home

Tuesday Open Thread: An American Storm

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:09:48 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Suddenly the pressures fallin, fallin
Skies have all turned grey
Suddenly the storm is heading straight your way

Its like a full force gale
Atop a mountain of cold
You tell your story again and again
And it never gets old
Its like a wall of mirrors
You charge em at full speed
You cover up - you hear the shattering glass
But you never bleed

Storms pass. I'm off to the jail for several hours. This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

Comments now closed.

< Venezuela Slouching Towards A Police State | Clinton Campaign Denies AP Report That She Will Concede Obama Has Won >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Open Thread: An American Storm | 231 comments (231 topical)
    Sad if so. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by AX10 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:15:18 AM EST
    If it is so, then I'm out of here.  Sorry, I will not be with Obama in the fall.  I will vote for McCain.

    Before you decide to do that (none / 0) (#22)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:22:50 AM EST
    please read this from today's Science section in the NYTimes:

    Repairing the Damage, Before Roe

    It's by a physician who took care of women who had been injured by illegal abortions.  Every bit of it is true and every bit of it reaffirms my own decision to stick with the Democratic nominee, albeit without any joy.

    Parent

    We've been threatened (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:25:08 AM EST
    with Roe since I can remember.  Won't work this time.

    Parent
    On to Denver and Let's Win There (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Athena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:32:40 AM EST
    Since Friday is the 40th anniversary of the RFK assassination, I expect to watch his last statement in California played over and over this week:

    "Now it's on to Chicago and let's win there."

    RFK announced that he was going to the convention to fight for the nomination at a time when he was way behind Gene McCarthy in delegates, and Humphrey was the sitting VP aiming for the top spot.  That was regarded as a fighting spirit.

    Hillary need not justify or rationalize any decision to go to the convention.  History is replete with examples of candidates who did exactly that.

    She needs to go to Denver with dignity and legitimacy, leading in the popular vote, and challenging the supers to override that metric.

    Parent

    Your facts about the delegate (none / 0) (#111)
    by brodie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:57:07 AM EST
    situation in 68 are not true.  As of June 4 with the CA results in, RFK was in 2d place a few hundred behind Hubert but well ahead of McCarthy, no one having a majority locked up and many hundreds of delegates undecided.

    Iow, there was a real race that year that was destined to go to Chicago, but a race only between RFK and HHH; McCarthy, having lost CA, lost his momentum to Kennedy who, in turn, appears to have gained the crucial backing of Mayor Daley, who'd been waiting on CA to see whether to support Bobby.  

    It would have been a huge fight between the establishment HHH/Johnson pro-war wing of the party and the Kennedy/antiwar wing, with both competing for the McCarthy delegates and RFK expected to get most.

    Not quite the situation we're in today, with BHO apparently on the verge of going over the top with a majority if those several dozen SDs come through for him in the next few days or sooner.

    Parent

    Response (none / 0) (#188)
    by Athena on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:24:37 PM EST
    Yes, the totals are correct, but the analysis is just the opposite, as was my point - RFK went forward when he was far behind in delegates - no one had a nomination at that time either and he intended to press on.  And we now see two competing coalitions vie for the nomination as they did in '68.

    Parent
    Teresa, it is not a threat (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:39:40 AM EST
    it is a reality.

    I lived through the dark ages of pre-Roe so this is personal to me.  I had friends who were put in jail in Mexico for getting an abortion and other friends who were forced into unwanted pregnancies.  My own mother had an illegal abortion but fortunately she did not die from it.

    I don't want to go back to those terrible days and I don't want my daughters to have to fight the same fights that their grandmother and mother already fought.  I want to advance women's rights, not roll them back.

    Please don't tell me I am threatening you or anyone else.    I am just as free to raise this issue as you are to ignore it.  

    Parent

    Then you should have (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:43:45 AM EST
    supported the Democrat who could win the election.

    BTW:  If you can put the notion forward, I can tell you you're threatening people.

    So far, that's not against the rules here.

    Parent

    I supported Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#98)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:47:47 AM EST
    and still do.

    I believe she is the Democrat who can win.

    Parent

    Question (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:48:27 AM EST
    Where were the Democrats when Alito needed to be filibustered? Answer: They didn't have the balls to filibuster him. How about Roberts? Nope, didn't filibuster him either. Tell me again why they are SO MUCH better? Reid, who heads the Senate, isn't even pro choice. Casey, another anti choicer, that we got told to suck up because its evidently politically acceptable to say that women are secondary to fetuses. I'm not even sure the Dems care about this issue any more then a ploy in much the same way that gay marriage is a GOP "issue". They certainly have gone out of their way to say as much to me.

    Parent
    There Is A Political Cost (none / 0) (#120)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:04:27 AM EST
    to fillisterbusting a Supreme Court judge over idealogical issues.  That's why we need a Democratic in the White House to appoint judges who will protest these rights.  Also to appoint competant and fair judges at all levels.  The system is off track from Republican dominance of the appointment process.  I'd like to see it balanced and restored.

    Parent
    There is also a cost (5.00 / 3) (#132)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:12:55 AM EST
    to standing by and doing nothing knowing that that choice will not exist in a vacumn and will affect stuff like Roe V. Wade. I'm done with being told to vote Democrats because of reproductive rights when they have done little to nothing to advance those rights.(Heck some of even voted for the Partial Birth abortion bill KNOWING that it'd mean more risk for pregnant females). The system is off track because of BOTH parties. The Republicans may have been in charge but it is because of the spinelessness of Democrats that we are where we are. The minority party has a part in the process.(just look at what the GOP has managed despite their minority status).  

    Parent
    Just What HAS The GOP Managed? (none / 0) (#156)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:40:11 AM EST
    Besides appointing conservative judges?  Getting 4,000+ US service members killed in the Middle East?  Achieving a whopping .5% GDP?  Creating record deficits?  Spending 3 TRILLION DOLLARS in a war that was unnecessary, unwanted and unwarranted?  Disenfranchisement of voter?  More stolen elections?  Oh yeah, that's REAL progress.

    You can have your Republican/conservative media party.  I chose to support the party who wants a living wage, wants to protect women, who wants to find a way out of a destructive war, who wants to make judicial appointments on the biases of reasonable and competent judges, who can run the government bureau and respond to national emergencies.  That party is the Democrat party.  We've proved it time and time again.  

    I guess if you're satisfied with the way things are, go ahead and support the Republicans.  Many of us aren't satisfied, and know a better way.


    Parent

    What have the Democrats accomlished? (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:52:19 AM EST
    We are STILL in Iraq, still discussing steriods in sports, they took impeachment off the table despite the fact that the judicial department has been politicized and allowed citizens to be spied upon without warrants. They took a shoe in election cycle and turned it into a circus and managed to disenfranchise and insult a myriad of demographics in the process. Bang up job Democrats. From where I'm sitting my choices are bad and worse. Frankly, I'm sick to death of being used as a political pawn come election time. I'm an Independant. I will vote based on issues and charecter rather than some cockamamie political affiliation. The fact that I'm an independant is MY shot across the bow to the Democrats. I'm tired of being told that we need to keep our powder dry. I'm going to keep my options open until I can get a REAL party that actually believes it is important to fight fo its principles instead of pulling them out every two years to garner votes or play poliical kabuki.  

    Parent
    Last Time A Democrat Was In The White House (none / 0) (#172)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:01:25 PM EST
    We had historic peace, prosperity, worldwide good-will, better environmental action, better judicial appointments, better responses to disasters, and more competent government all around.  Bush is the log-jam to making progress, not the Democratic majority.  McCain will be just the same log-jam.  If we can have a democratic congress and president, we can advance the Democratic agenda.  The Democratic Party didn't hose the election up; a small contingent of the RBC did.  Maybe we can finally jettison the caucus and delegate system and be rid of this madness, and look more like Democrats next time.  One think I do know, voting for McCain isn't going to help getting the government we want.

    Parent
    f (none / 0) (#183)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:55:53 PM EST
    and the party has painted him as a racist. Declared that proving the fallacy that raising minimum wage would cause the business world to case to exist or that Democrats could balance budgets as not transformative instead praising the candidate that evokes Reagan as the last transformative figure(Although I'd argue as long as you ar going to argue awful transformative why not go with Bush Jr, he's been transformative in a not good way too). The new coalition sas it can win without me. I wsh them much luck. I do not want any part of a party that smears some of its most staunch members.

    I see no evidence that Obama's form of government will be anymore responsive to the middle class then McCain. He leaves a donuthole in his healthcare plan using the argument that mandated universal care means making someone choose between rent or health care. His economic advisor is extremely free market and made a great deal out of the fact that Obama did not support an economic stimulus plan that rovided money for infrastructure and progrms like oil for the elderly. He's voted present on issues of choice out of political expediency. I'm not even go into how offensive folks like Brazile are to me and my intelligence.

    Nope, from where I'm sitting I think Independant is exactly where I want to be. If the Deocrats want to come to their senses and put a fighter in then and someone who will rpresent the interst of the lower and middle class I'll vote for them. If not, well I'll sit it out and wait or vote for a Candidate that WILL fight for what I believe. I'm tired of voting bad or worse.

    Parent

    Well, the party didn't do those things. (none / 0) (#186)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:12:08 PM EST
    But there is lots of evidence that the Democratic nominee will be more responsive to the middle class and working class than McCain.  A health care plan, even with the donut hole, is better than no plan.  In fact, Obama supports a middle-class tax cut ( though I'm becoming more skeptical that tax cuts actually help.  They only add more to the debt, putting pressure on the dollar.  I'd rather see a sane tax system restored, and that's what I would lobby for )  Also, it is better to talk to our enimies, rather than making the outrageous provocation "Bomb, bomb Iran"  Did you like the response to Katrina?  Good, cause that's the way McCain will respond to natural disasters.  There will be no national gaurd to help in those cases, because they will be fighting McCain's 100 year war.  

