home

Overnight and Early AM Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:32:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Goodbye to You, Patty Smythe and Scandal.

Will she succed? Here's the male's point of view, Dwight Yoacam and "I Ain't That Lonely Yet."

Once there was a spider in my bed

I got caught up in her web

...but I survived,

....After what you put me through

Oh I ain't that lonely yet

This is another open thread for you late-nighters and early birds.

Comments now closed.

< Late Night Open Thread | Hillary Clinton on CNN's Late Edition >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Overnight and Early AM Open Thread | 196 comments (196 topical)
    frustration with press and dnc (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by DandyTIger on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:48:06 AM EST
    I tried to make a point about the press and media darling status in the previous thread but wasn't very eloquent at this late hour. The bottom line though is that I'm frustrated. We openly discuss choosing a candidate based on media darling status. That is just horrible. Since when is the media supposed to decide who is our candidate or who is the president.

    And on to of that I'm frustrated with the DNC with the rigged, hacked, horrible primary process where the delegate vote is completely meaningless, and we don't count MI and FL.

    As far as I can tell, the DNC and Donna Brazile isn't the only one firing whole demographics of voters and saying they aren't needed, so is the press. And we wonder why there is so much voter apathy. Perhaps they're apathetic for good reason. I never thought that until this year. Sad.

    Truly bizarre (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:02:09 AM EST
    but guess who's been saying that the media is picking our candidates?

    Ann Coulter.

    As much as I oppose everything that comes out of her mouth, she's right on this one.  

    The media has way too much power.  I am glad though, that a lot of people are rejecting the media.  WV is a great example.  It throws off their game.  Pesky voters not listening that Obama says it is over.

    [ Parent ]

    Presidential tracking poll not media-match (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by andrys on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:00:43 AM EST
    I wonder why Clinton is gaining on Obama this week.

    Rasmussen, who plans to drop Clinton from the polling soon, shows her steadily getting closer to Obama.  On May 11, they were TEN points apart, and inching closer tonight, she shows up as only TWO points from our presumptive nominee.

    All that princely publicity, and she gains on him.  If I were a superdelegate I'd be worried about all the electoral polls showing him losing in that regard while she wins over McCain.

    But, it may well be they'd rather lose the election this year rather than anger one segment while definitely they'll lose a VERY large and reliable segment of Democrats because they took them for granted and disdained a very strong candidate due to party power plays that furthermore GIVE AWAY Florida and Michigan to McCain.  Great show, Dean and Brazile.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm an Independent. (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:12:29 AM EST

    And I love Hillary.  Grew to love her after examining both candidates' qualifications and am NOT going to vote just so Americans can feel good about themselves about "overcoming" the "racial divide".

    [ Parent ]
    If only (none / 0) (#145)
    by befuddled on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:04:28 AM EST
    the new bloggers came with a new script. Don't assume things about independents.

    [ Parent ]
    Independents are no longer Obama's (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by andrys on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:01:39 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That Clinton election juggernaut :-) (none / 0) (#219)
    by andrys on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:05:18 AM EST
    Don't miss this one.

    Half kidding, it's also very serious.
     

    [ Parent ]

    Outstanding! (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:49:49 AM EST
    What a breath of fresh air it was to see this in print:

    How long will Barak Obama cling to his shattered dreams of the presidency, and how much damage will be done to the Democratic Party by his stubborn and divisive refusal to accept the obvious?

    I've been waiting for that one for weeks.

    [ Parent ]

    And when Obama loses it for the Democrats (5.00 / 7) (#19)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:39:43 AM EST
    in November, there won't be anyone to blame but Obama and his fanbase! See you in November.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm not trying to convince myself (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:19:58 AM EST
    that Obama will lose in November.  I have been convinced for the longest time. If Hillary does not win the nomination, then I'll just have to vote for the winner:  JM!  I will however vote for all the democratic candidates for congress.

    [ Parent ]
    You're funny. (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:44:43 AM EST

    You ignore substantive questions about the facts that Obama has put for from his own mouth in favor of trolling other people about your stupid ideas.

    Something tells me that you're just here to troll around and piss people off.  Well of course it's working.  Say enough b.s. and you can piss ANYONE off.

    You having fun yet?  Your sadistic neurons firing real hard now?  Good.  Get another hobby, because the "gift that keeps on giving" here (i.e., keep trolling, keep pissing people off) stops when Jeralyn wakes up and you'll be banned.

    I suggest next time hopping elsewhere to piss people off.  LiveJournal is a good place to do so/to create wank.  But something tells me that you're probably already familiar with LJ.  You've got "that" mentality.

    [ Parent ]

    I'll be a winner either way (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:05:33 AM EST
    With Hillary Clinton or
    John McCain.  

    [ Parent ]
    Obama would not be the frontrunner today (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by Saul on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:37:10 AM EST
    knowing the facts we know now about him.  If all the controversies on Obma, Wright, Typical White Person, Bitter, Ayers, Michelle Commets, Sweetie, had all shown themselves in Dec 07 Obama would not be the front runner today.   This would also include his objection in having a re vote in MI and FL making those voters even angrier. Also the egregious in the tank by the media for Obama and the constant sexist attitude toward Hilary by the media and many of the sexist remarks made by some of the Supers who endorsed Obama has to be considered.  

    So to make the front runner legitimate you would have to consider how Obama would have faired today if all these controversies and anti Hilary issued  had been know by the voters  before they voted.  Otherwise you can just say he got lucky.  

