home

Late Evening Open Thread

This is it for me tonight. I'll start live blogging the goings on in Washington regarding Hillary Clinton's speech tomorrow around 9 or 10.

BSG is getting quite freaky if you ask me. But I have to see it through.

Oh and Big Brown goes for the Triple Crown tomorrow in the Belmont. It's been 30 years now since the last Triple Crown winner.

This is an Open Thread.

< CNN Poll: Clinton Gives Obama 3 Point Bump As VP | Catching Up on Siegelman >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    BTD, just wanted you to know (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by ap in avl on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:20:30 PM EST
    that I think you've done a wonderful job holding down the fort today.  Thanks for all of your hard work.  Hope you get a chance to take a bit of a break before you jump back in the saddle tomorrow.

    This political campaign has totally changed my (5.00 / 9) (#4)
    by kenosharick on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:27:04 PM EST
    TV habits. I used to look forward to KO and MSNBC every night- no more. I actually have been watching FOX (I am so ashamed). Hannity is taking apart Obama and I kind of like it. I have CNN on now and they barely mention Obama- on and on about Hillary and her speech tommorrow and how could she have lost? They are totally OBLIVIOUS to the role the played!!! As is tweety. CNN and Candy Crowly are blaming her loss on the fact that she was "not herself" or "strong enough." And Bill's "behavior" They are delusional.

    Fox News (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Coldblue on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:34:20 PM EST
    has been patiently waiting for an easy opponent.

    CNN and MSNBC have helped their cause.

    Parent

    I know what you mean.... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by vml68 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:39:34 PM EST
    I used to watch John Stewart and Stephen Colbert regularly but had to stop 'cos I could not take the Hillary bashing (And I adore Colbert!)

    Parent
    I know. (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by AX10 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:40:54 PM EST
    I do not like nor trust Obama.  I have no problem
    listening to Hannity.
    Afterall Ted Kennedy has been on his radio show many times.  If it's o.k for Teddy K. to go on Hannity's show, then why can' we watch/listen if he want to.

    Parent
    Hannity (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by Athena on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:12:21 PM EST
    I watch Sean all the time.  Had his research been picked up by the MSM in time, Obama would not have been the nominee.  Oddly, Hannity was laying out all of Obama's awful electoral vulnerabilities right in front of the DNC, but they don't care.  And Hillary could not have used the Wright issue at the start - the media would have annihilated her.

    Parent
    I have (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by bjorn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:14:31 PM EST
    watched Hannity and Colmes a half dozen times during the primary.  I don't get Colmes...is he a real pundit or just a foil for Hannity?  He doesn't seem like a strong voice for much of anything.

    Parent
    Colmes is supposed to be the anti- (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:28:54 PM EST
    Hannity, but he never puts up much of a fight.  And, he always sounds like he has marbles in his mouth...interesting factoid...he is married to rightwing talker, Monica Crowley's, sister.  You have probably seen her on McLaughlin Report...took Tony Blankley's place, I guess.

    Parent
    He also doesn't ever seem to have (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:40:06 PM EST
    much substance in his arguments or points. I turn the channel when he joins the mix.


    Parent
    wow (none / 0) (#45)
    by bjorn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:34:00 PM EST
    so he really is just a foil not a true opposing viewpoint.  He does not have the same star energy Hannity has...not that I like most of what he says but it does have the "it" factor and Colmes definitely doesn't.

    Parent
    And to think (none / 0) (#180)
    by Fredster on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:45:38 AM EST
    I used to refer to them as "Insanity and Comb-over"!!

    Parent
    I like Monica Crowley. Didn't know Colmes (none / 0) (#47)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:36:01 PM EST
    was married to her sister. Hannity, who I do catch once in a while, although loud, outshines his partner. He's the star, why I'm not sure. Does anyone know is Hannity is married?

    Parent
    Yes he is (none / 0) (#82)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:24:43 PM EST
    and has two daughters; older one is 6.

    Parent
    Sorry. (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Marco21 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:39:19 PM EST
    All this Hannity talk is making me want to pull a Liz Lemon - Blerg!!!

    He is a nutcase, delusional serial liar.

    Parent

    As is (none / 0) (#103)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:51:27 PM EST
    Keith Olbermann!!!

    Parent
    I would categorize Olbermann (5.00 / 7) (#113)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:03:44 AM EST
    as a narcissistic, buffoonish douchebag.

    To think I used to watch him on a nightly basis.

    Reminds me of that Tina Turner line from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome.

    "One day, a cock of the walk. Next day, a feather duster."

    Parent

    Colmes is a robot (none / 0) (#99)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:50:55 PM EST
    constructed by Hannity to be a phony liberal foil.


    Parent
    During the 2004 race, did anyone happen to see (none / 0) (#141)
    by otherlisa on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:34:14 AM EST
    the time Wes Clark almost gave Sean Hannity a stroke? It was over the whole "cheerleading" flap. I can't even recall who was accusing whom of cheerleading. All I remember is Wes Clark, smiling, sticking to his guns, cutting off Hannity, Hannity getting red-faced with rage and stomping off (they were doing interviews at the convention). Colmes just sat there with a bemused smile.

    God it was beautiful.

    Parent

    I watch Hannity too (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:50:31 AM EST
    But listen to him on the radio more often.  He had been fussing about Obama's church, their Black separatism movement, and Rev Wright for at least 6 months before the rest of the media finally picked up on it.  He also knew about Rezko and Ayres.  If ''little ol' Sean Hannity" can find this stuff, why can't the rest of the media?  

    My guess, they didn't want to find anything negative about Obama so they didn't look.  Sigh...........if only they had.  

    Parent

    I have done exactly as you have. (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:46:30 PM EST
    I am so upset and very out of my norm (which was my pattern for so many moons). Now I hardly turn on the t.v., (except non-news shows), I've even stopped reading the newspaper, and, I feel like I may be looking at at least 4 more years of worrying about this country in the hands of someone so unqualified. Listening to some of the Obama bloggers that have moved-in, this further lessens my confidence. I kinda like the idea of the thank you's listed down below!!!

    Parent
    The shock, turned into anger, ... (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:12:07 AM EST
    with Saturday's DNC farce, then into disbelief and despair after Tuesday's course of events. It is absolutely repugnant what these so-called party leaders, representatives of the democratic voters have done. But then again, momentary political 'convenience' has been the norm for this entire debacle. Sadly, in the end, democracy lost, because the people's voice was muffled by its own party.

    The Democratic Party is no longer my party, let the Braziles, Deans, Pelosis have it. I got their message loud and clear that they did not need me, middle-class, gun, religion clinger and NOW BITTER Hispanic woman (who btw happens to have a PhD in History), so they won't NEED MY MONEY either.  

    The money BO's party requested in its 'presidential campaign survey', I sent to Hillary. I hope her supporters do the same to help to defray some of the accumulated debt of her campaign and allow her some independence from accepting BO's $, enabling her to SUSPEND INSTEAD OF CONCEDE HER CAMPAIGN without having strings attached.

    REMEMBER, S/HE WHO PAYS CALLS THE SHOTS!

    WE CANNOT ALLOW TO BE CORNERED OR FORCED INTO VOTING FOR HIM. TO DO SO IS TO SUCCUMB TO THE BULLYING FOR THE SAKE OF "PARTY UNITY", AND TO ACCEPT THE BLAME FOR ALL OF THEIR TRESPASSES.

    What do we do now? Short of voting for McCain or staying home, there could be another alternative. We are 18million strong, we have our nominee. The party, the press, even some of her loyal politicos may have abandoned her, but WE HAVEN'T! The same way we've raised tens of millions for her campaign can donate $5 dollars each ($5 X 18mill = 90mill). This will knock out her debt and give a hefty jump start to her Independent presidential candidacy.

    Parent

    Our party has gone totally nuts................... (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:54:57 AM EST
    Over someone they barely know.  I can't stand it.  I can't watch MSNBC anymore, at all.  Rachel Maddow is all but kissing Obama's backside, along with Mathews and Olberman.  They're all disgusting.  Never again.

    Parent
    Maddow (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by Brookhaven on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:46:58 AM EST
    About 4 years ago, I would listen to Air America Radio (before it got overtaken by the bots:mostly) and she used to do the 9 am show with Liz Winstead who was her boss at the time.   I always found Liz to be the more daring one, who didn't mince words.  Maddow was more measured and self-conscious about her words.  And, I always found Winstead more interesting, witty and didn't take herself seriously unlike Maddow.  

    I wasn't shocked when Winstead was fired and Maddow was kept on and they groomed her from her morning show to her eventual 6 pm spot.  I thought Winstead was the more talented of the two so I've never warmed up to Maddow.  

