home

Obama's Disgruntled Liberal Supporters

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:00:26 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The New York Times interviews several progressives, including bloggers about their support for Sen. Barack Obama given his recent FISA vote and the other centrist positions he's staked out in recent weeks.

Will it cost Obama in votes? I hope not. I want a Democratic president. But if it does, it's Obama's own fault. He's now at risk of "being viewed as someone who parses positions without taking a principled stand." On this, the Times quotes liberal writer and blogger David Sirota who says:

“I’m not saying we’re there yet, but that’s the danger,” said David Sirota, a liberal political analyst and author. “I don’t think there’s disillusion. I think there’s an education process that takes place, and that’s a good thing. He is a transformative politician, but he is still a politician.”

I disagree. I see no transformational quality to either Obama or his candidacy. Obama said he was a new kind of politician. He sold an entire younger generation on the theory of change, a new kind of politics in Washington and he's delivered the status quo. He's shown us that on FISA, the death penalty, guns, religion, Iraq, Afghanistan and trade policy (so far) he's all about preserving the status quo and not rocking the boat in his quest for votes. How much more "politics as usual" can you get?

Other Obama supporters interviewed for the article are angry at Obama. One says she's going to vote for the Green party candidate. [More...]

“I’m disgusted with him,” said Ms. Shade, an artist. “I can’t even listen to him anymore. He had such an opportunity, but all this ‘audacity of hope’ stuff, it’s blah, blah, blah. For all the independents he’s going to gain, he’s going to lose a lot of progressives.”

Others aren't angry at Obama and take his latest pronouncements in stride.

“We’re frustrated by it, but we understand,” said Mollie Ruskin, 22, who grew up in Baltimore and is spending the summer here as a fellow with Politicorps, a program run by the Bus Project, a local nonprofit that trains young people to campaign for progressive candidates. “He’s doing it so he can get into office and do the things he believes in.”

How does anyone know what Obama really believes or, even more problematic, what beliefs he'll decide are worth expending political capital on once he's elected?

We don't. I think that's a direct consequence of his having campaigned on generalities like change. People who are unhappy with the current state of affairs just assumed he is on the same side of issues as they are. Since Obama wants change and they want change, they assumed they are all on the same page -- like one big happy progressive family. There's just no way to know that.

Another supporter interviewed says:

“When are these people going to go, anyway?” Mr. Blanchard said of left-wing critics he believes have hurt Democrats in past elections. “My attitude is lighten up on the guy. We want to win. Moving to the center is not a crime in this country.”

True, but that's not the critical issue. In fact, it misses the point. Progressives can accept a centrist candidate. After all, Hillary is a centrist. Before 2008, Edwards was a centrist. Millions of us were fine with Hillary.

It's the bait and switch we hate and it makes Obama a tougher sell now. He wasn't honest with us. He promised reform and a new kind of politics and is relying on the same old Washington play book that's been in use for decades.

I'm not surprised. It's why I didn't support him before the primaries. It's why I wrote dozens of posts debunking his generic change theme. It has always been just campaign rhetoric.

As I was listening to Gary Hart being interviewed in the new Hunter Thompson documentary Gonzo last week (described here), it occurred to me how absolutely disingenuous Obama's whole campaign theme of change has been. There can be no such thing as the politics of change in a presidential race because no one promoting substantial change could ever win. The numbers wouldn't be there. Presidential politics is all about compromise and it's unrealistic to expect anything else.

What's sad is we had a centrist candidate who spoke her mind on issues so you knew exactly where she stood. You knew just what you were going to get with a Hillary presidency. You could practically take it to the bank. I, for one, appreciated the honesty. But, she lost.

Now we have a centrist candidate who said during the primaries he was a progressive candidate for change but now has become more centrist than Hillary, his former centrist competitor.

For me, Obama's switcheroos are not disappointing since I didn't expect anything different. And I don't think talk about "holding one's nose" while voting for him or cries of betrayal are helpful. I still prefer Obama to McCain and a Democratic administration to a Republican one.

My advice to Obama supporters who think he's turned on them? Stop your star-gazing, admit you got hood-winked, but recognize the greater reality that a Democratic president is preferable to a Republican. Don't switch parties or stay home. Wake up on election day in November, go the polls and vote for Obama. If you must, spend the rest of the day in bed like Hunter Thompson did in 1972 after he voted for McGovern even though he had become disillusioned with him and his campaign.

And try not to get fooled again the next time a presidential primary comes around. Do some due diligence before getting carried away. Presidential politics is about getting votes, not staking new ground.

< Could Miami's "Little Havana" Turn To Obama? | Criticism >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama's Disgruntled Liberal Supporters | 194 comments (194 topical)
    I was not impressed with that article (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:07:46 PM EST
    What exactly does the author mean by "far left?"

    Don't get stuck on a word (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by talex26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:29:46 PM EST
    The article itself revealed what is going on and that is the important thing.

    [ Parent ]
    I was even less impressed (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:43:05 PM EST
    that the reporter bought into the myth of the Oregon rally, that it was only an Obama rally.  Commenters here from Portland countered that convincingly.  But it will enter into the Obamythology, it seems.

    Interesting that never happened with the Kerry rally in Madison (Wisconsin), which drew an even larger crowd -- and really was entirely a Kerry rally.  But then and since, media always must point out that there was a musical act, too -- whereas it was the other way around in Oregon.

    And that Kerry did outdraw Obama, and yet Kerry didn't win, might suggest that the only turnout that matters is still months away.

