Open Thread

Last one. I'm going to bed.

Commnts now closed.

< What Clinton Should Do | The Morning After: Clinton Fights On >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Thanks for burning the midnight oil (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:55:06 AM EST
    along with the rest of us. I think we got some clarity tonight, though it wasn't in the direction I had hoped for.

    Tomorrow: repairing the party--if possible.

    Repair list for party (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:57:49 AM EST
    1.  Change rules to winner take all.
    2.  Eliminate Super delegates.
    3.  Eliminate caucuses.  

    Fire Brazille and Dean.  

    This is the only way I will go without a big fuss towards unity.  


    Hillary lost the superdelegate spin (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:02:29 AM EST
    Superdelegates are supposed to vote for any one they wish for any reason they wish. The media has convinced every one, with assistance from the DNC, that if supers don't follow the elected delegates then it's cheating.

    Why create them in the first place if you aren't going to follow the rules or intimidate them into voting for your candidate?


    To quote my secret boyfriend (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:15:47 AM EST
    James Carville -- an SD endorsement and $4 will get you a cup of coffee at the Ritz-Carlton.  There is a long way to go before they have to vote, no matter who they come out for between now and then.

    you don;t need polls... (5.00 / 8) (#170)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:28:19 AM EST
    to know that Obama is unelectable.  All you need is a couple of decades of paying attention to American politics.

    people don't vote for someone they don't trust.  And there is so much not to trust about Obama that he's simply unelectable.

    I mean, his entire message is a fraud -- he has campaigned on his ability to achieve change through unity, but has never once acted on that promise during the campaign.  

    Democrats WANT to be unified, but Obama has allowed the Clintons to be so demonized that Hillary's supporters don't want "unity" with something so despicable.  

    And given that the GOP has their own agenda, and doesn't want "unity" with Obama to begin with, if he uses the same tactics against the GOP that he used against Clinton, even if he wins in November there will be no way for him to achieve anything approaching "unity".  

    But Obama's problems go much deeper than that... 'patriotism' isn't going to be about flag pins....its going to be about attending a fundraiser at the home of an unrepentent anti-american terrorist bomber.  

    And Obama simply has no answer for that.  He's not familiar enough that he can just blow off questions about his former associates -- McCain can get away with accepting endorsements from people like Hagee because people think they know John McCain and feel comforatable with him, and understand that politics means associating with people you don't agree with.  But Obama's lack of a real record means that people will define him through his associates -- like Rezko, Wright, and Ayres, and "denouncing" or "disavowing" people like that at this late date isn't going to cut it.


    You know why Hillary loses superdelegate spin (none / 0) (#45)
    by josephm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:17:00 AM EST
    You know why Hillary loses superdelegate spin, right? It is because superdelegates are afraid to go against constituency and take the responsibility. If the general election failed for the democratic nominee, It is EASY to explain with "Hey!! You guys pick the nominee. Don't blame me!!"

    As you know, republicans do whatever it takes to win. Swift boat attacks and such. Will democrats do what it takes to win?!?! Have you ask that question?


    Therefore, (none / 0) (#399)
    by cpa1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:56:44 AM EST
    We need to say to the Super Delegates a few things:

    1.  You will be responsible when Obama is blown out by McCain and I am pretty sure that will happen.  It's not because Obama is black and it is not even because of Jeremiah Wright.  It is because he is liar like we haven't seen since Karl Rove.  The things Obama stooped to were like what Rove did in South Carolina using character assassination.  Obama used character assassination to destroy the images of Bill Clinton and Geraldine Ferraro.  

    2.  Many long time liberals will not vote for Barack Obama, no matter how he tries to bring the party together and many of us would rather trust McCain than the devil we don't know but from what we have seen, the Obama devil has done some pretty despicable things.  To bad the press was DOA on all of these.  We all expect politicians to lie and exaggerate but Obama went to destroy.  That should have been reserved for the Republicans.  Now, he's lost at least 25% of the party.

    3.  Republicans always win elections without the black vote, so Obama doesn't have that huge advantage over McCain that he had over Hillary.

    4.  Many long time liberals are sick to death of Howard Dean and what he did to Florida and Michigan residents.  The chairman of the DNC, an organization organized to promote voting, had no authority to remove that right.  No way!   All he had authority to do were logistical things like giving those two state's delegates seats in the back of the conventional hall, giving them the worst hotel reservations far away from the convention center and withholding their afternoon snack of milk and cookies.

    5.  By giving Obama the nomination, the Democrats are turning over to the GOP, Ohio, Florida, Michigan and maybe New Jersey.  That means, McCain will win, no ifs ands or buts.  And even if they seat FL and MI with some perverse algorithm favoring Obama, the damage has already been done, putting Hillary so much on the defensive that the press ate her alive.

    6.  The GOP cannot wait to get their hands on what Obama did with the Clinton statements after the South Carolina Primary.  They will remove his skin for those lies and those tactics of character assassination.  They will not be politically correct and the radioactive climate that Obama created to shield himself of any criticism will be blasted through by the Republicans, as Hillary should have done.  Hillary should have exposed Obama for his lies and because she didn't, she lost NC so big time.  He had the audacity to say that most people think he is honest but that's not true for the other candidate (Hillary).  If I was Hillary, I would have pile driven him into to ground for that with each and ever one of his lies from Selma, to NAFTA, to Iraq to the British, to the lies about Reagan, the nuclear lie about South Carolin and Jesse Jackson, the lies about a gas tax stimulus and each of his false accusations of injecting race.  His own damn surrogate Jamal somebody on CNN last night spoke about what Jesse Jackson did in 84 and 88.  This war against Obama is just beginning and the super delegates better open up their eyes to how Obama instigated it.

    7.  Baby boomers will hate Obama by the time the truth comes out about him.  Many of us already do hate him.

    8.  Super Delegates will be blamed as being responsible for allowing Howard Dean to use the DNC to punish the Clintons for opposing him as the head of the DNC.  That is why in every step he has favored Obama and even removed two big states from Hillary's column.

    9.  Super Delegates will join Ralph Nader, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Phil Donohue and Howard Dean as enablers for the destruction of the Party and another decade of the erosion of America.

    Hillary was incredibly dead about the gas tax holiday.  She never defended it.  She let Obama and CNN destroy it.  I really am not crazy about her as president but I sure as hell don't want Barack and Michelle Obama in the White House.  Actually, Michelle may be a __ but she is a lot more honest than her husband.

    Hillary should have reminded the voters that when you do something for the American people it gets paid back in spades.  How many of us will drive an extra block or two to buy gas that is $360.9 rather than 362.9.  What if is was $344.4 vs $362.9.  Why didn't Hillary say that?  Why didn't Hillary talk about the synergy created by some people using their car more to travel and buy things?  Why didn't Hillary talk about the economic multiplier where 18.5 cents per gallon can generate billions in money for hotels, restaurants, toll roads, malls, and that list goes on and on.  She gave up while all the jerks on TV were tearing her down.  Plus, the Federal Government has a lot more resources to monitor that the oil companies reflect the price difference than does the state of Illinois and a lowly state senator who has never really found the time to do anything substantial but get elected and make speeches that have no meaning.

    It is not too late to go nuclear on Obama the same way he went nuclear on the Clintons.  The press allwoed him to do it in a stealth way but she needs to expose him now.  Plus, Hillary has to go nuclear on the press for allowing Obama to get away with all the lies he told, especially about South Carolina and Selma.  Everytime sniper was used, the exposing of the Selma lie, which was a totally invented story, should have followed.

    It is not too late.  That liar should not be president.

    Where was John Edwards when we needed him?  


    i do not agree (none / 0) (#65)
    by cy street on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:28:41 AM EST
    that the house of clinton lost the super delegate spin because of the pledged argument.  they lost because mark penn started mouthing off about big states.

    this might seem reasonable to a political junkie.  however, to people in the non-"big states" it was an affront and still is.

    it also helps to remember; clinton had ninety supers before a single vote was cast in the iowa caucus.



    So you think (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:54:32 AM EST
    that wide open spaces trump people when selecting a candidate?

    It does seem like a strange system (none / 0) (#225)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:38:40 AM EST
    It makes sense in the days when party officials made the choice for the party --- in the olden days.

    But I think that the internet has made people feel that they should have the power because we are more intimately engaged and in direct conversation with the candidates now.

    I think the internet has changed the game.


    if the internet has changed the game then (none / 0) (#308)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:58:38 AM EST
    it isn't for the better it appears to me.

    The game has not changed (none / 0) (#352)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:29:47 AM EST
    yet, to catch-up to the people-power of the internet future.

    I am not sure anyone thinks the present system for picking a nominee is that great!


    Absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by cal1942 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:52:05 AM EST
    Eliminate Open Primaries. Democrats pick Democrats, Republicans pick Republicans.

    Allocate delegates and super delegates by population only.
    No more district level wins.


    I Can't Do It. (5.00 / 2) (#235)
    by LibOne on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:49:21 AM EST
    I've been reading TalkLeft for a couple of months now.  Just yesterday I decided to sign up so I could participate in the discussion.

    But today I feel the same way I felt when GWB was annointed president.  My party and my country have left me behind.  I swallowed the bile and voted for Kerry in 2004 but I won't do it again for Obama.  I'll vote down ticket but I can't fill in the bubble next to Barry's name after all the hostility towards Hillary.


    Really? (none / 0) (#278)
    by Claw on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:30:17 AM EST
    You really think Obama is as bad as GWB?  On what are you basing that?  You think he'd be pro-torture, pro-preemptive war, pro-conservaive SC?  He may not be your favorite candidate, but anyone who tries to convince you that he's on par with GWB or McCain is either dishonest or extremely misinformed.

    I Didn't Say He Was As Bad. (5.00 / 3) (#302)
    by LibOne on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:54:05 AM EST
    I said that I felt the same sagging feeling I had when I realized that my vote didn't matter.  It especially hurts now because it's my own party that has made it clear that I'm not wanted. I'm too old, too poor, and although I'm educated enough, I can't possible be smart enough because I voted for Hillary Clinton.

    Now I'm supposed to get on the Unity Bandwagon after all the sexism and Donna Brazile's comments on CNN last night?


    I would amend that a bit (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:59:50 AM EST
    but really it doesn't matter now. You're preparing for the previous battle.

    My letter to Dr. Dean and the DNC (5.00 / 1) (#267)
    by The Realist on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:25:04 AM EST
    To Whom it May Concern,

    I supported Howard Dean for DNC Chairman. I supported his 50 state plan. It is unfortunate that Dr. Dean has chosen to abandon that strategy  in order to insure Sen. Obama's nomination. Dr. Dean started months ago by denying Michigan and Florida the right to be counted. Dr. Dean started months ago by showing his bias in favor of Sen. Obama. Dr. Dean started months ago by signaling to the SD's to make up their minds quickly, before the rest of the country had its voted counted.

    This year, the Democratic rolls have doubled and tripled because, for the first time, many states had a chance to actually have their votes count. I fear those rolls are not going to be reflective after this election because half the Democratic electorate feels it has been "sold a bill of goods" by Dr. Dean and the DNC. Dr. Dean's attitude towards the Gay Community and his unwillingness to hold the MSM accountable for
    it's obvious bias reflects his inability to unify a party.

    I have been a Democrat all my life and i can honestly say i have never been more disappointed in the party leadership than i am now. All i can say, at this point is, i will not vote for McCain in the General. The DNC, thus far, has failed me, Florida, Michigan, almost 50% of the Democratic base and the party.

    Because of this lack of, or unwillingness, to demonstrate leadership from the DNC leadership and Congressional leadership, i find myself considering becoming an Independent. I know many others feel as i do.

    Convince me, Dr. Dean, without using SCOTUS, to stay with the Democratic Party. Sen. Obama does not have an acceptable health care plan. He does not have a clear defined plan for extricating us fro Iraq. His economic plan is vague, at best, and his energy plan is hollow when a review of his benefactors is populated with the very energy companies that crafted the current policy.

    Tell me, Dr. Dean. Why should i stay?


    Thank you TL, BTD and everyone here (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:57:03 AM EST
    Being here made it all a little more tolerable, and hopefully will help through the November train wreck.

    you are very welcome (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:29:41 AM EST
    I don't know how Hillary does it. I was here all day and all night and I feel like I've been up for a week. I'm going to bed, see you all tomorrow.

    I must add my voice to the Praise Choir (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by otherlisa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:52:26 AM EST
    Jeralyn, this site has been one of the true beacons and refuges during his campaign. I had to kick in some more $ for Clinton tonight, but I promise you guys are next.

    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.)


    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.

    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:


    Thank you for everything you're doing,


    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.

    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.


    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!

    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.


    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.

    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


    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.  


    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.


    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?!


    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.

    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.

    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

    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.


    I don't agree (5.00 / 6) (#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.


    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.)


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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


    I'm black (5.00 / 4) (#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.  


    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.

    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.