    She's so off in her analysis and has bought into the HRC as evil script so wholeheartedly and this from a person who I clearly remember saying on her show earlier last year that she didn't find Obama inspiring.  So what happened?  

    She's very intelligent no doubt about it but she's so far gone over the cliff about Obama her analysis has suffered as a result.  

    She's lying high with the other two stooges, KO and Tweety.  I've even heard her praise Tweety on the air after all the insane crap he said about HRC and she had the nerve to look astonished at Ferraro when both appeared on the Today Show with Maddow saying sexism didn't play a part in the campaign.  

    The hypocracy of these people and the hubris and self-serving diatribes against HRC and lullabies for Obama is enough to make one want to spit in the subway station in NY even though it's illegal and I would never do such a thing as spit, normally.  

    Parent

    I don't watch any of those shows, and (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:50:20 PM EST
    before Clinton lost, I was already down to 4 or 5 blogs. Now there's no point in sticking around, for me. It's not like spending times on blogs was a great use of my time in the first place--althought talking with the people here is nice.

    Parent
    Don't leave -- you are always so witty (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by angie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:01:03 PM EST
    and a little respectful dissent I think is ok here (which is what I plan to do) just no stumping for the GOP (which I do not plan to do).

    Parent
    Well, McCain is not ideal, to say the least; (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:07:46 PM EST
    however, I truly think Obama would be a horrendous at foreign policy---viz. his comment on Jerusalem, for example. He is committed to widening the war in Afghanistan, possibly in Pakistan too, while simultaneously beginning to hedge on his promise to remove troops from Iraq.
    I don't think there is any underlying philosophy at all in his foreign policy (or any of his politics, for that matter). I don't see him as the person to right the ship of state. McCain may actually do better in that regard. I don't think he really is a warmonger. He's rather like Reagan, isn't he? Reagan talked very tough, but we fought no major wars under Reagan.

    Parent
    McCain is much like Reagan in foreign policy (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by SueBonnetSue on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:57:54 AM EST
    I think McCain will keep us safe and out of more wars.  Heaven only knows what Obama might do.  I just have no faith in his foreign policy.   I cannot vote for someone I don't trust to keep my country safe for my kids.  

    Parent
    Thanks to Nancy (none / 0) (#104)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:53:14 PM EST
    By all accounts, he was gung-ho to invade Nicaragua until she talked him out of it.

    Parent
    Don't forget Grenada! (none / 0) (#139)
    by Grace on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:33:55 AM EST
    Major major conflict.  Took all of what -- 8 hours?  :)

    Parent
    goodbye to so many blogs (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by noholib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:58:19 PM EST
    I became distrustful of the MSM when they were blind to the ,even the NYT and Wash

    Parent
    sorry - incomplete Goodbye to so many blogs (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by noholib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:39:01 PM EST
    I started a comment, then stopped, but hit the wrong button.  Just forget about this one.  I realized I didn't want to dignify them by naming all the TV shows, newspaper columnists, and blogs that I no longer read !  

    Parent
    Being delusional must be a requirement (5.00 / 3) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:15:08 PM EST
    for being a talking head or faux newscaster.
    All I want is for Clinton to suspend and hold on to her delegates as I have a feeling, the democratic party may be needing Hillary in August.

    Parent
    Fox is suprisingly evenhanded (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:19:04 AM EST
    in their dislike of both Clinton and Obama.  Who'd a thunk it?

    Also, as someone who hasn't watched MSM in years (aside from major disasters like Katrina, the tsunami, 9/11 where I figure I can see the pictures and ignore the squawking), I find Fox interesting because they telegraph the RNC agenda and talking points pretty well in advance.  Forewarned, forearmed and all that.

    Parent

    msnbc has become a joke (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by ChuckieTomato on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:20:35 AM EST
    it's not a news network, it's a cheerleading squad

    Parent
    Ya know (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by kenoshaMarge on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:11:21 AM EST
    if Obama supporters really want to help their candidate they could just be quiet. This idea that somehow they can "talk" us round or insult us or shame us or guilt us into supporting Obama is foolish.

    Perhaps in time some of us will decide to hold our noses and vote for an inferior candidate one more time because the Republican is so much worse. Others, I'm one, will not vote for Obama with or without Senator Clinton as VP.

    The best thing Obama supporters can do is to stop the gloating, stop the Clinton bashing, and go away and gloat, victory dance or whatever with other Obamacrats. Right now, you are doing more harm than good. And I say that as someone who enjoys every boneheaded move from a group of people for whom I have no respect whatsoever.

    Parent

    I don't watch any news on tv anymore. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:56:36 PM EST
    At all. And I used to be a news junkie. I feel much calmer now. BP never rises. I highly recommend CSPAN for speeches.

    Parent
    You know (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by phat on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:30:02 AM EST
    We had hopes for Air America. And we all have wished for a "progressive" version of Fox.

    Is this what we get for wishing?

    Parent

    You are not (none / 0) (#162)
    by facta non verba on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:19:21 AM EST
    alone. The only MSNBC program I can safely watch is Morning Joe. CNN depends. If I see Donna Brazile, Jack Cafferty, Roland Martin or Jamal whatever his name, switch-a-roo.

    The McLaughlin Group still pulls me in even though Monica Crowley is hard to stomach.

    Parent

    Getting Started (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Athena on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:28:35 PM EST
    A task ahead is to turn the national teach-in over sexism into action.  This is not just about Hillary - Hillary's treatment exposed how all women are treated.  That's why the resonance is so strong.

    Watch out for the classic tools of delegitimation: analysis becomes whining, anger becomes bitterness, dissent becomes divisiveness.

    And no, Senator Obama and the DNC, these are not "distractions."  

    getting started - via Women's Media Center (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by noholib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:24:15 PM EST
    Good idea!
    Some here may want to apply or nominate someone for the Progressive Women's Voices training program of the Women's Media Center.  Its purpose is to counter the gross underrepresentation of women in the media by training women to write and speak out more effectively in print and on TV. The deadline June 12 is quickly approaching for the third and final class of Progressive Women's Voices in 2008 - 10 more women to train and promote in the national media. More information on the program at http://www.womensmediacenter.com/progressive_womens_voices.html.

    Please consider nominating someone good, or apply yourself, or at least spread the word.

    Parent

    Um, several of those women (none / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:30:39 AM EST
    at the link, those "participants" -- graduates of the program, I gather -- have been leading "feminists" against Clinton in this campaign.  See writers for the Nation, see anti-Clinton petition organizers, etc.  Anyone applying might want to look more into its aims.  Just sayin'.

    Parent
    So... (none / 0) (#186)
    by Y Knot on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:20:21 AM EST
    Is it not possible to be a feminist and against Clinton?  

    The way you put quotes around participants and the general warning tone, makes it look like you don't think that's possible.

    Maybe the group itself doesn't have a particular viewpoint on Clinton, but the individuals each made up their own minds?

    Parent

    BSG ? (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:33:13 PM EST
    if you tell us what happens, I won't have to stay up for it here on the west coast.

    stay up. it's way freaky. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by cosbo on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:43:34 PM EST
    It's worth watching (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by janarchy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:07:24 PM EST
    It's mostly Laura-centric with a lot of Cylon stuff going on. Hard to explain, even having seen it once. :)

    Parent
    It IS freaky and (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:15:30 PM EST
    it just adds to my theory that the plot since season 2 (hell, maybe since season 1) is the foreshadowing of this entire campaign.

    Baltar = younger guy who develops cultlike following and unseats the older, wiser and more experienced older woman with promises to lead the people to the promised land (New Caprica).

    Roslin = real leader who almost steals the election (that's a metaphorical comparison btw) but loses out to Baltar, both the Presidency and the direction of the people

    Invasion of New Caprica by Cylons and ruin of human society = gas prices, economic woes, and the clusterfrak of a war in Iraq.

    Resistance/Roslin = forced underground, brave souls hang on and return Roslin to rightful place as leader of people, to be led to the TRUE promised land.  TL is The Resistance, return of the true leader is Clinton in 2012.

    Ok, so it's not a perfect parallel.  But it's a little close for comfort, eh?  Oh, and Roslin and Clinton's significant others are both named Bill!

    Parent

    Ooooh (none / 0) (#62)
    by janarchy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:57:49 PM EST
    Ron D. Moore's either psychic or...I dunno what.

    All I know is why can't we have a President like Lee Adama? Now there is a man I would vote for (or do anything else he'd like. ::cough::)

    Tonight's episode was pretty chilling -- I wasn't sure WHERE they were going with what happened to Gaius but...yeah. Wow. Now Laura knows what we've known for 5 years.

