The Anti-PUMAs: The CDS Never Ends

Kos wrote a mocking post about the crumbling PUMA movement. I happen to think the PUMA movement is nuts. But these are just citizens and voters expressing their views, however wayward and stupid I may think them. What really amazes me is the anti-PUMAs, those erstwhile Obama supporters who are attacking Obama for making unity noises with Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Leading the charge of course is the foolish and harmful Andrew "Bell Curve" Sullivan, along with the usual Clinton haters in the the Media, with MoDo playing her usual fool's role. Sullivan writes:

The total capitulation to the Clintons at the convention is particularly lame[.]

This is nuts. Having the last Democratic President, a two termer at that and still incredibly popular President and the Dem Senator from New York, who won half of the vote in the Democratic primaries, speak at the Democratic Convention is capitulation? Hatred is blinding. And when you could not see well in the first place, the Mr. Magoo act gets to be very serious. For people like Sullivan, hating the Clintons trumps all. They are at least as silly as the PUMAs.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Guns in the Classroom (and Open Thread) | "Unity Breakfast" Now on Tap For DNC >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Crumbling? Silly? (5.00 / 14) (#2)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:55:55 PM EST
    I don't think so.

    You know, you're providing fodder for the movement here. These anti-Clinton zealots are a big reason why PUMA exists.

    PUMAs are against the corruption in the Dem party. Sounds like these people are all for it.

    Who's silly?

    I write what I think.

    I told you folks a while ago I write what I think, not what I think "helps."

    Like what I write matters anyway . . . it doesn't.


    Hope you don't mind my asking . . . (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by MojaveWolf on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:38:07 PM EST
    . . . but if you really believed what you wrote didn't matter, isn't this blog a heckuva lot of trouble?  Even if you did nothing but make a few people think and refine their perspective on some of the things you wrote about, the ripple effect there could still matter in the larger scheme of things, and this blog (all three of you) does quite a good job of that and providing info.

    (even though I support the general goals of the PUMA movement and think you are wrong on this one, I nonetheless am glad the blog is here; both my s.o. and I read it regularly, and not just for the presidential campaign stuff)


    and you do a great job! (none / 0) (#27)
    by mogal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:14:20 PM EST
    BTD, please elaborate on the following: (none / 0) (#200)
    by bridget on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:17:31 PM EST
    "I happen to think the PUMA movement is nuts."

    Why do you think they are nuts?

    What is wrong with them? In particular?


    They wish PUMAs were crumbling... (5.00 / 16) (#42)
    by PssttCmere08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:21:45 PM EST
    And if silly is making progress in the dems doing the right thing at this convention....then let silliness prevail.

    "First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
      --  Mahatma Gandhi


    Exactly (5.00 / 13) (#97)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:48:20 PM EST
    Who do you think made it not only possible but absolutely necessary for Senator Clinton's name to be put in for nomination? Who is behind the two days of events for her in Denver? PUMA.

    Interviews with PUMA people are becoming more common. On mainstream television, even.

    If the movement were crumbling, the kos wouldn't feel so insecure he had to write about it.

    Yeah, call it silly. But you can't ignore it.


    I'm a proud Puma and will stay... (5.00 / 4) (#197)
    by Shainzona on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:01:08 PM EST
    that way for long after November.

    And when we vote, Kos and Friends who call us nuts will understand.


    Hillary will of course (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:57:07 PM EST
    give a good speech in support of Obama.  How could she not?  There is no upside for her to do anything else.....

    Hillary's support will help.  The last time she did this, Obama's support went up in the polls...

    It was his last real bounce (5.00 / 7) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:00:02 PM EST
    Even the Berlin speech wasn't as effective.

    I'm telling you, there's a campaign ad to be made out of either Hillary's concession speech or whatever she says at the convention.


    Or how about some Ads (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Faust on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:56:01 PM EST
    that include her after he makes her VP!

    Why do so many fail to notice that? (5.00 / 9) (#9)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:04:00 PM EST
    That ticket would win in November. I'm convinced of that.

    About PUMA, my brother told me he thinks McCain is scary but he said, "I'm still a PUMA and I'm not voting". I nearly fell out of my chair. He doesn't get on the internet except to do banking stuff but watches CNN of MSNBC all day. There must be more than the 20 or 30 people Kos talks about. I can't tell you how shocked I was to hear him say that.


    KOS also talked (5.00 / 10) (#22)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:12:42 PM EST
    about Hillary supporters as being a little corner of paranoid holdouts.  And then millions voted for Hillary.

    KOS tends to get more oddball by the day.  But of course, he's provided feed for his masses.  His hits are tanking.  It's close to the election and his numbers are similar to last October?  

    KOS is just jealous because Ms. Murphy and Mr. Bower are getting more media than he is.

    Puma isn't dying.  I think it's likely growing....and solidifying.

    Supporting someone because they happen to have a D by their name is what's silly.


    He said PUMAs were that (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:14:10 PM EST
    not Clinton supporters.

    Changes can be made (5.00 / 14) (#149)
    by Jeannie on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:04:26 PM EST
    when the 'little people' stand up for justice. And the idea that Obama is already the nominee when neither Obama or Clinton had enough pledged delegates to win - it is just spin. No one is the nominee until the convention. And then he kindly allows Clinton to speak and have a roll call vote when more people voted for her and one milliion more Democrats voted for her and she won all the big states and all the swing states - it is arrogant crap. People are just getting more and more angry.

    Exactly! (5.00 / 8) (#163)
    by tek on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:28:42 PM EST
    Obama people don't understand that when you've been wronged, you can't just knuckle under and give in the to perps.  You have to stand up for your rights or there is no democracy.  Obama people just think everyone should get on board because their guy won.  If Hillary had won, you can bet your sweet bibby those Obama people would be rioting in the streets.  They said they would, right?

    If Obama wanted a united party he should conducted a unifying campaign, but he divided the party to gain an advantage for himself and now he doesn't want to face the music.


    Kos is scary (5.00 / 5) (#143)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:57:01 PM EST
    I used to read there every day but I haven't done that in a long time.  His website is filled with too much hate and too many weirdos.  I'm just not that kind of democrat.  

    isn't there the danger (1.50 / 2) (#34)
    by Howard Zinn on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:18:12 PM EST
    with a joint ticket, that the repubs would just run campaign commercials with Hillary and Obama bashing each other.  Then end it with, "If Obama chose a VP running mate that hates him, what kind of decisions will he make as president?"

    I like the idea of the joint ticket, but don't see it panning out, politically.


    But when did she ever not state that winning (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:23:28 PM EST
    in November is the top priority? She was asked a million times and always said Obama was a better choice by far than McCain. Besides, show me a primary where the opponents didn't say stuff negative about each other.

    The Republicans can run....... (5.00 / 5) (#108)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:56:54 PM EST
    ....any number of ads. Only people who really hate the Clintons seem to think that this type of ad is THE WORST THING THAT CAN HAPPEN to the Obama campaign. I prefer to think of all the powerful ads they could run as a joint ticket or to think about how great they looked together when they appeared together after she dropped out.

    No, there ISN'T a danger. (5.00 / 3) (#183)
    by blcc on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:28:24 PM EST
    Not as long as SHE'S at the top of the ticket.



    Unless she's his VP (5.00 / 20) (#14)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:08:18 PM EST
    I wouldn't expect much of a bump. Alot of us are pretty disgusted. I consider myself PUMA for lack of a better place. I don't consider it silly to send a message to the party that gaming the system for their insider of choice won't be tolerated. I do consider myself reasonable enough to give them a shot at wooing me back. I've held off on doing any real damage by biting my tongue so I won't be forced to eat my enmity down the line but my patience is wearing thin and it isn't going to be pretty if the VP candidate basically mirrors the GOP on where he stands on issues but calls himself a Democrat. THAT ain't gonna cut it.

    puma? it is so much more than hillary! (5.00 / 20) (#51)
    by hellothere on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:25:27 PM EST
    it is disgust with democrats who try and play repub lite and do a miserable job. it is about being pushed around and told we aren't important and our votes don't count. we are the real democrats and not repub lite.