    That is why if I my suggestion for next time would be followed no one would have an edge to be lucky.
    My suggestion were as follows.

       

    My answer to all this is the following.

        Everyone goes to a primary method. No Caucuses

        No Super Delegates

        All the primaries will be held on one day.  That day should be in late May.  That way all the candidates will have from Dec to May to campaign where ever they want to.

        This way no one has an advantage and every candidates gets an even playing field. Then it's over.  If no one gets the number of delegates required  then whoever gets the most popular vote is the winner.



    [ Parent ]
    This is "red" (none / 0) (#183)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:55:35 AM EST
    link

    [ Parent ]
    Write them and tell them! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by itsadryheat on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:04:53 AM EST
    They have it all wrong. If there is more than one candidate, the nominee is chosen by one half, plus one of the delegates who eventually become credentialled and seated at the convention, when they vote in secret ballot in their state delegation, the state delegation reports the state's total vote in public outcry, the vote is confirmed and recorded by the Secretary of the Party and witnessed by the entire convention.

     If the magic majority number is reached, THEN we have a nominee.  If not, we go to the Second Ballot, vote again and so on till the magic majority number is reached, and ONLY then.  Often by June it is whittled down to one because the r ace is no close and candidates drop out.  But if we still have two or more, it goes to convention.

     Kennedy did not concede when he ran against sitting President Carter. Kennedy was 976 delegates behind Carter. Carter clerely had long since "reached" the eventual magic number, but the vote had not happened, so there was no nomonee until convention vote.  That is because that is how it is done by the rules in this and many other organizations.  

    No candidate gets the nomination just because he thinks the when the time comes more people would vote for him.  Four months ago what were we thinking? Wonder what we will be thinking four months from now about what's best for the party and who to vote for?
    If you are angry at the press treatment of Hillary, the voters or the process, you can contacr some of the talking heads who will be talking a lot the next three days.

     CNN.com/feedback/cnntv takes you to a page listing most of their shows and a comment box.  They also have a news tip box.

    msnbc has a regular email standard:  name of show@msnbc.com.  hardball@msnbc.com, same for countdown, race08, abrams.  Other shows have a contact page at the web site.

    Fox has a regular email address.  Last name of person@foxnews.com.  Hannity@foxnews.com, Oreilly, Colmes, Ontherecord, feedback@foxnews.com

    Face the Nation is ftn.cbsnews.com, evening@cbsnews.com

    This Week has a contact page at the website

    NEWS

    There is a new article out from the Chicago Sun Times that doesn't look good for Obama.

    Obama attacked the candiddates, charged fraud, had everybody running against him disqualified and instead of 5 candidates, there was only one, Obama , before a single vote was cast (Link)

    Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

    But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like PalmeA close examination of Obama's first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

    One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

    "Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"



    [ Parent ]
    Well, it's not a new article -- and Palmer (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:38:30 AM EST
    came out working for Clinton as early as Iowa and again in Indiana since this article, which says that she had not decided on a candidate.

    Other than that, it is a good review of Obama's aka the Chicago machine's anointing of him, for those not yet familiar with the story of his start against an older woman and longtime party regular that so foreshadowed his current campaign.  (And this story does not deal with the Senate run, but others have more details on the rather seamy release of divorce records that embarrassed innocent women also under the Obama bus to get at their exes, his opponents.)

    [ Parent ]

    Unfortunately, the msm (none / 0) (#232)
    by zfran on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:06:29 AM EST
    do not report on the process of nomination and by Obama "declaring" victory in Iowa on Tuesday, most voters will "assume" that's it and will vote for him in the GE. I was not very political 'till about 10 years ago and just voted Dem...most voters especially the ones new to the process are not told the rules. All they see is what the campaigns and now the media want them to see.

    [ Parent ]
    If Michigan and Florida (5.00 / 5) (#58)
    by facta non verba on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:00:07 AM EST
    are counted then Hillary leads in the popular vote anbd by the time Puerto Rico votes she is likely to have 300,000 to 400,000 vote advantage.

    You are here to annoy people.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama thought FL would count (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Josey on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:23:47 AM EST
    because he was the ONLY candidate to violate DNC rules by holding a small campaign rally and running TV ads. He'd also received much positive media attention from his SC win 3 days earlier.
    But Obama still got trounced in FL.


    [ Parent ]
    Haha...that's funny (5.00 / 3) (#90)
    by TheViking on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:49:55 AM EST
    really.

    He wouldn't have won -- and the way things are going buddy, he won't win in the GE either, count on it..

    ...oh but like you said, all he needs to do is pick up some VP and then "all of us" won't be necessary, like MI and FL aren't necessary...

    Wake up brother your Strong Arm tactics only work on the Caucus Level, and the GE isn't a caucus.


    [ Parent ]

    annoy people? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by ccpup on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:33:07 AM EST
    I find this Obama Supporter's desperation and clueless grasp of the "facts" -- despite the "inevitability" of Barack's Nomination -- utterly delightful.  

    If this is what the SDs are going to see from St. Obama's campaign when it comes time to convince them who they should support, I'm feeling better and better about Hillary's chances.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: "just a junior senator" (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:30:49 AM EST
    What in heaven's name would you call Mr. Obama, then?

    If "just a junior senator" is a pejorative it applies fourfold to him.  She has eight year's experience as a senator.  He has two.

    Now you're just being silly.