    I will say the Cult of Gaius is a little bit scary in its parallels to the Cult of Obama. I think I'm thankful there's no Gaius Gurl singing songs of praise about him.

    Parent

    Yeah.... (none / 0) (#70)
    by Alec82 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:12:58 PM EST
    ...but Gaius keeps a harem...like Bill...

     Just kidding, of course.

    Parent

    Pfffft. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by janarchy on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:57:18 PM EST
    Then again, Gaius is too accomplished to be Obama. He's actually an expert in something.

    Parent
    I wouldn't invite that parallel (none / 0) (#116)
    by s5 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:07:15 AM EST
    if I were you.

    Roslin is a great character, but she's also delusional and lately, tyrannical, using her authority and close relationship with the military to consolidate executive power over the elected representatives. And she herself has never won an election, unless you count her brief victory where she conspired to steal the ballots before stepping down in shame.

    That said, I stopped looking for parallels between BSG and the 2008 election, once I found the ultimate parallel: John and Cindy McCain are Saul and Ellen Tigh. It's uncanny.

    Parent

    Didn't say it was a PERFECT (none / 0) (#131)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:20:44 AM EST
    analogy.

    In fact I rather hope it's not, given what the prophecies of Pythia say about a dying leader.

    Parent

    I'm very skeptical (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by s5 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:24:33 AM EST
    that the dying leader is necessarily Roslin. What if the dying leader is a cylon with no access to a resurrection ship? Now that ahem certain events have transpired (really trying to avoid spoilers here), one could say that cylons are an inherently dying race.

    Parent
    BSG (none / 0) (#122)
    by reslez on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:12:54 AM EST
    Your analysis is quite thoughtful but I have to admit I can't stand the character of Laura Roslin anymore. She always reminded me of GWB.

    Person with little relevant experience becomes president. Leads people forth in aftermath of catastrophic attack. Becomes a messianic leader convinced of own righteousness, inspired by questionable religious visions. Overrules more experienced military leaders. Steals election and gets caught. Bans abortion. Tortures political opponent. Rules without regard for openness or transparency (in recent episodes).

    Actually, what annoys me the most is that the writers always try to have it both ways with her. For example, when she stole the election she got caught, which somehow made it morally OK. I've noticed there are few consequences for main characters on BSG. Still, it is a decent show. (But not as good as The Wire.)

    I found an interview with BSG creator Ron Moore where he remarks on the similarities.

    Parent

    Lee kinda addressed this (none / 0) (#134)
    by s5 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:25:58 AM EST
    In his courtroom speech, he made a big show of pointing how no one is ever held accountable for anything. I think he made a convincing argument, which filled in some of the holes for me.

    Parent
    The moral point... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Alec82 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:43:06 AM EST
    ...is that the situation is like no other.  Everything WOULD change if there were fewer than 40K humans left and we were all fighting for survival.  Which is the more unique, science fiction angle of the show.  And what separates the analysis from what the Bushies have done.

    Parent
    Had she not overruled the military (none / 0) (#135)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:29:38 AM EST
    in the beginning, they may have lost all of humanity.

    I have not liked her as much lately because all sorts of ego and self-justification going on in her.

    But she's very practical and tough, and in a catastrophic situation that's what is needed.  I don't think she really escapes consequences.  She's dying, after all (a literary punishment, if not a direct moral one).  And still better than Gaius, as head of his own little freaky cult.  Of course, Galactica's plight is truly (although fictionally) catastrophic, not faked up crisis as we have with GWB.

    Sigh.  Really, I just want to believe that Ron Moore is foreshadowing a successful Clinton run in 2012.


    Parent

    TM has (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:35:31 PM EST
    a request from one of Clinton's supporters today asking:

    We are trying to get a "Thank you card campaign" started. We want to flood Senator Clinton's DC office with thank you cards. On the front of the envelope we are writing "WE ARE ONE OF 18 MILLION" and we are asking her to take it to Denver. We want to reach as many supporters as possible so it can be effective. THE ADDRESS:

    THE HONORABLE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

    UNITED STATES SENATE

    476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON

    DC 20510-3202

    Pass it on.



    TM adds at the end (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:37:12 PM EST
    But a thank you card for all she's done works too.

    Hillary fought for us. So let's send a card to Senator Clinton. Then tell your friends to send one. Then get them to get their friends to send one.



    Parent
    This is a great idea. Do we (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:41:09 PM EST
    just mail the envelope with that address on the front and say I am one of the 18M, or send a card that says that. Sorry, I'm tired tonight.

    Parent
    now.org has an email one (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by angie on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:57:25 PM EST
    Thank you. (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:17:33 PM EST
    I just sent my card....GO HILLARY!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:23:25 PM EST
    Think the idea is for actual cards though. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:46:13 PM EST
    She said is was from Terry-think it's McAuliffe?

    Parent
    No, (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:14:15 PM EST
    it is spontaneous from the people; it is coming from a Clinton supporter, Terry L.   (this is not from her campaign).


    Parent
    You're right, and she said Terry L (none / 0) (#56)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:51:34 PM EST
    then, several comments said they had received emails from Terry.

    Not sure, but I do think Taylor was trying to tell them it was not Terry McAuliffe when she added the L.  I have no idea why she didn't feel she could tell who it was.


    Parent

    Sending a Thank you card to Hillary (none / 0) (#68)
    by Serene1 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:07:59 PM EST
    would signify that we have accepted that the race is over. Instead of a thank you card I would rather send a card that says "Denver here we come" and a card to DNC like RD suggested.

    Parent
    Not mine! (none / 0) (#129)
    by angie on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:19:47 AM EST
    I wrote my own message (not the NOW one) and I thanked her for all she has done so far, that I would respect her decision, but begged her to leave her options open (ie, not release her delegates) as you never know what could happen this summer.

    Parent
    I wouldn't worry about that (none / 0) (#188)
    by Y Knot on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:40:00 AM EST
    It really doesn't matter if she "releases" them tomorrow or not, they're still hers.  They can choose to follow her suggestion or vote for her anyway.

    As of last night, Obama has 2244 delegates, to Clinton's 1886.  Even if she decides to fight the MI ruling (I'm betting she won't bother) and the Committee  takes away all the delegates from him, he'd still have enough to clinch.  Ironically, by August, I think he'll probably be more likely to push that than she will, since it won't have an effect on the outcome, and it would be a bone to throw MI.  

    At this point, it would take a major disaster on Obama's part for her to become the nominee.  On the order of news coming out that he killed someone, or a devastatingly horrific attack from the Republicans that would make Kerry think he got off easy.  Or you know, something worse.

    If that were to happen... no matter what she says to her delegates today, Clinton would be the obvious choice to replace him.  No one at that point would say "Oh, well... we can't choose Clinton, she released her delegates."

    Parent

    National Organization of Women - e thank you's (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by noholib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:41:33 PM EST
    Thanks for this link.
    Yes, real cards would be great.
    But just in case you might forget, why not do it now on the NOW link?  It's really easy and quite cathartic.  

    Parent
    Riverdaughter suggests... (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:49:47 PM EST
    that we send post cards to Dean/Brazile saying "We are one of the 18 million".

    http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/06/06/oh-yes-wait-a-minute-mr-postman/

    I like that idea, too.

    Parent

    I will be sending both the thank (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:58:15 PM EST
    you and to the DNC. Love both ideas.

    Parent
    Me, too (none / 0) (#59)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:54:13 PM EST
    Saw you over there today :)

    I comment under a different name over there.


    Parent

    I can't remember (none / 0) (#92)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:44:14 PM EST
    who it was that said we should send the DNC

    RSVP cards for November 4 that say NO, very sorry but we can't attend the election for your candidate.

    Parent

    Post cards (none / 0) (#54)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:50:52 PM EST
    would be better. Letters or cards are going to be stuck in inspection forever.  Just a thought.

    Parent
    Good thinking (none / 0) (#72)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:15:21 PM EST
    waldenpond !  A postcard would work faster.

    Parent
    "Senior political analyst" Candy Crowley (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by kenosharick on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:41:07 PM EST
    of CNN was asked what she saw as the one moment when Hillary's campaign "started to unravel." She said it was Clinton's vote to give bush authoriation fo the Iraq war- which was several YEARS before the campaign started. This demonstrates the extreme incompetance of the MSM.
    And she makes the big money!!!

    Then, another male guest was asked the (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:45:44 PM EST
    same question today and he said the turning point was the Bosnia story.

    Funny how Obama's non-existent uncle liberating Auschwitz didn't bother him one bit, though. Or, JFK bringing his dad to the US, OR Selmas making it possible for him to be born.

    About the only "stories" I do believe are that he is distantly related to both GWB and Cheney.


