home

Sunday Morning Open Thread

Your turn.

Comments closed.

< Unity: The Day After | How Can Obama Lose The Election? >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Got Nothing (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by creeper on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:02:49 AM EST
    I've just been labeled a "yapping puppy" by an Obama supporter.

    I don't think that falls under the heading of "unity".

    That was a really dumb comment (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:03:43 AM EST
    on Al's part. REALLY dumb.

    [ Parent ]
    Which Al? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:04:43 AM EST
    Giordano or Sharpton?

    [ Parent ]
    former (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:05:11 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hard to tell them apart (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:07:20 AM EST
    Similar hairstyles, y'know ;)

    Seriously, with friends like these, Obama has no need of swiftboaters.

    [ Parent ]

    Didn't you know? (5.00 / 18) (#6)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:08:17 AM EST
    Unity comes with a sharp swift whack to the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

    [ Parent ]
    should I send them a copy of (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:55:36 PM EST
    The Power of Positive Training? Or leave them to clean up their own puppy messes?  ;)

    In case anyone's wondering . . . POPT does work with people too, lol!~

    [ Parent ]

    They get to clean up (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:11:27 PM EST
    their own messes for a bit...

    [ Parent ]
    I call (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:16:20 AM EST
    it "sledgehammer unity" or to women it's "get in line and shut up". They just can't seem to help themselves.

    [ Parent ]
    The mentality behind it (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:18:08 AM EST
    is that no Democrat actually supported Hillary Clinton. Her candidacy was all a Republican trick, you see!

    [ Parent ]
    No "true" Democrat.... (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:52:30 AM EST
    ...whatever that means these days.

    [ Parent ]
    Saw this on No Quarter...and those are (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:17:45 PM EST
    their tactics...not a very honorable bunch imo.

    link

    [ Parent ]

    Two Sides of a Coin (1.20 / 5) (#119)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:25:52 PM EST
    I can understand your fascination/attraction as they are your counterpart.

    [ Parent ]
    Alas, squeaky cannot help itself... (5.00 / 7) (#169)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:58:00 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yappy or not (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by standingup on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:56:38 AM EST
    your vote still counts the same as Al's.  Consider the source and it's much less of an insult.

    [ Parent ]
    Yapping puppy . . . (4.50 / 2) (#9)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:09:29 AM EST
    Isn't that old-school Communist Party rhetoric--you know, "running dogs of imperialism," that sort of thing, "capitalist lickspittle", etc? Surely this are NOT mental associations the Obama campaign wants.

    [ Parent ]
    Showing my age here, but..... (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:08:24 PM EST
    ...does anyone else remember Papa Was A Running-Dog Lackey Of The Bourgeoisie from National Lampoon's Lemmings? I've got to track down a copy of that again. I wore it out in vinyl.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, this "yapping puppy" (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by A little night musing on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:09:11 AM EST
    just wants to say...as someone else (sorry, I've forgotten who it was, meant to give you a 5!) said,

    BTD, you really live up to your screen name. (And the loveable part, I agree with that too!)

    Thanks for everything you do here.


    A serious question... (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:09:14 AM EST
    I asked before and not no answers from any Obama Supporters...so I'll try again:

    There is a comment in another post about an Obama supporter saying "I heard him speak" as his reason to support BO.

    If that's all it takes...hasn't all of America already "heard him speak"?

    And didn't half of Dems want someone else?

    And if he really is/was so inspirational, why didn't he blow HRC out of the water with voters after Super Tuesday in February?

    And why did he only win via Super Delegates?

    And why - seriously - isn't he ahead of McCain by 25 points in the polls right now?  I mean, these are his glory days...but the "old man"/Bush II is right there with him?

    I have my answers to these questions?  What about some answers by a BO supporter or two?

    Don't these facts actually make you (even) slightly nervous?

    I asked last night (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by pie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:16:30 AM EST
    about a progressive movement.  What is a progressive and why is Obama considered one?

    Crickets.

    Hard kwestins, I guess.  Troubling that we're not getting answers.

    [ Parent ]

    I am stumped too (5.00 / 10) (#44)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:37:00 AM EST
    I have a good many friends who are progressive and/or feminist who preferred Obama in the primaries. Some said it was her war vote - however seeing Obama's record in the Senate I don't know that he would have voted against the majority. He is not a rebel or a radical in any way.

    I guess they wanted to believe hope/change was enough.

    I outgrew those hopes in 2000 when a lying rich guy who couldn't make sense 'won' over an honorable progressive who was really smart.

    Do people not pay attention?

    [ Parent ]

    He WOULD have voted against it? Rilly? (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    The same guy who can't take a straight up stance on anything?

    The same guy who's brilliant campaign is based on not leaving a paper trail and avoiding anything "controversial" by voting Present -- cause yes or no might (:: eek eek ::) sully the suit later?

    He's brave in his imagination, a downright champion in his hypothetical scenarios and a veritable lion of the civil rights movement in his rhetoric.

    But he's a chickensh!t coward in standing up against injustice when it matters most: when it's happening right under his nose.

    CLUE: denounce the bigotry when it's happening, Senator Obama, don't look the other way or USE it to score personal points when a worthy colleague and campaign rival is besieged with a historically unprecedented onslaught of bigotry. (My, isn't the b!tch divisive!)

    [ Parent ]

    Hard Kwestins? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:45:55 AM EST
    Not really so hard. I answered the progressive question on a thread yesterday. And I'd be happy to reengage on that point in the future. Right now I don't sense that there is much openness to such a discussion. Most folks here still want to argue points that have already been resolved by the primary process. With the passage of time it might be possible to move the discussion beyond that. Let's be patient with each other.

