home

Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:16:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Your turn. This is an Open Thread.

Comments over 200, thread now closed.

< Ignoring "The Problem" | Hillary Picks Up N.C. Superdelegate, Will Stay Until There's a Nominee >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread | 219 comments (219 topical)
    Obama joins the pander (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:28:05 PM EST
    parade?

    Envirowonk

    Not new, he has said this all along. (none / 0) (#15)
    by 1jpb on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:34:36 PM EST
    He also qualifies by referring to carbon sequestration.  And, we have a lot of coal, it needs to be some part of our energy answer.  

    If anything, HRC has pandered by her weak answer about mountain top coal mining.

    [ Parent ]

    Was this (5.00 / 5) (#25)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:40:34 PM EST
    before or after he voted for Cheney's Energy Bill?

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder how (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:46:45 PM EST
    his buddies at Exelon feel about him cozying up to coal... oh never mind, I'm sure they sit on each others boards.

    [ Parent ]
    Didn't read the article did you (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:56:03 PM EST
    He's not only pandering, he's lying...

    There's a lot not to like about this flyer, starting with the fact that "clean Kentucky coal" is a total oxymoron. Yes, there are coal plants that use Integrated Gasification Combine Cycle (IGCC) technology to capture and store emissions underground. The problem is there isn't a single carbon capture and storage (CCS) plant in all of Kentucky.

    What?  Is he going to use MY tax dollars for Corporate Welfare and Development?  I don't think so.

    [ Parent ]

    I think his plan is to store the gas (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:02:13 PM EST
    in one of the KY Great Lucks.  Hopebegone, maybe?

    [ Parent ]
    I wonder how (none / 0) (#179)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:22:29 PM EST
    Oregon feels about that.  :)

    [ Parent ]
    Obama today hits lowest poll average ever (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Cream City on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:29:55 PM EST
    on RealClearPolitics.com's daily averaging of polls (the best roundup of polls I've seen and the one most cited by media and other political observers).

    From 10 points up on average over Clinton in lots of polls logged in and averaged in there daily and even hourly, he's now down to a tenth of one point:

    RCP Average    04/28 - 05/06    --    Obama +0.1

    He better hope for a post-NC bounce.  Clinton still is coming up on him.  Hmmm, that oughta be another reason for her to get out.  It's sorta humiliating -- for him.  And for Dean, Brazile, Dems, et al.

    He did not do as well (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:48:17 PM EST
    as he was supposed to in either NC or IN. And the voting shenanigans with the mayor of Gary were reprehensible.

    I'm not thinking he's going to get any kind of bounce at all. His support is maxed out, whereas hers can be built upon and expanded.

    Can you imagine how she'd slice and dice McCain in a debate? Can you imagine how easily she'd trounce him on the economy?

    I wanted a landslide this year. I think I'm getting one - but not the one I wanted.

    [ Parent ]

    contrast is key (none / 0) (#63)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:53:49 PM EST
    I think you are 180 degrees off re: support and growth.  But that's political debate for you!

    Debates are almost never decisive.  Kerry beat Bush in the debates according to almost all polls.  But Kerry was up against not being positioned well on the war (he was for it, just a better version of it) and a not yet formed consensus that the war was a mistake.

    Hillary was poorly positioned on this war. It cost her greatly.  It will be a strength for Obama that will more than outweigh the relatively minor things cited here, like Wright and "clinging" and Ayers.  

    The economy sucks and Iraq sucks and the current admin stinks. The greater the contrast with that the better in November.  

    [ Parent ]

    Obama opposed the war when he couldn't vote (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:15:06 PM EST
    but voted FOR war funding when he could vote.
    Then flip flopped again when he became a presidential candidate.
    Yes - Obama is a fairy tale on the war.


    [ Parent ]
    How racist of you to point that out! (none / 0) (#161)
    by abfabdem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:17:55 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    they all flip flop (none / 0) (#181)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:22:49 PM EST
    So i assume you disqualify candidates when they flip flop.  I disagree - the war vote is the war vote, but let's look at the flip side.

    So Hillary never flip flopped?  Because you seem to be implying that.

    In the end, this is a silly gotcha game.  


    [ Parent ]

    I respectfully disagree. (none / 0) (#95)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:02:06 PM EST
    HRC is a huge contrast with McCain economically. Clearly, her health care plan is far, far better. In addition, should there be some kind of manufactured crisis (bombing Iran), she will not look weak next to McCain. She has worked hard to strengthen her national security credentials, and she has shown she can be "tough" by voting for the AUMF.

    Obama pretends to have been anti-Iraq war on the basis of a speech, but his actions once in the Senate say differently. He's trying to have it both ways, and that didn't work so well with John Kerry, now, did it?

    HRC's position on the Iraq war is much more mainstream than Obama's. She's where most Americans are, and always has been.

    I just can't be optimistic about this. Maybe if Obama's the nominee he will suddenly figure out how to gain the voters he needs, but I'm not holding my breath.

    [ Parent ]

    What about leadership? (none / 0) (#217)
    by Alec82 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:37:57 PM EST
    "HRC's position on the Iraq war is much more mainstream than Obama's. She's where most Americans are, and always has been."

