Obama Blog: Let's Unify

NOTE: My original title to this post was "Obama blog "Let's Unify, You Lying Idiots!" It was deemed inappropriate for this blog and thus was edited to the current title.

It took some chutzpah for this blogger to write this post:

We have to reunite our party in time to successfully take on John McCain. [...] Hillary and her team have successfully changed the national mood, of Hillary's supporters, at least, from one of disappointment that their candidate lost, to one of outright anger . . . Yeah, there's been some sexism by irrelevant third parties, but I just don't [care] . . .

(Emphasis supplied.) Ok, I pulled an Aravosis there, he did not say "care." But then again, the blogger has never been married to the truth when it comes to Hillary. He is still at it today, falsely calling Hillary a liar. But oh btw, we have to unify. That blogger is just shameless and disrespectful of the truth. He is calling for unity? Please spare us your "calls for unity." Some of us hear enough insults as it is.

Speaking for me only

Comments closed

< Ted Kennedy Surgery A Success | Geoff Fieger Acquitted >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Given the events and results of Sat. (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:07:46 PM EST
    and Brazille's later comments Clinton refused the olive branch, why even post about unity?  There won't be any.  

    I got a request last night to concede and go unity (5.00 / 16) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:27:11 PM EST
    now. Here's how I replied. I was more polite than I might otherwise be because the sender of the request, whom I don't know, was from Colorado. It also inaccurately characterized TalkLeft as writing hate posts about Obama.

    As for me, I have never written a hateful word about Obama. I am advocating for my choice of nominee. I have said many, many times TalkLeft and  I will support the nominee.

    We don't have a nominee.  Obama supporters ought to refrain from making these unity pitches suggestions until we do.

    There's plenty of time between the end of the first week in June and the election. Another four days is not going to make a difference in November.

    Until we have a nominee, I will try to convince the superdelegates that Hillary is a better candidate with a better chance of winning in November. It has nothing to do with disparaging Obama. He might win in November, she would win.

    The commenters speak for themselves. I have no control over them if they comply with the site rules and they do not represent the views of me or TalkLeft.

    Thanks, but I find your email insulting due to its prematurity. Jeralyn

    You are a study in calm rationality (5.00 / 11) (#86)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:33:55 PM EST
    You really are. And furthermore, you are one of the few who can honestly claim that all you have done is advocate positively for your candidate and not torn another one down. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

    It's kinda important to hear it all out (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by Salo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:34:43 PM EST
    One thing that I found is that the blogs were disparaged for inflating the support that Obama and Edwards had among the electorate by the early Clinton suporters in Dkos.

    On Kos it was a 40-40-10 split with Edwards, Obama and Clinton respectively.  Dkos was predictive of the move toward Obama later on.   As it turns out that did represent about half the opinion of the actual party.

    Now we know that the Clinton supporters are a big loyal group too, and that many of them are willing to take the experience argument seriously enough, to just switch to McCain by default on that issue.

    You are doing the DNC a favour by pointing out that Clinton has loyalists who take their reasons for voting quite seriously and that her set of values are intrinsically valuable to her following. Some of her voters are ideological leftwingers, some are ideologically moderate and some are interested in a good resume.

    The party can ignore that if they wish. No skin off my nose.


    And then there were US... (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:18:06 PM EST
    the few, the proud, the NFC voters.

    We had no clue. And we were happy that way :)


    Way to go! (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:37:00 PM EST
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by daring grace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:38:01 PM EST
    Speaking as an Obama supporter, until Clinton is no longer vying for the nomination, there is nothing to talk about in terms of the potential for sharing a ticket or 'unifying'.

    If this extends past June or if Clinton decides to take this to the convention, I'll feel differently, but right now I think it's premature and insulting to her and her supporters.


    Obama is not the nominee UNTILL the (5.00 / 5) (#189)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:09:06 PM EST
    convention.  She should take it all the way, hell yes.  This is a nomination for the highest office in the land and if taking it to the convention can spare us another rookie president(and a spoiled sexist self entitled one at that) then she should do everything she can.

    I see your point (1.00 / 1) (#219)
    by PaulDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:20:27 PM EST
    but if Clinton does take it all the way to the convention and somehow gets the nomination, then do you think there will be enough time to get Obama supporters to get over their anger and resentment and get the party unified?

    That is why I support a Clinton/Obama ticket (5.00 / 1) (#276)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:59:13 PM EST
    Although the polls suggest that Clinton can easily defeat McCain on her own, while Obama is very risky. See electoral-vote.com:

    Clinton 327     McCain 194     Ties 17
    Obama 276     McCain 238     Ties 24


    Obama supporters are not swing voters (5.00 / 1) (#323)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:24:01 PM EST
    many Clinton voters are.  Add the swing voters to the angry, paying enough attention to understand how dirty Obama has run and Obama loses in November.

    Your Point Is Well Taken (3.00 / 1) (#288)
    by daring grace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:23:51 PM EST
    A fight at the convention--no matter who would ultimately emerge victorious is going to seriously hobble the Democratic nominee.

    Whatever outrage and division we're seeing now will be nothing compared with letting all of this simmer for another three months and then go all sharp knees and elbows in August.

    Not to mention the image of a party in chaos and unable to launch any effective effort against the Republicans until September.

    Clinton is entitled to do that. But unless she starts developing a tide of SDs this week and next, I don't know where her justification will come from in terms of win-ability.


    The justification will be evident in the polls (none / 0) (#294)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:37:45 PM EST
    Don't worry about this Obama supporter.... (none / 0) (#263)
    by cardcarryingmember on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:47:48 PM EST
    ... because unlike a lot of Clinton "Democrats" (????!!!) I will vote for whoever the nominee of the Democratic party is. I've said that from the beginning and I'm sayin' it now, even if Clinton takes it to the convention and blasts the rest of the party apart in the process. I've sat in disgusted awe over the last few weeks reading the diatribes of so-called Democrats actually having the unmitigated gall to say that they will vote for John McCain over Barack Obama. I wish they would spare me their self-righteousness and their appalling plan to simply throw away their vote as if suffrage grew on trees. I don't know what those folks are, but they are not Democrats as I ever knew them, nor should they be regarded as particularly good citizens of our republic.

    Those "so-called Democrats" ... (5.00 / 3) (#292)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:36:26 PM EST
    ... have been voting for Democratic candidates for years. What gives you the right to question their integrity? Why are you so disgusted when people are being honest about their opinions and their candidate preferences? They are not just trying to annoy you, you know. They are speaking the truth about what the believe. I think that, as an Obama supporter, you ought to listen carefully.

    If you believe that the Obama campaign should establish some kind of "party purity" standards and dismiss every voter who will not sign up, I don't think you understand much about the US electorate or the history of the Democratic party. How do you think Carter and Clinton were able to win?

    History shows that Democrats can win with candidates that appeal to the broad demographic mix that elected Carter and Clinton, or they can lose by appealing to the narrower demographic mix that could not elect Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.

    Take your pick.

    The fact is that Hillary Clinton can win this year, because she appeals to independents, moderates, and Republican women, whereas Obama loses large numbers of those same Clinton supporters to McCain. That's not because these voters are "racist" or for any other dishonorable reason. It's because McCain is a candidate whose personality and positions they can relate to, and who is just a lot more experienced and believable than Obama. And by not actively disowning supporters who express opinions like yours, Obama is cementing their opinion of him as a candidate, and their preference for McCain.

    That is why Obama will suffer the same fate as McGovern in November. You and other Obama supporters -- and even Obama himself, from all appearances -- may prefer your notions of ideological purity, but Clinton supporters would prefer to win the GE.


    I am not arguing for "purity".. (none / 0) (#302)
    by cardcarryingmember on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:49:37 PM EST
    whatever that is. All I am saying is that given the choice between John McCain, a conservative Republican (can we not agree that that is indeed what he is?) and ANY DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE....

    I will vote for the Democrat.

    I'm not saying this as an Obama supporter, I'm saying this as someone who has never, in 20 years of presidential elections, voted for a Republican, and I'm certainly not about to start now. I'll say it again without apology: any Democrat worthy of the name, whether they were an Obama supporter or a Clinton supporter, should be voting for the Democrat, or else WHY WERE YOU SUPPORTING EITHER ONE OF THEM????? And you can bet your Daddy's overalls I'll be yelling this from the rooftops to the Obama crowd if Clinton takes the nuclear option and goes to the convention with it!


    Your mistake is believing that everyone else (5.00 / 1) (#321)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:12:31 PM EST
    ... thinks like you do, and if they don't they must need to be corrected. But in democratic countries, and especially in the US, political parties do not work that way.

    Your question "WHY WERE YOU SUPPORTING EITHER ONE OF THEM?????" is naive, because the answer is obvious. People support Clinton because they believe she is the best Democratic candidate. For some voters, if Edwards were still in the race, he might be the first choice, for many others, the second choice after Hillary. In the minds of these voters, Obama -- a relative unknown when this process started -- failed to establish his credentials; in fact, the more people got to know him the less they supported his candidacy. He demonstrated that he was not ready for the job. So if Obama is nominated, McCain ends up being seen as the lesser of two evils, because he is less of a risk.

    These are simple and obvious facts; you cannot make them go away no matter how loudly you may yell from however many rooftops. All your yelling does is demonstrate that you are not willing to accept political realities. Success in politics demands understanding and compromise, not rejection and lecturing.


    More from the unity pony? (none / 0) (#283)
    by hookfan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:13:15 PM EST
    So now you are willing to cancel our citizenship if we don't vote the way you want? And this is Democracy you support? Why not just usher in a dictatorship then everyone will be forced to vote like you demand? Yep. Just.Like. Bush. My way or the highway.

    You don't need me to do that (none / 0) (#296)
    by cardcarryingmember on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:40:08 PM EST
    You are are canceling your own citizenship all by yourself by throwing your progressive (?) vote away on a self-described conservative Republican who has indicated quite clearly that he will continue to stuff the SCOTUS with conservative justices and has no intention of changing the Bush "my way or the highway" method of "diplomacy." You can vote for whoever you like, but please do not ever refer yourself to yourself as a Democrat again if you actually believe McCain will be better for this nation than ANY Democratic candidate, including Barack Obama.

    Fox just reported that Hillary's (5.00 / 6) (#152)
    by zfran on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:54:50 PM EST
    campaign will not end after tomorrow because she does not recognize the magic number to clinch the nomination. She wants Fl/Mi recognized and counted and she's in all the way to the convention!!! Just heard it!

    Really? So she is sticking with (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:57:41 PM EST

    Full seating?

    That would be great news!


    Brava Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:13:51 PM EST
    all the dying dianas are going to have to face that you can not force unity on people.  All they had to do was follow their own vaulted "RoOLz".  

    I love the Clintons (5.00 / 1) (#247)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:35:50 PM EST
    It always seems like they are the only ones brave enough to "fight for the little people" (little like us) in Washington.  

    Do they know how to buck the system?  

    Yes, yes they do!!  

    I love it!


    and seconds later... (5.00 / 1) (#259)
    by karen for Clinton on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:42:39 PM EST
    the hysterical non-stop shouting to drop out now!

    An example of your skew to fairness and class (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:00:17 PM EST
    Earlier I responded somewhat snidely to a clutterbuck (deflection troll demanding answers for unrelated issues, and a defence of your previous stands) who was attempting to derail the discussion statistics you'd posted with baity errata.

