Clinton Calls For Unity

Ben Smith reports about Hillary's remarks to the New York delegation:

"I'm Hillary Clinton and I do not approve that message," Clinton tells the New York delegation of McCain's ad that features her old criticism of Obama.

Here is Hillary's message:

Clinton says Democrats are gathered in Denver for a "clear and specific purpose and that is to elect Barack Obama President of the United States [. . .] Now I ask each and every one of you to work as hard for Obama as you worked for me," she said.

By Big Tent Democrat

< Most Clinton Delegates Enthused About Obama | Time to Get on Board >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It's not about Hillary (5.00 / 10) (#1)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:34:30 AM EST
    Democrats don't fall in line.

    No one said it was about Hill (5.00 / 6) (#11)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:42:11 AM EST
    That doesn't change the fact she is correct on this issue. Its not a question of falling in line. If you are a Democrat you presumably share Hillary's values. McCain does not. Not doing our part as Democrats to stop McCain is not living up to our Democratic values.

    Hillary is absolutely right in her call for unity.


    If (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:46:54 AM EST
    Obama espoused those values I would vote for him. He has not so far. Railing against regulation sounds more like George W. Bush than a Dem.

    Not the right question (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:52:39 AM EST
    The correct question is, given the choices, which is closer to Hillary's values and which one is more dangerous to our country? Which one is more likely to get involved in more wars. Which one is less likely to do something about health care or energy?

    These are the right question IMO.


    Who is (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:00:02 PM EST
    more dangerous? I don't know. Is it someone with bad ideas or someone who thinks it's "above his paygrade"? Both sound pretty scary to me.

    More wars? Both of them want more wars just in different countries. McCain wants to go into Iraq and Obama wants to go into Pakistan. I think Obama is actually more likely to get us involved in more wars because he's afraid of appearing weak just like his backers and supporters have acted all during the Iraq debacle.

    Obama is doing nothing about healthcare and neither is McCain. Kerry already said, speaking for the Obama campaign, that healthcare is off the table. He voted for Bush's energy policy so McCain has a leg up on Obama over that one.


    How did I miss the fact that Obama is a secret (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:02:12 PM EST
    Republican and how did Hillary get fooled?

    Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:04:30 PM EST
    is a loyal democrat. It's not her responsibility to push Obama over the line. He's the one that is going to have to convince the voters. There are voters that would vote for a ham sandwich with a D besides it's name. And that is their right. My problem is that I see Obama as another Carter and we'll be WORSE off in 4 years if Obama wins.

    Jimmy Carter's policies (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:27:30 PM EST
    by and large were correct. Particularly on energy. The failure wasn't JC's polices, it was the failure to support JC strongly enough in 1980 and allowing Reagan to win in a landslide and claim a sweeping mandate to turn the country to the right.

    Its just my opinion, but you learned the wrong lesson from 1980.


    I don't agree (5.00 / 5) (#103)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:36:12 PM EST
    Carter's policies were correct but he was still an ineffective leader who failed, for whatever reason, to retain the confidence of the country.

    Blaming the voters for not supporting him enough is pointing the finger in exactly the wrong direction IMO.  Democrats can change their policies, they can change their style of governance, but they can't change the electorate.


    You missed my point by a country mile. (none / 0) (#154)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:43:46 PM EST
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:57:31 PM EST
    Sure seemed to me like you said the failure was that voters didn't support Carter strongly enough and allowed him to lose.

    Not at all. (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:33:36 PM EST
    Read more carefully.

    I don't think there was any realistic way for Carter to have won that election. But if it had been close loss, would Reagan have been able to claim a sweeping mandate for conservative change? Would so many Democrats have lost their seats, if more Democrats turned out? Ok, they didn't like Carter. Where were they in the senate elections that year? My point was staying home and 3rd party votes were not good choices that election for committed Democrats.

    Carter takes his lumps as far as I am concerned on the issue of inspiration of followers. But if you are a committed Democrat, how committed are you when you don't turn out for the down ballots? Carter was not a liberal Democrat and not my first choice.

    However, as long as you bring it up, why shouldn't voters be as accountable as the leaders they elect? In the end, was supply side economics good or bad? I would think bad. Was ending Carter's energy program good or bad? I would think in light of recent events bad. Were the massive public debts Reagan left us with good or bad? Reagan did more or less what he promised to do. If we think these things are bad, should we blame Reagan or the people who didn't listen to what he said he was going to do? I think the leaders and voters both share blame for the result of their actions.