     Not exactly leadership, though, is it?

    "Obama pretends to have been anti-Iraq war on the basis of a speech, but his actions once in the Senate say differently."

     I assume when he spoke in 2002 he was not "pretending" to be against a war that was popular enough at the time to gain support from half of the Democratic senators.  And the position one takes against a war is very much unrelated to strategy and funding for the execution of a war.  

    "She has worked hard to strengthen her national security credentials, and she has shown she can be "tough" by voting for the AUMF."

     That has always been a problem with her for me.  I wonder sometimes if she overcompensates, at least on rhetoric, because she is female and a Democrat.  I am uniniterested in leaders who feel they need to have "tough" policies with respect to crime and war because that is what Americans want.  That attitude leads to disastrous policies.  See, for example, our prisons and criminal justice system, the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, as well as the debate over FISA.  

    [ Parent ]

    Register as Independent (5.00 / 5) (#10)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:31:24 PM EST
    I should think 10% of Democrats in FL and MI should be registering "Independent" sometime soon.

    Not everyone.

    Basically, if you do happen to be any of the folks who feel like the DNC has handled this primary inappropriately, the one way you can take a stand on that (short of not voting for Obama in November) is to register "Independent".

    Vote for Obama in November if you must.

    Just don't do nothing.  They'll do it again in a second if nothing happens.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Cate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:37:22 PM EST
    that is a stand that someone might notice. I mean, what else could it mean to the DNC but extreme dissatisfaction.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm waiting until (and if) she suspends (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jes on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:38:04 PM EST
    then I'm out. As to if Obama gets my vote, I'm flipping and flopping all over the place.

    [ Parent ]
    Me, too (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Nadai on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:43:45 PM EST
    I plan to do it on the day she concedes (assuming, of course, that she does).  Maybe if enough people do it, the DNC will get the message.

    I won't hold my breath, though.  They're pretty slow learners.

    [ Parent ]

    me too (none / 0) (#177)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:22:18 PM EST
    I plan to do it on the day she concedes (assuming, of course, that she does)

    would be great if enough ppl did that

    [ Parent ]

    I am absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:39:17 PM EST
    going to do this.

    I've had it.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm thinking about it (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:43:48 PM EST
    The only thing is, living in NY, which is a closed primary state, I won't be able to vote in the primaries.  It's a pretty ironic state of affairs for me, since just this year I persuaded my son who lives in PA to change his registration from Independent to Democratic so he could vote for Hillary in the PA primary.

    But I am so mad and disgusted right now, and my Obama-supporting mother's mocking e-mails aren't helping any!  

    [ Parent ]

    I know - I'm in the same situation... (none / 0) (#41)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:45:53 PM EST
    but since the Democrats don't care about my primary vote, they won't get it.

    [ Parent ]
    The back of the voter registration (none / 0) (#51)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:49:07 PM EST
    form says you must have your application in 25 days before the election. I always thought it was a year. Did they change something? The website says that also, but I could have sworn it said something different . . .

    Anyway, you can be Independent and then change before upcoming elections if there is someone you want to support?

    [ Parent ]

    The answer is (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:05:30 PM EST
    new registrations have to be in a month before the election.  If you're already registered, though, changes in party registration have to be a year in advance.

    [ Parent ]
    In PA (none / 0) (#141)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:13:32 PM EST
    Yes We Can - change back to Independent from Democrat,  (or Republican for that matter).  And even though we have closed primaries, you still get to vote on any questions on the ballot, so it's still in your interest to keep track of what's going on in the primaries

    [ Parent ]
    I say change and hurry (1.80 / 5) (#65)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:54:16 PM EST
    and when the seniors on medicaid are struggling to make ends meet they can eat cat food to stay alive. I love them republican policies!

    you can eat cat food or crow, your choice.

    [ Parent ]

    Your line is getting tired (5.00 / 6) (#93)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:01:42 PM EST
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 07:59:59 PM EST
    and no negotiation on medicaid rates.  Go right ahead florida, enjoy the cat food for dinner.

    and the older folks (none / 0) (#148)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:15:15 PM EST
    who have no bargaining power from their elected officials with pharmaceuticals will be eating cat food.  

    great move (none / 0) (#198)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:25:57 PM EST
    Cat food or crow?  

    If you were actually worried about srs eating catfood, you would have paid attention to the polls that said more Clinton supporters would never vote for Obama than vice versa.  If the srs end up eating catfood, it will be the fault of everyone who voted for Obama in the primary while stubbornly refusing to realize he is unelectable.  If you think he's electable, then the srs will get to eat top ramen.


    [ Parent ]

    hey ramen is good food (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:13:10 PM EST
    If you think he's electable, then the srs will get to eat top ramen.

    thirty bucks a month it costs for top ramen, or so I've heard.

    [ Parent ]

    I am staying on message (1.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:15:07 PM EST
    you missed the three other posts that had it.

    Cat food or Crow, your choice ongoldenpond.