    I suggested in my usual un-sarcastic yet delightfully astringent way to check on previous postings and not to expect "Jeralyn to do his homework" for him.

    My post was deleted. The troll's post is still up. (LOL.)

    And you know, I completely trust your judgment on that and the formula of fairness and a little sump'n extra.

    Anyone that would accuse you of writing hate posts is simply deluded.


    You are absolutely right (none / 0) (#146)
    by PaulDem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:53:16 PM EST
    Until Senator Clinton concedes, it strikes me as tone-deaf for Obama supporters to try to entice her supporters to unify.

    For everyone who suggests that the force for unity must come from the Obama side of the aisle, I think that is misguided.  It is only when Clinton leads her supporters through her own support of Obama will the healing really begin.

    Unfortunately she has a great case for staying in the race since the pledged delegate totals don't put Obama over the top.  If she wants to she has every right to spend the next three months convincing superdelegates with whatever arguments she wants to make to try to win their support.

    I think ultimately it will be futile but that decision doesn't rest with me, or any other Obama supporter.  

    I just remember my experience in 2004 after working for a year to try to get Howard Dean nominated.  After how he was treated by the other candidates and DC establishment I had a hard time seeing myself supporting Kerry.  It wasn't until Dean dropped out and endorsed Kerry that I could even consider it.  Even then it took me a solid month before I could stomach the thought of voting for Kerry.  

    That is why I am so worried about this animosity lingering until the convention. And I include the possibility of Clinton prevailing at the convention and Obama having to lead his supporters to unite with the Clinton folks. For many people, there just won't be enough time to let the healing process run its course.    

    If there are Obama supporters who are impatient to begin this re-unification, this may be why.


    Impatient? (5.00 / 5) (#209)
    by cawaltz on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:17:23 PM EST
    They ought to be worried. ell will freeze over before I "unify" with a bunch of childish bullies and I can assure you I will feel the same months from now even if Hillary Clinton were to suspend her campaign.

    If Hillary loses, I plan on buying myself a nice bottle of wine and toasting the idiocy of the Democratic party. It takes a special kind of stupid to turn a shoe in for a Democrat into a competition to see how many demographics you can alienate. Makes a soul happy she changed to Independant. I'm glad I'm not afiliated with the stupidity.


    Obama supporters are underestimating... (5.00 / 2) (#318)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:49:40 PM EST
    the anger of Clinton supporters.

    "..@ell has No Fury like a Woman Scorned."

    Sad that Obama people are laying the responsibility of unifying the party on Hillary.  Mass media has said this until I want to scream.

    The responsibility is on Obama...and good luck with that.    His supporters did not have to create the hate and vitriol that they have created.    Obama could have been gracious about FL/MI  and I would have been somewhat softened.

    Now it will take the Dream Ticket.


    I have no vote in US elections and whilst I prefer (5.00 / 3) (#272)
    by WelshWoman on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:54:36 PM EST
    Clinton, I hope I'm objective.

    There is one big problem when trying to unify the party. For the first time in an election as far as I can tell, they allowed the voters to be called names.

    Normally the candidates taken out on each other or ad's or run against the candidate. This time they allowed it to get personal against the voters.

    To turn around three months later and say so didn't mean it vote for me, isn't going to work. There will need to be some serious listening and apologising going on.


    Olive branch? (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by gandy007 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:33:55 PM EST
    more like a club of thorns in the posterior!

    Tell somebody who cares. (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:08:21 PM EST
    I don't care.

    Seriously off topic. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:09:31 PM EST

    Blair in PA (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:19:41 PM EST
    was previously warned. Now s/he's flouting the comment rules here. Banned permanently.

    I'm Dying to know what she/him say? (none / 0) (#251)
    by Mrwirez on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:37:48 PM EST

    I love your title. (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:10:18 PM EST

    That's unifying. (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:11:31 PM EST
    On the order of (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:13:37 PM EST
    "The beatings will continue until morale improves!"

    Aww, you changed it! (none / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:19:28 PM EST
    I shortened it (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    "Lying idiots" is not compatible with the spirit of this site that discourages name calling. Even though this is characterizing how others view Hillary supporters, the message is conveyed by the use of the word "jutzpah" in the post.

    Personally, I'm a name caller (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:25:59 PM EST
    Though the occasional reminder that it's a bad thing is welcomed.

    Personally, I guess I am too. (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:33:07 PM EST
    Yesterday, when a friend sd. the MI primary wasn't legit because Obama's name wasn't on the ballot, I responded, just once I wish the motherfu#kers would state Obama took his name off the MI ballott. Not my usual style!

    LOL... I needed t hat laugh :) (none / 0) (#133)
    by nashville on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:49:48 PM EST
    because I too have felt the sense of total exasperation at some of the dialogue out there.

    Chutzpah (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:11:34 PM EST
    and bloggers go hand in hand ;-).

    So you don't think the meek will (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:12:41 PM EST
    inherit the blogging world?

    It's inherent in the job description (none / 0) (#37)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:21:56 PM EST
    "Blogger" (n.)(1):  a person who writes in an on-line journal (see "blog", n.), on no specific schedule and without deadlines, usually for little or no monetary remuneration, about topics of interest to the blogger (and possibly only the blogger), with little or no requirement for factual accuracy (beyond that self-imposed by the blogger), with no requirement for grammatical, logical, or intellectual consistency, and with an exceptional arrogance, summarized concisely, that the blogger knows the answers to all the world's problems and could solve them if only everyone would stop calling the blogger's attitude chutzpah and instead bow appropriately."  See also "Blogger" (n.)(2)(blog-creation computer program known for balkiness and clunkiness)

    Wikipedia entries are more balanced ... (none / 0) (#103)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:39:15 PM EST
    ... than your unsourced rant. I think Jeralyn and BTD would prefer these:



    Google's Blogger platform

    There are plenty of serious and conscientious bloggers out there who don't deserve the smears contained in your definition.


    Aw - the nature of a blog is (5.00 / 1) (#316)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:28:51 PM EST
    that you can't see my tongue is stuck firmly in my cheek.

    I surmised as much, but smears, ... (none / 0) (#324)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:33:13 PM EST
    ... even those presented as satire, have a habit of morphing into the accepted truth unless they are challenged.

    Another voice of unity indeed. (5.00 / 9) (#11)
    by TalkRight on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:13:11 PM EST
    Obama aide Anita Dunn, per ABC News:
    When asked if Obama would wait to get a concession call from Clinton before claiming the nomination, Dunn said:

    The onus was on Clinton now that the Democratic Party has firmed up the number of delegates needed to claim the party's nod. He's not going to wait by the phone like a high-school girl waiting for a date. That's not Barack Obama.

    I truly want Hillary is not offered the VP so that I can rejoice while voting for McCain.

    That's right. Obama is a MAN. (5.00 / 8) (#35)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:21:22 PM EST
    He's not some GIRL.  Ugh.

    And one without any decorum (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by angie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:28:18 PM EST
    It is pretty much accepted that you don't announce your win until the other candidate concedes, but why should he start showing any class now? No matter what happens this week, I'm still counting on the SDs waking up before the convention.

    Me too. I don't see how Obama can survive ... (5.00 / 2) (#223)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:23:10 PM EST
    ... for 3 more months in the spotlight.

    Mark this Exhibit CDGA, (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by davnee on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:27:56 PM EST
    since we've blown through the alphabet several times with the evidence, for why Obama will never get my vote.  No class whatsoever.  Of course this is mild evidence compared to the other evidence I have marked that has me convinced that Obama is unqualified in both experience and character to be POTUS.  Speaking for me only of course.

    Talking about chutzpah (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:13:15 PM EST

    And they accuse Clinton of twisting things?

    I'd ask what's happened to that place (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:15:31 PM EST
    but I'm tired of asking.

    I never click on dailykos story links (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by TalkRight on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:16:38 PM EST

    I objected to that post privately (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:18:18 PM EST
    What the heck? (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:22:01 PM EST
    How many commentors were of the "right on!" variety, and how many of them dared to point out that there is an obvious difference between pledged delegates and superdelegates?

    refreshingly (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by FleetAdmiralJ on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:31:56 PM EST
    there are quite a few pointing out the fact that it's BS, though the majority is still basically taking it in without thought.

    That's good news (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:32:57 PM EST
    My impression is that as we near the finish line, people are becoming at least a tiny bit more grown-up.

    Yeah, he calls Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by frankly0 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:13:52 PM EST
    a liar, then turns right around and says what he obviously knew she meant, which was certainly not a lie.

    The worst, most random commenter on DailyKos doesn't get dumber than that.

    I stopped reading at this point: (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:15:08 PM EST
    Well, now it's time for Hillary's staff and supporters to pick a side. It's their one chance, and there's no coming back.

    Who the heck is he to make that kind of statement?!  

    I say make the statement (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by MMW on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    As for me - I choose another side.

    What does it even mean? (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:22:46 PM EST
    They won't LET me vote for a Dem again? What fools.

    Well I'm thinking now that the one thing.... (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:22:48 PM EST
    ...Obama needs to do to earn my vote is reject and renounces the support of these punks. And the sooner the better. I'll give them my spot under the bus.

    uh oh now you've done it (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by karen for Clinton on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:11:17 PM EST
    We are all going to be called accessories to murder if they end up under the bus.

    That said, I hope it is booking when they get theirs.


    There's an idea (none / 0) (#310)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:10:12 PM EST
    yeah, if he personally throws dkos and americablog under the bus with his typical white grandmother I might vote for him.

    This supporter (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:23:10 PM EST
    has picked a side.

    I just printed out my NY State Voter Registration papers and am declaring myself unaffiliated.

    If I'm not a member of their party, I don't have to worry about phony ponies.


    Welcome to the unaffiliated world (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:30:23 PM EST
    of guilt free voting  ;) Democrats must unify? Heh, you talkin' to me? lol!~

    I just realized, I'm in the same "party" as my Mayor . . .


    Weird, ain't it? (5.00 / 3) (#104)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:40:13 PM EST
    I guess if I really want to vote in a primary, I can always switch back. Although considering everything, who knows if the DNC would let my vote count or hand it to someone else instead?

    Unaffiliated since 2000 (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:06:12 PM EST
    and it just gets better.  :-)

    You too!? I just printed out TWO. (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by rooge04 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:33:48 PM EST
    One for me. One for my husband.

    Actually...three (5.00 / 5) (#101)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:38:46 PM EST
    one for me, one for my 73 yr old Mom (who has only been an active Democrat since 1956) and one for my 80 yr old Dad (who has only been an active Dem since 1949).

    They're going in the mail tomorrow. And I'll be emailing Donna Brazile thanking her for helping us make the decision after a long period of waffling.


    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#256)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:40:16 PM EST
    I printed mine out this weekend, along with copies for both of my parents, my sister, and her boyfriend.  Five more "Unaffiliated Voters" in Raleigh, NC.  We plan to send semi-redacted copies to the DNC with a little note.

    This is the kind of scorched-earth comment... (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by Dawn Davenport on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:26:02 PM EST
    ...that does good for neither Obama nor the Dems.