    You are correct (5.00 / 7) (#76)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:33:19 PM EST
    PUMAs know that the system is broken and because of that broken system the DNC and superdelegates have chosen a very weak candidate that many Democrats will not support.  I don't care about Hillary.  I like her and would vote for her anytime over McCain.  But as much as I don't care for any of the other dogcatchers that ran against Hillary, and are not Obama, I would support.  Even now, as much as I don't want to see his face, I would hold my nose, close my eyes, and vote for Edwards.

    I wouldn't go THAT far................. (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:58:33 PM EST
    Heh (5.00 / 11) (#5)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:00:40 PM EST
    You seem to define "anti-PUMAs" as people who are PUMAs in reverse, that is, people who are equally deranged in the reverse direction.

    When I hear "anti-PUMA," I think of the people whose sole purpose is to oppose whatever the PUMAs happen to favor, and lord knows there are lot of people in this category.  If the PUMAs think Bill should speak at the convention, then they oppose it solely to make PUMAs unhappy.  If the PUMAs want Hillary to have a roll call vote, they oppose it no matter how many non-PUMAs think it is a good idea as well.  If the PUMAs think Hitler was bad, well...

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:02:57 PM EST
    The "Reverse PUMAs" did not work for me.

    I was thinking in Star Trek matter/anti-matter terms.


    Like Shuster on MSNBC? (5.00 / 10) (#157)
    by lmv on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:22:24 PM EST
    He did a segment with two prominent PUMAs that was outrageously biased.  Why ask a question if you can't be bothered to listen to the first few words of the response?

    Interviews like this one (which, I admit, I only saw on YouTube, since I haven't watched MSNBC in months) just make the MSM look stupid.  It was blatent CDS.

    It's one thing to make a counter argument.  It's another to accuse your guests of being crazy and to make it look like your network highlighted them simply to disparage them.

    Being anti-PUMA, by definition, acknowledges that there are PUMAs.


    PUMAs (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by tek on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:30:50 PM EST
    are not deranged.  I thought name calling on a personal level wasn't allowed here.

    Insecurity and guilt (5.00 / 23) (#8)
    by Jjc2008 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:03:57 PM EST
    That's what I see with these kind of people.  KOS was a Reagan supporter early in life, then was on Dean's payroll (or so it's said) and I believe Dean despises the Clintons.  Maybe he blames them for his downfall?  I don't get any of them; not Dean, not Kos, not Kerry, and not the Kennedys.

    Sullivan I get.  Sort of.  Never quite been able to wrap my head around Log Cabin Republican types.  Sullivan comes off, to me, as the Matthews type.  There is something personal in his hatred of the Clintons, as if as some point he felt entitled to be chosen by them for something and when they didn't choose him, he seethed.

    I am not a PUMA.  But I understand the anger of lots of Clinton supporters. I am an angry Clinton supporter and I am having difficulty letting go of that.  But more and more I realize what has happened.  The gender bias released on Hillary hurt so much....it was reliving so much for so many of us.

    Maybe I do get it.  I always knew there were a lot of sexist jerks on the right.  But on the left, I was naive about it. Maybe I was blinded by my own needs.  But the truth is it's been there....and the insecurity of some supposedly "liberal/progressive" men when it comes to strong women has been shown to me.  Whether it's the 30 somethings like Kos who give lip service to gender equity and treat older women with a subtle disdain, or the old time men like Kerry and Kennedy, Matthews, Russert etc who were raised in the northeast paternalistic catholic church, or the blogger boys who don't even try to hide their disdain for older women, it's clear.

    These guys are jerks when it comes to being honest about Hillary Clinton.  They simply cannot let their negative right wing narratives go as it boosts their security in their own manhood.

    It wasn't just the sexism (5.00 / 26) (#43)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:22:40 PM EST
    which isn't that I didn't find the idea that Hillary Clinton was some stalker psycho for pursuing what she was entitled to repulsive and the idea that my party would stand by and allow it even more repulsive(despite their supposed sensitivity to women's issues). It was the people calling themselves neutral when they clearly weren't. It was taking delegates that were earned away from one candidate to give them to someone who didn't even put his name on the ballot. It was performing political kabuki while deciding the rules that REALLY mattered behind closed doors. It was painting people who disagreed with you on who was best as racists or uneducated. It was making remarks about working class and latinos as not counting. It was watching our now nominee cavort with a guy and give a podium to someone who believes that homosexuals are "sick" sinners even though he stands opposite for what the Democratic party has espoused. It was about watching the Democrats cave and enable for the last two years with having very little to show for the effort you put in in 2006. It's about capitulating on Iraq, FISA, tossing women under the bus on partial birth, etc, etc. I've got a whole laundry list for why I stand where I do today. This primary is the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.

    Pelosi (5.00 / 6) (#109)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:57:44 PM EST
    and company helped, a lot.

    I would say it comes down to a few things.

    Pelosi: Impeachment off the table.
    Obama: Not making party unity a top priority and ignoring his FISA filibuster pledge.
    The DNC: Breaking their own rules to side with Obama.

    It's as if the Dem leadership made up a big sign that said "If you trust us, you'll be sorry!".  I did and I am.  It would be nice if someone apologized, but these are pols.  Pols don't apologize, they just move on to the next mark.


    most definitely (5.00 / 5) (#118)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:09:28 PM EST
    If you get me started on the "gracious" House leader you may not get me to shut up. I'll spare you though. If I were a Californian I'd be voting for Cindy and I ain't even a big Sheehan fan. She couldn't possibly be more incompetent or more like;y to shirk her responsibility to the American people then Rep. Pelosi.

    Exactly how I feel (5.00 / 6) (#196)
    by Nadai on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:00:57 PM EST
    Back in 2006, I gave more money than I could afford to help the Democrats get back control of Congress.  I was desperate for change then, and I hoped that the Democrats would finally find their collective spine and hold the line against Bush if they were in charge.

    That didn't turn out so well.  They get control of both Houses and what happens?  Mostly, a big fat bunch of nothing.

    If they hadn't turned out to be such a pack of weaklings, I'd probably be holding my nose and voting for Obama this year.  But the Democrats burned their last bridge to me when they decided they'd rather let the Iraq War continue on completely unimpeded than to lose a campaign issue or risk being called unpatriotic by the Republicans.  No more nose-holding.  If they put up a candidate I want to vote for, then I'll pull the (D) lever.  Otherwise, forget it.  Permanently.


    Well, put, Jjc -- (5.00 / 8) (#45)
    by nemo52 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:23:31 PM EST
    I am not entirely with the PUMAs, because McCain really would be horrible.  However, every time I begin to feel like I can begin to get behind Obama, some of those anti-PUMA, CDS types do something or say something to set me off again.  Those of us who lived through the beginnings of second-wave feminism, I think, have had a huge case of PTSD visited on us this campaing season, something that I'm not sure "progressives" who didn't live through it, or who don't remember what it was like before, can really understand.

    In a way, it's as if all the feminist work done over several decades simply never happened, or that a new generation has slipped away -- I thought we had moved farther than we have, and that is such a disappointment.


    Um, most PUMA I know don't (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:24:30 PM EST
    support McCain:

    "I am not entirely with the PUMAs, because McCain really would be horrible."


    You would think (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Coldblue on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:27:04 PM EST
    that people would do a little research...

    I think that not voting for Obama (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:29:46 PM EST
    in this election is nuts.


    I see all the flaws, all the problems. Hell, I write about them.

    But elections are choices.

    HEre's the way I see it, call em like you see em.

    But if you do not want to vote for Obama, that is your right.


    Elections ARE choices (5.00 / 13) (#96)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:47:48 PM EST
    on this, you and the PUMA movement do agree. PUMA believes that Obama will be a disaster for the democratic brand. They aren't comfortable with him and would prefer to watch McCain finish the GOP brand off and teach the DNC a few lessons in the bargain(one being don't take your base for granted and another being don't try and rig something and call it fair). I don't consider them nuts they've thought just as hard as those who vote straight D because voting for the GOP is just plain NUTS. You can disagree with them on strategy but it seems a tad disrespectful to call them nuts for their position. Particularly when the candidate in question is a pretty blank slate and as of late can be seen voting for Cheney's energy bill and giving Bush FISA. I( wouldn't call you nuts for voting for Obama and I wouldn't call them nuts for NOT voting for Obama. I'd just call your strategies and opinions on how you think things may play out during a four year Obama term different.

