N.C. Governor Mike Easley Endorses Hillary Clinton

As reported yesterday, North Carolina Governor Mike Easley today endorsed Hillary Clinton.

"It's time for somebody to be in the White House who understands the challenges we face in this country," Easley said, adding a gentle dig at rival Barack Obama's signature slogan of hope.

"There's been lots of 'Yes we can, yes we should.' Hillary Clinton is ready to deliver," Easley said.

Hillary, who praises Easley's economic record in the state, added:

"The governor and I have something in common — we think results matter," Clinton said.

Easley ended his remarks saying Hillary "makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy".

Easley is Clinton's second N.C. superdelegate. Six other N.C. superdelegates support Obama.

< The Current State of Superdelegates | SUSA NC Poll: Obama By 5; Ras NC Poll: Obama By 14 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Watching NC (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:35:46 AM EST
    now with growing excitement.  I think he can help her break into that upper middle class white vote.

    She won 2 out of 4 Philly suburbs, including the very artsy burb.

    That was a great sign.  

    Come on NC!  And that's a SD, too.  

    Let's hope he works his own system for her.  It's a late endorsement.....but not TOO late for some real help.

    "Pansy"? On behalf of (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:48:24 AM EST
    my gay friends, I would appreciate it if politicians would not use gay-bashing terms. Especially those who claim to understand Clinton's policies and principles.

    By the way, the pansy is one tough flower in the garden.  Close to Canada as we are up here, we know it's one of the few that's safe to plant a month earlier than most.  


    i dind't know pansy had anything to do with gay (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:55:33 AM EST
    at least here in north carolina, the term was always used around me to me wimp.  there was never any implication of sexuality in the statement, just a question of toughness.

    Me, too (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:58:04 AM EST
    I had no idea "pansy" was anyway homophobic (I knew "sissy" could be seen that way, though).  God, I wonder if the media will run with that somehow (After this primary spectacle, I put nothing past them).  I hope not.

    Me either (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:36:26 AM EST
    Merriam Webster's online (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by magster on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:55:38 AM EST
    This could be a regional thing. (none / 0) (#11)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:58:51 AM EST
    To me, it always had a sexual connotation.

    But I'm from the northeast. ;-)


    I'm from the NE (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by cawaltz on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:06:27 AM EST
    and as far as I knew pansy meant weak. "Don't be a such a pansy," pretty much meant, don't whine and whimper or be a quitter. Go figure.

    from the NW (none / 0) (#83)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:22:19 AM EST
    and that's what pansy means here. This campaign has been good for making me learn something new every day.

    Midwest Weighing In (none / 0) (#91)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:45:53 AM EST
    Pansy same as wimp.

    ditto- pansy wilt in the heat too (none / 0) (#106)
    by kimsaw on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:47:32 PM EST
    In the summer with intense sun and heat they fade away...remind you of any one?

    Me, either. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:09:25 AM EST
    It's used instead of the socially unacceptable word John Edwards reportedly used about Obama.

    I'm gay. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:02:18 AM EST
    He didn't offend me at all, but I can see why it might ruffle a feather.

     I think it's a pretty dated term. Modern gay bashing has come along way, baby. I don't think "pansy" cuts the mustard, to use another old-timer phrase.


    LOL (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:06:17 AM EST
    It totally flew past me, but then I figured I must be out of the loop.  

    I don't think I need to hear the latest, though.

    I like my bubble.  :)


    "Pansy" to me (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:07:42 AM EST
    means more like "90 pound weakling."  Since it apparently means something else to other people, however, I wish he'd used another metaphor for describing Hillary's toughness.

    I doubt it will diminish the effect of Easley's endorsement, however much it is worth.

    When do the next polls come out on NC?


    I am doubting many... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:16:46 AM EST
    found it offensive. I just don't see it and even John Avarosis would be hard-pressed to make hay of it.

    I dunno when the new polls come out. Can't wait for them though.


    If it (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:53:58 AM EST
    harms Hillary Clinton in any way you can bet that Aravosis  will make "hay" out of this little garden flower. He's got a really bad case of CDS.