    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.  


    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.


    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.


    Amen To That n/t (none / 0) (#410)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:00:32 AM EST
    racialized the contest* (none / 0) (#116)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:04:33 AM EST
    You've been listening to MSNBC too much (none / 0) (#119)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:07:21 AM EST
    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?

    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Racism would (5.00 / 5) (#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.

    Just another sleazey politician who will (5.00 / 2) (#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.  

    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. ;-)


    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 ;>


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

    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.

    She drank (5.00 / 1) (#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.


    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.


    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?


    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!


    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!

    Never watch MSNBC (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:09:30 AM EST
    I need a T-shirt with that quote. (none / 0) (#62)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:27:22 AM EST
    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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!

    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?


    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.

    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.


    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'.  


    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.


    it was the surrogates/campaign (5.00 / 2) (#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.  


    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.  

    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.

    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.



    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.


    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.

    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.  

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?


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

    and i used to be an editor...


    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.


    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 happier with my choice). Obama supporters led me half of the way with their behavior alone -- his mockery of UHC and weak health care plan sealed the deal.

    Live by the sword, die by the sword (5.00 / 4) (#179)
    by dissenter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:02:00 AM EST
    And I hope the entire DNC goes in the bloodbath with him. I am beyond disgusted. I can't believe we are nominating a racist guy with no experience to be president of the United States.

    Oops correction, President of the creative class, young people and african americans.


    well remember (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:12:19 AM EST
    ...according to Donna Brazile, Obama's campaign and the OFB, they don't need the rest of the democratic electorate to win, anyway. Obama will be President of the creative class but that's about it.

    Went to the Great Orange (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by Fabian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:01:21 AM EST
    Did not read any diaries, just scanned the titles.  Should take a screenshot - heck, would have loved to taken screenshots after every primary for comparison.

    If there's any "change" happening there, I'll believe it when I see it.  About the only thing I found interesting was this

    Incidentally, Karl Rove said on Fox News, "I think there's a Democratic nominee now". Expect the RNC to open fire against Obama. Pretty soon, they won't have Clinton to carry their water for them anymore.

    Can you feel the Unity?

    Yes, that is the way BO would lose (5.00 / 9) (#185)
    by Boo Radly on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:32:07 AM EST
    no ifs ands or buts. We promise you that. We cannot "unite" for someone who has crapped on real Democrats with real records of accomplishment. No fairy tales - I out grew fairy tales a while back. I would never vote for BO - his actions, the actions of the party "elders", DNC(FL/MI and those steaming piles Brazile keeps emitting) have left me no choice. I am a Democrat and the aforementioned are not. I am changing my affiliation and not looking back. If Hillary is the nom as she should/would be if all votes are counted, I will vote for her and pray she can return my party to sanity.

    Tonites drama is so BO - the long drawn out "counting" in Lake County - blech! All those gas bags on MSM - the level of discourse is so low it is like Dubya all over again. Except, the BO supporters have managed to go much much lower - it isn't fit for public viewing. So, I'm throwing in the towel, I will continue to donate to Hillary, work for Hillary but no BO. If the Dem party wants to lose with him, I will help that loss happen and consider it a service to the public. BO has no plan for the ecomony, his UHC sucks, and his advisors have exposed that he isn't getting out of Iraq too soon. Sounds like McCain to me - at least with McCain I know he isn't going to call me a racist or some other insulting label BO can't help himself come up with. Bless his heart - I just don't want to do the work for him - he just demands too much propping up.

    There is at this point (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:35:46 AM EST
    A significant percentage of Clinton supporters who will remove themselves from the party and the process.

    Markos Moulitsas once said he would be happy when Harold Ford lost his election in Tennesee.

    The reason being is that when he lost, it would be rejection of Ford's campaign tactics/strategy and the party would be better off for it in the long run.

    By this same logic, I will be rooting for Obama to lose.  Obama losing the General Election will result in a net positive for the Party over the course of the next two decades.   McCain?  I wish he could lose too.  I wish I lived in a country that would reject both of them.

    I don't.

    What is in the best interest of our country? (none / 0) (#195)
    by john horse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:01:26 AM EST
    What about what is in the best interest of our country?  Do you really want 4 or 8 more years of Bush?  Your position reminds me of some friends of mine that voted for Nader here in Florida in the 2000 election because they thought that there wasn't any difference between Gore and Bush.  Boy, were they wrong on that one.  You are also wrong if you believe there is no difference between Obama and McCain.

    Given the failure of the surge in Iraq and the economic recession, I think the only way we Dems can lose is if we lose our unity.


    As far as what's in the best interest (none / 0) (#201)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:22:13 AM EST
    of the country is concerned, I can see McCain being a better president.

    We fool ourselves into thinking that just because we agree with someone they will competently execute those objectives.

    I agreed with Carter on everything.  I didn't agree with Reagan on anything.

    But I have to admit that Reagan was a better president, and America's interests were better taken care of during Reagan's term than they were the 4 years prior.

    Job approval.  Reagan was successful.  Carter was not.

    So I take far more into consideration than just the fact that I agree with Obama more than I agree with McCain.

    I don't think my argument has anything in common with Nader's at all.


    Nope (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:41:12 AM EST
    His demographics have rendered him unelectable. Forget about the party and look at the bigger picture.

    Thanks everyone (5.00 / 4) (#189)
    by ruffian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:43:56 AM EST
    Sorry I missed the primary night here with you all, but I just caught up on the threads.  Greatest posters on the net - I don't agree with the Obama posters, but they are leaps and bounds more talented and entertaining than their compatriots on other sites.

    I did happen to see both segments of the Brazile - Bagala argument in real time, and if I were near a computer would have verbally exploded on you all.  Un- frickin- believable. I hope Donna and her new party are very happy together.  She can count me out.  Oh yeah, she already has.

    I am ready to admit Clinton will not be the nominee, but I will be writing her in here in Florida. Should be a very interesting GE, to say the least.

    Thanks, Jeralyn and BTD (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by BGP on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:06:42 AM EST
    for this forum and for hosting this community. Thanks, Jeralyn, for your positive outlook and BTD for your intellectual honesty. And thanks Talk Lefters for a lively night. I went to bed at 1:30 and woke up at 5:00. Probably won't be earning my pay today.

    One thing about this election: it has jolted me out of my rut. I guess we see what today brings.

    The future can always surprise you. Unfortunately, in politics, it has seldom surprised me for the good.

    Obama's had 15 months (5.00 / 2) (#200)
    by alsace on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:21:29 AM EST
    to win my vote.  Instead, his campaign of vague notions and and his obnoxious fan base have driven me away. I've voted for every Democratic presidential candidate since 1964 except for 1980, when I voted for the independent run of John B. Anderson.  I will likely again choose a third party candidate, and if that keeps my turning-purple state red, so be it.

    I voted for Anderson too (none / 0) (#416)
    by ineedalife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:08:03 AM EST
    And for me also it was my only non-Democratic presidential vote. This year will be my second.

    I will not vote for Obama. His depiction of the Clinton's as racists has disqualified him for president in my eyes.

    And if my local rep goes all out for Obama, or takes Obama's tainted money, he will not get my vote either.


    Hillary Will be in Shepherdstown, WV This Morning (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by GeekLove08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:56:09 AM EST
    Just got a call from a friend in Shepherdstown-- Hillary will be there this morning.  She is excited and says people there are excited about it!

    good to hear! (5.00 / 3) (#211)
    by ccpup on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:14:30 AM EST
    judging by some of the Posts on this Thread, you'd think Hillary was going to be home, under the covers with a 5th of Scotch and the heartbreaking genius of Patsy Cline running non-stop in the background.

    Nice to hear that she bounces back a lot better than some of us do.   :-)

    P.S.  TalkLeft is an amazing place, but it can be dangerous -- despite the gentle assertions of our more mathematically-minded Posters -- in raising expectations.

    Hillary was never going to win NC.  And the fact that she eked out a win in IN is truly incredible considering the demographics, the Chicago media-market and being Barack's neighboring State.  We should be celebrating, not wondering when she's going to leave.

    Buck up, people!  Hillary is a political animal.  If she's still in, she knows something we don't and knows that something will tilt the balance toward her.  She knows what she's doing.


    I feel quite miserable (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:11:10 AM EST
    moreso because I can't imagine why people are so willing to repeat the same mistake again.

    Previously I felt as awful when Gore who was so so much better than Bush in all ways, was criticized by MSM and elite liberals alike and who lost the election to a person like Bush because both the MSM and elite liberals were didn't want to fight florida and hence allowed Bush to steal the election.

    I see a similar pattern now with Hillary and Obama. Hillary is what America needs now. Yet elite liberals and MSM want to again repeat the same mistake. One thing is for sure. If Obama wins the nomination, I am definitely voting and campaigning for McCain.

    Ditto (none / 0) (#212)
    by josephm on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:15:05 AM EST
    Ditto for me....

    I might campaign (none / 0) (#220)
    by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:32:41 AM EST
    for McCain but I'm voting for Hillary even if I have to write her name in.

    My views have changed. (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:28:23 AM EST
    I started out backing the woman candidate.  I figured we had waited long enough just winning the right to vote.  Then I had some misgivings about Obama--the empty suit thing.  Plus I had some inner nudgings that he was holding something (hiding?) back.  

    Then I got to know Hillary better and was really impressed by her enthusiasm, her knowledge, her compassion--not to mention her policies.  At the same time, Obama's campaign was utilizing the 'big lie'--you know, make it big enough and tell it loud enough and long enough.

    Ok, so now it is personal.  All I can do is send money (like someone else said, my accent plus my childish--at my age!--voice make me very reluctant to make phone calls).  It's not a good time--involved in a refi on one of the interest-only-arms into which I am dumping an expected windfall.  But the money is going in dribs and drabs to Hillary.

    Obama took 9 whole counties in Indiana last night.    There is no way he can win a GE with only a base of college towns and the black population.  The dems don't need blue/white collar working class?  (That's not really me, bachelors plus post grad, part of university campus life).  Well, I am outa here, because that's where my sympathies lie.  

    For once I am happy I live in a totally red area--a democrat couldn't be elected snake catcher here.  So I can vote my conscience--that is not vote at all.  It won't change the outcome, but I will know that I personally did not contribute to the coming debacle.  (And I don't want Hillary as vp, either: no more cleaning up after kiddies.)

    Thank Goodness for Red (none / 0) (#297)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:52:08 AM EST
    State status, eh?

    I hear you....

    That was the only thing I thought about this morning was, Ugh....now what.


    Thanks for talkleft.com (5.00 / 2) (#229)
    by unclesamsgirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:41:26 AM EST
    I've been seeking solace here for some time.  Decided to sign up after last night.
    Hillary should keep going if she can.  If she doesn't prevail, I'll have to vote against Obama in the GE (painful). God help my country.

    second that, dont know what we would have done (none / 0) (#248)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:07:59 AM EST
    without you.

    voting in GE (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by pixelpusher on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:55:56 AM EST
    I'm in New York, so I'm totally relieved that pressure is off me to vote in the general election (a Dem will win no matter if I vote or not).  I've totally had it with Obama's supporters and they're only going to get uglier, more arrogant and more paranoid.  Glad I can avoid pulling the lever for them.

    Thank you! (5.00 / 1) (#246)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:58:34 AM EST
    I'm another NY voter who feels exactly the same way - and let's hear it for those old clunky voting machines where you actually pull the lever!

    I love irony (5.00 / 2) (#257)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:19:13 AM EST
    Per Donna Brazille, the Democrats -- the part of the little people -- don't need the working class to win.

    LOL, cracks me up.  That is just too cute (by half).

    Well It Looks Like Brazile & Company Will (5.00 / 1) (#309)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:59:22 AM EST
    have the opportunity to see if Obama can win without the working class. Don't know how many more ways the Obama crew can tell working class people that they are not valued in the Democratic Party. BTW she added Hispanics to the old guard too just to make it more challenging.

    You can be sure that McCain and the Republicans will tell them that they would value their vote and remind them of every time Obama and his surrogates put them down.


    Donna thinks she's coy (none / 0) (#266)
    by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:24:52 AM EST
    In fact, the problem for Obama and his fanbase is that they really do think we're stupid and that they can treat us any way they want and we'll come crawling to them. They also think all these other poor dummies that are GE voters are too dumb to know they're being talked down to. They're in for a big surprise and should he win the nom, I'll enjoy every minute of watching him get eviscerated.

    Me too. (none / 0) (#384)
    by vicsan on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:46:33 AM EST
    I've never in my life hoped for a Democratic Presidential candidate to lose, but I will relish every moment of his demise and laugh my behind off. I certainly won't be voting for him. This typical white person is finished with the Democratic Party if he steals this nomination by not counting FL and MI. FINISHED. I promise.

    and (5.00 / 2) (#260)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:21:01 AM EST
    its great to be around other people who care.
    thanks again to TL for the forum/support group.