    Eliminate Both Candidates (5.00 / 20) (#119)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:09:31 PM EST
    from the PUMA cause.

    Many people who watched what the DNC did, supported, and laid down for feel quite strongly that letting them win using those tactics will have a huge negative impact on our democracy. The effects of this primary will last far longer than 4 years under McCain.

    Without the PUMAs, and the silent millions who may not vote at all, the party will have committed a most horrible fraud without consequence and opened the door to anything is allowed for how many decades to come? Repairing the damage a victory could cause will be far more difficult than nipping this in the bud instantly.


    There is a broad coalition of PUMAs (5.00 / 12) (#126)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:20:10 PM EST
    who are eliminating both top tier candidates. Some will stay home, some will vote third(like me baring something dramatic out of the DNC or Obama, If I"m gonna be called Naderite I might as well be one darnnit). Some will strategically vote for McCain in hopes that his ineptness will finish off the GOP brand and because the devil you know is better than the devil you don't and the fella that you just can't trust after what you witnessed during the primary season. PUMAs are alot more complex then this post suggests. There is diversity and mutual respect for different strategic opinions. I haven't contributed to the PAC yet because of that fact although I have been told there will continue to be a broad respect for the differences among PUMA coalition.

    Not only nuts... (4.00 / 3) (#125)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:19:28 PM EST
    wayward and stupid.

    Insults abound.


    Eh (5.00 / 8) (#129)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:38:27 PM EST
    I've been "bitter', "racist", and "uneducated" this primary season. What do I care if someone calls me " wayward", "stupid" or "nuts?" Paint PUMA with a broad brush if that's what floats your boat. Mark my words though, underestimate us and our anger at your own peril.

    As for Kos, wasn't there a little saying first they laugh at us, then they fight us, then we win or something along that line? Hmmmmmmmmm, it appears to work for PUMA too. Everytime he froths at the mouth over PUMA, a PUMA smiles because they remember that quaint, little ditty.


    Yes, well (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by oldpro on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:16:35 PM EST
    it wasn't Kos who called PUMAs stupid, wayward and nuts...it was Big Tent.  Reade his post again.

    Disappointing.  And rude.

    I'm not taking it personally.


    No (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:30:02 PM EST
    I think kos quite clearly understands we are a threat. I'd call kos many things. Stupid isn't one of those things though. BTD doesn't seem to have spent much time with PUMAs if his opinion is that we are ALL nuts. I personally think he's exercising some literary liscence to make his point that he thinks we are both extreme fringe in his opinion and that the sensible thing to do is sort this out AFTER we win the WH. I disagree with him. One thing I have learned is that if you give a politician an inch they take a mile. That said, I DO agree with him that it is intelligent to hold our votes over the DNC's head and dangle them to see if we can get OUR mile out of them. If you take your ball and go home then you miss all the fun of yelling at the reps and get no say over the final outcome. You won't hear me say I'll NEVER vote for Obama. I know the hope of getting my vote is leverage. I DO however have my line and I'll be sure to let the DNC know when they crossed. it. I sent them a response to their plea for me to send a LTE for Obama. I've been quite clear with them what I expect. We'll see if they pony up.

    We have (5.00 / 8) (#168)
    by tek on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:36:59 PM EST
    friends who think this, too.  However, there is a principle at stake here.  No one really knows that Obama will be better than McCain.  Obama is using Rovian tactics against his own party, something so low that Bush didn't even do it.  Obama has all the media who cheerleaded Bush, so that should tell you something.  I really doubt Chris Matthews has suddenly become a big liberal.

    The Democratic leaders are behaving in a very tyrannical fashion and of course the meme is that they have to put Obama on the ticket by hook or by crook, but the overweaning power quest is undeniable.  It's just as possible to have a left wing tyranny as it is to have a right wing tyranny.  Obama's behavior so far is not encouraging.  If you get a person in the WH who is so opportunistic he'll give anything to anyone who will benefit him, it could be disastrous for the country.  


    I know (none / 0) (#71)
    by nemo52 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:31:23 PM EST
    that it is not an official PUMA stance to support McCain, but several self-identified PUMAs at other sites have indicated that they find McCain less problematic than McCain, and some have said they will or are considering voting for him.

    So what? If some Harry Potter fans think (5.00 / 7) (#82)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:36:05 PM EST
    the Lord of the Rings sucks, would I say Harry Potter readers hate Lord of the Rings?

    Speaking for me (4.60 / 10) (#93)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:44:55 PM EST
    I don't like McCain, but I don't like Obama even more.  I don't like his lack of character (seriously flawed).  Not that McCain is a great character, but he is not as bad in my view.  So in this system I can vote for Obama (Yikes!) or McCain.  I will trust my instincts that he loves this country and will in the end do the best for the country.  I never felt Bush had the smarts to do that.  Bush is too stupid to know what's best for the US.  He is mentally lazy and chooses people that echo him.  McCain is not like that.  Obama may be smart, but he is lazy too.  Just look how little he has worked to figure out policies that he supposedly embraces.  How can a man running for president say that the UN Security Council should do something about Russia.  Anybody who paid attention to the UN discussion on Iraq (I listened to all of those discussions) not know that the Security Council has permanent members with veto powers and rotating members who usually go along with or against the US?  It's incredible that nobody is saying that Obama is worthless just for that reason.

    I have no doubt (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by indy in sc on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:40:12 PM EST
    that both Obama and McCain love this country and would do what each one thinks is best for the country if elected.  IMO, what McCain thinks is best for the country is completely unacceptable.

    and a dem controlled (5.00 / 12) (#140)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:50:35 PM EST
    congress doesn't have to let McCain do anything.  But, a dem controlled congress would have a hard time stopping Obama from doing damage when they enabled him in  the first place

    I feel the same way about the (5.00 / 5) (#141)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:51:15 PM EST
    One who's been called to serve.

    This is not the way the democratic party has ever gone before.


    One thing to note (5.00 / 7) (#88)
    by nemo52 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:39:26 PM EST
    is the misogyny inherent in describing Obama as "weak" for including Hillary (or that two-headed beast "The Clintons") in "his" convention (snark).  The critics, taking a page from the republicans (and good old MoDo her-little-self) might as well have signaled that Obama is being "henpecked," or the cruder designations of "less than manly."  Don't they realize that this kind of characterization is insulting to Obama, even while the object of their hatred is That Witch?

    It's a twofer. (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:46:29 PM EST
    Smack two Democrats with one meme.

    Clever little pundits, aren't they?


    La Dowd (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by nemo52 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:58:06 PM EST
    is particularly good at that --
    democratic men, feminized, wimpy, limp-wristed;
    democratice women, axe-wielding, combat-boot-wearing, hairy harridans.  You can predict her columns in advance.  (BTW, Sullivan is just as bad)

    I think the bottom line is that the polls (5.00 / 10) (#101)
    by hairspray on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:51:06 PM EST
    are not going in their favor and they are casting around for some traction.  Maybe revving up the anti- clinton brouhaha will do something.

    Sullivan's problem (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:13:47 PM EST
    At the risk of treading into the psychobabble arena, I offer my thoughts about A. Sullivan: I no longer read his remarks because the antipathy toward women was incredible--toward the powerful women like Clinton and Pelosi. Of course, I recognize that the problem with my making that statement could sound as if I am playing off stereotypes about Sullivan. Not so. In most areas, I used to enjoy his writing. Somehow he went off the deep-end when it came to Senator Clinton. People do that--we all have areas of irrationality, unresolved anger, etc. Fine. But, in my honest opinion, I believe that particular comments of his indicate unusual animosity toward strong women on a broader level. (Unfortunately, I did not keep a notebook of documentation; I just made mental notes in view of his emotional reaction toward Hillary Clinton.)It is sad, really. He writes well, he speaks well, and--in general--he appears to be well-intentioned. In my deepest self, I believe that Andrew Sullivan has a real blockage here--a harmful and hateful blockage. It is most unfortunate that he feels the need to take on the air of defensive pomposity to write anything about such an outstanding, powerful, and now popular individual as Hillary Clinton.

