home

Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:49:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Last one. I'm going to bed.

Commnts now closed.

< What Clinton Should Do | The Morning After: Clinton Fights On >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Open Thread | 402 comments (402 topical)
    When did the Democratic Party (from earlier post) (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:57:13 AM EST
    stop being democratic?  When did it decide that democracy was a bad IDEA, and that listening to all the members of the party and giving them a voice was wrong.  I was born during the time of Eisenhower and  grew up in the time of Assassinations, I remember the time when the name Rockerfeller meant "Liberal Republican" or "ratf*cking was a brand new political term, before the malaise "infected" Carter and RayGun (yeah cheap shot) bought us a new dawn.  And yet, I can't for the life of me, ever remember people clamoring for one candidate to drop out of the race to save the (not so now) Democratic party. even in the debacle of "68".  When did we Democrats become synonymous with disenfranchisement and voter negation?  And while 1968 may not be a great year to remember, realize this - no one would have raised a stink that someone had to quit for the good of the party.
    It's late - for me, going to bed.

    you ask (5.00 / 7) (#20)
    by ghost2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:01:51 AM EST
    When did we Democrats become synonymous with disenfranchisement and voter negation?

    When it became a party of wimps (against republicans) and bullies (against their own.)

    [ Parent ]

    I also would like to thank Jeralyn and BTD. (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:58:41 AM EST
    You guys are absolutely amazing.

    It's 3 am and I think it's time to go to bed. Good night all!

    Campaign Emails (5.00 / 10) (#16)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:00:40 AM EST
    I always like to compare the tone and the 2 tonight are consistent in tone with past ones:

    Dear ***,

    Tonight's victory in Indiana was close, and a margin that narrow means just one thing: every single thing you did to help us win in Indiana helped make the difference.

    Every call you made, every friend you spoke to about our campaign, every dollar you contributed made tonight's victory possible. And I couldn't be more thankful for your hard work.

    Every time we've celebrated a victory, we've celebrated it together. And tonight is no exception. This victory is your victory, this campaign is your campaign, and your support has been the difference between winning and losing.

    Thank you so much for making this campaign possible. Let's keep making history together.

    Sincerely,
    (signature)
    Hillary Rodham Clinton

    Friend --

    We just won a decisive victory in North Carolina thanks to people like you.

    Indiana remains too close to call. But what is clear is that we did much better than all the pundits predicted, despite Republicans changing parties to support Senator Clinton, believing she would be easier for Senator McCain to defeat.

    Here's where we stand.

    As of Tuesday morning, we needed just 273 delegates to clinch the nomination. When the votes are fully counted Wednesday morning, we will have gained more than a third of them in a single day.

    We have a clear path to victory. But now is the time for each one of us to step up and do what we can to close out this primary.

    Please make a donation of $25 right now:

    https://donate.barackobama.com/results

    Thank you for everything you're doing,

    Barack
    Thanks for that (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:03:05 AM EST
    Somehow it captures a lot of things that I say in this process perfectly.

    [ Parent ]
    not just tone (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Nasarius on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:08:42 AM EST
    That's some pretty awful writing quality on the Obama email. And the beg for a donation, of a specific amount? Tacky tacky tacky.

    I find it slightly odd that both are signed by the candidates themselves. When I was on the Edwards mailing list, most were signed by David Bonior, Joe Trippi, or someone else on the staff, who probably did actually write it.

    [ Parent ]

    They come from different 'people' (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:23:37 AM EST
    I tend to receive more from Clinton and they've been from Hillary, Bill, Chelsea, Terry, Maggie, etc. All in the same style/tone, but a bit different. They sound like they are from different authors. Chelsea's sound just like her.

    Obama ones are from Him, Michelle, David, and one or 2 others (iirc). I haven't been on his list as long. I was comparing the blogs and news on both sites, but neglected to sign up for his email until  right after OH/TX.

    Here's a brief one from Chelsea from earlier today. It's a follow up to an earlier event invite she sent:

    Dear *,

    What are you doing for Mother's Day? Please join my mom and me to celebrate!

    This Saturday, May 10, we'll be at the Sheraton New York for a very special event honoring Mother's Day and helping my mom's campaign. I know my mom would love to have you there, and so would I!

    Please take a look at the invitation below for details. I hope to see you Saturday!

    Thanks for everything you're doing to help my mom win.

    Go Hillary!
    Chelsea

    I don't have a Bill one handy (yes, I crashed my email! ) but he sends ones to rally us and also did some donation events.

    [ Parent ]

    We get those too (none / 0) (#38)
    by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:14:03 AM EST
    emails signed by campaign chairs, etc. But always, after a primary, is one from Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama;s dogwhistle (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:15:25 AM EST
    despite Republicans changing parties to support Senator Clinton

    this is Obama saying that white people tried to keep the nomination from Obama

    [ Parent ]

    White voter backlash a-comin' (5.00 / 2) (#364)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:34:50 AM EST
    I read that same statement and I was a little disturbed by it.

    Perhaps, Sen. Obama, those "Republicans" who crossed over, crossed over to vote for you???  Why would it only be Republicans (aka white people) be the only interested in disrupting your claim to the "crown".

    Oh, he sickens me with his arrogance (and his wife's too).

    And begging for money?  Hillary didn't say a word of it in her letter, even though she's having financial problems.  You know what?  This country doesn't deserve her, she's too good.  

    Obama's the nominee and McCain will be the next President of the United States.  End of story.  