    That's for sure! (none / 0) (#279)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:31:32 AM EST
    I can clean house again.  :)  Dang, I just couldn't watch it last night after he won so handily in NC.

    Still sort of blows my mind.


    So ironic (none / 0) (#281)
    by Danbury on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:35:30 AM EST
    that Obama is winning primariy due to the AA vote, but Clinton was accused of race baiting for pointing that out, others point it out now and it's fine, Obama spurned the AA church when it became politically disadvantagious, Clintons have never abandoned the AA community...

    It's all very sad.  Up is down, still.


    Well, (none / 0) (#285)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:39:08 AM EST
    He put together a very powerful coalition within the party.  That much is clear.  

    I do not know whether he will be able to win over her coalition.

    But, for sure, we can see that the way to win the Democratic nomination under the current rules are to run an AA candidate.  You can't beat 90%.

    I don't feel Hillary lost as much as nobody could win against those odds with our current system.


    yes (5.00 / 1) (#289)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:43:48 AM EST
    any other candidate would have been out weeks or months ago.
    I always thought Hillary was the only person who had a chance, however slim, of doing this.
    as far as an AA candidate, I think the irony is, IMO, he will lose and it will be a long long time before we see another.
    I hope I am wrong but I dont think I am.

    McCain (none / 0) (#294)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:45:51 AM EST
    is pretty goofy.  If Obama can't beat him, then the Democratic Party will be apologizing to people right and left for this messed up primary.

    As far as I am concerned (5.00 / 1) (#264)
    by Fabian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:24:05 AM EST
    The Obama Party IS the third party.

    Has any "Democrat" spent so much time diminishing the accomplishments of other Democrats?  Besides Former Democrat Joe Lieberman?

    I have no idea who Obama is or what he stands for or what he hopes to accomplish.  Looking at him is like looking at a mirage, the picture blurs and shimmers and never really comes into focus.  If Obama gets the nomination, I'll go back to marching in Gore's army full time.  Give me something real to fight for and I'll do it.

    "turned off TV for good" (5.00 / 1) (#269)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:25:54 AM EST
    I feel another year without cable news coming on.
    like I had when W won.

    Funny (5.00 / 1) (#273)
    by Danbury on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:28:03 AM EST
    I had that very thought last night, that I was feeling much like I did when W. won.

    Call "just quit" what it is: Sexist (5.00 / 3) (#287)
    by Exeter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:42:23 AM EST
    Why can't we just start calling it what it is?!?  Obama can cry racism at the faintest hint of racism, but even though this race has been shaped by sickening sexism, you never hear a peep about it in the MSM or the blogs.  Can you imagine if Obama had been called equally racially deraugatory terms as the sexist slurs against Hillary? Witch? Nurse Ratchet? And even Whor# and #itch?  Or what if Obama was called an equally deraugatory animal as when Hillary was compared to a skittish domestic cat?

    According to Media Matters, no other candidate in a similar situation has been so agressively shouted off the stage.  And with the first candidate to be treated in such a way also happens to be the first serious female presidential candidate, you have to call this double standard what it is: sexism.

    There is a long sad history in this country of telling women to step-aside or "just quit" for their male counterpart. It would be very unfortunate if history remembers the first serious female candidate going out this this same sad way.

    Candidates that win states (5.00 / 1) (#288)
    by nellre on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:43:12 AM EST
    Candidates that win states at this late date should not drop out.

    Send HRC some money.

    I just did (5.00 / 1) (#292)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:44:59 AM EST
    Made a painful decision coming in to work today (5.00 / 1) (#299)
    by Marvin42 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:52:48 AM EST
    But somehow it feels right. I know I'll catch grief for this but here it goes. I am leaving the democratic party. I am now officially an independent. I don't think I fit, understand or want to lose with this party anymore. Maybe I'll come back, but right now something is very wrong and off kilter for the party of the people. This is not what I signed up for. The congressional wing has done nothing to correct the wrongs of the past 8 years, the leadership is now setting the party up to lost the white house, and in the process we have demonized a good president and have criticized health care and populist ideas.

    Anyway, thanks for listening.

    Fair enough. Its' not about Obama though, (5.00 / 2) (#305)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:56:36 AM EST
    wouldn't you agree? We don't have much evidence that Clinton would be fighting the right battles as President; for me, it's just that I have zero faith in Obama's dedication to any principle whatsoever.

    I am very very close (1.00 / 0) (#318)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:02:18 AM EST
    I did that (none / 0) (#307)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:57:39 AM EST
    when Dean was pushing for the SD's to get her out right before the PA primary.  That was my own personal final straw.

    My thinking was that I've voted straight Dem for over 30 years.  Held my nose, etc.  And there was so little consideration for women in his action that I really see no reason to continue to participate.

    Independent just means I will look very carefully at each candidate, ignore the party partisanship issues, and make a decision accordingly.  

    There are some excellent moderate Republicans who never could get my vote in the past due to my party loyalty.  Now, they have a shot.

    There is nothing wrong with that strategy, in my opinion.  In fact, I think I may have been a bit lazy by being such a staunch Democrat.  

    Non-Partisanship may well be the future of a lot of people.


    Right. If 40% of Hillary supporters say (5.00 / 1) (#316)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:01:21 AM EST
    they will not vote for Obama, how is he electable?
    I get the sense that these voters are being blamed for Obama's problem. Obama does not own the votes of the Hillary supporters; this is not a plantation!

    I'll listen to them both (none / 0) (#327)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:08:05 AM EST
    but I've checked out McCain's platform.  Too conservative for me, I'm afraid.

    But I'm going to listen.

    I meant I'm Independent now in terms of all the way down the ticket.


    Won't Catch Grief From Me (none / 0) (#341)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:25:14 AM EST
    I already made the same decision.

    Given Donna's (5.00 / 1) (#355)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:30:57 AM EST
    remarks last night, I believe it's clear that is even OK with the party itself.

    They truly did want a new party direction.  They do not wish to deal with moderates and conservative members.

    I'm a moderate Dem, so some of the moderate Republicans can convince me, depending on their platform.  The Republican party is also completely reshifting its direction, so it's a good time for them to test the waters.

    McCain is already focusing on the Latino voters.  Smart move.  Donna made it clear that she didn't think Latinos were relevant anymore.

    Unbelievable and stupid of her to say that out loud, but she did, indeed, say it.  

    So the Republicans have a shot here at moving to the center and forging a completely new identity for themselves.

    Frankly, if they ditched the anti-abortion stuff and worked on the diplomacy aspects of foreign policy, they would have a good shot.


    I don't think it has anything to do (5.00 / 3) (#368)
    by MMW on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:38:14 AM EST
    with not wanting Moderates and Conservatives. It is arrogance. Obama is not liberal - He has no liberal platform - He has fought for no liberal principles. Let's stop buying into the B_LLS_T. He ain't liberal or progressive.

    This is arrogance and pride - they believed their own CR_P, now they can't back down. This is not about moderates or liberals. OBAMA IS NOT LIBERAL or PROGRESSIVE.



    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#382)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:45:55 AM EST
    but I still say, McCain has a shot here if he addresses some of the issues that bother moderate Dems.

    I Don't Think It Is Ideology Based (5.00 / 5) (#392)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:51:08 AM EST
    It is power based.

    I'm a proud liberal and the reason I've become an independent is that the party no longer stands for my liberal values.

    Obama is not liberal and definitely not progressive. IMO the only ideology that Obama has is assuming the most amount of power possible. Personal power and influence is reason that many of the Dems pushed him to run.


    Totally agree (none / 0) (#396)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:54:37 AM EST
    which became increasingly clearer and clearer.

    That's the ultimate Washington insider political game.

    It's offensive.  It's really offensive that it's been passed off as "change."

    Change, my foot!  LOL*

    It's back to tactics from decades ago.


    U know what tho? (none / 0) (#414)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:05:18 AM EST
    The SDs - members of Congress and whatnot - may not let Dean and Brazile get away with this.

    Absolutely let's have this thing go to the Convention.  I can't wait to see Dean get his ass handed to him by ALL the electeds who know that not only can Obama not win, but that he'll hurt them in their districts and campaigns.


    I've just sent money (5.00 / 1) (#300)
    by zfran on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:53:30 AM EST
    too. She won Indiana...the tie-breaker. He won North Carolina (like he was supposed to with its dynamics and population). If she goes on, I go on with her. Come November, if it's him, I'm not sure I will vote...as for judges and McCain, we really don't know what kind of judges Sen. Obama would nominate..I guess it depends on what he's heard in his churce for 20 years.

    A bitter pill to swallow.... (1.80 / 5) (#91)
    by Hill08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:41:33 AM EST
    I have dedicated much of my free time in the last year to Hillary's campaign; not sure I ever wanted something more.  When you internalize a belief in something, and act on it, nothing is harder than coming to grips with the fact that you may not achieve the goal you dreamed of.  

    I do not think Hillary should drop out, but I cannot see a path for her to win after tonight. Facts are facts, and I think those of us on here that stay in denial will not accomplish much.  I have a pit in my stomach based on this realization.  I feel sicker, and angrier, at the thought of voting for Obama in November, because I don't like his blog supporters for one.

    But I will wake up tomorrow and get over it.  Iraq, healthcare, environment are all critical issues, but the emergency we are facing is the SCOTUS. The next President will shape the Court, and our lives, for at least a generation.  That's why I will vote for Obama in Nov. despite my anger at some of his supporters.  

    It is time to heal after such a long battle, but in the end we have to swallow our pride and stop the Republicans from continuing to ruin this country.  

    Thanks and Goodnight.  

    ha, good one (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:48:09 AM EST
    hmm, first time poster. And gosh, you're all about the Obama propaganda. Surprise, surprise.

    This is your first comment ever (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:51:04 AM EST
    halstoon, is that you?
    Tonight changed nothing as far as the path to the nomination goes -- it ain't over til its over. When it is over, with MI & FL fully participating, if Obama is the nominee, then I will pledge my support for him -- and not a second before then.

    Her only path is via superdelegates (none / 0) (#138)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:33:55 AM EST
    Obama has closed a 100 SD gap to under 20. He will likely pass her in SD endorsements before the next contest. Most of the undeclared are with obama, including big names such as Carter, Reid, Pelosi, Brazile, Clyburn, etc. We know the undeclared are leaning heavily toward Obama because it is the Clinton campaign that has been pleading with them to withold their endorsements. Obviously, if they were going to endorse her she would ask them to declare. Her electability argument has fallen flat with the SD's. She cannot reasonably argue that Obama has more flaws, scandals or baggage (I know that's argued here, but it's not so) For the last month or so she's latched on to this white working vote as though that category is more important than any other. SD's point out that she's week with AA's, young people, educated whites, men, etc.

    The popular vote margin is extremely close. (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:47:02 AM EST
    While each candidate has their demographic strengths and weaknesses, you can't say that Hillary has a smaller coalition than Obama.

    At this point I'd hope the SD's simply let the race continue without interfering. It's only a month until the last primary; there's no point in having it go through 40+ contests and then pulling the plug.


    I agree about letting the race go on (none / 0) (#155)
    by Seth90212 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:02:46 AM EST
    The problem is with the negativity and attempting to bludgeon Obama, particularly over trifals and things intentionally taken out of context.

    Right (5.00 / 3) (#197)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:14:42 AM EST
    All that will thankfully go away once this Primary is over.

    Yes and the better news (none / 0) (#234)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:47:17 AM EST
    is that yesterday, my DHL delivery guy asked me "what primary?" He is a Dem voter, by the way!

    There are only a handful of people who are hard-core political junkies. The rest are not enmeshed in this nasty fight.


    the problem... (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:08:54 AM EST
    of course is that while Clinton may be "weak" with AAs and the "creative class", McCain would be even "weaker" with them.

    the reason that Bill Clinton won TWICE was that he understood that the Democratic party needed to expand beyond its base, and reach out to working class voters by paying attention to their economic interests -- that white working class voters were actually a natural constituency for the Dems that they could court without betraying core Democratic values.

    BUt working class voters will vote for McCain, because they aren't ideological and McCain knows how to communicate with them.  Obama is completely clueless in that regard -- he thinks of working class voters in terms of what he learned in his sophomore sociology class.  No one who understood and empathized with working class voters would ever make the "bitter/clinging" remark -- or tell working class voters that they lose their dignity when they lose their jobs --- those remarks can only come from someone with a completely academic perspective on working class people.

    Obama's attacks on Clinton's gas tax porposal show exactly how out of touch he is.  The purpose of the gas tax holiday isn't financial, its psychological -- working class people now dread going to the gas station, and even passing gas stations creates a sense of anxiety for them.  Abd that $30 over three months does more for the peace of mind of working class voters than a six-hundred dollar tax rebate, because high gas prices are a constant in their lives, and the knowledge that "people in Washington are doing what they can to keep my costs down" provides a constant psychological boost for them.