    [ Parent ]

    Here close your eyes and sing (1.00 / 1) (#164)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:18:22 PM EST
    Michael row your boat ashore hallelujah, michael row your boat ashore.

    Do this ten times.

    Keep eyes closed.

    Breathe deeply.

    Take a few minutes and breathe.  Feels good don't it.

    see, that's all you needed.

    [ Parent ]

    You're off message (none / 0) (#172)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:20:30 PM EST
    your campaign theme song is Kumbaya and you must be riding a unity pony.  I recommend you do it with your eyes open unlike you did when you voted.

    [ Parent ]
    oooh, eyes closed (1.00 / 2) (#182)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:23:49 PM EST
    like when i voted.  Very clever.  

    Really, if the breathing doesn't work try some valium, nothing wrong with a little chemistry to get you through the rough times.

    "cat food or crow, your choice."

    [ Parent ]

    Nope, beer (none / 0) (#186)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:25:10 PM EST
    I'm working on my low knowledge, bitter, clinging Clinton bona fides.

    [ Parent ]
    oh yeah (1.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:26:55 PM EST
    my two boys love kum-by-ah, sing it to em every nite at bedtime since they was born, great tune, can't really dance to it much but gives em a warmth in their bellies.

    [ Parent ]
    Colors (none / 0) (#211)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:34:23 PM EST
    Red and yellow
    Pink and green
    Purple and orange and blue
    Baby, I can sing a rainbow, sing a rainbow, sing a rainbow for you.
    Listen with your eyes, just listen with your eyes and sing everything you see.
    Red and yellow
    Pink and green
    Purple and orange and blue
    Baby, I can sing a rainbow, pretty rainbow, pretty rainbow like you.

    [ Parent ]
    now that's what i'm (none / 0) (#218)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:38:11 PM EST
    talkin bout.

    [ Parent ]
    This trolling attitude (none / 0) (#191)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:26:38 PM EST
    Seems very familiar, the language, the cadence....I have seen this before I think....

    [ Parent ]
    really marvin? (none / 0) (#197)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:29:03 PM EST
    how long have you been at this site?  do you remember Patrick?  PPJ's original moniker?  When SUO was not SUO?  When Cliff was considered more evil than PPJ?

    lol, methinks not.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (none / 0) (#205)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:31:56 PM EST
    Make sense much? Sorry stupid question, I withdraw.

    [ Parent ]
    lots of anger (none / 0) (#216)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:37:26 PM EST
    I hope you don't bring that home with you.  that message wasn't supposed to make sense to you short-timer, but for the few who do get, they are smiling ear to ear.

    [ Parent ]
    Jl's still got that fire in his belly! (none / 0) (#227)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:51:18 PM EST
    Good to see.

    Marvin, you are very much barking up the wrong tree here.


    [ Parent ]

    You obviously haven't priced pet food (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:08:38 PM EST
    lately. You can do better buying cheap processed food.

    Next!

    [ Parent ]

    I just switched to "no party" (none / 0) (#165)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:18:32 PM EST
    I feel much cleaner now.

    [ Parent ]
    I am glad that Sen. Clinton is continuing the (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by FLVoter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:35:05 PM EST
    fight and I will continue to contribute to her because I admire her and the democratic ideals she stands for. Now that I am now an official Independent voter (or as we are known in FL a NPA - No Party Affiliation) I may be courted by both the Republicans and the Democrats for my GE vote.  My husband has been a NPA for a long time now.  Both parties are now free to convince me that their platforms are better for my own self interest.  It is good to feel wanted again, since Sen. Obama, the DNC (and Donna Brazile) did not want me as a dem.

    Here's a nice (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:39:10 PM EST
    "good sportsmanship" story.

    Very Nice! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:40:48 PM EST
    thanks for posting!

    [ Parent ]
    I would happily (none / 0) (#209)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:34:03 PM EST
    help carry Obama off the field.

    [ Parent ]
    I'm going to GOTV training tonight. (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by liminal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:40:49 PM EST
    Yeah, for HRC.  It's mostly because I already said I would, yesterday, before things seemed so bleak.  I suppose there are positives in all this: instead of canvassing over the weekend, I can spend it in the garden.  I'm looking forward to it; that's what I did last night until it got so dark I couldn't see - I planted snaps and zinnias and pulled weeds and watered.  Maybe I'll expand the vegetable garden - grow some hops and barley for the coming global beer shortage.

    Bill Clinton is touring small towns in West Virginia - Phillipi and Fayetteville and Sutton.  Barack Obama should consider doing the very same thing: a listening tour a la HRC's rural listening tour in upstate NY in 2000.  

    Of course, listening to rural voters in the second poorest state in the country might be too boring for him...

    These "new Democrats" aren't Dems (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:41:42 PM EST
    They are Obamicans. They are voting Democratic because they love Obama's message of "hope" and "change", not because they think that the Democratic Party is superior. They don't even know what Obama's positions are, much less care where he stands on the political spectrum.