    Why in the world would you tell supporters of the losing candidate that they have only one chance to get on board? Such a threat might scare week-kneed super-delegates who might be worried about facing primary challengers funded by Obama, but does nothing to sway your average Clinton supporter who worries about the depth of Obama's qualifications to be commander in chief.


    If Hillary supporters (5.00 / 3) (#191)
    by Daryl24 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:10:09 PM EST
    don't get on board then what happens? How do you banish 17 million people from the Democratic party and not lose an election?  



    Last Chance (5.00 / 6) (#53)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:26:10 PM EST
    LOL.  Something tells me I'm going to have a lot of chances to ride the Unity Pony between now and November, if Obama gets the nomination.

    There's no coming back? (5.00 / 12) (#54)
    by Davidson on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    Can I get that in writing, please?  I want a guarantee they'll never bother with me again!

    And I can guarantee you this is the attitude within the Obama camp considering their past tactics.  Their staff and Democratic endorsers continuing to smear Clinton (e.g., Axelrod blaming Clinton for Bhutto assassination, Power's "monster" remark, Burton sending the media into a feeding frenzy over the African garb photo and RFK).  Obama himself made his contempt for her clear just recently when Edwards endorsed him and he smiled when his supporters booed Clinton.


    And what's hysterical (5.00 / 5) (#73)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:31:34 PM EST
    is that he and the folks at KOS are the root cause of the beginning of my aversion to Obama supporters and unfortunately, translated to Obama.  

    Is there an after-school rumble in the sandlot? (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:44:04 PM EST
    Sheesh before Obama came along it was the usual Lib v Pug fracas with chucks and too-hot lattes at the old Volvo dealership.

    Will we be The Sharks or The Jets? (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:01:06 PM EST
    Sharks, baby, on clothes, music and dancing (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:05:32 PM EST
    And although I don't want to give away my fight strategy here -- wayyyyyy pointier shoes.

    I hope it's (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by Daryl24 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:23:56 PM EST
    Thanks, I always forget which is which.... (none / 0) (#253)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:38:33 PM EST
    who will be Maria?  :)

    Given Hillary's win in Puerto Rico (5.00 / 4) (#193)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:10:30 PM EST
    yesterday, I suspect we're all Sharks, not Jets. ::grin::

    Besides, Jets run out of fuel. Sharks gotta keep on moving!


    Sharks...(IMO) (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:21:18 PM EST
    are sexier and better dressers.

    Sounds like he's not going to be (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:15:19 PM EST
    campaigning for Obama to me.  Not sure why he should either.

    Or any other (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:16:07 PM EST
    "New Democrat" for that matter.

    He isn't looking for unity (5.00 / 8) (#19)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    He's looking for submission. Resistance is futile!

    These folks (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:16:55 PM EST
    are a bunch of authoritarian ex-Republicans.  The authoritarianism doesn't work with Democrats.

    Indeed. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:26:23 PM EST
    As I said at my place today. :-)

    Nice post.. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by TalkRight on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:31:51 PM EST
    I solidly agree with your PUMA comment!!!

    Here is what Obama and his camp say (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by Prabhata on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:16:55 PM EST
    Get over it and vote McCain.  ARG just came out with a poll for SD: Hillary 60, Obama 34

    If SD goes for Hillary that's a big upset, and the DNC better know that Wright and Phleger are not going away. I don't like Obama's friends and they confirm my view of Obama, an opportunist without moral compass who should never get near the WH.

    Yeah, and ARG has MT 44/48 Obama (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by angie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:22:15 PM EST
    8% undecided -- I can only dream that those #s hold (or improve) for her (and, of course, light my candle), but that would certainly be an "in your face" to the DNC -- both states are "Obama's turf" not to mention SD being Daschle's home state -- I can truly say I can die happy after seeing Kerry & Kennedy not being able to bring in MA for Obama if Daschle also fails to bring SD in for him as well.

    Obama (5.00 / 7) (#71)
    by bobbski on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:30:55 PM EST
    "I don't like Obama's friends and they confirm my view of Obama, an opportunist without moral compass who should never get near the WH."

    Obama is another George Bush.  No experience, no morals and slugs for friends and supporters.


    ARG's the worst pollster out there (none / 0) (#87)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:34:19 PM EST
    I'm sad to say.  Are there any other ones out there?  I feel I would end up disappointed if I relied on ARG.

    Yeah, but ARG got KY right (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by angie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:41:53 PM EST
    I'm "clinging" to that.

    democrats (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by bobbski on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:19:03 PM EST
    "Its THAT simple...and if they chose to lose me as a voter in this election, it will be on them - not me." -- Seymour Glass

    What you said!

    Exactly right. (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:20:28 PM EST
    There will be no "unity" because the Obamans do not want unity.

    C'est la vie.

    So,Obama's going to (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Left of center on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:20:59 PM EST
    get the nomination after receiving less votes,essentially making him the George W. Bush of the democratic primary. Can you say illegitimate candidate?

    Come back, baby (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:21:44 PM EST
    For the sake of appearances, just move back home.

    I won't hurt you again. Unless you deserve it.

    BTD, I honestly appreciate your attempts at unity and sanity. Perhaps if more people thought and behaved like you, we wouldn't be in the mess we are right now.

    Nodding head and applauding. (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:23:35 PM EST

    Never again (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:24:06 PM EST
    I had come to read the progressive blogs because they offered truth to the situation the country faced, The same was true with KO. However that's all changed. I have found them to be as twisted and distorted as anyone in the Bush administration. We're back to nowhere to be able to really find out the honest truth. They'll all playing games with the facts to either inflate their ego or to gather favor in the upcoming administration. I guess they want to be the new Tim Russert. (The man to turn to to get their agenda accross. I'm back to not believing anyone again.

    Confession: yesterday, after my (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:29:05 PM EST
    friend (who recently switched her allegiance from Clinton to Obama) sd., you probably aren't too happy about Sat.  Talk about the understatement of the year.  Anyhow, I heard myself stating I won't vote for Obama.  Today, I am reading BTD's incessant calls for unity and trying to get a grip.  

    I have the same problem (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:31:13 PM EST
    It would really help if Obama did something unifying!

    What can he do to unify (5.00 / 6) (#98)
    by MMW on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:37:38 PM EST
    that erases or eases the damage already done?

    Truely curious, cause I can't come up with anything.

    I want lessons learned. I want consequences.


    the single biggest one for me (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:43:18 PM EST
    is asking Clinton to be his VP.  It will be hard if he does not do that. If she says "no."  That is fine. I want him to ask.

    Sorry, not for me (5.00 / 5) (#124)
    by angie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:47:01 PM EST
    yeah, he should ask her to give her the opportunity to refuse, but there is nothing he can do now to "unify" with me -- I'm done with having people sh!t all over me and then getting "blamed" for not forgiving them the second they give me some half-a$$ed insincere apology -- maybe in my early 20s I'd have been fooled, but I'm way too old for that now.

    That will not work for me (5.00 / 6) (#138)
    by MMW on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:51:25 PM EST
    It erases nothing of what's been done. And I won't support a more qualified woman having to pick up after a less qualified man.

    Tell him do that to one of his male supporters. It shouldn't be hard for him to find one more qualified to be President than him.


    Hope the Pander Pony is well rested . . . (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:40:37 PM EST
    You mean, like (5.00 / 4) (#113)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:44:07 PM EST
    some phony, pretend outreach that you can "believe?"  

    (At least until after the election).

    C'mon, folks...dunno how to break this to ya but, umm....no tooth fairy, no Easter Bunny, no Santa and no Obama unity...need I go on?


    Hahahahaha, oculus! (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:42:19 PM EST
    Welllllcome to the Dark Side!

    [evil laughter]

    Seriously...Saturday was the final straw for anyone who believes that a candidate who wasn't on the ballot shouldn't get votes...


    Think you answered your own question (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:31:53 PM EST
     ex repub bloggers

    These folks would be perfectly at home with the most virulent RW groups.

    I'm with you 100% on this election by the way!

    The (5.00 / 9) (#77)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:32:34 PM EST
    noxious fumes of hatred rising from those that have enlarged their hatred of all things Clinton to include Clinton Democrats and Clinton Supporters has become unbelievable.


    "we must have unity and we must have it now and you damn well better get in line"
    schtick just doesn't cut it with me somehow.

    I never liked Republican Thugs and Bullies and I find that I like Democratic ones even less. The idea of unity with people like that is repulsive. Why would we want to?

    What's with the threats? (5.00 / 9) (#82)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:33:38 PM EST
    Well, now it's time for Hillary's staff and supporters to pick a side. It's their one chance, and there's no coming back.

    So if I don't choose to support Obama today, I won't be able to ... um ... well ... what exactly?


    Hillary and her supporters have this week to get on the bus, or the bus is leaving, and they're not going to like where it's left them.

    Here I just think he got lost in his metaphor.  But he still had to pipe it through with threaty goodness.

    So we can crawl out from under the bus (5.00 / 5) (#109)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:42:00 PM EST
    to sit in the back, perhaps?



    Or maybe we'll just be left in ... (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:51:41 PM EST
    a city called:

    The Traditional Democratic Party.


    I picture that (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:03:59 PM EST
    bus....  I laughed when I read that.. what immediately popped in to my head was my 15 year old son (currently lacking in the tact dept) being shipped of to summer camp for a couple of weeks.... a bus leaving me behind would be a very good thing right now.

    Some of the Obama bloggers (5.00 / 3) (#180)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:04:04 PM EST
    are weaklings and bullies.

    They know no other way to get their points across except by yelling and intimidation - and sometimes cajoling. Sweetie.

    It would never occur to them to actually listen to another point of view.

    Unfortunately, they reflect their candidate rather accurately.


    z'he trying to go through my monitor and slap me? (5.00 / 2) (#208)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:16:47 PM EST
    I've never met the feckin' eedjit. What hold does he think he has over people other than his nascient superpower to make me die laughing?

    "Threaty goodness" (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by kmblue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:19:08 PM EST
    may be my new favorite catchphrase.  Well done!

    funny (5.00 / 1) (#268)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:52:55 PM EST
    I think those who dont get on the bus may be the happiest with "where it left them"

    I will take my chances.


    I don't know where (none / 0) (#241)
    by karen for Clinton on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:30:56 PM EST
    but I read an article today that said the Obama camp was using the same pressure tactic on SD's by telling them you come over now and it will mean something but if you come over later there is nothing in it for you.

    What works with some SD's doesn't with VOTERS.


    YES, and it is that weasel Richardson (none / 0) (#319)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:54:27 PM EST
    Mr "Can't we all be nice and I am supporting Obama because the Clinton's aren't nice".. .yeah, it's him pulling that on people.

    I'm a Clinton-supporting Independent Voter (5.00 / 7) (#93)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:36:36 PM EST
    There's no point in TeamObama or Dem leadership attempting to blame any but themselves for their own screwups.

    I'm supporting Sen Clinton and worthy Dems, although I'm no longer a Democrat. Republican members of my family would support Sen. Clinton over Sen. McCain, but not Sen. Obama.

    The Obama campaign, including his Democratic supporters, simply have no right to expect my support or anyone's that they haven't earned.

    They wouldn't even were I still a Democrat. I don't know how to make this clearer but there seems to be this attitude of anger and entitlement in Team Obama that defies logic and all political precedent.

    No one owns people's votes ahead of time.