    [ Parent ]

    You really need to get an education (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:26:53 AM EST
    because if you had one, you would know that the nominee is decided at the convention, not by whichever nominee thinks he should have it because he is tired and bored by campaigning. Obama does not have the delegates to get the nomination. Therefore he has NOT won it. And Obama is much more junior in the Senate than Hillary, she is in her second term, he hasn't finished his first term yet. And he hasn't done the work in the Senate that she has. He was busy writing his book, "Audacity of Hope" while allegedly representing the people of Illinois. Hillary has three times as many votes on record in the same term, this one, as Obama does.

    Obama has insulted and belittled so many voter blocs that it will be a miracle if he is even competitive in the GE. She is also ahead in the polls asking who will beat McCain in the GE. So, before you come here and spout drivel all over the place, I suggest you educate yourself on how the US primary system works, how the elections work and stop claiming a victory that is unlikely and hasn't happened yet.

    So much stuff is coming out about Obama that by the GE, he will be political poison, and by that I mean that NO ONE will want to endorse or vote for him. Way to foist an unqualified candidate on the country, kid. Too bad the country is saying NO!! louder and louder every day.

    [ Parent ]

    Have You Called The DNC To Voice Your (none / 0) (#231)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:00:17 AM EST
    displeasure?  Many are doing that in addition to sending their torn up dem party cards to them.
    At some point, they need to get the message:  "we
    aren't taking it anymore".  We would rather move on as an independent than continue to watch the b.s. going on.

    [ Parent ]
    Rise, Hillary, Rise!! (5.00 / 0) (#233)
    by zfran on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:12:45 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I've been ripping music all night (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 02:57:48 AM EST
    to my iPod.  Gotta give myself a break from TL and now another fave, No Quarter.  

    i LOVE the video to Goodbye to You. I don't know if any of you know this but Patty Smythe was going to be the lead singer for Van Halen after David Lee Roth left the band.  Things just fell through but that would have been amazing, yes?

    I am going to sleep right through the Sunday talk shows because it will be another Hillary bashing fest.  Man, don't those people ever get tired of treating her like crap?  That poor thing.  I have so much respect for her.  I would have blown a fuse by now.  Guess that's why she's running for POTUS and I'm not.

    Isn't she also married to (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:04:17 AM EST
    John McEnroe, the tennis player? I'm logging off now too.

    One caution, the attacks here are becoming personal again. Please, no race-baiting, no calling anyone, including politicians racist, and no reprinting material from other sites. Link, quote a line or paragpraph, but don't repost whole articles or posts.  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]

    She is married to McEnroe (none / 0) (#7)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:44:00 AM EST
    I just went back and read all my comments back to Friday...and I didn't call anyone names, race-bait and certainly didn't post articles or anything like that on TL.

    I choose my words carefully as not to violate your rules.  I get a lot of 5's on my comments too.  If I am getting out of bounds, or you feel that I am, I won't post comments here anymore.  I like the blog so I can just read the diaries and comments.

    Thanks for letting me post all this time though.

    [ Parent ]

    Don't Think Jeralyn's Comment Was (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:10:19 AM EST
    directed to you personally. IMO it was generic warning to everyone on the site.

    [ Parent ]
    Michelle Obama (none / 0) (#112)
    by gaf on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:28:49 AM EST
    There are rumors all over the internets that a killer Michelle Obama video is going to surface in the next couple of days. Any idea if this is true or just idle speculation. It seems to have started from Larry Johnson at NoQuarter. He says he has 4 sources who confirm the video.


    [ Parent ]
    No independent verification. (none / 0) (#117)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:32:57 AM EST
    As far as anyone knows it's just a Rumor, like Rove getting indicted.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll get the popcorn. (none / 0) (#154)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:14:15 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    If it does break (none / 0) (#166)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:24:04 AM EST
    I'll get my beer and popcorn and head over to the Great O.  Then I'll come back here for additional links.

    [ Parent ]
    a killer video? (none / 0) (#179)
    by ccpup on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:46:35 AM EST
    one of those oh so common foot-in-mouth moments?  Or ... ?

    [ Parent ]
    Duly noted....thanks (none / 0) (#238)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:44:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You best shoo. (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:23:55 AM EST

    Before Jeralyn kicks you off the site.

    [ Parent ]
    She'll kick your a$$ off of here so fast (5.00 / 5) (#95)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:55:30 AM EST

    because you keep calling people names (bitter old hag?  Yeah, that's going to fly with Jeralyn...).

    Namecalling isn't allowed here.  Obamabot/Obamatron are two terms that are quickly becoming entrenched in this election cycle as valid descriptors for the truly rude Obama supporters who come on here (and TaylorMarsh) who think it's okay to parrot nasty names at Clinton supporters.  

    Aren't you people supposed to be the uniters, not the dividers?  All of this slash-and-burn-your-way to the nomination isn't winning you our support.  You're pushing us away and making us either want to stay home or vote for your would-be opponent, John McCain.  We're not going to fall in line like you think, particularly if you treat us like crap.

    Is this the way young Obama people think the path towards victory is?  Is it your impatience of youth showing?  You can't get the nom as quick as you get your "txt msgs", so you yell and cry and denigrate the people "standing in your way"?  If this is the kind of "new politics" Obama's bringing to the Democratic Party, I'm damn glad I'm not a part of it/are registered Independent.  Who would want to be a part of that bunch of misbehaved brats?

    And I'm 34.  I'm not EVEN that old, and it disgusts me to see how people like you behave towards Clinton supporters.