    I'm in WI too Cream, and I never thought of the term as anything other than wimpy. So I called a gay friend and he put me straight (so to speak) and said that it was a term for Homosexuals used in the past and that he hadn't heard it in years.

    He still thinks it a poor choice of words but wasn't offended by it since he says he didn't think the Governor was trying to insult or demean anyone.

    I usually check in with this friend because just as all men do not hear sexism when women do, not everyone hears a "slur" if they are not gay.


    Thanks. I've got a lot of gay friends (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:41:20 PM EST
    and gay students, and I know that the term is not acceptable to them -- as it is still used too often here and used against them.

    But you and I know that our little corner of the world can be a bit behind the times, so how nice that the coastals don't know the term now.  At least the younger ones.  A lot of Clinton voters have longer memories, no matter where they are.


    My Corner (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by chrisvee on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:22:22 PM EST
    In my corner of the world (PA) it has the same connotation that you mentioned.  I would never use the word because it's considered offensive.

    Pansies can't take the HEAT (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Klio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:31:38 AM EST
    sure, it's a great bedding plant that does well in the early spring.  But like a lot of other violas, the heat of summer does it in.  That's the meaning I inferred.  

    Speak for yourself. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Mark Woods on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:53:03 AM EST
    I've been a pansy all my life and I am also muscular, tough and aggressive, able to endure more than most people I know.

    I've punched my way out of the 1960s, with death threats from bullies for being gay and I survived Ronald Reagan, so there!

    (Doen't this sound like lyrics from a Sondheim show? If you know what I mean you're probably a pansy).

    Anyway, I'll forgive the redneck NC governor if he endorses Hillary and campaigns for her.  Both Hillary and Bill would know better never to say 'pansy', sheesh!


    Your (none / 0) (#104)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:39:51 PM EST
    take matches up with my reality check.

    I don't think supporters always word things perfectly.

    When they do, they sound like Richardson, reading off of the page.

    But I do think real people make distinctions.

    Bill put the gay rights agenda top of the list with the military.  Boy, was that a dumb move!  LOL*

    That got shot down.

    But this is such a different era, and Hillary's stance is just so commonsense.  Obama is "itchy."

    I see no reason for "itchy" at this point in our history.

    It's really a no-brainer.

    So I reduce the Governor's "minus" points by 10.  He isn't against Gays.

    He's for fighters.

    That's all.


    Easley not very gay friendly (none / 0) (#110)
    by candideinnc on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 02:09:58 PM EST
    As might be expected in the back yard of Jesse Helms, NC is not a particularly welcome home to gays.  Easley went out of his way to lead the opposition to gay marriage in this area, and he has a tin ear for other issues that relate to gays.  I am not a bit surprised by his pansy remark, although as a Clinton supporter, I am disappointed.  

    Of course this is what it was meant to mean (none / 0) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:06:14 AM EST
    I hear it used in this fashion so seldom, never really knew outside of the flower what using the word in that context meant other than weak.  But duh, how absurdly obvious what the original uncorrupted meaning was.  

    I can understand the sensitivity (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by tree on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:18:22 PM EST
    but you have to consider the context here. Does anyone seriously think that Easley was saying that Hillary makes Rocky Balboa look like a male homosexual? Of course not. In this instance wimp or weakling would be the synonym that comes to mind.

    Of course, I know it wasn't his intent (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 01:46:00 PM EST
    but it's almost harder to fight against the well-meaning folks.  Ask any woman who has had to deal with paternalistic types, the nicest guys in the world, so the other guys don't hear what we hear -- and so it must be us, not them.

    I get your point, (none / 0) (#111)
    by tree on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:28:02 PM EST
    since I am a woman, I am just arguing for cutting him some slack. Assuming it wasn't meant as a slur on homosexuals, I think that education, rather than outrage, is the way to go. Why not send Easley a nice email explaining to him why you loved his endorsement but "pansy" wasn't a proper term to use and why?  "More with honey than vinegar."

    As an educator, I have a different view (none / 0) (#114)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 05:55:51 PM EST
    in dealing with race, gender, class, etc., I guess.

    We confront slurs.  Not with outrage, and I never indicated outrage here; I simply called it out.