    [ Parent ]

    I just love her inclusiveness and upbeatness (5.00 / 1) (#353)
    by rnibs on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:30:27 AM EST
    Plus, I can't say how happy I was when I got up this morning.  I went to bed last night, depressed, thinking it would turn out like MO.  

    I was determined to contribute my usual small donation to her whether she won or not, but I was so thrilled, I doubled it to $50.  A victory is a victory, and we need her to win.  We don't need Obama pulling defeat from the jaws of victory in Nov.

    [ Parent ]

    You have the change he's looking for! (4.42 / 7) (#44)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:16:24 AM EST
    And did you notice that it's still all about Clinton?

    What in the world would he do if she weren't running?!

    [ Parent ]

    If she weren't running (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:27:12 AM EST
    he would not have run. Simple as that.  He knew he could exploit her built-in negative numbers, and that it was allowable to say anything about the Clintons and get a free ride in the media. His candidacy would not have been feasible without her being the one to beat.

    [ Parent ]
    If she wasn't running (none / 0) (#47)
    by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:18:12 AM EST
    Edwards would be the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    Edwards wouldn't have won NC tonight (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:26:41 AM EST
    One candidate has a 91% AA voting block.  I'm surprised NC was under 20 points

    [ Parent ]
    Um, (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:29:27 AM EST
    do you think that Obama would have gotten that 90+% without smearing the Clintons as racists? Before that tactic, he and HRC were about even in their AA support.

    Would his strategy have worked on Edwards? I don't know, but it seems to me he has truly counted on the media's CDS to push his narrative. Without Clinton, he wouldn't have had that.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't agree (5.00 / 7) (#72)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:31:45 AM EST
    I think smearing the Clintons as racist was a bad act, and in the long term was part of what makes Sen Obama unelectable imo.

    But he would have gotten the AA support when it became clear he was viable. Its very understandable.

    But it makes it so much more of a tragedy what he did. There was no need for it.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes there was. (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:47:21 AM EST
    He had to hobble HRC somehow. His strategy was a two-fer: taint the Clintons AND get a huge AA turnout.

    It worked.

    His strategy got him the AA votes when he needed them so he could pull out that long string of victories. Once he had won all those states, he tried his best to get her to quit before she crushed him in PA.

    Now, she's won the tiebreaker and his victory was not as large as projected in NC. He will be calling for her to quit until the WV/KY primaries, when she will crush him again.

    The race-baiting thing was his firewall against her certain victories in the states that Democrats need to win in November. It was completely and totally necessary for him.

    Otherwise, we would be talking about HRC v. McCain right now.

    (IMHO of course.)

    [ Parent ]

    Obama played the race card (5.00 / 5) (#169)
    by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:27:59 AM EST
    ...to get white voters. He was going to get AAs the moment he won Iowa but there is nothing white "upscale" fauxgressives value more than playing champions on race. When he played that card, they came running in droves and from then on he was free to completely demonize her at every step of the way. With the upscale whites crying racism at every turn, they got a holy cause. It solidified the latte vote for Obama and upped turnout for AAs. Every time his turnout slips or he loses he's used it. He will pay for it though. It's one of the reasons many will never vote for him.

    [ Parent ]
    You are so right (none / 0) (#375)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:42:35 AM EST
    I was listening to CSPAN this morning and many people called from important states like PA and OH and even IN and said that they will not vote for Obama, that Obama is really the WRONG choice and Hillary has been vilified by the Obama and the MSM who is set up Obama as the "Second Coming".

    For a while now, I read that many voters who voted for Obama in the primaries said they had no intention on voting for him in November.

    I believe this will hold until November.  The Republican Machine hasn't even gotten started.

    [ Parent ]

    I cannot believe you people actually (2.33 / 3) (#115)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:02:35 AM EST
    believe Obama would risk polarizing the electorate along racial lines. The guy has been walking on eggshells, even refusing to visit black neighborhoods or attend black forums. Black people understand his motivation and forgive him. Blacks know he cannot win if he is perceived as "the black candidate." Clinton's not stupid, she knows the same thing. Race baiting, covert and overt racism was introduced by Clinton as a deliberate and cold blooded campaign strategy. That's how she eeked out IN today; that's how she kept it under 20 points in NC.

    The 30 or so posters on TL are among a very small subsection of Hillary supporters who, unbelievably, contend with a straight face that it was actually Obama who radicalized the contest. Among the rest of the world the consensus is that it was the Clintons  who played the race card and who did so consistently.


    [ Parent ]

    OK (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:44:55 AM EST
    Underestimate the number of people who think the Obama campaign played the race card.


    [ Parent ]
    Seth90212 (5.00 / 5) (#210)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:12:48 AM EST
    Yes, Obama intentially race baited to

    1). give the media another "trash Hillary" talking point

    2). appeal to "white guilt"

    3). force black SD's to endorse him or be challenged in a primary fight

    The reason Obama doesn't campaign in black neighborhoods is he already has 90% of the vote in those neighborhoods, so why waste resources on sure thing?

    Obama does speak to black forums (example:  National Association of Black Journalists)

    The consensus is wrong. Go back to the Nevada debate... you'll see/read where Obama apologizes for injecting race into the campaign.    

    Obama used "race baiting" to win the nomination. And "race bating" is why he will lose the GE

    [ Parent ]

    I'm black (5.00 / 5) (#381)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:45:51 AM EST
    and I  know a ass-kissing "Uncle Tom" when I see one.  I'm tired of seeing so-called black leaders having to hide their true feeling in order to keep the white people happy.

