Bob Casey: Liberal for a Day

Much is being made of PA Senator Robert Casey's endorsement of Barack Obama. Some got so carried away they suggested Casey be Obama's VP nominee. Others saw through that pretty quick. Where does Casey stand on issues? Here's some of his positions:

  • He believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned and opposes embryonic stem cell research.
  • He supports Bush's warrantless NSA spying program and thinks the Patriot Act is a vital tool and a necessary one.
  • He supports the death penalty and opposes legalization of all drugs.
  • On the war in Iraq, he's been against a deadline for withdrawal.
  • He supported the Defense of Marriage Amendment and opposes gay marriage.
  • He supports teaching "abstinence plus" in schools and the posting of the Ten Commandments in government buildings:

Some specifics below the fold:

On Abortion:

  • Roe v. Wade Should Be Overturned. (Dec 2005)
  • Right to Privacy means contraception, not unborn. (Dec 2005)
  • No embryonic stem cell research; adult research ok. (Jul 2005)
  • Exceptions to save life of mother, rape & incest. (Nov 2004)
  • Opposes public funding of abortion. (Nov 2004)
  • Supports state funding of contraceptive services. (Nov 2004)
  • Opposes Woman's Right to Abortion. (Nov 2004)
  • Opposes Tax-Funded Abortion. (Nov 2004)
  • Supports Legal Protection for Human Life from Conception. (Nov 2004)
  • Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)

On Homeland Security:

  • Keep the wiretaps and keep the intelligence programs. (Sep 2006)
  • PATRIOT Act is vital law in war on terror. (Apr 2006)
  • Don't censure Bush for domestic spying. (Mar 2006)
  • Voted YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)

You can follow the links for the rest of the quotes. I've had more than enough of him.

< Texas County Convention Results | Why Edwards Didn't Endorse Obama, Superdelegates and More >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    His anti-choice positions... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kredwyn on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:54:03 PM EST
    Gave me the willies.

    ignoring of course... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:04:29 PM EST
    that the guy he unseated was Santorum who was worse.

    This of course is why Obama can't win PA, won't win PA in the general election, can't win the general election and will lose support from the left in the general election.

    It's not that Casey endorsed Obama...it's that Casey is the one Obama feels worthy to travel through PA with.

    I was watching a news conference from one of their speech sites on CNN today...the place was empty. What happened to the huge throngs that turn out to hear Obama speak?

    There's clearly a disconnect between Obama and PA and Casey doesn't change that aspect one single bit. The question becomes...is there any way that Obama can win the GE?  Methinks not.

    Ugh. (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by rooge04 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:06:21 PM EST
    Anti-choice Democrats are worse than Republicans.  Why are they Democrats at all? Color me shocked that Sen. Casey said his daughters convinced him to go for Obama.

    Daughters, whatever (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by zyx on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:13:46 PM EST
    Have a friend who is an administrator of a Planned Parenthood clinic in a conservative city in a conservative state.  She confirms what I have read in the excellent book about abortion in this country, "Articles of Faith" by Cynthia Gorney.

    When conservatives have unwelcome pregnancies (or their daughters do), they are likely to leave that protest line and sneak in the clinic.  Oh, their own circumstances are "unique"--they aren't like those other 'ho girls.  It's different.  They rationalize.  

    Makes the oatmeal hit the wall, doesn't it?


    I fear for the (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by rooge04 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:25:35 PM EST
    young women of today who seem to be indifferent to some extent to the realities of how close they are to losing their reproductive rights.  I am youngish, married, no children. But I wish that girls that were more affected by this would worry about it a little more.

    Girls just wanna have fun... (none / 0) (#124)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:39:56 AM EST
    what were those statistics I heard last week...?  One in four teenage girls has a sexually-transmitted disease...48% for AA teen girls.

    Stupidity is terrifying but it seems to be on a fast track.


    Remeber the state legislator in ND (none / 0) (#13)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:16:41 PM EST
    who gave the scenario in which abortion would be ok, a couple years back?
    The details of his conditions are too graphic for TL, but she had to be a virgin, for sure.

    Casey Jr uses Dem bux to disenfranchise women (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Ellie on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:14:49 PM EST
    It's a big reason I'm an I(ndy) voter who no longer contributes to the RW-courting Partei. In the spirit of generosity, I wish them well in getting dollars, phone banking, water carrying and generally getting their backs watched from fertilized eggs however.

    Chuck Schumer was willing to shut down Congress on behalf of right wing Israeli concerns regarding Lebanon, but he actively courted hard right, no-choice Dems like Casey Jr.

    Casey will not separate his personal anti-abortion views from his duty to represent all voters, and disregards women's humanity who are at that awkward stage between fertilized egg and unsentient beings hooked to a machine like Terry Schiavo.

    This is a deal-breaker for me and the more Obama courts the hard right, the less likely I am to vote for any ticket with him on it. (I'm not a Dem because of this, though the non-stance on torture and lawlessness was my original tipping point.)

    Were this the Dem ticket, I'd support Dems down ticket and write in my own tick of Edwards / Gore or Clinton, or Cletus the Fetus and Warren Terra.

    But not these two clowns, no way, no how.


    Casey (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by womanwarrior on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:07:45 PM EST
    So now you know how we Pennsylvanians felt when Casey was shoved down our throats as the only way to beat Santorum?  And Santorum has not changed his positions one whit and never will. He was a nightmare for this state.  He was the jerk outside of Schiavo's hospital, remember, not Casey?

    Casey is good for workers and unions and we will need him to take Pennsylvania in the General Election.  We did it for Kerry and we will again, unless we beat each other to a pulp and lose our energy.  Come on, this is a campaign.  

    Obama should not be dissed for taking Casey's  endorsement.  A lot of people live between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, and we will need them energized in the Fall.  If he energizes people that Hillary doesn't, then that is for the good.  Come on, remember, this is a Big Tent.  

    Hillary has taken endorsements from people we don't like as well. So please, stop the villifying.  


    Sorry, anyone who can't say I'm more human (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:32:08 AM EST
    ... than a fertilized egg, and who vows to use his office to strip me of constitutinal rights in a secular democracy is no friend of mine.

    Dems can support him all they want, but they won't get a dime from me. Casey Jr. has no business running for office AT ALL if he can't keep church and state separate.

    I'd consider him as a candidate for head Primate of, say, the church were he to throw his mitre in the ring at the Vatican's next go-round, but he's not fit for public office in a secular democracy where his first oath is to uphold and defend the constitution.

    Kerry said he would NOT use elected office to push his personal religious beliefs into law and was vilified for it by God's Man in the White House and his bottom-dealing gang of fascists and profiteers.