    This must be an Obama talking (5.00 / 9) (#107)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:41:25 PM EST
    point.  HHS secretary????  Are you kidding me?

    Same old same old (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:44:15 PM EST
    HHS was floated a few weeks ago.  I think they are recycling old talking point memos today.

    maybe its just me (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:44:31 PM EST
    but I dont think people like Aravosis should be saying thing like ". . . . shouldn't work in the party ever again".
    I suspect there are many people who have lists of whom they believe shouldnt work in the party ever again.
    Aravosis is on the top of mine.

    Well, he's speaking (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by andgarden on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:46:14 PM EST
    only for himself, and not the party. . .riiiight????

    yeah, that sounds good (5.00 / 15) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:45:34 PM EST
    or maybe a job as a DC crossing guard.

    Ha! That's good. (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:51:11 PM EST
    ROTFLMAO!!!!! (5.00 / 5) (#148)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:54:05 PM EST
    She could iron his shirts too.

    Clearly, you don't (5.00 / 8) (#125)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:47:03 PM EST
    It's not about supporting HRC blindly. It's about principles and values and where we see the Democratic party going. It's how we've been treated by both the media and the Obama supporters. How HRC has been treated by all of the above and Obama himself.

    The DNC made themselves loud and clear on Saturday. They're shoving an unvetted, untested candidate with a flimsy resume and a helluva lot of baggage down everyone's throat because they see dollar signs when it comes to his contributers and they want to purge the party of the Clintons - you know, the two people who have worked harder and longer to help the Democratic party in the past 16 years than anyone else. You know, the last 2 term Democratic president we've had since FDR?

    Hillary can do what she needs to do. It's politics. However, just because she asks me (and millions of others) to jump and support someone that we find reprehensible as a candidate doesn't mean we will. Some of us are smarter than that. The Party has told us time and time again we don't count, we're not wanted, we're not needed. Fine, then let them hold their Party without us.

    They won't understand (5.00 / 5) (#156)
    by MMW on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:55:33 PM EST
    Because they are supporting his personality. They are not supporting principle. They can only see you through their own eyes.

    I am not mystified (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:17:58 PM EST
    that you are mystified

    You asked a question (5.00 / 4) (#216)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:19:35 PM EST
    I was happy to answer it. Without vitriol, I might add.

    I am still mystified by the notion that people actually find Obama 'inspiring' or can't see through the Emperor's New Clothes. Then again, I felt the same way in 2000 about Dubya and look where that got me.

    If nothing else, please try to understand that it's not blind adulation on the part of most of us (I'm sure there are some supporters like that -- there always are). It's a one big snowball that has been accumulating over time and frankly, we're tired of it. And pretending it doesn't exist, telling us we have to 'get in line', questioning our Party Loyalty (as if this is the old USSR or Communist China) or any of the other tactics just aren't going to work.

    It's about principle and personal integrity. It's as simple as that.


    Nobody made up my mind for me (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by karen for Clinton on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:47:45 PM EST
    I fell off the unity pony in January of '08.

    I don't know what took me that long.

    What should be obvious to SDs now (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:47:57 PM EST
    will be obvious in August - I agree with you on that, and with the hopes expressed in the rest of your post.

    Except I was for Jerry Brown in 1980. Governor Moonbeam was way ahead of his time.

    Yes, I do remember that (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:58:49 PM EST
    I was only involved as a voter, not a participant, but I do remember that acrimony. That was really the first election I paid much attention to.  I was 21 at the time and had not been politically involved in college.  Reagan sure got my attention however.

    The toughest politician ... (5.00 / 6) (#130)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:48:49 PM EST
    in American as HHS Secretary?

    Stop peddling that day old fish.

    As for this:

    So, what are all the McHillarys going to do if she suspends her campaign this week and throws her heartfelt support to Obama?  Would they not want to support Hillary by supporting Obama?

    I don't get it.

    Many will.  Many won't.  Hillary's supporter's aren't sheep.

    one other thing (5.00 / 9) (#131)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:48:53 PM EST
    Hillary will do what she has to do.  she is a politician.  we are not bound by the same constraints.

    I swear - this brand of "unity" (5.00 / 9) (#134)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:50:23 PM EST
    is deserving of the same scorn and disdain with which we Democrats regard the term "compassionate  conservatism."

    I have to admit that from time to time, I have had to stop and actually ask myself if I feel the way I do because I am blinded by my support for Hillary, or if I am dealing with reality.  I have tried to see it from the Obama side of the fence.  I have gone back and tried to understand how the Obama supporters could have attributed racism to the Clintons.  I've listened to the speeches, as hard as that was, and tried to see if I could feel a glimmer of the excitement that Obama supporters feel.

    I've listened and read the things Hillary has been attacked for saying - and tried to find the horrific things the Obama supporters and the media found in them.  I just don't get it, any of it.

    See, I was willing to be open to an Obama candidacy - heck, I was willing to be open to any Democratic nominee - but as hard as I have tried to keep that door open, Obama and his supporters and the media and bloggers like Aravosis and Markos keep slamming it on my foot.  They mock me, they demean me, they dismiss me, they bully me - it's not a winning strategy, and I am appalled, gobsmacked and - yes - angry - that they would even hint that healing must come from us, not them.

    The door is closed and I will not be the one to open it.  

    I don't feel the slightest urge to (5.00 / 14) (#142)
    by Anne on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:52:24 PM EST
    get behind anyone whose supporters refer to me as a McHillary.

    Get a clue.

    one week to get on the bus? (5.00 / 10) (#145)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:52:47 PM EST
    I think I'll walk

    Yeah - it would take me (5.00 / 4) (#150)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:54:36 PM EST
    at least that long to crawl up from under it.

    It's kinda funny (5.00 / 9) (#151)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:54:40 PM EST
    how the lesson of 1980 apparently is "Carter lost because Kennedy took it to the convention" as opposed to something like "Carter lost because he kinda sucked as a candidate."

    I have no earthly clue how Kennedy would have done against Reagan but I'm pretty sure it couldn't have been worse.  I certainly don't think that but for the Kennedy challenge, Carter would have magically coasted to re-election.

    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#171)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:01:18 PM EST
    It was not Kennedy that hurt Carter. Probably no Dem could have beaten Reagan that year.

    It didn't help Carter that (none / 0) (#305)
    by Daryl24 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:57:16 PM EST
    by the time he got to the convention the Democratic Congress was openly hostile to him and had crushed the overwhelming majority of his proposals. He was  a lame duck going into a reelection.  

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#155)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:55:32 PM EST
    Or maybe she could iron Obama's shirts.  Well done.

    jeralyn just posted a comment about (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:56:02 PM EST
    name calling. mchillary is name calling. now why don't you show some unity and apologize for that and ask that it be deleted.

    so it is a clinton's supporter's fault? (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by hellothere on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:12:43 PM EST
    i take that as a no! ok!

    No (5.00 / 5) (#158)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:56:07 PM EST
    they'll vote in the open, once the backroom deal is made....

    But first, lunch (5.00 / 5) (#178)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:03:25 PM EST
    Ex Republicans (5.00 / 10) (#162)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:58:08 PM EST
    are not allowed to tell life long Democrats how and when to unify.

    you did use the right word though . . (5.00 / 3) (#163)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:58:47 PM EST
    she will suspend her campaign and wait for the next disaster to strike and the next shoe to drop.
    and anyone who thinks there are no more shoes to drop should do some surfing.
    lots of talk about "other shoes" today.
    (or watch Hannity tonight I hear)

    LOL, senator (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:02:24 PM EST
    has more autonomy and weight than HHS secretary.

    Sorry, won't work.

    goes to show the political savvy (5.00 / 4) (#187)
    by angie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:06:56 PM EST
    of the Obama supporters, doesn't it? Offer her a demotion while not even realizing it is one.

    Oh (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:14:27 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure they realize.

    Hillary as VP (5.00 / 5) (#177)
    by tabruns on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:02:41 PM EST
    "Here's the simplicity of this...

    Every Hillary supporter knows and accepts that if Hillary were the nominee - she'd have to pick Obama, but...

    very few Obamacrats say they are even WILLING to accept Hillary as VP"

    This comment is spot-on, and as a Hillary supporter its something that's bothered me greatly.  I find it really hypocritical that Obama supporters would be screaming bloody murder if Hillary wasn't considering Obama as VP and yet, as Obama closes in on the nomination, they (particularly Kos) act as if the very idea of Obama picking Hillary is crazy.  Kos in particular really gets under my skin because he's so arrogant and insulting about it, and that's hard for me to say because since 2004 I've really enjoyed his site and all that he's done.  But on the subject of Hillary for some bizarre reason he's just irrational.

    At the end of the day, Obama is unelectable ... (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by dwmorris on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:05:50 PM EST
    Trying to immulate Lincoln won't save him.

    It would actually be rather pathetic if he tried to assemble a cabinet stocked with former rivals.

    actually if he can be saved (5.00 / 1) (#232)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:26:10 PM EST
    I think that MIGHT save him.  if it was real.
    not holding my breath.

    Oh-oh-oh!!!! (5.00 / 3) (#192)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:10:13 PM EST
    What we've missed stating is that


    Here are his words:

    Yeah, there's been some sexism by irrelevant third parties, but I just don't

    Hillary stronger in the GE (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by tabruns on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:11:57 PM EST
    Have any Obama supporters addressed this?  I don't want to think that Obama could actually lose (my god in THIS environment and after 8 years of the Worst President Ever), but I find it worrisome that according to so many polls Clinton seems to have the GE in the bag whereas Obama looks like he's basically tying McCain.  What are the Obama supporters reactions to that?

    An Obama Supporter's Reaction (5.00 / 1) (#246)
    by Laertes on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:34:29 PM EST
    I'm not troubled by it.  Either Democrat will trounce McCain.  If Hillary's margin would be larger, then it'd be larger.  I support Obama because I think he'd make a better president, not because I think he'd be a stronger candidate.  (I do think he'll be a stronger candidate, but that's not why I support him.)

    That said, I think that a large part of the reason Hillary does better than Obama against McCain in certain states in certain polls is that Clinton supporters are far more likely to say they support McCain in the McCain-vs-Obama matchup than Obama supporters are to say that they'd support McCain in McCain-vs-Clinton.

    And there are, I think, two big reasons for that.

    The first is that Obama looks likely to win the nomination, and so the Clinton supporters are angrier than the Obama supporters.  I expect this dynamic would be playing out in reverse if Clinton was in Obama's position.

    The second is that, well, Obama is more Liberal than Clinton.  So those, like me, who support him for specifically that reason are going to opt for Clinton over McCain because she's more Liberal than he is.  But Hillary, coming as she does from the DLC-conservative wing of the party, is going to draw supporters who might find themselves ideologically nearer to McCain than to Obama.


    you really think (none / 0) (#300)
    by otherlisa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:46:39 PM EST
    that Obama is more liberal than Hillary?

    Good lord.


    Well (none / 0) (#218)
    by CST on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:20:21 PM EST
    I think it's true that she is a stronger g.e. candidate, and also a moot point at this stage as I believe he will be the nominee.  I also don't think it used to be true, but after the way the primary has gone, it probably is.

    I also am hopeful that he will give Hillary the V.P. spot and she will take it and those poll numbers will improve.  I actually have a bet with my dad going about whether or not she will be v.p. (I say yes).