    You are so right! (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by alexei on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:08:20 AM EST
    I hope the Dems don't go down their usual path and select the nominee that will lose big in the GE.  I hope the SDs realize that Obama is unelectable and perform their function; choose the nominee who can defeat John McCain and will be the best President.

    I am about to get in trouble (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:08:40 AM EST
    for profanity.  I AM an educated white.  And I very much favor Hillary and will not vote for Obama.  So swallow that one.  

    ps--since I live in a college town, I can tell you that there are other educated whites (the professors, you know) who are for Hillary.


    As if. (5.00 / 3) (#157)
    by lansing quaker on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:04:00 AM EST
    Onward to Oregon!  And count my fair home state of MICHIGAN and our sista FLORIDA.

    Hillary is in it to win it.  She is heavily favored in WV and KY.  Why call it quits now?

    Failbox.  Live on!  Rise, Hillary, rise!


    heal? (5.00 / 5) (#159)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:06:36 AM EST
    It is time to heal after such a long battle, but in the end we have to swallow our pride and stop the Republicans from continuing to ruin this country.  

    No, it isn't, and no, I don't.

    If Obama wants to earn my vote, he can try. Fortunately for him, I hear he does not need the working class, the old, the poor, women, Hispanics, gays and lesbians, Fl/MI, the bitter clingy people in the rust belt - so he should be just fine without me.

    I realize the Democratic party apparently likes its women submissive, but I don't play that game.


    Just a note... (1.80 / 5) (#362)
    by NealB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:33:07 AM EST
    ...not that it matters. I'll check back here once in a while, but after the past four months of Big Tent Democrat shilling non-stop for Clinton, and even this morning saying he thinks she should go ahead and take her wins in Kentucky and WV, it won't be very often.

    I've read Big Tent's ravings here over the past several weeks just to try to understand how low Clinton fans were willing to go as they fought their hopeless fight. On balance I'd say they did go low in allying themselves with McCain and the Republicans on so many issues in hopes that there were a lot of stupid voters in NC and Indiana, but like everything else the Clinton campaign did since the beginning, it was just reruns of trash we've seen in Republican campaigns since Nixon. I really tried to convince myself to support Clinton after Edwards dropped out; I didn't want to be an Obama supporter: I thought he was too young and inexperienced. But every step the Clintons took proved that SHE was the one who was timid and cautious. She could have been a courageous and dynamic leader in the Senate for New York and Democrats, but she has played it safe every step since her husband was impeached ten years ago. I wanted her to show me how she'd risen above all of her past failings, but all she did was repeat them.

    So, I'm glad it's over and I'm glad Obama won. And I'm glad I won't need to drop in here to see what the lunatics who supported Clinton the past few months are thinking. I hope Big Tent and all of them are gracious enough, now that they've lost fair-and-square, to get out of the way and let Obama take the lead. I don't expect it. Like the Clintons, it seems they are too selfish. But I hope I'm wrong. Maybe they will drop their ridiculous campaign to break the DNC rules about Florida and Michigan. Maybe in the next few days they will formally announce that they are doing the honorable thing and retiring from the race. Maybe Hillary and Bill and all of their supporters will start to sound like gracious losers in voicing their support for Obama whether they like him or not (fwiw--I'm not sure I like him, but I had to make that decision a long time ago when Edwards dropped out). Maybe Big Tent and all the Hillary supporters will start to show that they stand for something bigger than themselves and their lost candidate.

    Collect your check and go home. (5.00 / 1) (#365)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:36:05 AM EST
    Obama is the one who ran a dirty, racially polarizing campaign. Saying the opposite will not c help bring the party together. What's needed from Obama is some humility. I expect none---in fact, I expect him to pointedly tell the Clinton's to get lost and not campaign for him; consequently I expect him to lose badly in November, just as the demographics of the primaries suggest.

    Neal B...another uniter (5.00 / 1) (#371)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:39:32 AM EST
    Between you and Donna you can have it.  Good luck.  

    What happened since April 24 (none / 0) (#372)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:40:26 AM EST
    ...to the outcome of the process, whatever it may be. I like Hillary. I like Barack. Either of them will beat McCain and either of them will be better than any President in my lifetime. Either way, we win.

    I guess you weren't sincere then.  


    The DNC (none / 0) (#378)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:44:28 AM EST
    rules belong to the new Democratic Party, under the steady hands of Pelosi, Dean, and Brazille.  I was a 30-year Democratic until Dean tried to force Hillary out of the race right before the PA primary.  I've never seen a back-door move quite like that one.  It failed, but I saw the Democratic Party "leaders" for what they were:  Power grabbers.

    So I resigned right then.

    Therefore, whatever you guys do about FL and MI...totally on your heads.

    I'm not going to stay with a party that disenfranches voters, runs around misstating the party rules to the public to do a candidate in through PR moves, goes on TV and says that Latinos aren't really all that important anymore, and pretends to be "objective" when obviously for a candidate.  That's just plain ole' fashioned political dishonesty.

    So the Democratic Party has devolved into a party that thinks it's "smart" to hold votes and deny a win to someone.

    That's old-style, old-fashioned dirty politics.

    Too bad your party is headed that direction, but a lot of us are off the bus.

    So it's really none of our business at this point.


    Hillary ran a tough race (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by aequitas on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:54:21 AM EST
    Obama will probably pay her debt off and ask that the results of Florida and Michigan be included - as is.  

    Can't we all get along now?

    Getting along leads to nowhere (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:55:54 AM EST
    You see, we all united cause we hated Bush.  But, we have different world views and different ideas about how to change things.  So, getting along is not the point.  It's about struggle.  

    I'm not sure sarcasm is the way to win votes (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:56:32 AM EST
    I swear I'm going to start teaching (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:10:37 AM EST
    Unity 101 classes  ;)

    how not to be an obnoxious a**hole (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Nasarius on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:15:00 AM EST
    It's direly needed.

    After Lake County? (5.00 / 15) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:59:08 AM EST
    After the Kantor dirty trick? After the voter suppression dirty trick?  Do the Obama supporters really think the Clinton supporters will just roll over and "get along" for the "good of the party?"  

    Well, guess what?  Some of us think it's better for the long-term good of the party if we DON'T get along.

    Unity doesn't mean destroying the last Democratic President as a racist.  And I could go on, but I'm tired.

    But yeah, I'm another one who will sit this one out or vote green.  And don't scare me with Roe.  I'm menopausal and have no kids.  I'd rather let the Obama youth fight for reproductive rights all over again, than let this tainted campaign cycle result in a win.


    I'm right there with ya on Roe (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:07:23 AM EST
    let the "New Dem Party" fight those fights. Maybe they'll appreciate what they have more.

    I have to laugh at the roll over and unite calls. Did it not occur to them that her supporters might just be as strong as she is? Many of us picked her for reasons, and that is one of them  ;)


    No doubt (5.00 / 10) (#59)
    by daria g on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:25:00 AM EST
    Unity doesn't mean destroying the last Democratic President as a racist.

    Absolutely inexcusable. A terrible injustice.. and poison for all Democrats IMHO.


    Yep (5.00 / 8) (#95)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:43:48 AM EST
    Unity doesn't mean destroying the last Democratic President as a racist.  And I could go on, but I'm tired.

    Or painting anyone who questions Obama as a candidate, even if it's just to find out more about him, as a racist too. I am so bloody tired of that game.


    I love you people (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:11:06 AM EST
    Seriously.  It's so good to know I'm not alone, stewing over here in my mad-as-hell juices over what's been done to the DNC/FL & MI/etc.

    No way, no how would I vote for Obama.  And I'm prepared to eat a lot of grief from folks calling me a traitor or worse...hell, I've been called unAmerican by the Bush folks for years, how is this any different.


    You are not alone (5.00 / 4) (#167)
    by dissenter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:24:50 AM EST
    They can call me whatever they want. They willhear my voice to when I vote for John McCain in the fall.

    I can't believe that I am leaving for afghanistan for the third time next week to help secure  a nation only to watch my own political party elect a man who hangs out with domestic terrorists, religious racists and a cast of amateur foreign policy experts. And to make it worse, I am called names by his supporters.



    Be safe, dissenter (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by BGP on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:46:20 AM EST
    Be safe

    Dissenter (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:40:22 AM EST
    Stay safe and strong, because unfortunately, either way, it looks like this won't be your last go-round over there.

    If you vote for McCain (1.00 / 4) (#230)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:42:41 AM EST
    I sure hope you enjoy your many many more tours of duty as the war never ends.

    Be safe.


    Tell me ... (5.00 / 5) (#252)
    by Inky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:14:12 AM EST
    Exactly which wars will Obama end? First off, the war in Iraq is not a war, but an occupation -- and that occupation will continue throughout any possible Obama presidency, with Blackwater troops still in tow. And then there is Afghanistan, which Obama, even more than McCain or Clinton, thinks that we can "win" militarily once we stop trying to "win" the "war" in Iraq.

    I have to admit that I preferred Clinton to Obama because of her domestic policy, rather than her foreign policy. And there's no way in the world that I would vote for McCain in the GE (I'm leaning towards McKinney at this point). But there's no way in hell that I'm going to vote for the candidate who promises to model his foreign policy on those of JFK, Reagan, and Bush Sr.


    funny eh? (5.00 / 1) (#293)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:45:33 AM EST
    Contras, mad expat Cubans, Missile Crisis, Gulf War I, Mujahideen, excalating Vietnam.

    They had more continuity with Bush II than most leftwingers admit.


    You Represent All That Turns People Off (5.00 / 1) (#284)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:38:42 AM EST
    on Obama.  

    Lilybart you are (5.00 / 1) (#393)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:51:47 AM EST
    the epitome of what is wrong with the party.  Your comment is the most disgusting thing I have ever seen on this site.

    You are the reason...... (none / 0) (#268)
    by michitucky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:25:45 AM EST
    Dems are accused of not supporting the troops.  

    Me personally? (none / 0) (#347)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:28:06 AM EST
    Wow, I am powerful.

    I support sending the troops on missions that make sense, have a plan and are ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

    And I support health care, benefits like college and decent pay.

    What else is there?


    Stay Safe dissenter (none / 0) (#221)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:33:43 AM EST
    Hope you will be able to keep in touch and let us know how you are doing.

    May you be safe (none / 0) (#295)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:47:17 AM EST
    over there and able to come home to stay soon!

    Oh, Teresa you are angry, as am I. (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:04:53 AM EST
    Regarding Roe v Wade: I've exercised my right to an abortion, and I don't expect to need another. Still, I would hate to see it go. Some young Hillary (and Obama) supporters will no doubt need the right to choose at some point in their lives.  

    That being said, maybe your gamble is one worth taking.


    I'm tired (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:36:35 AM EST
    of the Roe argument. The party really doesn't care about that issue so why should I? If they are knowingly going to nominate a candidate who is sure to lose against McCain who is pro life then it obviously isn't that big of an issue to them.

    vote for Obama anyway... (none / 0) (#125)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:13:32 AM EST
    since he's unelectable -- that way, when McCain screws up the country, you can say it wasn't your fault.

    I had a bumper sticker (none / 0) (#127)
    by themomcat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:20:34 AM EST
    a long time ago that said, "Don't blame me. I voted for McGovern." LOL

    Good grief! (5.00 / 9) (#13)
    by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:59:37 AM EST
    (sorry for the partial cross post) But we really need to stop the insanity stop buying into the new media narrative -- Hillary did not have to win NC; Obama had to win IN -- that was the tie breaker. He didn't do it. He still, outspending her 3-1 and with whatever funky stuff was going on in Lake County, could not close the deal. Simply put: tonight nothing. nada. zip. They are still in a DEAD HEAT. It is no more possible today for Obama to get to the 2209 delegates he needs to win the nomination then it was yesterday. If anything, this new media narrative is obscuring the fact that the demographics of today's results pretty much put the nail in the coffin for any chances of an Obama win in the GE.  We all need to take a step back, get a good night's sleep, and remember that. Tomorrow is another day.

    You're right (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:06:04 AM EST
    CNN was just soooooo bad tonight. It was the media beating folks are responding to -- they managed to make us feel like a victory is a loss. Well it wasn't. O was supposed to win Indiana and he failed. O was supposed to win NC by 30 points and he failed. We won tonight but we also watched the media lie and saw, in Lake County, what many of us believe has been happening all along. I am outraged that after tonight Obama even has a remote chance of EVER becoming a nominee. He should be stripped of his Senatorship.