    Obama LIED about not knowing Rev. Wright.  And no one is willing to say that.  But you better believe this is be an issue with the Republicans.  And more.  

    This nomination will not bode well for the Democratic Party in the United States.  

    [ Parent ]

    Is this like AA (Alcoholics Annonymous) (5.00 / 4) (#395)
    by MMW on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:54:35 AM EST
    I am also black and totally completely - share your belief.

    [ Parent ]
    why would clinton alienate AAs? (4.83 / 12) (#128)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:21:30 AM EST
    I cannot believe you people actually believe Obama would risk polarizing the electorate along racial lines.

    I cannot believe anyone seriously believes Clinton would throw away the black vote without picking up a single white vote by saying things that are not only offensive, but cast a shadow on her decades of active service to the AA community.  I can only assume that people who believe Obama's attacks on her do not realize how much she has done for AAs.

    I cannot believe there isn't anger about how Obama portrayed Bill Clinton's economic policy's impact on poor people. I can only assume that people who believe Obama's attacks on him do not know much about Clinton's economics.

    I cannot believe there isn't anger about Obama not saying something about Wright's attacks on Bill and Hillary. I guess ... well there is no excuse for that.

    I cannot believe there isn't anger about how Obama is constantly talking about how Clinton's supposed negativity, because Clinton lacks integrity, flawed character, bad bad bad bad bad. If that isn't negative, I don't know what is - but people swallow it whole.

    [ Parent ]

    the funny (not ha-ha funny) thing is.... (5.00 / 10) (#136)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:32:08 AM EST
    ... starting about three or four hours, every conservative gasbag is going to finally "discover" how Obama has been playing the race card all along, and how despicably he has acted towards the Clintons.

    And all the "impartial" hosts will put up a little fight, but will concede the point eventually, and Obama-the-race-baiter will finally become conventional wisdom.

    And there's not a damned thing that Democrats can do about it, because its absolutely true.  

    [ Parent ]

    Once Obama became viable she had no black (1.00 / 6) (#150)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:52:05 AM EST
    vote to throw away. The black vote for Obama is motivated by the same sentiments that cause many women to vote for Hillary. There's nothing negative about it, just pride and wanting to help a "sister" make history. And I would argue that Hillary has gained white votes by playing the race card. There has been a racist white vote for Hillary. That is undeniable. There have been code words and dog whistling which have galvanized this vote.

    A Clinton insider is on record as stating that they wanted to turn Obama into the black candidate. This was about the same time as Bill's Jesse Jackson comment, which I believe was an unambiguously racial statement.

    Look, I'm not saying the Clintons are bad people. They want to win period. Would Edwards have adopted these tactics against Obama? Would Kerry, Dodd, Gore, etc? I doubt it. You have to step out of this bubble to appreciate just how stunned people are by these tactics.

    By the way, it is patronizing and condescending to speak in terms of the Clintons doing all these great things for AA's. What exactly did they do? AA's have done a hell of a lot more for them than vice versa. There would not be a Clinton presidency without AA's. Bill would've been impeached or forced to resign without AA's. As far as I can see Clinton did not do an ymore for AA's than Bush 1 or Bush 2. Next time you want to claim that the Clintons were the saviors of AA's please cite specifics.


    [ Parent ]

    So we're obligated (4.42 / 7) (#291)
    by ChrisO on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:44:29 AM EST
    to detail what the Clinton's have done for African Americans, but it's acceptable for you to come here and spew the talking point that "everyone knows" the Clintons played the race card? How about if you actually detail some of those instances, so we can point out how what "everyone knows" isn't a particularly good metric for gauging the truth?

    Your remark that it would be foolish for Obama to divide the party along racial lines is indicative of your lack of understanding of political dynamics. Obama's goal wasn't to divide the party. I'm sure he would take evry rural white vote he could get. But he accurately determined that he could exploit the stereotype of Hillary built up by the media and the right wing that she was an opportunist who would do anything, including race baiting. He also knew that accusing someone of racism is akin to accusing them of child molesting in Dem politics. White liberals love guilt, and he accurately determined that fools like you would fall all over themselves to show how not racist they are by condemning the Clinton's racism at every turn. Look at how many white commentaters have suddenly discovered racial justice, and are spewing hate filled invective against the Clinton's racism, as if they've ever given racial issues more than a passing nod before. I don't know if Obama knew how well this would work for him, but it certainly has. The shamelssness of his supporters in this area is breathtaking.

    Look at some of the supposed transgressions. Hillary's campaign brought up drug use. Hillary's campaign sent out e-mails saying Obama was a Muslim. Hillary's campaign sent the photo to Drudge. Know what all of these things have in common? THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RACE. I've never heard before that it's a common stereotype that Black people are secret Muslims. Politicans of both races, includsing Bill Clinton, have been dealing with drug use issues for years. Yet every supposed transgression is tied to race by Obama's supporters. Even with the Wright issue, what most people objected to was Wright saying "God damn America." That's not a racial issue, but what was Obama's response? "Yes, we do need a dialogue about race." (As BTD pointed out, a subject he has never brought up again, despite his "courage.") How many times have I seen the term "uppity" used by Obama supporters, in every imaginable context. Call him inexpreienced, you're saying he's "uppity." Criticize him for elitist comments? You're saying he's "uppity." He knew exactly what he was doing, and how easily fools like you could be manipulated.