    I confess to being a bad Democrat in 1980. I bare the blame as much as any other voter for that election. However,  I only have to touch a hot stove once to figure out it is hot. In February I decided that I would support either Hillary or Barack in this election. I don't care who shot Jon. The die is cast. I make my choice coldly without emotion. Which one is closer to me? Its not McCain. Will voting for Nader help or hurt? Is hurting (prolonging the hurt)  more "blue collar" Americans by voting for someone with economic polices that will inflict pain a good way to punish Democrats for not selecting my favored candidate?  


    A 527-vote margin giving BushW Florida in Yr2000 (none / 0) (#186)
    by andrys on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:13:59 PM EST
    resulted in W saying he had a "mandate"... and he acted accordingly.

    I'm likely older than even you :-) and have lived through a lot of this but, for me, the DNC itself acted in the most callously corrupt way (and proud of it, especially Brazile and more subtly Pelosi) and unless Obama turns us around by being suitably human with Clinton and her supporters instead of being angry Hillary doesn't just force us to vote for him, I cannot reward DNC-BP by encouraging it to go that way forever, as it would.  Some of us need a party that did not openly cheat and make our votes meaningless.

     The full 'voting' powers given to Florida and Michigan today means Hillary's certified state voting totals are neither mythical and dependent on full recognition of FLA and Mich (because they're fully recognized).  No need to expand on that here.  We know what went on here.  All people ask is actual respect for Hillary and to stop the pounding of her as being responsible for people not wanting to vote for him.
      It's not her.  She can pay me (today) to vote for him and (today) I wouldn't.  He still has a chance (I gave suggestions in this thread) but he doesn't seem the type to do the right thing, so far.


    Well (none / 0) (#189)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:54:05 PM EST
    It was a realignment election.  Lots of former Democrats decided that the Republican Party better reflected their values.  That's just the way it goes.

    You can assign blame to the voters if you like, but I don't see what it accomplishes.  What are you going to do, throw out this electorate and get a better one?  The people are who they are.


    No (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:41:39 PM EST
    Carter proved himself to be an inept president much like Bush. I see the same ineptness coming from Obama. The reason Carter lost was the same people who are now pushing Obama---Kennedy et al.

    Carter lost the election because he failed to have a successful presidency. He really was in over his head. I've seen inexperienced candidates become presidents twice-carter and bush--and both time they failed. And failed massively.

    Carters coalition largely consisted of the same ones that support Obama--single issue anti war voters and African Americans. Carter lost because he couldn't get the votes of blue collar dems--much the same problem Obama has this election. Obama's campaign has been run before--in 1972, 1980, 1984 and 1988. He harks back to many years of losses.


    You can make an intelligent argument (none / 0) (#158)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:53:36 PM EST
    that Carter lost due to Kennedy, but you cannot make an intelligent argument that Carter lost because of people like Kennedy pushing Carter, at least not in view of the actual historical facts.

    It is true Carter had a coalition of AA voters and white moderates and it is also true that many blue collar Democrats deserted Carter in 1980.The anti-war liberals went to Anderson.  

    Interesting. Obama is too conservative (not a true progressive) and too liberal at the same time.  


    Iranian hostage crisis? (none / 0) (#153)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:43:09 PM EST
    How would President Obama react in a similar situation?  

    A better question- How would McCain? (none / 0) (#159)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:55:47 PM EST
    How would McCain handle the Cuban missile crises?

    There is a reason GOP senators like Thad Cochran worry about him "having his hand on the button".


    Worse than carter.... (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:00:28 PM EST
    ...carter had an essential humanity and humility that Obama does not appear to possess.  Instead of humility, Obama projects arrogance and hubris.

    What makes Obama a risk for this nation is not his lack of experience, but that inexperience combined with hubris and petulance/willfulness.  


    Political suicide (none / 0) (#137)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:00:56 PM EST
    is that another way of saying that most of the Democratic Party is Republican Lite, with Hill (of course), as one of the lone exceptions to the rule?

    When was the last time we were given a legitimate choice?


    Republcian lite? (none / 0) (#160)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:56:58 PM EST
    better tell GA6thdem, he thinks Obama is far out lefty wacko!

