wrong, please post that section of the interview.  

    [ Parent ]

    You know (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:36:33 PM EST
    I really am sick and tired of this type of behavior from Obama supporters.

    "GMA: Could you see yourself working to support Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination?

    MICHELLE OBAMA: I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone."

    Pleaqse stop the cultlike behavior. You look like a blind fool.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD (none / 0) (#95)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:45:42 PM EST
    That exchange occurred after she said she would support the nominee.  Then she was asked if she would campaign for her.

    You may be tired of Obama supporters, I'm tired of you mis-representing.

    Please provide a link to the quote you have attributed to Michelle Obama in the title of your post.

    [ Parent ]

    How else would she support Hillary? (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:56:22 PM EST
    By voting?
    If you a prominent person in the Democratic party are really serious about supporting the party, you work to support its candidates. This is what is expected and what those who lose do. For her to say this shows that her loyalty is not to the rest of us.

    [ Parent ]
    You cannot twist this. (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:58:51 PM EST
    By not campaigning and by qualifying with the " positions, tone" qualifiers, she is putting doubt, She is smearing. She has gone beyond any of the Bill comments. Heaven help us.

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me (none / 0) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:47:22 PM EST
    She was asked if wshe would work to support the nominee.

    The questioner was right, Michelle Obama said it was "not a given."

    We do not play "What Michelle Obama Meant" here.

    Here is a test for you, what would you say if Clinton said the same thing?

    Stop this nonsense PLEASE.

    [ Parent ]

    Please support your quote. (none / 0) (#112)
    by andreww on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:53:33 PM EST
    BTD - I am not the one twisting words to find new meaning to them.  I am accurately portraying the interview.  You can say all you want, yet you still refuse to provide a link that supports the quote you have attributed to Michelle Obama?  Why?

    I don't think it exists.  You have a perfect opportunity to prove me wrong if you are indeed correct, yet you don't.  This only leads me to believe I am correct (especially since I watched the whole interview) and that you MISQUOTED Michelle Obama in the title of your post.

    Can you please either confirm you mis-quoted MO or provide a link that supports your quote.

    [ Parent ]

    what words did I twist? (none / 0) (#119)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:55:40 PM EST
    Are you DENYING the quote I provided you?

    Stop this cultlike behavior.

    And do not accuse me of distorting when I provided the video.

    If you continue in this fashion, I will ask you to leave the site for the day.

    [ Parent ]

    And stop making ridiculous demands (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:49:07 PM EST
    when you want to play cult member.

    I will not play your game.

    [ Parent ]

    The question was: (none / 0) (#134)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:01:31 PM EST
    "Could you see yourself working to support Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination?

    Answer: "I would have to think about that. I would have to think about policies, her approach, her tone.."
    "Everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think we're all working for the same thing. Our goal is to make sure the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe Barack is the only person who can really do that,"


    [ Parent ]

    Michelle never said: (none / 0) (#137)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:04:01 PM EST
    "I would have to think about supporting Clinton if she is the nominee."

    [ Parent ]
    She said (none / 0) (#142)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:06:06 PM EST
    in answer to the question

    "GMA: Could you see yourself working to support Hillary Clinton should she win the nomination?"

    This

    "MICHELLE OBAMA: I'd have to think about that. I'd have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone. "

    My quote is quite accurate.

    [ Parent ]

    This quote is accurate. Yes, (none / 0) (#155)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:18:31 PM EST
    The quote above the story thread is not.

    [ Parent ]
    What does "work for supporitng" mean? (none / 0) (#162)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:22:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    No, the question is: (none / 0) (#186)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:34:32 PM EST
    What do quotation marks around a statement attributed to a person mean.

    [ Parent ]
    That the person made a statement (none / 0) (#215)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:00:36 PM EST
    IF I had made a blockquote with brackets, it would be perfectly proper.

    But if I understand you people correctly, you are not disputing the characterization, just the use of the quotatin marks.