    I realized back in the Dkos days that there were two kinds of Democrats. Democrats like me chose the party because I agreed with it's general philosophy and wanted to support the ideals, even while recognizing that no political party will ever perfeclty represent me. The other kind of Democrats hate the Democratic party as it exists. They want to tear it down and reshape it into their ideal party. This group includes disaffected Republicans and Libertarians, Greens and Socialists who got tired of being in the minority, and idealists who are simply unwilling to compromise.

    They are the left-wing equivalent to the Christian Conservatives who think that if they vote for Republicans then the party will eventually give them what they want - a theocracy. Of course, the rebel Dems won't ever get what they want because they don't agree on anything. As long as Dems are out of power, they can agree on fighting Republican rule. As soon as the Dems get any kind of power they expect change and they want it now. But few of them agree on what kind of change they want, so Dems end up being damned by various subgroups no matter what action they take. As a result, the party elders are reluctant to make decisions, because they know that no matter what decision they make it will be the wrong one for somebody. They are hungry for a unified party, the kind of unity Obama promises, the kind of unity shown by black voter's in this election.

    It's too bad that Obama's voter's aren't more interested in the Democratic Party. As soon as we run a candidate who isn't about "change", they will return to their sniping.

    While I disagree w/the first sentence (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by vicndabx on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:08:37 PM EST
    not from a, I disagree w/the sentiment perspective but from a, let's avoid the beef perspective (as assumedly folks w/"more experience," IMO we should avoid at all costs, antagonistic language to those who don't agree w/us,) i agree with this poster's sentiment.  Folks from the "other" camp gotta get real.  We need to win, the feel good candidate just ain't gonna do it.  Politics has a competitive, sport-like side to it that u folks just ain't getting.  I would love to support the candidate that's gonna move us toward Utopia, but right now, that's not the candidate that's gonna win.  Folks need to understand, we have to get in the door first before we can control the dialogue.  I like most Dems, was like WTF!! after O's speech at the Dem Convention last prez election but, now's not time for that.  We need tough, push-our-agenda-thru-regardless type leadership right now.  We have to give our principles/ideals/plans a chance to get out there to the nation as they are before we water them down based on a compromise.  I'm a Hillary supporter who looks forward to the day when an Obama-type candidate can capture the nations attention - I'd support him/her, but, I ask you, look at ALL the facts right now, do you really want to gamble w/all that's at stake?

    [ Parent ]
    with all the facts? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:13:31 PM EST
    That Hillary CANNOT beat him in the popular vote, the electoral vote and sd's.  Shameful i tell ya, shameful.

    For all the talk of Obama not having the KO punch, the same is true for Mrs. Clinton.  

    It is almost comical to me that the democratic party who has cried foul over the "fear based" campaigning is trying to incorporate "fear" in its own party in this election.  Do I fear John McCain, not in the least bit.  Do I fear that Hillary will LOSE to John McCain, HELL yeah.

    Hillary would lose to McCain, no question in my mind.

    [ Parent ]

    Re: All the facts (none / 0) (#207)
    by vicndabx on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:32:28 PM EST
    What I was referring to was not just the current back and forth over who's more electable.  I'll admit, an argument can be made for either.  The strength of each argument however, I don't think is the same.  All the facts, means knowing how the politics game has been played between repubs and dems over the last two election cycles.  You shouldn't need to "like" the president.  It's a job interview, w/someone who u don't work next to daily.  You don't need to see them, you don't have to be cool w/them.  It should be about who, based on the current climate, is best prepared to handle what's happening in the US and the world.  You fear that Hillary will lose to John McCain, I don't.  I'll tell u why, I'm a Dem, but I KNOW John McCain ain't stupid, and he understands the BIG issues that are happening today.  He doesn't need advisers to tell him what they are.  I may not agree w/his principles, but at least he KNOWS the reality of the US and the world today.  B4 u go there w/the SCOTUS, forget abortion rights, no prez is gonna take that away from women (who make a HUGE part of the electorate,) the US would look like the middle ages to the rest of the world, our rep is already messed up, ain't gonna happen.  Here's the deal w/SCOTUS: most people don't care.  The people who care are those who have a case that might be impacted by what the SCOTUS does.  Sorry, but this isn't the majority.  I'm tellin you, u gotta be in it to win it.  We have a chance of being "in it" w/Hill and Bill.  Ask yourself, who since Jimmy Carter has held the top slot?  Did they run alone?  Hasn't the DNC/Dem Part ran who they thought was the best shot every election since?  What's been the outcome?  Who was the last dem president to be re-elected?

    [ Parent ]
    wow that really hits it on the head (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:15:20 PM EST
    hate the Democratic party as it exists. They want to tear it down and reshape it into their ideal party. This group includes disaffected Republicans and Libertarians, Greens and Socialists who got tired of being in the minority, and idealists who are simply unwilling to compromise.

    That's what Obama is offering. Democrat-hate.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by livesinashoe on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:21:32 PM EST
    They are the left-wing equivalent to the Christian Conservatives who think that if they vote for Republicans then the party will eventually give them what they want - a theocracy.

    EXACTLY so.

    Same psychology, same true believing, same vitriol towards anyone who challenges the one true faith.