    Parent

    yes, those (none / 0) (#75)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:18:33 PM EST
    two are the only ones that fit...
     

    Parent
    it was when they began (none / 0) (#90)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:41:53 PM EST
    attacking clinton in south carolina with the false tears story about katrina. racist dog whistles.

    Parent
    It was when Oceania attacked Eurasia. (none / 0) (#91)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:42:35 PM EST
    huh? sorry! (none / 0) (#101)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:51:23 PM EST
    Lol (none / 0) (#161)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:13:33 AM EST
    See MarkL, you can't leave!  Where am I going to get my comic relief?

    Parent
    funny that she thinks Obama won on that (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by sociallybanned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:04:31 PM EST
    because if that's the case, socialworker.org is dogging the crap out of Obama and says by the looks of it, the war and more wars (refocusing on Ahfganistan (msp?)) and sending more troops in.  

    Obama also talks about the need to "refocus our attention on the broader Middle East" and "finishing the fight in Afghanistan." So we are likely to see some troops now in Iraq shifted toward the occupation of Afghanistan, and also toward possible new interventions in the region.

    PEOPLE WHO believe Barack Obama will end the occupation of Iraq are likely in for a rude awakening. Despite talking about withdrawal from Iraq, his plan would keep troops in the country for years to come, likely well beyond his potential first term.

    Most importantly:

    Take the issue of troop levels. Obama's Web site says, "Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines." What do we imagine the purpose of those troops will be? To provide housing for homeless people? To teach children who are illiterate? To wipe out malaria and easy preventable diseases that kill millions of children ever year?


    Parent
    Well, the troops will bring a new kind (none / 0) (#67)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:05:29 PM EST
    of change, obviously!

    Parent
    this is somewhere on the NASW (none / 0) (#69)
    by bjorn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:09:04 PM EST
    website?  

    Parent
    socialist so they pretty much nitpick everything (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by sociallybanned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:17:55 PM EST

    but found this interesting cos so many say they are socialist and support Obama but socialist are offended.  LOL They do not like him!

    http://socialistworker.org/2008/06/04/will-obama-stop-the-war

    Parent

    The Iraq vote was (5.00 / 0) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:56:37 PM EST
    just an excuse. If it hadn't been that, there would have been some other excuse.

    Parent
    She lost (none / 0) (#95)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:45:34 PM EST
    the minute the librul media got their grimy little hands on her.

    Parent
    Crowley's got a point... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Y Knot on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:45:26 AM EST
    I firmly believe that if she hadn't voted for the war, she'd be the nominee today.  Hands down.  If she had voted against it, Obama would have had no launching point for his campaign.  That was the one thing that really separates them on issues.

    It's the one thing Clinton herself admits was the basis for his argument that he would be a better President than her.  "I have experience, he has a speech he gave in 2002." (misquoted I know, but that's what I'm referring to.)

    If Clinton had stood up and said the war was wrong in 2002, I think she would have crushed him early on, even if he had run, which I doubt he would have.

    Well, anyway, all just fantasy speculation.  But I think Crowley's point is valid.

    Parent

    If she hadn't voted to authorise the (none / 0) (#191)
    by JoeA on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:04:28 AM EST
    war then I'm convinced Obama would not have run this cycle,  he wouldn't have had an opening.

    Parent
    How big a gaffe was Obama's (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:53:44 PM EST
    "undivided Jerusalem" comment?
    To me it displays either a horrifying level of ignorance, or a level of support for the extreme Zionist position which is equally frightening.

    Ah, but.... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by vml68 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:07:17 PM EST
    ...he has gone back and changed that and explained what he really meant... :-)!
    Anyone see shades of "I was for it before I was against it"?!

    Parent
    Really? What did Obama Really Mean? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:08:14 PM EST
    You'll have to ask him about that... (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by vml68 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:16:54 PM EST
    Apparently his "handlers" had to fix the gaffe. I can't remember where I read the article or I would post a link.

    Parent
    no one has done more for the great (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by bjorn on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:18:11 PM EST
    divide in Jerusalem than B. O.  

    Parent
    Israeli politics is like nuclear (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:21:02 PM EST
    deterrence theory, in that you have to be extremely careful what you say, because so many words and phrases have set, significant meanings.


    Parent
    Very long article (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:27:24 PM EST
    on the front page of Savage Politics goes into depth on the foreign affairs Flip Flops of Obama. It's very informative.

    They spent lots of time on his comments/policy ideas on Israel.

    Parent

    Wow, thanks! I'll have to read the (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:30:27 PM EST
    whole thing later.
    But really, who cares. The GOP has chosen charismatic amateurs before---why can't we!

    Parent
    Because there is so much more at stake (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:35:11 PM EST
    this time.

    The country is in such a horrible mess. How in the world can we trust this man to clean it up?

    I am so much less afraid of McCain, as long as he has a bigger, stronger democratic majority, of course.

    Soon, I'll be staying at riverdaughter's The Confluence site. The Obama youth who are starting to take over the comment area here aren't good for my mental health. It was so much fun until then.

    Parent

    No! (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Valhalla on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:48:10 PM EST
    the both of you, please don't leave.  There's a lot of us non-youth here.  We just type a little slower, that's all.  You both have interesting takes on whatever's going on, plus you make me laugh.

    Parent
    I agree with Valhalla. I'm guessing (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by zfran on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:52:23 PM EST
    I'm one of the "oldsters" here and I have so enjoyed the commonness we have. We come from the same eras, same experiences, and we basically think alike, and obviously, we've learned to have a great deal of patience. Please stay, I, too would miss you very much.

    Parent
    Oh i'm not going.. but I just feel like (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:58:04 PM EST
    I don't have anything to say now.
    When the primary race was on, there was a point to criticizing Obama, because I wanted to show Hillary was better. Now he appears to be the nominee, and I have no enthusiasm at all for him. I have a teeny bit more interest in McCain, because he really is an interesting politician. People who think his "maverick" title is outdated are so wrong.
    His proposal to institute "question time" here is quite surprising and new.
    Don't expect a similar level of innovation from Obama.

    If there were one issue which would get me on board for Obama, it would be global warming/energy policy, but that is not a strong area for him, IMO.

    Parent

    oh mark, as the campaign unfolds (none / 0) (#93)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:44:55 PM EST
    i think that you will find a lot to share and a number of things to comment on in the upcoming race. i must confess i too have thought i would be pulling back and perhaps may yet do so.

    Parent
    I agree with you, Mark (none / 0) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:02:55 AM EST
    He's an interesting guy with an interesting take on things.  I LOVED the "question time" idea.  I think his invitation to Barack to go to Iraq with him is pure genius.  And the unstructured debate challenge is, too.

    I very much liked the pre-2000 McCain and thought at the time that if he wasn't so damn conservative, it would be such a relif to have somebody in the White House who didn't talk in circles all the time.  That was one of the reasons I liked Howard Dean so much. That's what McCain used to be like.  If he can get that back, Barack has no chance at all.

    Parent

    I remember (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:15:14 AM EST
    in 2000 that I was TERRIFIED that McCain would beat Bush and win the GE.  I was relieved when Bush won the primary because there was no way under the sun that the idiot could win the general!

    Little did I know...

    I don't like McCain at all for his conservatism.  However, he comes across as amazingly likeable as a person.  I watched one of his commercials about his time in Vietnam and I actually shed a tear!

    As for the "how do we beat the beotch" comment --  That isn't nearly as bad as some of the atrocities that have come out of the Obama campaign.  Racism?  Come on.

    I think McCain has a heck of a chance, especially if Obama keeps with the ridiculous foreign policy gaffes.  Obama seems unwilling to actually sit down and learn something about governing.   He's neve done it before, just went from election to election, office to office.  And he's completely not studious.

    My heart would not be broken if the presidency went to the guy who spent 5 years in a box.  I could completely justify it in my mind.  I've been meaning to scan a tree of life diagram, so I could put an arrow to the tree that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid belong to -- the VERTEBRATES ;-).  I'm a broken record on that subject.

    Anyway...

    Parent

    Agree JavaCityPal (none / 0) (#78)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:21:08 PM EST
    I meant (none / 0) (#79)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:21:39 PM EST
    I agree with you   ;-)

    Parent
    not taken over by youth (none / 0) (#97)
    by noholib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:45:57 PM EST
    Regular commenters, please stay if you have the time. Don't be scared by young newcomers.  Just ignore the ones you don't like.  I think plenty of old fogeys will stick around.  It will be just as much fun as ever!