    I have removed them.

    Now what?

    [ Parent ]

    My question is: what do quotation marks (none / 0) (#202)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:48:41 PM EST
    mean when attributing a statement made by someone?

    Isn't it supposed to be the direct speech of someone? It's not a paraphrase nor what you think someone meant.

    Debate, interpret whatever you wish to what she said, but to place quotation marks around words a person never said, is incorrect.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm an editor with a journalism degree. (5.00 / 1) (#266)
    by echinopsia on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:52:58 PM EST
    What quotes indicate is that what is inside the quotes is exactly what was said, verbatim.

    We do not edit direct quotes, they are sacred.

    BTD did the right thing by taking the quotes off.

    That does not change what she actually said, and what she said was that she "would have to think about" supporting Clinton.

    We have spoken.

    [ Parent ]

    I absolutely agree with your direct quote (none / 0) (#275)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:16:31 PM EST
    explanation. That's why I objected. I think BTD did the right thing in removing the quotation marks and I thank him.

    I disagree with your intepretation. I agree she meant she has to think about working to support Clinton. I do not intepret that to mean that she wouldn't support Clinton's candidacy.

    And having said this, I shall end my comments on this subject.

    [ Parent ]

    sorry for the double post, my computer is (none / 0) (#204)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:49:38 PM EST
    acting up

    [ Parent ]
    She was answering the question (none / 0) (#211)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:56:50 PM EST
    in a title I could hardly put in brackets and the like.

    My characterization was QUITE fair.

    But I have removed the quotatin marks to make the Obama CULT deal with the reality of what is wrong here.

    No more distractions from the Obama Cult please.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you for removing the quotation marks. (none / 0) (#217)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:00:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Give it a rest (none / 0) (#188)
    by mexboy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:38:15 PM EST
    It's a paraphrase...same thing!

    [ Parent ]
    Give it a rest (none / 0) (#190)
    by mexboy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:39:38 PM EST
    It's a paraphrase...same thing!

    [ Parent ]
    No, It's not. (none / 0) (#205)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:51:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    This is false (none / 0) (#140)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:04:41 PM EST
    The question and answer are ONLY what is before your ellipse.

    [ Parent ]
    No. It's not. (none / 0) (#152)
    by byteb on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:16:39 PM EST
    After the ellipse, the reporter interjects this question: "So that's not a given?"
    Michelle answers "You know, everyone in this party is going to work hard for whoever the nominee is. I think we're all working for the same thing. Our goal is to make sure the person in the White House is going to take this country in a different direction. I happen to believe Barack is the only person who can really do that,"
    The dialogue before the ellipse is accurate. I transcribed it after listening to it. I just watched it again and added the reporter's additional question asked after the ellipse.
    BTD, she never made the quote you attributed to her.

    [ Parent ]
    If a sentence by Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#157)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:19:14 PM EST
    without context gets headlines across the country. . . .  Well, what's good for the gander is good for the goose.

    [ Parent ]
    I reject your defense (none / 0) (#161)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:21:29 PM EST
    The context does not save this statement AT ALL.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm actually entirely agreeing with you (none / 0) (#179)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:32:24 PM EST
    that the larger context argued here for the Michelle Obama quote does not matter to me -- or to us.

    Every sentence has to be able to stand alone.  Every word has to be weighed when running for office -- or speaking as a surrogate for a spouse.

    Every sentence or word certainly would be so weighed if the spouse ends up in the White House -- and could be weighed against the entire country, not just another candidate.

    (I also have no problem with your header on this post, btw.  Paraphrasing for headlines is commonplace and acceptable practice, so long as the full quote is provided, too -- as you did.)

    [ Parent ]

    What larger context is that? (none / 0) (#209)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:54:47 PM EST
    See that is what I reject. There is no help from the larger context.

    [ Parent ]
    Again, that is what I agree about (none / 0) (#220)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:02:31 PM EST
    in this inane debate with the cultists who keep arguing to listen to what she said in the longer clip, their larger context -- after the awful quote that is your focus, and correctly so.