    Did you see Obama's (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:02:37 PM EST
    Harry & Louise ads?  Do you know how Obama voted on the Cheney energy bill?

    If your questions are the right questions, than that is definitely trouble for Obama.


    Pardon me, but (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by echinopsia on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:27:12 PM EST
    I will decide what the right question is for myself, thank you very much.

    As for these questions:

    which is closer to Hillary's values

    and which one is more dangerous to our country?

    A lot of people are hoping the answer is Obama to the first and McCain to the second. And the ones who are hoping are going on faith alone, IMO.

    My politics are not faith-based.


    I am a liberal and I have liberal values. (5.00 / 10) (#28)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:50:36 AM EST
    The current Democratic party has no values.

    If you want me to vote for the Democratic nominee, nominate a Democrat who is qualified and shares my values.


    Do your values allow you to stand idly by (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:56:17 AM EST
    and watch a right winger like McCain get into office without even casting a vote in a way most likely to stop him.

    As a leftist, I can't stand idly by and won't. Been there, done that, and I can tell you, 28 years is a long time to regret not doing my part when I could.  


    My values are to want to push (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:58:51 AM EST
    this country to the left over the long term, and I do not think voting for Obama will achieve those values.  Not given what he has said, done, and promised to do thus far.

    So standing idly by and doing nothing to (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:01:04 PM EST
    stop McCain from becoming president will push the country to the left? I don't understand your logic here.

    Obama is not a Dem (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:03:37 PM EST
    He loses, the party rebuilds in the image progressives want. Goodbye Dean, Brazille, etc.

    Or spends another 20 years in the wilderness. (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:14:27 PM EST
    I've been there and done that. It didn't work out as I hoped. I can only share my experience with you, you will have to make up your own mind. But I respectfully suggest in the long term if McCain wins, there is no guarantee the party will rebuild in the image you envision and the odds of a "new progressive party" is slim. The last minor league party to become a national player was... the GOP in 1860. Not exactly good odds for a repeat by some new hypothetical  progressive party.

    I don't recognize the party any longer (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:16:01 PM EST
    If it doesn't rebuild, it will die.

    Politiical evolution (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:29:45 PM EST
    Adapt or die.

    Right now it looks like the Democrats are competing harder for corporate sponsorship than they are for voters.  Corporations are easier to please because their interests are more uniform than the messy diversity of flesh and blood voters.


    Molly, why won't you respond on the (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:24:20 PM EST
    issues?  You brought up health care and energy policy above.  I pointed out that Obama is against health care reform (his Harry & Louise ads were the nail in the coffin for any chance of meaningful healthcare reform, and Obama voted for the Cheney energy bill).

    Seems like Obama would cast us into the wilderness too.  The problem is that Obama will take the Democratic party with him, and thus there will be no large national party that will stand for left wing values anymore.  I can't support that.


    There is only 1 issue now (4.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:02:35 PM EST
    You have two choices. You can vote for Obama or McCain.

    One of them is closer on the issues to me than the other. That one is far from perfect (neither was Hillary- I didn't see her come out for single payer a la DK).

    The so called 3rd choice - 3rd party or stay at home - is a variation on the McCain choice as a practical matter.

    Some times it really is that simple


    I respectfully suggest... (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by kredwyn on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:11:59 PM EST
    that votes are earned by the candidate.

    They should not automatically come to him simply because he may be the lesser of two evils. Indeed, he has yet to prove that he will be the lesser of two evils.

    And I respectfully suggest that instead of telling folks that the Dems will continue to be stuck in a wilderness--frankly, of their own making--it behooves those elected Democratics to get off their respective ar$es and do something about the fact that they have consistently volunteered to play Charlie Brown to the GOP's Lucy with the football.

    I also respectfully suggest that using fear tactics to pull Dems back into the fold has both short and long term drawbacks.


    No...if we don't win this election... (none / 0) (#179)
    by Aqua Blue on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:45:20 PM EST
    liberals are toast.   The powers that be will have almost total control of the country.

    As Hillary said this morning, this election is too important to wait.

    I trust Hillary and believe what she is telling us.


    Quite possibly (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:05:00 PM EST
    Bush and the prior Congress managed to get the Democrats control of Congress in 2006. We gained six seats in the Senate.