    Nobody is telling you how to vote.  As I've said many time now, if you like things the way they are, go ahead and cast a vote for more of the same.

    Parent

    Yes the party did (none / 0) (#196)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:42:14 PM EST
    Clyburn is an elected Democrat. Donna Brazile represents the DNC. THe RBC did what it did on behalf of the DNC. They don't get to tout the record of Clinton and paint him as MEDIOCRE AND A RACIST. Sorry, that tactical error is gonna cst him big time.

    Don't worry I am well aware I can vote as I choose and I choose NOT to vote for Obama. I don't see him as better than McCain(Heck according to him he'll be working with the GOP just like McCain hs insisted he'd work with the Democrats. They are birds of a feather.) and you haven't given me any factual evidence that proves otherwise.

    Parent

    Good Grief (none / 0) (#199)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:46:56 PM EST
    Clyburn and Brazile are NOT the party.  What an abusrd statement.  The party is bigger than those few individuals, and will survive them intact.  

    I've given you lots of factual evidence.  You've chosen to ignor it.  That's fine, and BTW, you have never answered my question aobut all the things you've claimed the GOP has accomplished.  I take that to mean you don't have an answer.  Thanks for nothing.

    Parent

    Clyburn and Brazile (none / 0) (#202)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:54:28 PM EST
    are examples of members within the party. The DNC IS the party. Do you really want to talk abou taking delegates from the winner and giving it to the loser? I mean if you want to go there we will.

    I didn't say the Republicans were better although if I were to argue effectiveness I'd have to say that even in minority status they managed to get Moveon condemned, the IRG declared terrorists, FISA past the Senate, stymie Democrats on Iraq and STILL continue their discussion on steriods in sports. Cetainly not laudable or valuable for the electorate but then again it isn't like the Democrats can point to accomplishments and they have majority status.

    You've said a bunch of things and lauded that as evidence. I ain't the AP. I don't take anectotal evidence.

    Parent

    They Do Not Represent the Party (none / 0) (#205)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:04:06 PM EST
    Are you kiddin me?  All you prove is that you can take the worst example of any groups and make an outrageous claim that they represent the party.  You could have used John Edwards, Kennedy ( any of them ) Dennis Kuchinich... any number of good examples.  So you are proving nothing.  17 Million Democrats disagree with Clybrun and Brazile, who BTW, would have no pull whatsoever over how things have played out without a media which danced to their every tune.  These people you keep pulling out of your pocket and pigmies, nothing at all to do with the party's values.  Those 17 Million people who didn't swallow their blie are the Democratic party.

    The Republicans can stymie the Democrats becuse they have the power of the veto.  When the Democrats get that power, they will be able to pass their agenda.  As for the other "accomplishments" you make the best case yet to vote Democratic.

    Parent

    You're right (none / 0) (#209)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:15:17 PM EST
    on the 17 million and many of those 17 million are and will be leaving the party because of the disgraceful conduct this primary season. I'd say present company included but I left during kabuki hour on Iraq.

    Oh I can make a great case to vote Democratic, I spent lots of time last cycle working the get out the vote. I won't be doing so this time.

    for the record, I will vote Warner because he is more competent than Gilmore. I will vote for Boucher. I don't always agree with him but he is respectful. Obama is a whole nother ball of wax. Barring Hillary on the ticket, I'll write her in. I'm done with bad AND worse.

    Parent

    Oh and Kennedy (none / 0) (#210)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:16:53 PM EST
    made a nasty comment about her "honor". Edwards was the only one sharp enough to know better than to insult half the party's choice.

    Parent
    Who Hasn't Made A Nasty Comment? (none / 0) (#212)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:20:56 PM EST
    Really, smart people look at a person's entire body of work.  Robert Kennedy was a fierce defender of Hillary, so Edwards wasn't the only one.  Really, you need to do a little more homework.

    Parent
    Doubt They Will Leave (none / 0) (#211)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:18:02 PM EST
    They are mostly loyal Democrats, like me.  Some of them won't vote for Obama; doesn't mean they have left the party.  At least, many will vote for downtickey Dems.

    Parent
    Watch the indy numbers (none / 0) (#213)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:22:54 PM EST
    They are going to go up, up, up. The riff is real.

    Parent
    Only numbers that count (none / 0) (#216)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:28:17 PM EST
    are the ones in Noverber.  And as I've said, not voting for Obama does not mean they've left the party.

    Parent
    Do a little reading (none / 0) (#219)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:32:06 PM EST
    There are quite a few hre that have already left. The RBC was the straw that broke their camels back. Heck, there are some here that have sad they'll vote McCain(I'm not one of them). I wish you luck with that bright, shiny new coalition.

    Parent
    I Do Alot Of Reading (none / 0) (#220)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:34:29 PM EST
    And I know the demographic of the folks we are talking about.  They don't jump off the party every time things doen't go their way.  If that were the case, there wouldn't be a party now.  Sorry, but the few individuals on this blog underrepresent the Democratic party.  We remain strong in number and in conviction.

    Parent
    Some more reading for you (none / 0) (#232)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:06:03 PM EST
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_froma_harrop/white _women_take_the_gloves_off

    Enjoy the shiny new coalition.

    Parent

    You Once Told Me (none / 0) (#235)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:52:06 PM EST
    you don't respect anecdotal talk.

    Evidently, you do.

    Parent

    The DNC represents (none / 0) (#221)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:34:59 PM EST
    the Democratic Party.  Yes.  And they fix votes, fix state elections to favor one candidate over another.
    They need to be exorcised . Voting for their candidate will be the same as following and accepting an appointed and manufactured candidate. It is not Democracy. It is now the party that excludes people and fixes elections.

    The "but oh we have to have a Democrat no matter what" cheer  is narrow and lazy. When is the time to fight for what you believe? Do I follow like one in a colony of ants and do anything, just anything to win?

    I'm not a follower and I am not going on this trip

    Parent

    Not Manufacutres Or Lazy (none / 0) (#223)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:39:01 PM EST
    But the acknowledgement that there are two viable candidates.  Both are imperfect, but one is a better choice.  My choice is Democrat.  Doesn't make me lazy.  I find your comment insulting.

    Parent
    Political cost? it is there job (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:24:50 PM EST
    if they are too chicken about losing their seats to do their jobs, then they deserve to lose them.

    Parent
    I Won't Disparage My Party (none / 0) (#187)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:15:42 PM EST
    because they are under the same political system as any other.  In fact, the Democrats have fillibustered some of the worst judges that were nominated.  But politics is a game they all must play.  The best way to get the reforms is to elect a Democratic president.  

    Parent
    Holding public officials to standards (none / 0) (#190)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:27:00 PM EST
    such as "doing their job" is not disparaging them, or did I wake up in communist China? And to excuse their not doing their job on the "system" is just lame.

    Parent
    I Never Said They Weren't Doing Their Jobs (none / 0) (#197)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:43:19 PM EST
    I've said they filibustered some of the worst candidates.  But having a weapon doesn't mean you have to use it every time.  Neither does not filibustering every appointee mean you're not doing your job.  There are many ways in which a Congressman/Congresswoman affects policy.  But politics is a game of compromise, and it will always be that way.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.  When my side loses, I want to strengthen their hand, not handicap it.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#203)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:55:39 PM EST
    With the Democrats - it's all the time you lose. We have enough powder to open a factory.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#207)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:07:12 PM EST
    All the time?  So, there isn't a minimum wage?  Or a family leave law?  Or a 40-hour workweek?  Or Civil Rights? Or....

    Parent
    Where in Mexico? (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:55:30 AM EST
    Mexican jails are horrible, but I know of several ladies who went there and were not jailed. Some flew to the islands too. I remember Roe being passed and not knowing what it meant. Roe was important to me at the time. It is still important but I have that one being the reason I had to vote Dem before. This time, like is said, it is like the Gay marriage for the GOP. This time Roe will not have the same effect. And if it was that important, Obama wouldn't have been for Roberts.

    Parent
    Tijuana (none / 0) (#125)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:08:22 AM EST
    Her father had to wire a bunch of money to get her out.  She sat there for several days with no medical care.

    I also remember when a married friend who had two kids and a troubled marriage had to go before a panel of 3 male psychiatrists to get permission for an abortion.    This was in the days just before Roe was passed.  

    I suppose you are right that Roe is not going to have much effect in 2008, judging from the many posters here who don't seem worried about it all..... and some who resent that it is even mentioned.

    Parent

    It IS important (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:50:01 AM EST
    But it is one of those things that is brought out at election time and after years of hearing this, we take it as a threat. Note the vote on Roberts. 3 Dems on the panel voted for him including Leahy and Feingold. We have no idea what Obama will do. He liked Roberts so go figure. There is no guarantee on the judges.

    Parent
    Please consider also (none / 0) (#182)
    by FruitlandGenerics on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:53:18 PM EST
    Neither Obama or Clinton will appoint an anti-choice justice.

    McCain is sure to.

    And they will get to appoint justices:

    John Paul Stevens is 88
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75
    Antonin Scalia is (or will be) 72 this year
    Anthony M. Kennedy is (or will be) 72 this year
    Stephen Breyer is (or will be)70 this year

    That means more than half the SCOTUS justices will be at least 74 years old after just the first term of whomever is elected.

    Ralph Nader taught us a vote not cast for the Democratic nominee is as good as a vote cast for the Republican. Do you really want to give John McCain the ability to select up to half the SCOTUS?

    I'll admit, I'm an Obama supporter now. I wasn't always. I started out as an Edwards guy. I have policy disagreements with Sen. Clinton and I personally find her abrasive and many of the same qualities bloggers here would attribute to Sen. Obama.