    I like being a free-range, sentient human untethered to a uterine lining or frozen in a petrie dish, thank you for asking.

    I like people who aren't afraid to call me a full 100% human being above what a fertilized egg is, despite my ability to survive outside a uterus or a frozen petrie dish. I love being able to walk and think and weigh my morality and life decisions on my own despite being saddled with two X chromosomes.

    Your unions and other "classic" Dem causes will do just fine with the support Casey Jr will bring from his army of fertilized eggs, whether they're expunged for dozens of routine reasons and take to door knocking and such, or if he gets his way and they are brought to term and voting age by a fertility pod who has no choice in the matter.

    And be sure to say hi to the Big Dem 'Pon the Hill for me if He wonders what happened to my vanished support.


    Obama voted with the swine (none / 0) (#104)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:53:07 PM EST
    led by Frist to keep TS on life-support...he now thinks that that vote was his biggest mistake as a legislator.

    How far a leap? (none / 0) (#15)
    by cdalygo on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:18:34 PM EST
    Maybe Casey didn't need the convincing. Remember that Obama considered supporting Chief Justice Roberts confirmation until an aide reminded him how that vote would effect primary. He also intimated that a woman's clergy would play a role in an abortion decision.

    I've never trusted Obama on the choice issue. That's long before he lost my respect on everything else.


    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:33:13 PM EST
    This is why when people say, "We have to vote for Obama!  What about Roe v. Wade!"...I say, "send me a real Democrat and we'll talk about giving them my vote."

    Same hooey TeamO throws about judges (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Ellie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:47:43 AM EST
    If Obama's kissing right wing ass this hard now, I highly doubt he'll be pushing for judges as liberal as Team Jackwad pushed conservative ones.

    To them, Sandra Day O'Connor was the "centrist".

    With this kind of needless, opportunistic allegiance with the rad right AT THIS POINT, would Obama get another Thurgood Marshall or four on the bench? Give me a large, freakin' break.

    Shame on these "good" Dems for only affirmatively giving a damn about Roe v. Wade every four years when women have been extra-judicially hounded, persecuted and been literally dying for the unctuous rhetorical piety of phony "pro"-life deadbeats for decades now.

    Spare me the violin playing, TeamO. The death toll is beyond excuses.

    [insert a long and totally filthy stream of consciousness cuss-filled lament here; feel free to include obscene gestures and scatological display, whether in verbal or material reference or in combination]


    Remember (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:39:09 PM EST
    Obama won't even allow himself to be pictured with Mayor Gavin Newsom.

    This endorsement fits him to a T.

    Yuck (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by stillife on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:47:00 PM EST
    I can't believe I exhorted my son to vote for Casey in 2006.  Still, as others have noted, he was the lesser of two evils in comparison with Santorum.  

    i don't agree with the lesser of two evils (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:58:50 PM EST
    pt.  Santorum wasn't shy about his beliefs.  Casey is not much better but on most core GOP issues he is the so much akin to Santorum that his status as a Dem is in name only.  He will stand with the Dems when it is politically expedient but on social issues, the war, etc he breaks rank every single time.  He is a GOP in sheep's clothing and that makes him more dangerous to Dems---when we really need him he isn't going to be there.  At least with Santorum we wouldn't be counting on a vote that was not forthcoming.

    There's Something Wrong With Obama (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:35:26 PM EST
    Who travels all the way to Edwards' house to get a key edorsement and ends up getting in a fight with Elizabeth? It reminds of that old lady he screamed at in Iowa. As Fournier points out, Obama is arrogant, aloof, and "oozes a sense of entitlement" and "doesn't like to be challenged." It's clear that when he does get challenged, even mildly, he is unable to handle it.  Considering he's never been in a real campaign before, this might be a problem in a general election.

    And yet so many people find him inspirational... (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:43:47 PM EST
    ...there must be an Obama gene, and I just don't have it.

    Crowds yes... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:00:24 PM EST
    ...and that isn't dismissed by me. But the President is always in front of crowds. The doesn't like to be confronted stuff, sounds alot like Bush.  

    Same here (none / 0) (#75)
    by zyx on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:15:53 PM EST
    Isn't that weird?  I just don't feel that magic at all.  I kind of wish I did, a little, so I could feel better about him if he gets to be the nominee.  

    Could it be "new and different" = (none / 0) (#84)
    by Boo Radly on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:49:49 PM EST
    better among the very shallow. Not to mention the ego factor of participating in electing "the one", even knowing that he is ill prepared. There are some I suspect will try to make a new career, write a new book as an authority on the messiah.

    I repeat myself and ask why do we disrespect our honorable pols - I know there are no perfect ones, but I see it somewhat "Brave New Worldish". How long before we run out of loyal experienced candidates who will face the draubing as Hillary has done? If they can be replaced by a new brand by MSM, MCM and those party people who plan to use BO as a tool, why take the beating?

    Someone mentioned "fair is fair" in here this morning. That is how I think. That is so not de rigueur.


    When Kennedy ran, the line was that they were... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:23:25 PM EST
    ...selling him like a bar of soap and that's what they are trying to do here. The slick marketing is OK if your getting a good product, but... Mr. Obama, you're no Jack Kennedy.

    You believe that story...LOL! (3.00 / 2) (#66)
    by maritza on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:45:03 PM EST
    That is just a dumb story made up by a "source".

    The New Yorker.. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:58:11 PM EST
    ... actually has pretty strict source verification requirements.  I agree that it is a problem with other media outfits, but not them.

    'New York' magazine (none / 0) (#131)
    by Black Mare on Tue Apr 01, 2008 at 08:15:31 PM EST
    is not on the same level with The New Yorker.  Not even close.

    So this isn't a "real campaign"? (none / 0) (#67)
    by maritza on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:46:33 PM EST
    Taking on the Clintons isn't considered a "real campaign?

    I have some swamp land that I want to sell you...LOL!


    No -- this is flag football... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Exeter on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:56:37 PM EST
    General election will be full contact.