    [ Parent ]
    true to form - (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:58:19 AM EST
    DK front pagers are still focused on bashing Hillary and evading Obama's positions on the issues.
    DK hate trumps issues and solutions.
    shocking! ;>

    [ Parent ]
    They don't speak for Obama (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by lgm on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:11:10 PM EST
    Commenters on DailyKos don't work for Obama or speak for him any more than commenters here work for and speak for Clinton.  After Clinton endorsed Obama and asked her supporters to vote for him, many here are not willing to do that.  

    Clinton is not able to deliver 100% of her supporters to Obama any more than Obama is able to tell his supporters what to say (or not say) about Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    I used to get myself in a mighty snit whenever anyone accused anyone at dKos of being on the dole.

    But after what I've seen the past six months, oh yea, I believe without a doubt there's some people there on the dole. Can't name names - won't name names - but yea, I believe it.

    But I also think there are Republican operatives there, and it disgusts me even more that dKossians fell right into their trap(s).

    Not too bright. And very destructive.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't believe all questions have (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    been answered beyond the primaries. I believe the system  and the voters were cheated and gamed and lied to. So do we now just say, oh well, party, party, party? Some do, I don't, and I will not come "home" as long as Obama is the nominee, especially w/o Hillary to watch over him. If the SD's had gone for Hillary, would you still feel the same way? You may say yes for this post, but most I've read, the nasty, vile, hate-bating ones, would not have accepted it. Please do not ask me.

    [ Parent ]
    I wasn't on yesterday (none / 0) (#83)
    by pie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:04:16 PM EST
    for most of the day.

    Go ahead.  I really want an answer.

    [ Parent ]

    Putting Social Security On The Table, (5.00 / 10) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    running "poison pill" ads against UHC, having "cure the gays" ministers campaign for you , approving Republican government regulations and adopting a foreign like the great icon Raygun are the NEW progressive standards.

    Glad to say that I'm a good old fashioned liberal and these positions don't appeal to me at all.

    [ Parent ]

    Not all people can be hypnotized (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:25:21 AM EST
    Don't you remember when they use to have a hypnotist on TV and he would take a group of people and talk his talk and he would have them raise their hands and some people didn't and some only one hand, and he would only keep the people with both hands up to work with? Those were the people he could truly hypnotize. Apparently some of us don't raise our both hands. I am making a joke about this, but maybe  his tone of voice really does hypnotize some people. To vote for someone because you heard them speak and without specific references to what he said, we might wonder about that. Wouldn't that be a hoot. Subliminal messaging.

    [ Parent ]
    to your point (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Y Knot on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    First off "I heard him speak" isn't the only reason I supported him, so I'm not about to defend that as being a good enough reason alone. But to your points:

    I don't actually think all of America has heard him speak, no. I think a sizable percentage frankly hasn't been paying that much attention to this race, yet. It sometimes seems unthinkable to me because I've been following this race for almost 18 months, but we still have six months to go.

    Why didn't he blow out Clinton seems obvious to me.  She was an incredibly popular, formidible, talented and inspirational figure.  She is, by all measures, an excellent candidate for President.  The fact that he managed to edge her out at all was an amazing feat.  But to turn it around. In six months, he managed to go from tied for a distant second with John Edwards to beating one of the most formidable candidates imaginable.

    Yes, half of democrats wanted someone else. But had Clinton won, her detractors would be able to say the same thing. Its a problem we would have had to face either way.    

    These by the way are not the Glory Days.  He's just come out of the toughest bitterest and most divisive primary we've seen in a generation. Whereas John McCain has literally coasted for three months.if anyone has in their glory days its him.  And yet, the best he can do right now is tie Obama?  If Obama can manage to unify the party (and I grant, that's a big if) he'll crush McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    OK... (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:51:17 AM EST
    (I wasn't citing your previous comment...I didn't see it...I was quoting from someone else's.)

    1.  Since when did HRC become a formidable candidate?  All we heard for 8 months was what a monster she is and has no experience except being married to a former POTUS.

    2.  Also, all we heard is that she ran a HORRIBLE campaign and deserved to lose...but NOW, Obama was the victor against a tough opponent?

    3.  I suspect that while some Americans may not have been listening to BO "speak", a lot more than you think have their mind made up already.  

    4.  And, historically, there are three big days for any candidate:  upon "winning" the nomination; selecting his/her VP; and the week after the convention.  So these are one of those Glory Days for BO - and he still is not beating McCain by the  numbers he should.

    And finally, doesn't any of the "bother" you...even a little bit?

    But thanks for answering.

    [ Parent ]

    Number 4 (5.00 / 8) (#100)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:15:00 PM EST
    The polls next week will tell the full story, but I've been expecting Obama to get a bump since last Tues and haven't seen it yet.

    McCain's been within 3 point of Obama (when he hasn't been ahead) for a while now.  Last night Fox was bloviating over the most recent Rasmussen poll, which shows Obama 4 points ahead.  If that's the bump - 1 pont -- there's trouble ahead.

    I think Obama maxed out his appeal in February and March, and I just don't see anything he could do, aside from putting Clinton on the ticket, that would produce a big swing either way.

    And, if she's not on the ticket, I'm starting to wonder about the convention bump too.  I almost think a floor fight would have been better for the Party, it would attract more eyeballs than a Unity Snoozefest.

    (disclaimer: while I agree with BTD that Clinton on the ticket is Obama's only hope, I don't think she should accept, what a waste of her talents).

    [ Parent ]

    The Bradley Effect (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:41:41 PM EST
    Valhalla, I agree with the points you make.