    But if Clinton had won the nomination, I'd have voted for her in a heartbeat in the general election. I prefer Sen. Obama's health plan - but Sen. Clinton's sure is better than McCain's non-existent one. I prefer Sen. Obama's proposals for college assistance and other matters to hers. But Sen. Clinton's plans sure are preferrable to McCain's.

    We must do everything in our power to make sure John McCain is not the next president. And voting for McCain (or anyone else who's not the nominee of the Democratic Party) will certainly not help reach that goal.

    So, in a nice way, I'll ask - How can you possibly justify voting for John McCain?

    Parent

    I won't vote McCain (none / 0) (#184)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:01:54 PM EST
    but that doesn't mean I have to vote for Obama either. I'm tired of being told to choose between bad or worse. I'm tired of being mistaken as a political pawn. I'm not and refuse to be one. The number of Independants grow larger and larger as more and more GOP members AND Democrats tire of political kabuki at the cost of the electorate.

    I won't follow the media narrative or support a plutocracy and I'll be darned if I'll be party to what I see as blatant manipulation.
     

    Parent

    It will not be over the Supremes (none / 0) (#222)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:35:03 PM EST
    Nice first posts. You forgot to mention John McCain's age at 71 too. I do take note that you find Obamas health care plan better. That was the first thing that drove me to Hillary. So, we all agree to disagree and see where this all goes to before the Supremes get thrown into the pot too. Seems to be the theme today for Obama. But, remember, I am not needed in the new Democratic party, so my vote does not matter. Go and ask Donna Brazile.

    Parent
    Oddly enough (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:14:15 AM EST
    The females in this country who really need to keep Roe v. Wade alive and well are the ones who have decided the country should have a president who isn't qualified for the job, who doesn't have the judgment to make good decisions or choose respectable friends, who won't have the courage to stand up for their rights, and who can't win the GE.

    They may have to fight to get Roe v. Wade back. However, every state in the country runs its own abortion laws and overturning Roe v. Wade won't change that. There is a privacy element to it they might want to understand.

    My thought is the Roe v. Wade argument is only appropriate when placed in front of the faces of the young women who are supporting Obama. The ones who support Clinton are aware of what we're doing.


    Parent

    Hearfelt (none / 0) (#113)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:58:41 AM EST
    Thanks for your heartfelt message.  I do worry about seeing RVW overturned in a court packed with conservative judges.  I also worry about the disenfranchisement of voters from decisions like the recent one supporting ID at polls.  

    Keep expressing yourself. Don't be discouraged by those who accuse you of threatening.  You're NOT a threat.  You're opinion is valuable to me, and it might be the support I need to do the right thing in the fall.


    Parent

    Are you two a tag team? (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:14:41 AM EST
    Or maybe you're both the same person.  Come in and post something and then agree with yourself.

    Parent
    Are You A Troll? (none / 0) (#157)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:42:44 AM EST
    Aren't there rules against prople like you?

    Parent
    Are you also concerned about disenfranchisement (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:19:12 PM EST
    of MI voters when the DNC gave Obama all those delegates who did not, in fact, vote for him, "exit polls" notwithstanding?

    Parent
    Oh, thank you very much (none / 0) (#128)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:10:10 AM EST
    I really appreciate it.  This was getting pretty discouraging to me.

    Parent
    my question would be (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:14:48 AM EST
    do you believe Obama will stand up for a womans right to choose.  I do not.  he has waffled and wiggled and I dont trust him.
    I dont think McCain is any more or less likely to appoint judges hostile to RvW than Obama is.
    I would need to see evidence I am wrong.

    Parent
    We'll See (none / 0) (#163)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:48:05 AM EST
    Life is a game of chances.  We'll see as the campaign goes on just how supportive Obama is of reproductive rights.  My guess is he will be a strong supporter of RVW.  One thing I'm sure of, however, is that McCain will not.

    Parent
    Your "guess" contradicts Obama's words (none / 0) (#179)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:26:33 PM EST
    He said, not once, but at least twice that the pro-choicers don't "understand the wrenching moral decision that an abortion entails." My guess is he will fold on this issue like the cheap, empty suit he is.

    Parent
    No Contradiction That I Can See (1.00 / 1) (#193)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:33:19 PM EST
    Exactly how?  Hillary herself said that abortion is a "tragic" decision.  Pretty much the same thing.  People tried to spin her words at that time too.

    Parent
    The difference is (none / 0) (#200)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:48:23 PM EST
    Hillary wasn't running against her own base by saying, "Some liberals don't realize how tragic abortion is."

    Parent
    But The Similarity Is (none / 0) (#204)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:57:40 PM EST
    They said pretty much the same thing, and were both quoted out of context.  Obama also said this:

    But politicians must trust women to make the right decisions for themselves


    Parent

    No way can you WORM this (none / 0) (#228)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:05:51 PM EST
    Hillary has a long and proven track record on women's rights. Obama does not. Comparing the two are not the same AT ALL. Point in fact, I know EXACTLY what a moral wrenching decision an abortion is, which is why I KNOW men in DC have no business sticking their nose into it. And I certainly don't need Obama telling me that I don't know what kind of wrenching moral decision it is. Capice?

    Parent
    Making such a statement (1.00 / 1) (#230)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:58:42 PM EST
    that Obama has no business discussing reproductive issues is as adsurd as when Obama's supporters made exactly the same argument against Hillary discussing Civil Rights issues.  Any candidate for president will necessarily need to address all these important issues, no matter who might not need to hear it.  In the end, it won't be between Obama and Hillary; it will be between McCain and either Obama or Hillary.  McCain does not support the right to chose, Obama and Hillary do.  It's a simple choice.

    Parent
    You are obtuse (none / 0) (#231)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:04:29 PM EST
    I didn't say he shouldn't discuss it -- I said he can't tell me that I DON'T KNOW what a wrenching moral decision it is and expect me to think he is pro-choice.

    Parent
    I Don't Think He's Talking To You Personally (none / 0) (#234)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:09:34 PM EST
    rather discussing his feelings about the morality of abortion.  I have no problem with that, just as I didn't have a problem with Hillary discussing the same thing.  But we are using that singular comment out of context, and that's been my point.

    Parent
    Well, McCain has NEVER (none / 0) (#171)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:00:38 PM EST
    once in his long legislative career voted to protect a woman's right to reproductive choice.  He doesn't talk a lot about abortion, but when it comes time to vote he never sides with the woman.

    As for Obama, I don't know all the details of his record, but he was endorsed by NARAL.

    Parent

    Clinton and Obama (none / 0) (#174)
    by mattt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:13:56 PM EST
    have identical ratings on choice: 100% by NARAL, 0% by NRLC.

    Parent
    Clinton is my choice for nominee (none / 0) (#214)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:24:02 PM EST
    In fact, I quit NARAL after their early and untimely endorsement of Obama.

    There are many things I don't like about Obama, but his record on choice is not one of them.  I have every confidence that he will appoint moderate to left-leaning justices to the Supreme Court.

    Parent

    RW (none / 0) (#138)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:17:28 AM EST
    My vehement position, by the way, in no way was meant to mean I am disparaging yours and your experiences. If it came off that way I apologize. I won't be voting for Barack Obama but that does not mean that I think any less o you for supporting him. I'm not that one dimensional. :)

    Parent
    The Supreme Court does far more than Roe (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by jerry on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:30:47 AM EST
    1. I am pro-choice but to hell with Roe
    2. The Supreme Court does far more than Roe.  Think of the big fights the past century: due process, habeas, equal protection, first amendment, privacy, ...

    Do you want a Supreme Court that keeps the government off our backs or one that holds us down while they jump on?

    For whatever reason he did so, even Obama in voting against Roberts said, "Roberts is qualified but he rarely takes the side of the little guy against business or government."

    At this time, because of Roberts and Alito and Gitmo and Ghost Prisoners and Rendition and Bong Hits 4 Jesus and "Intellectual Property" and man other issues, at this time, we need a strong, intelligent, liberal court.

    Instead of 5-4 against, it would be nice to get 5-4 in favor.

    Parent

    Asked about (none / 0) (#175)
    by mattt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:17:23 PM EST
    his hypothetical first 100 days, the first thing Obama mentioned was that he would have all of Bush's execuive orders reviewed and repudiate those that tried to carve out unonstitutional powers for the executive.  Sounds good to me.

    Parent
    no, actually he said "overturned" (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:20:47 PM EST
    which is a pretty stupid statement to make when you are attorney. Nice how you are WORMing it for him though, to make it sound like he knew what he was talking about. And, btw, HILLARY SAID SHE WOULD THE SAME AND SHE SAID IT FIRST (AND CORRECTLY).

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#181)
    by mattt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:52:10 PM EST
    with Jeralyn that he misspoke, and immediately corrected himself.  "Laws or executive orders" in the quote should be understood as "laws, excuse me I meant to say executive orders."  IMO, of course.  He got it right in the precedng clause.

    Have you got a link to Hillary's pledge?  I missed it and Google doesn't turn it up.

    Parent

    She said it several times (none / 0) (#191)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:28:35 PM EST
    the first time I heard it was at the TX town hall meeting she gave the night before the primary there. Do your own google search.

    Parent
    I have searched Google, (none / 0) (#206)
    by mattt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:05:35 PM EST
    twice now, and can't find a similar promise from Clinton.  I did find a promise to reverse the Executive order on stem cells.

    I also found this and this.


    Parent

    Also found (none / 0) (#208)
    by mattt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:11:30 PM EST
    Clinton's letter to the American Freedom Campaign, here: PDF

    Good stuff, but doesn't go as far as Obama's promise to root out Bush's unconstitutional usurpations, which is a very important issue for me.

    Parent

    Be curious about this (none / 0) (#224)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:42:01 PM EST
    with the Democrats (me included) electing Blue Dogs just to get the D, there is little chance that many of those orders will be reversed.  Also, if he is saying HE will do it, isn't that using the same power as Bush and shutting out Congress?