    MO probably said a dozen more things after the anti-unity, anti-Hillary quote in that interview.  MO undoubtedly has said a thousand things since.  I don't care about all that larger context, either -- what she said about Clinton's "policies, approach, tone" is a sentence sufficient to cause the concern you raise.

    That's all.  Again, I am agreeing with you -- but this thread has gotten so long now that it apparently isn't clear.  So it goes.

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#160)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:20:35 PM EST
    You just admitted there was another question.

    My statement is correct. Your comment was false.

    The quote is what I provided.

    Are you ACTUALLY suggesting that "What Michelle Obama Meant" TM was NOT that she was unsure whether she would support Hillary Clinton?

    That the point of her statement is she was unsure whether she would "WORK for supporting" (whatever that means)Hillary Clinton?

    Help me out here? "What Did Michell Obama Mean?"

    And riddle me this, if Bill Clinton had said it, would you be playing "What Bill Clinton Meant?"

    This is now a cult joke punchline.

    [ Parent ]

    what she really meant was? oh please! (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:47:22 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You must be kidding (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:29:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The Obama's or Obamacans, (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by my opinion on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:33:12 PM EST
    are beginning to sound like Joe Lieberman.

    Wasn't Obama "mentored" (none / 0) (#139)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    by Holy Joe in the Senate?

    [ Parent ]
    michelle, you are as full of yourself as (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:43:45 PM EST
    your husband. guess what, lady, hillary doesn't need your vote. and frankly, we don't need a first lady or second lady with a mouth like that.

    speakiing of things (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:44:23 PM EST
    that the media doesnt show you, look at all of these empty seats at the Oprah/Obama event....
    i went to site and the photo isn't there. hmmm! (none / 0) (#274)
    by hellothere on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:11:06 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    photo definitely scrubbed.... (none / 0) (#290)
    by neilario on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:46:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Unbelievable (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by wasabi on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:48:31 PM EST
    Every Democrat needs to actively work for the nominee after he/she is picked.  To even hesitate about this question, coming from a candidate's spouse is unbelievable.
    I didn't vote for Kerry in the 2004 primary, but I worked my butt off for him in the fall including a month long stay in Florida going door-to-door having conversations with voters about the issues.
    I simply cannot believe she made this statement.  It is extremely ugly.

    Not ready for prime time. (none / 0) (#287)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:37:20 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Exactly the phrase that came to mind (5.00 / 1) (#302)
    by Cream City on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 04:56:28 PM EST
    for me, too!  Harmonic convergence again, oldpro.:-)

    [ Parent ]
    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:53:24 PM EST
    when asked if he would campaign for Obama said he wouldnt hesitate, and also when asked about Oprah, he said that when the time came if Hillary gets the nomination, he hoped that she would support her....big difference in attitude...

    Obvioulsy (none / 0) (#115)
    by squeaky on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    He is a much better pol than MO.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:54:05 PM EST
    Why can we not cuss? Just one time....

    Lol! (none / 0) (#151)
    by hookfan on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:16:17 PM EST
    Actually we can cuss all we want-- just don't hit the post button=)

    [ Parent ]
    last time (none / 0) (#227)
    by Jgarza on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:13:02 PM EST
    you found a way of saying something highly offensive with out cussing.  Pavlovian relationship BTD has with you.

    [ Parent ]
    Get over it.... (none / 0) (#312)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 07:20:28 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's not just about her (5.00 / 6) (#125)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    When MO says stuff like this, when BO says it's unclear whether his supporters would show up for Hillary as the nominee, we're not just talking about their individual opinions.  They're also sending a clear signal to their supporters, a very irresponsible one, that it's OK not to support Hillary if you don't want to.

    If you expect all the resources of the Democratic Party to be deployed for you if you win the nomination, you need to show a little more commitment than this to the party as an institution.  I support the Democratic Party, not the Party of Obama.