    But only a few would be willing to make their true feelings known to pollsters and the public.

    We'll only know what chance Obama has of becoming President when every ballot is counted after Nov. 4. (if he's at the top of ticket -- yes, I'm still holding out hope for the best)

    [ Parent ]

    Obama's negatives, from a supporter (none / 0) (#49)
    by lgm on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:40:00 AM EST
    You asked "And if he really is/was so inspirational, why didn't he blow HRC out of the water with voters after Super Tuesday in February?"

    One of Obama's assets is his speaking ability.  Another strength is what he has to say.  He won many supporters in his speech about Reverend Wright.

    Why did he not blow Clinton away?  Why is McCain as close as he is?  For one thing, both seem to be great candidates (and Clinton doesn't just seem).

    But Obama has negatives:  

    • inexperience -- less than one term in the Senate
    • a lack of specific accomplishments
    • he isn't completely trustworthy -- claims not to have hears Reverend Wright's most interesting  sermon.
    • his health care plan is worse than Clinton's
    • he promises too much -- like that he will implement his health plan though it isn't really his call (Congress passes laws).
    • some baggage -- supported various bad bills.
    • Reverend Wright
    • A penchant for saying true but impolitic things -- bittergate.
    • His skin color
    • his gender (a factor with some Clinton supporters).
    • His name


    [ Parent ]
    Thanks for your reply... (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:55:19 AM EST
    I appreciate it.  But I am overwhelmed at the issues you cite as BO's negatives.

    (I don't want to address these - although they may be problems in the GE: Reverend Wright.  A penchant for saying true but impolitic things -- bittergate. His skin color. His gender (a factor with some Clinton supporters). His name.)

    But take a look at the issues at the top of your list.  And why, therefore are you a BO supporter?

    (This question comes from someone who truly believes that we need someone great as our next POTUS to make up for 8 years under one of the stupiest human beings in my lifetime).

    [ Parent ]

    "True but impolitic" (5.00 / 7) (#161)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:51:29 PM EST
    This is one of the reasons Obama will lose.

    The continual assertion that Obama's Bittergate statements were true.

    They weren't.

    And it wasn't simply impolitic, it was the worst form of elitism.  It showed Obama was unable to project himself into the lives of the people he was describing.  The group was simply a "they" to be derided.

    Given his history, it's shocking Obama would be able to do this.  And it shows both a lack of compassion and intellectual rigor.

    [ Parent ]

    Different standards for different folks (5.00 / 8) (#195)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:10:08 PM EST
    Small town and rural folks were held up for ridicule by Obama's supporters for clinging to their religion while Obama had no problem clinging to his relion (20 years) until it became a political liability.

    [ Parent ]
    Not your last point... (4.75 / 4) (#82)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:02:46 PM EST
    Most of us have been voting for men for years.

    [ Parent ]
    McCain starts out with 40% (none / 0) (#180)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    of the electorate. Obama also starts out with 40%. The remaining 20% are apathetic at this point. There is no way anyone is going to be blowing anyone out at this point, given those dynamics. This is the way it has always been in American politics. The opposition's core support makes your blowout scenario impossible.

    You're asking why didn't Obama blow out HRC? You should actually be asking why Obama was able to beat HRC at all. Haven't you read the post mortems? This is one of the biggest upsets in history.

    Obama got superdelegate support after he proved his viability as a candidate and as a money raiser. Also, Hillary's attacks and tactics turned off a great many superdelegates. Some of her more radical supporters didn't help either. While Hillary did not encourage these people, I think the association was nevertheless made between Hillary's tone and the stridency of some of her supporters.

    By the way, 90% of Hillary's supporters weren't interested in policy, imo. They liked her for intangible reasons, just like the person who embraced Obama after hearing him speak. You can wade through the comments here and other pro-Hillary sites; rarely will posters cite policy as the reason for supporting Hillary.


    [ Parent ]

    Huh (5.00 / 7) (#194)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:10:01 PM EST
    90% of Hillary's supporters weren't interested in policy, imo

    Your opinion would be wrong, like the rest of your little screed.

    [ Parent ]

    I stand by it (4.33 / 3) (#205)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:16:03 PM EST
    Most Hillary supporters didn't know what exactly she was proposing and didn't care. People are never elected on the basis of their 10 point plans. They're elected on the basis of the visceral reaction they elicit. Or they're elected on image or presentation. I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm just disputing the original poster's contention that it is somehow wrong or unusual to choose Obama after hearing him speak. This is precisely why politicians have engaged in public speaking since antiquity. They do it to woo people and garner their support.

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting article in the Hou (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    Chronicle today about dems and health care universal health care

    The ignorance of what UHC (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:42:32 AM EST
    will entail was astounding in the primaries.  I can't believe democrats let Obama get away without offering a real plan.  It's a disgrace.


    [ Parent ]
    A Question for Obama Supporters (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:12:02 AM EST
    [I posted this once before, but I never got a response from any pro-Obama commenters. Not trying to be a blogclogger, and full apologies ot the TL gods for any infractions.]

    This is a sincere question for Obama supporters: What is the difference between Bill Clinton's "triangulation" (bad) and Obama's "postpartisanship" (good)?

    To me, they both sound like two sides of the same coin--with the difference that Clinton was operating in a political (massive GOP majorities in Congress) and ideological (no post-Bush implosion, no blogoshphere/media critique) environment far less hospitable to the enactment of a progressive agenda.

    Truly, this is a serious question, because it really disturbs me that his own supporters (those who I've spoken to so far) cannot tell me exactly what their candidate is talking about on this score.