    Parent
    The next President can withdraw, (none / 0) (#227)
    by mattt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:05:46 PM EST
    amend, or issue new executive orders redefining the powers of the President and executive branch within proper constitutional limits.  Laws would have to be repealed by congress.

    So we're not talking about the PATRIOT Act, but about the dozens of quiet little executive orders by which Bushco has whittled away at the Constitution and attempted to claim near-dictatorial powers for the executive.

    Parent

    The problem (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:28:23 AM EST
    is that Roe is already gone. The balance was changed with Bush. A good court challenge will overturn it.

    Parent
    Maybe Obama and (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by frankly0 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:30:40 AM EST
    his campaign and his supporters might ask themselves why they have done so much to antagonize Hillary supporters (including calling them racists, and the infamous manufactured outrage over Hillary's mention of RFK) when they need their votes to get Obama elected?

    Funny how no responsibility for the antagonism seems to be felt on the Obama side.

    Parent

    I'll repeat what I said yesterday. (5.00 / 6) (#61)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:32:55 AM EST
    Question: Where were Democrats on blocking partial birth bill? Answer: They helped pass it. Question: Where were Democrats when the SC ruled that BC did not need to be a formulary item covered by insurance. Answer: They were busy discussing steroids in sports of course. Question: Where were Democrats when it became apparent that a loophole would cause the costs of BC pills on campuses to skyrocket. Answer: They did nothing. Question: In light of these things what have they done recently that tells me that the Democratic men are anymore interested in my reproductve rights then the GOP? Answer: They aren't and only pull out the sad and tired reproductive rights argument come election time. I ain't voting for the guy who voted PRESENT. As a matter of fact, in his honor that's what I'M going to do come this Presidential election. I'm going to vote PRESENT and let the chips fall where they may.    

    Parent
    this is not the 1960's (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by befuddledvoter on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:33:20 AM EST
    No one can threaten me with Roe.  If women let that happen, Roe will forever be the way to control and keep us in our place.  We won the right to vote in the 1920's.  Implicit in that right is the right to choose for whom we vote.  I choose not to vote for Obama.

    Parent
    I suspect that you will hear this many times (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:33:34 AM EST
    We don't care. If Obama's supporters are worried that he will be defeated by John McCain, then work hard for Obama, but using Roe v. Wade to try to blackmail Clinton's supporters who are unwilling to go for a pony ride with you isn't going to work. You should have thought about your reproductive rights when you saw what Obama's campaign has been doing to the the Democratic Party.

    Parent
    Roe v. Wade is a pop issue... (5.00 / 3) (#124)
    by AX10 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:06:53 AM EST
    that is used to keep the bases of both parties in line.  Using it as blackmail against women voters is nasty.  This nonsense is coming from so-called "progressives" and "liberals" within the Democratic party of all places.

    I am hearing alot about Roe v. Wade on left radio and the blogs these days.  Strange how they all seem to forget the harshness of this campaign and how Hillary has been villified from day one.  Now they want us to support their one trick pony.  Oye.  
    Rancid Randi Rhodes is the worst offender of this crime.  She has been the left's Ann Coulter and now she expects all of us to fall in line.

    Parent

    Obviously no one's (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:20:36 AM EST
    REALLY opposed to villification; it's all a matter
    of who's being villified and who's doing the villifying.

    I have a feeling Our Lady will somehow come through all this intact.

    Parent

    Donna's momma might have taught (5.00 / 3) (#152)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:32:58 AM EST
    her about cheating, but my momma taught me that you reap what you sow.

    Parent
    I urge you to read Sen. Obama's (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:47:06 AM EST
    different speeches on the subject of appointing judges, especially supreme court judges. He has made no committment to what has been referred to as reproductive rights, a dem. congress is a good barrier to appointments. There have been many, many posts on this subject by women who fought the fight to perserve their rights. But those days belong to the "old" and "not needed anymore" generation. The young women of this country, imo, are going to have to fight that fight themselves.

    Parent
    my post was to radiowalla's (none / 0) (#100)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:48:54 AM EST
    post above.

    Parent
    Yes, the young women (none / 0) (#104)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:50:49 AM EST
    are going to have to fight that fight themselves.  

    Been there, done that.    Judging from the responses here, this is not an issue that anyone cares about anymore.

    So be it.

    Parent

    No, you are incorrect. People here (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM EST
    care very much about it. It is one reason, it is not all the reasons. With a repub. congress, and and repub. president and 2 appointments to the SCOTUS nothing has even come close. With a dem congress, with a clear majority, I believe, nothing will happen as well. This country has many more problems and some choose this and other issues to make up their minds.

    Parent
    Radiowallla (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:04:09 AM EST
    (or shall I call you urbansuburbanurbansuburban :)

    Anywoo - who led the fight for reproductive rights? Feminists and civil libertarians from the generations and old dem-coalitons that have been perhaps "thrown under the bus" by the new Dem Party?

    Whose responsibility is it to take up that fight now?

    (this is truly a non-advesarial question)

    Parent

    I wish I could answer your question (none / 0) (#133)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:13:44 AM EST
    but I have no idea who will take up the fight now.

    I feel quite untethered.

    you can call me urbansuburbanurbansuburban if you like.  I'm not fussy.

    Parent

    response to your handle (none / 0) (#160)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:45:05 AM EST
    ya know...as in "wallah" kinda an in joke.

    Parent
    No, you are incorrect. People here (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:04:51 AM EST
    care very much about it. It is one reason, it is not all the reasons. With a repub. congress, and and repub. president and 2 appointments to the SCOTUS nothing has even come close. With a dem congress, with a clear majority, I believe, nothing will happen as well. This country has many more problems and some choose this and other issues to make up their minds.

    Parent
    For SCOTUS To Become A Prime Motivator (none / 0) (#162)
    by MO Blue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:46:52 AM EST
    for me, I would have to trust that Obama would nominate pro-life justices. It would be just as damaging for Obama to nominate a justice that believes that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided and that the constitution does not guarantee the right of privacy and definitely not a right of patients and doctors to decide as they see fit.

    The only name I've seen as a possible Obama justice has views like those stated above.

    For me to use the SCOTUS as criteria for casting my vote for Obama, he will have to make very clear statements on exactly what types of people he would consider and provide examples. Trust before commitment.    


    Parent

    You do realize (2.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ineedalife on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:31:36 AM EST
    that 5/7 justices that decided Roe were appointed by Republicans? That 2/4 liberal justices on today's court were appointed by Republicans?

    That the current conservative court has the votes to overturn Roe and hasn't?

    That the Democrats in the Senate have to approve any Supreme Court nominee?

    That most states will always allow abortion even if Roe is over-turned.

    Take your guilt-trip elsewhere. This has become a non-issue kept alive simply to flog the bases of both parties.


    Parent

    watch your tone (none / 0) (#87)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:44:47 AM EST
    ineedalife. Do not insult posters here or you will be banned in a heartbeat.

    Parent
    Guilt-trip? (none / 0) (#89)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:44:56 AM EST
    Take it elsewhere?

    All I can say is "Good luck to you."


    Parent

    BWAHAHAHA (none / 0) (#173)
    by angie on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:08:29 PM EST
    Roe will not work for me, because (1) From a purely legal standpoint, Roe and its "viability" bs is really a poorly written opinion; (2) I actually don't see that much wrong with the states making the decision on legality of abortions and (3) if that is the cost for the DNC to wake up and not take us women voters for granted, then sobeit -- let the women supporting Obama go to Canada for their abortions.

    Parent
    The unbearable lightness (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:16:09 AM EST
    of being an independent....

    I registered "decline to state" yesterday and have been floating, floating, floating ever since.

    Free at last from a party that can't run a democratic primary, a party that takes votes from one candidate and gives them to another, a party that disrespects its very own voters.

    Keep the faith...hold strong..it (none / 0) (#143)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:22:26 AM EST
    ain't over 'till it's over. Vote your conscience. You appear to be very able to that. We are here to help hold you up...some of the people here have intellectually held me up when I was down.


    Parent
    He may have won the battle (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:19:43 AM EST
    But I truly believe Obama will lose the war. Too many of his supporter dismiss McCain and that's a big mistake. A lot of Obama's support came from independants and I think thet'll go with McCain in the GE. The Dem's are not going to be able to shake his "maverick" image and they won't get any help from the MSM. (They're the ones who built it).

    I agree (none / 0) (#154)
    by mattt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:34:36 AM EST
    I'm worried about McCain, and the fact that a lot of Dems are underestimating him.

    I just don't see how McCain's strength plays against Obama in particular.  Clinton has her set-in-stone media image, too.  No doubt, she has taken some unfair and sexist treatment in the primary campaign.  What makes people think it'd get any better in the GE?  I think the media would be even tougher on her (and the plural "Clintons") in a contest vs Saint Maverick.

    Likewise I hear a lot of people dismiss Obama as a "media darling," and hold his positive press image against him.  It may be frustrating for Hillary supporters, but isn't it a good thing to be a media darling in a GE?

    Parent

    So the question is (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:19:54 AM EST
    where do I go if I don't want to hear the gushing over Obama or hear hw McCain is so much better. I'll vote downticket but I'm not voting for either of those two.

    Become a PUMA (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:44:23 AM EST
    Although some PUMAs will vote for John McCain, no one thinks he's the greatest thing since sliced bread. Many PUMAs will be "down-ticket" voters just like you.  And some TLers that you'll recognize are already there.  I hope Jeralyn adds to the repertoire here so that TL will become a place to come to discuss something other than this race so we can still feel apart of it.

    Parent
    Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:55:43 AM EST
    strikes me as sharp. So does BTD. I imagine we will still be welcome and I am sure that they will try to make some compelling arguments for Obama. I'm equally sure there are going to be days I'm not going to want to read abut the shiny unity pony. Thanks for the link. I'll have to sign up. I don't want to lose my political activism or not continue to encourage my children to become an active participant in democracy.