    Kos wrote one post that was quite flattering (none / 0) (#17)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:09:13 PM EST
    to Hillary. I think he said if he had to vote that day, he would vote for her. That was when Edwards still ruled on DKos. I thought he wanted fighting Democrats. As that site became Obama central, I think he played to the audience. Or maybe he really does hate her now.

    Kos is not freaking out (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:12:43 PM EST
    because the Clintons are speaking at the Convention or because there will be a roll call vote.

    He's not crazy like Sullivan and Co.


    I didn't mean to imply that. He did write a post (none / 0) (#39)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:20:00 PM EST
    explaining why Hillary is a bad choice for VP that made me wonder about his political instincts for this election. I found myself wishing that you could debate him on that one.

    Oh (5.00 / 5) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:31:20 PM EST
    His VP posts are simply absurd. Kos writes some crazy sh*t soemtimes.

    kos should know better (none / 0) (#75)
    by catfish on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:33:10 PM EST
    precisely because he wrote kind posts for her in the past. Seriously, he's doing Obama's work for him by talking down the unity ticket, and kos was on Dean's payroll.

    Remember, kos calls himself "an activist, not a journalist."


    Activist? Really? (none / 0) (#137)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:45:58 PM EST
    hmm ...I like that bit of honestly

    Then what is Kos's problem? (none / 0) (#47)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:23:51 PM EST
    He believes in Obama?

    He's not that stupid.


    Kos wants site hits (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:35:18 PM EST
    that's what the CDS and the Obama adoration are bringing to him.  And, ultimately, I think he and others like him (Aravosis) want to do the same thing Wonkette did and move into a REAL media job.

    He was a Reagan Republican. (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:01:29 PM EST
    Does that answer your question?

    Yea (5.00 / 5) (#131)
    by Bluesage on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:38:47 PM EST
    Kos is actually that stupid.  All you have to do is spend some time at Daily Kos to figure that out.  

    Kos (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:30:24 PM EST
    loves him some low hanging fruit.  He often plays to the peanut gallery.  When I was a regular there, Kos' name on a FP post was a turn off for me.   Skipping a Kos post usually meant I didn't miss anything significant.

    I always felt he was a poll junkie (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:38:34 PM EST
    I like his posts on the polls and Dem chances far better than his opinion pieces.

    I wouldn't read if he wasn't (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:48:55 PM EST
    on the FP.  I like reading him then...until that dismissive post about Women's Studies, which I was teaching at the time. Boy was I *&%#@ mad.

    There was a thread yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Little Fish on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:06:34 PM EST
    at a message board that shall remain nameless titled

    "Why does Chelsea Clinton have a speaking role at the convention and not Charlie Rangel"

    I caved and clicked. Not one of my brighter moments.

    Chelsea is introducing her mother right? (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:07:57 PM EST
    I think a diary titled why don't Chelsea and Charlie BOTH have a speaking role would make.

    Yep, introducing. (5.00 / 8) (#21)
    by Little Fish on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:11:51 PM EST
    The CDSers (see Dick Morris) seem to think this is becoming the "Clinton convention". Apparently Barack has been relegated to a side role and he'll be lucky if the Clintons let him speak.

    I'm so glad I don't live in their world.


    What's darn funny is . . . (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:26:38 PM EST
    some of the orange crew thinks Chelsea should stump for Obama.

    They need to make up their freakin' minds.


    I missed that! (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:41:15 PM EST
    She "should" or she "should feel obligated to"?

    Would Chelsea be good?  Probably.   Is she obligated to stump for Obama?  Not in my universe!


    Whaaa? Chelsea should stump for Obama? (5.00 / 6) (#162)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:26:43 PM EST
    Omigod, he's going on vacation again?  And needs yet another Clinton woman to do even his job of trying to this job?

    This vacation was even worse on him in the polls than the uber-rally in Berlin on his "fact-finding" mission.


    Chelsea is only introducing her mom (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:09:54 PM EST
    I'm sure Hillary chose the person who would best do that job.  Chelsea is an amazing speaker.

    I've seen Chelsea speak (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Little Fish on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:13:35 PM EST
    She's awesome.  I have a video I'll post.

    The thread was basically about the supposed "takeover" of the convention by the Clintons. There's a lot of people there who are getting sick of the smearing though, that's good.  It's not as bad as it was during the primaries though, I'm still having night terrors over that.


    Several nights ago Colbert, who I have never (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by hairspray on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:23:40 PM EST
    seen do a negative skit on Hillary, tossed out a few jokes about Hillary wanting to have a roll call.  The audience didn't buy his jokes.  There was laughter, but a lot of negative response which caused him to raise his eyebrows.

    The natives are getting nervous (5.00 / 12) (#81)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:35:46 PM EST
    that there may very well be no putting together of the Humpty Dumpty Democratic party. As well they should be. One of the downsides of putting up an unknown quantity is your adversary can paint them any which way they want to and it isn't like Democrats have had practice fighting on controlling framing. Couple that with the fact that it appears the PUMA faction ain't got that problem and TEAM Obama may find themselves in trouble come November. It will be a trouble of his own making IMO. A real good leader would have put ego second and would have done alot of things that TEAM Obama has had to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing. Then there is some stuff he still hasn't done that I makes him look complicit in what has gone on in the DNC even if we can't trace the fingerprints directly to him..

    And the WORD (none / 0) (#154)
    by Little Fish on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:17:01 PM EST
    was catharsis. It was kind of flat too.

    PUMA (5.00 / 9) (#12)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:07:45 PM EST
    Thank you for characterizing my view of Obama as the most inept and totally the wrong material for the presidency as NUTS.  At least I know what's wrong with about 27 percent of those Hillary voters that see Obama as 100 percent unacceptable that we are willing to trust a man I never, in my wildest imagination, vote for.  McCain may be lots of things, but he is not Bush and he is not Obama, that's enough to get my vote.

    It's nuts to me (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:09:02 PM EST
    You're free to write that my views are nuts.

    I have no problem with that. Just don't start critiquing my moderation or comments in my threads.

    IF you think my post is nuts, go for it, say so.


    Agreed. I don't think you're nuts (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:13:58 PM EST
    for having supported Obama and not Hillary.  I find those who support Obama do not understand what it takes to be a leader, especially of the US, the most powerful nation in the world (militarily).  I had enough of mediocrity and do not understand anyone who would go for mediocrity, but it's not nuts.

    For my own part (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:16:57 PM EST
    I will, ahem, tepidly support mediocrity over McCain's platform. McCain is dangerous enough to vote against.

    Policies (5.00 / 11) (#54)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:26:18 PM EST
    Why do people believe what policies politicians write on the back of an envelope and run on?  For the life of me, I don't understand that.  It's rare a politician who will do 25 percent of the policies they embrace either because other politicians won't go along or they were lying.  McCain won't do any of the stuff he says he'll do.  Even war has to be paid by Congress.  If one looks as to how Bush messed up the economy and foreign policy, look no further than Congress (Republicans and Democrats).  I've said it before, I never thought Pelosi would write a FISA bill that gave everything to Bush.  That's how nuts I was when I believed in the Democrats.  Now I know they are two pigs eating from the same trough.

    The Supreme Court is reason enough for me (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:27:38 PM EST
    Others will have to make their own decisions.

    Won't a president McCain have to compromise? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Manuel on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:47:35 PM EST
    George Bush appointed Souter.  Bork was denied.  I don't think it is a given that the SC would be worse off under McCain  Of course progressives would have to organize and light a fire under the Dem Senate.

    Souter still makes me giggle (5.00 / 5) (#105)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:53:45 PM EST
    Silly GOP thought they had him in the bag. Ahhhh I love Souter.

    No, he won't (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:41:41 PM EST
    Remember when people thought Bush would surely have to compromise because the 2000 election was so close?  Did not work out that way.

    At this point (5.00 / 4) (#192)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:53:22 PM EST
    we can't even count on the Democrats to stop a conservative SC judge. They've become an alien nation all to themselves. I have no faith in them at all.