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:09:34 AM EST
    tonight was a battle -- not the war. And tonight's battle was, at worse, a draw. And mark my words, no matter how dark it gets before dawn -- by June, Obama will concede the war to Hillary -- you heard it hear first.

    can you please pass (1.00 / 4) (#73)
    by onemanrules on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:32:17 AM EST
    the crack pipe. It might be a delegate wash but she is way behind in delegates and over half the remaining pledged delegates came off the board tonight. Also she lost by about 217,000 popular votes tonight. There goes her "we should consider the popular vote" she is losing that now even counting Florida and Michigan. Also she is still behind by over 100 pledged delegates even if you count Florida and Michigan as voted and Obama wasn't even on the ballot. The he should drop out because Indiana was the "tie-breaker" is just plain stupid. Let's argue the point then that HRC said North Carolina was a "game changer". I'm sorry to tell you, but the primary is over. Wait a minute, I just heard the Giants are going to conced the super bowl to the patriots.

    Accuse me of smoking crack again (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:40:59 AM EST
    I don't know who or what you are, but I'm not standing for that -- even in jest.
    Second of all -- I didn't say he should drop out -- I said this was one battle, not the war.
    Third of all -- Obama called IN the "tie-breaker" -- so go tell him how stupid that was.
    Fourth of all -- it ain't over til its over. And we have a long way to go to know the final popular vote tally. Especially after she cleans his clock in WV & KY.
    Finally, your analogy is exactly backwards -- Obama is the Patriots in this scenario.

    He shouldn't drop out because he lost IN (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:15:04 AM EST
    He should drop out because he can't win the GE.  Also because he's not only split the Party clean down the middle, but he's getting ready to take down a whole bunch of local and Congressional candidates along with him.

    yep. we all need to be aware and (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by kangeroo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:44:25 AM EST
    dismissive of OFB attempts to demoralize us.  it's a manufactured narrative and should be all too familiar to us by now to fall for it.  resist and PUSH BACK, folks!

    I made a post in an earlier section (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Rhouse on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:20:40 AM EST
    about how this talk of Obama paying "Hillary debts" is really just another way to try and stop her.  It's a way to stop people from contributing, to try and dry up her money source and people source.  And it really bugs me to think that people believe his campaign is so flushed with money that he can buy her off, and I for one don't think so - ain't gonna happen.

    Funny thing is, it energizes her (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:34:15 AM EST
    supporters. If they get a hint that she needs money, they DIG DEEP for it. If you read through her blog, it's amazing what they will do to give her any amount (skip lunch, etc).  They are very supportive over on her blog, and not just for her, but for each other.

    It may be meant well... (none / 0) (#124)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:13:27 AM EST
    ... but it reeks of condescension. We don't need your money.

    I don't get your comment (none / 0) (#171)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:30:10 AM EST
    how does what I said reek of condescension?

    I was just talking about her support base. Ya know, the ones that are solidly behind her and donating.


    No (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Nadai on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:41:35 AM EST
    But thanks for asking.

    Isn't that just so sweet? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:38:32 AM EST
    Obama will be the big man and agree to seating Florida and Michigan, once he's decided that it doesn't matter to his victory.  What a guy.  

    It's so condescending... (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by OrangeFur on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:49:28 AM EST
    Letting them count only after they don't matter is the same as not letting them count at all.

    It might be too late to mollify Florida and Michigan in this regard.


    no (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:51:27 AM EST
    Can't we all get along now?

    Obama would have to leave the race - and even then, there are some apologies he'd have to make - before I could get along with him.

    He has made himself into an enemy of what I hold dear. Why should I want to get along with that?


    no (none / 0) (#5)
    by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:56:07 AM EST
    People say Obama is not a real Democrat, (1.00 / 10) (#11)
    by halstoon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:58:51 AM EST
    that he can't win, he won't win, he shouldn't win, they won't vote for him, blah blah blah, but it's Obama supporters who are trolls.

    Did you ever think that if you weren't so hateful towards him we might not tease you about losing?

    I hope Barack chooses Clinton as his VP just so you guys will know that we really don't hate you; it's you who hate us.

    when we actually lose (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:00:42 AM EST
    you can tease us -- Hillary won IN and Obama had to outspend her 3-1 to keep NC in his column.

    Well...it's about tone (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:00:49 AM EST
    it's not hate.  We are considering you tone.  Michelle said it really well.  You see, it has nothing to do that he and you think that we would just join the march to unity without concern with the tone.  

    I was never (5.00 / 12) (#24)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:03:40 AM EST
    hateful toward Obama at DailyKOS.  But I got gang-troll rated for saying anything good about Clinton.  And then auto-warned because of it.

    I left before the "strike".  It became an awful place because of the Obama supporters. And it will never be a place I'll go again.  And I'll never want much to do with any Obama supporter again because of the rude, tainted ones and because of the dirty tricks (e.g. Kantor, "voter suppression")  And the Democratic Party will never be a place I'll go again for any consistency on principle.  I'm not a Democrat, anymore.  Ever again.  And I've been a reliable Democrat for the last 25 years.

    Sorry, but it's on your side to fix this.  It has little to do with us.


    I'll never go back to Kos (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:26:48 AM EST
    It's such a hate filled place.  There's way too much negativity and anger there.  My party is leaving me.  I'm just not like those nasty, mean, angry, hate filled people.  

    I don't know what I will do but I know that I will never vote for Obama.  I just don't trust him and he's an elitist,  talker, not-very-nice, guy.  I wouldn't want to spend an evening with him. He doesn't seem to have any sense of fun or humor.  What a stuffed shirt bore.  Why would I want to spend 4 years with him as my President when I couldn't stand to have a beer with the man.  Uck.  I can't vote for him.  NO WAY.  


    Your party is not leaving you. (none / 0) (#233)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:45:00 AM EST
    Don't extrapolate one blog into a whole party of people!  Just as Talk Left doesn't represent the party, neither does Kos. Blogs are self-selecting clubs that only represent themselves.

    Been a reliable Dem for 48 years (5.00 / 10) (#172)
    by andrys on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:35:24 AM EST
    ... which means I am part of what Brazile calls the "old" party, which is now on its way 'out' -- but most of us apparently ancient ones were reliable in that we were Democrats due to our principles rather than following some "cool" rock star who promised such earthshaking concepts as "Change" and "Hope" stirring "Belief" and "Faith" with no need for details (and I don't mean "Go to His website ... to see what his staff put together.  It actually reminds me of Scientology.

      Obama is not about 'party' -- he is about "my movement"
    and, as mentioned before, analyses have shown that his new young ones have not shown much interest in the lower ticket.  It's more like dialing American Idol for The One (this season).

      With the caucus wins in Washington and in Texas showing how unrepresentative they are vs the primaries held in the same states and causing so much of the 'delegate' lead; the way Obama has used his rallies to villify Clinton herself (railing against "what she did to me" and using false accusations about a leaked photo or a 60-Minutes 8-point defense she made of him but describing it as "She didn't defend me!,"  I have no interest whatsoever in voting for him, since he lies daily and encourages bad feelings toward Clinton by his followers.  And we see those results on forums every day.

      He actually convinces his young and older supporters into thinking he takes money only or mainly from the Public (not true), makes up asininely false accusations about her policies when he sends out regular mailers and talks about his "New Politics" (which seem far worse than the "Old Politics" but are dressed up in smooth glib sounds).  

      He uses his grandmother, equating her to Wright's worst, to save himself.  He denies he ever heard Wright saying certain things (some might consider understandable complaints) when he writes about those VERY things said by Wright (and admired) in "Dreams of my Father."    He will toss anyone to get ahead, while forever accusing Clinton of the same.

      I'm just fed up with the way Dean/Pelosi/Brazile have supported his candidacy by trying to push Clinton off since before Ohio and I will not support that in any way.  

      Old or not, pooh-pooh'd by Brazile, who made the racist accusations of Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" KNOWING he meant the Iraq War voting record but making sure her followers thought he meant Obama's "campaign" (this was evil but very successful), others as ancient as I can use our blogs and start being more assertive about making certain things clearer about how wrong the DNC leaders are when they say we will of course support "the party" in Nov.

      Not when the party leaders have acted in this way.  And not when Obama spent his candidacy attacking the last successful Democratic administration we've had, just because his opponent was a part of it.  And his supporters talk about "Party" ?

      I'll vote the lower ticket to help in blocking any negative action by McCain.  But I've not seen all the newly elected Dems 2 years ago doing anything to change things at all, in connection with our concerns when electing them.

      Obama did KILL, for the most part, Class Action Suits by consumers, Refused to cap consumer credit-card interest at 30% and voted for the Cheney energy bill.  Clinton voted the other way on all of these.  His only Iraq vote that differed from Hillary's was to confirm General Casey's appointment.  The man is masquerading.  He has been  praised by credit card and nuclear energy lobbyists for being "reasonable" and his history will show why.


    Ah (5.00 / 11) (#30)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:08:05 AM EST
    even more unity talk!

    You'd rather taunt Clinton supporters endlessly and go on and on about how right you are than actually behave like an adult and try to unify the party.  How about if you make another speech about how nothing is more important than victory in November, right before you make another classless comment to alienate the very people you should be reaching out to.


    And BTW (5.00 / 9) (#36)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:10:36 AM EST
    You said:
    Did you ever think that if you weren't so hateful towards him we might not tease you about losing?

    No, actually I think if you weren't such poor winners you wouldn't tease us about losing.

    I always thought that poor winners were always Republicans.  Guess not.

    And what your poor winnership does is just help me dig in deeper.  I hope that makes you happy.


    I'll tell you like I told somebody else. (1.00 / 4) (#51)
    by halstoon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:20:00 AM EST
    If you give me that much power over you, it only encourages me.

    Basing your vote on the insane rants of an online alias is honestly about as absurd as I can imagine. But by all means, decide who you'll vote for based on your contempt for me and people like me.

    The GOP would love that.


    That's the Unity Spirit! (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:24:12 AM EST
    Thanks for reminding me.

    one of the major problems(among many) is (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:14:08 AM EST
    most of the obama supporters despise hillary and her supporters. don't deny it. it is true. we see it over and over and over.

    You could have been heard (5.00 / 6) (#86)
    by Nadai on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:39:42 AM EST
    If the sane Obama supporters had relentlessly smacked down/troll-rated the crazies right from the start, you'd have shut them up.  That is, if there really were so many more of you than them.  But you either didn't or couldn't.

    I'm sorry, I don't mean you personally any insult; you seem like a nice guy.  But even the sane Obama supporters who did nothing to rein in the others - well, omission is as good as commission in the end.


    Dalton (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by janarchy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:40:46 AM EST
    In all seriousness, if more Obama supporters were like you, then there would not be this problem. I know there wouldn't be with me. There's nothing wrong with supporting another candidate as long as you can discuss it rationally and thoughtfully and/or give a logical explanation why that goes behind "he inspires me" or "he will bring change" or "well, he's not Hillary Clinton".

    I can't even talk to my best friend anymore because she's a kool-aid drinking Obama supporter who started with me because she saw I had gotten email from the Clinton campaign and went ballistic. And her reason for supporting Obama? Because he's from Chicago (as is she) and because HRC went to a rival HS to hers (albeit in different time periods).


    Please (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:08:34 AM EST
    Don't feed this troll.

    shrug (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by moll on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:50:03 AM EST
    I hope Barack chooses Clinton as his VP just so you guys will know that we really don't hate you; it's you who hate us.

    Perhaps Obama's supporters do not hate Clinton's supporters...but they act in ways that make all decent people hate them. Don't ask Hillary to be VP; instead, try apologizing for the crude, misogynistic attacks, the slanders against Bill Clinton's Presidency, the insulting and gratuitous accusations of racism, the insults aimed at traditional Democratic constituencies, and the continued and repeated tearing down of the Democratic party itself. Maybe then we'll care.

    I don't care if you tease me about losing. You're not really in the position of superiority you think you are. The corruption of the DNC is not really something to gloat over, and that - not Obama's nonexistent excellent qualities - is the real reason he's likely to be the nominee.


    I do hate Obama (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:47:51 AM EST

    They heart you. (1.00 / 2) (#66)
    by halstoon on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:28:44 AM EST
    They hate me. Which of us will influence their vote more?

    IMO, that either of us would affect their votes is just ridiculous.

    That's my point here. To demonstrate how blogs and the people who write on them should not affect your vote. If you allow it, then I think you're weak-minded and kind of a sheep.

    Some lambs get led to slaughter. Some get led to pasture. The GOP counts on the ones who go to slaughter to win elections. It's called vote suppression, and for all you guys know that is exactly what I want.

    Don't let me decide for you. Don't claim you won't support Barack b/c you don't like people like me. When you tell me I've influenced your vote, it feeds my ego.

    This is what the GOP does. I think it's time Democrats stoppped letting them get away with it.


    Hate you? (5.00 / 9) (#75)
    by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:33:35 AM EST
    Bless your heart, honey, but we don't think about you one way or the other.

    Molly Flashback (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by CoralGables on Wed May 07, 2008 at 05:30:42 AM EST
    I see a little "Molly Ivins speak" seeping through in Angie's post. It would have been nice to read what Molly had to say about this election.

    Ivins speaks (none / 0) (#354)
    by dmk47 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:30:39 AM EST
    Oddly enough, Ivins did weigh in on this election.