    [ Parent ]

    Rallies (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by Valhalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:10:33 PM EST
    Hillary came to my campus when I was in law school and spoke in the football stadium.  I didn't get to go because by the time I knew about it, tickets were sold out.  The stadium has a 100,000 person capacity.

    The obsession with the 'draw' numbers at Oregon and other venues is annoying fake number boosterism.  It's exactly as relevant as when everyone was running around squealing 'but he won 10 states in a row!'  Sounds waaaay impressive, until (unless) you stop to think about it.  And no one called them on it.  The MSM repeated it like the Zombie Chant of Heavenly Ascendance.

    Pfffht.


    [ Parent ]

    I forget (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:27:31 PM EST
    the technical term, it's been a while since I took Logic, but it is The Fallacy of Emphasizing Popularity.  (Okay, I've proven myself idiotic with that guess!  LOL)  Appeal to popularity?  It's something like that.

    Besides, Oregon is a very Liberal state, even its Regressives are moderate (certainly in Western Oregon, where the bulk of the people are.)  It's the same here in WA state.  On the presendential level, bot OR and WA are very blue.

    Jackson

    [ Parent ]

    You got it right (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:33:10 PM EST
    Appeal to popularity

    The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

       1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
       2. Therefore X is true.

    The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

    ...

    This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. Advertisers often use this tactic when they attempt to sell products by claiming that everyone uses and loves their products. In such cases they hope that people will accept the (purported) approval of others as a good reason to buy the product.



    [ Parent ]
    And media fall for the fallacy (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:29:36 PM EST
    which just shows the superficiality of their "thought," as they fall in line with the wishes of corrupt leadership of the party.  And bloggers who claimed to be the revolution against the mainstream corporate media instead fell for the fallacy to be "cool" and fell in line with the marketing of this campaign, too.  

    The Making of the President is a classic, and The Selling of the President also has been written.  The book on this campaign will be The Marketing of the President.  Or maybe The Selling Out of the Netroots -- and of the party that once was of the people, not the sheeple.

    [ Parent ]

    Netroots: Tory in the Machine (none / 0) (#123)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:52:50 PM EST
    How the leftwing American websites backed a Thatcherite Deomcrat.

    One day Markos  Moul....

    [ Parent ]

    Here' my innocent take on how it happened (none / 0) (#125)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:58:42 PM EST
    The IWR vote and the Dems reversal on that issue after the debacle was propagandized so much in 2004 as the reason Kerry lost that CW wa that no Dem who voted for IWR should be selected as the leader.  This took root in MSNBC and the netroots simultaneously.

    The obsession over that vote dictated the terms of the debates and the terms of the debacle in Iowa.

    Once the GOP rehabilitate the reputation of the war in Iraq (which appears superficially to be more successful thatn Afghanistan) Obama will have nothing to run on.   His opposition to Iraq will be painted a gross liability.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks ech! (none / 0) (#74)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:45:27 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    ech, ugh. I need a new pseud. n/t (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:46:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Very true. I live in (none / 0) (#140)
    by mrjerbub on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:19:00 PM EST
    western Washington. It basically has 3 very blue counties the rest are red or very red. That's why I feel safe sitting this one out.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I was feeling guilty in Wisconsin (none / 0) (#153)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:42:46 PM EST
    which was supposed to be a swing state, after being the closest state last time.  But the Obama supporters here who keep pointing out what a wide lead their candidate has in the polls here have persuaded me that I can sit this one out, too.

    [ Parent ]
    Cream City- I still vote Wis. absetee (none / 0) (#179)
    by kenosharick on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:35:29 PM EST
    though I am in school in Georgia. You mean I can just skip it? I guess I am nuts because I still think Wis. will be veeeery close. There's always the down ticket races.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, the down-ticket contests (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:14:30 PM EST
    are very significant to me.  So okay, I'll wander down a whole half a block and say hi to the lovely volunteers from the LWV and get my sticker and all.

    But I'm now spared months of information-seeking and decision-making over what to do with the top boxes on the ballot, thanks to the reassurances of the Obama supporters.  They are so confident, while I had agreed with you and thought Wisconsin still was a toss-up state.  But then, I thought Clinton was the far better candidate, so I just will have to trust in the new politics that make life so easy.

    [ Parent ]

    There' a good argument to be (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:41:24 PM EST
    made that the FIA bill enables fascistic merging between private companies and the state to spy n citizens.

    That isn't a far left argument.  It might be a pet issue for the ACLU but it's by no means a far left argument.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't understand how most of these people (5.00 / 15) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:09:19 PM EST
    got hoodwinked. Obama was pretty artless in his campaign. The surface was shiny, but fairly haphazardly applied and almost every single day he did or said something that highlighted the truth under the varnish.

    I think many people intentionally let themselves be "fooled", made themselves into disposable tools and aided Obama's trek to the top because they wanted the prestige of being even slightly involved in his victory.

    As the Kos's and Bowers of the world now cry and huff I have even less and less respect to for them then I did in the primary. You wanted him, you got him. You can't wash your hands of him now.

    Sorry Jeralyn But Hillary (5.00 / 12) (#4)
    by talex26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:21:05 PM EST
    is a not a Centrist - she is Center-Left Candidate.  And she is only 'Center' when it comes to National Security. For the most part, excluding National Security, she is very much a Lefty.

    Obama on the other hand is a not a Centrist - he
    is Center-Right and that seems to be his Natural disposition, not the one he pandered to the Left during the primaries.

    To suggest that they are both the same is just not true at all and you being a Clinton supporter know that. I trust you are just fudging to try to convince people here to vote for Obama. For most of us who have stated we won't vote for him that ship has already sailed never to return.