    I do the same in the classroom, in online classroom tools, etc.  No slurs -- and even if it's claimed (I never can know) it's unintentional and the result of ignorance, an apology.

    I would like to see the governor educated about the term, even if he didn't know it (and I doubt that, with the context of his past behaviors about gay issues), and apologize.  Otherwise, he's out of the classroom, with no passing grade from me. :-)


    Roger that. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:55:22 AM EST
    I don't like it either.

    It is one of my favorites too (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:29:39 AM EST
    and my deceased mom's favorite so I don't like people cutting down my flower.  It doesn't like the summer Southern climate but I can have them all winter here and in Colorado planting them one year usually insures that they self seed and you have a bed them every year.  My grandma's best friend had them go wild in her yard and grow in between all the cracks of her beautiful slate pathway.  Not a weak flower.

    To summarize, it is a homophobic (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:13:41 AM EST
    term, at least to older voters (and to any age in my part of the country, where it is used still).  See earlier thread re those being Clinton's voters.

    my thought too (none / 0) (#103)
    by sarany on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:30:42 PM EST
    geez, use "wimp" or "lightweight" or something that isn't a derogatory term for our gay friends (and voters, for cripe's sake)

    This is good news. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:47:52 AM EST
    It's been a bad, bad week for Obama.

    I guess the media darling thing is over.

    His preferred status (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:00:06 AM EST
    is still working, but they are required to report the news.  :)

    Now, on one blog that shall remain unnamed, Wright was a teeny-tiny story headline as was this endorsement.  :)

    Up is Down in Obamaland.  

    This is a GREAT endorsement.  I think the governor thinks she may have a shot at this state.  He's saying, "15% or less will be great," but there's real momentum going on.

    Too bad she's got to run over the Kentucky for a fundraiser.  She could wrap this up if she had the money.


    The news coverage on MSNBC (4.66 / 3) (#45)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:29:48 AM EST
    has been along the lines of "why is Wright being so mean to Obama? Why is he destroying him? How can he do this?"  Mika Brezinski was practically in tears this morning on Morning Joe.  Even Joe, who calls Hillary "my girl," is disturbed by Wright's "narcissism," "egomania," and "anger."

    Nothing from either of them about how Obama has mismanaged the situation.

    As a Clinton supporter, I take no particular pleasure from this debacle, despite my view that Obama should have seen long ago that Wright was a train wreck waiting to happen, and that the way he's handled the situation once it became controversial shows a lack of judgment. I hate to see the campaign of the first AA candidate with a serious shot at the presidency founder on a race-related issue, no matter how the issue arose. I'd rather have seen it founder on healthcare, or Iraq, or some other issue. Anything but race.



    Sorry (none / 0) (#87)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:29:06 AM EST
    but I completely saw this coming in SC.  He played the race card, and I knew it would bite him.

    I'm Less Inclined To Be Sympathetic To Self (none / 0) (#94)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:54:29 AM EST
    inflicted injuries. People make choices and choices have consequences. Might be a little more sympathetic if the race card had not been used so freely. Can't think of many things that would be more damaging to a Democratic candidate than being branded as a racist.  

    Pansy? (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by eRobin on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:49:44 AM EST
    Easley ended his remarks  saying Hillary "makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy".

    What a stupid thing to say.  Why can't people just shut up after they finish the speech and b/f they deliver that big joke that made their assistant laugh that morning?  

    Well at least she doesn't make him look like a (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:20:33 AM EST
    girlie man.

    Not too fond (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Nadai on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:50:03 AM EST
    of the "pansy" remark, but I'm glad he endorsed her.  He is a popular governor.

    I'm curious about why he did it, though.  His term as governor ends this year, and he's term limited against running again.  I'm wondering if he's hoping for a VP nod.

    i don't understand the problem here at all (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:57:50 AM EST
    around these parts, pansy means wimpy.  nothing more, nothing less.

    Well, around these parts (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Nadai on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:06:52 AM EST
    it's a pejorative term for a gay man, as well as meaning wimpy.  Because all gay men are, by definition, weak, don't you know.