    I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

    Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her....

    ---Molly Ivins, Jan. 20, 2006

    give it a rest (5.00 / 6) (#76)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:34:00 AM EST
    Here's the deal. Obama can't win the general no matter what. No matter what you say, no matter what I say. It's just the facts. The demographics says it all. Obama will have Brazil's new democratic party (eggheads and AA's as Bugala put it), and he will throw the old coalition under the bus with his grandmother and with Wright. So just give it a rest.

    There's one candidate who has a fighting chance in the general. That's Clinton. Just look at the numbers.


    Dandytiger, Obama threw his grandfather (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:53:45 AM EST
    under the bus (with his grandmother) in his NC victory speech tonight. I wrote about it earlier upstream/down, someplace hereabouts.

    You've said it all................ (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by SueBonnetSue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:36:04 AM EST
    Obama can't win and he won't win.  Then AA's will go nuts and race will be the biggest issue in the US for many years to come.  That makes me beyond sad.  It's horrible.  Just when most Americans do not care about race, it will be in their faces 24/7 for many years to come.  It will be so polarizing for our country.  

    On the other hand, it doesn't kill me to think of McCain as President.  He's not that far right and he's good at building consensus on the Hill.  He does get a lot of stuff done.  He'll be good at protecting the country and understanding the military.  We could have done worse, like Huckabee or Thompson.  


    I don't hate you. (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:36:13 AM EST
    I don't know you. I reserve my hatred for people like George W. Bush, whose actions are criminal and treasonous.

    But I don't heart you, because you come here and fling poo all over the place like a three-year-old child.

    And no, Obama supporters - obnoxious or not - don't influence my vote. As far as I know, the nasty ones, like you, are all Rovian plants.

    I just have never liked Obama and I never will. He, himself, has lost my respect and my vote.


    Thank you for your sanity and your kindness (none / 0) (#132)
    by tree on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:23:44 AM EST
    It won't influence whether I do or don't vote for Obama this November- only Obama can influence that- but I do appreciate your attempts to bring a bit of cordiality and understanding to the table.

    I heart you. :-) (none / 0) (#50)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:19:02 AM EST
    me too (none / 0) (#53)
    by otherlisa on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:22:47 AM EST
    halstoon... (none / 0) (#79)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:35:22 AM EST
    this line of rhetoric is doomed to fail.  You cant successfully come here and try to bully Obama votes.  I'll support whoever is the nominee because McSleepy would be worse than either, but these tactics dont garner Obama any HRC votes.

    I think we should start assuming (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by madamab on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:39:26 AM EST
    that halstoon is on McCain's payroll.

    I don't think we should give him that much credit (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Nadai on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:41:07 AM EST
    If he his... (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:42:06 AM EST
    I hope he isnt expecting a decent retirement plan.

    Video: Obama's victory speech gaffe (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:36:49 AM EST
    [This was deleted on an earlier thread, probably OT.]

    In his NC victory speech Obama flat-out FLUBBED a very intimate and pivotal detail of his own personal narrative/life history.

    While waxing patriotic about the American dream, the land of opportunity, his family's gratitude and service to the country, he paused in the middle of saying: "the flag draped over my ...father's coffin". Well, it would appear that Obama is having another one of his "Dreams of My Father".

    His grandfather was the war veteran who was in that flag-draped coffin. That's a pretty significant detail to misremember, mis-speak, and mis-attribute. Why couldn't he keep that story straight? Incidentally, transcripts of the speech don't reflect Obama's error; they report him saying "grandfather". IMO, Obama faltered because he doesn't truly subscribe to all that hokum about all those all-American values and sentiments. Ergo, he couldn't get it to spin out of his mouth the right way.

    See the full VIDEO here; he blows the line at 19:03.

    On a human level, it's so sad that, once again, Obama unwittingly does a disservice to those grandparents who raised him.

    [Cross-posted in similar form at No Quarter, Confluence.]

    a little less glee.... (none / 0) (#118)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:06:22 AM EST
    about Obama's vulnerabilities would be appropriate at this point.

    We all know that he's unelectable, and that this kind of thing can and will be used against him by the GOP, but we're not the kind of people that would use it.  


    That horse (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by themomcat on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:10:06 AM EST
    has already left the barn. ;-)

    p lukasiak, I haven't even started (none / 0) (#145)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:48:36 AM EST
    with the "glee" yet. Do you honestly think I am capable of uncovering any Obama vulnerabilities that the GOP won't get to - all on their own in the GE?

    Do you think that every single GOP operative missed the fact that Obama mis-attributed his American grandfather's war veteran status to his Kenyan father? Don't you think Karl Rove noticed that blank-eyed, long-ass, dead-air, pause Obama took before he 'threw his grandfather under the bus, along with'....?

    That's how the McCain Campaign is sizing up the way Obama 'disrespects' war heroes like his grandfather and, oh yes, McCain.


    What was so odd about it was that (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by andrys on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:18:02 AM EST
    ... that he paused, looking up, either to try to remember or to make out what the teleprompter said.  His hesitation came at "the flag draped over my . . .
      [ long pause while looking up ]
    father's coffin"

        Why couldn't he remember something like that?

    I get the feeling he was not close to ANY of them (his mother, grandmother, and grandfather) though forever seeking his absent father.  From his first book ('Dreams...') there are such mixed feelings toward his mother and what he felt were her people and not his.


    Welll he DID throw grandpa under the bus. (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by BrandingIron on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:56:46 AM EST

    In the first book of his.  While the words that he wrote painted the poor man (Mr. Dunham) as a very kind and wonderfully generous and accepting man, Obama had to stick his own racially charged suspicion on anything they did for him.

    I wonder when the media is going to latch on to his first book and actually READ it.  I want everyone to know what Hussein Obama (his paternal Kenyan grandfather, the one he's named after) said about white people (he disapproved of Barack Sr.'s marriage to Stanley Anne because he didn't want "Obama blood tainted by a white woman"), something that Obama doesn't blink an eye towards, but then makes a huge deal about a black woman wearing blue eye contacts.

    For G-d's sake, why isn't this common knowledge?  It's Obama's own "blue eyed devils" moment.


    Maybe he thinks of his (none / 0) (#214)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:16:52 AM EST
    grandfather as his father?

    Anyway, the Stars/Stripes would not be draped over his father's coffin.


    I'd have to go with that. (none / 0) (#255)
    by Fabian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:16:07 AM EST
    It still contradicts his "raised by a single parent" meme though.

    The truth of the matter is that he was raised mostly by his grand parents.  There are plenty of kids raised by their grands, either by tragedy(my friend lost her mother to cancer and her father to suicide) or because their parents were unwilling or incompetent.  It's not nearly as universal an experience as the single parent experience, so its a less valuable meme for a political campaign.

    I'm not by nature a political wonk, but I find cold pragmatism keeps me a safe distance from the emotional extremes.


    Wow--I thought he meant the Kenyan flag was (none / 0) (#405)
    by jawbone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:58:55 AM EST
    draped on his own father's coffin when he was buried in Kenya.

    I had been dipping in and out of his speech and caught that phrase loud and clear. Did a double take, wondered if he meant his father Obama or Michelle's father. Didn't think of grandfather!  

    It was weird.

    This will probably make it into a 15 second ad from the R's in the general.


    good nite/morning (none / 0) (#2)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:54:38 AM EST
    it's almost 2am here in tx. just saw the brazille begala video.  notta lot to see there.  beware of huff post.  u would think that bho just won the GE.


    Clark reportedly called Clinton (none / 0) (#40)
    by magster on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:14:43 AM EST
    and urged her to bail.

    While this is AmericaBlog reporting, they do have a connection with Clark

    I don't believe it for a second (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by angie on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:25:28 AM EST
    and neither should anyone else.

    nope, didn't happen... it's called (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by DandyTIger on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:29:28 AM EST
    propaganda. Or spin if you will. It's a lovely effort by the usual suspects.

    To quote Tori Amos.... (none / 0) (#154)
    by lansing quaker on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:01:19 AM EST
    And I'm so sad
    like a good book I can't put this
    day back
    a sorta fairytale with you...

    hoooo oooh.


    Here's an article (none / 0) (#208)
    by Melchizedek on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:07:16 AM EST
    about McCain's view of Supreme Court Justices.
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/07/mccain_vows_court_appointees_will_know_limits_ of_power/

    Vote however you like, but at least consider whether Obama would appoint justices like McCain-- consider whether taking away our daughters' right to choose is worth teaching the Obama campaign a "lesson." I'm not being snarky-- I'm honestly begging the folks here to reconsider. I want my daughter to have a choice about abortion, and I'm scared enough about it to support Hillary or Obama no matter what Axelrod or McAuliffe or Ferraro or Jay-Z or whoever the hell else has made questionable comments has said.

    We don't really know (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by zfran on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:25:36 AM EST
    what Sen. Obama will do or won't do. That's the problem. We really don't know him. He certainly has not been the person he wants the rest of us to think he is. By the way, is anyone else turned off by not only his sing-song delivery of speeches (one he turns on and off-just like Bush's Texas accent), but he doesn't address the people eye to eye when he's reading a speech. Can't get blue-collar workers and above age 45's without at least trying to look them in the eye.
    Perhaps it's me, but Sen Clinton speeches are from notes and she looks at "us" when she delivers.I just contributed to her campaign...she won last night. He was expected to win No. Carolina..he didn't "blow" her out of the water!!

    me too! (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:35:38 AM EST
    I don't listen to him.  His hems and haws and his choice of words that imply there's something coming  (but it never does) turn me off.  I routinely mute Bush now--his dad was a blue ribbon orator (it wouldn't be prudent!) in comparison.  Can't quite recall what Bill sounded like, but he had the policies.  However, Hillary is interesting and informative, a  pleasure to listen to.

    This (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:27:39 AM EST
    argument won't help Obama win the general election. It's been used time and again and failed time and again.

    Look, if the DNC is going to put up a knowingly unelectable candidate against McCain who is pro life then they really don't care about the issue of judges.

    The supreme court argument won't sway the people Obama needs to sway-working class whites.


    At least the republicans (5.00 / 3) (#219)
    by Serene1 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:32:11 AM EST
    as a party respect their flock and their elders. They would never allow a rookie to tarnish the image of any of their president even Bush Jr.

    Obama was given a free hand to Tarnish Bill Clinton's record and not a Democrat protested against it. With a party which doesn't care about its own members, how can one be confident that this party will care for the citizens.

    Also note, if the house and senate majority are Demcrats then McCain or Obama really does not matter.


    He tarnished Bill's record? (none / 0) (#236)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:49:39 AM EST

    He's (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:51:00 AM EST
    repeatedly trashed the Clintons.

    Yes (none / 0) (#250)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:09:40 AM EST

    Now.  In order to vote for Obamam I have to accept his belief that Clinton was a bad president.

    Of course I won't be doing that.


    WORM (none / 0) (#274)
    by Fabian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:28:36 AM EST
    was that Clinton was just as good a President as either Bush - but not as good as Reagan.

    Now if you look at it just. the. right. way. it could possibly be considered a compliment.

    Ah, ferget it.  GWB - WPE?  Bush the Elder, who got to reign over the inevitable GOP recession?  


    duh! yeah! he tarnished bill's record. (none / 0) (#301)
    by hellothere on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:53:36 AM EST
    Obama thought Roberts (5.00 / 2) (#222)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:35:27 AM EST
    was an OK guy, until somebody took him aside and schooled him.  I don't trust his judgment.  I'm not ready to jump on that Unity Pony.

    If we don't vote for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:36:10 AM EST
    It's Obama's fault and the DNC's fault that these judges will be appointed.

    What the DNC has to do is nominate a candidate that can be widely voted for, not one with surrogates like Donna Brazille who believe they don't even need or want our votes.

    The fault for anything that goes wrong in a McCain presidency is on the DNC.  It was our election to lose, and we've lost it.


    Pro-choice (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:41:04 AM EST
    here too, but I truly expect that to wind up as a state-by-state issue,  Funny, the 'states rights' thing caused a civil war and the Dixiecrat trouble, but it may be the last refuge for personal freedon (abortion, gay marriage, etc.)

    Roe v Wade (5.00 / 3) (#240)
    by cmugirl on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:52:40 AM EST
    Never gonna get rid of it.  Bush had two appointees and a case in South Dakota primed to go, but you don't even hear Republicans talking about it.

    It's not going anywhere. All the Republicans need to do is print "Roe" on a flyer and they instantly make millions.  Why give up that wedge / money making issue?

    As for Obama, I don't trust what kinds of judges HE would appoint. At least if I vote Dem down ticket, there's a CHANCE that they could stop the crazy McCain appointees (although, with the spineless group that's in there now [I'm looking at you Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Claire McKaskill, and John Kerry}, I don't expect them to stand up to McCain any better than they stood up to Bush).