    [ Parent ]

    amen, sister! (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:26:53 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    That's "brother" to you. (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:45:46 AM EST

    ;)  But no skin off my back.  

    [ Parent ]
    Um...no... (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by kredwyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:58:25 AM EST
    His voting record, what there is of it, tends to be more cautious than liberal...voting for things like Cheney's energy bill.

    His choice to almost vote for John Roberts and the fact that he not only had to be talked out of it and then defended his colleagues' choice to support the Roberts nomination speaks volumes.

    He has equivocated or been conveniently  absent from votes where he could've taken a Liberal stand.

    Finally, his efforts to stifle the donations for groups like VoteVets and ActBlue and therefore trying to limit their impact and stifle their voice are practically old school.

    Do. Not. Give. This. Candidate. The. Mantle. Of. Great. Liberal. Leader.

    [ Parent ]

    that troll is gone (5.00 / 3) (#221)
    by Jeralyn on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:08:40 AM EST
    I don't have time to clean the thread of responses, so I'll leave those but 28 comments by a commenter named obamain2008andyouknowit has been deleted for violating multiple site rule.s

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks J (none / 0) (#237)
    by TheViking on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:44:51 AM EST
    You run a great site here. Much appreciated.

    [ Parent ]
    Still in red mode n/t (none / 0) (#184)
    by samanthasmom on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:57:43 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    P.S. (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:25:32 AM EST

    Huckabee IS still running.  He never dropped out.

    The comparison between Hillary and Huckabee is laughable.

    But of course I'm sure you'll say the same thing about Teddy Kennedy, right?  He challenged Carter in '80 when he was A THOUSAND delegates behind.  But I guess it's different when he's "on your side".

    [ Parent ]

    Please, just...go drive-by another site. (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:09:12 AM EST

    I know BTD is gone and Jeralyn's turned in for the night and the Obamamice think they can play and insult Clinton supporters and Clinton herself, but this is not the place to do so.  Stop wasting your time.  you will find your comments deleted the moment Jeralyn can get to them, your user name banned.

    But until then, this is how she isn't Huckabee:  She isn't a thousand delegates behind.  She's only a few.  The Democratic Party is practically divided between the two of them.  Your Golden Child gave the know-nothings a dilemma by shoving himself into the race, and now the party's split.  You people keep saying how it's Clinton splitting the party, but you don't have a clue about what you're talking about.  You're talking like the Bushies in '00 and '04 did:  You live in opposite world, where up is down and down is up, as dictated by Axelrod and his creation.  You run away whenever we ASK you point blank that if super delegates are to be voting with their constituencies like you say they should, then Ted Kennedy and John Kerry should be endorsing Clinton.  

    YOU RUN AWAY FROM THE QUESTION EVERY TIME.

    If you think you're just so above the fray, then answer the d@mned question.  If you can't and you run away again, then we know for sure you're all full of fees n' cees.

    And while you're answering the first question, tell us why you're so eager for Clinton to drop out of the race while Ted Kennedy (again, what's up withthe abhorrent hypocrisy when it comes to Teddy?) challenged Jimmy Carter on the floor in 1980 when he was a THOUSAND delegates behind Carter?  THERE is your Huckabee comparison.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you're the one who needs convincing (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:25:55 AM EST
    that Obama has won.  Your coming over here to make your tiresome assertions only demonstrate that you yourself are not convinced.  Besides, don't you realize that you are not persuading anyone to support your candidate?  I am as committed to my candidate, Hillary as you are to Obama.  So why don't we all just wait until the nominee is decided at the convention in Colorado?  That's where the voting of the delegates, pledged and super can be counted officially.  Until then, it is all PR.  

    [ Parent ]
    jerks like you are exactly why Obama (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by kenosharick on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:45:03 AM EST
    will not be able to unite Democrats and will lose BIG to mccain. I wonder if that will wipe the sneer off your face?

    [ Parent ]
    Could you and Obama both buy a freakin (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:09:26 AM EST
    thesaurus or expand your vocabulary a tad? Get another word besides bitter. I'm getting bored.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes SD's should vote for whom they like (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:33:59 AM EST
    which is why I know that come August, Hillary will be the nominee because she will be ahead in the popular votes and would have proven her electability over Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    Jeralyn, please ban this user. (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:11:35 AM EST
    Probably a Republican troll.  Wonder what Republican trolls post on prObama blogs?

    [ Parent ]
    Sadly, no, Fabian, probably not a Republican (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:45:29 AM EST
    Indeed, this is the new face of the Democratic Party. And it's why I'm no longer a Democrat.

    [ Parent ]
    According to DK (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:31:28 AM EST
    Clinton supporters were:
    Really Republicans to begin with.
    or
    Will become Republicans.

    I think "Republican" is code for "racist".  I guess they figured they'd better stop using the little "r" word and replaced it with the big "R" word.

    I'm kind of shocked that I can pick up on these narratives so easily when I only spend about an hour a week there.

    [ Parent ]

    ban? heck, we need a flush handle... (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by kempis on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:18:27 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'd settle for hacking his account. (none / 0) (#168)
    by Fabian on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:27:12 AM EST
    and changing his username to something like Bozo the Clown or Astroscat or Look Ma - no brain!

    [ Parent ]
    I Vote For "Look Mom - no brain!" n/t (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:30:12 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It must be one of the paid 400 (none / 0) (#208)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:38:46 AM EST
    that Obama sent out to annoy the grownups. If we ignore the brat, maybe it will go away.