    [ Parent ]

    Amen To That n/t (none / 0) (#410)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:00:32 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    racialized the contest* (none / 0) (#116)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:04:33 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You've been listening to MSNBC too much (none / 0) (#119)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:07:21 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    i am sorry but i don't understand it. (none / 0) (#306)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:56:52 AM EST
    you see i am color blind. i am doing what is requested. i expect obama as a candidate to represent all the country to be color blind too and not resort to dog whisles on racism. when he does that, what he tells me is he doesn't represent me. what axelrod and brazile have told me is that they don't care for the votes of the average american. how plain does it have to be here?

    [ Parent ]
    I think people like to THINK they are no (none / 0) (#418)
    by stefystef on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:24:10 AM EST
    thinking in class and color, but you are, whether you think you are or not.  

    I think Obama will not be President of the United States, so it doesn't make a difference if he says he will represent everyone.  Only Hillary Clinton has tried to talk to everyone, even the FoxNews crowd.  

    Like my momma said, The Democratic Party is on a suicide mission.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (none / 0) (#386)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:48:47 AM EST
    Obama was referring to Edwards as the "white man" in the race before AA-audiences.

    [ Parent ]
    Let me clarify (none / 0) (#67)
    by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:29:24 AM EST
    If Hillary wasn't running, Kennedy, et al would never have put Obama up in the first place. Thus, Edwards would be the nominee.

    [ Parent ]
    If hrc weren't running (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by themomcat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:36:35 AM EST
    Edwards would be his target and the results would be the same.

    [ Parent ]
    No -- sexism wouldn't work (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:43:41 AM EST
    against Edwards. That is why the msm ignored Edwards until he had to drop out.

    [ Parent ]
    Nor would the media's built-in CDS (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:48:06 AM EST
    make Obama a temporary media darling.

    [ Parent ]
    Racism would (5.00 / 6) (#109)
    by themomcat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:53:50 AM EST
    and it is one of the reasons I will not vote for Obama. By labeling the Clinton's as racist, he has divided the Democratic Party and to a great extent this country. He is not a Democrat.

    [ Parent ]
    Just another sleazey politician who will (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:11:56 AM EST
    Do anything to win.  There's nothing new or different  about Barack Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmmm.... (3.66 / 3) (#55)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:23:16 AM EST
    food for thought.

    I personally felt the Republicans would bow to the religious right and nominate Huckabee. So instead of HRC v. Giuliani (which is what the pundits were predicting back then), it would be Edwards v. Huckabee.

    Wouldn't that have been a fun race?

    Sigh. Why won't anyone elect me Queen of the Universe? I've asked nicely but somehow, I never seem to get enough votes. ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    ha (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:22:55 AM EST
    Sigh. Why won't anyone elect me Queen of the Universe? I've asked nicely but somehow, I never seem to get enough votes. ;-)

    I'd vote for you, but only if Hillary isn't running ;>

    [ Parent ]

    So now Obama thinks Republicans are (none / 0) (#25)
    by Teresa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:04:05 AM EST
    bad? I guess he threw them under the bus too.

    [ Parent ]
    What happened to his (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by daria g on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:18:47 AM EST
    "Democrats for a Day" outreach?  Now crossover votes aren't worth anything and should be suspect, if they went to Hillary?

    [ Parent ]
    Nycstray, thanks for those emails. (none / 0) (#97)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:44:17 AM EST
    I believe, if one knew nothing else about either of these two candidates, the emails alone could provide enough insight to make an informed choice. That would be Hillary for me.

    [ Parent ]
    TalkLeft (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Dalton Hoffine on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:00:56 AM EST
    Is really my favorite place on the Net, and the only blog I dare draw close to. Thanks to Jeralyn and BTD for the awesome job that you two do, and y'all go donate to them via PayPal if you can. :P I'm sure that they could use it.

    popular vote is a ridiculous metric (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:02:31 AM EST
    for politics - was my favorite quote of the evening by none other than Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. I think that says it all about the Obama camp and how far they have gone.

    Maddow (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:06:00 AM EST
    is an idiot.

    [ Parent ]
    What happened to her? (none / 0) (#41)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:14:46 AM EST
    She used to be funny and incisive.

    [ Parent ]
    She drank (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:33:34 AM EST
    the kool-aid along with everyone else at Air America. All the left wing/progessive talk radio hosts who were supposed to be different/better than those on the right and now have just turned into carbon copies of their supposed enemies.

    Maybe worse. Even Rush Limbaugh never called anyone a f***ing wh*re.

    [ Parent ]

    He did call Chelsea (none / 0) (#110)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:55:04 AM EST
    the White House Dog, IIRC.

    But you're right. WTF is in that Kool-Aid? Seems more like 180-proof moonshine to me.

    [ Parent ]

    I'd forgotten that (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:58:33 AM EST
    Not that I'm extoling the virtues of Limbaugh. Hardly. It's just sad that I spent all of the 90s fighting dittoheads and defending the Clintons and now it's 10 yrs later, and I'm fighting supposed progressive Democrats and defending the Clintons.

    I think there's some powerful hallucinogen in that kool-aid. Maybe peyote?


    [ Parent ]

    Ah feel yer pain! (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:00:21 AM EST
    Me too.

    Now I'm REALLY going to bed. Good night all!

    [ Parent ]

    It is possible (1.00 / 1) (#227)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:40:59 AM EST
    that a lot of DEMS didn't want to relive THAT part of the 90s, the part where we spent all our time defending the Clintons!