    I do think either Dem can win this thing.  But it will definitely be on Obama to bring in Hillary supporters.  And I think that starts with bringing in Hillary.  As for the polls, frankly, as long as a Dem wins, I don't really care how much they win by.  Also, you can't really tell anything by the polls about what will actually happen yet.  It's way too early in the game, anything can happen.  I think McCain will fare poorly under more scrutiny.  I also think Obama has been scrutinized as if it were the G.E. and McCain has not.


    your dad is going to win (none / 0) (#228)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:24:26 PM EST
    although I may not be the best judge.
    I owe someone here (I honestly dont remember who) 20 bucks to the DNC if O is the nominee.
    but I aint payin until the convention.
    dropping shoes and all, you know.

    Agree and also Not Sure (none / 0) (#243)
    by tabruns on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:31:47 PM EST
    I also think Obama bringing in Hillary as VP would greatly improve the Dems chances and do wonders to unify the party.  This is why I find people like Kos to be really worrying with their "No way in Hell should Hillary be VP" style rants.  They aren't helpful!

    I disagree with you on two issues: not caring how much they win by and whether Obama has been scrutinized at a GE level.  I still feel burned by the stolen election of 2000 so for me, its imperative that a Dem win by a decent margin.  As for Obama being scrutinized, you know the Republicans are going to throw everything and the kitchen sink at him; Clinton has shown she can weather such attacks...I'm not sure Obama has.


    No Hillary VP? (none / 0) (#250)
    by Laertes on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:36:57 PM EST
    I'm an Obama supporter and I think he shouldn't choose Clinton as a VP.

    That said, if he does, I'll change my mind.  I respect Obama's judgement.  If he thinks taking Clinton for his VP is a good idea, then I expect I'm wrong and it is a good idea.  Heaven knows his political judgement is better than mine.  Guess we'll see.


    Your original title was better (5.00 / 3) (#200)
    by dianem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:13:33 PM EST
    I love two parts best of all.

    1. The argument that it's easier for a woman to get elected than a black man, because people are speculating more about Obama being assassinated than about Clinton being assassinated (how do those relate?).
    2. The reference to the "brave" Michigan reps who waited until Obama was safely ahead before giving their citizens token representation at the convention.

    Other than that, the general tone of the article is typical Obamite crap. "We don't really need you or want you and we're going to keep insulting you until you either leave and decide to support the Republican Party or join us in the glorious revolution".

    (singing) (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by kmblue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:24:33 PM EST
    "Let's fall in love...
    Why shouldn't we fall in love..."

    Not likely.


    No one has mentioned (5.00 / 4) (#226)
    by DFLer on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:24:10 PM EST
    This part of the linked post

    (Not to mention, I still get a chuckle out of the fact that Hillary's supporters think a white woman faces more obstacles in America than a black man. Not to go all Hillary-morbid on this, but for all the anti-Hillary hatred in America, Obama is the one dealing with far more speculation about his safety, and it's not because no one cares about Hillary's safety. It's because a lot of Americans, at least bigots in America, have a far greater problem accepting blacks than they do women. It doesn't mean women have it easy. It does mean, however, that Hillary's supporters should stop pretending that it's easier to be black in America than a woman.)

    Now this subject is something I've been thinking about awhile, starting with the aftermath of Ferraro-gate. This blogger isn't the only one with this theme. I remeber a session with KO and Eugene Robinson on MSNBC.....about the reality of being black in America...something about "just try hailing a cab..etc.

    Now we all know that that is true. But what I want to bring up, and have not as yet found the way, is: Do we all need reminders about how safe and easy it is to be a woman in America, when there is a sexual assult or rape in this country every two minutes and the vast majority of these victimes are female? These figures do not include even victims 12 years old or younger. These stats according to RAINN.

    Also in this vein, every time I've read about the accusation of Hillary "playing the victim card",  it just reminds me of how rape victims are sometimes portrayed as playing the victim card. It just resonates all wrong.

    EVERY TWO MINUTES! 1 out of every 6 American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape). All women, all races...That to me is one hell of an obstacle.....but nobody wants to talk about it.

    Well there, I've gotten it off my chest....it's been bugging me for awhile.

    Ha. (none / 0) (#234)
    by kmblue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:26:42 PM EST
    I lived in New York in the early seventies.
    Those were the days.
    Just going out the door, dressed for work, subjected me to sexual harassment.
    I hear it's gotten better now.

    yes indeed (none / 0) (#238)
    by DFLer on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:28:52 PM EST
    but more than harassment here....actual assualt and rape.

    RAINN says assault stats are going down, too.


    I understand. (none / 0) (#269)
    by kmblue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:53:10 PM EST
    Glad things are improving.

    "how safe and easy . . . (none / 0) (#289)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:24:55 PM EST
    . . . it is to be a woman in America"

    its safe and easy to be a woman for Olberbamaman and Robinson.


    Drudge cleansed of Sins by Left (5.00 / 6) (#236)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:27:08 PM EST
    via Digby
    According to The Politico today, the Drudge Report is a reliable, fair and balanced news service because it has given decent coverage to Obama over the past few months. (They fail to note the longstanding loathing and hatred for Hillary Clinton as a possible motivation, but whatever.) I would expect this meme to catch on because the media are desperate to rationalize their Drudge dependence as being something other than sophomoric gossip mongering. But it will, in the end, serve to validate the right wing smears that will make their way through the Drudge report. (Look for the inevitable "even the Obama supporting Drudge says ...")

    Wow, the Progressives are killing me.  

    Please. Kill. Me. Now. (none / 0) (#248)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:36:22 PM EST
    Next they'll be absolving Limbaugh of his sins too, I expect?

    I have never really (none / 0) (#264)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:48:41 PM EST
    thought of Republico as progressive.

    Should have pointed out (none / 0) (#274)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:56:24 PM EST
    it's been picked up by all the Progressives...etc.

    oh (5.00 / 1) (#286)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:22:12 PM EST
    you mean all the former progressives who not only now get their news from drudge and republico but have annexed all the republicans best tactics.

    Your concern is noted, troll (5.00 / 5) (#245)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    there is simply no need to cast a vote for McCain! It's not either/or. You can vote 3rd party or just note vote at the top of the ticket

    Well, of course this is exactly what the Obama followers would dearly love disaffected Democrats to do -- because it helps your candidate. But in reality, the right thing for Democrats to do, if they want to truly wrest the party away from the thugs and vote thieves who run it now at Obama's behest, then they have to vote McCain, because Obama and his entire corrupt organization must be brought down, hard. It's the only right and decent thing to do.

    It's a simple moral issue. With the decisions that came about on Saturday -- and the way they came about -- the Democratic Party has abnegated all moral standing. It has revealed itself to be more venal and corrupt than the GOP, something I would have thought utterly impossible.

    Unity promoters, think about this. (And I have great respect for both BTD and Jeralyn, but think:). How many of us are still angry about 2000 and 2004? Remember how the GOP kept screaming at us, "you lost, get over it!" So, how many of us got over it? Are any of YOU over it? Is it now "OK?" Did you all rush out and become big Bush supporters? Isn't it the case, in fact, that many of those who formerly screamed "Get over it!" when we refused to, are the ones suffering buyers' remorse now? Weren't we right all along?

    Yes. And we're right this time. Stealing votes and election fraud are not things you "get over," not if you are a good Democrat or a good American. You don't "move on" and "put it behind you." This is supposed to be a democracy. I will not forget, or forgive, and I will vote McCain because, yes, the Democrats really have been worse than the GOP because in this case they did it to their own.

    You can't vote for McSame (1.00 / 3) (#39)
    by rottenart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:22:15 PM EST
    if you are a true Yellow dog. End of story.

    Clearly some can and will. (5.00 / 9) (#43)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:22:57 PM EST
    End of story.

    Fine... (1.50 / 10) (#61)
    by rottenart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:28:10 PM EST
    I'll allow that some people will pick McSame over Obama. Their choice. However, that's contrary to the very definition of Yellow Dog.

    IMO, if you're voting for McSame over Obama, then you weren't even a DEM to begin with.

    I'm all for airing of grievances, restitution, hugs, apologies, whatever will heal the wounds... or at least begin the process. As an Obama supporter, I recognize the need for comity and he has some work to do, certainly. But voting for McSame and still calling yourself a Democrat is beyond ridiculous.


    Are you the democrat police? (5.00 / 12) (#66)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:29:56 PM EST
    Let's be real (5.00 / 11) (#67)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:30:15 PM EST
    My grandfather has voted for every Dem since FDR.  You seriously think you have the right to say, if he doesn't vote for Obama, he "was never a Dem to begin with"?  Give me a break.

    Yes... (1.66 / 6) (#100)
    by rottenart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:38:19 PM EST
    Because that's the only measure... (rolling eyes)

    Take a serious look at McCain's foreign policy proposals, his support for the Bush Tax Cuts (which he used to oppose, by the way), his ignorance of basic facts about the nature of the fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, his ridiculous notions about market solutions to the Health Care issues. his piddly, johnny-come-lately approach to green tech...

    You can't be a Yellow Dog and vote for McCain because he is opposed to nearly everything you stand for as a Democrat. Has nothing to do with the R next to his name. It has to do with his actions.


    Uh (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by gandy007 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:46:13 PM EST
    I think you are being a trifle judgmental.

    But since you have all the answers, let me pose this question.

    What color of Democrat is this one who has been there through thick or thin for 44 years for Democrats, but will not vote for Obama.  I won't vote for McCain either; and I suspect I'll vote down ballot for every other Democrat.

    Is that yellow enough for you?


    Okay (5.00 / 10) (#132)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:49:44 PM EST
    Somehow you avoided addressing the point entirely.

    You have no standing to say that someone who has voted Democratic for 70 years "was never a Dem to begin with" just because you don't agree with their choice in this election.  It's absurd.  You look like a fool trying to make yourself the arbiter of who is a real Dem and who isn't.

    You can either try to understand the reasons why some long-term, committed Dems are turning their backs on Obama, or you can keep playing this game of trying to throw anyone who disagrees out of the treehouse.  Your call.


    Oooh! Oooooh! (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:51:44 PM EST
    I'll take "looking like a fool" for $200, Alex!

    good answer! LOL (none / 0) (#315)
    by kelsweet on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:24:34 PM EST
    Ok, I'll clarify (3.00 / 2) (#165)
    by rottenart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:58:53 PM EST
    ... the original poster said that he was a Yellow Dog Democrat who was voting for Mccain in the Fall rather than Obama. Fine with me. I can't change his mind it seems. However, by definition, a Yellow dog Democrat will vote for a yellow dog before he votes for a Republican. The commenter above who won't vote for Obama but will vote all Democratic down ticket comes way closer. I didn't say it was wrong; vote for whomever you want. Just don't call yourself a Yellow Dog.

    As to the second point, perhaps I should have added IMO to the end of my statement. I simply don't see how any Dem who compares the professed beliefs, life story, and action while in public service could possibly come to the conclusion that McCain somehow comes closer to Democratic ideals than Obama.

    In response to the commenter who asserts that I am only parroting talking points: I stand by my arguments against McCain. Every single one. No, Obama is not perfect. Neither was George Washington, Abe Lincoln, FDR, JFK, MLK, RFK, HRC... but they're all great too, right?