    Parent
    they took the name from (none / 0) (#129)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:10:37 AM EST
    Pumpkinhead (Russert)?
    thats awsum.
    can I be a puma?  or is it for ladies only?  (Im gay, does that count?)

    Parent
    It looks like anyone can join (none / 0) (#142)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:20:51 AM EST
    I saw some names that looked masculine and it least one blue collar male.

    Parent
    :) If PUMA had any association with Russert (none / 0) (#155)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:35:07 AM EST
    most of us wouldn't declare ourselves PUMA's.

    Party Unity My A$$

    But, you knew that, right?

    Parent

    you know (none / 0) (#185)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:06:12 PM EST
    what I am talking about though, right?
    he made some comment on MSNBC about these (try to pick words carefully) "older" women who are like "groupies" (his words) in elections.
    he called them PUMAS.
    it was the most insulting thing I have ever heard said on national teevee.  and in this cycle that is saying a lot.


    Parent
    and (none / 0) (#198)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:46:40 PM EST
    the media has helped demonize the word liberal. Personally I think of it as an in your face to Russert. Go ahead and ridicule me. How does that go again? First they mock you........

    Parent
    From the site: (none / 0) (#158)
    by mattt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:43:41 AM EST
    There is a unacknowledged immaturity about the Obama faction that many parents among us will recognize.
    But it's the Obama side that's dismissive and divisive, I'm told.

    Parent
    Cute diary (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:20:46 AM EST
    at the orange place about a town-hall meeting Robert Wexler held last night with his pro-Clinton constituents.  I'll provide some highlights:

    The next lady said "I was ashamed to see your disgraceful performance on Saturday."  Lots of groans.  "How could you represent your constituency, while voting to take away 50% of its votes?"  He answered that no one had fought harder against Howard Dean when the DNC originally tried to take away Florida's delegates, but they'd voted, and the primary campaign began in earnest, and the candidates signed a pledge, and it was unfair to bait and switch, by changing the rules halfway through.  More applause.

    There were other policy-related questions, until nearly the last questioner revisited Obama.  "Could you please tell us more specifically why you chose Obama over Hillary?"  Lots of "Yeahs!"  

    Congressman Wexler hit this one out of the park:  "I support Barack Obama because he showed better judgment on the Iraq War, because he has remained more forcefully against it.  I support him because of his stand on ethics reform, and commitment to engaging our enemies.  I support him because he speaks truth to power.  He spoke in front of a largely Cuban-American organization in Miami.  Everyone has told this organization the same thing for 40 years.  'We're going to continue the embargo against Cuba, no monetary remittances there, no anything.'  Whether or not it works, that's all any politician dares to say.  Obama suggested to them we engage with Raul Castro, and take steps towards ending the embargo.  Obama told a crowd in Detroit that we should increase fuel efficiency standards, and he told members of Martin Luther King's church in Atlanta that we all share some of the blame for some of the race problems in America today."  

    But while I got a chuckle at the "no one has fought harder against Howard Dean" part, the hilarious bit was how the diarist continued...

    And it occurred to me, this is exactly what Congressman Wexler was doing, and did on Saturday.  He was speaking forcefully and with conviction in the face of hostility.  He took a courageous stand, speaking truth to power.  He spoke passionately for his candidate, and for what was fair, despite the fact that it was not what his constituents necessarily wanted to hear.

    Consider, for a moment, just how far gone you have to be in order to believe that a Congressman telling his constituents why he didn't vote in accordance with their wishes is "speaking truth to power."  Hilarious.

    Saw that (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:22:51 AM EST
    I thought it was funny that the reported questions were pretty smart.

    There is nothing worse for a Congressman to have to do than accept the premise that he is not really fighting for his constituents (i.e. full votes).

    Parent

    That's brilliant. (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by liminal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:42:37 AM EST
    Unlike the people at the Orange Place, I always thought that "speaking truth to power," worked the other, uh, way.  Maybe they don't like the "power" "ordinary people" have when they do things like "vote" in an "election" in "Florida."  /depressing kinda snark.  

    Do you think that the diarist who wrote that will ever be able to hear him/herself from the outside and understand what's so wrong about that particular phrase in that particular context?  Or is this a lost cause?

    Parent

    Steve, unless I misread your (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:57:52 AM EST
    reaction, I totally disagree. I agree Wexler may believe what he says, but the facts he points out are not true. Obama voted the same as Hillary in every vote on the war. ethics reform where he himself has no ethics (will he reform himself), Hillary will engage our enemies, Cuba, I don't know too much on, perhaps he was correct, energy efficiency, she, too, is for it. It wasn't talking with conviction, he was asked a question and gave an answer. And, he's full of baloney on Florida, he lied at the meeting, and he lied to the supporter. Just my take....

    Parent
    Hey (none / 0) (#149)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:30:38 AM EST
    I am just quoting the pro-Obama diarist.  Only the last couple lines are my commentary.

    Parent
    I know, perhaps I misread what (none / 0) (#153)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:34:17 AM EST
    you wrote.Sorry....love ya' After all, you agreed to be a Flying Monkey.

    Parent
    Love "they signed a pledge" (none / 0) (#118)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:02:49 AM EST
    to suck up to 4 other states at our states' expense. Ha!

    Parent
    He is my rep (none / 0) (#226)
    by MichaelGale on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:56:59 PM EST
    I saw him at the DNC meeting and also told him how disappointed I was in his presentation. Not that he supported Obama but that he spoke and the first thing out of mouth was that he was an Obama chair.  I thought the meeting was to decide how to follow the rules of the DNC and try to solve Florida's exclusion not campaign for candidates. In addition, he agreed that Florida should have been punished as they broke the rules.

    He told me he had to do it; it was a political ploy to at least get us something.  I just walked away.

    Now Bill Nelson is on my good guy list.  He was great.

    Parent

    Lisa Caputo (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:21:04 AM EST
    from the Clinton camp on Fox vehemently denying the AP report. Saying it is false, anon and simply being used to suppress the vote in SD and MT.

    Then who put this out there? (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by AX10 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:24:38 AM EST
    Could this be a dirty trick from the Obama campaign, or perhaps something from the GOP?

    Parent
    Heard (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:31:35 AM EST
    that Obama's numbers are tanking in SD and MT. His campaign wants to depress voter turnout.

    Parent
    if true, that means (none / 0) (#65)
    by ccpup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:36:07 AM EST
    whatever GOTV troops Clinton has on the crowd get out there and make sure people vote.

    I wonder how these voter suppression tactics are going to play with those Undecided SDs who already have doubts about Obama's ability to win in November?  It's possible we may see that rush of SDs materialize in the next few days, only they won't be rushing to Obama's side.  They'll be going with the one who doesn't rely on dirty tactics and a corrupt DNC to get her votes.

    Parent

    Hadn't occurred to me this was voter suppression! (none / 0) (#79)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:42:25 AM EST
    After all these decades of living, I am still so naive. Do not trust the MCM. Do not trust anonymous quotes, especially about political strategies.

    When will I learn?

    Parent

    It took me a while to catch on that every (none / 0) (#130)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:12:34 AM EST
    primary day, there is some story which makes it seem like it's a waste of time to vote. Very sneaky!

    Parent
    Headline on CNN (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:25:15 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton not prepared to admit Barack Obama has beaten her in race for Democratic nomination, her campaign chairman told CNN.


    Parent
    Will all Obama news network stop their cheap shots (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by TalkRight on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:31:46 AM EST
    at least NOW?? Just give her some space will you?

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:26:32 AM EST
    We'll see soon enough.

    Parent
    LOL! (none / 0) (#46)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:30:35 AM EST
    Thought so.

    Parent
    Breaking on all networks now--denial (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:26:32 AM EST
    FOX FLASH - the Clinton Campaign is DENYING the AP story, Senator Clinton will NOT concede, the AP story is INCORRECT

    Parent
    They are trying to take away from her a decent (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by TalkRight on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:38:20 AM EST
    concession too.. what a cheap shot these so called newsworthy organizations have become.

    Why will they NOT spare her, and give her some space and time and let her give the concession speech when she deems fit...

    Give her a break.. will you?

    Parent

    Terry McAuliffe (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:24:07 AM EST
    now denying the AP story. Says it is 100% false.

    Funny (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:27:41 AM EST
    how these "anonymous" Clinton supporters say things that REAL NON-ANONYMOUS Clinton supporters refute.

    Makes me laugh!

    Parent

    No kidding. (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:31:16 AM EST
    Mark Halperin walked this back quick. SAid Terry M for on the phone and called all the nerworks right away denying the AP story fully.

    On CNN and Fox claiming this was a ploy to supress the vote. Seems camp Clinton is angry.

    FOX now saying:

    "It's not over until the gavel hits at the Convention and someone says the nominee is..."

    Parent

    I know what they're doing (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:29:13 AM EST
    They're making sure that Hillary's speech ACTUALLY GETS COVERED.

    Throw out the will she/won't she story and people will want to see it.

    Ooh! (none / 0) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:41:25 AM EST
    I think you just nailed it.  I bet you're right and that's exactly what they're doing.

    Good thinking!


    Parent

    A Storm is right... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by mogal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:30:03 AM EST
    This could be her Harry Truman moment.

    Rise Hillary

    okay, I'll bite (none / 0) (#82)
    by ccpup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:43:42 AM EST
    for those of us not familiar with Harry Truman and how this AP story could be Hillary's "Harry Truman moment", could you explain a little?  It sounds like it could be interesting.  

    Thanks.

    Parent

    Before everyone went to bed on election (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:50:09 AM EST
    night, everyone predicted that Dewey had won.  Even the morning papers were printed with headlines saying that Dewey had beaten Truman.  Jokes were told that Dewey told his wife she was going to be sleeping with the President of the United States.  The next day it is reported that she asked him, "So am I going over to Harry's or is he coming over here?"