    Very true (none / 0) (#130)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    and very divisive.

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't it interesting (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:12:31 PM EST
    how in the netroots, we usually deplore politicians who take the Democratic base for granted?

    The cost of unfailing loyalty, I suppose, is that no one feels compelled to assuage your concerns.  You and I are both going to vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what, so why should Obama bother running the type of campaign we partisan Democrats want him to run?

    I don't think Obama would be anywhere with the netroots audience if his opponent were anyone other than the hated Hillary Clinton.  If a Democrat in Congress ran on this sort of schtick, we'd all be looking for a primary opponent.

    [ Parent ]

    Sold their souls (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:14:31 PM EST
    There is no netroots anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe they will learn (none / 0) (#156)
    by Steve M on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:19:03 PM EST
    The netroots' persistent obsession with purity, IMO, creates an institutional bias towards supporting whatever candidate hasn't managed to disappoint us just yet.  I mean, these are people who talk about a primary against Russ Feingold if he casts a bad vote.

    I personally don't want to watch this electoral opportunity go by the wayside just so they can learn their lesson.

    [ Parent ]

    i think it points to his misunderstanding (none / 0) (#292)
    by neilario on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:49:30 PM EST
    of the ramifications of what he says... just as you indicate. like using the right wing attack points   or harry loiuse ads... he does not understand that he has a special responsibility for what he says....

    [ Parent ]
    The Snub, Part 2 (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by xjt on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:03:07 PM EST
    "I think I can get her supporters. I'm not sure she can get mine." Didn't Obama say that the other day? I guess he meant his wife.

    This is inexcusable. More hypocrisy coming from the Obama campaign. They really seem to have absorbed all of this adulation in the most juvenile way. It's quite clear that they and their supporters despise Hillary. Do they really think there will be no consequences for this type of talk?

    I remember Ronald Reagan said (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by athyrio on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:14:12 PM EST
    "thou shalt not speak evil about a fellow republican"...MO needs to learn that...

    Michelle Obama's comment (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by auntmo on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:27:04 PM EST
    I  watched  the  entire  GMA  video.  

    This  is  DEEPLY  offensive.  And  ARROGANT.  

    And Barak  himself  has  said  he could  easily  get  Hillary's  votes,  but  he's  not  sure  Hillary  could  get  his.

    They're  not  interested in   "unity."  

    They're  interested  in  THEMSELVES.  

    I'm   DONE  listening  to anything  they  say.  

    There May Be (5.00 / 1) (#250)
    by bob h on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 02:34:50 PM EST
    a touch of immaturity about both Barack and his wife.

    how can anyone defend this? (5.00 / 1) (#270)
    by cdo on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:01:58 PM EST
    I mean seriously? It was a pretty simple question. Her answer is why so many ppl here defected from Kos, and every other site that has adopted a "my candidate" instead of "my party" attitude".
    And I will not believe she isn't aware of that attitude. I'm disgusted.

    i'd wager (none / 0) (#276)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:17:00 PM EST
    their paying to have it spread on the internet.  i mean there's a lot of ways to spend $32mil.

    [ Parent ]
    Finally the TRUTH! (5.00 / 1) (#304)
    by MarkieBee on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:47:33 PM EST
    Was the first poster actually suggesting that Bill Clinton has more class than Michelle Obama? That could be the funniest thing I've read in along, long time. Michelle Obama has more class in her pinky finger than Bill Clinton has in his entire body. My God, she tells the unvarnished truth and you Hillary sock puppets look right past that and are incredulous that she didn't give the straight-up Kumbaya message. See, why the Clintons have been playing politics with every news cycle, whining about coverage, etc. It's been Barack and Michelle Obama who have been busy building a grassroots movement that is on even footing with the machine...and the Clintons and their sock puppets just can't stand it. They actually may lose this thing. man, what a wonderful thing that would be. We can finally get rid of the class-less and insincere former president and his inexperienced, no-judgment wife.