    They aren't different... (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:17:05 AM EST
    on a rhetorical strategy level.

    Indeed...both are triangulation in that they are strategies used by a "candidate [who is] presenting his or her ideology as being 'above' and 'between' the left and right sides of the political spectrum."

    There's prolly a Greek term for it, but my Rhetoric dictionary is in box somewhere.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm. I ask a serious question... (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:17:41 AM EST
    upthread and also got no answers from Obama Supporters.  Crickets was it!

    Maybe...they don't have any answers or don't like the answers?

    ANOTHER SERIOUS QUESTION:  If Hillary manages to get true UHC through Congress will a "president" Obama sign it?

    [ Parent ]

    The key fellow Senators (none / 0) (#41)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:34:30 AM EST
    supported Obama. She will not be able to get her version of health care passed, IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    That wasn't my question. I said IF. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:56:27 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think he would (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by indy in sc on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:30:07 PM EST
    I disagree with Dem Cat.  Setting aside that I don't think her version would pass, if it did pass as posed in your question, he would sign it.  Above all else, he has always stated that he wants all Americans to have healthcare.  He is not going to be the one to stand in the way of it unless the bill presented to him is so lopsided in favor of the insurance industry and/or pharmaceutical companies that it would "shock the conscience" to sign it.  I doubt such a "shocking" bill would make it out of congress.  His main opposition to Hillary's version has been the mandate that imposes penalties on individuals who do not buy insurance.  He would get over that if it was the only barrier to UHC.  Remember that he said in his speech on Tuesday that when UHC is finally achieved, HRC will be instrumental to that.  Everyone expects that, unless Hillary is VP, she will be the sponsor of the bill that finally gives us UHC.

    [ Parent ]
    But his definition of "universal" (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:44:52 PM EST
    is not universal...it's doublespeak and he shouldn't get a pass on that.

    [ Parent ]
    Not doublespeak (none / 0) (#172)
    by indy in sc on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:59:31 PM EST
    just reality.  He has a version of "universal" health care that he has been pushing throughout the primary season. Most casual observers have noted that is was not truly universal because it only mandated healthcare for children.  As others have pointed out here, it is customary for the nominee to embrace some of the policies/programs of the other candidates as a "compromise" and in the name of "unity."

    [ Parent ]
    Universal means just that...again (5.00 / 6) (#187)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:05:38 PM EST
    he has "changed" what his position has been. He has not "adopted" another's healthcare plan, he is simply using samantics to "gather the flock"

    [ Parent ]
    I Love How The Actual Definition Of Words (5.00 / 6) (#214)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:23:08 PM EST
    have to be completely distorted in support of Obama's positions. Obama says words have meaning and his supporters say words have only the meanings that we chose to give them. Seems that Republicans are not the only ones who support the idea that reality is what they chose to make it.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think he'll sign it (4.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    I think he has built himself up as an independent, a "truth-teller" to both the left and the right, and as such will need to show his independence from the Democrats in Congress. He has said he doesn't support mandates, and there are many non-progressives who do not support mandates, so it won't be a "let's declare that kittens are cute" kind of bill to which no one would object. Not signing it would show that he is strong in his convictions and that he is in charge. Signing it would be a capitulation to Congress.

    Plus, if it's her bill, then the media will be all over it, saying that he's a hen-pecked husband if he caves in to her on it. It would be a capitulation to HER. He will not sign it.

    But I think his allies in the Senate will recognize this and not want to cause trouble in his first year and won't let it pass.  After the first year, who knows?

    As always, this is just my opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    OK...but doesn't it bother you... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST
    that a "Dem" POTUS would fight AGAINST truly universal health care?  I have a daughter and a brother without health care and it scares the daylights out of me.

    Who's he beholding to?

    [ Parent ]

    Easy. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by pie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:19:16 PM EST
    Progressive Insurance Company.  :)

    [ Parent ]
    YES (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:48:50 PM EST
    I don't plan on voting for Obama. My response was not meant to excuse him, but to criticize him. If he is elected, I hope he will surprise me. But I'm not betting on it.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll Give It a Go (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:12:59 PM EST
    The difference between "triangulation" and "postpartisanship" requires a deeper look at political context and message.

    With regard to political context, triangulation was forced upon Clinton because he had to deal with a Republican controlled Congress for his last six years during a time when conservatism was ascendant.

    Obama, on the other hand, seeks to establish an era of "postpartisanship" only after establishing a strong Democratic majority in Congress during an era of progressive ascendency. Due to his background as an organizer, Obama understands that winning an election isn't enough -- progressives must also build a long-lasting movement to govern successfully. This requires messaging that moves the political debate back to the center-left, away from the extreme right wing values that were mainstreamed by Bush II in the wake of 9/11.

    When backed up by a strong grassroots movement, "postpartisanship" becomes a cudgel to threaten vulnerable Republicans in the Congress. They must move beyond right-wing partisanship and adopt mainstream progressive positions on issues like health care, global warming, etc or face annilation in the next election. And because this is about movement building and not just winning a presidential election, the electoral college isn't the only target. One key to building this movement is Dean's 50 state strategy and Obama's massive 50 state voter registration campaign to ensure that even red state legislators are not beyond the threat of a rising progressive tide in their states/districts.

    In short, Clinton was forced to triangulate from a position of political weakness. Obama seeks an era of postpartisanship that is backed up with progressive political strength. It is a new day.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm... postpartisanship (5.00 / 6) (#137)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:38:38 PM EST
    Seems to be a nice new term.. does it taste great, or will it be less-filling?