    [ Parent ]

    she is centrist (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:12:07 PM EST
    on crime issues, as is Obama. She supports the death penalty, would abolish some but not all mandatory minimums and would end raids on marijuana dispensaries in states where it is legal but does not support legalization of marijuana for everyone. They are about the same on immigration. The point to me as I've said repeatedly throughout this campaign is "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't" and the presidency is too important a position to take a chance. She and Obama are as close as two candidates can be on issues. Her policies are well thought out and better delineated so you know where she stands, and she knows them like the back of her hand. He just makes it seem, depending on his audience, that he's more progressive than he really is.

    She's better on health care and social security and I believe more willing to fight than compromise than he is, but it's not correct in my view to say either one of them is anything but a centrist. Centrist right and centrist left are not meaningful distinctions since the operative word is centrist.

    (I also think she understands the Constitution better than he does.)

    [ Parent ]

    Your parenthetical sentence (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:16:59 PM EST
    at the end ought to be cause to give the University of Chicago Law School serious pause.


    [ Parent ]
    I really want to find out (none / 0) (#120)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:48:03 PM EST
    who Pinche Tejano actually is.

    All these fakers who had umbrage about the IWR vote and essentuially backed Obama.  Foul propagandists were at work.

    [ Parent ]

    Jeralyn, which candidate (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by zfran on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:26:51 PM EST
    does your quote here refer to.

    "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't"  

    I think we know McCain much better than Obama. I think, for me, this year, it will be more important to have a dem congress than one with a dem president. Who would be watching, and I believe someone, somehow, must watch!!

    [ Parent ]

    Over the course of the primary campaign (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:48:31 PM EST
    I repeatedly called Obama the devil you don't know as opposed to Hillary who is the devil you do know.

    The rest of the phrase was "I'm not buying a pig in a poke."

    Now I am ready to vote for Obama and hope for the best because McCain, who also is a known quantity, is much worse for the nation.


    [ Parent ]

    OK, (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by talex26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:42:48 PM EST
    on crime issues and supports the death penalty. But abolish some mandatory minimums and would end raids on marijuana dispensaries in states where it is legal is not Centrist IMO. that is a Leftist stance

    "She and Obama are as close as two candidates can be on issues."

    Well of course. During the primaries he mostly waited to see what she would present and then copied her except for trying to fit in some talking point to say he was different. He is not versed like her on these issues he just said "me too". And not only is he not versed he is not committed. That is a deal breaker.

    "the devil you know is better than the devil you don't" .

    It's still the devil and as I've said repeatedly throughout this campaign is that 4 years of McCain checked by a Democratic majority is better than someone who will ill define who we are as Democrats and set our Progressive causes back a decade or more. The future of the Party is far more important than 4 years of McCain who can't do us much harm without the approval of congress.

    "Centrist right and centrist left are not meaningful distinctions since the operative word is centrist".

    I'd say that if both are Centrist is some way then their differences have to be measured whether they lean Left or Right. You can't toss those leanings out the window as if they don't matter. Hillary is Left and as such she would never do or be saying what Obama is at this point were she the nominee. FISA. Womens Choice without the caveats. Pandering to the Right - both Pols and voters. Not standing for anything for more that a day or two. That is someone who will destroy the Party and in good conscience I can't vote for that.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm with you, Talex (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:21:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    they also differ on green energy, climate change (4.75 / 4) (#157)
    by fiver2 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:49:01 PM EST
    in ways that are pretty significant.  He supports coal, ethanol, and is "agnostic" on nuclear power.  However, his history is one of supporting Excelon and backing nuclear energy.  By contrast, her green energy proposals were intricately thought out and as far left as we could hope a presidential candidate to get.  (The gas tax holiday was not a good idea from an environmental perspective, but it would have had limited impact on the economy and the environment -- it was really just a way to take the issue from McCain -- and was coupled with punitive measures against oil companies.)  The gas tax holiday was the sole instance -- and a meaningless one from the perspective of what impact it would have had on overall climate change -- in which her proposals were more centrist than his.  Otherwise, she was significantly more left.  And she knew her stuff, so you could trust her to implement her own platform.  Obama, on the other hand, kept revealing himself to be clueless, referring to wind turbines as "windmills" (calling to mind 17th Century Dutch grain grinding structures), and suggesting that wind energy would come at the expense of migratory birds (completely false).

    [ Parent ]
    Energy is Obama's worst subject, by (4.00 / 1) (#164)
    by MarkL on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:56:02 PM EST
    far. He really takes away my hope in that area.

    [ Parent ]
    Center Left (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:14:44 PM EST
    Several of her votes as my senator have convinced me Hillary Clinton is not of the left.

    While many of them I could let go by without  holding her feet to the fire one which particularly got my goat was legislation she co-sponsored to criminalize flag burning. At the time, her approach was discussed as a nuanced response to the more egregious anti flag burning constitutional amendment that was being floated. In any case, not the move of a center-leftie to me.

    While reflecting on this vote, I came across a NY Times story from June 28, 2006 with this interesting passage which seems relevant to current conversations about moving one way or another:

    "The divergent views of her position reflect a broader rift in the Democratic Party over whether the key to electoral success rests in winning over centrists or by drawing clear distinctions with Republicans by staking out unapologetically liberal positions.

    "What's politically pragmatic isn't always what's pleasing to the left," said Steve McMahon, a Democratic consultant. "But pragmatism is what wins elections for Democrats." "

    [ Parent ]

    I don't understand (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:24:14 PM EST
    what it is about being a center-leftie that would disqualify a legislator from sponsoring entirely constitutional legislation as a strategic move to neutralize a Republican attempt at demagoguery.  That's a very odd litmus test.