    Heh (5.00 / 8) (#195)
    by Steve M on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:11:13 PM EST
    Wikipedia reminds us of the origin of the term "yellow-dog Democrat" - which, like the word Democrat itself, you seem to have claimed the authority to define:

    "That suits me," clarioned the interrupter. "My question is this: Didn't you say at the Louisville convention not four weeks ago that if the Democrats of Kentucky, in convention assembled, nominated a yaller dog for governor you would vote for him?"

    "I did," said Hallam calmly.

    "Well, then," whooped the heckler, eager now to press his seeming advantage, "in the face of that statement, why do you now repudiate the nominee of that convention, the Honorable William Goebel?"

    For his part Hallam waited for perfect quiet and at length got it.

    "I admit," he stated blandly, "that I said then what I now repeat, namely, that when the Democratic party of Kentucky, in convention assembled, sees fit in its wisdom to nominate a yaller dog for the governorship of this great state, I will support him -- but lower than that ye shall not drag me!"

    Too bad it's too late (5.00 / 7) (#197)
    by songster on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:11:37 PM EST
    to get that yellow dog on the ballot for November.  I'd vote for it in a heartbeat.

    I plan to work very hard (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by Boston Boomer on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:22:13 PM EST
    to get a yellow dog on the ballot in MA then, so I can vote for him over Obama.  Thanks for giving me the idea.  

    I will also vote (none / 0) (#266)
    by mikeyleigh on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:49:49 PM EST
    for a yellow dog if he's on the ballot in PA.  But, not Obama.  Neither will I vote for McCain.  I would however prefer seeing McCain win in November.  With strong majorities in the House and Senate which I fully expect to see, I'd rather see a weak McCain presidency for the next four years than risk an incompetent Obaman presidency. We've had incompetent for the last eight years.  That's long enough.

    I presume you're from MA, too (none / 0) (#287)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:22:31 PM EST
    Need help?

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:24:16 PM EST
    I will vote for a yellow dog.  I just won't vote for Obama.

    A yellow dog (5.00 / 12) (#141)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:52:00 PM EST
    fights for the causes of Democrats.  The New Democratic Party doesn't seem interested in those causes or in the people represented by them.

    McCain? You mean Kerry's first choice for VP? (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by angie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:30:27 PM EST
    some things are more important then being a Democrat or a Republican. Bless your heart, I'm sure you would not be able to understand. sticks & stones, sticks & stones.

    Yes, that John McCain (3.00 / 2) (#136)
    by rottenart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:50:59 PM EST
    and how did that VP slot turn out? Oh that's right, McCain refused it flatly, choosing instead the group of people that had smeared his name personally just four years earlier, the same group of people who started the war that he agreed with, the same group of people who (to a person) never even served in the armed forces during McCain's service, yet smeared a war hero, the same group of people who grovel at the feet of the religious right (remember them? McCain called them "agents of intolerance"; now they're part of his REPUBLICAN base)...

    Shall I go on? What could I possibly say to convince you?

    Also, to the commenter below... i don't believe I've shouted once. I'm trying to figure out what you'll accept as conciliatory...


    What can I say to convince you (5.00 / 8) (#174)
    by angie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:01:34 PM EST
    that my vote belongs to me -- not Obama, not McCain, not the DNC, not the RNC, and NOT YOU! Now, Obama certainly can ask for my vote (which he hasn't) and his supporters can try to persuade me to vote for him (which they haven't), but that is the bottom line. I vote my conscience -- not anyone elses.

    I believe this is the same argument... (none / 0) (#254)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:38:59 PM EST
    that Democrats have villified Ralph Nader and his supporters over.

    For the record, I agree with you, your vote is yours and no candidate or party has the right to expect it.  They should have to earn it by adressing your concerns.

    I wish more people thought like us, we'd have a viable 3rd party by now to break this cancerous two party stranglehold on govt.


    rottenart (5.00 / 4) (#206)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:14:24 PM EST
    "I'm trying to figure out what you'll accept as conciliatory..."

    Stating that life long Democats can't possibly be Democrats is not the way to win friends and influence people.

    For an Obama supporter that seems to be par for the course.

    While you're setting standards you might want to consider that many Democrats do not consider Obama to be a Democrat and know very well that a significant portion of his supporters have no interest in the Democratic Party and in fact loathe the party.

    Some people understand that what Obama means by change will strip the Democratic Party of its commitment to activist government and that would be a terrible tragedy for the nation as well as the Party. Many of these people, with deeply serious reasons for concern, contend that an Obama election will harm the party.  These people will either vote for McCain or none of the above.


    If McCain had taken (none / 0) (#298)
    by Daryl24 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:43:42 PM EST
    Kerry's offer for VP his political career would have been over. Smearing is one thing getting excommunicated is another.

    Stop with the "McSame" stuff (5.00 / 14) (#78)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:32:54 PM EST
    McCain lived in a box and was tortured for 5 years in the name of the United States.  Doesn't he deserve the right to be called by his name?  Your name-calling harms your cause.

    Seriously! (5.00 / 9) (#147)
    by dk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:53:35 PM EST
    Let me start out by saying that I'm sure I disagree with McCain's view of the issues 99% of the time.  To be honest, I can't quantify how often I agree with Obama, since his positions on the issues are largely unknown (as Jeralyn has repeatedly pointed out).

    But for heaven's sake, stop calling him "McSame."  Do the A-list blogs understand how infantile that is?  Even if he did vote for Bush's tax cuts, etc. etc., he is not Bush.  Treat the man with some respect.   I mean, if he is McSame, then we might as well call Obama "Obillary," since he basically says he agrees with about 95% of everything that Bill Clinton did in his presidency, as well as everything that Hillary Clinton proposed to do in hers.

    Earth to Obamablogs.  Writing the word "McSame" over and over is not going to win you this election.  Getting your candidate to articulate actual policies that speak to a majority of Americans (i.e. not just you) might give him a chance.


    McCain did not vote for Bush's 2001 tax cuts (5.00 / 2) (#210)
    by cal1942 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:17:24 PM EST
    in fact he spoke out against those cuts.

    how about John (none / 0) (#182)
    by rottenart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:05:05 PM EST
    "voted to authorize torture, the war in Iraq, military force against Iran, against giving vets more money for college, hated the religious right but now needs their votes, got racially smeared by Bush but now needs him to raise money" McCain?

    That is an improvement (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:14:19 PM EST
    Those are the facts (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by Burned on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:21:49 PM EST
    and conveys a lot more information than McSame.
    Plus it sort of sounds grown up and like you know what you're talking about rather than how brilliant you are with a quippy slurname.

    you're wrong (5.00 / 1) (#262)
    by CST on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:46:51 PM EST
    This was the last straw for me and ever respecting McCain.   He flip-flopped on torture.
    He voted against a bill that "would force the C.I.A. to abide by the rules set out in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation, which prohibits physical force and lists approved interrogation methods." (NY Times)

    I suggest you read more (5.00 / 1) (#299)
    by CST on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:43:53 PM EST
    It was good enough for the army.  I find it hard to believe it wasn't good enough for the CIA.  

    And what physical force do you think it would be good to allow?  Just so you know, some more things in the bill (from Boston Globe):

    The CIA would have to abide by the Army Field Manual, which also prohibits beatings, electric or temperature shocks, forced nudity, mock executions, and the use of dogs.


    If what you just said was true (none / 0) (#270)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:53:26 PM EST
    rather than only about half true, you might have a point.  As many times as I have heard Hillary's positions warped and misrepresented by Obama fans, I am not impressed by you doing the same thing to McCain.
    Now listen, I have voted for democrats in very single race for every single office down to dog catcher and I will NOT be voting for Obama.  Figure out why, try to listen and you might have a clue when he loses in November.

    Jeralyn, before you get upset, I will not be here campaigning, or on any other democratic blog, for MeCain or against Obama. But until he is declared the nominee at the convention he is not the nominee as far as I am concerned. If in the meantime you decide he is the nominee I will respect your site.


    They all deserve to be called names.... (none / 0) (#257)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:41:14 PM EST
    I'd call him worse than McSame, despite my respect for what he endured as a POW.

    What he was up to before he was captured...cowardly dropping bombs on people from high altitudes...that I cannot respect.


    Many Democrats, (5.00 / 11) (#84)
    by madamab on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:33:52 PM EST
    thanks to Obama's divisive campaign and anti-Democratic beliefs, are now Independents who are voting McCain. So guess what? They don't call themselves Democrats any more. Way to Unify the Party, Barack!

    As for your ridiculous assertions over who "never was" a Democrat, how the he** would you know that?

    Did you know that during Clinton's era many of the big "progressive" bloggers were Republicans?

    Who the f**k are they, or anyone else, to preach to anyone about how long we've been Democrats?I've certainly been one a lot longer than they have.

    You seem to have a lot of misinformation and talking points, but not much to add to the discussion.


    you said it all....you are an obama (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:34:53 PM EST
    supporter; hence your take...end of story!

    I see... (3.66 / 3) (#115)
    by rottenart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:44:23 PM EST
    because I'm an Obama supporter, the idea that voting for McCain over Obama is just CRAAAAAZZZZEEEE!!!!

    I firmly believe that had this primary not been contested, had Hillary won it handily, had she been going against Mccain, the vitriol would be spewing a little differently. That there's no difference between the parties is the same argument that Nader made in 2000. Do some of you agree that Gore would have screwed up as badly as Bush during these 8 years?

    I'm trying to reach out, if only be trying to show how dangerous for this country John Mccain is. I believe Hillary or Obama would make fine presidents. Obama happened to be the one we have running. I just can't understand why we don't all seem to be on the same team.


    Obama is not the nominee yet (5.00 / 6) (#123)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:46:29 PM EST
    No you are not....you are trying to push your (5.00 / 5) (#144)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:52:30 PM EST
    will on us.  Not the first time I might add.  obama and many of his supporters have done all they could do to disenfranchise the voters and remind us how stoopid we are for choosing Hillary...you know the candidate with experience and a will to be president and doesn't subscribe to waiting in the wings for surrogates and the idiot dem leaders to do sling mud and steal votes....SHE IS NOT THE KIND OF CANDIDATE.  We don't want gwb redux thank you.  

    oh and btw....your fake outrage is pathetic and annoying.   end of story...you may now talk to the hand.


    The problem with (5.00 / 11) (#175)
    by dk on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:01:53 PM EST
    Obama supporters who now come at us with the "McSame" talk is that you just don't have any credibility with us Hillary supporters.  You spent months demonizing a loyal, intelligent, hardworking, experienced democrat.  You insulted her, spread all kinds of filthy lies about her.  And now, you expect us to believe you about anything?  Seriously?  

    It's up to your candidate now.  Frankly, I think not only does he have to give Hillary the vice-presidency, but he also has to clearly, explicitly apologize for his own actions, as well as the actions for his supporters.  And, he better start defining himself and make some hard choices in articulating what he would actually do as a President.  If you have advice to offer, I would point it straight at him.


    On the contrary... (1.00 / 1) (#194)
    by rottenart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:10:35 PM EST
    I did none of those things. I never insulted Hillary supporters, I never insulted their intelligence, and I never tried to force my will upon them... or you all. I'm trying to convince, not berate.