    I should add (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Nadai on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:07:46 AM EST
    I'm in North Carolina (Raleigh).

    and i grew up in the triangle (none / 0) (#96)
    by oldnorthstate on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:59:52 AM EST
    still here.  never heard of pansy to mean gay, but perhaps it once did.  i think now i'll go out, gather a fag for a fire later and have a gay old time.

    a frail early spring flower that can be ravaged by (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:21:20 AM EST
    weather...this identity drama has really gotten out of hand.

    Unable to (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:16:25 PM EST
    withstand attack (by snails).

    Where did you get this definition? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:23:18 AM EST
    Did you pull it out of something?  The wiki? I'm dying laughing!

    just the brain (none / 0) (#51)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:33:52 AM EST
    I thought it was flower (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:21:14 AM EST
    The media is reacting with a collective yawn (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by kenosharick on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:57:21 AM EST
    mostly ignoring it- Unlike the Richardson endorsement which led the news for days. I heard a caller on C-SPAN ramble on and on this morning how the media continually "bashes Barack" and never mentions any of Clinton's issues. After I got done laughing, I seriously questioned her saniy.

    Joe Scarborough (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:36:21 AM EST
    thought it was a pretty big deal on Morning Joe today.  He saw it as a vote of confidence in the viability of her candidacy.  

    and they are right (none / 0) (#42)
    by AlSmith on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:26:50 AM EST

    When its your candidate your instrumentation is more highly tuned to the little digs and shading that reporters feel that have to add to their reports.
    This kind of thing has been going on all along but people dont notice the unfairness as much if they agree with it.

    I am not married to any of the three candidates (my guy already have been knocked out and jabbed at by the press) so I think I am fairly neutral. Obama does receive the best press by far, although he does take occasional slights. No one wants to be seen as clubbing the cute cuddly baby seal that is the Obama campaign, so the press mostly gives him a wide berth.

    McCain does ok because he was the consensus press pick on the GOP side and he is really not generating that much press anyway.

    HRC definitely gets the hardest press play right now. Thats could change when she gets the nomination, but for now at least her stories are an opportunity for reporters to look all independent and analytical in a risk free environment. As things tighten up and it look like she will go to the convention, reporters will probably get more even handed out of self protection- which some Obama supporters will see as being in the tank for HRC.

    The ratings for the Denver convention ought to be through the roof.


    The Richardson endorsement wouldnt (none / 0) (#93)
    by JoeA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:53:24 AM EST
    have got 10% of the play that it got if the Clinton campaign had kept their heads down and let it blow over.  James Carville and Bill Clinton turned it into a huge story and they kept it alive for much longer than it would otherwise.

    He should have (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:07:28 AM EST
    just said "wimp".  That's non-ambiguous.  However, I think most people knew what he meant.

    The tide is rapidly turning in NC (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Universal on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:12:54 AM EST
    With Easley and Liz Edwards hoping on board, Ace Smith in the region, and fault lines ready to form in the AA community over Wright and now Al Sharpton taking shots at Obama, NC may very well be in play.

    If HRC wins IN and NC, Obama will start hearing from people that it is time to drop out before he ruins his career.

    Paul F. Villarreal

    I think some folks (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:18:07 AM EST
    in the AA political set (Al Sharpton, even Wright) feel betrayed that Obama isn't standing up for THEM, but is instead playing a game to get elected.

    However, on the other hand, I think that AA's who turn out to vote will vote Obama.  Obama has done an excellent job of smearing her people actually believe him.


    Wow...you think there (none / 0) (#28)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:14:55 AM EST
    are signs of his AA bloc faltering?  

    I know he did NOT get the turn-out in Philly.  


    What is (none / 0) (#32)
    by eric on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:17:29 AM EST
    Sharpton up to?  Is there a story that you read?

    She can't win NC, (none / 0) (#34)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:18:31 AM EST
    the demographics are way against her. I'd consider losing by 10 points or less a real victory. She's probably shooting for keeping his margin around 15.

    I missed the Al Sharpton thing (none / 0) (#35)
    by Lil on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:18:40 AM EST
    What are you referring to?

    He's saying Obama is pandering to white by (none / 0) (#46)
    by Angel on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:30:37 AM EST
    telling people to not react in a negative way to the Sean Bell decision.  Something like that anyway.