    To me this just seems like a code / rationalization for "we can compromise our principles, so long as we win"?

    moves the political debate back to the center-left, away from the extreme right wing values

    Sounds not that dissimilar to triangulation to me. After all, anything that happens in 2008 is surely bound to be post everything that happened in 2004.

    If you believe that such ideological issues can be put on a Cartesian plane and these were like points A-B-C.. the issue is not how much you move from C to B (voters who have given Dems the majority in Congress already KNOW that's happened), but how much ground Obama is prepared to concede in going from A to B. No Obama supporter thus far has been able to clearly articulate this IMHO -- because I suspect they (and the MSM) have not asked their candidate concrete questions and gotten answers they are truly comfortable with.

    Speaking of sustenance -- I'd rather not see the present laziness and ineffectiveness in Congress to deal with the war in Iraq, or real-issues that affect Americans, be sustained by a long-lasting movement.

    And another point -- if post-partisanship comes to mean relaxing our system of checks and balances.. (which I see a high risk of given Obama's inexperience) I'm not sure I like that formulation either, given all the relaxation that has already  gone on under Bush under the guise of fighting the war on terror.

    JMO.


    [ Parent ]

    OK... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    Based upon your response, you didn't understand very much of what I was trying to say. I obviously wasn't clear enough. The current stalemate on Iraq policy is the perfect example for why we need a progressive movement to both put more progressives in office and to force action on progressive priorities. I certainly wasn't suggesting that we build a movement to sustain that stalemate.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama's campaign said recently (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:08:28 PM EST
    that he would move more forces into Iraq, we would still be there. I have not heard the word, "end" the war since he entered this campaign. His surrogates have said that once he is in office, he will decide what to do, don't listen to what he says on the campaign trail.

    [ Parent ]
    Ok then.... (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by tree on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    When backed up by a strong grassroots movement, "postpartisanship" becomes a cudgel to threaten vulnerable Republicans in the Congress. They must move beyond right-wing partisanship and adopt mainstream progressive positions on issues like health care, global warming, etc or face annilation in the next election.

    In other words, "post-partisanship" is an example of "just words". Its a stick to beat Republicans with. Rather like the "movement" and "unity" are sticks used to beat recalcitrant Dems.

    This is feeling more and more like a Glorious Cultural Revolution.

    [ Parent ]

    Please, Tree (none / 0) (#216)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:25:23 PM EST
    I doubt that you're really that naive. While "just words," words are used to frame the debate. The Republicans/Conservatives have won the framing game for decades. If progressives don't master this game, we will never win. But the movement isn't "just words." The movement is a powerful network of like minded progressives who use their influence to turn the words into action. I'm talking about democracy, not Maoism.

    [ Parent ]
    Post-partisanship and triangulation aside, (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by votus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:10:22 PM EST
    maybe we should curb our enthusiasm about the "it's a new day" aspect.  I'm thinking about the New Frontier, an earlier "can do" administration that set out to change the world, foundered, and segued to a miserable decade.  Competent government would solve our problems. Dreams and political strength??

    [ Parent ]
    Okay, (none / 0) (#104)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:17:25 PM EST
    that at least sounds more promising. Do you have a quotes from Obama himself indicating that this is in fact what he means by "postpartisanship"?

    [ Parent ]
    No, Sorry No Links (none / 0) (#126)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:30:44 PM EST
    As I said, messaging is an essential element of building the progressive movement. It would be counterproductive for Obama to make his strategy as transparent as I have outlined. That would only make him a target of right wing attack. But I would not ask you to simply TRUST Obama on this point. IMHO, it is essential that progressives apply pressure to get clarity on his policy goals before the election and hold him accountable after the election.

    [ Parent ]
    That's exactly what I was afraid of. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:47:45 PM EST
    Look, I accept that's what YOU think Obama means by "postpartisanship," but the real question is what HE means by postpartisanship. And I gotta tell ya, he conduct in this campaign doesn't give a big reason for optimism, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe Reading About Alinsky (none / 0) (#204)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:15:19 PM EST
    Would make it clearer for you. I got interested in him because both Hillary and Obama came out of that thinking. Hillary wrote her Wellesley thesis on him.

    [ Parent ]
    Understood (none / 0) (#210)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:18:10 PM EST
    To win, Obama will need to maximize his vote among two key constituencies: (1) Democrats; and (2) Independents.

    Talk of "postpartisanship" makes (1.) nervous while appealing to (2.)  The more Obama has to explain postpartisanship to make you comfortable the less value it will have in securing the votes of Independents.  

    You obviously have to evaluate everything that Obama is both doing and saying to determine if he merits your support. But I'm confident that you are not so naive as to expect a candidate to fully explain his agenda in a manner that limits his appeal to a broader group of voters.

    [ Parent ]

    But is this really true? (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:23:10 PM EST
    Polls show that today Democrats are trusted more than Republicans on every issue under the sun. Independents overwhelmingly voted for Democrats in the 2006 congressional elections. Saying the Democratic label is so toxic we have to tiptoe around and run as "not-really-a-Democrat Democrats" is straight out of the DLC circa 2002.

    [ Parent ]
    I didn't know (none / 0) (#68)
    by Y Knot on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:56:13 AM EST
    triangulation was bad.  I know the media says so but I think Bill Clinton did the best he could in a hostile political environment.

    And yes if Congress sends President Obama a UHC bill he'd sign it.  President McCain wouldn't.  And no, that's not me trying to scare people into voting for Obama that's just reality.

    [ Parent ]

    Today I go to see (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:18:24 AM EST
    Kenny Chesney, country western concert in SF at the Giants ball park.  The weather will be great.  

    Ahh, so great.  The next generation now is responsible.  I am off the hook.  