    [ Parent ]

    oh,ps (none / 0) (#193)
    by livesinashoe on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:27:00 PM EST
    this is my first post here although i have been reading for months.

    i have been a dem for 40 years, and have been a family preservation activist for the last 15.

    i believe the dem party is experieincing a hijacking by true believers much as the r party did, starting in 1980.

    i now consider myself an independent with true democratic principles.

    [ Parent ]

    well 50% of the "dems" (3.00 / 4) (#74)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:57:56 PM EST
    voted for Obama.  And in my group of friends all with at least 5 pres voting cycles under their belts and most with 6 or more, i don't think any of them consider themselves "new" demos being that they voted dem in all dem cycles.

    I thought Hillary gave an appropriate speech, it is too bad that some of her followers who can type are so angry.  

    I think Obama and Hillarys platform are so radically different that if Hillary won there is no question i would have to vote for that McCain fellar.  lol

    [ Parent ]

    I was referring to the kids (none / 0) (#160)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:17:33 PM EST
    The hope of the new Democratic generation. I was not suggesting that the people who voted for Obama were not Democrats. That's a game for Obamabots, as far as I'm concerned. But the new Obama voter's are not Democrats. They might become Dems at some point, but their loyalty is to Obama, not the party.

    [ Parent ]
    more than 2 kinds (none / 0) (#98)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:02:42 PM EST
    I think your "2 kinds" thing is flat wrong. I've got elements of both. I know many people who do.

    Change is a dynamic in a landscape that exists or doesn't exist. It depends on the times.  It's up to a candidate to grab it or not.

    And I was a strong Bill Clinton supporter.  And I was never for Hillary this time around.  

    It's not as simple as you think.  I'm pragmatic to the core...the opposite of an idealist. And I am for Obama, post Edwards.  That seems to not be computable for you.

    [ Parent ]

    You're the one who is not computing (none / 0) (#175)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:21:19 PM EST
    You're filtering my words to imply that I said that nobody who wants to change the party can be a Democrat. I'm talking about people who literally want to hijack the party and remake it into a different party. Have you spent any time on Daily Kos? If you have, then you have seen what I'm talking about. They hate the leaders of the party, they think the principles are wrong, they think the implementation is wrong, they think that all Democratic politicians are "spineless" and "corrupt" and that the party itself has sold out so badly to corporate interests that there is no way to save it. Do you feel that way?

    [ Parent ]
    don't agree (none / 0) (#185)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:24:46 PM EST
    Yes, I have spent time on Kos, and I disagree completely with your assessment. So we won't agree on much.  I could also make blanket characterizations of this site as well.

    [ Parent ]
    I remember (none / 0) (#184)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:24:05 PM EST
    when Edwards merely spoke up in defense of Hillary's non-racist remark re LBJ/MLK. Kos called Edwards an "ass."
    We need to remember all these Obama bloggers who have fueled the bogus racist charges against the Clintons. Playing the Race Card was the only way Obama could get the Black vote and the media and left blogs played along.
    Perhaps some other Black candidates will implement Obama's winning racist strategy.

    [ Parent ]
    racist? your opinion (none / 0) (#195)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:28:42 PM EST
    I don't know anybody who sees the race thing the way you do.  I'm not saying they're not out there, but I know blacks and whites and less wealthy non winedrinkers alike who like Obama and don't think his campaign is racist.

    What I am saying, is that you're trapped in campaign land.  Neither Hillary nor Obama is a racist.  They're both trying their damndest to win a campaign, walking up to the line and you're taking everything literally.

    I think if most people thought he was racist, he'd get crushed.  Instead, he's won this thing.

    [ Parent ]

    Nobody said Obama is a racist (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:33:49 PM EST
    But it is obvious to anybody who has been paying attention that Obama's campaign has been using charges of racism to inspire voter's to oppose Clinton. People hate racism, which is why this technique works so well. That's what the "racist" strategy is. Not using racism - using the hatred of racism. It's rather brilliant anyway. Except that the side effect is that it divides the party. Oh well, as long as he wins the primary, right?

    [ Parent ]
    Irony is not a strength here (none / 0) (#144)
    by dem08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:14:31 PM EST
    Most of Talk Left's Posts suggest a basic equation:

    Democratic Party = Hillary

    and so many here profess they won't vote for Obama under any circumstance.

    Maybe you should ask Hillary and Bill to form The Real Democratic Party, since Obama's backers are all Cultists.

    I can understand why people do not like Obama and I can understand why people do not like Hillary. I also understand why people who like them do like them.

    But I cannot understand how someone can say, "My candidate is so great that only Cultists like her/his opponent."

    [ Parent ]

    You're filtering (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by dianem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:29:44 PM EST
    I have yet to see anybody here suggest that Obama is not a Democrat, or that, in general, the people who support him are not Democrats. I said that the "new" voter's who are supporting Obama are not Democrats. They are not voting for the existing Democratic Party, they are voting for "change". What do you think "change" means? They think that the existing political structure is broken and that voting for Obama will change it.

    As for the "cult" meme - it's true, but Obama supporter's have distored it through their filter so badly that they have no idea what it means. Many of Obama's supporters are not really interested in politics. They are part of a "personality cult" (look it up - it fits). Nobody ever said that all Obama voter's were cultists, in the general sense of the word.