    Link for Sharpton remarks, pretty please?? (none / 0) (#49)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:32:06 AM EST
    If Al Sharpton is unhappy with Obama, he is in big trouble. Please post a link..please!!

    NC is not NYC (none / 0) (#53)
    by AlSmith on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:34:24 AM EST

    Black here are fairly conservative in most areas. This is a military state and a lot of blacks are ex-military.

    They wont cotton to Wright screaming that under the flag of the US Marines we are doing the same thing as Al Qadea is doing under theirs. These guys are the Marines.  

    The other thing to consider if Al Sharpton does shut down NYC as he has threatened and it is all over the news for a week, is that people in the area have had a bad impression of black extremism in the form of the year long Duke Hoax.


    And coming from an ex-Marine (none / 0) (#68)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:49:25 AM EST
    it must be doubly galling to the ex-military. One thing I found interesting in Obama's statement on the Bell verdict was this..
    Obama said "resorting to violence to express displeasure" was "completely unacceptable and counterproductive."

    So his supporters won't be rioting when he doesn't get the nomination?? Or threatening to?? Good.

    Obama is too far Wright! (none / 0) (#88)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:29:11 AM EST
    Yep Empowerment vs Grievance thats the difference (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:15:29 AM EST
    that's the two themes Clinton Democrats vs the Social Justice 60's.  More reason why you could not have a combined ticket.

    Bad choice of words (5.00 / 0) (#40)
    by hopeyfix on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:22:46 AM EST
    As a Hillary supporter, I find the use of the word "pansy" despicable and think it can bring a lot of aggrievance among a demographic that has supported her strongly: the gay community. That's not good.

    First (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:42:33 AM EST
    of all, the reference was to Rocky, not Obama.  So there is no slight to Obama.  

    Second, Hillary didn't say it. The Governor did.  He's a racecar driver, hugely popular with men in NC....and his remark reflects upon him, not upon her.


    Still (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by hopeyfix on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:48:13 AM EST
    It is a poor choice of words. It should be rectified.

    Don't get me wrong, I know Hillary is far from homophobic - the same cannot be said about some Obama's companions - but this needs to be cleared out, its bad.


    Well (none / 0) (#78)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:13:10 AM EST
    I think it's a far sight less offensive than Cuomo's "shuck and jive" remark.  LOL*

    To me?



    Or (none / 0) (#81)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:14:20 AM EST
    The supporter in Harlem who said that it wasn't "Bill's plantation anymore."

    (Figured I better be fair here.)


    It is not a competition... (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by hopeyfix on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:26:10 AM EST
    of what is a worse comment. It is a bad one and it should be fixed, that's all. We have been talking about racism and misogyny on this race, lets not ignore homophobia.

    and Jesse Jackson during the NH primary (none / 0) (#86)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:28:28 AM EST
    "Hillary didn't shed any tears over Katrina victims."

    why (none / 0) (#89)
    by DJ on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:33:12 AM EST
    is everyone so hyper-sensitive. This just validates what people think about Democrats.  Everyone knows he did not mean it a slight to gays.  He's a democrat for goodness sake.  

    Hyper sensitive? (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by hopeyfix on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:55:49 AM EST
    Wow. This is bad.

    The gay rights are what the black rights were back in the day. Think twice about your response to it.


    He used a word (none / 0) (#115)
    by DJ on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:06:56 PM EST
    that meant wimpy, not strong.  I doubt he meant anything else by it.  If we as a people are so concerned that any word we say may be taken out of context we are going to be less forthright and more fearful to speak.  For that to become a topic is ridiculous.  Why do we look for slights?  We have enough real trouble, real prejudice.

    Could be a swipe at Obama (none / 0) (#102)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:26:20 PM EST
    Baracky: Obama Is Rocky Balboa, Clinton Is Apollo Creed In New Video"


    Clinton also likened herself to Rocky Balboa also so only conspiracy nuts are going to go with it.



    Don't Compromise (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by beyondalldoubt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:31:05 AM EST
    I understand your a Hillary supporter and I think she would be a big improvment from Bush


    Don't compromise!

    Hillary has said she would abliterate Iran. She has sad she has a lifetime experience she would bring to the White House and John McCain has a lifetime of experience she would bring to White House and Barack Obama has a speech that he gave in 2002.