    OK, this made me laugh (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by A little night musing on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:22:34 AM EST
    ... not so easy to do today.

    The next generation now is responsible.  I am off the hook.

    snicker.

    I'm jealous of your weather though.

    The weather here will be ugly (hot). I've just realized that was why I felt so bad yesterday. I've got to get the AC set up before the Jewish holiday tonight...

    [ Parent ]

    Off the hook (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by oldpro on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:32:42 AM EST
    is right, Stellaaa.

    However, I draw the line at country music.  It's a personal failing.  I just can't reconcile cornpone and hip.  (It was just as hard in the 60s when hip JFK chose cornpone LBJ as a running mate...)

    [ Parent ]

    I love country music (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:37:05 AM EST
    Actually, I like all kinds of music.  It just makes me happy.  And it's the only music I can understand the words and predict what the next word will be.  

    [ Parent ]
    new country or old country? (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:24:19 PM EST
    I thought I didn't like any country music till I picked up Willie NElson's "countryman" which is 1/3rd country, 1/3rd Reggae and 1/3rd ska.  SOO good (though it took me twice through to appreciate it).

    That is as far as I have ventured by myself.  Sorta scared to go further.  As a black man my cred with be severely hurt by having a Garth Brook CD :).

    [ Parent ]

    I love it all... (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    it's simple and it's fun.  These days I love to listen to it more, cause I like to piss off the Creative Class.  Hah...hah.  

    Actually, I get into all kinds of music, I am not a very, "never like that".  I can go from Tammy Wynette, to Digable Planets, to Mario Lanza, to Vivaldi, to Glass.  Music is one thing I am not partisan on.  Ok, I don't like a few things: 1.  uber punk stuff that was just a cacophony . 2. What my kids call Emo.  This new kind of rock where it's supposed to be "about deep feelings" and all it is , is way too many words to make a good song, but the brat singing has to show something for all the years in private schools and colleges.  You know  the lyrics:  "that I am upper class privileged white kid from the suburbs and I am hurting".    

    [ Parent ]

    Paying debts off (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:27:27 AM EST
    So, historically, you guys are so clever, who else has done it in the past?  

    No foul language (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:28:25 AM EST
    That's a great post.  I would copy and re-post it without the sh!t or it will get deleted.  :)

    Thanks! I will (none / 0) (#36)
    by BluestBlue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:30:56 AM EST
    Sorry, strong feelings and strong words. I'll repost with an *! ;-)

    [ Parent ]
    Speaking of Unity, (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:32:18 AM EST
    I was struck by this comment from an article regarding Hillary's speech in the WaPo:

    "I would die and slit my wrist before I'd vote for Obama," said a Silver Spring woman in the Clinton volunteers section who gave her name only as Edith. She wore a sign pinned to the back of her Hillary T-shirt proposing: "Remember in November: vote present."

    Wonder how many other women feel that way. I have a niggling feeling it's a lot.

    Ok, now that's funny (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:57:08 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I Know A Couple (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:00:34 PM EST
    At work, at least three women and two men have indicated vehemently -- without the dramatic effect displayed by Edith -- that they won't be voting for Obama at all (by either voting against him or not voting at all).

    I am tickled by the notion that only women Clinton supporters would be unwilling to vote for BO. There are lots of men too, and lets not lose sight of the few million who voted for Edwards, Richardson et. al. A good number I'm sure -- women and men -- will not automatically fall in line behind Obama just because their first pick endorsed him.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, in fact there were all kinds of (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:02:42 PM EST
    men in the audience at Clinton's speech yesterday and I did not hear any talking heads mention that.

    [ Parent ]
    I Was One Of 'Em (5.00 / 8) (#102)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:15:43 PM EST
    Yes, there was a HUGE group of men there and many of them were obviously Clinton supporters, wearing Hillary T-shirts, buttons, caps etc. And I also resent the idea I've heard many non-Clinton supporters make that they are all gay. There are many married men, fathers, grandfathers and single men with their GFs (like me). It would behoove the Obama campaign and the DNC to pay some attention to us as well in the coming months. But of course, there's no guarantee we'll line up behind him in Nov. either. (I won't, sorry.)

    [ Parent ]
    At work, I know of only one (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:13:19 PM EST
    person who may be voting for Obama, and that's not certain.  We've become quite united now for McCain and that includes both men and women.

    [ Parent ]
    My problem with voting for McCain is.... (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:24:42 PM EST
    ...that I'd have to totally ignore him until the election in order to do it. I'm most unhappy with Obama, but McCain doesn't really stand for anything either except the Republican version of presidential ambition. I'm truly disaffected.

    [ Parent ]
    And JimWash was one of them there (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:16:07 PM EST
    and the thread closed before I could thank you, Jim, for giving us a good report -- and for being there, of course.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again: How is women's history like the Marines?  It takes a few good men, too (consider that men had to vote for women to get to vote, etc.).  

    Of course, sometimes a few good men is all we get -- in politics, in the workplace, in life.  But then, that's all that a good woman needs at her side.:-)  

    [ Parent ]

    You're Welcome :-) (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:19:28 PM EST
    I wouldn't have missed it for the world to be there to show Hillary my continued support for her. And I was glad to share the experience with all of you too.

    [ Parent ]
    In that order???? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:25:32 PM EST
    "I would die and slit my wrist before I'd vote for Obama."

    [ Parent ]
    or accidentally push the wrong button (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:50:48 PM EST
    and mistakenly vote for McCain. Snark.

    [ Parent ]
    The DSCC sent me a letter asking me (repost w/**) (5.00 / 10) (#43)
    by BluestBlue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    To Congratulate Obama and tell him what issues I care about in the upcoming campaign.