    Parent
    WORM!!! (none / 0) (#55)
    by Shainzona on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:51:17 PM EST
    You startled me :) (none / 0) (#77)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:21:02 PM EST
    WORM, Jerusalem edition (none / 0) (#102)
    by Landulph on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:51:25 PM EST
    Apparently the story is that when he said "undivided", he meant Jerusalem should be not be divided by roadblocks, barbed wire, blockades, etc. Horse hockey. The word "undivided" coupled with "Jerusalem" has a very specific meaning in the context of Israeli/Palestinian relarions (to wit, continued Israeli sovereignty over the Old City/East Jerusalem). At best, Obama was guilty of a stupid and sloppy use of language, the kind that leads to international diplomatic incident, and that our current Moron-in-Chief has proven so adept at over the past eight years. At worst, he got caught in a pander and is lying through his teeth.

    Parent
    Clarification of Clarification (none / 0) (#110)
    by Landulph on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:00:38 AM EST
    Additionally, within one hour of this initial clarification from the Obama campaign *which apparently provoked protests from AIPAC), they wheeled out his hand-puppet Robert Wexler to indicate that, yes, Obama supported an undivided, Israeli-ruled Jerusalem, and always had throughout this campaign. Basically, Obama succeeded in pissing off both sides of the debate in less than 24-hours. F*cking amateurs.

    Parent
    Just wait, (none / 0) (#158)
    by Grace on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:01:54 AM EST
    in a couple of days, they'll be saying that Obama was talking about undivided streets, that he really meant that no street in Jerusalem should be divided with a painted line running in the middle to separate traffic going in opposite directions....

    They are idiots, aren't they?  

    Parent

    Freakin' Wexler (none / 0) (#164)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:21:13 AM EST
    I always had a positive image of him.  What happened?  Did he change or was I just asleep at the wheel before?  Was he always so shout-y?  Is he auditioning for VP or hitman?

    Parent
    Wexler (none / 0) (#167)
    by janarchy on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:32:14 AM EST
    seems to have had a brain transplant this year like so many others.

    I really am wondering if they were all kidnapped and replaced with pod people while we slept. (Where is Kevin McCarthy when we need him to point that out?!)

    Parent

    I heard something interesting today (none / 0) (#166)
    by Grace on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:32:05 AM EST
    I can't remember if it was on TV or the radio but they were talking about oil going up $11 today and how it was due to a few things including something Israel said today about having to bomb Iran eventually (or something like that).  Anyway, they linked Israel's statement back to Obama's Israel gaffes and they said that should teach him that words that come out of a President's mouth have meaning.

    What's funny is that is totally true.  When the President (or wannabe Presidents) speak, everybody listens.  I still remember Bush talking down the economy in 1999 when he was running.  "The USA is heading for a terrible recession, etc."  

    Parent

    Scary editorial Jerusalem Post (none / 0) (#179)
    by Grace on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:37:40 AM EST
    I don't even want to think about this:  

    Bush bombs Iran because he doesn't trust Obama on Middle East:  link here

    Parent

    Ah, the New Politics in action! (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Landulph on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:45:54 PM EST
    In all fairness, Hillary, I believe, has also expressed support for this position. (Jews are rather influential in NY Democratic politics, so I'm told . . ). Then again, she never claimed to represent a "New Politics" (which looks a lot like the old pandering). Supposedly Abbas and the Hamas government in Palestine are livid, and I've even heard Obama is being burnt in efigy in some parts of the West Bank. So much for John Kerry and Andrew Sullivan's claim our Middle Eastern policy would be smoother just as long as the POTUS was black! (Then again, Colin and Condi as SOS didn't exactly make the Arab world swoon at our feet either.) The ethnicity of the President will not solve the fundamental problem with the Israel/Palestine issue: each side demands more than the other is willing to give (eg: Israelis will not accept a divided Jerusalem, Palestinians will not accept an undivided Jerusalem), and thus you have the rock vs. hard place dilemma. I do feel sorry for the Arab and Muslim Americans who voted for Obama because his middle name was Hussein. Like (I suspect) many others, they're going to be very disappointed.  

    Parent
    Was it on any of the MSM? (none / 0) (#39)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:23:51 PM EST
    Hm (none / 0) (#146)
    by Steve M on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:45:12 AM EST
    It's not a gaffe, in fact, here in the USA we call it campaigning 101.  Hillary has said the same thing.

    Is it an extreme position?  Well, yeah.

    Parent

    Something happened today... (5.00 / 9) (#22)
    by Mrwirez on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:03:52 PM EST
    that after 42 years, I would have never guessed. My Republican mom has finally admitted she was inspired by Hillary Clinton, and THAT is huge. My mom is 4 months older than Hillary and has always been a republican. She said what the media did to her was wrong, the war from Bush was wrong, and McSame sucks. All of this makes my head spin. We have argued over Bush for 7 years. She will now finally disown her vote.... a little late , but I am happy. She is NO fan of Obama, but said if Hillary would have won she would have voted for her. She also mentioned Hillary running as an independent, she would still vote for her. Wow, the DNC messed up.
    WE FINALLY AGREE.....

    Yeah.. (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by BostonIndependent on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:22:29 PM EST
    I had the same experience last week travelling to meet some solid republican relatives.. It freaked me out. Interestingly, we both bashed Obama.. and "they" were freaked out that I was bashing a Dem!

    So the "agreement" on both sides bought us together. Maybe there is something to this argument that "Obama is a uniter" after all. Only it's "uniter against him"!


    Parent

    I don't believe in Obama (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by splat on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:05:03 PM EST
    Doesn't matter what happens tomorrow or next week. I'm not voting for Obama after how Hillary supporters have been treated. I don't care any more. They can sink without me.

    Obama gamed the caucuses and delegate count, he just forgot to bring the voters along.

    One more stumble and the superdelegates are gonna start worrying about his electability.

    Hillary owns the middle. That's a very big problem for him.

    this middle is going to be gone soon. (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by hellothere on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:47:12 PM EST
    that leaves division in the party. i know they will blame hillary as usual but the responsibility belongs with obama. my candidate didn't get the nod i 04 but i didn't take my marbles and go home. down through the years, the party hasn't with few exceptions faced a split like this that wasn't necessary.

    Parent
    I'll totally send a card. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Marco21 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:08:51 PM EST
    She deserves it. I am fully supporting Obama this fall, but will always wonder what kind of country this could have been under Hillary. I obviously don't see Barack doing as good of a job as she would have, but I honestly hope for the best.

    And I do not want Obama to lose to give another shot to  Hillary in 2012. I really don't. McCain is unacceptable.

    I will say that the media, the "creative class" and the DNC aren't fit to iron her pantsuits. Why she would even ponder another run for ANY office is beyond me.

    But that's a Clinton for you. Always fighting for their country's good.

    gop site (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by sociallybanned on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:28:23 PM EST
    UGH, I can't stand the GOP and this site isn't totally innocent with Hillary but this site launched by them, covers only a few things that we already know.  Nothing new!  

    meetbarackobama.com

    Last Post (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by formerhoosier on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:22:10 PM EST
    Not that I have posted many, and thought I would not post any more since the primary race is over.

    Just my perspective:

       Do not see any reason to be engaged anymore
       there will be two corporatist parties.

       Supreme Court:  

       Alito and Roberts are corporate jurists, not
       values oriented. Rights of corporations over
       individuals.  Democratic legislators are fine
       with that perspective as both parties are
       willing to sell the commons;  copyright, free
       use, selling of natural resources to private
       parties, etc.

       Health Care;

       Should have seen the hand-writing on the wall
       when Senator Kerry said UHC was not going to
       happen.  Senator Obama will not fight for it
       and too many Senators and members of congress
       would undermine any attempt by Senator Clinton
       to enact, as they did in 1993.

       Individaul Rights/Privacy:

       The current legislature is looking to see how
       fast they can approve the over-reaching plan
       by the current administration.  Am not sure
       whether this is with intent to use in Obama
       administration or lack of worry because of
       their privileged insular status.

       Oil Dependence:

       Carter got more right than given credit for,
       one of them was energy independence.  Will
       not get it from either party nominee.

       Financial Crisis:

       Not heading toward recession, we are heading
       toward depression.  Need some serious changes
       and both parties are too timid to do what is
       needed. When stock market tanks, there will
       be ripples all through the economic sector
       as many municpal funds and retirement funds
       are wedded to the market.

    Sorry for the long post, do not have webpage and
    never posted a diary.  

    arrivederci amici

    formerhoosier, you may have hit on something (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:36:18 PM EST
    The original mob of candidates debated a lot, but Clinton, Edwards and Obama got the most time and questions.  Because of that, I don't remember the others even speaking to their desire for UHC.