    Parent
    okay, THAT'S funny! (none / 0) (#116)
    by ccpup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:01:32 AM EST
    after I asked for clarification, it dawned on me what the OP was referring to.  But thanks for chiming in and sharing that delicious tidbit from the wife.

    :-)

    Parent

    The headline (none / 0) (#93)
    by CST on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:46:07 AM EST
    When Harry Truman won was "Dewey defeats Truman" becasue the newspaper was sure Dewey would win and printed it before the votes were counted.

    Parent
    I know a little bit about.... (none / 0) (#229)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 03:07:23 PM EST
    Harry Truman, and none of these stooges running could hold Truman's jock.

    Parent
    twitchy Mike at republico (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:30:30 AM EST
    is in rare form:

    first sentence:

    A tsunami of superdelegates is poised to rush to Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) over the next 12 hours, giving him a mathematical lock on his party's presidential nomination.

    last sentence:

    A few Clinton diehards argue she can still win, and have vowed to fight all the way through the August convention. But Obama's prospective superdelegate tally is likely to sink that argument.

    No one can get the nomination (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by AX10 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:31:50 AM EST
    unless they have superdelegates on their side.  SD's can also change their votes at anytime, meaning that there is no chance of a nominee until the Denver meeting.

    Parent
    Prospective. lol. (none / 0) (#140)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:20:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Tsunami - hmmmm (none / 0) (#159)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:44:13 AM EST
    there aren't a "tsunami" level number left. They sure do like to exaggerate.

    Debbie Dingle just came forward with her 1/2 SD vote for Obama, though. Maybe that is what they were talking about.

    :)

    Parent

    Marc Andre Fleury (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    definatly gets all three stars for last night.

    Boooooo! (none / 0) (#91)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:45:51 AM EST


    Parent
    Red wings fan? (none / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:59:52 AM EST
    My hat goes off to 'em. I keep thinking, watching them against Pittsburgh, of the old guy in Kung Fu
    daring the student to try to snatch the pebble out of his hand.

    Malkin's been in a fog since the first game. He's defintly a good half-a-step slower than he was during the regular season.

    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#151)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:32:30 AM EST
    that my Wings had better close this series out, because clearly this Penguins team is headed nowhere but up.

    I have been a Wings fan since I was a kid in the 70s and they were known locally as the Dead Things.  Really amazing to see them as the class of the league for such an extended period.  Detroit is a great hockey city, as is Pittsburgh in my estimation.

    Parent

    Im a Sabres (none / 0) (#167)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:54:12 AM EST
    fan (Western NY, what can I say?), the Penguins are kinda my "fall-back team", but I know when the boys are being schooled when I see it.

    Whatever those passing drills are that the Red Wings practice, I hope Pittsburgh has the good sense to start using em.

    Before this series, Pittsburgh being held to twenty whatever shots a game was unheard of.

    Fun stuff. We need our little diversions from time to time.

    Parent

    Huh? What's this about? (none / 0) (#95)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:47:03 AM EST


    Parent
    L'hockey. (none / 0) (#145)
    by liminal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:24:22 AM EST
    It's Stanely Cup time.  Penguins are down 3-1.  Last night, they won in three overtimes - almost, basically, another full game.  Fleury is the Penguins' goalkeeper and had an insanely awesome game last night.  

    Parent
    Race and this election (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:39:09 AM EST
    Great article at Salon, very long but well done, roundtable format.  
    Dispels all the "Hillary voters are racist" gibberish and deals with my pet issue: the exit poll question "did race matter" that the MSM has interpreted as look, they are racists.  

    Oh good (none / 0) (#77)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:40:28 AM EST
    I need to read that.  I really hate the way people have tried to interpret that question.

    Parent
    Oooo (none / 0) (#90)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:45:34 AM EST
    that question really stuck in my gullet.  

    Parent
    I wish... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by NWHiker on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:43:57 AM EST
    I wish she'd come out tonight and state very very clearly that she is the choice of more Americans than Obama -pop vote- and that the SDs are overriding the will of the American people and that yet again, a small number of non-accountable people are changing the course of electoral history.

    Totally OT even for an open thread. I have three children, the oldest is 11. As long as any of them can remember they've heard from us "Don't lie like George W Bush!" and more importantly "Don't be like George W Bush, take responsibility for your actions. Don't try to blame someone else". My spouse and I were saying the other day that we could just shift it to Obama, not at much the lying part as the blaming someone else part.

    Bill Clinton's base Ethnic Cleasing (4.20 / 5) (#43)
    by feet on earth on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:30:25 AM EST
    I appreciate the sincere political advice that BTD gave Obama and his campaign on how to solve their problem (previous tread).

    There are others like BTD that, in my opinion, are hoping beyond hope that they listen. It is as slim of a hope as the hope of many of us Hillary's supporters that still hope SDs will go her way. My only hope for her now is the actual vote in Denver.  

    I strongly believe Obama will not reach out to the Clintons' wing of the party in any substantial or truthful way.

    To solve a problem it is a must to realize that you have a problem. Obama and his campaign (I do not consider their loony supporters here) does not think he has a problem. Ergo, there no need for a solution if you do not have the said problem.  

    They have been and are on a path that I call the "POLITICAL ETHNIC CLEANSING" of the Clinton's wing of the party.

    It goes back to the thought that Clinton's comes from and attracts "white thrush", have no high morals standards (cheating on wife, been caught no less that in the sanctity of the oval office and not resigning as a man of honor would, etc.).  

    The Latinos? Same: ethnic cleansing is in order: not much of a liberal force, too busy working hard to put food on the table to grasp the complex political implications of what's good for them.

    Women? Well they always come home, don't they? They stay in abusive relationships when they are given a rose.  Will give the a rose and we are fine.

    Seniors? We can do without them, they are so stack in the politics of the past. Do not get global issues. We know what's best for them.  They are a drag on the system anyway.

    So it is cleansing time, if we do not do it now, the when? The Republicans are in a slam, it is now or never.

    Welcome to the Kosovo ethnic cleansing era American Style, not real killing of course, we are a democratic society after all, character assassination is going to do the trick just fine.

    The wrong language. (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by liminal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:50:23 AM EST
    I'm really troubled by the way in which many Obama supporters - and indeed, the Obama campaign - seem to have dismissed substantial portions of the Democratic constituency, particularly the working class, but there is absolutely no way in heck that the term ethnic cleansing is appropriate in context to describe the ongoing power struggle in the Democratic party.  It's really inflammatory and over the top, and I think that that kind of hyperbole deeply undermines your point.  "Ethnic cleansing" is a sanitized term describing the early stages of genocide, and whatever is happening in the Democratic party right now, it is nowhere on par with genocide.  Not even close.

    Parent
    It Is, however, an attempt to purge the (1.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jeffinalabama on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:00:06 AM EST
    'politically incorrect.' My, my. Politically incorrect, remove them from the party...

    Hmmm, where have I heard about these things before?

    Parent

    I don't disagree with you. (none / 0) (#139)
    by liminal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:20:00 AM EST
    I'm not ready to call it a purge yet, necessarily, and it's so hard to tell what comes from the top and what burbles up from the bottom (although I've found the two to be in a real conversation, on the Obama side, in this election - particularly in the despicable attempts to paint Hillary and Bill Clinton as racists.  It's not clear to me whether those rumors began with random paranoid bloggers or with the campaign itself, but there was a pretty astonishing concordance between what arose in the blogs as allegation and innuendo and what go repeated as actual-factual by concerned grandees at night), but the relentless attacks on HRC and her supporters and on small "d" Democracy via the RBC point in that direction.

    We'll see.  

    Parent

    Figurative Language is always opened to (none / 0) (#215)
    by feet on earth on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:27:49 PM EST
    be viewed as one of the adjectives you listed. i.e.: Innaproprite,
    Inflammatory,
    Over the top.
    Or many other things I my add.  

    It is the prerogative of the readers to take it as they as it strikes them.  

    Speaking for me only, figurative language is the propeller under the message, it goes further ahead than plain language.  

    Parent

    Can you provide (none / 0) (#170)
    by mattt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:57:19 AM EST
    a link where anybody in the Obama campaign - not some nutty down-thread commenter somewhere - has said they don't need or want women in their coalition?  Or Latinos?  Or seniors?

    It's a fact that many voters in these groups have aligned with Clinton.  The Obama campaign has at times made tactical decisions in the primaries that reflect that reality.  It does not follow that he or his campaign therefore discount or despise these groups.

    Given the lack of factual basis to the claim, the overheated rhetoric (ethnic cleansing?) isn't even offensive - it's just silly.

    Parent

    Heh. Why should I bother ? (none / 0) (#189)
    by feet on earth on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:26:56 PM EST
    You said: "The Obama campaign has at times made tactical decisions in the primaries that reflect that reality."

    Whatever I would link to you, you already call them "tactical decisions"  

    Parent

    So that's it? (none / 0) (#225)
    by mattt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:46:26 PM EST
    You're spinning Obama's concession of strong Clinton areas in the primary as ethnic cleansing?

    I really can't wait for this to be over.

    Parent

    Hillary Concedes Race to Obama (1.00 / 3) (#72)
    by caesar on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:39:33 AM EST
    BREAKING NEWS!!!
    Hillary Rodham Clinton announced her divorce with former President Bill Clinton after she realized she can't use him anymore!!!

    I said that yesterday (none / 0) (#92)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:45:53 AM EST
    Based on Bill's commentary about his being his "last election of this sort," I realized it was because he was letting loose that

    Hillary was throwing him under the bus!

    Parent

    Watched the video (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:52:36 AM EST
    there was nothing of what all these people implied.  He was talking about the primary being over.  Are all these people smoking loco weed?