    [ Parent ]

    Post of the month right here (none / 0) (#174)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:20:47 PM EST
    Nicely said and without all the antagonism that I like to use.  Much better to be above the fray, but I am a bit bored these days.

    [ Parent ]
    O isn't proud to be a Democrat, is he? (none / 0) (#198)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:29:24 PM EST
    Most of Talk Left's Posts suggest a basic equation:

    Democratic Party = Hillary

    and so many here profess they won't vote for Obama under any circumstance.

    When the Democratic party does not need or want the working class, women, minorities other than blacks, gays and lesbians, etc. then it isn't anything I recognize as the Demcratic party.

    When the Democratic party rejects and even slanders the values and the issues and the leaders and the principles that drew me into this party in the first place, and instead praises Republican ideas and leaders and values, and promotes Republican issues, I don't recognize that as the Democratic party.

    You're free to disagree with me, of course. But I don't see Obama as a Democrat. It isn't like he calls himself one - the only time he uses the word Democrat, it's in a sentence about what's wrong with America

    [ Parent ]

    Upcoming landslides? (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by stevenb on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:44:05 PM EST
    What I want to know is why the upcoming primaries in W. Virginia and Kentucky aren't looked at as major landslides for Clinton, just like Obama in NC?  Shouldn't these upcoming contests bode well for Clinton?  Why is it that NC is the "big deal," especially since Penn. went for Clinton, Indiana went for Clinton (a hard-fought battle) and Clinton has a real chance to pick up wins in the near future?

    I guess winning primaries, winning key demographics and having momentum just isn't worth as much anymore...

    Because (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:49:44 PM EST
    Since they have anointed The One as the nominee already, the narrative is going to be that Hillary has to win both states by 150% to get close.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (none / 0) (#83)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:59:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Upcoming battles (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by zebedee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:01:47 PM EST
    The latest polls for KY and WV show her around 30% ahead. There are as many dem voters in these combined as in Indiana. These 30% wins will count for more in pledged delegates but perhaps more imprtantly in allowering her to gain the lead in popular vote (with FL and MI counted).

    [ Parent ]
    Popular vote... (none / 0) (#67)
    by smott on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:55:13 PM EST
    EVen with say 20+ point wins in KY and WV how much will HRC gain in the pop vote?

    [ Parent ]
    Gains in upcoming battles (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by zebedee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:05:49 PM EST
    With 20%, around the 230,000 he picked up in NC, assuming similar turnout to IN/NC. With 30%, a lot more.

    [ Parent ]
    show me the math (none / 0) (#99)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:02:54 PM EST
    even if we include mi and fl, and assume that the uncommitted went to obama in mi since obama was not on that ballot, obama is still leading by nearly 400k.  which is a couple of percentage points at best but still leading in the pop vote.  

    Electabilitiy smectability.  Two words - John Kerry.

    [ Parent ]

    Well (none / 0) (#112)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:06:51 PM EST
    NC is one of the 10 largest states, so it's bad to get blown out there.

    [ Parent ]
    NC is a much, much bigger state (none / 0) (#128)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:10:34 PM EST
    with many more delegates.


    [ Parent ]
    But NC will not go Democratic in November (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:18:15 PM EST
    It is a republican state and the republicans are going to work very hard to bring back people to the fold, if they left for a brief "affair" with Obama.

    Most of the states Obama won will NOT go Democratic in November.  I dare say a couple of "blue" states are at risk, including MI and FL.

    A Obama nomination will be frothed with problems.

    [ Parent ]

    Kerry blaming 'operation chaos' (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by jjsmoof on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:45:50 PM EST
    per Rawstory Kerry is blaming HRC win in IN on operation chaos.  <shaking head>

    And this is the same jerk (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:48:51 PM EST
    who was too wimpy to contest the obvious voter fraud in Ohio in 2004.  Figures!

    [ Parent ]
    John Kerry (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:49:41 PM EST
    and a dollar would buy you a cup of McDonald's coffee.

    He's a doofus.

    [ Parent ]

    To the extent that any McDonald's (none / 0) (#116)
    by liminal on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:08:08 PM EST
    cashiers might recognize Kerry, they might charge you double.  

    [ Parent ]
    Kerry is working harder for Obama then (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by tigercourse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:50:50 PM EST
    he did for himself.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:10:31 PM EST
    Contributing to divisiveness in the party AND helping to promote Rush Limbaugh's importance!  John Kerry, you are truly a Democrat's Democrat.

    [ Parent ]
    kerry? blaming? (none / 0) (#170)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:19:42 PM EST
    Kerry blaming someone for something?

    I thought Democrats were the party of "personal responsibility".

    No wait...that's what they're opposed to. I keep forgetting...must mean that I'm a Truman Democrat....

    OMG I just realized why my dear old dad used to go all googly over the phrase "the buck stops here"...