    Ask John Kerry about the Clintons' support (5.00 / 1) (#305)
    by MarkieBee on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 05:52:35 PM EST
    Big Tent says that Bill has mentioned that they'll support whomever the nominee is. Yup, thanks for the pitch-perfect script work there Bill. But when you had a chance to really work hard for Kerry in 2004 you made a few cursory appearances and then went AWOL. You had a perfect chance to be the lightning rod for media attention you have been for your wife this election cycle. You could have been the one pointing out that Bush was AWOL while Kerry was getting shot at. But you wussied out Bill, knowing full well that if Hillary had a chance in 2008 Kerry had to go down. Your silence was deafening and your brand of politics will soon be muted as well.

    uhm (none / 0) (#307)
    by Kathy on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:16:45 PM EST
    I believe he went AWOL because he had a freakin' heart attack

    The blame for Kerry not winning lays squarely on Kerry for not reaching out to the core dems, who did not automatically appreciate his intellectual, eastern-elite, chosen-one status.  And so they chose to stay at work instead of giving up the $14 they would have lost at work for taking off two hours to wait in line and vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Ha! (none / 0) (#309)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 06:59:19 PM EST
    Too freaking funny.

    [ Parent ]
    Now we're getting somewhere... (4.00 / 1) (#291)
    by oldpro on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 03:46:28 PM EST
    ....revealing the truth about the Obama campaign.  It always was a draft to find a cnadidate by the Dem establishment to 'take out the Clintons.'  They didn't favor Edwards, either, and didn't think he could beat Hillary, so they went shopping and found a more-than-willing, ambitious and talented pol with a wonderful story and a lot of chutzpah.

    Wonder how they plan to heal the divisions they are creating in the Democratic Party...much less in the country and (heh) with Republicans?

    This is worse than Kennedy/Carter.  Worse than Humphrey/McCarthy/Kennedy.  And this time It's deliberate.  Unforgiveable, in my book.

    Ok, (3.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:52:25 AM EST
    No comment. It's all about them. Remember when she worked for the Hospital, before Obama was elected Senator she made in the 150,000 range then it went to 350,000. You think she has credibility?

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:55:55 AM EST
    You are dissing her because she made money working?  I bet Bill Clinton has made a lot more lately.  

    [ Parent ]
    No (3.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:01:35 PM EST
    Because its a lie. It's not a coincidance that he gives away the store when it comes to healthcare. Payback.

    [ Parent ]
    So he is not (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Wile ECoyote on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:04:54 PM EST
    socialized enough on health care for you because Mrs. Barack Obama made good money working in the health care field at one time?  

    [ Parent ]
    Look post #38 with link (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:09:07 PM EST
    Its simple I don't trust them. They are corporatist. They do not have one iota concern for the Democratic agenda. They want power at any cost, they want the idolatry before anything else. I do not want the aristocracy and the plutocracy running my country. Just go off now and leave me alone cause they disgust me.

    [ Parent ]
    Hate to break it to you.... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:29:55 PM EST
    but the same could be said for Clinton.  She's a corporatist who wants power at any cost too.

    If you're looking for an anti-corporatist, you need to look outside the two party duopoly.

    [ Parent ]

    I know what she is (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:36:02 PM EST
    and I know what she is not.  I am not voting for someone who is not what he says he is and all the evidence I find, shows me he is not what he says he is.  And further more, someone who is willing to risk my party's agenda and win.  I have no delusions about Hillary, but I also respect her and trust her.  Yet, I do not respect or trust Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    Fair enough.... (none / 0) (#108)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:51:48 PM EST
    Agree to disagree....I don't trust Obama or Clinton one iota.

    [ Parent ]
    hahaha... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:30:43 PM EST
    ... so Obama is a "corporatist" but Clinton is not?

    [ Parent ]
    You need to... (none / 0) (#175)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:30:07 PM EST
    ... learn about Obama's health care plan.  