    [ Parent ]
    You're Talking Strategy (none / 0) (#87)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:53:00 PM EST
    And a very pragmatic one at that which is quite consistent with a centrist posture. Clinton has done a fair amount of this and that's one reason I agree with Jerilyn's characterization that Clinton's a centrist.

    But leftie-centrist? Criminalizing flag burning,  which even Scalia acknowledges is anti constitutional is about as leftie centrist as some of the arguments Obama apologists are coming up with for his (and other Dems') pro FISA vote this week, i.e. Not.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry (3.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Steve M on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:54:16 PM EST
    There is no argument whatsoever that Clinton's bill was unconstitutional.

    I don't agree with trying to identify someone's ideology based upon a purely strategic maneuver.

    [ Parent ]

    I Can't Claim (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:17:34 PM EST
    any knowledge or wisdom as to whether Clinton's bill was constitutional. I have no training in that area. I quoted Scalia's surprising disclosure about HIS stand on flag burning in general merely because I thought it was interesting, and indicative of the divide in opinion.

    My point was to the issue of center-left or centrism. I don't know how else to identify (truly identify) the positions of someone in public office if not by the policy they make (or try to make) and by the votes or vetoes they register.


    [ Parent ]

    You would prefer (none / 0) (#144)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:25:54 PM EST
    that a progressive/liberal just lie down and let the GOP pass a constitutional amendment?  You know darn well it would pass around the country, and once accomplished, be nearly impossible to repeal.  The point of Hillary's legislation was an emergency measure to derail that-- AND IT WORKED.

    This is really a very silly and unrealistic complaint.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh come on - Flag Burning! (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by talex26 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:47:36 PM EST
    My God that is some kind of silly wedge issue and to tell you the truth if I was at a rally and saw someone burning the flag I would ask them to stop and I am sure I would not be alone doing that.

    Flag burning is for the real oddballs who are always doing something to make others look bad. and if it wasn't flag burning they are the type who show up at WTO marches and smash windows.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, Come On Is Right (3.00 / 0) (#94)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:03:10 PM EST
    First of all, when was the last time you DID see someone in person or in the media burning an American flag--an American burning an American flag?

    And, I agree with you. When I have seen someone doing this they usually looked like the biggest clown in the group. Not my choice for a way to dissent. But hey, isn't that what the 1st Amendment is about: protecting unpopular expression?

    My point was in response to someone who referred to Clinton as center-left in her positions. While Clinton definitely has some progressive positions, she also has held some like this legislation sponsorship which is as un-left as you can get, because flag burning is the poster child boogeyman for the right in this country. They trot it out every time they want to play that nasty little game: Who's the Bigger Patriot? And it deserves to be repudiated every time they do.

    [ Parent ]

    OK (5.00 / 4) (#100)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:17:13 PM EST
    when was the last time you DID see someone in person or in the media burning an American flag--an American burning an American flag?

    On February 15, 2003, at an anti-war rally.

    The anti-flag-burning legislation she endorsed was quite specific - it was to ban flag-burning as part of a hate crime. Like cross-burning.

    But the really wonderful thing about that bill is that Obama supported it too.

    [ Parent ]

    Center Left (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:22:22 PM EST
    Never thought either senator was anything other than a centrist Dem with occasional refreshing swerves leftward, and occasional distressing swerves to the right.

    [ Parent ]
    So you do know that (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:31:49 PM EST
    your candidate voted for the flag-burning bill.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, I Don't KNOW That He Did (2.00 / 1) (#114)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:41:27 PM EST
    I'm taking echinopsia's word for it. Shouldn't I? Didn't he?

    The main reason I know that Clinton sponsored it and voted for it is that she was my senator at the time, and I was paying attention to that.

    [ Parent ]

    Flag burning? (4.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:11:34 PM EST
    snort.  That' something that tells you about being left?

    If someone trod the Union Jack underfoot or burned it I'd probably start yelling at them to cut it out. I certainly think  that it's offensive to stamp a flag. It' just counter productive.  By al means furn effigies of leaders though.

    It's probably not really even left wingers doing it. I'd bet that half the the time it's agent provocateurs and the reat are anarchists.

    [ Parent ]

    I think that it would be very difficult (none / 0) (#202)
    by weltec2 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:56:37 PM EST
    to prove that burning a flag at an anti-war rally was a hate crime; a meaningless act of childish petulance perhaps, but a hate crime... nah.

    Besides, most flag burning takes place in other countries.

    [ Parent ]

    Flags and Crosses Burning (none / 0) (#105)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:28:31 PM EST
    And as to the grouping of flag burning and cross burning as hate crimes...the cross burnings are obvious as such.

    The only times I've seen domestic examples of flag burnings have been at protests directed against the  federal government and its policies. do you know if there were examples presented that compared with the terroristic nature of cross burnings?

    [ Parent ]

    Who cares? (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:38:48 PM EST
    It's not an issue that separates Clinton and Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I Care (3.00 / 1) (#118)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:44:51 PM EST
    I'm not asking the question because of anything having to do with Clinton or Obama. I missed this equating of the two things and I wondered about it.

    It seems like an odd (and disturbing) distortion of the two things.

    [ Parent ]

    When TeamO support keeps hiding behind HRC's skirt (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:50:57 PM EST
    ... it only reminds me yet again that Obama is no leader.

    He's a run-away-and=hider.

    Sen Clinton suspended her campaign. Obama must stand or fall on his own words and deeds, and it's apparent daily that neither he nor his supporters can live or die by his candidacy.