    If those who dropped early, plus Kennedy, Kerry, Wexler, etc. are all in the pockets of big Pharma, health insurance, and medical research, devices, etc., they don't want UHC. They know they can manipulate Obama, but Hillary is passionate about getting UHC in place as quickly as possible.

    Just thinking out loud, but it could help explain what her fellow Senators did.

    Hillary, despite her years of experience, and natural leadership qualities could have run in 2004. But, she did the time, and the work required to add credibility to her run for this office. She is no more "entitled" than anyone else, but she certainly earned the nomination.

    There aren't any ethical or honorable reasons why the party selected Obama.


    Parent

    Leave Kennedy off this list! (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:08:04 AM EST
    He has fought his whole career what has been an incredibly lonely battle for UHC.  He is in no way, ever, nohow "in the pocket" of big pharma or "in the pocket" of anything else.  I defy you to find the faintest whiff of evidence or credible accusation even that Ted Kennedy has EVER done the bidding of any corporate interest.

    For God's sake, do a little research before you slime people.

    Parent

    Then what was he doing (none / 0) (#187)
    by splashy on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:21:26 AM EST
    Backing Obama, who isn't for universal health care?

    Doesn't make any sense...

    Parent

    This is (none / 0) (#105)
    by Andy08 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:54:54 PM EST
    a  GREAT VIDEO recently posted:

     We are not going to take it anymore

    Pass it along !

    Parent

    I'm glad there's no hyperbole (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by MarkL on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:31:17 PM EST
    coming from Obama supporters.

    Representative Jesse Jackson Jr., after opining that the most important event in the history of the United States of America was Obama clinching the primaries last week, issued an interesting proposal:

    "I cried all night. I'm going to be crying for the next four years," he said. "What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation's political history. ... The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance."

    Unless someone finds the Higgs boson tomorrow, there's really no arguing with what JJJR says, is there?

    Here's the question (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by janarchy on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:02:12 AM EST
    did he cry over Katrina?

    Parent
    So now we know that JJ Jr cries (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by tree on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:06:40 AM EST
    over Obama, but did he cry for the Katrina victims? Shouldn't we be analyzing his tears?

    snark

    Parent

    IMHO, he's entitled (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:10:15 AM EST
    What he's NOT entitled to is suggesting Hillary is a racist because she "didn't cry" over Katrina victims.


    Parent
    No one has made (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Cream City on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:46:57 AM EST
    more American history than Obama.

    Under the bus go everyone from Christopher Columbus to George Washington, John Adams, Tom Paine, Sam Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, James Madison . . . Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Lucy Stone . . . John Brown, Sojourner Truth, Harriet Tubman . . . Abraham Lincoln . . . oh, need I go on?

    The wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round, because it doesn't even touch the ground anymore, with all the bodies tossed underneath it.

    Parent

    Heck I cried as well...!! (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:51:24 AM EST
    Wow, are they going to thank the (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:53:49 AM EST
    Clintons.  Remember before the South Carolina "event" Obama was not black, then Bill made him "the black candidate".  Ya, think it's ok now?  

    Parent
    Jackson's Comments (1.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Spike on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:08:06 AM EST
    You may not agree with them, but I don't doubt that Jessie Jackson's comments are heartfelt and honest. I'm sure that millions of black Americans feel the same way. The fact that Hillary Clinton totally refused to acknowledge this momentous event on Tuesday helps to explain why the standing of the Clintons among black Americans has dropped so dramatically since the first of the year. I hope she starts to heal that wound tomorrow. I would hate to see a permanent stain on their legacy.

    Parent
    No, sorry (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:12:56 AM EST
    Obama stepped on HER night, not the other way around.  He could very easily have let her have her last night after the last primaries and rolled out his SDs and his annointing the day after.  He deliberately wanted to chase her out of her last bit of spotlight.  That's OK.  That's politics.  But whining about it isn't.


    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by Blue Jean on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:40:57 AM EST
    Should she commit seppekku on TV, or will merely groveling at His feet do?

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:42:17 AM EST
    Jackson's sentiments were no doubt genuine, but yours are a bit of a stretch:

    I would hate to see a permanent stain on their legacy.

    Mm hmm.  


    Parent

    No one wants to deny (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by standingup on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:03:38 AM EST
    the momentous triumph that African Americans feel with Obama's nomination.  But do us a favor and drop the BS about her speech on Tuesday night.  As Bob Somberby explains better than I could hope to myself:

    Some people wanted a concession on Tuesday. That's fine, but historically, people don't do that. By the way: It would be weird to spend all day Tuesday asking people to vote for you--then to show up at 8:30 PM and say, "I'm out of here--please vote for the other guy." Whatever you think of Clinton's speech, it would be somewhat odd to endorse on the night you ran in two primaries, trying to win. Historically, people don't do that.

    And this does not begin to cover the disappointment that another minority group who have long struggled for their equal place in politics, society and the workplace felt with the defeat on Tuesday night.  There is healing needed on all sides and your one sided view won't begin to cover what is needed to see Obama become more than a Democratic nominee.  

    If you truly support Obama, think before you post.

    Parent

    Respectfully disagree... (none / 0) (#196)
    by NvlAv8r on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:12:57 AM EST
    "It would be weird to spend all day Tuesday asking people to vote for you--then to show up at 8:30 PM and say, "I'm out of here--please vote for the other guy."

    Look at the general election...when it becomes inevitable that one or the other will win, the loser congratulates the winner.  Just saw clips of Geo. H.W. Bush conceding to Bill Clinton on the same day that he spent all day "asking people to vote" for him.  

    Historically, we don't have races this close up until the last primary...at least it is rare as hen's teeth.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:29:39 AM EST
    it's Bushist and the way he lines people up behind him who were never on his side before and probably never would be is also downright Bushist.

    Remember Alsee Hastings went from boycotting the convention to endorsing Barack Obama in less than a week.  Now tell me there wasn't some extortion involved.

    No way do I condone these really shady practices in a Democrat.  Republicans do it, true, but Democrats -- at least Democrats I vote for -- DON'T.

    Parent

    I really want to know (4.75 / 4) (#132)
    by LoisInCo on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:24:28 AM EST
    exactly how many historic moments he is entitled to. His 2004 convention speech was historic. His announcement was historic. His "yes we can" speech was historic. His speech on race was historic. His speech on the 45th anniversary of MLK's " I have a dream" speech on the final night of this years convention will be historic. If he win's the Presidency 30 more will be.

    One night. That was all Clinton needed as historic. And instead of reaching out to give it to her and support her for it in her loss, the Obama minions tore her down. What could have ended a historic campaign for women, was instead a stoning. And that stain will never heal

    Parent

    I would hate (none / 0) (#192)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:16:18 AM EST
    to see obama lose in November.

    Parent
    And I am sick... (none / 0) (#198)
    by Alec82 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 05:40:25 AM EST
    ...of being told my vote for Obama is a product of misogyny or irrational displeasure with the Clintons.  It was Clinton's nonsense in the White House (his unique ability to p-off conservatives) that cost us in 2000.  We spent a lot of time debating the meaning of "is" in those years.  Do I defend the conservative polgrom? Of course not, no more than I defend the sexist attacks in the media.  But I grew up and voted for Gore.

     Then, in 2004, we all went along with the Clinton "safe candidate" lemmings off the cliff into Bush's second term.  And this is from someone who voted for General Clark in the primary, for God's sakes.  You know, the Clinton candidate.  If Senator Clinton was as true, and blue and principled as she has been made out to be among comments here, she could have run in 04.  Judging by the "rise, hillary, rise" language she could have commanded her own "cult of personality," as her supporters are so apt to point out about Obama supporters they attack.

     These are politicians.  If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.  Or does that change when you are on the losing end of a primary cycle? Because believe me, I've been on the losing end enough already.  I backed the right horse (for once) this election cycle, and I am being described as a sexist, fascist pig by people on this site.  And you want me to vote for Senator Clinton in the unlikely event she even runs in 2012?  And you have the audacity to cry race baiting?  

     This attitude reminds me of Nader's supporters in 2000, only worse.  Green Party members actually have very real, very substantial differences from Democrats.  All that really separates Clinton and Obama is race, gender and personality.  

     Cry foul, cry "votes weren't counted," cry whatever you wish.  In the end, I truly believe that we just have sore losers on our hands.

    Parent

    When Obama Loses In November (none / 0) (#109)
    by Blue Jean on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:59:29 PM EST
    We're ALL going to be crying, JJ.

    Parent
    That's what bothers me (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Davidson on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:50:21 AM EST
    The DNC robbed us of having not only the first woman nominee, but also the first woman president since Clinton is a lock for the GE.  And for what?  So we could get the first black nominee who is so pathetically weak as a GE candidate he cannot win and may even lose a landslide.