    If Obama Wants Me To Vote For Him (5.00 / 4) (#231)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:43:19 AM EST
    because of SCOTUS, he better tell me what kind of justices he will appoint. So far his statements regarding choice give me no confidence that he will stand firm on this issue.  

    I'm very much affected by Roe v Wade (5.00 / 4) (#232)
    by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:43:34 AM EST
    ...I'm still technically a youth voter and a woman but (1) as someone pointed out earlier if the party cared about Roe v Wade they wouldn't nominate a guy that can't win (2) Obama would've voted for Roberts he's no women's libber and he and his fanbase have repeatedly shown it (3) I will not have my vote held hostage.

    The DNC has allowed the most atrocious sexist campaign by Obama, his supporters, and the media to continue and flourish against the first viable female candidate in history without so much as a word. They have stood by in silence and at other times encouraged it. No, if women and you daughters are to ever have any respect or rights in this country we must NOT BEND to these tactics. We are in this place because Women and so-called progressive men have REFUSED to fight for women's equality. Don't give me a song now about women's rights with the way the party has behaved. It's clear where they stand.


    Even I was a bit snowed by Roberts (none / 0) (#239)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:51:07 AM EST
    He didn't seem nutty like Alito obviously was.

    We who support him will make it clear that judges are a deal-breaker.


    And you think it will matter? (5.00 / 2) (#334)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:16:24 AM EST
    If Obama is elected, you really think that what he said during the campaign would make any difference? If he decides that life begins at conception after the inauguration, you'll be looking up at the chassis with his grandmother.

    no problem voting for McCain (none / 0) (#373)
    by Josey on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:41:28 AM EST
    he'll have a Dem Congress to keep him in check.
    Dem senators can reject or approve his Supreme Court nominees.

    Not "tiresome", but "elitist" (none / 0) (#215)
    by Fabian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:21:46 AM EST
    After all, that's the worst thing you can call a democrat.

    Thank the Right Wing Noise Machine for that.  If people are going to use the WWNM's anti-Hillary memes, they might as well buy into all of it - elitism, Reagan worship, the works.

    well (none / 0) (#247)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:07:27 AM EST
    I had hoped we would turn a corner last night and I am afraid we did.
    I am still with Hillary.  I still think she is the only one who can beat McCain and I will support anything she does to win but it became much harder last night.
    it was bad.

    Last night I agreed with you completely. (5.00 / 1) (#350)
    by MMW on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:29:10 AM EST
    Today - I am firmly resolved that I stand by all previous statements I've made. My support will not be held hostage and I will not belong to a party that will throw it's very core under the bus for the new shiny plastic object.

    Yah - go with the trendy class.

    Brazille, her candidate and her crew can ... .


    I donated to Hill this morning (none / 0) (#357)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:31:07 AM EST
    Oh yes, and (none / 0) (#363)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:33:38 AM EST
    a party that allows that crud that went on in Gary?

    Oh no, I'm not going to be affiliated with thuggish behavior and smart-alecky leaders who basically dismiss traditional Dems.

    They have hijacked the party.  She gloated about it.

    Message received.


    Heart-breaking! (none / 0) (#261)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:22:06 AM EST
    and it sounds as though things got very ugly in Gary.  What the heck?

    It's a Democratic Party I don't recognize when stuff like this happens.


    glimpse of a possible future? (none / 0) (#265)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:24:36 AM EST
    I just posted (none / 0) (#286)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:41:15 AM EST
    that.  I believe the Democratic Party folks will now fight against obvious changes to the system.  That's next.

    And it will be a lock-down for the AA candidates for quite some time to come.

    I hate to be politically cynical, but that's what I see happening.


    Well, after the convention (none / 0) (#251)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:10:44 AM EST
    I will either be working hard on getting Hillary elected or I will finally get some things done around the house that this primary has pushed to the back burner. Unity? Unity is keeping me as a Democrat after what the DNC has done. I keep sending their self addressed stamped envelopes back with a (Just like Amy Winehouse) No No No!

    Got myself some good (none / 0) (#254)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:15:32 AM EST
    rest and didn't wait to see what happened in Indiana.

    I am sure proud of Hillary's efforts in both states.  No candidate could have worked harder.  It's clear that he will be the nominee.

    I haven't any idea if he can bring the Democrats together, but I would love to see Hillary concede.  

    What a disappointment for so many of us who were so passionate on her behalf.  I think she's a fabulous candidate who just can't win the nomination at this point.

    No one who supports a candidate (5.00 / 2) (#256)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:16:54 AM EST
    Would love to see them concede.

    I just think (5.00 / 0) (#259)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:20:37 AM EST
    it's going to be painful watching the SDs jump to Obama daily.  

    Honestly (5.00 / 1) (#272)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:27:45 AM EST
    I get a wierd vibe.  Anyone who was passionate would, at the very least, still be in a grieving stage at this point.

    You've processed all this extremely well.

    Why there was no need to stay up and see if Clinton won Indiana.

    I would say anyone who slept well last night wasn't a very passionate supporter of senator Clinton's.  But that's just how I view things.  I've been up all night.

    This is as bad, if not worse than, Gore's defeat in 2000.


    worse than, Gore (5.00 / 1) (#276)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:29:13 AM EST
    at lease as painful.  thats for sure.
    I didnt sleep much.

    Very similar.. an empty suit uses (none / 0) (#331)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:13:39 AM EST
    dirty tricks and nasty campaigning to win, with the help of a pliant media.

    Sorry..... (none / 0) (#290)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:44:05 AM EST
    I am pretty pragmatic.  LOL*  I adore Hillary.  I've let my life go to ruin over here being so passionate.  

    But I do know a lost cause when I see one, and last night was it.  She has no argument now with the SDs.  That's all I was praying for....just a good solid reason to back her.

    But heck, maybe you guys are right.  She could score an upset in Oregon still yet.


    "Lost cause" (5.00 / 1) (#313)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:00:35 AM EST
    It's not the words a Clinton supporter would use.

    The vibe is wierd.


    Better get used to it, Edgar (none / 0) (#323)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:05:25 AM EST
    A lot of her backers will be saying pretty much the same thing in the next few days.

    If you hang in emotionally, that's OK.  But implying that people who see the writing on the wall aren't truly for her is pretty ridiculous.

    Last night we needed to lose small and win big.  We got the opposite.


    Well you've moved on then (none / 0) (#411)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:01:24 AM EST
    Good for you.

    Try not to be too condescending to those of us who haven't going forward lest we confuse you for someone who must have supported Obama all along.


    I'm pragmatic too (none / 0) (#303)
    by stillife on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:54:31 AM EST
    and I realize she's got an uphill climb.  But were people clamoring for Ted Kennedy to drop out in 1980?  Or Ronald Reagan in 1976?

    I'd say seating FL and MI is a good argument with the SD's.  Plus the fact that Obama clearly has problems with the white working-class vote.  

    Personally, I do expect that Obama will get the nom b/c the DNC is in the tank for him - and I expect him to be thoroughly trounced in November.

    Hillary is our last, best hope.  I won't give up until and unless she does.  


    amen. me either. (5.00 / 1) (#312)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:00:12 AM EST
    Her aides (none / 0) (#315)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:01:12 AM EST
    are already planting the seeds.

    Frankly, his win in NC last night pretty much sealed the deal for him.  Nobody is going to take the nomination away from him at this point, or it really would be a bit of a "back-door" deal.

    I suppose she'll stay in and let the rest of the primaries play out for the sake of voters who want to participate.


    Hmm... (none / 0) (#417)
    by dmk47 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:10:13 AM EST
    How did  76 and 80 work out for Reagan and Kennedy's parties, respectively?

    it will but (1.00 / 0) (#262)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:22:33 AM EST
    the Obama campaign is a ticking time bomb.  IMO.
    he could still implode and any time.

    Obama is a roll of the dice. He could win (1.00 / 0) (#310)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:59:38 AM EST
    big in November, but I see him turning in a McGovern level performance as possible, also.
    I don't think the election will be close.

    I think you are correct (5.00 / 1) (#314)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:00:49 AM EST
    He definitely has charisma, which means (5.00 / 1) (#321)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:04:41 AM EST
    rational analysis is not a big part of how voters will decide.
    I just think he's such an angry, pissy man---very much like W.----his temper and his ego can be played , IMO.  

    He's not only a roll of dice (5.00 / 3) (#320)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:04:05 AM EST
    In terms of electability.

    We are rolling the dice on competent government.


    LOl.. can't agree with you there. (5.00 / 1) (#324)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:05:40 AM EST
    He's an empty suit. I don't need a crystal ball to see that.

    Also, he is the favored candidate of the (5.00 / 1) (#326)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:07:27 AM EST
    energy industry. Expect nothing serious from Obama on global warming.

    We have a new troll (none / 0) (#333)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:15:51 AM EST
    no comments yet, but "MenopauseMeg"
    is handing out 1's now.
    It's probably ObamaMama back for a gracious victory lap. I give it 24 hrs, if it comments, before being banned.

    exactly (1.00 / 0) (#258)
    by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:19:56 AM EST
    Concession, my behind.

    My comments (none / 0) (#296)
    by Danbury on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:48:43 AM EST
    Are deleted. Why?  I just joined this site; I've not violated any of the rules...

    No explanation if I've been banned...


    Jeralyn is a great person (none / 0) (#397)
    by dem08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:55:11 AM EST
    and Talk Left is a great site.

    If a remark gets banned, you should be able to figure out why, and the reason is usually tone of remark, aptness, or redundancy.

    I say this as someone who has lost my religion as far as The Clinton's are concerned and do support Obama.

    And, occasionally, my remarks have been deleted here. I could figure out the reason.

     Jeralyn, and the other named people here, BTD, and Christopher Kelly, strike remarks that are offensive and not productive.

    I give Talk Left 98% on its openess and editing comments. It really is the best comment section of any blog I know.

    Daily Kos and Huffington, for example, I would give a grade of 50%; and even Captain Ed on the right I would give 35%.

    The Internet does take on a Mob Mentality where you find a place where you hear what you are saying and then echo each other.

    I respect the Tone here and I think you will find it easy to see why your remark was deleted if you think about it.


    Well it's finally over (none / 0) (#298)
    by thea2b on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:52:45 AM EST
    And it is time to go after St. John McSame. When Obama wins, Justice Kennedy will retire and the new president can nominate HRC as the new supreme court justice. Wont that get the rethugs depends in a twist! The good news is that this primary race has energized the Dem party and will crush and republican ticket all teh way down the ballot. A dem president and 50 new dem seats in congress anyone?? As far as saying "I will vote for McCain because HRC didn't win" I think as hurt as your feelings are now, when you start seeing the Real McCain there will be no way you can vote for this duplicitous scum.

    stop condescending us (5.00 / 1) (#304)
    by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:55:15 AM EST
    we're not children and we're not changing our minds.

    Actually.... (5.00 / 2) (#311)
    by trillian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:00:09 AM EST
    McCain and Obama are both duplicitous...so where's the difference?  

    As Obama's BFF, Ronald Reagan once said....I didn't leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me.


    I'm looking forward to 2012. To a lesser (5.00 / 1) (#317)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:02:06 AM EST
    degree I"m looking to savor some bitter SchadenFreude in the Fall.

    It may be mindless (none / 0) (#319)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:03:37 AM EST
    but it's reality, and that's why you're a fool for refusing to recognize it.  Try showing a little class for the sake of unity, it's really not that hard.

    Everybody just chill out! (none / 0) (#322)
    by Exeter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:04:55 AM EST
    The sky is not falling.  Indiana was the "tie breaker" and Hillary won it.

    Obama wins about 90% of the black vote and Hillary wins about 60% of the white vote. That's the way it was last night and that's the way it will be in the other states.

    She will win win West Virginia and Kentucky by large margins and get the momentum back and hopefully that will translate into a win in Oregon.

    Until the super delegates start dropping for one candidate or the other, we are basically in the same position that we were before yesterday.

    One is not allowed to point out that (5.00 / 1) (#325)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:06:27 AM EST
    Obama has succeeded by racially polarizing the Democrats---it's not polite. That's the problem.

    Yes -- if Hillary... (none / 0) (#342)
    by Exeter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:25:41 AM EST
    ...won 40% of Blacks, the same way that Obama wins 40% of Whites, she would have won nearly every state. It's "forgivable racism," just as women voting for Hillary is "forgivable sexism," but the bottom line is still that Obama cannot win in November.

    Hillary getting women's votes does not (none / 0) (#349)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:28:36 AM EST
    have a cost. Obama's supermajority among blacks WILL have a cost, because of the way he achieved it.

    I absolutely agree with you (none / 0) (#328)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:09:20 AM EST

    everything you say is true.
    but its a sad day.  lets not make any bones about it.
    it got harder last night.  thats all we are saying.
    its not disloyal to look at the situation with clear eyes.

    She won't have money; furthermore, the (none / 0) (#330)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:12:24 AM EST
    SD's will endorse Obama in droves now. The DNC will try to get him to the false magic number ASAP.