    [ Parent ]
    Never watch MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:09:30 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I need a T-shirt with that quote. (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:27:22 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    another favorite from the o-bots (5.00 / 6) (#28)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:06:44 AM EST
    are the comments that say they don't know how the Clinton supporters can spin the Indiana result as a win. Um, she won. How's that for spin.

    Reminder #4657, Indiana was the tie-breaker according to Obama. Clinton won the tie breaker. Winning by just 1 vote is still a win. I think the path is the same with momentum, energy, the popular vote, actually wanting to count the votes, and of course, electability. Oh yea, and the candidate that can actually be a good president.

    Anyway, onward to WV and KY. Obama is welcome to close the deal there of course.

    Obama should quit (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by koshembos on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:09:45 AM EST
    To prevent a lose by a landslide, to prevent the racist and poisonous new Obama Democratic party according to Donna Brazile from becoming a 3rd centrist party, Obama should quit now.

    Lake County Theater (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:23:43 AM EST
    Ok, the ending with the two mayors, you guys have to admit, if anyone ever wrote this in a book or a play, people would say:  No, not believable.  Could never happen.  I think it will go down in history as one of the most bizarre political events.  The Geary mayor saying about disenfranchisment of voters, and that everyone had to wait for the count.  If this was not a dirty trick I don't know what is.

    Well (5.00 / 6) (#63)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:27:41 AM EST
    It's pretty obvious to all of us that you are hurting your own cause, even as you lecture us on how much better you are.

    In a blogosphere that seems to be full of taunting, juvenile Obama supporters who feel they've won but want to trash Hillary and her supporters anyway just for kicks, you are among the very worst.  Way to help your guy get elected, I'm sure he'd be very proud of your comments tonight.

    oh brother (5.00 / 7) (#64)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:27:47 AM EST
    the concern trolls are at it full steam ahead. No, Clinton is not dropping out. She's going to win. Clark is not asking her to drop out. She has a full schedule ahead. Full steam ahead as she said tonight along with being thrilled and happy to have won the tie breaker. But thanks for all the concern Obama supporters. We're happy you're so worried about is over here. Too bad you can't help but be insulting and obnoxious. Funny how your camp is often that way. Not really how you win hearts and minds. You might want to look into that whole unity thingy.

    Full schedule? (3.00 / 1) (#104)
    by daryl herbert on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:50:18 AM EST
    She canceled her appearances tomorrow.

    That doesn't sound like a full schedule.

    I hope she's not dropping out, or "suspending" her campaign.  That would be a mistake.  She would miss out on crucial delegate pickups in WV/KY.

    [ Parent ]

    full schedule (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:56:43 AM EST
    except she's spending tomorrow in DC instead of public appearances. Hey, it was a late night with Indiana results dragging on.

    [ Parent ]
    Not to mention (none / 0) (#238)
    by americanincanada on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:51:01 AM EST
    Obama also has no public appearances today. He is hoe in IL.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually (none / 0) (#242)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:54:21 AM EST
    She's kept her schedule and added one in WV today.

    [ Parent ]
    So Russert (none / 0) (#245)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:56:49 AM EST
    was telling a fib.  Now there's a shocker!

    [ Parent ]
    We don't care what you say (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:29:41 AM EST
    You are giving yourself way too much importance my friend. We have observed Sen Obama, saw the campaign he ran, tactics he used, positions he took and found him wanting. Being good democrats we thought we can live with him if he won. But then as the primary went on we discovered to our horror that he is UNELECTABLE.

    Now we watch in horror as our party again commits suicide.

    So what I want you to see is that some of us are making careful measured rational choices, and are experience and smart enough to see what is coming before it hits us in November.

    But remember (5.00 / 6) (#84)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:37:36 AM EST
    as I was just reminded again in the thread below this one, we're not really Democrats because all true Democrats would get in line and vote blindly for Obama no matter what just because of the Big Bad Republicans who are coming to get us if we don't.

    Personally, at this point, I don't see Obama doing anything worthwhile even if he does manage to win the GE (and I doubt he can). So let them take their candidate and do what they want...and when he lets them down by being an ineffectual pandering rhetoric spouting fool just like Bush, well, then they'll only have themselves to blame. Many of us have spent the last 8 years saying "Don't blame me, I didn't vote for him". What's a few more?

    [ Parent ]

    why are the Obama supporters so afraid? (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:46:16 AM EST
    Have you noticed all these Obama supporters spewing the propaganda and spin and worse, being nasty. If they really think they won, they would be gracious and nice and try for unity. And yes, I think even they would do that if they thought they won. But that's not what we're hearing. What I'm hearing is desperation and even fear. But why? Obama is doing well. He'll probably get the nomination. So why the hate. Why the hard line, pushing, propaganda tactics? Why say it's over. Why say Clark is doing this or that. Why say these things?

    Here's my theory. They know Clinton is the grown up here. That she's the real presidential material. That she is now winning. That she is in fact the only electable candidate. And even with Obama's current numbers and MSM support, they're scared to death that someone will notice the reality and say, wait a minute, shouldn't we nominate the one who can actually win in November. I think they're holding their breath, and shaking in their boots. Perhaps subconsciously as I'm sure many don't even understand why they feel this way and feel the need to come on this board and say these things. Just a theory...

    They (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:21:20 AM EST
    see the handwriting on the wall w/r/t electability. It's become beyond obvious that Obama can't win the general election.