    Importance of Casey endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by PennProgressive on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:26:20 PM EST
    I hope  this is not off topic. The  entire Casey family is very conservative and  since much of PA is also cconservative, much has been said in the  MSM about the  importance of Casey  endorsement. Last night on Bill Maher Dan Savage  and Washinton Post's  Robin Wright emphasized that this is  a very big deal and since Casey own his senate seat by a margin of  20 points in 2006, this does not bode well for Hillary in PA and she should consider dropping out even before PA.That win was impressive. But  he ran against Rick Santorum, who was extremely unpopular.  Although there was not much difference between Santorum's positions and  Casey's, it was 2006 and people voted for Casey. Not because of his positions but because he was not Santorum. Casey is not  a good  campaigner and he  will not help Obama in general. I do not think, contrary to MSM's  CW, his impact on Catholic vote (an important  factor in PA) will be anything  but marginal. There is one factor that may  be at play here. Casey is from Scranton. Actually Hillary's dad's home  was not too far from Casey family's. Casey family is  pretty popular in Scranton and in Northeastern PA. Hillary is running  very strong here and she needs a large margin here to offset Philadelphia. Casey may help Obama  here  to lower that margin somewhat. However, what I do not understand  is  why Casey did not get Obama in Scranton to announce his endorsement. That would  have  had more impact for Obama. But a lot  of people are rather upset with Casey about this endorsement, particularly since he had  said a few days back that he would  remain neutral.It is true that  after  92's convention the Casey family was  very upset with the Clinton's. But Hillary strongly supported Casey in 2006 and  if  I am not mistaken helped Casey campaign finnancially. But note that the Casey family looks up to the  Kennedys and that may have played a role here  too.  

    Hey (none / 0) (#88)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:10:39 PM EST
    John, is that you?

    Could it be the 96% W and 1.6 AA? (none / 0) (#93)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:52:34 PM EST
    And after that Hillary Parade on St. Patricks Day, he slipped into Scranton using all the back doors and not even greeting the people who showed up at the airport and the ones at the Lackawanna Train Station. I was so glad that she shook hands with so many people in the parade. People were really excited. No, Scranton would not have been the place.

    Casey's Endorsement (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by lucky leftie on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:00:59 PM EST
    A member of the Forced Childbirth Movement chose the male candidate over the female candidate?  Wow, didn't see that one coming.;)  Casey was so eager to stick it to the Clintons, he was willing to overlook the fact that Obama is pro-choice.  

    I'm going to pretty much recuse myself from (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:39:32 PM EST
    this discussion, because I am biased.

    I would just suggest that you compare Casey's voting record this year with the other Democrats in the Senate. He votes well within the mainstream, and he's certainly no better or worse than John Murtha.

    My objection is to the fact that Casey became (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:18:12 AM EST
    a hero to the liberal blogs the moment he came out for Obama, even though many of them were tearing their hair out at the thought of him becoming a Senator in 06. Surely you can't think Casey would be a good choice for VP, as some over at Kos were saying? You don't think he's some great liberal champion all of a sudden, right?

    I admit I only spent about 5 minutes at (none / 0) (#111)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:28:05 AM EST
    Daily Kos, but the praise for Casey was pretty over the top. Then again, since some of their other VP favorites are people like Chafee, Bloomberg and (worst of of all) Hagel, I shouldn't exactly be surprised.

    Casey VP (none / 0) (#121)
    by PennProgressive on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:15:35 AM EST
    Seriously? Suddenly Casey is a hero and a VP material for KOS? Wow! Whatever Obama is, he is smart. Casey will not bring anything substantial to the ticket. He will have  very little impact on catholic vote. However, I am biased. If Casey becomes the VP at least Scranton will benefit. That is not bad for Scranton.  

    Tolerance (2.33 / 6) (#18)
    by Traven on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:21:06 PM EST
    Nice to see that everyone is so tolerant of viewpoints that don't toe the party line.  That's what makes for a Big Tent, I guess.

    Also, I seem to recall that Clinton (the First) opposes gay marriage, signed the Defense of Marriage Act, and had a mentally disabled prisoner put to death shortly before the 1992 election.  Not to mention that whole "don't ask, don't tell" stuff.

    But we conveniently forget these things.

    This, by the way, is the most Stalinist blog I've ever read, deleting all those comments that are deemed "inappropriate" (i.e., don't show appropriate love for Dear Leader Hillary) and which include (according to the reigning apparatchik) "misinformation" about MI and FL.

    How sad.  How very sad.  

    Give it up (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:47:46 PM EST
    No self-respecting Democratic woman will ever vote for someone who wants to overturn Roe.

    I sure as h*** won't.

    Casey's views on women's rights, gay rights and civil liberties are so extreme that Obama would be nuts to choose him as running mate. It would be the death knell for his campaign.


    Good thing Clinton (the first) (none / 0) (#22)
    by rooge04 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:23:55 PM EST
    isn't the one running this time.

    I think the point of the post is the lengths that the progressives will go to bend their principles to accept as liberal and wonderful absolutely everyone that supports Obama, including anti-choice Dems like Casey. Someone they once railed against.


    I've been deleted but don't consider it Stalinist (none / 0) (#56)
    by Ellie on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:21:20 PM EST
    I've also been tossed from your finer establishments online and off for a variety of reasons, none of which have anything to do with Stalin.

    Yeesh. Start your own blog, pay for the bandwidth and hang up a shingle.

    I'd LOVE to drop by with some pallies and see how long you last. Really. Aw come on, do it and repost.


    LOL, Heck even I've been deleted and... (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:26:45 PM EST
    ...I'm about as milquetoast as you can get.

    Thank you for the information (none / 0) (#76)
    by msobel on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:15:59 PM EST
    I didn't know that Obama supported gay marriage.  I guess there is more to him than gets out in the press.

    I guess that we can always find things that President Clinton did wrong whenever someone criticizes Senator Obama.  Fortunately, Senator Clinton is responsible for everything wrong that President Clinton did but had nothing to do with anything good he did.

    The discussion was about whether or not Senator Obama should be held responsible for the current views of Senator Casey, his supporter in PA, today.

    By the Clinton rules, the answer is no.


    He doesn't support gay marriage. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by echinopsia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:28:50 PM EST
    And he thinks it's a trivial issue.

    We argue about immigration, but we don't try to solve the immigration problem. It's an argument that is all about people's passions instead of trying to figure it out. We argue about gay marriage. In the meantime the planet is...potentially being destroyed. We've got a war that is bankrupting us. And we're going to argue about gay marriage? I mean, that...doesn't make any sense.



    the idea that stalin (none / 0) (#94)
    by sancho on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:55:36 PM EST
    would even allow blogs is itself very funny. this is a legal defense site. it is generally interested in protecting the right of anyone to have a fair defense.

    obama has the majority of DINO support. i dont trust him on roe v. wade either. that bill clinton did not let casey speak at the '92 convention b/c of his anti-roe stance suggests some revenge here. he is using his daughters as cover imo. the irony is that, in a sense, casey is not supporting hillary b/c of his anti-roe position.


    We didn't have a lot of options (none / 0) (#3)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:01:21 PM EST
    Yes, we knew he was Anti-choice, but we also knew he was the one who could get Rick Santorum out of there. So, it was one of those damn if you do and you get the drift. We needed that D there in the Senate and Ricky was really going off the deep end.  I did find it interesting that he must have been given his marching orders to rise up as they needed a big name Dem to support BHO in this state. Can't be the Gov, and can't be Specter who is more liberal than Casey who is really not liberal at all. So send in the new disappointing Senator.  