    His own record shows how laughably unprepared he is, how unskilled he is, and how shallow and paltry his dedication to service has been.

    Once again, it is not "his" virtue that his supporters and others in the throes of CDS do not like nor approve of Sen CLinton, for whatever reason.

    She's not the candidate for President, unfortunately, because she's earned it, she's qualified, and she deserves to be.

    We just got saddled with this loser for a lamentably growing list of increasingly indefensible "reasons".

    [ Parent ]

    Who's Hiding? (none / 0) (#127)
    by daring grace on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:01:57 PM EST
    Assuming this is directed at me, because it's hard to tell from the lengthy thread...

    First of all, huh?

    I never compared or contrasted Clinton and Obama. Someone else introduced Obama into this discussion. I was responding to another writer's characterization of Clinton as center-left.

    Second of all, I'm on record here as saying:

    I would be voting for Clinton if she was the nominee.

    If Obama fails to get elected in November it will be because HE fails to get elected and not because of anything Clinton did or did not do.

    Don't know where you see this so called CDS but it ain't in this corner.

    [ Parent ]

    Give Obama his REAL due as CDS isn't 'his' virtue (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:25:05 PM EST
    While Clinton definitely has some progressive positions, she also has held some like this

    ... flag burning is the poster child boogeyman for the right in this country. They trot it out every time they want to play that nasty little game: Who's the Bigger Patriot? And it deserves to be repudiated every time they do.

    Repudiate Obama harshly then. Sen Clinton isn't the nominee for President. What you might do if she were isn't the issue.

    Your approach to the argument by smacking HRC is the core definition of Obama supporters running behind Sen Clinton's skirts rather than affirmatively presenting his fitness for office.

    Please, spend the appropriate bandwidth leveling the hits at HRC, despite her suspended campaign, and take Obama to task for his "patriotism", given his run for the Presidency of the United States, and you won't come off so disingenuous.

    [ Parent ]

    CDS (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:45:09 PM EST
    Explains a lot.

    There are a number of other motivations that could be discussed as well.

    [ Parent ]

    Riverdaughter nails it (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:17:58 PM EST
    He's just not that into you.

    [ Parent ]
    Correction: madamab nails it! (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by echinopsia on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:45:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    pacifits are easily fooled. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Salo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:44:57 PM EST
    They backed Gladstone, who as it turned out was more bloody than Disraeli.

    I'm looking forward with trepidation at the tupid wars Obama will start in his admin. Pakistan is one obvious spot in his war planning.  I'd not be urprised if Obama knock out Chavez either.

    [ Parent ]

    College kids (none / 0) (#173)
    by tek on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:09:10 PM EST
    took to Obama because their parents were for older, more seasoned Democrats.  It's the generation gap.

    [ Parent ]
    As andgarden points out... (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by OrangeFur on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:21:19 PM EST
    ... the folks who are dismayed by his sprint to the "center" are now described as the "far left".

    So, if you thought FISA was an outrage, or that we ought to withdraw from Iraq, or that the DC handgun ban was constitutional, or the death penalty should be abolished, you're not just liberal. You're on the "far left".

    As for Mollie Ruskin, who says "He's doing it so he can get into office and do the things he believes in," I just want to ask her how she's so sure that he believes what he said to you, not what he's saying now. And how exquisite that she works for something financed by the "Bus Project".

    When I saw Mollie's quote (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:27:42 PM EST
    I could only think that she must have had blessed high school and college years and hasn't had her heart broken yet.  Not a sadder but wiser girl, not yet, as the song goes.

    [ Parent ]
    "Bus Project" (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by wasabi on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:04:55 PM EST
    Is that like... get under the bus project?

    [ Parent ]
    Funny you should mention Hunter Thompson (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Pol C on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:21:44 PM EST
    I just wonder what he (and Ralph Steadman, for that matter) would have made of Obama if they were at the height of their Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972 powers.

    Just a thought. It's saturday evening, and I've had a few.

     

    Would they see Adam Clayton Powell (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:26:06 PM EST
    as I have seen in this candidate for some time now?  At least, they would know who I mean.  It is not a conversation that can be conducted with many of the younger set on the 'Net, quoted here.  

    [ Parent ]
    I see absolutely no connection (none / 0) (#207)
    by weltec2 on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:29:09 AM EST
    between ACP and Obama with the exception of their racial mix. ACP actually did a lot for the Afro-American community back in the forties, fifties and early sixties until his list of enemies became too great. Some may disagree with his conservative stance against homosexuals. But beyond that he was very liberal.

    [ Parent ]
    I'll probably write about that later (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:27:53 PM EST
    since his wife Anita will be here in an hour for dinner. She has been a huge Hillary supporter who, like me, will be voting for Obama. I'll ask her what she thinks Hunter's take on Obama would be.

    [ Parent ]
    What's on the menu??? (none / 0) (#104)
    by Angel on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:28:30 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I think (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:32:02 PM EST
    he would have been VERY upset about FISA, he was very (justifiably) paranoid about giving the Government that kind of power.  From what I read, he was a fairly centrist fellow who HATED the Regressives (and especially Nixon), but he supported gun ownership.  I have a general feeling that he supported the Death Penalty, but not because he loved the System.

    Remember, he was pretty tough on Bill Clinton, he mocked him pretty unmercifully at times.  He never pulled any of his punches for "Party Unity" and I have a feeling he wouldn't have now.  I would love it if he were still around to hear his thoughts on the Primaries, it would have been fascinating.