    You're free to vote for whomever you want. I'm simply trying to get you to see how badly we ALL need you to vote for Obama in the fall.


    Unfortunately, you're really bad at it (5.00 / 4) (#233)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:26:31 PM EST
    Just give it up and go do something else.  You are accomplishing nothing.  I, for one, am sick and tired of being lectured to by you people.

    You have not waited until it is over (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by Burned on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:28:25 PM EST
    Until then, any comments like the ones you're making are insulting.

    As always (5.00 / 3) (#240)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:30:28 PM EST
    remember we are taking Micelles advice and we will take "tone" into consideration.  Please submit your unity request in triplicate.  Include transcripts, video and audio that will in any way, confirm that the Obama/Axelrod campaign tone, is worth our consideration.  

    rottenart, I feel your pain. (5.00 / 1) (#249)
    by songster on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:36:49 PM EST
    But I think your efforts are premature.  I'm speaking for myself only, but I think I'm pretty typical of a large group of Clinton supporters in that I feel personally disrespected by Obama and his supporters.  I'd never vote for McCain, but I feel almost physically sick at the idea of voting for Obama.

    I use the word "disrespected" to emphasize the pervasive nature of the experience.  An insult is a discrete event: it happens and it's over.  Disrespect, once perceived, makes an impression that's hard to eradicate.

    I've led a very privileged life, and I've never before had this feeling.  It's a very powerful motivator.  I understand a lot more about voter behavior than I did before because of it.  My head says I'll get over it and vote Dem in the fall because it's the rational thing to do, but my heart says Never!  I think emotional arguments are going to be necessary - do if for the soldiers, for the suffering Iraqi civilians.  But not yet, not while there's a sliver of hope for a good outcome.


    Yeah right (5.00 / 2) (#281)
    by hookfan on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:05:48 PM EST
    Do it for the soldiers? Like Obama did by repetitively voting for funding the war? By Obama not in anyway standing up to Bush after Obama actually was in the senate? Like Powers who stated only in the best case scenario would there be a significant withdrawal? Like Obama did when he said he would invade Pakistan?
      And the idea that we are merely emotional (sounds an awful lot like "hysterical") and not principled is just absurd.
       More time won't heal the breach when the stand is principled. And there is not many stands that are more principled for Democrats than opposing those who are willing to win by stealing votes.

    Oh no you don't (5.00 / 11) (#211)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:17:29 PM EST
    I've watched many elections for many years and the vitriol this year is of a different order altogether.

    Believe what you wish, but it was the enraged, entitled vitriol of Obama supporters back in February that pushed me to Hillary.  I went to site after site looking for a reason to support Obama and it made me sick to my stomach.  In February.

    In every contest there are always a few who will go over the line regardless but this election campaign the great weight of Obama support online has been sickening to behold.


    My vote won't matter in terms of who is elected (5.00 / 4) (#217)
    by esmense on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:20:17 PM EST
    But it does matter in terms of how I conduct myself as an ethical and moral person. I can not cast my vote for someone who has campaigned in an immoral, cynical and unethical way. Period. Obama exploited racial divisions, intentionally worked to increase racial distrust, encouraged the worst type of class prejudice, and tolerated if not openly encouraged ugly forms of misogyny, just for personal benefit.

    To vote for him is to behave in a manner as equally unprincipled as his own and to give one's approval to such tactics -- encouraging even worse in the future.

    I won't vote for either McCain or Obama. But I certainly believe there are worse things than McCain winning in November. One of those things would be for Obama to win on the basis of such degraded and divisive politics, and for those politics to grow, fester and destroy both our sense of national unity and our democracy.


    We are not on the same team because (5.00 / 4) (#224)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:23:26 PM EST
    Your Boy threw us off.  He can't now send his Sweeties over here to be "conciliatory" by threatening us with McCain.  Sorry.

    Give it up.


    I don't generally (5.00 / 5) (#239)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:29:57 PM EST
    join teams whose other members refer to me as part of the "dry p*ssy demographic".  That wasn't enough to make me not vote for Obama - Obama himself did that - but it certainly kept me from wanting to be a part of the O Team.

    OK, (none / 0) (#271)
    by suki on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:53:59 PM EST
    that totally cracked me up.

    Obama is NOT the nominee.. (none / 0) (#255)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:39:18 PM EST
    I get so tired of explaining to you Obama supporters that the nominee is decided at the convention, not by the candidate who announces he won first. The delegates are not bound by the rules to vote for the candidate they are pledged to, and many of his early delegates are having major buyer's remorse, given what they have found out about him since their particular primary/caucus.

    And did it ever occur to you that the reason we won't vote for Obama is that we are patriots? We don't want another incompetent in the White House. We have one now and look how well that turned out. I will write in Hillary. I live in FL so I can do that. If she files an affidavit with the state, the votes will count in the election.

    I will NOT vote for someone I don't think is qualified for the job. It would be a disservice to my country, and I am not prepared to do that. Neither are a lot of people. The SDs are starting to look around and realize that. If Obama had wanted to unify the party, he wouldn't have blithely insulted and dismissed such a huge portion of it. He has alienated all but two or three of the major Democratic voting blocs. And you, and your friends, helped him do it.

    Now you want us to come back and support someone who sneers at us.

    No, thank you. We have better things to do.


    Is there now (5.00 / 9) (#91)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:35:20 PM EST
    some sort of litmus test as to What A Real Democrat Really Is? Can you buy one at the pharmacy? Or the hardward store?

    Of course, all those grand former Republicans like Markos and Arianna are certainly the authorities of what is and what is not a Democrat. Silly us, many of us have only been in the party and working for them for decades.


    I think it might have something to do with being (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:55:17 PM EST
    partially lobotomized and declaring your allegiance to Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Brazile, etc.
    AND under no circumstance may you question their

    I thought it was (5.00 / 8) (#159)
    by janarchy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:56:19 PM EST
    a stick you had to pee on. If it's blue, you're a Democrat, if it's red, you're a Republican!

    No only (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by cmugirl on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:05:13 PM EST
    do you get points for articulating a great point, you get bonus points for doing while quoting Cartman.

    Maybe that's it (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:31:09 PM EST
    I haven't yet had an obotomy.

    If neither Presidential candidate represents (5.00 / 8) (#153)
    by esmense on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:55:11 PM EST
    traditional Democratic values -- most especially values of respect for the working people and commitment to representing their true economic interests --  then I can not and will not vote for either candidate.

    There are other choices than Obama and McCain.

    I have never in my life been willing to, and never will be willing to, vote for any candidate who used exploitation of racial divisions and distrust to further his personal ambition. I will NOT do so in November simply because the candidate who has operated in this low, unethical way calls himself a Democrat.

    The party should be ashamed of itself for promoting such a ticket.


    his name is McCain. You'll allow... geez thanks (5.00 / 3) (#214)
    by kimsaw on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:18:30 PM EST
    Weren't a Dem to begin with- right about me but I respect your choice why can't you show some respect for fellow Dems who disagree with you? Oh that's right you and yours are have change on your side. A new kind of politics, tell me exactly when the change begins? It looks the same old same old to me. Win by any means isn't new.

    NO hugs or apologies needed, they're put forward like bandages without the adhesive- like graciousness without sincerity.  


    It's easy really! (none / 0) (#277)
    by felizarte on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:59:52 PM EST
    I have become an independent for Hillary or McCain.  Mocking, threats of SCOTUS, branding, I assure you will have no effect on my vote come November.

    I'm a proud "unaffiliated" now (5.00 / 9) (#56)
    by angie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:26:24 PM EST
    as a direct result of the DNC's actions this primary so I just brush the name-calling right off of my shoulder, Jay-Z style.

    I actually have a lot of respect for Senator McCai (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by TalkRight on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:28:06 PM EST
    McCain.. he is not a traditional republican and on many issues he is closer to Hillary than Obama.

    You can call him McSame or McBush.. but I see McHillary


    I love that one (5.00 / 1) (#244)
    by Grace on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:32:09 PM EST

    I see him that way too.  Didn't he say something about being a "liberal conservative"?  


    This is the same McSame (1.00 / 5) (#70)
    by rottenart on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:30:33 PM EST
    that voted with Bush 100% of the time last year and 96% of the time the year before that? That's the one that's closer to Hillary?

    Obama supporters can sure bring the crazy alright, but there's no shortage in the other circles either.


    better to have an old crazy guy than a new one (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by TalkRight on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:35:14 PM EST

    Better the devil you know (5.00 / 3) (#173)
    by cymro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:01:22 PM EST

    it is often better to deal with someone or something you are familiar with and know, even if they are not ideal, than take a risk with an unknown person or thing

    Those old idioms and proverbs are based on generations of wisdom. This one is especially apt in this election, making it impossible to ignore, in my opinion.

    I view this as the triumph of experience over hope, of wisdom over wishful thinking.


    A rock or a hard place (5.00 / 3) (#235)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:27:01 PM EST
    Your comments use the fear of a McCain admin rather than any positive of an Obama admin. I don't relish the idea of voting out of fear. I honestly have never understood what Obama has done or said to wear the mantle of the Great Progressive. I'm from Illinois and during his time in office here, I haven't seen it. He isn't Russ Feingold by any measure. And I wonder what the backlash is going to be when or if he's elected and the progressive blogs finds this out?

    It's okay to be a "bad Democrat" (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:28:07 PM EST
    to get your party back from a coup.

    You don't get to coat-tail on others' votes (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by Ellie on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:39:11 PM EST
    And it's bad form to yell at people for not voting as you intend to.

    It's why we have an election and secret ballot.


    "...instead of a (none / 0) (#297)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:41:18 PM EST

    Are you kidding me? (1.00 / 0) (#306)
    by CST on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:57:28 PM EST
    This is all well publicized public knowledge.

    Votes in congress are not something you can hide.  Look it up..

    I have to keep telling (none / 0) (#5)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:09:44 PM EST
    myself that some of these bloggers are wingnuts and they are not representative of the average Obama supporter.  BTD, please tell me that you are more representative of the average Obama supporter so that I don't have to shoot myself!

    I am a Democrat (5.00 / 13) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:17:26 PM EST
    I preferred Obama because I thought him more electable I have had serious problems with Barack Obama's political style since 2005. I have written about my problems with his Unity Schtick for 3 years now.

    I wrote that I wished Hillary Clinton had not  run because I knew she would be subject to the most vicious unfair attacks I have ever seen. she is much tougher than I could have been and much tougher than any other pol in the business, including her husband.

    She was won my admiration as a tough, skilled politician. But until recently, despite that I still believe Obama was more electable, I now believe either is likely to win, but Clinton would have th better chance. Small solace to anyone following me on this. It is too late. Obama will be the nominee.

    But to maximize his chance to win, we must unite our Party. Continued slurs and lies about the likely losing candidate and her supporters is not my idea of a smart strategy to do that. Belittling their concerns, like sexism in the Media, as irrelevant, strikes me as a counterproductive approach. Not to mention morally repugnant.

    The blogger quoted in my post seems to have a different view than I do on this.


    I wish bloggers held themselves (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by bjorn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:23:50 PM EST
    to the same standards as you and Jeralyn.  I am seriously waiting for Jeralyn's first unity post after the magic number event happens, whether it is Clinton or Obama.