    There was that guy... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by kredwyn on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:04:16 PM EST
    the one who went out and joined the homeless for a week or two and blogged about it via his staffer. People called it a stunt, but I think he did a bang up job relating what was going on re: homelessness.

    I don't understand why we placing threads meant (none / 0) (#7)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:11:59 PM EST
    to discount Obama superdelegates.  I really question the purpose, this will do nothing to unify the party, even help Clinton only do more to create a hardening of Clinton supporters towards the favored Democratic nominee.   I get it that this might be the only place for Clinton supporter to come and be in the majority and where they can speak their frustrations of this race.  But I just don't see even as a Clinton supporter how this helps my candidate.

    With all due respect... (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:27:20 PM EST
    ..and I do mean that, I'm not trying to disrespect your views, but I am getting sick and tired of it being MY responsibility to unify the Democratic party. I'm just a voter.

    In spanish we say (4.25 / 4) (#11)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:16:04 PM EST
    Disme con quien andas y te dires quien eres.  Roughly transtlates to, Tell me who you hang out with and I'll tell you who you are.  If Casey is who Obama choses to be with while in Pa. I, who always have had my doubts about Obama, are even more in doubt about him now.  Just a thought.

    In English, we say "Hasta la vista, (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:17:26 PM EST
     baby" to Obama.

    In Yiddish we say (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:42:45 PM EST
    "farshtinkener oyf kapores" which translates to: stinking good for nothing.

    I don't think Obama chose to hang with Casey (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by angie on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:48:58 PM EST
    I think Casey was the only (so-called) Dem. Obama could get in PA.  I do LOVE how the msm has been going on about how great and important it is for Obama to have Casey's endorsement in PA after barely mentioning Murtha's for Hillary.  I'm glad to read here from some PA residents that Casey isn't as "great" as he is being "sold."  

    Lets not kid ourselved Clinton will (none / 0) (#9)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:14:13 PM EST
    destroy Obama in PA the question is by how much at this point.  Anything under 20 points helps Obama since she needs to win 60% of remaining contests to catch up.  And this is definitely her best opportunity to pick up delegates and pad her popular vote totals.  

    The reality is that Hillary (3.00 / 2) (#16)
    by maritza on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:19:56 PM EST
    needs to win EVERY STATE from now on by 65% or more in order to equal Obama's pledged delegate count.  That is unlikely going to happen.  

    I think that Obama will win North Carolina which has almost as many delegates as Pennsylvania.


    PA and NC (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by cal1942 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:51:51 PM EST
    Pennsylvania has 21 electoral votes, North Carolina has 15.

    Pennsylvania has 187 delegates, North Carolina has 134.

    realclearpolitics.com has a nice set of spread sheets that show how Clinton wins the popular vote when Michigan and Florida are included.

    Whether MI and FL are seated or not, superdelegates should refer to this to determine the popular will.

    The fact remains that Michigan and Florida people voted. That should count in the decision making process for superdelegates. It's a chance for correcting the DNC's inexcusable blunder.


    I predict that superdelegates will shut (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by maritza on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:17:01 PM EST
    this down in June and make a decision.  No superdelegate worth their salt will want this to go undecided by the convention.  If that happens that would mean a LOSS for sure in the general election.  The convention is the time in which the Dem party need to become UNITED.

    Whomever appears stronger by June, will get the nomination.  Whomever has the most pledged delegates and the popular vote will get the nomination.

    I still think that person is going to be Obama.  Than after the superdelegates have swung towards him in June, Obama will then just seat the Florida and Michigan delegates as is.


    the reality is that if obama is nominated (1.00 / 1) (#96)
    by sancho on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:01:23 PM EST
    that likely means a dem. loss in november. but, yeah, he still could be the dem delegate winner. just like mcgovern or dukakis or mondale. and if we don't count states that wont vote for him--like florida and michigan--he'll definitely be the delegate winner.

    So... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 04:45:18 AM EST
    ...you have consulted polls showing that Obama will clearly lose MI (as opposed to FL, which has not voted Dem in eight years)? Or do you base this on an uncontested race where Senator Clinton ran against a dreaded uncommitted and attempted to force the votes to count despite the fact that many voters flocked to the GOP primary because they were informed their vote wouldn't count?  So my parents, scared as hell of a Huckabee candidacy, crossing over for the first time, don't get THEIR votes counted in the primary, while the Clinton minions do?  And no one gets the 45% of the vote that Clinton lost?

     Silly season indeed.


    no 57% avg wins will do it (none / 0) (#43)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:41:35 PM EST
    plug in various win scenarios for the last 10 primaries here at this online delegate calculator link

    Well even an average win of 57% (3.00 / 2) (#45)
    by maritza on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:44:19 PM EST
    is not going to happen.  Obama will probably win North Carolina and Oregon as well as other states.

    If this happens than Hillary is going to have to win MUCH MORE than 57% in the states that she does win...LOL!


    Yes 57% if you include the remaining Super Ds (none / 0) (#61)
    by DemPrezin2008 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:37:40 PM EST
    but to overcome Pledge Delegates she needs 63%.

    Let's not kid ourselves Obama will (none / 0) (#62)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:41:54 PM EST
    destroy Clinton in North Carolina.  The question is by how much at this point.  Anything under 30 pts (given the demographics) is a huge win for Clinton.  

    The polls are showing him up 15% so (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by maritza on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:44:04 PM EST
    30% is kind of ridiculous.  

    Demographics (none / 0) (#74)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:07:18 PM EST
    Check out the demographics of the state and what he did in the states with similar demographics.  If he takes that state by only 15, that means he has dropped from nearly 50% of a certain demographic to around 36%.  That may not matter now, but if that is the demographic that fails through most of the remaining contests, Obama has a problem.

    From your lips to God's ears (none / 0) (#91)
    by angie on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:32:21 PM EST
    I'm here in NC and Rev. Wright has not gone over well no matter what the polls are showing.  (and that means with the AA vote too -- AA that I've talked to are upset that the media and BO are trying to pass off his church and pastor as "a typical black church"). I'm not saying Hillary is going to take it, but it shouldn't be anywhere near 30 points.  It's a real shame too, because before the primaries started, a lot of Republicans in this state (and there are a lot) were ready to vote for the Dem. nominee because they felt W hung them out to dry.  Now, instead of this state having a good chance to go blue in the fall, it will be red as usual.  