    Parent
    snark, I hope (none / 0) (#161)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:46:23 AM EST


    Parent
    Full statement from AP (none / 0) (#1)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:11:59 AM EST
    Associated Press: "Hillary Rodham Clinton will concede Tuesday night that Barack Obama has the delegates to secure the Democratic nomination, campaign officials said, effectively ending her bid to be the nation's first female president."

    "The former first lady will stop short of formally suspending or ending her race in her speech in New York City... But for all intents and purposes, the two senior officials said, the campaign is over."

    That's consistent with the rumors (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:13:23 AM EST
    It will be unpopular to say so here, but I think this is for the best.

    It's pretty obvious that Hillary could not win a floor fight.

    Parent

    It may be for the best for (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:31:51 AM EST
    you and your desires, but it's not "for the best" for older women and men who fought for all the things the young take for granted, diminish, etc.

    Not for the best at all.

    And if you didn't want to be called out on the statement, the best way to avoid it would be to NOT SAY IT.

    You may not like the "ageism" but most of us have been through quite a few more elections than you have, and see something VERY DIFFERENT here than what we've seen before.  And we plan to fight against it.  And we want HER to fight against it.  And so it's NOT FOR THE BEST if she gets out.

    Parent

    wrong again (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by ccpup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:31:55 AM EST
    her campaign has shot back that the AP story is false and they have no plans to concede anything.

    Eventually Obama and his supporters will have to realize his "if I say it often enough, maybe it'll be true" tactics just don't work.  In fact, they get more voters out for Hillary!

    Parent

    right but read that statement again (none / 0) (#7)
    by americanincanada on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:15:33 AM EST
    How can one concede anything if one stops short of even formally suspending or ending a campaign?!?!

    It makes no sense. None at all.

    Parent

    This could just be the rumor mill... (none / 0) (#10)
    by AX10 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:16:19 AM EST
    running again.

    Parent
    One you admit that your opponent (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:18:44 AM EST
    has what you need, there is nothing left to fight about.

    I mean really, do you think she's going to spend all summer working on the super delegates? I don't.

    Parent

    Let's wait to hear this confirmed (none / 0) (#34)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:27:47 AM EST
    by Hillary.

    The press has lied about her intentions before.

    Parent

    At the moment, no she couldn't. (none / 0) (#8)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:16:02 AM EST
    Read it in a Clintonian way.

    Parent
    The last day of voting (none / 0) (#11)
    by CST on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:16:36 AM EST
    They have been saying for a while now that this would be when the primary was over.  Any longer and there would be an evven further divided party.  I hope Obama does the right thing and offers her the V.P.  Otherwise, it's gonna be a long summer.

    Parent
    He should indeed offer it. (none / 0) (#14)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:17:58 AM EST
    We will see what happens!

    Parent
    It's not for the best. (none / 0) (#13)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:17:53 AM EST
    But you are young, I'll cut you some slack.

    Parent
    Thanks for the condescension masslib! (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:20:24 AM EST
    I know you aren't happy about this, but if Hillary does what the report says she will, it will be the right thin in her judgement too.

    Parent
    I am sorry. But that's what I think. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:23:32 AM EST
    I think you see this from a younger set of eyes.  I think it's terrible for women if she doesn't go to convention and let her delegates vote for her.  

    Parent
    You know, I know it's more socially acceptable (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by andgarden on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:25:22 AM EST
    but "you're just saying that because you're young" is logically indistinguishable from "you're just saying that because you're a woman."

    I wish you and others here wouldn't do that.

    Parent

    I'm not even much older. I'm 35 tomorrow. (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:29:30 AM EST
    But I'm old enought to have been around the block.  You know, we won't get this close to a woman president for a generation.  It's really important her delegates vote for her at the convention.  She can suspend her campaign and still allow her delegates their place at the convention.  

    Parent
    how about (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:30:29 AM EST
    the only reason you care about how the clintons are disrespected is because it hurts obama chances in the GE?

    Parent
    The difference is (none / 0) (#49)
    by Steve M on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:31:17 AM EST
    you'll find yourself saying the former someday :)

    Parent
    interesting (none / 0) (#53)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:31:45 AM EST
    personally I would never have made that connection.

    Parent
    it's really not. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Klio on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:47:05 AM EST
    Without getting into the middle of this between you two, the analogy you used is just wrong.  Women can't really ever stop being women in the way that we all stop being young.

    Or, for a lighter take on it, please see the bickering between Winston Churchill and Lady Astor when she called him out for being drunk.  "I may be drunk, Madam, but you are ugly.  And in the morning I shall be sober."

    Parent

    I'm 27, male (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by AX10 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:28:56 AM EST
    and I want her to go to Denver and fight for the nomination.

    Parent
    Apologies, Dalton, but (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:38:54 AM EST
    we see so many people, mostly Obama supporters, who come here and spout nonsense that betrays the fact that they are naive and at least new to politics, and most of them turn out to be youngsters.  It's incredibly galling to be lectured to about events one has actually lived through as an adult by someone who read a distorted summary of them somewhere on a blog and gives themselves permission to instruct everybody else on "the facts."

    Sorry if some of that annoyance drips onto younger people who don't do that -- like the admirable Andgarden for instance.

    I have no brief at all against young people, just the ones who throw out ignorant crap when they don't know what they're talking about.  Some older folks do that, too, for certain, but it most often these days seems to come from the newly "empowered" young Obama devotees.


    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#57)
    by masslib on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:31:51 AM EST
    I'm only 35.  But this is hugely important for women.  She can suspend, but she should not release her delegates.  They need to see this through and vote for her at the convention.  I think it's a mistake for her to concede and release her delegates.

    Parent
    Considering her late-primary win record (none / 0) (#165)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:50:43 AM EST
    why would you say "it's obvious she can't win a floor fight"?

    Ever seen a floor fight? Hillary is a proven fighter and she's doing a darn good job of winning where she should not be winning. How many months now have the Obama campaign and MSM been calling him the presumptive nominee?

    Parent

    It's (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:32:51 AM EST
    all over the news now that this report is false.

    Parent
    I predict (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by ccpup on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:38:10 AM EST
    they'll trace this AP story right back to Obama's campaign and a lot of SDs will be very, very displeased with him for using this tactic.

    Parent
    Alas.. (none / 0) (#105)
    by NWHiker on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:51:50 AM EST
    At this point I don't think there is anything Obama could do, short of murder in front of an open camera, and I'm not sure of that, to keep the SDs from giving him the nomination.

    It's still strange to me that when Clinton was ahead in the SD count, Opeople said that SDs were stealing the race from him and that they were a bad thing. Now, they're wonderful and perfectly legit.

    I stated then, when Clinton was ahead, and will state now, that I do not like the SD system in the slightest. I don't like caucuses either and have been screaming that since I saw what happened to Dean back in 04 (00 I went but didn't participate, left real quickly).

    Parent

    Ack! (none / 0) (#108)
    by NWHiker on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:54:18 AM EST
    Just realised how bad "short of murder in front of an open camera" sounded, since I'm pretty sure Obama would never do anything like that.

    Parent
    See, the bar has really been lowered (none / 0) (#168)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:55:38 AM EST
    politcally incorrect has reached a level that makes everyone afraid of some of those old analogies that were once just making a point.

    Actually, I think his momentum is so slow now, that once Hillary isn't in the MSM sights anymore, the enthusiasm for Obama is going to fade fast.

    Anyone planning to watch Obama v McCain over the summer? Obama isn't the nominee, and McCain doesn't have the draw that Hillary does. Any mistake Obama will be enough to drop his numbers big.

    If he is going to try to draw Hillary supporters into his camp, I'm not going to be watching, and I hope they have to hire crowds for photo ops.


    Parent

    Heh. (none / 0) (#4)
    by madamab on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:14:45 AM EST
    So, she is neither conceding her delegates nor suspending her campaign - she is just saying he has enough delegates?

    I'll wait to hear this confirmed from her own mouth, of course, but...it's a very interesting strategy.

    There is nothing whatsoever in that statement that stops her from going to the Convention.

    Parent

    I cant believe she (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:23:49 AM EST
    will close the door.  they would be crazy to do that with all that is swirling around.
    take a break Hillary.  and get ready for a long summer.


    Parent
    False Story (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:43:49 AM EST
    It's been repudiated. It's an attempt at voter suppression. She is not ending her campaign tonight. I just got off the phone with them, see my latest thread.

    Parent
    thank you (none / 0) (#122)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:06:12 AM EST
    never believe the AP.


    Parent
    WNYC just reported AP said Clinton will suspend (none / 0) (#2)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:12:21 AM EST
    campaign tonight and concede Obama has the delegate votes to win.

    Will psy staffers through 6/15, but no more campaigning. She will continue to speak out on her issues.  

    AP quoted Clinton campaign officials speaking anonymously.

    Found AP link on Clinton suspension (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:15:16 AM EST
    Link

    Parent
    Suspend is wrong word. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jawbone on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:17:42 AM EST


    Parent
    From the AP story: (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cheryl on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:39:49 AM EST
    "Once he reaches the magic number of 2,118, Clinton will acknowledge that he has secured the necessary delegates to be the nominee."

    Acknowledgement of his delegates is not conceding or suspending.

    Another example of very poor headlining and reporting.


    Parent

    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:34:47 AM EST
    the campaign has denied this report.

    Parent
    It's a false report (none / 0) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:39:55 AM EST
    flat-out denied by both McAuliffe on CNN and an official release from the Clinton campaign headquarters.


    Parent
    my first reaction (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edgar08 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:21:22 AM EST
    I went to a sports blog.  I will do my best to "get out of the way" now.  perhaps I will fail a little at first.

    So the will of the people really does not matter (none / 0) (#41)
    by TalkRight on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:29:35 AM EST
    .. what a sham democracy indeed!!