    [ Parent ]
    Sheesh! (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Burned on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:37:19 AM EST
    Is this a parody?

    [ Parent ]
    Laugh on (none / 0) (#164)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:22:45 AM EST
    glad to oblige.  

    [ Parent ]
    Over Since March 5 (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:43:26 AM EST
    If that's the case I should think you'd be done gloating about it by now.

    You need a basic math course.  One hundred is a "few" when you're talking totals of twenty times that.  If your talking about a hundred out of two hundred fifty it is not a "few."  

    Your candidate can't close the deal.  The race is not over.  Mr. Wonderful is missing the support of half his own party.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep, okay, you (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:48:47 AM EST

    "addressed" the super delegate thing, albeit mildly.  

    So again, I/we ask:  Ted Kennedy.  Should he vote for Hillary at the convention or not?  When Obama was behind on super delegates, he whined (along with that useless Nancy Pelosi) about the super delegates not "over turning the will of the people".  Now that's it very, very possible that Clinton could overcome his lead in the popular vote, it's all about the delegates and the super delegates for him.  It is absolutely pathetic.

    Second question was never addressed.  Yes, please run, run run away from that one, you pathetic drive-by.  

    [ Parent ]

    You Are the Classic Example (5.00 / 7) (#92)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:52:19 AM EST
    of why I don't support Barack Obama.  You are a rabid fan who has no idea what his positions are, where he will take the country or how his presidency will affect you.

    Instead of posting in support of your candidate you chose to bash your opponent and her friends.  I learned absolutely nothing about Barack Obama from all your posts except that he's got one really nasty henchman.

    But then, I already knew that.

    [ Parent ]

    Question re: sexism... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:31:28 AM EST
    Even as an Obama partisan, I think it is safe to say that sexism is more socially acceptable than racism is in the media.  It may be that racism is simply not as subtle, who knows.  But I know that many women have been turned off by the way Senator Clinton has been portrayed in this race.  To you I ask: What was it in particular, and how do we make it better in the future? To that end I would ask that any response refrain from gross generalizations about any "arrogant demeanor" on the part of Senator Obama.  I think it is too easy to conflate assertions of arrogance, fairy tales, etc. with racism and sexism.  I'm more curious about what I saw as the overt sexism that the media displayed, and a little curious about some of the double standards I thought I saw early in the primary season.  

     Again, I am clearly (as you can see by my posts) an Obama partisan.  But I am curious because I do think this is a serious issue, regardless of which candidate one supports.  

    To me the turning point was (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by Serene1 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:47:59 AM EST
    when the pro Obama blogs started sprouting nonsense about Hillary. They seemed to be more intent on character assasination than anything else. That kind of behaviour left me stunned and disgusted. I also noticed that suddenly in TV and everyehere Obama surrgogates were constantly pushing the meme that Hillary will say and do anything to win and besides other character flaws. They never were keen to discuss their disagreement on issues but were constantly trying to attack Hillary's Character.

    For the MSM it was open season. They were like frat boys making fun of everything Hillary including her pantsuits. They hardly acted as objective reporters.

    Obama himself has also attacked Hillary plenty with sexist remarks from claws, to periodically down to sipping tea with foreign dignitaries etc.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmmm... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:46:19 AM EST
    ...it may be that I've just missed it because I don't frequent non-law blogs.  

     I agree that the "say and do anything to win" meme is troubling.  I think it is more complicated, though, because it is Senator Clinton.  Further complicated by the questions surrounding the Iraq war vote, her very unfair treatment as First Lady and an absurdist right-wing army that has been attacking Senator Clinton and her husband since before they moved in (and well after they moved out) of the White House.  It is exacerbated by President Clinton's centrism, which managed to alienate a significant segment of the Democratic Party, fairly or unfairly.  

     I personally think the media was the most sexist element of all.  Ageist, too, to be fair, because they certainly took the time to emphasize the fact that she was an older woman runnng for office.

     I disagree with your characterization of Obama's campaign, although I agree that he took advantage of gender, just not in a very obvious way.  The first time I saw it was when he (along with Edwards) ganged up on her as the front runner (driver licenses for undocumented workers).  I thought that was pretty unseemly.  The second time was the "likeable enough" comment.  

     Isn't it hard, though, to separate Senator Clinton from President Clinton's administration? I keep coming back to that.  I'm told hindsight is 20/20 and it is unfair to judge his administration from today's perspective, but he royally pissed off a lot of key Democratic constituencies to remain in power.  I guess any Democrat would do the same, but if someone associated with them was running I think the electorate might be just as harsh as it was with Senator Clinton.  

     I would like to see a successful female candidate for the presidency in my lifetime, and I am dismayed by the way this has turned out.  Not the result, of course, as I voted for Obama, but I would have preferred a more astute and fair media.  Although I still believe I had very good reasons for turning to Senator Obama, the media bias does make me uneasy.

    [ Parent ]

    It's hard to separate Obama (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by magisterludi on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:07:00 AM EST
    from the Clinton administration, as so many of his advisors worked for BC.

    [ Parent ]
    Another Bill Clinton? (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:02:31 AM EST
    No.  More like another George W. Bush...a rank amateur who has neither the experience nor the leadership to be President of the United States.

    [ Parent ]
    That would be a fair comment... (none / 0) (#74)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:14:54 AM EST
    ...if Senator Obama was running on President Clinton's legacy.  He isn't, the advisors clearly aren't interested in doing so, and no one supporting Senator Clinton is suggesting that is the case.  