    Jackson

    [ Parent ]

    interesting thought. hunter did not suffer (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:22:11 PM EST
    fools. i can't help but think at the very least he'd have taken the so called pundits to task for their incredible and breathless audacity/gross stupidityt.

    [ Parent ]
    It happens every generation (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by blogtopus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:22:56 PM EST
    In this case, it took 36 years to cycle around again, but no, the 'shiny new politics' campaign waved its banners and spouted its platitudes wildly and loudly enough that people got 'winked.

    I'm with Jeralyn; I didn't expect anything different. I'm voting for Obama because I don't like McCain, but I honestly understand why people will be turning to McCain in the general. Nobody likes to be lied to about such important things.

    Hubris.

    Ah, youth (5.00 / 6) (#8)
    by lambert on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:22:58 PM EST
    "He's doing it so he can get into office and do the things he believes in."

    It's sweet, really.

    Now, it really does happen, but it's not simple and it takes more that one election. LBJ on Civil Rights is one example. LBJ and the Democrat Party did the right thing then, it cost them, but it was good for the country. On the flip side, Bush. He wanted to destroy the government, and gave it his best shot, but it took a generation of conservative dominance to work up to that point.

    He's so DIFFERENT (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by blogtopus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:28:39 PM EST
    Of course he is.

    I really think I'm going to have to put my McGovern bumper stickers up for sale in December.

    [ Parent ]

    Great point by Jeralyn (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by ghost2 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:53:36 PM EST
    What's sad is we had a centrist candidate who spoke her mind on issues so you knew exactly where she stood. You knew just what you were going to get with a Hillary presidency. You could practically take it to the bank. I, for one, appreciated the honesty. But, she lost.

    I am not sure when I made the point, but it was a long time ago.  I said Hillary is like the student that the teacher (aks: MSM) hates.  No matter what she does, the MSM is going to look for any possible error, no matter how small and magnify it.  On the other hand, there is a teacher's pet (here: Obama) who can write 2 babbling paragraphs for an essay and be called brilliant. It doesn't deter Hillary. She is just going to work as hard as she can, and not give the teacher an exuse.  

    I realised Hillary was a politician, but she was forced to be brutally honest by circumstances. One reason was the media's dislike of her (see above).  The other reason is that she is a very compelling personality and people remember anything she says (at least someone remembers).  So she is forced to be consistent.  

    Hillary is a true liberal at heart (dangerous to read other's minds and hearts, but what the heck).  Why do you think Bill Clinton insisted on having a female attorney general against the objections of Republicans?  Who tried to get Universal healthcare in 1993?? Who was the force behind mandatory public education for disabled children?

    The answer, every time, is Hillary.  


    [ Parent ]

    Oh, lambert! (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:25:27 PM EST
    I hope this was just a typo on your part, but it's not the DEMOCRAT Party!
    Repeat after me:  Democratic Party!

    [ Parent ]
    no (4.66 / 3) (#129)
    by boredmpa on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:03:50 PM EST
    it's the democrat party.  and henceforth i will refer to it as such.  (unless jeralyn deletes such statements).

    The party ceased to be Democratic when it completely tossed out democratic ideals during its own primaries and supported a candidate that believes in hoodwinking his own party members (anti-democratic, low information, cynical, managerial) and challenging thousands of petition signatures at the last minute to knock opponents out of primaries in IL (who couldn't afford to mount a legal defense).

    I do not support false advertising or blatantly misleading names.  The Democrat party dishonors and cheapens the word democratic.

    [ Parent ]

    You have a point there (none / 0) (#146)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:33:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Oh, come on! (none / 0) (#201)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:45:27 PM EST
    I'm just as pissed at the party as you are.  In fact, I'm so pissed that I re-registered as "Decline to State" after a lifetime of slavish devotion to the party.

    But I'm not going to adopt the Republican's terminology that was devised to mock and marginalize the Democrats.  No way.

    [ Parent ]

    There is life after November (5.00 / 15) (#10)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:23:48 PM EST
    of course -- but for the Democratic Party?  I think that what was done to the Dem base for the sake of winning the primary phrase, even if he wins the general election, will mean a damaged party due to his Axelrovian divisive tactics.  And that those tactics continued after the primaries and do so even now, about the convention roll call, is a bad sign.

    Because there is life after 2008 to worry abuot, too.  I think that what was done to the Dem base may not bode well down the line -- and we still have to see just what it means for midterm elections.  More needs to be known about this restructuring of the party headquarters and staff, which can mean a lot to Congressional and state legislative candidates.

    In sum, it's really not all about Obama.  And I think most worrisome is that some of these 20-somethings quoted do still think it's all about Obama, which basically means all about them.  That could result in even more bad decisions ahead about when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em for candidates who can't raise millions, set up en masse netroots campaigns, etc., on their own.

    If this blog (5.00 / 5) (#20)
    by Coldblue on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:33:36 PM EST
    had a Top Comments forum, your comment would get my vote.

    [ Parent ]
    ah youth grow older all too soon! (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:25:41 PM EST
    that means they won't be a base but will move on down the road. if their opportunity in the dem party(which i don't think is so) then some will stay. if democrats fail to support the will of the american people(which i think they will) off they will go.

    so what do the democrats have to show for all this hubris? nothing is the answer and more's the pity.

    [ Parent ]

    raises hand (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Little Fish on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:53:12 PM EST
    The twenty somethings sometimes forget to vote.