    I believe that's exactly what will happen (none / 0) (#336)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:18:09 AM EST
    and I prefer to see her concede and give the best unity speech in history.

    But it's OK to just play it on out, too, and do that at the end.

    Judging from reactions, perhaps people need some time to adjust.


    We'll see what happens... (none / 0) (#348)
    by Exeter on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:28:29 AM EST
    I hope that doesn't happen, but it might. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail. Alot of super delegates read blogs, so hopefully Jeralyn and BTD will help point out that Hillary won the tiebreaker last night and just because expectations were out of whack, doesn't mean she lost.

    You're right but the problem is... (none / 0) (#335)
    by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:17:40 AM EST
    I kinda feel like it's fixed. Obama cheated tonight has probably been doing it from day one, the party has been in collusion with him, the media took our victory and turned it into a loss via spin, and I've never thought for a moment that the DNC was anything but against us. So we fight on but how do we deal with the fact that they are trying to rig this? How do we rig it back? I'll do it. ;) Really, I never knew how bad the electioneering was but I can learn if you point me in the right direction. I'll put a stop to it.

    So yeah, I know we won and he failed to do what he should've down in NC and I'm thrilled about that but I feel like were getting outmaneuvered on some pretty disgusting tricks. We gotta fight back hard in these next races and learn these tricks. It's the only way I know to beat a fix.


    The problem is (none / 0) (#385)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:47:33 AM EST
    that Obama has the support of the DNC as he "thugs" his way to the nomination.  Everyone knew that Mayor Daley and his machine "thugged" their way to victories in Chicago.  The jokes about dead people voting are legendary, but it continued because he controlled the city.  Putting the light of day on the electioneering in this race will color Obama's image, but as long as people are comfortable voting for "thugs" and the people with the power to stop it are behind him, there isn't much that can be done.  In Indiana the state may step in to investigate the violations at the polling stations, but although what the mayor of Gary did was unconscionable, it was probably not illegal.  Who knows, he may have been asked by the DNC to do it. Although Obama painted himself as a new age politician, he has come from the ranks of one of the most infamous political machines in the country.

    Like Gary's mayor? (none / 0) (#387)
    by BarnBabe on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:48:58 AM EST
    He held up the count because he did not want Hillary to get a prime time win. If that is the type of politics that Obama is projecting, it is time for a 3rd party. But I do not want to be the party of Joe L. I guess I want to be the party of Hillary and Edwards and other fine politicians. We worked so hard to win in 2006, and it shows you what we got. Nothing except people who want more of them and they are not helping us out much at all.  

    that was so obvious and craven (none / 0) (#391)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:50:36 AM EST
    ok heres the good news (none / 0) (#329)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:12:01 AM EST
    Obama could bring millions of new voters to the polls to help put democrats in office all around the country.  IMO it wont be enough to put him over the top but its something.
    he has an unbelievable, apparently  endless, supply of money.
    so ends the glass half full lecture.
    back to our regular programming.

    Why would we want more people in office (none / 0) (#389)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:49:11 AM EST
    supporting an incompetent and gutless party.  

    touche (none / 0) (#406)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:59:26 AM EST
    Sorry hon (none / 0) (#401)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:56:57 AM EST
    But if anything Obama will hurt us in Congressional races.  Since he'll have coattails a micromillimeter long (and the Repubs will tie a bunch of Dems to him, all over the rural states, like the already have in Louisiana/NC et. al)

    he would help in some places (none / 0) (#402)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:58:43 AM EST
    the glass is still not EMPTY.

    Maybe so (none / 0) (#408)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:00:05 AM EST
    But it's hard to think of areas where he could help that aren't reliably, lurid blue already.

    NYC?  San Francisco?

    I'm just sayin'.


    please, I am "clinging" by a thread (none / 0) (#413)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:04:14 AM EST
    Heard from a SD (none / 0) (#332)
    by zfran on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:15:44 AM EST
    this morning from North Carolina on CNN. He said that until June 4 (at least) he is not convinced yet as to who to vote for. It was also pointed out by him that one solution to MI and FL would be to not choose a candidate on the first ballot at the convention(wouldn't Dean love that) and seat MI and FL on the second ballot (just like the conventions of the past..not so organized and galivanized!!!)

    that may be our only hope now (none / 0) (#337)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:19:28 AM EST
    Right. There have got to be SD's (none / 0) (#339)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:23:23 AM EST
    who don't want to lose in November.

    A new political class: the party homeless (none / 0) (#338)
    by feet on earth on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:21:15 AM EST
    Donna Brazile and other SDs have given the working class democrats foreclosure notice and offered  their Unity Tent.  
    A tent is not a home.  
    Tends do not withstand the rigor of the winter.  

    Homelessness is nasty and the November election will show it.

    Her comments (5.00 / 3) (#340)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:24:42 AM EST
    truly were telling about the direction of the party.  Latinos aren't important.  White working class isn't important.  Rural Dems not important.

    I was quite amazed at the tone and the content of her message.

    Clearly, it was a signal to go away.

    THe hijacking of the traditional Democratic Party just happened before our eyes.


    they are asking for a third party (5.00 / 2) (#343)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:26:08 AM EST
    The Republicans are retooling (5.00 / 1) (#367)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:37:51 AM EST
    and McCain is viewed as moderate.

    I'll be curious to watch how this unfolds.  I've never seen a situation where the Democratic Party dismissed core Democrats this way.

    I have said from day 1 that he was running a third-party candidacy and had, essentially, stolen the Democratic name.

    It's hardly a Democratic party as it stands now.

    So I think the Dems are going to eventually be the third party.

    Now, whether it makes sense to actually go for a third party?

    Could be.

    Glom all the moderates into a new coalition?

    Very interesting idea.


    I bet John McCain (none / 0) (#361)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:32:56 AM EST
    is going to have a lot of "house guests" this fall.

    Any video of Brazille's first remark? (none / 0) (#412)
    by jawbone on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:03:08 AM EST
    CNN transcript has the mitigating word "just" before her saying don't need white blue collar and Hispanic voters. The "just" makes it little less awful.

    But, several commenters here said they did not here the "just."

    So, is it just that CNN has "just" in the transcript?

    Who has video of the first remarks? Would settle, perhaps, the question.  

    Or maybe CNN gives their pundit the right to revise and extend their remarks....


    It's over (none / 0) (#344)
    by Slado on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:27:52 AM EST
    Clinton can either bow out gracefully or tear the party apart.

    It's her choice and her choice alone.  The Hillary fanatics are living in a dream world.   Obama pulled ahead in popular vote last night overcoming the Pennsylvania setback.  He will loose in KY and WV but do better then expected then blow her out in Oregon, SD and Montana.   He will collect tons of money while she loans her campaign the money she needs to just keep going.

    In the words of Kenny Rogers..."know when to fold them".

    can this crap if you want to win (none / 0) (#351)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:29:18 AM EST
    So we should just let Cindy McCain start (none / 0) (#356)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:31:04 AM EST
    measuring for drapes? That makes me bitter.

    P.S. Obama has already torn the party (none / 0) (#358)
    by MarkL on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:31:37 AM EST
    apart, in case you didn't notice.

    IACF! n/t (none / 0) (#359)
    by Fabian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:32:45 AM EST
    Can Just Feel The Unity In Your Comment (none / 0) (#370)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:39:28 AM EST
    Obama's surrogates and supporters should feel proud of their "new brand of politics."

    Obama Politics 101

    Insult and show disdain to voters who are not currently supporters to win them over.


    I am a McCain supporter (none / 0) (#398)
    by Slado on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:55:45 AM EST
    thank you very much.  Only trying to give an honest perspective.

    IMHO it is wrong to blame either candidate for the mess they've both created.   Blame Dean and the DNC for allowing this to go on so long.

    The only thing this campaing has shown is the democratic party is just as devided as the country.   This has been a battle between two different demographics and Obama's demographic is going to win out.   Maybe if the DNC ran their primary like the republicans run theirs Hillary would have won but they didn't so whe won't.

    Hillary supporters are living in a fantasy world if they think she is going to win this thing.  She had to loan her campaign 6.4 million dollars today just to keep adds on TV.  

    It's over.


    Forgive us if we're not dying to take advice (none / 0) (#403)
    by Eleanor A on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:58:46 AM EST
    from a Republican.  I'm just sayin'.

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#409)
    by Slado on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:00:19 AM EST
    Just throwing my thoughts out there.

    never seen a thread here reach (none / 0) (#345)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:28:02 AM EST
    I think we all need to talk.

    I need to talk (none / 0) (#374)
    by Kathy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:42:09 AM EST
    I haven't watched the news this morning; I just can't take it.

    Clinton's still going and going strong, though.  I gave her money last night as a lot of others did, too.  We need to keep fighting for our girl.  

    Meanwhile, I'm a tad concerned that TL hasn't been updated this morning.  I hope our intrepid leaders are okay.

    And, since there doesn't seem to be any policing going on, what is with all these new M-Fing C-sucking trolls?  Why do they come here if not to be f-ing a-holes?  I love how "concerned" they seem about the party now.  It makes me so furious.  We don't go over to the Other Blogs and get into the dirt.  It just shows how egregiously childish and petty they are that they come here to gloat--especially considering OBAMA LOST INDIANA.  This is his neighboring state.  He spent tons of money there.  He had the home-team advantage.  He should've blown it out.  He did not.  A 2% win when it should've been in the double digits is shameful.  LOOK AT A FREAKIN' CENSUS.  

    Keep going, Hillary!  That wind you feel at your back is me!


    as I explained to a particularly long winded one (none / 0) (#379)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:45:00 AM EST
    they are the primary reason he will lose.

    you're right (none / 0) (#388)
    by tnjen on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:48:58 AM EST
    and the number of O supporters that have been here since last night is disturbing. We don't invade their spaces... just one more reason.

    I was surprised that he (none / 0) (#346)
    by zfran on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:28:02 AM EST
    didn't at least lean to Sen. Obama with his win there last night. Could someone calculate what the percentages would have been if not for the l/3 AA vote?

    He would have lost. (none / 0) (#360)
    by MMW on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:32:54 AM EST
    What's that supposed to mean? (none / 0) (#404)
    by Slado on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:58:51 AM EST
    Are democrats now upset that the AA community is the most important part of their electorate and the single group that allows them to win elections across this country?

    Pretty funny to see democrats complaining about a voting block that traditionally votes in the exact same percentages against Republicans in every election anywhere.

    It is ironic to see Hillary winning the same counties that Bush won in 2000 and 2004.  While Obama wins the traditionally democratic ones in big cities and suburbs.

    This campaign has been interesting.


    What this means to me (none / 0) (#415)
    by zfran on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:07:38 AM EST
    is that everyone's head is hanging lower than perhaps it should be. The demographics of No. Carolina were favorable to Sen. Obama, just as the demographics of W. Va are favorable to Sen. Clinton. Without each other's favorables in these states, they both wouldn't be where they presently are. I wonder how many of the already older-voted states would like a re-do???

    congratulations NealB (none / 0) (#366)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:36:17 AM EST
    you just lost a few more Democratic votes.
    people like you are the reason Obama will lose.
    I hope you understand that.

    Payback Not Process (none / 0) (#369)
    by LibOne on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:38:22 AM EST
    Before Dean became DNC chair, he said that the Clintons convinced Wesley Clark to get into the 2004 race to take votes away from Dean.  Bill Clinton also said the Dean didn't deserve to be the nominee because of his signing Civil Union legislation into law in Vermont.  I don't have a link but I believe this was in HD's book.

    This primary isn't about Barak Obama.  The Democratic PTB are looking to wrest the party from the Democratic Leadership Council (republican light) a goal I fully believe in.  I just don't agree with Howard Dean's methods.  Leading the party into disarray is worse than a DLC candidate.

    Obama may not be a member of the DLC but from his speeches and policy positions I don't believe he is the great liberal the left and the right make him out to be.

    BTW, I proudly call myself both Liberal and Progressive.

    I agree with you about one thing (5.00 / 1) (#376)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:43:03 AM EST
    Obama is not the Great Liberal Hope.
    if he wins it win be on one level satisfying to see the Kos's of the world learn this.

    Best news of last night (none / 0) (#377)
    by dmk47 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:44:26 AM EST
    Now that SUSA crapped the bed, no more behaving like SUSA's numbers were handed down by Yahweh on Mt. Sinai.

    Gov. of West Va, a SD (none / 0) (#383)
    by zfran on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:46:32 AM EST
    just said he is undeclared as a SD. Perhaps he's waiting for the their vote next week. So far, the undeclared SD's have not flocked to Sen. Obama..you would have thought this morning they would. Donna Brazille might want to disenfranchise certain sects of Dem. voters, but the party needs their votes, women's votes, all votes.

    Apparently (none / 0) (#390)
    by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:50:35 AM EST
    not, since Donna couldn't have made it any clearer.