    Obama will take the state (none / 0) (#116)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:49:27 AM EST
    but... Based on past votes that Obama has achieved in states with similar demographics, Obama should take the state by 25-30 pts.  If he doesn't, it will mean his white support has fallen off (from a possible 49% to about 36%.)  That's why my opinion is that a 15 pt win is not a good win for Obama.  I'll just wait to see what happens in PN and if there is any significant drop, if it carries in to IN and NC.

    This must be a typo (none / 0) (#100)
    by Black Mare on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:42:34 PM EST
    Anything under 30 pts (given the demographics) is a huge win for Clinton.

    You're kidding, right?  Or mistyped?  Or...please, throw me a bone....


    Casey Jr (none / 0) (#10)
    by christinep on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:14:52 PM EST
    But, remember that the real reason Casey Jr is today involved with Obama probably stems from familial resentment toward any involved with the 1992 rejection of his father (read: Clintons.) So, when some media pronounced themselves surprised at his endorsement, isn't the only surprise that he waited so long in doing so? I'm assuming that this endorsement certainly shouldn't help him with most Pennsylvanians.

    yeah (none / 0) (#85)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:54:52 PM EST
    The republicans have used that little 1992 dustup to slame democrats at every turn.  Casey jr has never tried to stop this.  So I'm not so much on board the unity wagon that includes long standing enablers of dem bashing.

    I saw the Obama and Casey news conference (none / 0) (#12)
    by maritza on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:16:40 PM EST
    that was on CNN today.  I can see why people were talking about Casey as a possible Obama Vice Presidential candidate.  Those guys REALLY hit it off.  They were totally buddy buddy together.  They talked about playing basketball together the other day.  Obama said that Casey was a great defensive player for he "boxed out".  

    They were joking and just having a good time.  They really have chemistry together so I see why TNR mentioned Casey as a potential VP for Obama.

    I love this pic of Obama and Casey that was in the NYT this morning.


    Almost every (none / 0) (#19)
    by rooge04 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:22:30 PM EST
    time a superdelegate endorses Obama they're seen as a possible VP. LOL Sebelius, this guy, Warner and so many others.  Why is that?

    in the sense... (none / 0) (#33)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:33:03 PM EST
    that if Obama gets the nomination, whoever he chooses for VP has to help him carry some state, or preferably more than one state, Casey would appear to be helpful in a state that he would likely lose to McCain (PA) but Casey didn't beat Santorum by much and most Democrats would have the northeast fairly on their side so they could concentrate on other states.

    The question really is, which states can Obama win and the answer appears to be few beyond NY, NJ, CA, IL, VT as all other traditional battleground and always Democratic states become in play against McSame - which spells d-i-s-a-s-t-e-r for Obama's candidacy.


    Well (2.00 / 1) (#95)
    by sas on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:00:44 PM EST
    I can tell you that Casey will not help Obama carry PA.  Nothing can help Obama carry PA.

    In fact Casey should stay away from Obama - Obama will drag him down in PA if anything.


    Did you also see the interview (none / 0) (#48)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:50:32 PM EST
    with Casey? They asked him if Hillary should drop out of the race. He said it was wrong for anyone to be asking any candidate to drop out. I liked his answer!

    Casey had no choice (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:58:42 PM EST
    on that answer because he's on thin ice in Penn. and his constituents are overwhelmingly going to vote for Clinton.  So no props from me for him on that.

    Since when is Casey on thin ice? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Black Mare on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:29:54 PM EST
    I'm more of a Bernie Sanders type, or Paul Wellstone - whom I voted for in 1 primary and two generals.  But I live in PA now.  Casey is not on thin ice.  He has never pretended to be liberal, as much as I wish he were.  Few in this state are liberal; it is easily the most 'centrist' blue state I have lived in, if not nearer to red.

    Casey's position on choice and stem cell research is horrid, yes, but let that stand on its own rather than insinuate it is the entire reason for his being or indicates something akin to Liebermanism.  I'm so adamantly pro-choice I voted for a Republican governor who was also strongly for choice against an anti-choice Dem.  I was working for PP at the time and we endorsed the Republican - who is now an Independent, unsurprisingly.  But Casey was chosen by Chuck Schumer to oppose Rick Santorum, who was friggin' nuts.

    To clarify some misleading info in the story:

    1. 'Abstinence Plus' is what we call comprehensive sex education.  Read the term literally - it basically teaches that if you're not going to abstain, then by all means use birth control/disease prevention.  New York also uses 'abstinence plus' model.  Al Franken's daughter explained the term; since she teaches 1st graders she doesn't teach sex ed but was pretty clear on its basics.

    2. On FISA 2008: Casey repeatedly voted with the better, Leahy-led part of the senate on the Rockefeller version and its amendments.  He voted against telecom immunity.  One vote was a clunker - for the Rockefeller fixit after all was debated, one of the 67 or so that voted that way.  When I asked why, his staff mentioned overwhelming constituent pressure and some other garbage that Webb and others were using for excuses.  Overall, hardly the crazed, pure Republican stand suggested in this story.  Clinton was absent for all votes.  Obama was absent for some and voted correctly on the ones for which he was there.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#103)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:45:23 PM EST
    I wrote hastily.  What I meant was that Casey barely won his seat against Santorum, is a baby Senator who hasn't made much of a splash yet, and surely knows he has to tread carefully.  What his poll numbers are like now in Penn. I have no idea.  The Obama endorsement probably isn't going to help them, though.

    But (none / 0) (#92)
    by nell on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:49:24 PM EST
    then why did he bother to endorse Obama? It seems like a big personal risk to take if he is already on thin ice...I suppose there is the possibility that he truly believes in him, but I have a hard time believing that given the controversy surrounding Obama's vote for a bill that includes partial birth abortion in the Illinois state senate...

    My guess is (none / 0) (#102)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:43:07 PM EST
    he endorsed Obama first to distinguish himself from the other Dem state leaders, and secondly because of his family's problems with the Clintons.  He felt like he needed to step into the spotlight for a minute and endorse somebody, but it couldn't be Clinton.

    One of the more intelligent political analyts on Hardball the other night (maybe Chuck Todd?) also pointed out the Casey family, because of history, would almost always want to be on the other side from where Rendell is on this kind of thing.


    One of the reasons everyone is suddenly hot (none / 0) (#17)
    by tigercourse on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:20:46 PM EST
    for Casey is that some Obama supporters have realized that they could lose Pennsylvania in the GE. If the Gov wasn't a Clinton supporter, they'd be saying Obama/Rendell.

    An anti-choice VP candidate would bring more trouble then he's worth.

    I can't imagine Obama with Rendell (none / 0) (#20)
    by maritza on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:22:41 PM EST
    even if he wasn't a Clinton supporter.  That just wouldn't work at all.