    Of course this would require the Democrats to act like an opposition party for the strategy to work.  


    There are leftier candidates (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:26:22 PM EST
    than Obama.

    I can apply leverage by voting third party.  If it will pry the DNC's collective heads out the sand, it will be worth it.


    You're not trying to understand (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:12:28 PM EST
    An Obama presidency will push the middle even further right, because he will be perceived as being "left".  

    Think of GOP policies as a 1 and progressive policies as a 10.

    Obama will propose policies that are a 6, and will accept laws that Congresses Blue Dogs and GOP will turn into a 5.

    McCain will propose polities that are a 3, and Democratic resistance will result in laws that wind up being 5s.

    So its going to be pretty much of a wash in terms of my values over the next four years -- and given this nations problems, whoever runs the white house is going to be in trouble in 2012.  

    So the long term "progressive values" strategy is to ensure a Democratic party win in 2012.

    And on a key issue like health care, Obama will be a disaster -- much as Clinton's willingness to compromise on welfare reform prevented much more draconian reforms from being implemented (welfare reform was "done"), Obama could get health care reform "done" in a way that makes further necessary changes impossible to achieve for another decade.


    You really think that after 8 (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by litigatormom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:06:51 PM EST
    years of Bush, 4 years of McCain will enable liberals to push the country further to the left? I would have much rather had Clinton as the nominee, but I don't think this country can survive another 4 years, let alone 8, with a Republican president, especially one whose view of foreign policy and military force does not seem to have evolved beyond "the mistake we made in Vietnam was leaving too soon."

    Not to mention his tax policies.


    I do not see a (5.00 / 10) (#75)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:13:14 PM EST
    significant amount of difference and I do not trust Obama to enact liberal reform. I just as soon the Democrats not be in charge when the proverbial poo hits the fan(particularly when I see how ineptly his campaign has been handling the campaign).

    There you have the crux of it. I don't trust a guy who backtracked on FISA, signed energy policy that benefitted his big donors and is willing to throw just about everybody under the bus. Go figure. When I look at the alternative I'd rather be betrayed by the other guy than my own party (again).


    Push it (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:17:30 PM EST
    to the left? No but neither will Obama. Obama has shown way too much willingness to cave to the GOP. And in the end, I think he'll enable the GOP to come back stronger and they can blame "losing the war" on him.

    Why can't WE push the country to the left (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by litigatormom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:48:57 PM EST
    with Obama in the White House, if you think that we could do so with McCain in the White House?  I do not want McCain appointing a Supreme Court justice, or even lower court federal judges.  I do not want him appointing another bend-over Attorney General, another Secretary of Defense, another bunch of toady yes-men who will tell him what he wants to hear.

    Obama is not perfect.  Far from it. But whatever he is, he's better than McCain. The "betrayal" you speak of may hurt, but it won't hurt as much as McCain's continuing betrayal of his erstwhile reputation for "straight talk" and "independence" in favor of sticking his tongue firmly up the extreme right wing's ass.


    Have you (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:59:04 PM EST
    paid attention to what Obama has been doing these past 3 months? It's obvious that he's way more concerned about what the GOP might say about him than pushing any sort of "progressive" agenda.

    Obama's legal advisor is Cass Sunstein who thinks Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and agrees with the FISA legislation. That tells me a lot about him and judges. I think that Obama might well appoint evangelicals all over government just like Bush. After all, he seems absolutely wild about trying to get them to vote for him.

    And I think Obama is surrounded by toady yes men too. He seems kind of clueless about what to do to get Dems on board with his campaign doesn't he?

    Obama has continually caved into the GOP. He might stick his head up their butt as much as McCain. He's not saying that the GOP is made of bad ideas. He's said he thinks reagan was "transformational". How is that much different from McCain?

    I really don't think that Obama has any core beliefs so I don't think you can really argue that he'd be better than McCain.

    In the end, it won't matter what I do because McClatchy came out with a poll this week that had Obama losing GA by 25 points. If I were the Dem leadership, I would make him quit wasting money down here.


    It looks like we won't convince (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by litigatormom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:08:14 PM EST
    each other.  I fear McCain more than I am disappointed in Obama. It comes down to that for me. I fear McCain economically, diplomatically, militarily.  If Obama is merely ineffectual, he still will be way, way, way better than McCain, IMO. However much Obama has moved to the center, McCain is moving extreme right every minute.  