    I honestly fear that once Obama is exposed for the tactics he has used, especially his polarizing racial smearing, and the simple fact he is simply unqualified to be president, his nomination will set blacks back.

    Unreal.  Especially when you realize it could have been Clinton/Obama for the win.

    Parent

    I can't believe that 7 years ago, I was writing a (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by SunnyLC on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:45:27 PM EST
    Media Watch column for Buzzflash 3 times a week. I watched all the shows and wrote snarky comments about them.
    Now, I watch NOTHING.  I pick up a bits and pieces as I roam the house and my mother is listening to RW radio or watching McLaughlin on Fri. or Fox.

    I'm down to about 3 blogs now.

    I welcome others to visit my blog at http://www.insightanalytical.com

    I'll probably be going back to my World Media/Energy Watches soon...And my gardening!  I'm also going to finally finish the pages on all my many foreign media links and shortwave radio/international broadcasters.  I can't put all my energy into beating myself up over the Democrats anymore.  However, I will do deep research if something really hits me, like I did for my post on the 2004 RainbowPUSH Convention re: Michelle O and also the protests and threats against Democrats event then.

    another refugee from buzzflash (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by noholib on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:51:05 PM EST
    Where did you post your piece on the 2004 Rainbow PUSH convention?
    BTW, I used to love buzzflash but I haven't looked at it in months.  However, to its credit, at least in January or perhaps it was December, I can't remember, its editor said he would support whoever the eventual Democratic nominee would be.


    Parent
    Cream City -- Independence Day (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:10:47 AM EST
    Sorry, I didn't see your question until the thread was closed out.

    I only heard about Independence Day here, but I did find this link.  Search in the page for 'independence' and you'll see it.  The further link doesn't work for me.

    I'm loving the BSG freaky (none / 0) (#2)
    by s5 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:22:40 PM EST
    As long as Romo Lampkin doesn't come back again, I'll be a happy camper. :)

    No spoilers, though, some of us are on PDT.

    Yes, please no spoilers (none / 0) (#140)
    by splashy on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:33:56 AM EST
    I am watching BSG on DVDs, so am far behind (season 3 for now). I'm hoping they will come out with this years season fairly soon after it ends.

    Parent
    Does anyone have the link to the DNC rules that (none / 0) (#3)
    by dotcommodity on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:23:06 PM EST
    showed that Obama Edwards Richardson did not in fact have to take their name off of MI ballot to comply with DNC rules?

    How do you prove a negative (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by waldenpond on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:38:04 PM EST
    The pledge should be here somewhere, but it never included taking their names off.  The pledge was not to campaign.  Taking their names off was political manuevering.

    There's this...

    Parent

    Sorry dotcommodity (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by cal1942 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 09:48:28 PM EST
    perhaps someone else has the link but here's a little tidbit (you probably already know; but just in case):

    Obama, Edwards wanted to take their names off the Florida ballot to taint a sure Clinton win as they had in Michigan.  They were prevented from doing so because Florida law requires that a candidate can only appear on the general election ballot if their names were also on the primary ballot. Michigan has no such law.

    Obama, Edwards, Biden and Richardson withdrew from the Michigan ballot on the last possible day, as I understand, after telling the Clinton campaign that they would stay on  the ballot.

    Parent

    Sounds like an episode (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:31:09 PM EST
    of Survivor. Planning your alliances to push out members of the challenge.

    I've lost so much respect for some of the legends of the party after how they have behaved.


    Parent

    I remeber Bill Clinton saying party leaders really (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by janedw420 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:54:23 PM EST
    didn't stand up for her--not only with the rbc but through out her campaign.  And think of the Money the Clinton's have raised for many of them during tough election challenges. I truly think much of this is about money. Politicians would love to get their hands on an email list or two. Obama has already grabbed the reigns of the DNC. Richardson has been quoted as saying he would remember those who helped him.

    Parent
    I loved the pundit analysis of Bill's (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:18:40 PM EST
    comment Monday night that it was likely the last day he would campaign. They twisted it into a hint that Hillary was withdrawing.

    My first thought was "Nope, he's telling you he is not stumping for Obama or any of you democrats who turned on Hillary and him."

    If Hillary ends up with this nomination (and I still firmly believe there's a chance), you can bet he'll be tap dancing on every porch, truck bed, stage, and stadium he can find.

    Parent

    I really hope (none / 0) (#170)
    by janarchy on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:38:55 AM EST
    Big Dawg doesn't do much in the way of stumping. He pulled himself from his hospital bed in 2004 after his bypass operation to stump for Kerry and drew huge crowds. He worked his ass off for a number of Democrats when he should have been resting. And this is the way they paid him back? Claire McCaskill's comment about how she wouldn't let her daughter be alone in a room with him? Being smeared as a racist? His entire political legacy denegrated while Reagan and Daddy Bush were exhalted...by a supposed Democrat?

    I'd love for WJC to say "take your party and shove it" but I know he's too nice. No, he's not a paragon of virtue but honestly, who is? Washington = hot bed of illicit sex and power brokering. Everyone screws around. The hypocrisy is just laughable.

    Parent

    Bill and Hill bailed out (none / 0) (#185)
    by AX10 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 03:09:10 AM EST
    that ingrate Ted Kennedy in 94' too.
    If I were Bill, and had the forsight to see what Ted would have done to me, I would have let Romney take him out that year.

    Parent
    And the pledge was between (5.00 / 0) (#49)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 10:40:59 PM EST
    the candidates and the 4 early states. The DNC says they could have campaigned there because of the 100% penalty as far as they were concerned. They didn't because of the states pandering pledge. That's my understanding at any rate.

    Parent
    Check out (none / 0) (#73)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:16:57 PM EST
    BTD's posts during the week leading up to the RBC meeting.  I don't think even the rules committee disputes this.  

    Parent
    Rule 20 C.1 (none / 0) (#83)
    by BackFromOhio on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:29:13 PM EST
    Contains the prohibition on campaigning, but does not define campaigning as including name on ballot:

    Ruel 20C.1.b states:  "A presidential candidate who campaigns in a state where the state party is in violation of the timing provisions of these rules, or where a primary or caucus is set by a state's government on a date that violates the timing provisions of these rules, may not receive pledged delegates or delegate votes from that state. Candidates may, however, campaign in such a state after the primary or caucus that violates these rules. "Campaigning" for purposes of this section includes, but is not limited to, purchasing print, internet, or electronic advertising that reaches a significant percentage of the voters in the aforementioned state; hiring campaign workers; opening an office; making public appearances; holding news conferences; coordinating volunteer activities; sending mail, other than fundraising requests that are also sent to potential donors in other states; using paid or volunteer phoners or automated calls to contact voters; sending emails or establishing a website specific to that state; holding events to which Democratic voters are invited; attending events sponsored by state or local Democratic organizations; or paying for campaign materials to be used in such a state. The Rules and Bylaws Committee will determine whether candidate activities are covered by this section."

    Parent

    If Hillary backs Obama (none / 0) (#86)
    by nellre on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:37:24 PM EST
    If Hillary backs Obama and we, her supporters, believe in her, why would we not vote for Obama?
    I'm angry and would love to see the DNC thrashed... but at what cost?

    Hillary 2012/2016

    Because (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 11:59:25 PM EST
    Obama gamed the system, the primary was arguably illegitimate, and the DNC no longer supports core Democrats?

    If you don't punnish this behavior it will continue down this track.


    Parent

    By punishing the DNC you punish the country (none / 0) (#147)
    by nellre on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:46:05 AM EST
    No way we can let McCain win!
    My respect for Hillary runs deep. If she can support Obama for the sake of America, after all she's been put through, then  so can I!


    Parent
    By letting the DNC get (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:52:01 AM EST
    away with throwing voting integrity under the bus we punnish the country.

    No guilt trip is going to change that.

    I've been through quite a number of Republican presidents.  I'm still standing.

    Parent

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by nellre on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:58:58 AM EST
    I'm standing too. But I'm not one of the vulnerable.
    It's them I worry about.

    Parent
    Okay, now you have me curious (none / 0) (#168)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:36:31 AM EST
    Who are the vulnerables you are trying to protect?

    Parent
    I agree except (none / 0) (#163)
    by hookfan on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:20:07 AM EST
    there is a lot of misbehavior to be punished. If we take the route of punishing the Democratic leadership and Obama by witholding votes, then how will we punish bush's unitary executive presidency? I want a stronger congress and a return to effective oversight that involves more than sternly worded letters, more than ignored subpoenas, and more than rubberstamping a President's supreme court nominees.
       If McCain is elected what are the chances he will not cement Bush's centralizing of power? Why would he not do that especially with a Democratic gain in both Senate and congress?
       Oy! If you punish one, the other will scuttle away! I fear we will have to choose which poison appears less deadly. I'm vacillating, but leaning toward taking the Democratic poison putting hope that a Dem congress will stick it too a weak Obama. They sure don't stand up too a Republican President, even a weakened one.