    Make sure you go sign the DSCC petition and tell them what you think, what you value, and who you will vote for!

    Here is what I sent:

    You want my congratulations?

    I can't congratulate someone who did not earn the victory. This is how Bush "won" the presidency, twice, with no Democratic leader standing up for the truth. You rolled over then, but I will not roll over for you.

    If you want my vote, you'll need to earn it.

    Obama and the DNC have a lot to apologize for and a big hole to dig themselves out of. I need to hear explicit apologies for the misogyny, for the smears, for the lies, for the obscene gestures by Obama(It is on tape, don't deny it along with your references to sexist rappers.), for the bitter talk by Michelle Obama(the interview is on tape, don't deny it. I guess I'll just have to "think about it" like Michelle).

    Smearing my candidate and  myself by calling us racists doesn't make me want to vote for you. Won't get money for the DNC. Doesn't keep me in your party. And let me be clear about this. The Democrats left me, I didn't leave the party.

    I was a lifelong Democrat, but I am re-registering as an independent. You have been clear in your messaging that women are not valued. Women are not accomplished, women do not count. Don't blame Hillary, this is all on you. Obama, the DNC, Howard Dean, Donna Brazile.

    Obama's behavior has been immature and similar to the frat-boy currently occupying the oval office. It is conduct unbecoming to someone aspiring to the presidency. I don't like it in Bush, I don't like it in Obama. I won't accept it and most certainly I won't vote for it.

    Howard Dean has ignored the sexism and misogyny in the media and from his candidate. By the sin of omission he has personally embraced and furthered the misogyny. I wrote and called him repeatedly, asking him to stand up against it and all I got was silence. Donna Brazile has been a huge disappointment to me as has Claire McCaskill. Women may choose to support a male candidate, I've got no problem with that, but they do us all a disservices when they propagate lies and smears about a woman candidate, especially when she is a fellow Dem.

    Dean's and McCaskill's comments now are late and lacking. Empty because it is long past the time when they could have helped the situation. Along with Obama's race baiting (remember he admitted he was responsible for the memo on a publicly televised debate) you have created the division you now fear. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    Unity is a two-way street. You don't get to batter my worth day in and day out and then tell me I have to to give you my vote. That dog don't hunt. I have an education, a brain, and I have money. I am the creative class Obama thinks he owns. I support those that support me.

    This is what crystallized my resolve.

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

    Words of wisdom. Words of a woman who knew the score long ago. Words that still ring true today. Words to live by.

    You are not entitled to my vote any longer, or my money. I will consider voting for a candidate that demonstrates they have the experience and accomplishments to get things done. Someone who cares about the issues I care about and proves to me he or she will work tirelessly to deliver the results to me.

    Voting present does not show me Obama vigorously supports women's issues, I have no confidence in his votes or voice. Don't tell me McCain is pro-life. At least I know where he stands; I have no clue what Obama "hopes" for or what he will "change". I have seen no evidence he can change anything except increase the lack of civility in the campaign and malign other Democratic candidates.

    The only "Change" I see is a "Democrat" stealing votes that he didn't earn. You stole 600,000 votes from Michigan Democrats that did not want you. The DNC gamed the primaries by refusing to do the right thing by Florida and Michigan (BTW, good luck with them in the General Election). You can scream that Obama has more delegates until you are blue in the face, if you counted all the votes, Hillary would have more delegates in addition to already having more actual votes. Your actions disenfranchised 18 MILLION Democratic voters. 18 MILLION. More than anyone else in the history of presidential primaries.

    Your "rules" won't matter in the General Election.  Only the electoral college map counts there and you obviously haven't looked at it. You didn't follow your "rules" anyway. Some of us actually read the rulebook. We know where you lied and what you did. We know that others received waivers for the same actions that Florida and Michigan took. We know it was within your control to do the right thing and incredibly short-sighted to do what you did. We understand fair reflection and how you ignored the rule requiring both Fair Reflection and PUBLIC meetings and decisions rather than back room antics. Either follow the rules or don't. But if you don't, please to try and take the moral high ground. Obama made a political decision to take his name off the Michigan ballot because he wouldn't win there. He isn't entitle to any votes. He also violated YOUR rules by holding a press event in Florida AND running ads on TV in Florida, by your RULES he is not entitled to ANY votes in Florida. Those chickens will come home to roost in the general.

    I'm not unreasonable, but I'm not stupid. Don't lie to me and think I won't call bulls**t on you.

    So if you want me to consider you for my vote in any election (senate, house, presidential, school board, whatever):

    Tell what is in it for me. After all, you are applying to work for me. I have a right to know what you will do in the job, why you think you can accomplish your stated goals, and how I know you will follow through on your promises.

    Tell me how you are going to get me TRULY UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. Not the watered down proposal Obama has. Talk about selling out to the healthcare lobbyists! How will you cover every one and achieve cost savings by spreading the risk across all. I don't need more "wins" that feed the pharmaceutical industry with nonnegotiation clauses.

    Tell me how I can trust that you will support issues that are important to women, I need facts and accomplishments not pretty words.

    Tell me how you will turn the economy around, specifically. Tell what actions you will take to get new jobs.

    Tell me how you will fix the educational system. Both K-12  and getting more people into college without horrendous loans. What about a plan for retraining laid off workers. Let's not just talk about college for HS students, lets talk about getting older people and current workers back to college or into college for the first time. How do we fund that? They will be in the work force for a long time, they need skills.