    She voted for Iraq, and then said my bad, fair enough... but then why does she continue to fund the war time and time again?

    When she tried to get universal health care in the 90's, she caved to republican pressure and did follow through with what she promised.

    Don't you think the republicans are going to put incredible pressure on her if shes President? How do we know she won't cave again?

    I understand where your coming from, but please DO NOT COMPROMISE!


    Talk about taking words out of context (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:34:05 AM EST
    she was speaking about how "deterrence works" when you have a hostile nation willing to attack others.  Can we not pretend today that such nations don't exist or crop up from time to time please?

    Compromising (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by hopeyfix on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:37:24 AM EST
    You are compromising the English grammar, sorry. And your response has nothing to do with my comment, so it strikes me as a provocation. I won't go for it.

    She did not say she would (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:37:40 AM EST
    obliterate Iran. She said she would pursue a policy of deterrence that would make them worry that that they could be obliterated if they nuked Israel.  We pursued such a policy as to the Soviet Union  back in the day.  Our policy was not to obliterate the Soviet Union; it was to make clear to the Soviet Union that it could not obliterate our allies without consequence.

    Other options FIRST (none / 0) (#61)
    by beyondalldoubt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:40:27 AM EST
    I think she should say that we would exercise EVERY other option first. We cannot just rush to war and bomb, bomb, bomb.

    If it comes to that, then its not a good thing but it would have to be done.

    But we have to exercise other options first and I'm disappointed that she didn't say that.


    I believe she did (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:44:03 AM EST
    And what options would you pursue if Israel is actually nuked?

    The whole point of a deterrence policy is to prevent the trigger from ever being pulled.


    that's for (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:12:45 PM EST
    beyond all doubt

    you have 15 comments (none / 0) (#98)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:12:20 PM EST
    this morning, are a new commenter and are going off topic. Please come back tomorrow. No further comments from you today. And please read our comment rules.

    MY dear young person (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by hairspray on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:02:37 AM EST
    I can see how passionate you are about Obama, but so much of your information is...shallowly constructed.  Litagatormom(lawyer) has given you a full description of the supreme court and their decision in FL in 2000 and others here have described the superdelegates and Hillary's full position on Iran.  You need to study this topic more since you do not understand it and also what led to the collapse of health care in 1993. You cannot learn the depth of these issues (as we older, low information voters) unless you READ UP from places beyond the campaign pronouncements.  

    We Are Not Compromising (none / 0) (#97)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:08:08 PM EST
    You are. You are willing to support a candidate that wants to adopt a foreign policy like Reagan. Please educate yourself on Reagan's foreign policy.

    You are willing to support a candidate that thinks Republicans have better ideas on government regulations and is all for deregulation. Please educate yourself on what the Republican deregulation policies have done to the environment.

    You are willing to support a candidate that puts a core Democratic value like Social Security on the table.

    BTW your candidate doesn't need for the Republicans to put pressure on him because he has already told them he will compromise away anything and everything if they please, pretty please just support him.


    I heard Joe Scarborough and Willie (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:28:35 AM EST
    this morning thinking out loud about this endorsement. They both seem to think Governor Easley knows something we don't know. Joe said there's no way Easley would have endorsed Hillary if he knew she was going to lose the election. They also seem to think Easley KNOWS she's going to win NC. Could that be possible? Pat Buchanan made a remark last week that there's no way Obama is going to win NC. How would he know that? Does Easley know the inside polling numbers, maybe? Does Pat Buchanan know what he's talking about?  Could Hillary actually WIN NC?

    I've always thought that playing with Joe (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:32:12 AM EST
    Scarborough was like playing with a magic eight ball.

    Hillary is Joe's "GIRLFRIEND!" (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:54:06 AM EST
    He LOVES Hillary. The Republican Party left Joe Scarborough. He is NOT the Joe who served in Congress. I detested THAT Joe. He's a new man. He told Hillary, to her face, that she is his girlfriend. He loves her strong will and her ability to fight. He loves that she keeps getting up after all the talking heads in the media knock her down. Scarborough and Willie are the ONLY talking heads who defends Hillary on a daily basis. Granted, he may never vote for her (I suppose it could happen), but right now...Joe Scarborough HEARTS Hillary.:) I'll take whatever I can get at this point. No one else on teevee supports her. Joe does and so does Willie.