    I hope Iraq, Iran, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, all take cue from USA and start having caucuses to elect their presidents under the pretext of democracy.

    The biggest democracy in the world is a SHAM!

    actually (none / 0) (#67)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:37:08 AM EST
    I think India is the biggest.  I wonder if they have caucuses?

    Parent
    oh .. (none / 0) (#76)
    by TalkRight on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:39:59 AM EST
    No caucuses in India by the way.. but I am sure, their hooligan politicians would love this idea!

    Parent
    Thank God (none / 0) (#50)
    by jcless on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:31:28 AM EST
    I thank God for someone like Hillary, who is ready and most able to lead our country out of this mess in the future.  I thank God for all who realize she is the best and what a disaster it would be for our country if Obama got the nomination. Numbers don't mean anything.

     I thank God someone is pursuing the investigation into voter fraud at the Caucuses, and the Indiana Primary. How could you be winning by a large margin and then just squeak in? Thank God someone is looking at the NC Primary and Texas Caucus.

    Mostly, I thank God for exposing Obama and ending the David Axelrod, Barack Obama charade.

    Clinton (none / 0) (#81)
    by 1jane on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:43:26 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton has put her country and her party before herself.Reports are circulating that she, John Edwards, and Joe Biden are seriously under consideration for Cabinet positions. Her dream has always been universial health care. It be wonderful to have her legacy be to finally end the inequities in the health care system.

    Democrats will begin to expose McCain's radical record. He is in many ways more dangerous than George W. Bush...bomb, bomb, bomb, bamb Iran.

    And why would she want to give up the Presidency (none / 0) (#127)
    by samanthasmom on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:09:21 AM EST
    for a cabinet position? I'm sure she'll find a good spot for Obama in her administration, though.  Not sure just where his talents lie.  Maybe Ambassador of Hope?  

    Parent
    I wish Obama supporters (none / 0) (#131)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:12:50 AM EST
    would stop trying to belittle Clinton in to positions.   She is the most qualified to be President and will take it to convention if that is what she decides that is best for the country.  If not, she will probably have more power in the senate.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#146)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:27:30 AM EST
    Give the poster some credit at least he/she didn't come in with WWTBQ. Not that flatering Hillary or offering her a cabinet position is gonna get me top the polls for Obama. I'm intending on watching that bus leave the station.

    Oh jane1 darling if I were Obama I'd beg Hillary to accept VP, she's your best shot at getting soeone like m to the polls. A cabinet position isn't going to cut it.

    Parent

    I'm so livid.... (none / 0) (#88)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:44:49 AM EST
    at the looters in NY State govt. right now I might just get back in the game and end up at jail myself....on the wrong side of the bars...or maybe its the right side?

    With the price of gas and food especially, it is gall beyond gall to anally rape smokers for another 1.50 a pack, effective today.  The guy on line in front of me at 7-11 this morning had the look of utter desperation on his hard-working face as he sheepishly went back to his car to dig for change to buy his pack.

    When the government makes more money on a pack than the manufacturer....that ain't justice, that's looting.

    Feels like there is an undeclared war on undesirables...and I know which side I'm on.

    I roll my own (none / 0) (#126)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:09:19 AM EST
    it's cheaper, dosnt have all the additives-burning
    agents etc.

    The deep pckets are behind it, perusual.

    Parent

    I do as well.... (none / 0) (#180)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 12:28:44 PM EST
    but only occasion, I smoke like a fiend so the hand-rolls get harsh after awhile.

    I'll just give my business to the Gambino crime family as opposed to the Albany crime family...I can't take this one lying down.

    The deep pockets you speak of just got 265 million per year deeper....bastards with no sense of fairness or decency.  Looters and leeches sucking more blood from a dry working class stone.

    Parent

    Everyone (none / 0) (#94)
    by ajain on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:46:19 AM EST
    Call Montana and South Dakota.

    Esp. Montana.
    If she upsets him there, 5 top Montana super-dels have promised to follow the verdict of their constituents. It will send shock-waves.

    Make calls.

    Hey Cream City (none / 0) (#103)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:50:32 AM EST
    Don't see you here now, so I hope you see this.

    Some other thread, you posted a link to an article on realclearpolirics perhaps, about conditions on the ground in "minnewisconiowa" (love that)

    the link did not work for me. Could you please relink, or give me the title?

    Thanks, neighbor.

    Minnewisowa (none / 0) (#137)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:16:41 AM EST
    Here you go... Minnewisowa

    Parent
    thanks - and for spelling correction (none / 0) (#169)
    by DFLer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:57:07 AM EST


    Parent
    The British understand what our media refuses to (none / 0) (#123)
    by athyrio on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:06:46 AM EST
    understand and report...LINK

    Articles to review (none / 0) (#144)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:23:19 AM EST
    Here are two articles that might interest you, they kind of match your instincts, h/t to txpolitico on this one.  The influence of the Repubs is interesting.

    This one is about Axelrod's style.  h/t to fctchekr.  Notice who comes in the hallway to give his two cents.

    If the first article is true, does (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by zfran on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:29:30 AM EST
    that mean to el rushbo was not the egomanic brainchild of getting the crossover vote? If the article is true, it worked!!!!!

    Parent
    Holy moly, that is some kind of indictment. (none / 0) (#195)
    by lorelynn on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:41:17 PM EST
    I know Obama's story pretty well but I haven't read all of the news articles listed there. I didn't know he didn't go straight to a law firm. It makes it all more bizarre to me - the editor of the Harvard Law Review doesn't take a job with a law firm. Weird.

    Parent
    Metered billing for internet use (none / 0) (#148)
    by waldenpond on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:30:19 AM EST
    Beaumont Texas is going to do it's trial area.  I was hoping that was going to fail.  Corp America grubbing for more dollars.... It's The American Way.

    The why of it begs for an answer (none / 0) (#192)
    by Boo Radly on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:32:06 PM EST
    I will be the first to tell on myself that that question has been my personal burden throughout my life.

    What fomented this candidacy seems to start with and require hate. The hate may be generated by jealousy - jealousy of power and money, which was attained by William J. Clinton. All the losers can never have nor create the good will generated by WJC.Hillary Clinton is capable and has attained status that, once again, the losers will never have because it cannot be attained by hate, jealousy, greed, lust for power. There are no perfect human beings, but some definitely stand taller than others.

    When I see people thoughtfully question the why of it - I see a kindred spirit. But I also know that it makes their lives harder. For me only, I ask the questions so as to find answers to prevent
    painful and unnecessary suffering. There are no perfect human beings - but some either have a natural affinity to rise up not just themselves, but work for the greater good of all.

    What is based on base human failings will bear that fruit. If allowed to come full measure look for more hate, etc. Also, people will stop questioning the why. That will be chaos, people will be keeping their children near.

    Surely all these black thoughts of mine are prescient. We have always had these pesky little human frailties..... especially the last 7.5 years. Day after day - filled with lies from our government, spewed by corporate media, generated by hate, greed, lust for power. That is what makes the question why so painful - the answer.  

    The Democratic Primary is Illegitimate (none / 0) (#194)
    by Patrickvashon on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:39:10 PM EST
    As a follow up to  the Primary vs Caucus  methods look at the following numbers from Wash. State*.

     Caucus voters 32,220
                                               Primary voters 691,381

    From the Caucus voters Barrack Obama won 67.5% of the votes, 21,768, and
    Hillary Clinton won 31.2% of the votes, 10,038. Obama got 2/3 of the Delegates and Clinton got 1/3.  Since Democratic rules make this a Caucus State these are the only numbers counted. Looking at the Primary Vote, the one that doesn't count,
    Obama got 354,112 votes or 51.22% Hillary got 315,744 votes or 45.67%.
    Looking at it in another way 4.6% of the Democrats who tried to have their voices heard actually got listened to and made the only decision that gets counted in Washington State. Go figure                                                  

    *numbers obtained from Wikipedia and AP.

    The why of it begs for an answer (none / 0) (#201)
    by Boo Radly on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 01:53:55 PM EST
    I will be the first to tell on myself that that question has been my personal burden throughout my life.

    What fomented this candidacy seems to start with and require hate. The hate may be generated by jealousy - jealousy of power and money, which was attained by William J. Clinton. All the losers can never have nor create the good will generated by WJC.Hillary Clinton is capable and has attained status that, once again, the losers will never have because it cannot be attained by hate, jealousy, greed, lust for power. There are no perfect human beings, but some definitely stand taller than others.

    When I see people thoughtfully question the why of it - I see a kindred spirit. But I also know that it makes their lives harder. For me only, I ask the questions so as to find answers to prevent
    painful and unnecessary suffering. There are no perfect human beings - but some either have a natural affinity to rise up not just themselves, but work for the greater good of all.

    What is based on base human failings will bear that fruit. If allowed to come full measure look for more hate, etc. Also, people will stop questioning the why. That will be chaos, people will be keeping their children near.

    Surely all these black thoughts of mine are prescient. We have always had these pesky little human frailties..... especially the last 7.5 years. Day after day - filled with lies from our government, spewed by corporate media, generated by hate, greed, lust for power. That is what makes the question why so painful - the answer.  

    You're Point? (none / 0) (#218)
    by flashman on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 02:31:11 PM EST
    I'm not even sure you still have one.  Yes, actions matter, and that's why I look at all the actions of an individual.  I don't just cherry pick one and claim that defines the person.

    There have been some (none / 0) (#233)
    by cawaltz on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 04:09:26 PM EST
    doozy of defining moments this season. It's been a real eye opener.

    Who hasn't been nasty this cycle indeed?  I'm betting those of us that have been on the recieving end of the nastiness are going to get the last laugh though. I predict that if he doesn't get Hillary on the ticket that he'll go down in flames.

    Parent

    Tuesday Open Thread: An American Storm | 231 comments (231 topical)