    Tell me how you will insure my retirement. I've paid into Social Security and Medicare all my life. I want my benefits fully funded. Don't tell me you will cut them. If you do, give me my money back so I can retire when the time comes. Get me Health care so I  don't have to worry about what happens to me then, or choose between eating catfood and buying medicine.

    Tell me how you will nominate for the Supreme Court. How many women will you nominate or confirm? We are more than half the population! Will they be pro choice and pro constitution? How can I be sure you will follow through on your promises?

    How will you restore the constitution? How will you hold the telcos responsible for their wiretapping? They knew it was illegal, voting for their immunity will not earn my vote, quite the opposite.

    Tell me how you will support our veterans, past and present. How will you protect my parent's benefits EARNED in the Vietnam war? How will you provide for returning soldier's needs without taking away from my parents? The VA is already broken, as is the military, how exactly will you fix this?

    Tell me about the role of women in your administration and in your appointments - will they approximate the percentage of women in the country? Or how about going with the percentage of women that USED to make up the Democratic party? That would help, but you really need to apologize without equivocating. You were wrong and you need to own up to it, then start working hard to make it right.

    I don't know what I will do in the GE at this point. Hillary has been extremely gracious to Obama, but still they bash her and say she hasn't done enough. Of course  she has tried not to damage him throughout the campaign, regardless of what he and his supporters have said. (BTW, deal with your whiney obnoxious supporters. They have lost you almost as many votes as you have driven away yourself).

    I value Hillary's experience, persistence, courage, and tireless campaigning. I haven't seen those qualities in Obama. I have been working in Biotech and High Tech since I graduated from college. I look at this as a hiring decision. When I hire someone for a job, I look at what they have accomplished, not what they say they can do. I look at what they have actually done and the skills those accomplishments demonstrate. I don't see much from Obama. He may complain that Hillary doesn't respect his accomplishments, but he should be more worried about the fact that no one knows what they are. His supporters can't articulate them, he doesn't talk about them, and his resume is very thin.

    Obama can point to his speech on Iraq all he wants, but it is just words. At this point I don't even know whose words they are, Deval Patrick's? Axelrod's? Some anonymous speechwriter? I didn't see any actions to back it up. He never stuck his neck out when it counted or when there was any risk. Seems like his goal is just winning and cashing in, not working for me. Prove to me I'm wrong. And apologize for your wrongs.

    To the Senate Democratic Caucus. I'll be looking at how you have acted and voted also. Those who dissed Hillary and made sexist remarks or stood by and said nothing don't demonstrate what I need to see in a candidate.

    My money and votes will go to those with a clear strong voice on the values that used to be central to the Democratic Party I joined long ago. My money and votes will go to those who strongly and openly support women: their issues, their advancement, and their opportunities.

    Visible strong actions are what I'm looking for, pretty words won't get the job done and won't get you hired. I've been in the real world long enough to know what to look for. Pretty words, immature actions, and lack of accomplishments aren't a recipe for success. Prove I'm wrong about you and you could get my vote.

    Take me and my 18 million friends for granted and you will lose miserably.

    And you also better stop slamming Hillary. No one else has ever been hounded to drop out of the primary, certainly no one who had more popular votes than the other candidate. Kennedy, Edwards, Bradley... look at history.

    Hillary has been more than fair. The 18 Million Hillary supporters will not go to Obama if he doesn't earn them. Stop saying this is Hillary's job. Obama needs to step up and take responsibility for his actions and EARN something. He won't game us like he did the system. He won't bully us like he did in the Caucuses. (and BTW, get rid of the caucuses. Not democratic. not fair. not just).

    If Obama loses, he will only have himself to blame. His nomination is illegitimate now. He took what didn't belong to him because he was desperate to win at all costs. He wanted it badly and he got it badly. Stop digging the hole and take responsibility for it. Stop blaming Hillary and her supporters. Be an adult for a change. Maturity in a president would be a nice change.

    I'm not bitter and I don't cling to guns and religion. I am intelligent and a do cling to my vote. It is my right. I don't owe you anything, you work for me. Support me and I will support you,

    So get busy if you want my vote. You don't get it automatically. You don't get it for nothing. Tell me what is in it for me. Show me what you have done for me in the past and tell me how you will do what you say you will do for me. Prove to me I should believe you.

    To summarize, let me give you the take home message again. Get a tattoo if you need to, but remember it if you want 18 Million votes.

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

    I wish I had written that! (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by camellia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:56:32 AM EST
    But I did send a similar but shorter message to them yesterday when I was extended the same privilege of congratulating Senator Obama, the presumptuous candidate.

    [ Parent ]
    Fabulous (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:01:57 PM EST
    I think this sums up everything many Clinton supporter are feeling and lays out what the DNC and Obama need to get going on.  It really resonates.

    [ Parent ]
    Wonderful work. (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:09:55 PM EST
    but one li'l quibble:  SBA's quote ended not with "her self" but with "her sex."  In today's terms, of course (and since "sex" just gets frosh giggling:-), that would be "her gender."  So simplest can be to just end the quote after "her."  Cheers, and thanks for helping me to script what I will tuck into the Dems' envelopes when I return them this Tuesday as part of the Independence Day movement.

    This Tuesday, the 89th anniversary of the first states' ratifications (first Wisconsin, then Illinois, although it typically screwed up so had to do a do-over, and then -- yes -- Michigan, the state where Dems even disenfranchise men now) of the 19th Amendment.  

    [ Parent ]

    Aug 26 in Denver (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Eleanor A on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:36:12 PM EST
    Should be fun to see what the Hillary delegates do August 26 at the Convention.  

    I'm gonna pack some purple/yellow ensemble, myself...(not a delegate, just going for the fireworks)

    [ Parent ]