    If what Bill Clinton said (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:36:50 PM EST
    is a portent of how this week will end, then our paths are about to diverge. I hope that Hillary will leave the door open should something change before August, and I will be there with more support if she is the Democratic nominee. I hate being on the telephone so much that I don't even own a cell phone, but I especially enjoyed talking to the kind folks of WV. I hope that Jeralyn does find another hook to grab those of us who will not be participating in the support of Obama to continue to drop by TalkLeft.  I have enjoyed the camaraderie here. BTW, thanks for posting the Reardon article this morning. The responses to it on both sides kind of says it all. Not leaving TL - just returning to lurker mode until Jeralyn adds a new door.

    Gotta give you kudos for consistency (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by RalphB on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:44:40 PM EST
    and intellectual honesty throughout.  No matter what happens, I don't see how anyone can have a problem with your writing.  Frankly, you and Jeralyn have been the best.

    If it happens, and it probably will, (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:18:02 PM EST
    that is an example of unification in the strata of politicos.  Doesn't ensure any unification at the grass roots level.

    third party? (none / 0) (#49)
    by kredwyn on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:24:32 PM EST
    Third Party?!?!?!?!

    Is he kidding?

    If you can't vote for Obama (none / 0) (#50)
    by dws3665 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:25:45 PM EST
    there is simply no need to cast a vote for McCain! It's not either/or. You can vote 3rd party or just note vote at the top of the ticket.

    While I understand (and feel) the resentment many HRC supporters feel toward the Obama campaign, and I share the low opinion of many here for Obama as a potential President, I do not understand how people espousing progressive values can vote for McCain. I just don't get it.

    Please don't give me the "unless you vote for Obama you are essentially voting for McCain." That simply isn't true.

    But I don't understand taking the affirmative step of pulling the lever/pushing the button/punching the chad for McCain.

    Sorry if too OT.

    Well, if you want Donna to lose her job... (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by goldberry on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:29:42 PM EST
    ... and for Dean to go back to practicing medicine, it makes perfect sense.  

    Won't vote for McCain (5.00 / 7) (#80)
    by Valhalla on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:32:59 PM EST
    but I get the opinions of those who do.

    The DNC started this game of chicken back before January.  They made it about more than just this one election, they made it about the direction of the party.  It's gone way beyond just BO as a candidate.

    If Obama et al win in November using their various strategies, then it's over for a very, very long time.  If you don't believe they actually hold or will work for progressive values (and Obama's record on that score is weak), then the long term principles of progressives may be better hewed to by losing the battle but winning the war.


    For the record, I am not (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by nycstray on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:37:15 PM EST
    I will write her in unless it defaults to Obama. If it does, blank or 3rd party, more than likely blank.

    I'll do any down ticket supporting I can, unless they are riding the pony and/or have shown they have no spine.


    A very good reason to vote for McCain (5.00 / 6) (#168)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:01:00 PM EST
    is that I want future representation from the Democratic Party.  I want them to be about more than AA's, latte liberals, and college students.

    That is my main reason.

    Second reason:  the Economy is going down the tankers.  I've said previously, my FIRST reason to not want Obama as president is because he'd be too Carteresque.  With the economy as it's sliding, they'll pin the Carter label on Obama and the Dems will lose presidental elections for years to come.

    So, yeah, there's a really good reason to vote for McCain.  

    Now if the Dems had a great candidate nominated, I'd vote, spend money, support.  But not for Obama, Mr. Chicago machine.  No way.


    If you live in a red state, (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:01:14 PM EST
    then you can pretty much vote for no one or anyone but Obama, but if you live in a state where the vote is going to be close, then a vote for McCain is the way to go if the object is for Obama to lose.  I assure you that is my objective.  I will be looking closely to see how things stand before I decide. Harry Truman was the President when I was born, but I have voted for him on occasion, and once I voted for my dad to see if it would get recorded. But my objective this time is for the vote to actually have some effect if it needs to.

    Sidney Blumenthal (5.00 / 1) (#312)
    by Daryl24 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 05:15:13 PM EST
    said dems are making a big mistake when they classify McCain as Bush 3.

    No (3.00 / 2) (#265)
    by CST on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:49:02 PM EST
    Obama voted no on Roberts.  There have been articles written about how he considered voting yes on Roberts.  But ultimately he voted no.  Please stop spreading lies.  

    No. (none / 0) (#128)
    by oldpro on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 02:47:47 PM EST
    Of course not.

    Goodbye Reagan Democrats? (none / 0) (#230)
    by UncleDavid on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:24:39 PM EST
    I still don't get this, which has been quoted before:
    Well, now it's time for Hillary's staff and supporters to pick a side. It's their one chance, and there's no coming back.

    Does that mean that Aravosis doesn't want the votes of the Dems and Indies who picked a side and voted for Reagan? Or Bush in 2000 or 2004? I thought we were supposed to encourage them to come back to the D side?

    The logic of his argument would lead us to just expect - nay, demand - a repeat of the 2004 results. Except we would allow for those who have passed on, and also those who have turned 18 since. Oh, I get it. We're relying on the 18-22 set to make up the difference. Makes sense now.

    Don't amplify the stupidity (none / 0) (#267)
    by anydemwilldo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:50:07 PM EST
    Guys... I know things aren't quite over yet.  But, yes, we do have to "unify" at some point.  Part of that is forgiveness, some of it is acceptance.  And it has to happen on all sides.

    I just don't see how this is helpful here: yes, the linked blogger is a lunatic.  But BTD: by digging up an intemperate and lunatic statement by a comparatively obscure source, you are picking a fight here.  This just isn't a time for picking fights.  Just walk away.  Wait for the other side to say nice things, because they will.

    Let the Obama "side" shut this guy down.  Or just let him be ignored as he would have been without your link.  Look at the statements from the big names, and pick out the nice bits and link those.  You'll find they'll do the same.  Eventually, we'll all re-discover the fact that we agree on almost everything except the primary.  Bitterness and bile (which is available in plentiful quantities on all sides of this argument) isn't helping anyone any more.  It's time to be grown-ups again.

    Picking a fight? (5.00 / 1) (#273)
    by kmblue on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 03:56:22 PM EST
    You mean like brushing a candidate off one's shoulder?
    Or tolerating sexism?
    Or, or, or...never mind.

    Yes, exactly like that (none / 0) (#280)
    by anydemwilldo on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:04:22 PM EST
    That sort of thing is (sort of) accepted during primary season, because it's politics, and politics isn't pretty.  Believe it or not, the Obama "side" (sigh) have a long list of annoyances and perceived slights by the Clinton campaign too, and they feel just as strongly they they are the aggrieved party.

    Now, I know how tempting it is to believe that you're just right, and they're wrong, and start screaming.  But the truth is that neither "side" (sigh) is blameless here, and both of them have their lunatics.

    My point, though, was that we're now reaching the moment where being a lunatic stops helping either candidate.  It's time to start ignoring the lunatics, not engaging them (and yes, I mean some members of this site too).  They won't stop being lunatics, but at least they'll shut up.


    Aravosis (5.00 / 3) (#279)
    by Nadai on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:02:57 PM EST
    is not an obscure source; he's one of the A-List lefty bloggers.  And as for the Obama side shutting him down, well, let's just say I'm not holding my breath.

    And as for the Obama-ites saying nice things - too f'ing little, too f'ing late, and that's assuming they ever do say anything nice.  I'm really not interested in some insincere little twerp trying to get kissy with me in the hopes of getting my vote.  Three months ago, being nice would have meant something.  Now it's just another insult, presupposing I'm too stupid to see through the act.


    I'm sorry, but I'm not some (5.00 / 1) (#282)
    by JDEUNO on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:06:57 PM EST
    8 year-old child who gets into a tif with another playmate, friend, etc., where the child's feelings were hurt, and then 3 days later they have forgotten about it and all is well.  That's what young children do - I am not a young child.  I am a 43-year old adult, and these Obama-bots, CNN, MSM, etc., are, what I call jerks, and I dont' deal with jerks.  I am watching CNN (HATE THEM!) just to see what they are talking about, and that Jack Cafferty questions are always about Hillary, and the people who reply are Obama supporters who are filled with nothing but hate in their responses.  No thanks - I don't need that.  I was also watching Jamal Simmons (Obama supporter) and Leslie Sanchez (McCain supporter) talk as Wolf asked questions, and he asked if "Bill has been an asset or liability".  Jamal had the nerve to say "He's both....in terms of South Carolina, and how some people took his quote out of context and called him racist...." I took my beer bottle and threw it at my TV (now I have to go out and purchase another TV).  It was him, and Donna Brazile, and the rest of them who kept talking about how his comments were racist, etc....

    I will NEVER, EVER vote for Barack Obama, even if Hillary is on the ticket.  And before any of you try to argue the difference between him and McCain, don't.  I'm not in the mood for your self-serving comments.  I'm going tomorrow and officially change my voter registration from Democrat to INDEPENDENT.

    So Barack can have his new Democratic party - to heck with them all.


    I agree with no quarter: (none / 0) (#285)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:20:11 PM EST
    . . . here's how the NYT reports Hillary's win in Puerto Rico:

        Mrs. Clinton's campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, called the island's primary "another convincing win for Hillary" on CNN, and Mr. Obama conceded the race to her in a speech in Mitchell, S.D. "She is going to be a big asset going into November" in efforts to defeat the Republicans, Mr. Obama said.

    A big asset? Only an unscrupulous sexist * would say such a thing, and we now know beyond all doubt that Barack Obama sets the gold standard in sexism.


    Who's this "we"? (5.00 / 1) (#291)
    by echinopsia on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:29:55 PM EST
     But, yes, we do have to "unify" at some point.

    You got a mouse in your pocket?

    "We" don't have to do any such thing.

    The Democratic Party has made it plain that it no longer represents me or my best interests. I am therefore no longer a Democrat and I don't have to unify with anyone - particularly not with the ones who have been insulting and ignoring me and my candidate.


    "No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her sex."-- Susan B. Anthony, 1872


    grown ups, yes (5.00 / 1) (#322)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:19:19 PM EST
    obama is not a grown up and that is why many people will not vote for him.  No his behavior is not acceptable in a primary.

    Aravosis... (none / 0) (#278)
    by UncleDavid on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:02:21 PM EST
    ...isn't obscure, relative to the rest of the blogosphere. He's one of the more noted and linked. Of course, the 'sphere is obscure relative to the real world, but still.

    Well, you're speaking for me. (none / 0) (#284)
    by yourkidding on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 04:19:09 PM EST
    And thanks!

    disappointment? (none / 0) (#320)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 06:03:34 PM EST
    no you do not understand, not if you think this is about disappointment.  It is about disgust.
    And no I do not want her working for Obama, what a ridiculous picture.  It is like asking the captain to take orders from the newly hired first mate and then expecting her to go down with the ship.

    The choice betweent MCcain and Obama (none / 0) (#325)
    by Carl2680 on Mon Jun 02, 2008 at 09:43:03 PM EST
    The obamaniacs are talking about MCcain if the armaggeddon will arrive please. Mccain is basically playing the right wing base now once he wins the election will be in the center and those Bush tax cuts will be history. I don't think Mccain hasn't forgot about how the Bush mafia treated his family in 2000. He is now going alone with bush because he needs to if he wants the  GOP base.