    [ Parent ]

    another thank you to BTD and Jeralyn (5.00 / 9) (#60)
    by fiver2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:52:59 PM EST
    I registered just to say that I've been lurking nonstop throughout the primary season.  You were a refuge of sanity and smart talk in a sea of ugliness and irresponsibility.  I'm contributing to talkleft today.  Sorry I didn't do it before.

    Add me to the list of people struggling to figure out what I'll do with unanticipated free time in November.  Yes, I'll vote for BO.  But I will not donate, do election protection, or make phone calls as I have for every other election.  BO's campaign decided that they don't need me -- that they can do this thing alone with a coalition of self righteous uninformed college kids, professors, and with African Americans.  When BO's supporters called the Clintons racists and BO either contributed to the racism charges or did nothing, he lost my help and my money forever.

    And for what it's worth, I'm a latte drinking con law instructor civil rights lawyer.  I've spent my entire professional life working for racial and economic justice.  I've prepped housing discrimination cases as a "tester" in Brooklyn, represented almost exclusively non-white indigent clients for 5 years as a Legal Aid atty, and committed civil disobedience numerous times to protest, among other things, the NYPD's Street Crimes Unit's slaying of Amadou Diallou.  I couldn't be angrier about BO's race-baiting in this campaign, the moronic complaints about HRC's "tactics," or the suggestions that her supporters are somehow complicit in racist behavior.  I used to call myself a yellow dog Dem.  Now I don't know what I am -- this party is unrecognizable to me.

    Welcome! (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:17:30 PM EST
    Have you thought about running for President?  You have a much stronger resume than some people....

    [ Parent ]
    Nice to meet you and thanks (none / 0) (#219)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:38:29 PM EST
    for having made great choices in your life.  

    [ Parent ]
    Recharge Time! (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Chimster on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:54:23 PM EST
    We need to stand firm. We need to fight harder than before. NOTHING has changed in my mind since last night's primary election. Go ahead and take today off and let the "I've got the Hillary Blues" last for the rest of the day. Then, let's get back to tearing the BO campaign another one tomorrow. The delegate count is only a small part of the Superdelegates thought-process.

    By the way, I think it was McCaskell or someone who said the Superdelegates are all supporting Barrack. Oh, really? If so, why don't they all come out now and endorse him. They would be able to push Obama over the top. The problem is, they won't. Why? Because nothing has been decided yet. The Dem party is still divided.

    This race is far from over. The media once again is crowning their prince. So what else is new? They've been doing it since the race began. Let's keep fighting for Hillary! Because if we don't, we're gonna be stuck with old man McCain for the next 4 years.

    Silver lining (long...sorry) (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Fultron on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:07:59 PM EST
    I'm not happy with last night's result. I'm not quite sure how IN ended up being so close in the end, and I choose to turn a blind eye to whatever it was that happened up in Gary. The end result is that I'm convinced it's (ultimately) over for Clinton. The tie doesn't go to the runner.

    Anyway, with all of these calls for Clinton to drop out early for the "good of the party", I think the exact opposite. I think she best serves the party (and indeed, has no choice) by staying in the race until the end, even though there is no little to no chance of winning.

    Consider it this way...if the Obama camp and elders force her out NOW, before the convention, her supporters will go with her. It would be tantamount to the party telling elderly, white blue collar/middle class, and Latino voters that they aren't wanted. Obama is not the great uniter he claimed to be. The only hope to reunite the party is for Clinton to fight to the end and to lose graciously and democratically. I think members of Clinton's base can accept a fairly settled loss over being bullied out and trampled on. Going to the convention split 51/49 sends the message that a large chunk of the party cannot be ignored by Obama. Giving up early validates the Obama camp's opinion of that remaining 49% (ie: we don't need them, don't want them, and now the party is ours).

    Despite the claims that prolonging the race hurts the party, I could see this actually working in the Dems favor. They can run ads against McCain and the war for two straight months to try to redefine his candidacy. Without Clinton and Obama trying to tear each other down and given some chance to rest and recover from hardcore campaigning, they are bound to improve in the polls. Further, if the nominee hasn't been settled, how does McCain respond? Who does he attack? Obama AND Clinton at the same time?

    My opinion is that the DNC should keep the 2210 magic number and go to the convention. Neither candidate will win outright, so the vote will go to a second ballot. On the second ballot, the delegates can be released and MI and FL can be seated. This avoids disenfranchisement and opaque superdelegate deals. If Obama is still the strongest nominee (ie: no more big screw-ups, rebounds from his 60/40 loss of the white vote, not trailing McCain, still leading popular and pledged vote), he will be confirmed. If there is a disaster, Clinton will still be around as a viable back-up candidate. In August, we'll be 4 months closer to the general election. Let's see how things look then.

    Sorry for being so long-winded, but I need to vent after last night and hopefully find some silver lining here.

    You vent all you want (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:14:43 PM EST
    We're cheaper than therapy here. :)

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! Not when... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Fultron on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:20:23 PM EST
    I take an extra 30 minutes at lunch to post here!

    [ Parent ]
    I think you're (none / 0) (#229)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:58:32 PM EST
    right on this:  in order to have a legitimate result, the Obama supporters have to be willing to risk losing the nomination at the convention.