    [ Parent ]
    Lets see (none / 0) (#400)
    by Skex on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:56:48 AM EST
    Obama has won the most votes the most delegates the most states the only measure by which he is lagging is in party insiders (Super Delegates) and that's likely to change very soon.

    No one is spinning propaganda on the Obama side we're simply stating facts I'm sorry if reality doesn't fit with your preferences but the facts are the facts no matter how much you try to spin it.

    [ Parent ]

    I feel sick (5.00 / 9) (#114)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:02:09 AM EST
    The GOP has the Democratic Party exactly where it wants it.... thoroughly divided based on race, with Black voters providing overwhelming support to a candidate who is not merely less qualified, but whose character and history would be disqualifying for any white candidate.

    The GOP knows that it can go after Obama with both barrels whenever it feels like it -- that regardless of how much they drive up Obama's negatives among the non-AA population, AA voters will insist on Obama as the Democratic nominee.

    And its going to tear the party apart.

    hm (4.00 / 2) (#139)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:35:43 AM EST
    AA voters will insist on Obama as the Democratic nominee.

    AA voters don't have that much power.

    It's the party itself that will bend or break all reality to have their pet as the candidate.

    And that's the real problem. It's not that the GOP "has us where they want us" - it's us. Our party is the problem. We had a situation where a win should have been a given, after Bush, and we blew it. We always blow it. We're going to keep blowing it until we learn what we're doing wrong and find a solution.

    It seems to me it's largely our own past flawed and failed policies and attitudes that we are now confronting. For instance, consider the elitism charge and lack of respect for the party's workhorse rank and file. Or the double standard that says if you're white, you're a racist if you even notice someone has darker skin, while blacks can and do say outrageous things and it's somehow OK. Or the whole affirmative action premise that is currently giving us a totally unqualified, inexperienced, just plain bad Presidential candidate - because of the entitlement attitude Democrats alone are guilty of fostering.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree... (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:47:17 AM EST
    there is a reason why Clinton is still in this race --- the remaining SDs know that she is far more electable than Obama.

    And once the GOP noise machine gets cranked up, and Obama's negative go sky-high, the SD who want to actually win the white house will still feel compelled to vote for Obama, because of 'the race thing'.  

    [ Parent ]

    In our defense (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:00:43 AM EST
    Dems have a lot of groups to keep happy - women, Latinos, GLBT, AAs, etc. - while the Republicans are mostly white.  And male, while I'm thinking about it.

    It's so easy for them to divide and conquer us it's not even funny.  Sad thing is I didn't expect Dean and other people who ought to be grownups to walk right into the trap.

    I look for several other states to violate some kind of "roolz" and find themselves disqualified next time.  Every state that's got a Republican legislature or Governor, anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    it was the surrogates/campaign (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by boredmpa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:17:37 AM EST
    The "we're going to hold a riot if we don't get what we want" segment of the AA leadership forgot that the democratic party is part of a coalition of different groups that have all been oppressed and are only working together to a) fight general oppression and b) work for specific class-based issues.  Obama fails at b, period.  And he isn't reliable on a) because he doesnt understand the connection between a and b--see school vouchers.

    i'm sure the GLBT group, and probably women, and latinos don't like the protest rhetoric, especially in the context of an underqualified leader whose base of support is primarily his group and doesn't have progressive policies.  Not to mention, painting one minority as anti-other-minority isn't the brightest unity strategy.  

    [ Parent ]

    Gop did nothing (none / 0) (#270)
    by alforhil on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:26:24 AM EST
    Democratic party did this to themselves. They had to destroy clintons even if it destroyed themselves in the process - other wise there was no compulsion to elevate a 1st time senator to superman - this raise of Obama is an orchestrated and deliberate effort by some core eliets in democratic party- I expect Al gore to come out and endore Obama very soon.-

    I have on god source that Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Gore and Howard Dean are the 4some who is behind the metioric raise of Obama and they are going to control his puppet strings once he is in office.

    People raise the voice for a 3rd party run by Hillary - her base will be with her

    [ Parent ]

    Gore will NOT endorse! (none / 0) (#283)
    by Fabian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:36:01 AM EST
    I am an unrepentant Gore-o-phile.  I saw him Sunday.  For Gore, fighting Climate Change is more important than anything.  He will not endorse for two simple reasons.

    1. He will not burn any bridges.  He will leave all options open.

    2. No candidate has even come close to addressing Climate Change as THE major issue facing us.  Doing that would be the simplest way for any candidate to earn Gore's endorsement.

    Gore has a lot of political capital to spend.  But it's not infinite and he can't afford to waste any.  

    [ Parent ]
    well i'm going to bed, but (5.00 / 8) (#122)
    by kangeroo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:10:27 AM EST
    i'll say this.  tomorrow is a new day, and here's my to-do list:

    (1) recharge my batteries;
    (2) feel good about winning IN--a win is a win is a win, period;
    (3) feel defiant and laugh at the media and obnoxious members of the OFB; and
    (3) get back to supporting HRC and cheering her on, full speed ahead.

    she's an amazing candidate and deserves nothing less than my wholehearted support.  and doggonit, that's exactly what she's gonna get from me.

    good night, y'all!

    You are obviously giving yourself too (5.00 / 6) (#126)
    by tree on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:14:54 AM EST
    much importance. Why is that? Can you not hear what people are saying? Those who have said they won't vote for Obama are doing so because of Obama, not YOU. And in case you haven't noticed, you aren't managing to change anyone's mind here in that respect. Regardless of whether you are a McCain troll or just a jerk of an Obama supporter, you aren't accomplishing any goal here, other than to diminish your own image. Perhaps that is your real goal, because otherwise your posts are mindless insults for no purpose.  