    That's me!  I almost didn't vote in '04. I just got busy (re: lazy) and um shiny things were everywhere and John Kerry was less than inspiring for me (I lurve Edwards though) and I don't know a Seinfeld repeat was on or something.  I finally got a bug to to vote so I rolled up at the polling place at 7:55. They had practically called WA on my way over and I wound up having to vote provisional for some reason so I just decided to write myself in.

    And in '00 I was all fired up during the GE but come Tuesday there was a party and I had a test.  I did vote though, only because I was CONVINCED that Bush was going to get to overturn Roe.  

    [ Parent ]

    I worked in that campaign (none / 0) (#108)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:35:15 PM EST
    and yes, it has been deja vu all over again -- in part because I sometimes see the Senator in my neighborhood.:-)

    [ Parent ]
    Funnier thing is (none / 0) (#131)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:05:40 PM EST
    giving 20-something year olds, candidates that they cannot relate to in every election cycle eg: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore-2000, Kerry and expecting them to show up and vote for the candidate the elders had "wisely" chosen. Ah, the arrogance that comes with age! :-). Yes, 20-something year olds were supposed to leap with joy when Gore-200 uttered lock-box!


    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by Jane in CA on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:27:43 PM EST
    they got McGovern in 1972, and the republicans got 49 states in the GE.


    [ Parent ]
    Comparing (none / 0) (#198)
    by Politalkix on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:21:18 PM EST
    McGovern of 1972 with Obama in 2008 is as quixotic as McCain comparing the situation in post Saddam Iraq with post WW2 Germany/Japan.
    You might not see any differences between McGovern and Obama and some Obama supporter may not see any differences between HRC and Mondale (who incidently lost 49 states in the GE) but both analogies are flawed IMO and does nothing to move the debate forward.

    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me? (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Jane in CA on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:10:11 AM EST
    You made a comment that very strongly implied the democrats did not nominate youth-oriented candidates, which was why the youth vote didn't turn out for them. I informed you that the democrats had indeed nominated a youth-oriented candidate, and subsequently lost the election in a rather embarrassing republican landslide.

    Not sure where you get that I'm being "quioxtic" (?) or that I'm making comparsions to any other elections besides 1972.  I'm simply correcting your misconception. and explaining the results of how that strategy played out in 1972.

    And I agree that any comparsions between McGovern and Obama, other than their respective appeal to the youth vote, is specious. For example, McGovern was a true liberal.  And there is no logic whatsoever between your comparison of Mondale and Clinton -- although, if by some weird fluke, she gets the VP nod, thereby  pushing Obama to the White House, and then attempted to run for the presidency after a disastrous Obama presidency -- much as Mondale did with Carter -- you just might be on to something.

    [ Parent ]

    Too soon to tell (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by sj on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:11:36 AM EST
    That's something that can only be determined after the election.  

    [ Parent ]
    If there' s one thing I wish people would (5.00 / 11) (#23)
    by Anne on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:38:28 PM EST
    stop doing is characterizing Obama as moving to the center.  He's not.  He's moving away from the center to the right.

    People who believe in the protection of civil liberties, in reproductive freedom, in a stark line between church and state - we are not hard-left/far-left radicals: we are the mainstream.

    I guess I just don't get it, why so many are rationalizing Obama's ping-ponging by making it the status quo - what pols do, as if they can't help themselves.  It's as passive as being "disappointed;"  It's just so...polite.  I don't see "polite" as getting us where we need to be; what I thought we needed, and what I thought Hillary was more disposed to, was a little kicking a$$ and taking names.

    How on earth will we ever get the leaders we need and the leaders we want if we allow people like those in the Democratic leadership and Barack Obama, to play fast and loose with where they stand on the issues?  These people are supposed to represent us, after all - and if we are not holding them accountable with our votes, we are giving them license to be just exactly who they have been - and will continue to be.

    I thought I was going to be able to go "big picture" on this election; I did it with Kerry and I thought, if I had to, I could do it again.  But the last 18 months of the most spineless Congress in my memory, and after the way the DNC handled the primary, essentially saddling us with a nominee who is not the best person for the job, I can't do it.

    There has to be a line somewhere - a place where we stop just going along like good little Democrats, passively accepting whatever cr@p candidates and representatives we have - and this election season has shown me where that line is.

    interesting analysis! (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:27:17 PM EST
    the problem for me is obama hasn't seen a line he wasn't willing to cross for gain.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, I fear that his tactics (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by Cream City on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:45:38 PM EST
    have transformed the Dem Party, and for ill -- but yeh, I saw the buzzword and went "whaaa?" too, as it just stood out as so naive on the very topic of the piece.

    That's a disappointing article. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by ajain on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:09:09 PM EST
    Its disappointing how some people will just go along  with anything and everything.

    Not that I am advocating not voting for Obama, but I hate how "those awful, cranky, hippie liberals" are to blame for everything.

    And I also hate that the article's headline has the phrase "Far Left" on it. As if only people in the "far left" should be or are enraged at Obama.

    I agree (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:10:39 PM EST
    with Matt Stoller when he writes "that Obama had better win, or he'll be the most hated Democrat in history."  Obama is making everything about him, he doesn't give one flip about the Party, he just wants to be President and he'll say anything to become it.

    He, along with his lickspittles in the M$M, did everything they could to destroy a sitting US Senator and the most popular multi-term President this Party has had since FDR.  His bloggers went all-in with their support of him, and I would imagine they have lost traffic and influence over their stupidity.  (I have no problem with someone being pro-Obama, or even that they criticized Hilary a bit, but the virulent CDS on display was just fracking atrocious.  I will NEVER forgive them, or read their stupid blogs again.)