    It's just all upside down and all (none / 0) (#73)
    by Militarytracy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:00:48 AM EST
    whack right now isn't it?  Chaos never bothered me much but I do like things orderly when I can get them.  Be honest though, it is a little creepy listening to Joe tell Hill that he loves her and she's his girlfriend.

    LOL. Creepy? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:17:25 AM EST
    That's putting it mildly. I never thought I'd see the day I would agree with ANYTHING a Republican had to say (or find humor in any remark...he's pretty funny when he talks about how much he loves Hillary and it drives Mika INSANE because she's an Obama supporter)...especially Joe Scarborough. What is REALLY frightening to me is I find myself in agreement with PAT BUCHANAN these days too! Sheesh. That's just sad.....and REALLY, REALLY creepy.

    Hillary is (none / 0) (#105)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:44:12 PM EST
    exhibiting in the campaign the true spirit of bi-partisanship.

    Obama just talks about it.

    But the fact that Hillary supporters sometimes agree with Republicans IS the deal.

    We are ready for a big shift in thinking.

    We are ready to be done with the far-right as well as the far-left.

    We're finished with extremism thinking on either side.

    Obama did speak the truth.  We're done with that.

    The problem is that Hillary is actually doing it.

    We are ready to get into the majority and, therefore, into real solutions.


    We shall (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:43:24 AM EST
    see, eh?

    If she could hold him close, that would be fabulous.


    Okay, PC-ness is political destiny (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Regency on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:36:14 AM EST
    We need to stop taking this stuff so seriously.  "Pansy" was not an intended offense. Everyone knows Rocky wasn't gay and Rocky was tough.  It was a compliment to Senator Clinton and certainly no direct insult to Senator Obama.

    Everytime someone opens their mouth we jump on any unintended slight like kangaroos. Enough, seriously. This is why we're in the contention situation we're in this primary season.

    It was harmless. It is only an issue now because we're still talking about it. Let it die and it will.

    Right winger's birthday wish (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by beyondalldoubt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:00:05 AM EST
    Why is he doing this?

    Is he a soldier in Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos?"

    The American people have ruled. Obama has the delegates locked up.

    Its just the right wingers dream come true to make this go to the convention. Why are we giving them their wish?

    Easley (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:02:08 AM EST
    is a solid Democrat who endorsed Edwards initially.  He's very popular.

    His endorsement obviously spells that she's got the wind at her back and may well win the nomination.  


    The Super Power (none / 0) (#25)
    by beyondalldoubt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:11:13 AM EST
    But if she wins its once again not by the decision of the American people but the decision of the "super powers."

    Democrats do not like that. We don't like the fact that Al Gore was elected by America in 2000 but the "supremes" stole it from us.

    I don't think we would like it if the supers gave it to Hill either.


    Too bad (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:14:08 AM EST
    but Obama could only win with those same SD's.  

    Neither one reached the pledged delegate mark needed, so we're stuck with the SD decision.


    Obama needs the superdelegates (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by eleanora on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:16:45 AM EST
    to win as well--he can't reach 2025/2214 without them. They're not going to "give it" to anyone, either Clinton or Obama is going to have to earn the nomination the hard way.

    Obama cannot win... (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:19:19 AM EST
    without super delegates either. If she passes him in the popular vote totals, will his supporters cry foul and make lame comparisons to 2000?

    Doubt it.


    Not at all comparable situations (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by litigatormom on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:34:58 AM EST
    The Supreme Court took an appeal from a final judgment of the Florida Supreme Court on a matter of Florida election law, and then stopped the counting of votes on the grounds that George Frakkin' Bush had an equal protection right not to have all the votes counted because he had a protectible interest in maintaining his slim lead in the Florida popular vote. Nothing about the right of voters to have their votes counted.