    Parent
    Your logic escapes me (none / 0) (#171)
    by JavaCityPal on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:40:13 AM EST
    You don't think Obama wants all the power Bush has, and then some? He's no more willing to listen to the people, or advisers than GWB is.

    One thing we've all come to realize during this process is that no one is willing risk the title they earn by disagreeing with Obama.


    Parent

    I don't know what Obama wants (none / 0) (#200)
    by hookfan on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:03:40 AM EST
    If one doesn't go by his limited voting record, he's all over the place. He makes a pretty speech about being against the war, but then funds it, and now apparently is willing to stay indefinitely; he makes a pretty speech about lessening racial divide and uses race against the Clintons; he's against gun control, for control, or maybe even neither depending on who he is speaking too; etc.
       What I do know is the Democratic leadership didn't want Hillary, and imo cheated to get Obama. I also know Hillary comes across as much tougher, and less in the pocket to Democratic leadership. That suggests to me they badly want Obama because he is much easier to control, only knows about campaigning and little to nothing about governing. He's extremely green, thus easier to control. He's got to learn the ropes.
       So he may want all the power, but likely doesn't know how to get or maintain the power. Meanwhile the congressional leaders do. I'm hoping for a dogfight between an experienced congress and a very green Obama resulting in greater congressional power, and oversight.
       Recent past history clearly shows you wont get this fight between congress and a republican. McCain I doubt will cede anything to a Dem congress. Congress will likely continue its capitulation kabuki because it allows Republicans to continue to be the targets of blame and thus enhance their power, they hope, in future elections. With Obama they don't have that excuse.

    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by janarchy on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:04:25 AM EST
    unlike Obamabots, we don't take our marching orders from Hillary. Some of us actually think for ourselves and make our own decisions based on facts, information and multiple sources. So even if Hillary came to my house (and I'm one of her constiuents so she could...ha!), and begged me to do it for, I would have to say 'no'.

    This is bigger than just Hillary not getting the nomination to me and many others. It's the hostile takeover of the democratic party as far as I'm concerned. I have already left thanks to Obama and his surrogates and supporters and their shennanigans. I'm not coming back and I will not reward their bad behavior.

    Parent

    I truly understand... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:07:44 AM EST
    the raw feelings. The DNC will never see a dime from me again, but a McCain presidency will give "bad behavior" a whole new meaning.

    Hillary will be voting for Obama and I'll have what she's having.

    Parent

    Not about 'raw' feelings (5.00 / 3) (#150)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:49:40 AM EST
    Perhaps it is for you.

    Not for me.  Bad behavior rewarded never stops.  I make it a part of my everyday life not to support it.

    Hillary does not have the luxury I have.  In order to advance her (and my) interests, she has to play nice with the undeserving.

    I don't.  I can refuse to support vote-stealing, rules-breaking, misogyny, narcissism, unreasoned and unreasonable political garbage from the 'creative' class, hypocrisy, race-baiting, sexism... etc.  The list goes on and on.  She's doing her part, I'm doing mine.

    Parent

    Is there another way? (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by nellre on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:54:34 AM EST
    I am with you 100% but I think that letting McCain win is not the best protest.
    Perhaps we can all put our heads together to come up with something that'll teach 'em a lesson without letting McCain win?

    Parent
    Do what I've done... (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by cosbo on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:37:23 AM EST
    take it on faith, history of Dems losing elections, racial prejudice, Obama's inexperience, Obama's radical connections, women's anger, thousands of people fleeing the democratic party....that McCain is going to win and then move on from there. You'll better for the acceptance, though the anger will come & go. Acceptance of president Johnny Mac brings in chuckles from the dark side... like this former pissed Clinton supporter...

    All McCain has to do is breathe. And should he stop, God forbid, I'll vote for his dead body.

    I laughed a while over that one. Couldn't help it.

    Parent

    Sorry. My raw feelings are... (none / 0) (#176)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:05:05 AM EST
     valid and they are deep. I do not reward bad behavior or accept it in my everyday life either. To imply my voting Obama is tantamount to me rewarding bad behavior is insulting.


    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#127)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:17:59 AM EST
    and if we vote for it in Democrats, we'll have 2 parties that exercise hideous behavior.

    We might want to try and keep our own party in line.

    Parent

    Agree (none / 0) (#149)
    by nellre on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:48:47 AM EST
    Let's find a way other than letting McCain win ok?
    I'm all for a new party. One that won't tell me they don't need my vote.

    Parent
    There is no other way (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:53:18 AM EST
    If Obama wins, the crap continues.  Period.

    Parent
    Obama will be the least of evils (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by nellre on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:57:48 AM EST
    While he serves his 4 years we can organize a new party. Blow both parties out of the water in 2012.
    I am mad as hell, and I ain't gonna take it anymore, but I don't want to damage this country further by giving McCain the presidency.

    Parent
    Says who? (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by janarchy on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:24:10 AM EST
    Obama is just as likely to damage this country further. I am tired of being told that just because someone has a (D) after his/her name, that makes them a superior person to run this country. Better the devil you know than the devil you don't know as far as I'm concerned.

    Obama does not deserve to win. He has never won any seat that wasn't handed to him on a silver platter. He's never stayed in any seat long enough to actually get anything done. As far as I'm concerned, he'll be the third term of George Bush rather than McCain. I don't love McCain but I don't fear him or loathe him the way I do Obama -- and believe me, I cannot believe that things have panned out that way.

    Parent

    I'm sorry. (none / 0) (#173)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:50:22 AM EST
    I am missing something. Doesn't Obama and Hillary have similar voting records? Certainly so compared to McCain?

    I just disagree, I guess. Voting in another Republican who would surround himself with like-minded Republicans who have steered this country towards the brink in 8 years is lunacy.

    When the election season began, Obama was my second choice. Now, sadly, he's moved to number one.

    John McCain, however, was never in 3rd, 4th, or 5th place. Hell, he never even mattered.

    i will never vote for the Maverick who is against everything my original candidate is for.

    Parent

    Well, I won't vote for McCain (none / 0) (#177)
    by otherlisa on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 02:10:54 AM EST
    But I don't know that I will vote for Obama, either. At this point, my sentiment is, "Hell, no!" I don't want to vote for a candidate and a party that has enabled and promoted gross misogyny to nominate its favored candidate (along with the race baiting and the caucus bullying and the voter disenfranchisement)

    If I go along, I'm further enabling their behavior. I am going back to my abuser. I just don't see how I can do this.

    Parent

    Now And During The Next 4 Years (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by MO Blue on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:26:18 AM EST
    it will be Obama organizing a new party. He has already begun. All party funding and all messaging is being consolidated under the Obama brand. Messages have already gone out to his supporters, large and small, not to fund outside activist groups such as VoteVets, Act Blue and MoveOn etc.

    Once he has control of all the funding and messaging, it will definitely be his way or the highway. You want to be a Democratic politician, then you dance to Obama's tune. Step out of line and funds will dry up and a highly funded primary challanger will run against you next election cycle (example: John Lewis). Chicago machine politics at the national level. It will be Delay on steriods.  

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#203)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 06:38:30 AM EST
    what? I'm sorry to say this but I really don't see Obama as a better president than McCain. Both McCain and Obama are horribly inept when it comes to the economy. Frankly, I think McCain would be better when it comes to foreign policy simply due to the fact that he has more experience and self discipline. Obama would be another Carter. He's not going to change anything for the better and might even make things worse.

    Parent
    Because (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by reslez on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 12:37:10 AM EST
    My vote must be won: it cannot be commanded. Let Obama convince me he is suited by experience to be President, or that his stance on issues is closest to mine, or that he cares about any issue as deeply as he does about being elected. Until then I intend to write-in my candidate.

    No one will intimidate me with threats. Roe v. Wade? The Supreme Court is already lost, and where were the Democrats then? Scurrying for favor and voting for cloture. Why should I care about that right when we have lost so many others?

    They won't hear us until we send a message. Pas de replâtrage, la structure est pourrie. This primary has proven it.

    Parent

    because (none / 0) (#193)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 04:22:54 AM EST
    We're not loyal politicians.  We're fickle voters.

    Parent
    Ha. (none / 0) (#174)
    by Marco21 on Sat Jun 07, 2008 at 01:51:49 AM EST
    That works on so many levels.