    [ Parent ]
    Since the 'problem" post is full up (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by davnee on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:31:44 PM EST
    What does Obama do about these exit poll results?

    IN -
    He lost white women by 26 points.
    He lost white men by 16 points.
    He lost all seniors by 42 points.
    He lost self-identifying "moderates" (44% of the electorate) by 8 points (I thought this was his voter that Clinton could never get).
    He lost late deciders (last week) by 24 points.  

    NC -
    He lost white women by 30 points.
    He lost white men by 14 points.
    He handily lost all whites over 30. With whites between 30 and 45 favoring Clinton by 7 points and whites over 45 favoring Clinton by over 30 points.
    He lost white independents (16% of the electorate) by 20 points.
    He won the suburban vote (all races) by only 7 points.

    How do you make that crash and burn sound fx (none / 0) (#213)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:36:26 PM EST
    In text format? Is it:

    EEeeeeeeeeeeeooooooooooccccckckkkkkbboooooooommmmmm?

    Coming to a general election near you!

    [ Parent ]

    Obama pick up an endorsment (5.00 / 1) (#214)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:36:55 PM EST
    "I now believe he would be the weakest of the Democrat nominees"
    - RushLimbaugh

    What now? (4.33 / 6) (#5)
    by Cate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:27:20 PM EST
    I am so sick of being on the losing side. First Gore, then Kerry and now Hillary. Each time I tell myself that I am finished with politics but something  - maybe the ghastly outcome of seeing what happens BECAUSE my candidate didn't win - brings me back to fight again.

    I feel so 'out of sync' with the flow of the planet - like a terminal round peg in a square world. I want a new party that I fit into - in the interim, once BO is nominated, I will probably go Independant - is that what is going to happen? All we Hillary supporters will become Independent and leave "Democrat" to the eggheads and Blacks?

    Console yourself by noting (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by sarissa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:31:37 PM EST
    that Obama and Hillary differ very little on policy and that, should Obama lose, Hillary will be in great shape for 2012 (she probably woulda been a one termer this round anyway given the likely Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton fatigue).

    [ Parent ]
    I have trouble consoling myself on that (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Joelarama on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:42:00 PM EST
    score because health care has been the number one issue for me from day one, even back in September when I was officially leaning Obama.

    Obama's plan, unlike Hillary's and Edwards', does not provide for universal coverage (which is an entitlement and the first step to a single payer system).  

    Obama's Harry and Louise ads have only confirmed to me that me will not push the Congress to provide universal health coverage.  And his campaign's right-wing talking points about Hillary's plan infringing on freedoms by creating an all-pay, all covered system (Social Security anyone?) have convinced me that Obama's "new politics" is neither progressive nor liberal.

    My sole consolation is that Obama is not McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    That's not a done deal (none / 0) (#44)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:47:05 PM EST
    I think that campaign promises are only relevant in the campaign.  Once someone takes office, everything changes.  

    If Obama goes to a D congress with 60 D senate seats and proposes a non universal bill, and they send him back a universal bill, I bet you anything he'd sign it.

    His positioning was strategic.  Everything is strategic and not to be taken literally in a campaign.

    And without 60 seats in the Senate, there may be no real HC reform regardless of who the President is.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, stop that (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:49:00 PM EST
    crazy Unity talk! ;)

    [ Parent ]
    yes, Obama's "unity" is just talk (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:52:14 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    sarcasm? (none / 0) (#76)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:58:16 PM EST
    Can't tell. "Talk" wins campaigns.  The opposite of unity is fascism. "Unity" is an appealing idea to a lot of Americans.  Campaigns are about such high minded ideas that connect with emotions.   Obama just doesn't say what you personally want him to say, that's all.  But he knows how to communicate.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:04:23 PM EST
    I was attempting to be funny.
    I thought at first you were trying to be
    kind and conciliatory.
    But now you're starting to annoy me
    with your lectures on politics and history.

    [ Parent ]
    my apologies. (none / 0) (#142)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:13:37 PM EST
    Sorry.  How crazy of me to express an opinion in a blog comment thread.

    I'm really not good with sarcasm.  

    [ Parent ]

    (Shrugs) (none / 0) (#153)
    by kmblue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:16:50 PM EST
    I'm sorry too.  I regret to say I find you
    a bit patronizing.  It's probably just me.
    My opinion only, of course.

    [ Parent ]
    what is and isn't patronizing? (none / 0) (#167)
    by contrarian1964 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:19:30 PM EST
    You should challenge me then. Thats what this is all about, right?  I'm having fun talking politics at this key time.  And procrastinating at work.

    But just passively tossing an insult at me - "you're patronizing" - is pretty weak.  

    Or am I being patronizing again?  I like it when people slam me back.  So go for it.

    [ Parent ]

    real unity comes out of respect, not disrespect (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:32:17 PM EST
    The opposite of unity is fascism.

    Um...no.

    When unity starts becoming required/enforced, and those who can't or won't unify are not welcome anymore, it's fascism.

    [ Parent ]

    "Facts are stubborn things.": (5.00 / 3)