    On any issues related to the health industry (i.e. the hospital that MO worked at), Clinton and Obama are almost identical.

    The only significant difference is on the lack of mandates, which do not help the hospitals.

    [ Parent ]

    You need to... (none / 0) (#182)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:32:46 PM EST
    ... learn about Obama's health care plan.  

    On any issues related to the health industry (i.e. the hospital that MO worked at), Clinton and Obama are almost identical.

    The only significant difference is on the lack of mandates, which do not help the hospitals.

    [ Parent ]

    And it is because of things like this that... (3.00 / 2) (#14)
    by democratnanny on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 11:58:35 AM EST
    ...this lifetime Democrat will have to think long and hard if Michelle Obama's husband is the nominee.

    Excuse me (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:00:30 PM EST
    Not acceptable to me. Every Dem must vote for the Dem nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by democratnanny on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:08:20 PM EST
    No, everyone US Citizen should vote for whomever they think will be the best leader for our country at the best time.

    [ Parent ]
    So you support (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:09:11 PM EST
    Michelle Obama on this.

    I do not.

    [ Parent ]

    Absolutely..... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:18:51 PM EST
    anybody who votes for a candidate for no other  reason than the letter after their name is a sheep.

    Why even bother having candidates?  We can all just vote D or R every 2 years and then pick a party member out of a hat to fill the office.

    [ Parent ]

    the point being (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by english teacher on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:22:18 PM EST
    that if this fake gets the nomination, the party is dead.  that's the way i see it.

    [ Parent ]
    The party has been dead to me.... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:39:12 PM EST
    for some time now.  

    [ Parent ]
    Foolish (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:40:10 PM EST
    Look you want respect for this foolish view?

    I will not give it.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't want respect.... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:55:23 PM EST
    I want my country to stop occupying foreign countries and to end drug prohibition.

    The Democrats will do neither.

    [ Parent ]

    For no other reason? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:39:16 PM EST
    Do you think there is no difference between the candidaters and that the D and/or R are not indicative of those differences?

    Foolish.


    [ Parent ]

    That is fine (none / 0) (#129)
    by BernieO on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    but you should be an independent, not a Republican or Democrat.

    [ Parent ]
    Party before country...... (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:11:46 PM EST
    Seriously bro....if the Dems happen to nominate a candidate who you believe in your heart of hearts would be bad for America...you'd vote for that candidate anyway?

    Even nutjobs like Coulter and Mark Levin have more integrity than that...or so they claim in regards to McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Voting for my party is (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:16:27 PM EST
    voting for the country.

    I suppose you are voting for McCain and his policies.

    That makes you a Republican.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm voting for..... (none / 0) (#73)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:34:22 PM EST
    Nader, Kubby, or whoever is on the ballot that isn't a D or an R.

    Cuz that's what is good for the country:)  

    [ Parent ]

    Did it help the country in 2000? (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:38:01 PM EST
    Do what you feel, but I know what to think of your silly gesture.

    [ Parent ]
    I guess not in 2000..... (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    But not for lack of trying.

    Here's to tryin' again in '08, '12, '16....as long as it takes.

    [ Parent ]

    Dem Policies (none / 0) (#40)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:12:32 PM EST
    are what we are voting for.... no way can I vote for Repub policies.

    [ Parent ]
    No.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 12:42:35 PM EST
    you are voting for a person who you hope will support policies you support.

    Good luck cuz all I can find are Nader, Paul, or Kubby.  All with their flaws to be sure, but all light years ahead of Clinton, Obama, McCain, or Romney.

    [ Parent ]

    No I'm not (none / 0) (#210)
    by PlayInPeoria on Mon Feb 04, 2008 at 01:55:03 PM EST
    you are voting for a person who you hope will support policies you support

    Once the primary is completed...I vote Dem. Back when they had straight tickets it was much easier. Now I just go through and pick the Dems.

    I beleive that