    The situation here has nothing to do with counting the votes (except, of course, with respect to MI and FLA).  The votes will be counted.  The question is whether the SDs will give dispositive weight to the fact that Obama has more pledged delegates than Clinton. The ROOLz, which Howard Dean and Donna Brazile appear to hold as sacred as the Bill of Rights, clearly permit SDs to vote for anyone they want to, for any reason. Including the view that the candidate who rolled up an early delegate lead has become a weaker candidate in the general election since s/he won those delegates.


    Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:40:20 AM EST
    made it clear that the votes have been validated in Florida, so that's that.

    But it's okay for Obama to stop the FL and MI (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:05:59 AM EST
    votes from being counted? You can't have it both ways. IF you insist that FL and MI not be counted, then you have to insist the Super Delegates follow the rules also. No? The RULES for the Super Delegates state they are to choose the candidate THEY WANT to be President and who they believe is the best to beat McCain. They are not to choose the candidate with the most "pledged delegates." That's not how it works. If you insist on following rules, then the SD rules must apply too. Heh.

    Because (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:03:39 AM EST
    apparently the right wing sides with the voters who want to vote for their candidate in the primary?

    So true. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Marco21 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:10:11 AM EST
    God forbid every state votes this time around, huh?

    If this party can't survive an actual convention like we used to do back in the day, it doesn't deserve to survive any longer.

    Pro-Obama folks need to stop whining and nut-up.  



    You are so full of it!! (5.00 / 0) (#62)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:41:49 AM EST
    The American people have ruled.

    The primaries aren't over yet. And until they are, the American people haven't finished speaking. Obama does NOT have the delegates locked up, he is bleeding support by the gallon. He cannot get enough delegates to win the nomination. Mostly due to his own actions and associations. The SDs will see that he is unelectable against McCain and drop him like a hot potato. Their job is to pick the most ELECTABLE candidate who supports the Party platform. Obama is not electable and his platform is more Republican-lite than Democratic. So get over the idea he is a shoo-in, he isn't. And when the American people finish speaking, we will have the first woman President. Obama should go back to the Senate and learn his job. And work at it for a change. Even if it is boring.

    CC at CQ says not only should Fla count but Obama (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:14:14 AM EST
    should get a big goose egg for breaking the RULZ...

    Where the Dem Rules Really Lead
    By Craig Crawford | April 29, 2008 6:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (97)

    The mandatory penalties set forth by the Democratic National Committee's delegate selection rules call for outlaw states like Florida and Michigan to only lose half of their delegates to the national convention. And yet the DNC went beyond its own rules to add further penalties, stripping those states of all delegates.

    The DNC rules also prohibited public appearances and electronic advertising before the polls closed by candidates in states that had jumped the approved primary calendar. Barack Obama made a public appearance in Florida in September 2007, talking to reporters after a fundraiser. His campaign also bought television ads on cable news outlets that ran throughout Florida before its renegade primary.

    Strictly speaking, if the DNC rules were tightly construed in this case, Hillary Rodham Clinton would receive half of the Florida delegates she won and Obama would receive none -- the penalty for violating the campaign ban.


    You Know What (none / 0) (#100)
    by MO Blue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 12:14:21 PM EST
    You sound so much like Limbaugh, I'd bet you are mimicking Operation Chaos on Dem sites.

    Here is the link about Sharpton (none / 0) (#57)
    by athyrio on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:36:44 AM EST
    Thank you (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by AnninCA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:49:20 AM EST
    It's interesting that Sharpten and Wright are speaking out.

    Think they are enjoying a renewed press?


    Thowing obama under the bus (none / 0) (#112)
    by karen for Clinton on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 03:57:36 PM EST
    A radio talk show was pondering why Sharpton and Wright have undermined Obama in recent comments.

    Main theory is their "white oppression" angle wouldn't work for them anymore if he was the nominee and they have used that angle for ages.

    Second theory is Obama will not stand up to the sure to come investigations and his shady dealings might become a blot on the black community for their unabashed support of him.


    Oh, I agree. I'm hoping Hillary (none / 0) (#85)
    by vicsan on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:26:39 AM EST
    does a 1 hour interview with Joe instead of the college tour with Tweety. So far, she has refused to do the interview with Tweety and for good reason. That would be a real coup for Joe and REALLY tick off Matthews. Joe is the only MSNBC talking head left with any credibility at all.