    At one point Casey was opposed to allowing (none / 0) (#21)
    by tigercourse on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:23:23 PM EST
    gay people to adopt. But he backed off that position.

    Aaarrrrugh - faux Dem - again (none / 0) (#24)
    by Boo Radly on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:27:02 PM EST
    I live in WNC and we finally got rid of Charles Taylor(R) and got Heath Shuler(D)- much joy? So far, not so much. He matches Casey and does not represent my issues. I do not want to be banned, but I really am concerned BO is not really a Democrat. Tell me it isn't so.

    We don't know because he did not want a paper
    "trail" so he could morph - sounds like a recipe for another train wreck to me.

    This area of WNC is RED unlike farther east - I would like to see Hillary take NC and be a part of that. I really get excited about what her supporters are doing in PA.  

    What do you see as her chances of taking (none / 0) (#30)
    by athyrio on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:29:55 PM EST
    North Carolina?? I hope she does too...

    Very, very low (none / 0) (#58)
    by nell on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:27:57 PM EST
    based on conversations I have had with friends/family that live there who support her. 35 percent of the Dem electorate is AA - if Obama continues to pull in 90 percent, which he will, she would have to sweep with other races to win...so far, the polls DO NOT show her doing this.

    Charlotte, Ral/Durham will be tough because of (none / 0) (#78)
    by Boo Radly on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:22:54 PM EST
    AA population, college age voters. I am thinking with the little information that is out there now on BO he will not do as well. I have read the polls - when you have skewed polls themselves(adding more AA's, Zogby in the tank for BO) and there has not been a primary since the new info got out - I think it will make a difference. A letter was published in favor of Hillary not too long ago signed by some very astute, progressive supporters and one is a local attorney in Asheville. I am not a good person to ask about this area, since I have "only" been here 16 years, am a registered Dem, but, at least, I did not come from Florida. This is heavy repub area but also part of the Bible Belt. There are some racial over tones but they consider more alone the bible teachings and very patriotic. Some repubs are sick of war, war, war. I have always received a lot of emails unfavorable to BO from people in this area, a few on Hillary. I am now profoundly deaf so I do not try to announce
    /discuss my candidate - too difficult. But there are other things that I have done and will do. I am going to remain positive - watch the theater of pompous idiots tell Hillary what to do as though they count - what a bunch of hubrisic butts - I call them common taters - their opinions have no value as far as I am concerned. I was born a Democrat but I will not vote for BO.

    Interesting..... (none / 0) (#25)
    by waldenpond on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:27:08 PM EST
    Would have voted for Iraq War, but based on false evidence. (Sep 2006)

    Presumably, with that record, (none / 0) (#27)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:28:41 PM EST
    Hillary did not in any way seek his endorsement

    Of course Hillary wanted his endorsement (none / 0) (#31)
    by maritza on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:30:29 PM EST
    Every superdelegate COUNTS right now.  

    The first person to 2054 wins the Dem nomination.


    What happened (none / 0) (#35)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:33:42 PM EST
    to Disme con quien andas y te dires quien eres?

    it's campaigning with him (none / 0) (#39)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:37:35 PM EST
    that gets to me.  If the guy supports you and you let it be hey ok bout if go around the state with the guy.   hmmmmm. and I don't know if Hillary would want his endorsement or not you'd have to ask her.

    No, they don't count right now. (none / 0) (#42)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:41:18 PM EST
    Supporting Obama (none / 0) (#28)
    by cal1942 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:28:57 PM EST
    is NOT the act of an actual liberal.

    Supporting the most conservative "Democrat" in this race doesn't qualify Casey as 'liberal for a day.'

    Boy, you would never know that (none / 0) (#52)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:03:59 PM EST
    from his ADA voting record

    Blah. (none / 0) (#29)
    by lansing quaker on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:29:11 PM EST
    Every SD endorsement of Obama is hailed with cheers by the Obamasphere.

    Heck, I was told that "all of the high ranking female Dems" except that evil Barbara Boxer support Obama, specifically noting Pelosi, Napolitano, McCaskill, and Sebelius.

    Naturally, the Obama partisans ignored Jennifer Granholm and Debbie Stabenow, who outpace Sebelius and McCaskill by miles on resume, influence, and tenure.

    But, of course, the "rules" are that "Michigan doesn't count."

    C'est la vie on Casey.  He's a "fantastic Democrat" now.

    What about the other evil (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:31:39 PM EST
    California women: Diane Feinstein, Maxine Waters?  just a few evil women

    Well, it's clear. (none / 0) (#40)
    by lansing quaker on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:39:03 PM EST
    Don't you get it?  Claire McCaskill is the voice on women in politics, as is Nancy Pelosi.

    Hillary apparently only has the sinister Barbara Boxer behind her in Obamaland.  DLC Insider!  Stone it!


    Pelosi's no sister of mine (none / 0) (#59)
    by Ellie on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:29:45 PM EST
    I get agg for being disappointed that the first female speaker of the House had to be wimpy Pelosi. The feminist position rightly asks not to seek perfection, but for me it's not that Pelosi isn't perfect but that she stinks.

    I like women who are unbought and unbossed. There are a whole whack of women I'd prefer to see as Speaker. Toothless, clawless Nancy "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi, who gets outmaneouvered at every turn, is not even in the top half.

    In the spirit of non-gender exclusiveness, I can't stand right wing kissing Rahm Emanuel, Harry "Hails from Nevada but Sucks at Poker" Reid and of course, Sen. RW-ass kissing Schumer.

    Dr. Dean is still hot to me.


    Um (none / 0) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:34:32 PM EST
    and Washington's own Patty Murray supports Clinton...word is that Cantwell supports Clinton...for now (ick).

    Cantwell has great environmental policy ideas (none / 0) (#47)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:50:17 PM EST
    for climate change and energy issues - she is  creative and intellectually curious.

    I listen to all the eco hearings on energy and enviro via capitol hearings.org and she and Klobuchar are terrific ...

    other than that I don't know much about her


    I could tell you a lot about her (none / 0) (#73)
    by shoephone on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:05:34 PM EST
    but them I'd have to throw up afterwards.

    She's been a yellow-bellied coward for her Iraq War vote, refusing to answer questions about it for 4 years straight. And her goons threatened to have me arrested when I protested her continuing support of the war at one of her campaign events three years ago.

    I can't wait until 2012 when WA state Dems run someone viable against her.

    Yes, I know I'll get deleted for this comement, but it needed to be said.


    I was visiting in Seattle once (none / 0) (#77)
    by zyx on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:19:07 PM EST
    and the alternative paper was all about "what to do about Maria Cantwell".  And it wasn't meant in a good way.  My hosts were wondering what to do about Maria Cantwell, too.  So it was clear that she is lacking popularity with at least one very well-defined and important base.