     What does this have to do with sexism in the media?

    [ Parent ]

    You see it your way (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by magisterludi on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:43:33 AM EST
    I'll see it mine. BTW- were you ever a hall monitor in school?

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:52:26 AM EST
    No, more like the antithesis of such.  But I don't think that's really the question you were asking...  

    [ Parent ]
    Respects the public??? (none / 0) (#104)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:20:53 AM EST

    "Clinging to guns and religion" and "sweetie" is respect, according to you?

    Now I KNOW you're talkin' crazy.  How old are you, 18?  Not even in middle school when Bill was elected?  Yeah, go home.  Your generation has no idea what "respect" is.  It seems to me that my own generation, the one born when Nixon resigned, is the LAST generation to:  Know what respect is, know how to write coherent sentences and know what hard work means.  We wouldn't have DREAMED of crying home to mommy because the "red marker looks so MEAN!" on our graded papers.  Such whiny crybabies.

    [ Parent ]

    I have always felt that though (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by Serene1 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:13:00 AM EST
    Bill C was a flawed politician yet he was one of the better Presidents. He was very shrewd and intelligent and he was the one who gave America both a national and international standing. He truly bought to fruition the strength of America domstically and internationally. Countries abroad respected us most during his tenure.
    I know its kind of become fashionable now to diss Bill C's presidency (again I feel Obama is responsible for the same), but let's not play republicans and revise History to distort one of the better presidencies marred by a sex scandal.
    I think a lot of goodwill for Hillary in this campaign from the core Democrats is also because of the fond memories of Clinton rule.


    [ Parent ]
    I certainly agree... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:33:13 AM EST
    ...with this sentiment:

    but let's not play republicans and revise History to distort one of the better presidencies marred by a sex scandal.

     I'm no puritan (as a gay guy I'd be hard pressed to be).  I was mortified when I went to France the year after he was impeached and was mocked for coming from a country where that was possible.  

     I also agree that much of Senator Clinton's core support comes from those years of good will (I try to use their...titles, for lack of a better word, just seems more professional than Mr. or Ms.).

     Still, it is hard for me to ignore the bad.  And bad there was.  

     And then I have moments of doubt, as anyone involved in this process should.  When Russert backed her into a corner on her Iraq vote and acted....well, appalling is the right word...I kind of wanted to slug him then and there.  At the same time I just had this feeling that she did not vote her conscience.  But it is always too difficult to know.  

    [ Parent ]

    This campaign has cut your chances (5.00 / 3) (#216)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:00:24 AM EST
    and mine of a woman (preferred adjective, btw) president in our lifetimes.  I study women and politics and the media, and there are a lot of studies that show the impact of such dirty campaigns as this one that discourage other women "in the pipeline."

    And the media are well aware of such studies -- they're used in journalism courses, for those in the media who actually study journalism -- so I am confident that their role in this campaign was a "twofer" to drive out Clinton and to discourage other women from having done to them what media (and others, but you want to talk about media) did to her.

    Of course, that it was done to all of us to continue to discourage the majority of Americans, women, from providing us with more and better leaders -- well, that's the story of American history for centuries now.  We never have allowed ourselves to really encourage the best and the brightest of all Americans.

    We always have allowed media to assist in limiting leadership -- limiting power -- to the best and the brightest of about 15% of Americans, adult white males.  Plus one half-white one this time.  And we call that progress.

    [ Parent ]

    Trashing Hillary (none / 0) (#206)
    by creeper on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:37:17 AM EST
    This is exactly what drove me away from dKos and compelled me to cancel my subscription to "The Nation."

    Endorsing one candidate does not mean you have to trash their opponent...especially in a primary.  

    I'm beginning to wonder about Obama's legendary "people skills".  If he's so good at dealing with people why is there such opposition to him within his own party?  

    Are posters like Obama2008 actually an accurate reflection of Barack Obama?

    [ Parent ]

    95% of Obama's campaign (5.00 / 5) (#209)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 09:41:51 AM EST
    is about trashing Hillary.  I have yet to hear one compelling reason to vote for him based on his beliefs or his qualifications.  Most of what I hear from his campaign is that people should vote for him because of Hillary's voting record or the things she and/or her surrogates have allegedly said.  Pathetic, really, that he brings virtually nothing of his own to the table.  

    [ Parent ]
    Let's start with... (5.00 / 8) (#136)
    by sickofhypocrisy on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:55:36 AM EST
    • describing her as 'shrill'
    • referring to her 'cackle' when she laughs
    • accusing her of 'crying' to get votes (even tho a tear never fell; she just got choked up)
    • constantly belittling her role as 'first lady' as though she was just polishing silver for 8 years
    • stating that she owes her success to her husband
    • calling her 'witchy', 'she-devil'
    • comparing her to a 'strip-teaser'
    • constant references to her pantsuits
    • signs that say 'iron my shirt'
    • citizens united not timid website
    • comments about her 'crazy eyes'
    • comments about her being 'hysterical'
    • comments aobut having her 'claws out'
    • comments about 'throwing china'

    That just represents a portion of what has been said by Obama, his surrogates and the pundits (redundancy alert).

    [ Parent ]
    There were so many "last straws" (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by befuddled on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:18:45 AM EST
    they make up a bale for me. Can you say "Bros for Hos" tee shirts? It may be a private enterprise, but if it's printed and a message people can read, it's media. To say nothing of YouTube vids. If there were any "higher ground" in the Obama campaign such attacks wouldn't be happening in such frequency at the low level because they wouldn't reflect core values and be tolerated.