    Oh, and for the record, Obama didn't win, he was pulled across the finish line by a corrupt process that violated its own rules in finishing Hilary off.  A vote for Obama is a vote for Dean and Brazille and rewards them for destroying the Party when they should have just stayed the H*ll out of it, and at this point I can't do it, maybe that will change.  Sorry, I have those pesky things called principles, I won't reward that kind of "suck on this" corruption.  

    Does the Dem Party want my vote?  Eliminate all caucuses as the frauds that they are.  Dean and Brazille et al must not only apologize, but publicly fall on a sword and resign.  Hilary has to be the VP Nominee and given as much, if not more power, than Cheney in that office.  Majority Leader is a compromise if it is handed to her BEFORE the Election, because for some strange reason I don't trust the current leadership to follow through on any promise they make.

    Right now, with his positions, Obama is running for Clinton's third term.  Hilary was in a far better place to do that IMHO.

    Jackson

    If he doesn't win (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:22:47 PM EST
    He'll be made into a martyr.  The party loves to lose.

    He's also not positioned to run for Clinton's third term.

    He made it clear that he thinks Clinton was a bad president.


    [ Parent ]

    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Jackson Hunter on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:40:22 PM EST
    you're right about the martyr point, they'll probably want him up on Rushmore when he loses (which I think is far more likely at this juncture.)

    My point is that he is now basically running a DLC campaign, which is what I meant by "Clinton's third term."  You'll get no argument from me that he tried to destroy Clinton, but he was not succesful, at least to anyone who has been a Dem for a while.

    Jackson

    [ Parent ]

    Stoller is dead wrong (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:39:51 PM EST
    If he loses, it will be blamed on Hillary's divisiveness and racist white people.


    [ Parent ]
    Fascist isn't the New Centrist but the Old Fascist (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:20:06 PM EST
    Caving on the FISA mess is not what a "centrist" would do but what an absolute unapologetic dyed in the wool scum of the earth Fascist would do.

    The disgraceful FISA lockstep was a clinic in legislative Fascist architecture, why it occurs, how it is erected and why it is difficult to knock down.  

    This sloppy "centrist" labeling should be stopped in its tracks, no matter how we, in this day and age, so lazily prefer such trains of thought to run merrily on time and without interruption that we'd sell our children's freedom and joy for it.

    Fascism is NOT centrist. Fascism is Fascist.

    Everyone, take back our freedoms and use every means necessary to do it. Indeed, do it even if it means sabotaging that all important number one priority of the Dems, their ridiculous swanning and perpetual oily posedown for the cameras.

    The primary "reason" behind their real and theatrical ineptitude, as stated by their own party leaders at long last, has been to avoid criticism from the media.

    Because that's the most important thing. Not even Britney Spears thinks that's minimally important.

    This is why we have witnessed two admins of Dems ludicrous, haughty and toothless disregard to avoid at all costs doing the ONLY job they were placed in office to do:

    uphold and defend the Constitution.

    Yes, our champions in Congress are less than the bloated display of binge-access to the public trust. Proudly they "stand up to The Left" and pat themselves on the shoulder for this historically fine stance of not even rising to the level of chain-smoking, marguerita-swilling, baby-dropping Bush-era spokesmoralist, Britney Spears.

    It's almost as if (5.00 / 8) (#51)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:20:22 PM EST
    David Sirota thinks he gets to decide for everyone where we're at.

    I can type out a long response here but I won't.

    Simply put.  Obama actually is everything that Clinton was smeared with.  There is real truth in the idea that people trapped in a cycle of self-loathing project what they dislike the most about themselves onto good people.

    Edgar that last (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by CaptainAmerica08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:29:19 PM EST
    sentence is exactly the reason why they say good people don't get into politics. (for the most part they don't) Sad indeed.

    [ Parent ]
    Sirota is a Fauxgressive Oboiz apologist (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:01:00 PM EST
    Liberalism is old.

    Out with the Old, in with the Kewl(aid).

    Fauxgressives have a Black BFF, B!tches (or so should the tee shirts go were there a scrap of honesty left on the torrential Oboiz' and Gurlz' bloggarrhea at Cheetohpia.)

    Huffing the orange cheese dust destroys brain cells. Huffing it from the vaunted Bush era Codpiece of Justice can frazzle a brain into smithereens and make the vision of absolute power blind the swooning addicts to continuing these years of untrammeled wreckage.

    [ Parent ]

    I declined to write my honest opinion (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:18:48 PM EST
    Of Sirota because I didn't want my comment to be deleted.


    [ Parent ]
    I wanna Kudo or cookie for not dropping the F-bomb (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by Ellie on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:38:56 PM EST
    ... the Feminism one as well as the other one that are deletable offenses and F-bomba non grata in fauxgressive circles.

    I generally don't argue over my deleted brilliance here though I disagree with some of the harshness. I've posted enough trash to make me blush in shame at the swiftness of my Send Trigger Finger that remains indelibly on display ib front of Gawd and everyone.

    The TL Regents deserve a case of Kudos.

    Just sayin' I'd like one of the tasty morsels to go with today's hot stuff. :-p

    [ Parent ]

    Ellie, you are (5.00 / 3) (#154)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:43:11 PM EST
    some kinda cross between James Joyce and John Lennon.  Your writing is, I mean.  Sometimes I can't follow you at all, at all, but when I can, I am often just dazzled.

    [ Parent ]
    you might add and that 1/3 won't be (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by hellothere on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:31:03 PM EST
    voting for obama either. it is a big problem for democrats, but denial is only a river in egypt. right!

    I am with you on this.... (5.00 / 8) (#66)
    by Jjc2008 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:33:58 PM EST