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 >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tuesday Open Thread: An American Storm | 233 comments (233 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) (