    I was originally inclined to become a PUMA. I was that angry at both the DNC and Obama.  I live in NY, so there is little danger of my vote making a difference in the Electoral College tally. But in the end, I decided that I couldn't sit the election out.  My 18 year old daughter is going to vote for the first time this year.  She is very excited, following the election closely.  I've always told her that the right to vote is a sacred thing, and should be exercised when we have the opportunity.

    Your view of the sanctity of the vote may lead you to a different conclusion, and in the end I respect that. But I respectfully disagree with the view that a McCain presidency is something the country can endure, or an opportunity to fix the Democratic Party.  As always, YMMV.


    It goes both ways (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:19:33 PM EST
    From one who has spent 2 1/2 years in a war zone, I can tell you that Obama scares me beyond words. Everyone has their deal breaker. Mine is a reckless, uneducated, inexperienced CiC

    Yet.... (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by EddieInCA on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:14:35 PM EST
    ...Troops deployed overseas are donating money to Obama over McCain at a 6-1 ratio.  Obviously, those war-zone troop members disagree with you.



    I'm (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:30:32 PM EST
    not sitting this one out. There's a good candidate for Senate. Hopefully, Obama won't damage the downticket races too much. I'm not hopeful though. Once the 527's start, the candidates are going to have to disown him to win.

    I've done what you are doing for years. Not this year though. Unless Obama can somehow convince me he's up to the job of President, I'm leaving it blank. My husband, who voted for Kerry in 2004, is voting for Bob Barr this year. I don't know too many people who are voting for Obama. Even the Kerry voters seem to be abandoning him.


    Very eloquently put (none / 0) (#136)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:00:25 PM EST
    I completely respect your opinion even if I came to a different conclusion. No matter who wins in November, I think there will be much work to do to keep focus on issues important to us. I hope we will all continue talking post-election about how to keep the President and Congress focussed on moving the country in a good direction.

    because... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:23:09 PM EST
    We won't be able to accomplish anything in terms of 'pushing to the left' because Obama and the DNC will feel vindicated that they've won by pursuing GOP-lite policies.

    Ever hear "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?"  Well that's how party pros feel...

    Only if Obama loses will there be any effort to "fix" things, because the people who have engineered his nomination will be vindicated if he wins, and discredited only if he loses.


    Gasp! You DIDN'T vote for Jimmy (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:22:55 PM EST
    Carter's second term????!!!!    

    I VOTED FOR CARTER IN 1980!!!  

    Obviously, I am a real true blue Democrat -- which is why I don't want to see the party destroyed from the inside.  


    That's not the only choice. (none / 0) (#187)
    by Bluesage on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:22:22 PM EST
    I don't think anyone who refuses to compromise their Democratic values and principles by not voting for Obama will be standing idly by.  As a 40 year Democrat I will be working my tail off for a larger majority in Congress and for restoring my Party to the values and principles it once held before this corrupt bunch took over.  Obama is unqualified for the job he is seeking and Biden is of no help there.  

    I have watched and listened to Obama from the beginning and if you can enlighten me as to what this man stands for, please do.  If you can convince me that he would be less dangerous than McCain, please do.


    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:52:51 AM EST
    It isn't about falling in line, or "party unity".

    At the end of the day, what voters hopefully do is compare the candidates, and vote for the one that comes closest to what they stand for and/or who will do the best job.

    I understand the grievances of some Clinton voters (I was a Clinton supporter): it is not easy to take when your candidate is treated unfairly (and often in a sexist way) by the media. And then she, and her successful former president husband, are accused of racism. To top it all off, you then get told to immediately get over it and support the other guy.

    That sucks, and the Obama campaign, and mostly his supporters, have absolutely done the wrong thing. He hasn't done nearly enough to convince Clinton voters, and some of his supporters have acted arrogantly towards Clinton supporters.

    This all sucks, and I understand why that does not make people vote for Obama.

    But, at the end of the day, it's about a choice between two candidates (I wish there were more viable ones, but there we are). One will more closely match what you want. You may not find it a good choice, but it still will be the better choice.

    It's not about falling in line. It's not about unity. It's not about Democrats. It's about picking the better candidate (or worst of two evils, if you wish).