    I voted for Mike the Mover (none / 0) (#90)
    by badger on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:30:52 PM EST
    (that's his legal name) in the Senate primary rather than vote for Cantwell.

    It's too bad he didn't win, because I couldn't bring myself to vote for George Nethercutt in the general. Mike would definitely be a better Senator, and he doesn't even want the job (he gets on the ballot for the advertising).


    That's funny (none / 0) (#117)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:51:50 AM EST
    I voted for Mark Green in the primary (even though I didn't really trust that he was anything but a Libertarian). And then in the general election, I wrote in the name of one of my colleagues.

    Oops! (none / 0) (#118)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:53:17 AM EST
    I ment Mark Wilson, who ran as the Green candidate.

    Abortion and Catholics (none / 0) (#37)
    by cdalygo on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:35:02 PM EST
    As a recovering Catholic who lives with a practicing one, I can tell you that abortion is a tricky issue. Anyone raised in the Church learns that it's "murder of an infant."

    You can respond in any number of ways. You reject it as nonsense like me. Or like my partner you probably would never have one for that reason but agree that it's a woman's choice (position of most Cafeteria Catholics). Or like my late mom you start with Casey's position, move to my partners, and come closest to mine (as rest of Church's teachings fall apart for you).

    Conservative Catholics like Casey despise all three of our positions. But they cut themselves off at the knees by strongly advocating the death penalty. That's why l love debating them on the issue but really hate dealing with those who strictly adhere to the Church positions on social justice and life.

    It's also why Bill Clinton nailed it when he stated he agreed that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

    I don't like aligning with folks like Casey. But that's for other reasons besides just abortion. I know too many whose position I respect who oppose abortion. (My respect doesn't extend to allowing them to change the law but I can't see banishing them from the public square or the Party.)

    Hey, there are good FDR-Style Dem Catholics! (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by lansing quaker on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:43:48 PM EST
    I come from a huge Catholic family, went to Catholic school, and am confirmed.  My maternal side has a stained glass window in my home parish, as my grandparents helped found it.

    All Dems.  None vote on abortion.  My Grandma (one of the founders) got in some hot water when she said at her church circle "Abortion is between that person and God!  We shouldn't judge them, because that isn't our place!"

    I love that my family defies statistics while still practicing regularly.  Just wanted to say that all Catholics aren't like that!  Heck, I'm and out and proud gay Catholic.  

    It makes for fun party stories, at any rate.  Oh, the therapy bills. ;)


    Agreed (none / 0) (#50)
    by cdalygo on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:53:28 PM EST
    My partner is my same-sex partner and she would agree with you. (She considers it yet one more Closet to come out of . . .)

    The remaining Catholics in CA are all like your's and don't vote abortion. (The ones in Canada are another story.) I've never dared talk to my partners' parents who live in Texas about it. (Though we pulled her dad to vote for Kerry.)

    All I inartfully tried to say with my post is that we need to be careful with the abortion issue. Pushing people out of the party for that one issue is wrong when we need coalitions to win.


    Agreed2 (none / 0) (#53)
    by lansing quaker on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:05:20 PM EST
    Ha!  Good on you for getting your in-law to vote Kerry.  Holler, girlfriend.

    I agree with you.  I'm not one to dictate on "personal beliefs" on social issues because I feel it's a non-starter, circular, and creates intense animosity.  Few of my no-gos are gay marriage, abortion, race -- the more "social" aspects of policy.

    I'll speak my peace, but I never condemn, because it detracts me from attracting Dems on economic issues.  Taxes (or, as I like to call it in Michigan, "Revenues" or "Investment in human capital"), budgets, et cetera.

    I speak my peace on social issues, and hope my personal presence is enough to subtlely educate ("Hey, I like THIS gay person, and respect him!  Ergo...") without bashing people into a corner whereby they lash out.

    So Casey is no enemy of mine.  I doubt many "pro-life" Congressmen will actively work to overturn Roe v. Wade, much less make it happen.  It's just one of those issues used to shift the focus into a topic more palatable with the everyday ("I have an opinion on babies!  I have an opinion on gays!  I have an opinion on those Mexicans taking our jobs!" etc).

    So I hear ya.  But that doesn't detract from my utter loathe of the Obamasphere anointing every Obama Supporter as the "Next Great Democrat!" whereas Hillary supporters are such "Beltway Corporate Shills."

    YMMV.  But kudos on ya for being so earnest!


    Regarding women as less human than fertilized eggs (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Ellie on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:35:10 PM EST
    This isn't a mere abstract but the disenfranchisement of half the population to make their own personal medical and moral decisions.

    Imagine the outcry if an elected rep vowed to disenfranchise x% of the population of their inalienable constitutional protections and rights because of race, color or creed.

    I expunge fertilized eggs. Abortion has always been a cynically politicized issue and even within the church, as within families, a fluctuating and debatable matter.

    Whether it's personal conscience, an issue of free will (doing the crime, doing the Hell/time and so on) or like practicing Whatevers who run for office, it's a whole other matter when elected officials disregard the separation of church and state to press forth a religious position that disenfranchises fellow humans from their rights.

    And no, it's not a FREAKIN SPECIAL INTEREST already. Sorry to yell, but I like having my FULL constitutional rights and representation, thanks much. I want even well meaning political discussers and consultants out of my particular, private doctor's appointments, meetings with my legal counsel and visits to my particular temple*.

    *The Temple of Quetzlcoatl The Feathered Serpent and His Dancing Kickline of Anthropomorphic Amigos.


    Forgive the non-Catholics among us... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Alec82 on Mon Mar 31, 2008 at 05:19:56 AM EST
    ...for not wanting to enshrine your beliefs into law or to give them undue credit in policy formulation. Some of us never had a problem voicing our support for a woman's right to choose or understanding that religion should never be used as a sword in public policy. We tend to vote for Senator Obama.

     Casey is good for PA.  That is consistent with a mature federalist approach to politics and policy.  Our desire to broaden the Democratic Party's base should not be confused with a desire to sell out on core progressive policies.  Were that the case, we would be voting for a candidate who sold out the country with the Iraq vote.


    x (none / 0) (#51)
    by Mary Mary on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 07:57:40 PM EST
    You know, I don't see the need to tear down every pol who endorses a candidate you don't support.  

    Casey is who Casey is. If anyone bothered to follow your link, I'd bet they would see many positions with which they agree.

    I voted for Pennachio, though. :-)

    In any case, I don't see this endorsement making much of a difference in the PA primary. I think it was a really dumb move on Casey's part, but we shall see how it plays out.