    [ Parent ]
    Well I don't think... (none / 0) (#170)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:27:59 AM EST
    ...they can control a lot of that stuff, any more than they can control Rev. Wright.  They can condemn it, and maybe they haven't been vocal enough.  

    [ Parent ]
    That Is The Whole Point (5.00 / 3) (#175)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:35:58 AM EST
    They have not condemn it anymore than Obama has condemn the Tavis Smiley death threats and harassment of his family members. IMO that was much too serious to let slide.  

    [ Parent ]
    Not Vocal Enough, how about (none / 0) (#236)
    by zfran on Sun May 18, 2008 at 11:30:41 AM EST
    not vocal at all.

    [ Parent ]
    They haven't been vocal at all (none / 0) (#239)
    by Nadai on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:49:59 PM EST
    I cannot think of a single instance where Obama or any of his campaign staff even deigned to notice the misogyny of this campaign, let alone spoke against it.  They can't control what other people say or do, but they have complete control over what they don't say and don't do.  I will never vote for that man.

    [ Parent ]
    racism, sexism (3.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Lupin on Sun May 18, 2008 at 03:50:59 AM EST
    I think there is too much -ism being thrown around.

    I'm impervious to Obama's charm; it reminds me a little too much of the Werner Ehrard-type (as I wrote once on DKos) but that doesn't make me a racist.

    I don't like Hillary either. I respect her achievements (as I do Obama's) and I don't doubt her abilities, but she reminds me of Michelle Forbes' character on 24. Her seeming inability to come to terms with being wrong on Iraq is another thorn to me.

    I disliked Maggie Thatcher, for kind of the same reasons as I don't like Hillary, even though her politics were different. I like Madeline Albright however. I'd vote for her if she ran for office.

    I'll vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, because clearly it's the right thing to do, of course.

    [ Parent ]

    Interesting... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Alec82 on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:22:50 AM EST
    I'm clearly not impervious, as I voted for him.  Of course, I had to vote for somebody, and my primary wasn't disregarded.  

     she reminds me of Michelle Forbes' character on 24

     I own up.  Never watch that piece of garbage (although I've liked her since Ensign Ro, but I'm a geek).  As long as she doesn't bring Admiral Cain to mind I'd be fine.  

     Racism and sexism was bound to surface once they became the frontrunners, though.  Demographics if nothing else.  They're both imperfect candidates.  I tend to think that the media is more comfortable exploiting sexism, though.    

     I think you and I are roughly on the same page, of course.  Which makes it easy to find agreement, although I do think race and gender played a complicated role in this primary.

     I wasn't really around for the Thatcher era (thank God), but I don't think she and Senator Clinton are equivalent.  Senator Clinton reminds me more of Blair...which, a few years ago, would have been praise.

    [ Parent ]

    I was totally wrong... (none / 0) (#227)
    by Lupin on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:36:31 AM EST
    ...about Michelle Forbes (Ensign Ro).

    I only watched the first two seasons of 24 before walking away in disgust. The President's wife -- Sherry Palmer -- was played by Penny Johnson Jerald. She was Cassidy Yates on DS9, hence my amazingly stupid confusion.

    I voted for Edwards in the California primaries, absentee ballot, so in effect I didn't have to choose between Obama and Clinton. I have no idea who I would have picked.

    Maggie Thatcher was a tough cookie, like Hillary Clinton; I recall reading recently that she is still the most admired Prime Minister in British history.

    I have a genuine dislike for authority figures who are self-righteous and will never admit to a mistake. Hillary Clinton (at least from a distance) comes across as that kind of person.

    But ultimately there are bigger issues here than my personal likes/dislikes.

    I am amazed and appalled that women on this site would rather jeopardize the right to abortion (amongst others) than vote for Obama.

    I expect that kind of behavior from redstate.org members, not TalkLeft's.

    [ Parent ]

    Did anyone see SNL this week? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:22:58 AM EST

    I have to say that I don't want to LIKE John McCain, but I LIKE HIM.  He was freaking hilarious in both segments he did, particularly the message from John McCain (re: the highways and the post offices, LOL)...his grandchildren and his great-grandchildren...and his great-great-grandchildren...LMAO!  You would never see Obama be so self-deprecating...or even humorous, and that's what might win John McCain some fans of his own.

    The little "THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE" bit with Obama and Clinton was a bit eh.  But John...love him.

    Self-deprecating side of McCain is going to hurt (5.00 / 3) (#220)
    by Cream City on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:06:00 AM EST
    Obama with his image of arrogance -- you called it.

    That and the POW hero narrative, the military leadership, the long experience . . . the Repubs, for all their floundering at the start, couldn't have culled a better candidate against either of our candidates.  But with her own historic narrative and long experience plus finally letting her warmth (which many of us had seen in her for years) come through, Clinton is the better contender for us.  

    She does the self-deprecation well, as well.  Obama, not so much; it seems so scripted, an act, as with so much else he does.  He has gotten better on the campaign trail, but I don't think it's enough yet.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, I know (none / 0) (#225)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 10:33:53 AM EST

    Clinton is the better contender.  Better than Obama, definitely.  Better than McCain...yeah, she's a modern Dem.  Usually better than a modern Repub.