    All I can hope for is that people make that consideration. I understand if they can't or won't, but I hope they will.


    And Just WTF Does He Stand For? (5.00 / 4) (#88)
    by creeper on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:23:50 PM EST
    Americans' right to privacy?  See FISA.  Health care for all?  Abandoned.  No more war?  Check out his statements on Pakistan.  Unity?  Look under the bus.



    I'm not claiming that he is a good candidate. (none / 0) (#101)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:34:37 PM EST
    All I hope is that you'll compare him to McCain and will come to the conclusion that he's better than McCain. I say this without any enthusiasm for Obama. But if you dislike what Obama did on all the issues you mention, chances are that you'll hate what McCain did.

    If you're not willing to vote on the basis of one candidate being closer to you on the issues (even if you think it may not be by much), then I respect that. But I hope you will consider casting that vote.


    I Have (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by creeper on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:48:20 PM EST
    All I hope is that you'll compare him to McCain and will come to the conclusion that he's better than McCain.

    I didn't.

    Neither did I (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by RalphB on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:49:50 PM EST
    not even close.  At least I'll be able to sleep at night with Pres McCain.

    There are more than two (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by Radix on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:28:15 PM EST
    parties running candidates for Prez. From my perspective, as long as the two major parties can convince the people voting 3rd party is a waste we will never get what we truly want or deserve.

    Ehm.. (none / 0) (#36)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:53:27 AM EST
    .. "better of two evils"..

    wouldn't that qualify (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by justonevoice on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:57:48 AM EST
    as the biggest oxymoron ever??

    Vote Cthulhu... (none / 0) (#182)
    by kredwyn on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:16:40 PM EST
    Why vote for the better of two evils when you can have the Greatest of All Evils?

    I'm sorry, but when you say that we have (5.00 / 14) (#63)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:06:08 PM EST
    to do "our part" as Democrats, that is pretty much the definition of falling in line - how can it not be, when "the line" is electing Barack Obama?

    When I registered as a Democrat, there was no loyalty oath, no handbook that explained what rules I had to follow, no instruction about who I was to take direction from when it was time to vote.  

    My right to vote was not granted to me by the Democratic party, and as such, it is mine to cast in accordance with my judgment, my values, my needs.  Doing my part as a Democrat does not extend to voting for someone as an alternative to being poked in the eye with a sharp stick - I will not be bullied into voting for someone I do not believe is qualified, and who has not shown me that he is a person of good character.

    I am not someone who sees McCain as the alternative to Hillary Clinton, so I will not be voting for him, either.  McCain is, in his way, as mediocre and dangerous as Obama is in his - in my opinion - so I do not care to waste my vote on either of these people.

    Yes, I supported Hillary because I thought she was the best candidate for the job, but I do not take orders from her.  She is in a difficult position, having the consequences of an Obama loss already being heaped on her shoulders; if she wants the ability to keep getting things done for the American people in her role in the Senate, I don't see her as having any choice but to be a good soldier.

    But I am not signing up to be in the Obama Army.


    Roger that, sister (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:07:51 PM EST
    Amen, sistah. (none / 0) (#156)
    by janarchy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:44:20 PM EST
    This is why I am now an Independent rather than a Democrat. Just to remind them that they took me for granted for far too long.

    Eloquent. (none / 0) (#188)
    by andrys on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 06:26:11 PM EST
    And saved.

    Will (5.00 / 11) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:34:31 AM EST
    Obama make 1/2 the effort that Hillary has? That is my question. So far the answer is No.

    Not only will they not make 1/2 the effort, (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Cards In 4 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:38:59 AM EST
    they have gone out of their way to show they don't need to make nice to the Clintons.  They are determined to win the election their way and that means no HRC.

    Three nights at the convention for the Clintons (none / 0) (#147)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:36:25 PM EST
    There is nothing Obama could do to make you happy besides step down.

    Will 3 nights of Clinton coverage (none / 0) (#183)
    by Boo Radly on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:32:23 PM EST
    give BO experience, character, intelligence, grace? Will their coerced(scripted) participation
    make me pause and want to reconsider? not  so   much..... the spector of previous acts(acting out), of Clyburn, Wright, knowing the people he has disallowed to be part of the convention because they did not toe the line of absolute total shallowing of deity of all things BO prevents that.  