    Congress must approve all nominees (5.00 / 5) (#106)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:55:00 PM EST
    It's not just a president choosing whomever.  The Democrats have no spine, like the Republicans and that's why we have Justice Thomas.  Bill Clinton worked with the Republicans to get the best nominee they could approve.

    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:40:35 PM EST
    gave us Ruth Ginsberg.

    Ruth Ginsberg(sp) gave us that horrible eminent domain ruling of a year ago.

    Democratic SC judges do lousy things too.  


    Hey (none / 0) (#184)
    by taylormattd on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:28:29 PM EST
    How are you?

    Great (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:44:37 PM EST
    I'll send you an email. Off topic is strictly forbidden here!

    Carter was mediocre (none / 0) (#35)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:18:30 PM EST
    What did that do?

    Think long-term andgarden.


    Here's long term (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:24:01 PM EST
    John Paul Stevens is 88.

    So what? (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:33:03 PM EST
    Wahtever will be, will be.

    I'm done worrying about it.


    With Stevens on the court (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:52:12 PM EST
    they managed to make partial birth a done deal. When your candidate votes "present" on choice as a strategic choice don't be prepared to use Roe V. Wade as an excuse for me to vote him into office.

    The Supreme Court ship sailed when the Dems failed to garner enough powder to filibuster Roberts OR Alito. Lay it at their doorstep if Obama loses.


    Wrong tack (5.00 / 7) (#124)
    by angie on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:19:16 PM EST
    John Paul Stevens? If you hadn't noticed, the court already has the 5 votes it needs to (none of which belong to Stevens) to advance whatever conservative agenda it wants. The time to worry about the USSC was 2000 & the final nail in its coffin was 2004. Replacing Stevens with a "liberal" (or at best with Obama a "not that conservative") justice will merely maintain the status quo.
    Besides, Souter was appointed by GHWB. Lightening could strike twice.

    The Republican tide (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:25:59 PM EST
    swept Carter away....He gets blamed for stagflation, which was caused by high oil prices.....

    And, Carter's foreign policy was very good.....The hostages came home....

    Human rights meant something...

    A defeat today just means giving life to a moribund Republican party....


    Carter was a mediocre President (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:28:38 PM EST
    but still better than Reagan.

    Carter was not mediocre in my view (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:52:47 PM EST
    He was not in step with the American mentality.  It's the only time during my life in the US that a president did not get us into some kind of war.  Carter is a man of peace.

    Carter wasn't all that bad, but to hear the MCM (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by hairspray on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:59:30 PM EST
    tell, he was a disaster.  The general consensus is that he was mediocre at best.  If we had followed his direction on energy we wouldn't be in the fix we are in today.

    The MCM (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:38:32 PM EST
    invents the reality.

    Or McCain could be their acchilles heel (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:28:37 PM EST
    The guy who once and for all proves the GOP party can't lead and doesn't know how to put America on the right track and the push for the Democratic party to pull left for a course correction.

    I don't have a crystal ball and there are an awful lot of hypotheticals to think about when people make their choice come election time. I don't call any of them nuts because there are an infinite number of ways either choice could play out.


    Yeah, and in 1980 (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by nemo52 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:27:05 PM EST
    I voted for Anderson, the third party candidate. I felt very moral about it. And then we got Reagon.  So when I am tepid, oh so tepid, about our probable candidate this year -- I think about McCain and what 12, not 8 years of Republican rule can do, and I guess I'll hold my nose.

    do you mean (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by call me Ishmael on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:30:27 PM EST
    that his mediocrity gave us Reagan?

    Carter lost that election because so many of the Kennedy democrats sat on their hands and because Carter was a bad debater when he didn't have to debate Reagan.  

    And I would take Carter's mediocrity over Reagan or McCain any day.  Thinking long-term.


    Carter lost (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by Nadai on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:23:07 PM EST
    because the economy sucked and the Iranians had held our diplomats hostage for more than a year.  Carter could have debated like William Jennings Bryan and he'd have still lost.

    Alrightty (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:05:40 PM EST
    your post is nuts and way off in regards to PUMAs. That was kinda fun.

    I agree, but still undecided. Depends on VP! (none / 0) (#89)
    by hairspray on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:39:33 PM EST
    I'm not sure.... (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:10:51 PM EST
    what they want.  Maybe they just want to ride the CDS gravy train for as long as it lasts?  

    The media types are in a bind because they can't really let loose until the conventions are over and the campaigns really cut loose.  So it's back to the old CDS well until then.  

    It's really a pity Hillary got as many votes as she did because it's that many voters the so-called Democrats tick off every time they take one final whack at the Hillary pinata.  Brilliant strategy.

    Obama ALLOWED Hillary's name to be (5.00 / 17) (#20)
    by mogal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:11:23 PM EST
    placed into nomination for President at the Democratic Convention according to the MSM. That
    should be worth several more thosand women becoming PUMA members or "stay at home democrates" in 2008.

    Obama was forced (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:16:23 PM EST
    Hillary had enough support to bring her name into nomination.  It only takes 300 delegates to do that.  If I had 300 delegates to put my name for nomination, I too could force Obama to put my name for nomination.  It's the "emergency lever" to ensure that someone who has support can have his name in nomination.

    Yup, that's how the crew on Washington Week in (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by jawbone on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:24:35 PM EST
    Review put it. It was "gracious" of him to permit Hillary's name to be put into nomination. Heh.

    When one person said Hillary would be supportive, someone else commented that Hillary had to take action to get her name place in nomination, so she was not gracious!!!

    No one mentioned freakin' history, like it's what happens at the nominating convention, ya know? That contenders who have delegates get nominated?



    gee,and I thought it was reported (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:43:11 PM EST
    yesterday that it was actually Clinton who had been resisting having her name put in nomination and it was Obama that wanted it done for the sake of unity.

    So, which is it?  These reporters are supposed to be professionals, right?  Why don't they go get the accurate version of what happened and ALL report the same thing?  There are FACTS and then there are opinions.  How about reporting the FACTS.  Is that asking too much?


    I heard someone on POTUS 08 (5.00 / 5) (#185)
    by Anne on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:35:47 PM EST
    yesterday say that the Obama campaign wanted to make it crystal clear, and was insistent that it be reported, that it was Obama who pushed for the roll call, over the objections of Clinton.

    So, what you are hearing in the mainstream is a talking point the Obama campaign issued to the media, and which the media - in now typical fashion - just accepted as truth.

    And it's Obama, as usual, running to the head of the pack and pretending that he was the driving force for something there was no indication he was in favor of...until the roll call vote looked inevitable.


    Yeh? Then if it took Obama so long (5.00 / 3) (#195)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:00:47 PM EST
    to get this done, that's really bad news.  He can't run the party, much less the country?

    Does the Obama camp ever think through where some of these convolutions logically lead?  Jeesh.


    Ha. We've always "allowed" guys (5.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Cream City on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:24:42 PM EST
    to think that they're "letting" us do . . . whatever we d*mn well planned to do.

    Anyone know what the Republicans are doing? (none / 0) (#167)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:35:13 PM EST
    Are Romney's or Huckabee's names going to be placed in nomination?  Just curious.

    KOS is "post-Republican" (5.00 / 8) (#29)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:15:22 PM EST
    Republicans have a genetic hatred for all things Clinton.

    Same with Huffington.

    Same with Aravosis.

    At some level of their DNA, they're all Republicans when it comes to the Clintons.

    Methinks you nailed it good. (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by prittfumes on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:30:44 PM EST
    Aravosis explained his CDS (5.00 / 5) (#98)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:49:20 PM EST
    one day before I quit going there.

    Basically his problem with the Clintons was the same as that expressed by Chris Matthews.  The Clintons weren't NICE enough to them.

    They only met with the "bloggers" once before the primaries started.  then, no more communication.  In short, the bloggers didn't think the Clintons treated them with the respect they deserved.  They should have kept in touch, provided information, asked for advice, thanked them for positive coverage.

    I suppose it's OK for bloggers to act that way as they are not professional journalists.  But, for Chris Matthews to expect that kind of behavior before he feels compelled to provide unbiased professional coverage is kind of ridiculous.