     

    I think he has what he needed. (none / 0) (#174)
    by andrys on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:41:46 AM EST
    Attention.  If you don't get much, this is one way to get it.

    [ Parent ]
    not being petty.... (5.00 / 4) (#129)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:22:41 AM EST
    here's my problem.

    When the Republican members of my family bring up the election, and start criticizing Obama, I won't be able to argue with them.

    They will be right.  All I'll be able to say is that McCain will be worse --- but I won't be able to convince anyone of that, because I'm a hard core lefty, and I know that most people won't respond to arguments from that perspective.  

    With Clinton, I can make a positive, centrist argument -- and when one of my family members criticizes Clinton, at that point I can criticize McCain.  But there is simply no positive argument in Obama's favor that I can make honestly.

    Obama may win the nomination... (5.00 / 6) (#131)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:23:41 AM EST
    ... but I don't think one can call him a once-in-a-lifetime candidate any more, if one ever could. Once-in-a-lifetime candidates don't lose neighboring states after outspending their opponents greatly in a race that is supposedly over.

    Oh, and you'll love this (5.00 / 5) (#133)
    by otherlisa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:26:45 AM EST
    "Obama calls NC win a victory against 'politics of division'"

    Kill me now.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080507/ap_on_el_pr/obama


    [ Parent ]

    I think I've figured it out... (5.00 / 7) (#142)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:40:32 AM EST
    I don't like it when candidates assert that their victory is somehow a triumph for moral goodness, instead of a more down-to-earth vote of support for their ideas and policies.

    We're not electing a saint here. We're electing someone to get this country out of Bush's mess.

    [ Parent ]

    re: orange fur: figured it out (5.00 / 2) (#271)
    by noholib on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:27:15 AM EST
    very good perspective. thanks.

    [ Parent ]
    I'd rather give my vote to a republican (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:28:37 AM EST
    than to someone who thinks I am a fool and has no problem telling me that.  

    Like I said, my party has turned nasty and left me.  It's very sad.  

    Followed the election results tonight (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by tree on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:33:24 AM EST
    from work, with TL as my main source of news. Thanks everyone for the insights and commentary. And thanks to Jeralyn and BTD for a great place to hang.

    As soon as I got home from work, I pulled out the credit card and gave $50 to Hillary. Now I'm going to bed.

    the bright side (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:48:56 AM EST
    well, if Obama does wind up with the nomination, there is a bright side.

    The GOP smear merchants will be out of work.  I mean, why bother with underhanded campaign tactics, when your all you need to do is be honest to win?

    honey, you are just the frosting on the cake (5.00 / 9) (#151)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:59:33 AM EST
    Obama lost my vote all by himself by painting the Clintons as racist, making sexist remarks, being republican lite and an arrogant ass.

    Here's the CNN video (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by facta non verba on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:02:57 AM EST
    I've put up the video from CNN with the discussion between Mayor Clay of Gary and Mayor McDermott of Hammond on CNN.

    Lake County, Indiana.

    Where's Jeralyn and her deleting fingers? (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:04:41 AM EST
    Troll cleanup in aisle 10...ho hum....

    I'm good with the fall (5.00 / 7) (#168)
    by dissenter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:26:43 AM EST
    Obama has left the party in ruins. Maybe we can build a better one after he is run off the stage in November.

    nope (5.00 / 8) (#173)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:39:52 AM EST
    there is a big, huge, tremendous world out there who do not care about any of us and have never heard of dkos much less talkleft.  No matter what we do, many of them will not vote for Obama.  Some of them will not vote for Clinton.  It's just that the group who won't vote for Obama is larger.  The democratic party doesn't own the votes of "Reagan democrats" and can not assume they will get them if they nominate the black john Kerry only worse... at least Kerry is not a racist.
    I can not forgive Obama for dividing this party by race.  My single vote against him, should I do that, is not what is going to defeat him in November.  No matter what I say on a forum like this, my opinion is not going to have much of an effect on this race. What is going to happen is that a lot of people who want an adult in the White House will vote for McCain and they couldn't care less what the netroots think.  They never heard of us.

    Women Not Alert (5.00 / 3) (#275)
    by Athena on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:29:11 AM EST
    Women have not learned to seize the opportunity to advance a woman to President.  It's a shame that so many women are comfortable with perceived gender equality that they won't support Hillary as if their lives dependeded on it.  

    [ Parent ]
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#282)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:35:37 AM EST
    What would happen if women supported Clinton to the tune of 93%?

    I also find it interesting black women were unanimous about voting for a man.


    [ Parent ]

    What part of (5.00 / 9) (#175)
    by facta non verba on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:42:35 AM EST
    I am not voting for Obama don't you understand.