    My vote is mine. No changing of the "message" is going to change the unqualified to a qualified.

    I know, you can't follow that reasoning. And I  Don't Care. I don't reason with lunacy. I deal with facts.


    What a noble woman (5.00 / 12) (#3)
    by justonevoice on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:35:12 AM EST
    But I respectfully decline your request.  Ask Obama to do the heavy lifting, and I will think about it.  Just like Michelle Obama said, she would have to "consider' Hillary, well I will have to consider Obama.

    I appreciate Michelle Obama providing guidance with respect to this issue.

    So your message is (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:58:14 AM EST
    Clinton supporters are just as bad as Obama ones and are willing to prove it!



    Michelle Obama (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:02:20 PM EST
    is more than just a supporter, she's the wife of a candidate for pete's sake!

    And this changes my point how? (3.50 / 2) (#66)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:07:14 PM EST
    Are we now saying Clinton supporters are just as bad as MO?

    I thought the idea was to be better and not to descend to the level of those you condemn?


    If Bill (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:15:29 PM EST
    had said he "would think about supporting Obama" then you would have a worthy argument. Trying to equate what a candidate's wife said with someone who is just an average voter really doesn't cut it.

    Well at least we agree (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:32:12 PM EST
    Michelle is a bad Democrat and the question is should Clinton supporters be just as bad?

    That's a good starting off point for a discussion, don't you think?


    OT, but this is Obama gold (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Dadler on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:35:47 AM EST
    Once again, the Iraqi gov't is saying, loudly and clearly, they want us out ASAP -- soldiers, trainers, everyone related to this military debacle -- and that they don't want to talk about the John McCain-Bush "time horizon" bullsh*t.

    If Obama doesn't start pouncing on this, with an American public aching to get out ASAP, I am going to scream.  Whatever he's doing with all that money he's raised, at this time, isn't nearly enough on this point.  A trillion dollars later, you'd think he'd know when a metaphorical goldmine falls into his political lap.

    Bush (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:38:12 AM EST
    already jumped ahead on this issue with an agreement with the Iraqi's to leave by 2011. He took the issue away from Obama so having him pounce on it won't do much good at this point.

    No this is a new statement (none / 0) (#15)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:44:56 AM EST
    in response to the 2011 "horizon".

    Read the article linked above.


    The Iraqis (none / 0) (#40)
    by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:56:03 AM EST
    Also have an election coming up. This partly for domestic purposes. Their real issue is the immunity not the timetable. Without US soldiers their government would have fallen...and will fall...if too many soldiers leave to fast. Further, they still rely on reconstruction help and that help will be gone with the soldiers. None of us are sticking around these places unprotected.

    The previous poster was correct, this issue is off the table in the US elections now.


    Afaik, Obama wanted to leave troops (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:42:36 AM EST
    or contractors behind also. I don't think he's ever said he would bring every last soldier home, has he?

    Not that I know of, but that doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:46:55 AM EST
    mean that he shouldn't be responding quickly and definitively to this statement by the Iraqi government for the purposes of highlighting contrasts between the two parties' positions - that is if there are any.  Otherwise, he probably should hope it goes away I guess.

    Thanks. Wasn't sure if I had missed it (none / 0) (#69)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:10:35 PM EST
    I mostly focused on the fact he said something about replacing troops w/contractors. Which sounds like we're pulling out by bringing the troops home, but in reality it wasn't that different from the others about leaving security forces behind.

    It will be interesting to see what he does in response to this.


    So did Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by litigatormom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:53:26 PM EST
    Their positions on leaving behind a residual force to protect our embassy is far, far different than McCain's objective of a perpetual combat force a la South Korea -- especially since the situation in Iraq could hardly be more different than that in Korea, where our troops are defending a fixed armistice line from a straightforward invasion, rather than an insurgency taking place all over the country.

    When McCain talks about how our troops won't be suffering casualties after 2012 or 2013 he is ignoring the reality that as long as we have combat forces there, they will be target for violence.


    Hillary said No to contractors (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:11:22 PM EST
    and has called for an investigation on the lost/wasted millions/billons.

    So Obama should pounce on... (none / 0) (#177)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:31:49 PM EST
    Iraq's insistence on a 36 month deadline?  

    Yeah, that really makes Obama look smart.