    I agree... (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by alsace on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:59:53 PM EST
    I know no one among my friends and relatives back in PA who was anxious to know Casey's choice or will change their choice because of it.  Only the media found it of interest.

    And may I just add (none / 0) (#82)
    by angie on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 09:37:21 PM EST
    You are exactly right on DOMA -- politically savvy & unconstitutional bs. Further, DOMA doesn't really do anything that the states themselves could not have done on their own -- that is, while the usual legal rule that "a marriage valid where it takes place is valid everywhere" is recognized by all states, they all also recognize an exception for marriages that the state deems "against public policy."  (and, of course, a lot of states are going to deem same-sex marriage "against public policy" -- why not, they did it with interracial marriage prior to Loving v. VA).  So, DOMA doesn't do anything but say "a state doesn't have to recognize the same-sex marriage of a sister state" something the state could have done anyway.  The only way to get same-sex marriage recognized in all states is via an Amendment to the Constitution (unlikely and ill-advised) or through a case like Loving v. VA -- I think that route is the best hope, but with the make up of the USSC I wouldn't hold my breath.  Politically speaking, civil unions recognized in all states, although not giving gay & lesbians what they really want and deserve, is the best any one can hope for right now.

    it might be savvy (none / 0) (#106)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:06:02 AM EST
    politics, but then so was segregation for 100 years after the end of the Civil War.  Free but unequal.  The difference may be semantics but people should be able to marry and share marital benefits regardless of who it is they marry.  Just by calling it something other than marriage you are saying "same but unequal".  In my opinion at least.

    Well, I did say (none / 0) (#113)
    by angie on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:42:09 AM EST
    that gay & lesbians "deserve" to be allowed to marry.  The point of my post was that DOMA didn't really affect a state's decision to allow same-sex marriage and it went along way toward stopping a constitutional amendment to forbid same-sex marriage. Would you rather Bill not sign DOMA and  have an amendment to Constitution banning same-sex marriage? I'm sincerely confused about your post -- I agree, and I think I made it clear, that same-sex marriage should be allowed just like interracial marriage, but I think the appropriate legal path is through the courts via the due process & equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, not through a federal mandate. I'm not gay myself, but I don't think the gays and lesbians are taking advantage of the precedent set by Loving v. VA that they should be on this point.  That said, with the make up of the USSC, it probably isn't the right time. Like it or not, timing is everything on these kinds of issues.    

    ummm... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:07:43 AM EST
    ...please provide a link to GOP activists suggesting a "federal" as opposed to state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  Then, and only then, will I take your defense of the Clintons on this issue seriously.

     Those of us who find an adulterer defending "traditional" marriage ironic do not do so solely for political expediency.  President Clinton and Congressman Foley are two sides of the same coin, each manipulative of staffers and deserving of rebuke.  That you buy his post-re-election slogans to be somehow "honest" is just an affirmation that the Democrats are really willing to throw gays (and their money) under the bus to win an election.  If only they had the AIPAC lobby.  


    Clarification (none / 0) (#126)
    by Alec82 on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 03:08:37 AM EST
    ...provide a link from 1996.  I have no doubt you can provide a (useless) 2003 or 2004 link.

    And my objection to Leahy started when he (none / 0) (#108)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:19:24 AM EST
    laid down the red carpet for John Roberts.

    I have nothing against Kerry, Feingold (accept (none / 0) (#114)
    by tigercourse on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 12:42:53 AM EST
    for his support of Roberts) or Durbin. I dislike Kennedy's stated reason for backing Obama (over praising Johnson? Really?). I have nothing against Napolitano or Sebelius, other then the fact that they share Obama's fondness for Republicans and his ridiculous belief that a bipartisan utopia is just around the corner. In case you have forgotten, Napolitano was not very popular in blog circles before she endorsed Obama. She's another one who is suddenly well liked.

    since she is my guv (none / 0) (#120)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:05:58 AM EST
    I feel somewhat informed about Janet Napolitano...she's not a liberal or progressive.

    She signed the very evil bill with harsh penalties for employers that employ undocumented workers.

    But I wouldn't trash her either.

    I wouldn't trash any one who supports Obama because they endorsed Obama.

    It is Legislators like Casey that has Democrats doing stupid things like failing to stop funding the war in Iraq, voting for telecom immunity, etc.

    Those are the things worth trashing Casey, Rockefeller, etc. for


    One really good thing about Napolitano (none / 0) (#123)
    by shoephone on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:24:10 AM EST
    is that she ran her campaign with public financing. Not too many governors get elected that way.

    she's alright (none / 0) (#127)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 09:17:24 AM EST
    I didn't mean to infer bad things upon her and Arizona is clearly not a blue state.

    Neither HRC nor BHO will will Arizona...even if BHO were to choose Napolitano as a running mate.

    There is a general discontent in Arizona with the Republicans that were swept into office in 1994/Contract of America...

    Rick Renzi - indicted, trying to hold on to his seat until election but not running for re-election.

    JD Hayworth (windbagus maximus) - lost to Harry Mitchell in 2006

    John Shadegg - announced intentions to retire and then reversed himself but sitting on 39% approval rating and has a reasonably well funded Democratic challenger.

    and finally Matt Salmon who was the first opponent for Janet Napolitano. Salmon was an east valley bible hugger that the state clearly found lacking.

    In some respects, Arizona has been getting it's act together - defeating Prop 107 in 2006


    coming from you Bob (none / 0) (#119)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 01:04:54 AM EST
    I would expect nothing less than a flippant dismissal of all those who choose not to march with you.

    I want to see the A blogs get behind this (none / 0) (#122)
    by thereyougo on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 02:19:16 AM EST
    the ones who salivate for Obama. They have lost cred with me big time. No mas!

    Just stumbled upon Chris Cillizza (none / 0) (#128)
    by white n az on Sun Mar 30, 2008 at 10:31:33 AM EST
    Fix article that discusses Casey's endorsement of Obama and his analysis...

    For his part, Bob Casey Jr. has his own reasons not to side with Clinton. Clinton's biggest supporter in Pennsylvania is, without question, Rendell. Rendell and Casey engaged in one of the nastiest primary fights in recent memory in 2002 as they both sought the governor's mansion. (One of Casey's ads during that race, as detailed in the 2008 Almanac of American Politics, featured a Philadelphia police officer saying the following about Rendell: "He lies. Cops deal with liars all the time, and we have no respect for anybody who lies." WOW.)

    Rendell won that primary overwhelmingly -- 57 percent to 43 percent -- but the bad blood lingered. Both men claimed it as water under the bridge when Rendell as governor aided the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's recruitment effort of Casey. But, make no mistake: politicians -- especially those who have been at it for decades like Rendell and Casey -- never forget.


    Petty PA rivalries at play apparently