    It is about values. I vote my values and Obama doesn't share my values. If I were to vote my economic self-interest, I'd have voted GOP all my life. I haven't because I vote values but there is not a single issue on which I can agree with Obama, not one. He's wrong on Iraq, he voted for the Bush-Cheney Energy Bill, he's wrong on health care, he could care less about gay or the working class. I could go on. At least with McCain, my taxes will go down. Still I will likely not vote or go with Nader. And the funny thing is a lot of people I know feel the same way. I don't believe in this "we are the ones we have been waiting for" crap. That sounds like Hugo Chavez talking. Words matter and Obama turned me off long ago. I started this primary an ABC voter, Anybody But Clinton and I support Edwards but as soon as I got to know Obama and his association, see you. Unacceptable. Sorry. I will wait 2012 if it comes to that.

    decisions (5.00 / 7) (#192)
    by boredmpa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:46:27 AM EST
    /rant on

    I'm trying to think carefully about how strong a message I want to send.  Right not, the "democracy is important" part of the democratic party has been kicked to the curb (MI/FL) as has the "reason" part of the democratic party (i.e., Obama is more liberal, Clinton is a racist, Clinton is the big liar).

    The assault on reason, the misogyny, the destruction of democratic ideals by both Obama and the Democratic leadership suggests the need for a very strong message that our party shouldn't work that way and our candidates should support such dishonesty.  Nader is a quantifiable/obvious protest vote, but that may not be strong enough for me because it doesn't cancel out the vote of the anti-democratic, anti-reason, pro-misogyny, racist wing of the democratic party.  McCain will most likely get my vote, and it is unlikely that I will ever support the national party again.  They simply aren't worth my time -- I will fund specific issues/non-profits, period.

    Policy and politics are about cycles, tit for tat, risk and reward.  Well, there will no reward as long as the democratic party assumes they can get away with mediocrity (threaten us over and over with what about the supreme court? what about roe vs wade? it's almost like the repubs and abortion/gay rights).   This election was our chance to take control and enact some populist measures, and it has been squandered...on a mediocre candidate with no history of anything.  And it was squandered not because of reason, not because of debate, but because the party failed in the democratic process and collapsed into the rhetoric of racism and misogyny.  

    I view denouncing and rejecting such a system as an essential part of being a liberal--even if it means my vote goes republican.  Grok that for a sec.  So though I like Nader/Gonzalez, I will probably donate money to them but if the election is close I will vote McCain.  And if I have time to think about what reforms need to be made in the Dem primary process and discussions and behavior, I'll put a petition together for those refusing to donate to dem candidates until problems are fixed.  Clearly, it would include making sure certain rules and bylaws members are disowned and dean is gone from the party leadership.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks for articulating this, boredmpa (5.00 / 3) (#202)
    by BGP on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:34:51 AM EST
    Right now I feel like I'm on the receiving end of an abusive relationship as far as the Democratic party is concerned.

    I grew up in a troubled family and I know the way families come together to hide the ugliness and put on a united front for the world at large. It is not a way I want to live any more in my private relationships or in my political ones. I want to stand up and say NO! But how and to whom?

    I feel like the character in an old Harlan Ellison story -- I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream.

    It breaks my heart to think that we could have the first viable black candidate for president and that I may not be able to vote for him.

    And yet he is not my candidate on the issues and he and the party have declared my vote is irrelevant. The media once again is choosing our president and I want to protest that.

    And there's part of me that says if the party is destroyed, so be it. Maybe something better will rise from the ashes. I have been hoping that since 2000 though and so far...

    If Roe goes, it goes. If young women don't want it, well, as several have said here, I'm past needing it. And anyway, it's gone. These guys Bush 1 & 2 put up there are young and ideologic. And anyway, Obama would have voted for Roberts except for political expediency.

    The war?

    I'm confused right now. If Obama is the nominee I don't know what I'm going to do.

    I'm hoping time will clarify my course.

    [ Parent ]

    we can't cave (5.00 / 5) (#203)
    by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:49:11 AM EST
    ...here's the thing. A similar thing happened years ago in the first half of the 20th century in that the democratic party ignored, abused, and finally tried to brow-beat Irish/Catholic voters to voting their way. Finally, the Irish Catholics said enough. They refused to vote for party candidates and supported the Repubs. The Repubs swept all offices and won the presidency but the Irish catholics became a force that had to be taken seriously. The democratic party had to listen to them after they said their votes wouldn't be held hostage.

    There is a division in our party and the elites keep running things the way they want and they keep picking the candidates. Our faction MUST NOT SUPPORT THEM -- if we cave and support Obama, the party is lost and our faction banished. One term of McCain is worth not allowing them to destroy our party and push us out. Who will ever be for middle-class and working-class Americans if we don't stand strong and demand that it is OUR party?

    [ Parent ]

    typos (none / 0) (#194)
    by boredmpa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:50:29 AM EST
    not=now
    should = shouldn't

    and i used to be an editor...

    [ Parent ]

    Hate to tell you this (1.00 / 0) (#176)
    by dissenter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:45:25 AM EST
    But Nader isn't gonna be on the ballot. If you vote green, you will have to vote for a Donna Brazile clone who screams racism at every turn.

    Since BO doesn't share my values and because he wants to increase my taxes 30% I will be voting McCain because not only do I not like Obama, my family can't afford him.

    [ Parent ]

    I love it (5.00 / 7) (#177)
    by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:55:18 AM EST
    ...if Obama loses in the fall it's Hillary's fault! I figured y'all would at least wait a while longer before trotting that one out. As others have said, it's not about Hillary, it's about Obama. Clinton didn't do anything to make me dislike Obama, his platform, his race-baiting or his associations.  Obama did it all on his own and his supporters reinforced it.

    In fact, I started this race as an Edwards supporter and the things I saw from Obama's campaign and his supporters turned me off. Once Edwards dropped out I evaluated the issues and candidates anew and went to Clinton (and couldn't be happi