    But like Breitweiser said, Obama--if he becomes the nominee--is going to have many, many problems attacking McCain on any level and winning the GE.  He would be a fool to try the approach of the war, with McCain's sons serving in the military...he would be a fool to attack his age (his comment about McCain "losing his bearings" is already getting some bad press for him)...and he's painted himself into a corner re: the Republican slant, since Obama has been extolling the virtues of the Reagan Years since...well, since forever.  Some people see him as a closet Republican.  And you know...come to think of it...I don't think I've even heard Obama say ANYTHING positive about the Democratic party.  It's all about the Obama Party.  And that's just not going to fly in the GE...especially if he truly believes he can coast to the Presidency via rich latte drinkers with college degrees and young people only.

    [ Parent ]

    If the Republicans (none / 0) (#240)
    by Nadai on Sun May 18, 2008 at 12:56:31 PM EST
    had nominated anyone but McCain, I'd think the Democrats would have an easy win no matter who they ran.  Clinton, Obama, PeeWee Herman for that matter - any of them would stomp Huckabee or Paul or Romney flat.

    But McCain doesn't seem like a nut or a Bush clone, no matter what his voting record actually is.  He comes across as a smart, likable guy, a little hot-tempered, maybe, but hey, nobody's perfect.  There are worse things than getting riled up, right?

    The Republicans aren't stupid.  Unfortunately.

    [ Parent ]

    I got it now (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:25:29 AM EST
    Thx!

    Please ban (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by boredmpa on Sun May 18, 2008 at 04:25:40 AM EST
    Obama 2008 you know it...I'm guessing it's a republican troll trying to drum up McCain votes because I've never seen an Obama supporter act that rude.

    And for the record, I wont vote Obama...but I don't like to see people mid/disinforming voters.

    i like (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by boredmpa on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:06:22 AM EST
    kittens and bunnies and log cabins?

    [ Parent ]
    Isn't it fascinating how like Obama (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 05:07:10 AM EST
    many of his supporters are:  coming around at a time when posters are not usually around?  Like their candidate using every excuse in the universe not to debate his main competitor. I don't know why they do it seeing that they are not exactly persuading anyone to their point of view.  I have to give them credit for some persistence.  But no one is as persistent and focused as Hillary Clinton; poised, intelligent without the arrogance, calm under pressure.  That kind of nobility of spirit cannot be duplicated.

    [ Parent ]
    Because Obama can't think on his feet (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:41:27 AM EST
    that's why he does so poorly in debates.  I can't blame him for not wanting to debate.

    [ Parent ]
    exactly (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by kempis on Sun May 18, 2008 at 08:40:17 AM EST
    Ever see Obama's press conferences? Painful....Bush is more articulate on his feet--and that's scary.

    [ Parent ]
    Surely You Must Be The Republican (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:17:58 AM EST
    posting on this site. Only a Republican would go out of their way to anger voters that Obama needs in November. Please do us a favor and crawl back into your hole.  

    [ Parent ]
    Never seen an Obama supporter be that rude?? (5.00 / 4) (#89)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:49:09 AM EST
    Are you kidding? Have you been to the comments section on DailyKos or HuffingtonPost? These are some of the most foul-mouthed, obnoxious, adolescent, bullies I've ever seen in my life.

    [ Parent ]
    Because his movement (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Dr Molly on Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:50:03 AM EST
    is full of a***holes like you.

    [ Parent ]
    Because I don't like him. (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by felizarte on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:43:18 AM EST
    he's inexperienced and is not nearly as knowledgeable on the issues as Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Why won't I vote Obama? (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by BrandingIron on Sun May 18, 2008 at 07:58:19 AM EST

    • Very LITTLE experience getting legislation passed on his own, without other peoples' help/taking credit for their hard work.

    • Tough to pin down on his positions.  From abortion to energy, the guy doesn't have a solid position on anything, and whatever positions he DOES say that he has speaks to localized audiences (i.e., he changes positions all the time/panders).  He supported Roberts before he voted against him (because someone TOLD him to).  He held leftist pro-Palestinian views before he was told to dump them in order to become politically viable to Jews/Zionists.  Is he, or isn't he? is a question that he can't make go away on ANY issue.

    • He's dumb.  He may've graduated from Harvard, but I know dumb people who've graduated from Harvard (see:  Current President).  He will be a figurehead leader (if he gets that far) who will rely on other people telling him what to do.  He pushed the wrong buttons on votes at least six times;  Hendon (they guy he stole that "landmark" bill re: videotaped confessions in IL) defends him by saying "It can happen!" but then Hendon admits that he's never done it himself.  His writing is no better than the most educated LiveJournaller.  He may be a decent storyteller, but we don't need a storylteller in the WH.  We need a doer and a fighter.

    • He is NOT the FIRST viable "black candidate" for President.  To say so would be an insult to all other black candidates that came before him.

    • He is immature.  All of those hand gestures, the snide comments about Hillary, the tantrum he had in front of reporters after tanking badly after OH and TX..."sweetie"..."PA people clinging to guns and religion".  Shifting goal posts during this entire primary season ("Super delegates mustn't overturn the will of the people...oh wait, super delegates SHOULD overturn the will of the people if it works for me!").  Not even bothering to tell his supporters (like you) to cut the $hit and stop being so rude to Clintonites because you're gonna need us to win the GE.  Not bothering to muzzle his wife the way Hills muzzled Bill...everything Michelle Obama's said in this cycle is ten times worse than anything Bill said.  It's all a sign of immaturity.

    • Michelle Obama.  I don't want her as First Lady.  She disgusts me with he