    In other words (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:02:19 PM EST
    They don't bow and scrape to the DC punditry and the Washington elite. Heh, that's almost exactly why ALOT of people like them. Go figure.

    who controls whom (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:52:47 PM EST
    Brilliant. The "who controls" hypothesis may be somewhat central here. For example: Lets posit that sometimes a legislative branch and its powereful members seek (and then see) an opportunity to control or, at least, influence a new, untried executive branch head or a strong council system in a city sees an opening in directing a weak mayor system or a similar scenario with a new governor and strong legislative house. The point: Sometimes, collective as well as individual control can drive our decisions and support. Who thinks (it) can control whom?

    Alot of the anger is (5.00 / 4) (#148)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:02:28 PM EST
    about control. There is a fissure. DC Dems and the elite appear to have adopted the strategy of parroting the GOP on issues like gay marriage or women's choice(and IMO they even went so far as to pick their candidate on who they feel will make the least amount of waves with the electorate versus a candidate who actually has really poured her heart and soul into alot of liberal causes.) The base has been neglected while the Dem leadership has sought expansion. I guess they figured we'd wait forever to be thrown an occasional crumb. I'm tired of the left moving us right even when right is the wrong direction. We need a course correction.

    You know what I think is "nuts" and (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:16:27 PM EST
    "silly" people who think AIPAC controls our foreign policy, or people who are obsessed with a small time interest group like the DLC, or people who think running the federal government is way easier than brain surgery.  Everyone is nuts and silly depending on your perspective.

    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:18:58 PM EST
    Those people are nuts too.

    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:20:53 PM EST
    That's why I think you're are not nuts, because you are funny and people with humor are smart.  You are misguided about Obama.  Some day the light will go on, just like many Americans who voted for Bush now regret it.

    I think BTD sees Obama exactly as he is. (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Teresa on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:28:48 PM EST
    Ha. If he did he wouldn't vote for him. (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:06:00 PM EST
    Some people (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by Fabian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:13:13 PM EST
    don't have very high expectations.

    I still see the "better than McCain" arguments.  That's a heckuva low bar, but it's enough for some people.


    It's the ladder of low expectations (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by blogtopus on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:46:49 PM EST
    Vote for Obama because he's better than McCain.

    Who is McCain? He's better than Bush.

    Who is Bush? He's the worst president our country has ever had.

    Doesn't say much for McCain, but it says a lot less for 'Audacity of Hope' Obama doesn't it?


    echinopsia--related topic (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by christinep on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:58:08 PM EST
    Earlier, you mentioned the Emily's List reception in Denver. I'll be there--bright yellow silk top, short dark hair.  Sorry people to use this avenue--its sort of related since it will be a tribute involving Hillary Clinton in Denver on the suffrage anniversay, August 26th. (Actually, that would make it a celebration and tribute for all of us.)

    a fiction writer? (none / 0) (#99)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:49:51 PM EST
    But you just said Kos isn't nuts? (none / 0) (#40)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:20:29 PM EST
    Kos is tempestuous (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:27:50 PM EST
    not nuts.

    He's a jerk who is kinda a sexist. (5.00 / 8) (#72)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:31:49 PM EST
    But that's just my opinion.  Silly , nuts, who cares?

    Kos is (5.00 / 6) (#92)
    by chel2551 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:43:43 PM EST
    looking out for Kos.  He's no different than any politician.

    They have no credibilitiy either.


    Nah! (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Bluesage on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:43:24 PM EST
    He's Nuts in the same vein as Aravosis and Huffington.  You cannot recover from republicanism.

    Sullivan (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MKS on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:16:37 PM EST
    I do read him.....he can be amusing......

    He is apparently now saying good things about McCain....

    McCain is anti-Russian (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:19:23 PM EST
    I guess Sullivan, being a neocon is also rabid anti-Russian.

    Andrew Sullivan is a vicious, angry man, (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by hairspray on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:34:33 PM EST
    in my way of thinking.  I am surprised he hasn't beheaded Obama at this point.  Probably because he is too busy going after the Clintons.

    I thought he was in love (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:57:30 PM EST
    with Obama. Obsessively. Did that change? I don't read him anymore.

    This is why we are PUMAs (5.00 / 16) (#56)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:26:53 PM EST
    Because even showing the slightest modicum of respect to HRC (and WJC) is considered to be capitulation and, by default, somehow lessening the power of the One. Jack Cafferty, Suzanne Malveaux and several others at CNN have been getting apoplectic over the Clintons being shown any deference at the Convention -- as if Bill was just some guy who showed up on the campaign trail to cause trouble and Hillary only garnered 12 votes, coming in somewhere behind all the other (male) candidates.

    It's disgusting. Every Tom (Daschle), Dick (Durbin) and Harry (Reid) are being given their moment in the sun but the first woman candidate to be within grasping distance of the nomination (and NOT getting it thanks to Queen Nancy and Jesse Jr browbeating SDs into not supporting her!), and the only 2 term Democratic President in the past 60+ years who is still hugely popular? Nah, let's not let them even show their faces. They, like their horrible supporters, don't need to show up.

    Does anyone actually believe that anyone else is going to get the kind of ratings and attention at the convention besides Bill and Hillary? Please name me one other Democratic politician who can get the crowds going like either of them can. Except maybe...MAYBE Barack Obama himself. John Kerry? Bill Richardson? Jimmy Carter? Nancy Pelosi? Claire McCaskill?

    Nah, didn't think so!

    Michael Barone got it right (5.00 / 11) (#67)
    by catfish on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:30:27 PM EST
    I have to point out reporters/columnists who get it right. Because it's rare. Michael Barone in USNews:
    As for the two Clinton speeches, how could they avoid them? They have to let Hillary have her say, given how many delegates she has. And they can hardly ignore the only politically successful Democratic president of the last 40 years. That means there's a risk that the convention will not be an ideal television extravaganza for the Obama campaign. But that's the price they pay for not sweeping the primaries. Hillary Clinton won more popular votes and more delegates in the primaries than Barack Obama. Obama won the nomination because of the big delegate margins he won in caucuses and because superdelegates went along with him. Nothing is free in politics; there is some question about when you pay the price. Obama will pay the price of not sweeping the primaries in March and April on Tuesday and Wednesday nights. Then he'll have a chance to make up for that on Thursday.

    Obvious (5.00 / 11) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:34:47 PM EST
    I mena it is that obvious. Obama wanted to  put away the Clintons? Then he should have put away the CLintons - in Ohio or Texas or PA etc.

    Exactly (5.00 / 8) (#83)
    by janarchy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:38:32 PM EST
    This is reminding me of 2000 and 2004 when the Republicans, Bush in particular, were strutting around acting as if he'd won by a landslide and he hadn't. The same is true for Obama. Yes, he is the nominee, but only because he was carried over the finish line and even now, he's not exactly burying McCain in the national polls. He is in no position to lord his popularity over the Democratic party or the American population in general -- it's just not there. It's still the same d@mn hubris that he doesn't need the Democratic base, working class white people, women etc. You know, all the Clinton supporters.

    He may win in November, but I don't see it as a huge victory, and the more crap that's pulled, the less support he'll have other than his coaliton of "eggheads and African Americans" (Paul Begala's words, not mine)


    Part of Obama's character (5.00 / 12) (#112)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:59:57 PM EST
    is the view he has of himself.  He reminds me of Bush.  Obama has a big problem with his ego.

    The Dem's Bush (5.00 / 9) (#166)
    by lmv on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:32:42 PM EST
    that's what my spouse calls him.  

    The arrogance, the thin skin, the demand for absolute loyalty, the lack of humility, not being able to admit a mistake ...

    ... and being on vacation during a crisis.  


    Al Gore (none / 0) (#90)
    by Manuel on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:40:54 PM EST
    Is he on the speaker list?

    here's a big difference (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:38:34 PM EST
    PUMAs are not asking Clinton to remove herself from the party (although they would still support her if she did).

    The other people believe she is a democrat in name only and want her removed from the party.

    I think that's an interesting difference.

    All right Edgar (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:51:01 PM EST
    Here's the thing.

    Play by my rules here ok?

    Let's try one more time.


    if I see something I disagree with (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:19:22 PM EST
    At this point specifically regarding the war, hillary, accusations of race baiting, and bill's administration I'm going to continue to speak out.  (even ripping on barack everyday is starting to get old for me when I know it doesn't ring true, even though there are things he and his surrogates said and did I'll never get over), and, avoiding calling anyone here names, actually pretty forcefully.  Sometimes using the same kinds of rhetorical devices that are used by any blogger/pundit on any site.  Making the best case I can for the things I believe.  

    That's sort of what you can expect from me at this point.  Typically what happens is I get called obtuse for not getting things "everyone knows." But I'll persist.  Though I probably won't reply anymore to those replies to me.  If someone starts calling me names though the I expect them to be dealt with accordingly even though you might agree with them on point.    

    now.. If there's a specific rule of yours that I broke and does not impact my ability to speak out in the way I just described, then i apologize, let me know what it is and I'll make a point to take it to heart and abide.    


    Accountability (5.00 / 11) (#86)
    by Manuel on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:38:50 PM EST
    The PUMAs are not wrong to want to hold the DNC accountable for the very flawed process used in the primaries.  Obama and the DNC have shown no sign of recognizing the grievance or promising any reform.  In fact Obama has done the bare minimun to unify the party and address the complaints.

    Now, I think this election is bigger than the internal issues in the Democratic party and that the time of reckoning for the DNC can be deferred.  However, I am watching Obama's VP pick and fall campaign carefully.  Unlike many others, I don't think that a McCain victory is a priori worse for progresive causes than an Obama victory.  If Obama wants to be a Republican light, I'd rather have the real Republican (BTW He wil be better than Bush if only because of the Dem majority in congress).  The progressive tactics can be modified accordingly (i.e. concentrate on energy, go incremental on health care).

    My inner PUMA was born the moment in the primaries (5.00 / 18) (#102)
    by catfish on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:51:48 PM EST
    when it became CW that if Hillary were not nominated "it's not like middle aged white women are going to riot."

    At that moment, I immediately saw that if that thought process were condoned, it would be encouraged. And it would affect me directly in many areas of my life, for the rest of my life.

    Several times I was about to extinguish inner PUMA (5.00 / 10) (#107)
    by catfish on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:55:48 PM EST
    but days like today, and just seeing Obama drag out this floor vote for as long as he has, and that he didn't execute the no-brainer veep pick (Hillary), are like kibble.

    The only reason Obama will never pick (5.00 / 5) (#114)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:02:17 PM EST
    Hillary as his VP is that he doesn't want to have a powerful running mate.  I"m happy about that because even if Hillary were his running mate, I would not vote for Obama.

    It speaks to his own insecurity (5.00 / 6) (#123)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:13:53 PM EST
    and absence of concern for the country. Obama is not a leader.

    Clinton picked Gore because he honestly wanted to have someone who could keep up, get ahead, stand shoulder to shoulder, and it was the right choice for the country.

    he doesn't want to have a powerful running mate

    Bill scares the living daylights out of him ... (5.00 / 0) (#199)
    by bridget on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:09:57 PM EST
    no doubt in my mind about that

    and, of course, Hillary challenges him no end

    so he better pick ... well, I don't know, Kerry? ;-)

    C'est la vie avec M. Obama.


    Exactly. This is why I really don't like (5.00 / 21) (#116)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:04:47 PM EST
    BTD's highly disrespectful post about anyone not on board with Obama/DNC "unity" as "nuts" or "silly".  I think, yeah, some people go too far in claiming what the PUMA movement stands for as though any one person can define it.  But, I think a lot of people who never had a voice in politics and certainly not online, now do, and that's a good thing.  I'm under no illusions that PUMA's can stop Obama.  I don't care about stopping Obama.  But I know if there were no PUMA pushing the envelope, there would be no discussion of the sexism and misogyny on full display from people of all political persuasions in the course of the recent primary. I mean, I literally remember being afraid to voice my support of Hillary on daily kos in the beginning of the primary(once I had come to support her), or to call out sexism, or to say, hey, experience really matters to me, I want our next President to have a lot of experience with the federal government because I think running the federal government is a hella lot harder than brain surgery.  Now I say whatever the hell I feel.  It's empowering not to just say, oh well, let's get in line, let's pretend "unity" means just following a Party who didn't stick up for women through out the primary, who dismissed my values, who allowed two people who I identify with to be smeared as racist.  So if some PUMA's go too far, well, they are still giving a platform to people who have some very real concerns about what happened here.

    PUMAs are silly (5.00 / 17) (#120)
    by echinopsia on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:12:54 PM EST
    only to the extent that they expect the Democratic Party to live up to its ideals.

    Refusing to support a candidate who knowingly benefits from sexism, calls anyone who criticizes him racist, votes for FISA, wants to expand faith-based programs, wants to rescind the mental health exception for late term abortions, wants to purge the party of Clintons, the white working class, Latinos, seniors, and gays, etc. ect., is far from silly.

    It is called taking a principled stand for the Democratic Party we all thought we belonged to for the right reasons.


    When Obama said he was sure Hillary's voters would (5.00 / 11) (#171)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:39:41 PM EST
    vote for him, but not sure his voters would vote for her, many PUMAs were born.  Stupid, stupid, thing to say.

    Wow! (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by tek on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:45:13 PM EST
    Middle aged white women rioting, I like that!

    In this thread, can I identify myself as a PUMA??? (5.00 / 8) (#127)
    by RonK Seattle on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:28:29 PM EST
    Let's find out.

    ¡Si, soy PUMA!

    Another PUMA (5.00 / 13) (#136)
    by honora on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:45:18 PM EST
    I miss coming here and gabbing, but I don't feel at home here anymore. I have always been a Democrat, one of those people whose parents, grandparents and whole ethnic family were Democrats. I always felt 'better' than Republicans because we were the good guys.  We were for voting rights, GLT rights, AA rights, unions, women, and the environment.  I really feel like the people who were so mad when 'New Coke' came out.  They started yelling what was wrong with old coke?? The DNC decided that we 'needed'  "New DNC". The voters had nothing to do with it. We liked old DNC when the people decide by voting who the nominee was.  So maybe we are crazy, I don't care.  Crazy people have done incredible things.  I will walk out of the voting booth, after voting for my first Republican in 50 years, and feel like I have spoken truth to power.  If the DNC ('power') is too stupid to know or care that is their problem and not mine.  I will be a patriot in November, I hope that those of you who chose to hold your nose and vote for Obama, feel the same way. PUMA

    Great post! (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by tek on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:47:33 PM EST
    This is just a really great post.

    What is the point of mocking (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by lilburro on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:57:51 PM EST

    Maybe it's just juvenile media/blogging behavior.  I can't recall any Dem politican being this shortsightedly mean about a bloc of people who have voted Dem before.

    The Democratic Convention (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by tek on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:23:10 PM EST
    will be a zoo this year.

    PUMA's Rule!

    Andrew Bacevich on Moyers' Journal tonight said (5.00 / 2) (#165)
    by jawbone on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:30:57 PM EST
    there would be no real change whether Obama or McSame wins, that only people interested in the power of the imperial presidency run for president now, and they are surrounded by advisers and supporters who want to get a piece of that power.

    Bacevich said both Dems and Repubs see the role of the president as using that power, especially of the military, in extending US reach.

    It was a truly depressing interview, but Bacevich said things which have been voiced over and over here.

    Strongly recommend you make sure to watch on the repeat or watch on the Web. Do not miss this program.

    Bacevish has particularly unkind words for the MCM (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by jawbone on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:39:08 PM EST
    He sees the Villagers part of the MCM in particular as using the power of the press and media to ensure their access to power and to fluff the powerful. He is stunned at the words expended on the two contenders, and the dearth of coverage of US Senate contests.

    He hopes issues will be covered, but his main contention is that the public is not hearing from leaders or the press what the real issues are: Our impoverishing the nation to import "things" to consume and not producing all that much that the rest of the world wants to buy from us; the feeling, encouraged by those in power, that all the problems in this nation somehow are the fault of those "out there," beyond our borders, and that the military might of the imperial president's imperial army will "fix" things--which is not working.

    Oh, and loss of our freedoms for some false "security" which isn't really protecting us.


    There is a large segment of the old (5.00 / 8) (#172)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:41:21 PM EST
    democratic party that has seen that and says over and over it is a toss-up which candidate would be the continuation of Bush.

    The change that has the PUMAs so disturbed and speaking out is that the democratic candidate would be so far removed from the party values that have existed for decades.


    CDSers are going to be unpleasantly (5.00 / 7) (#178)
    by TimNCGuy on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:47:12 PM EST
    surprised when the object of their hate, Hillary, comes out of this election cycle more powerful and more respected and more popular than she entered it.

    " I happen to think the PUMA ... (5.00 / 5) (#182)
    by Cal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:17:36 PM EST
    ...movement is nuts."

    Yeah?  Well, you're a poopie head, too.  

    Nannie nannie boo boo.

    Right... (5.00 / 3) (#188)
    by Addison on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:41:16 PM EST
    ...though calling them "anti-PUMAs" is misleading.

    I think the worst was (natch) Dick Morris saying that the Clintons tricked Obama into holding their convention.

    Bill is the last Democratic president.

    Hillary nearly won.

    Given their place in the party, should they not have the convention roles they have?

    Dick Morris is so obvious (5.00 / 5) (#191)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:53:08 PM EST
    with his personal hatred of the Clintons that nothing he says has an ounce of credibility.

    Why do we even care what Kos has to say ... (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by bridget on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:56:56 PM EST
    You couldn't pay me enough to read his stuff.

    DailyKos majored in Clinton hating and probably still does now.

    After making such a complete fool of himself blogging such incredible nonsense along with his fawning dkos fans in the last twoplus years and the primaries in particular (incl. on TV and paper) .... the last thing I am going to get myself worked up over are the PUMAS.

    P.S. Who is the smartest blogger on the net? (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by bridget on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:02:22 PM EST
    Let me know when he/she decides to write a mocking post about Kos.

    Easy project IMO.  


    Yea, wanting ALL the votes counted makes me nuts (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by zridling on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 04:06:33 AM EST
    ... or a true democrat. BTD, the majority of Americans think your type is nuts for supporting a constitutionally unqualified candidate for prez. Thanks to wackos like you, I'll be voting for McCain and republican for the FIRST time in my 47 years in Missouri. Obama will not win this state, I promise you.

    I'm far from nuts (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 09:07:31 AM EST
    and I identify with the PUMA movement.  If anybody wants people to get over it then they have to let the people be heard on the playing field even if they don't like what is being said.  You BTD have been very good at letting all the people be heard in the forums you provide and oddly enough it enables you to run a pretty civilized show in comparison to what the DNC, Obama and his supporters have purchased for the forum of the convention. That is the problem with telling the people to sit down and shut up, it gets you some sort of PUMA every single time.

    What's nuts about ... (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Caro on Sat Aug 16, 2008 at 11:14:08 AM EST
    ... using the only leverage we have, our votes and our donations, to fight against a stolen primary?

    Carolyn Kay

    Hardly crumbling (4.95 / 20) (#180)
    by chopper on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:57:31 PM EST
    The PUMAs, the Denver Group, and other like-minded people for preserving democracy are hardly crumbling.  They got Hillary on the ballot, didn't they.

    And, Obama and the DNC were dead set against it.

    These people are pro-America and pro-democracy.  The only things they are against are thugs stealing caucus delegates, fraud, theft, threats, force, inequality, imperialism, fascism, hypocrisy, hate, lies, and the like.

    The others - KOS, Sullivan, etc. -  are simply hateful people.  There is no good reason to hate the people who gave us The Greatest Economic Expansion in History and 8 years of Peace and  Prosperity.

    You deserve so much higher than a '5' (5.00 / 2) (#187)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:40:29 PM EST
    for this!!

    Excellent comment. You're my newest hero.


    I don't understand people who would make (2.00 / 1) (#156)
    by WillBFair on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:20:06 PM EST
    it possible for McCain to win. The Naderites put Bush in office, and look at the horrific damage he's done. I think they lived in a self righteous dream world and didn't care how many people could be destroyed by their actions.
    The repubs are greedy and heartless. The far left are self righteous and heartless. Now the pumas seem to be angry and heartless.
    But it's the heartlessness that gets me; I can't stand people like that.

    Project much? I'm not heartless. (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:23:16 PM EST
    I'm not voting for McCain.  

    Hillary or McCain (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by chopper on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 10:09:55 PM EST

    If Hillary is not on the ticket I'm voting for McCain.

    I prefer 4 years with the War Hero to 4 years with a trainee who dissed Clinton's Greatest Economic Expansion in History.

    I'm not worried about McCain at all because he will have a Democratic Congress controlling him.

    If Hillary is not on the ticket it just shows more bad judgement coming from an inexperienced fool.


    You don't need to understand them (5.00 / 5) (#169)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:37:59 PM EST
    to respect their rights.

    If they keep the country from having to untangle a corrupt democratic party in the years ahead, you may want to thank them, though.


    If McCain wins (5.00 / 10) (#203)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 11:35:46 PM EST
    It will be the DNC, Florida and Michigan and the false racism charge that put him there. It its not the fault of people who have decided that Obama isn't ready for the job. Nominate someone stronger if you want to win

    Indeed (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 06:55:12 PM EST
    I think it's interesting that CDSers and the PUMAs insist that Hillary either will or must do exactly the same thing at the convention.

    I could care a less about Party "unity", (5.00 / 7) (#7)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:03:46 PM EST
    but I don't insist Hillary do anything at all at the convention.  I have zero conditions for her at the convention.

    Part of the problem with people who are just anti-PUMA is they have no idea what the hell it means.  There is NO organization controlling people who don't give a rat's ass about Party "unity".  People can call themselves PUMA any espouse what ever the heck they want.  It's deliberately disorganized.  Hey, I'd happily sign up for unity if it meant I could vote for Hillary, even as VP, which was what the whole "unity" theme meant back when Hillary trotted it out, a joint ticket.  


    Perhaps it is better not to talk about PUMA, (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:14:25 PM EST
    but I can also only speak from my own experience, and I have read more than one demand for a floor fight.

    So? That's one opinion and I don't think (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:19:24 PM EST
    I've seen anyone demand Hillary do that or else..or else what?  I have no idea, but I haven't seen not one person say if Hillary doesn't produce a floor fight they'll disown her or something.

    I'm not going to fight with you (1.00 / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:25:13 PM EST
    on the meaning of "demand" or "insist."

    Good day.


    Well, god day to you too... (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:30:07 PM EST
    but there is no insisting or demanding Hillary do anything from anyone I've read.

    I SAID GOOD DAY!!! . . (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:32:39 PM EST
    Heh. just could not resist, even though I did not sya good day, Hell, it's night already.

    Are you channeling Willy Wonka? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by blogtopus on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 08:41:03 PM EST
    I just watched that movie today and that last scene never fails to make me feel sad and ashamed of myself for drinking the fizzy soda and making the ceiling dirty.

    I thought it was 'Tootsie" (none / 0) (#176)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 09:44:22 PM EST
    That's what I always remember it from.

    Now don't you good day me (none / 0) (#87)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:39:02 PM EST
    in all caps...heh.

    I think there should be a floor fight. (5.00 / 7) (#53)
    by cawaltz on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:26:16 PM EST
    I've thought so from the get go but I don't think I have the right to demand that Hillary be the one to push for it. I think if the DNC truly thinks they have the right guy for the job then they certainly shouldn't fear it. Then again, that'd destroy all that political kabuki we've all come to know and love. Besides it wouldn't be "gracious" and it might giving Nancy the vapors because she's all fired into graciousness(even if it means allowing the President to behave as he wishes and lie to the electorate through his teeth).

    You are knowledgeable (none / 0) (#61)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:28:31 PM EST
    "Lame" - that is such an (none / 0) (#16)
    by Xanthe on Fri Aug 15, 2008 at 07:09:08 PM EST
    adolescent word - even if it does have a "particularly" in front of it.  Come to think of it, it fits Mo.