    McCain just has to say that as a sovereign nation, he respects Iraq's right to insist upon a 36 month deadline as the best way for Iraq to move forward while achieving the necessary, complicated political compromises that must be achieved to ensure that Iraq continues to function as a stable democracy after US forces leave -- and then point out that Obama wants to risk political instability in Iraq with a 16 month timeline.


    Sorry Hill (5.00 / 9) (#6)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:37:11 AM EST
    For me to expend the energy I have to believe in the candidate. I don't.

    love her (5.00 / 9) (#10)
    by jedimom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:42:04 AM EST
    what an amazing individual. how gracious how supportive, how she goes to bat for the party over and over again

    I would have held my breath and pulled that lever with her as VP b/c I trust HER the person Hillary to fight for my issues, without her, not feelin it at all.

    Hillary is amazing and is a passionate fighter for what I believe in as a Democrat. So far Obama has not fought for any of my issues and in fact embraces the Reagan issues I dont like

    the interfaith service with lots of pro choice bashing is a fine example of this..

    I am proud of Hillary for being so gracious and it makes me even more proud of my support for her, but it will not translate to having me vote Obama.

    Does anyone think (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:45:42 AM EST
    that the "she's not doing enough" crowd will ever give it up?

    I know (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:49:54 AM EST
    I have felt good about Hillarys efforts from her concession speech in DC going forward. She is not about to let another Bush type take over at the helm for another raping of our country. More than doubling our deficit the last 8 years indicates another 8 years of GOP would probably make that deficit grow from 4 trillion in 2000 to 9 trillion in 2008 to 18-20 trillion by 2016.
    We cannot afford another GOP regime in the White House or our children will never go out from under the weight of that debt.

    Actually (none / 0) (#38)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:54:12 AM EST
    if anti spending is your issue, you should be voting for McCain. He's against lots and lots of spending bills. Obama isn't campaigning on balanced budgets. He's campaigning on "somewhat deficit reduction". Obama wants to even expand Bush's faith based initiative.

    The thing is.. (none / 0) (#44)
    by TheRealFrank on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:58:22 AM EST
    That's what Republicans always campaign on. Then they get to the White House and spend like there's no tomorrow. I have no reason to believe that McCain would be better than Obama in that regard.

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:09:32 PM EST
    but McCain has a history of voting against spending bills that Obama doesn't.

    You are making a good point but it's not one that Obama is trying to sell. He's making the typical liberal "cut the military" argument but wants to expand other spending. I don't know how that will sell since we've got wars going on right now.


    I thought he wanted to expand the (none / 0) (#80)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:15:57 PM EST

    And Biden has talked about (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:48:48 PM EST
    reinstating the draft!

    Well, I guess they can't play the (none / 0) (#126)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:19:02 PM EST
    McCain Draft Card now, can they . . . ?

    Except (none / 0) (#56)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:02:03 PM EST
    Defense funding of course.  And oh yea, he won't raise taxes to keep blowing money on foreign wars so we'll sell even more of our money to China.  At least Obama wants to spend his money on bridges instead of bombs.  And he has a slightly better plan to raise money - taxes.  Those "spending bills" McCain is against include money for levies.

    Of course, (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:11:08 PM EST
    but I don't think you can really sell cutting defense spending right now. It's not peace time.

    Obama wants to give tons of money to faith based programs and even make it a cabinet level position. He's falling right into the "tax and spend" meme the GOP loves to throw around.


    His taxes won't kick in (none / 0) (#84)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:18:02 PM EST
    on the upper income folks for 10yrs according to his advisers, or did I hear that wrong?

    No (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:53:04 AM EST
    Because a lot of the Obama movement is fueled by Hillary hate (which the GOP is only too happy to stoke).

    It's up to Obama to lead this by (5.00 / 8) (#45)
    by andrys on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:58:48 AM EST
    ... by saying to his crowd, strongly, that he keeps hearing that Clinton 'must' do this or that but those people, including his staffers must stop that kind of talk and that he knows it's he himself who must convince her more skeptical supporters that he will forcefully be behind the issues she has been so clear about, that they share and that he hopes to work with her for the goals they both share.

      He has to talk real unity, stress how unusually supportive she HAS been (unusually so, from Democratic Party history) and that he's grateful for it and that he doesn't want to hear any more about her responsibility for the votes he gets.

      He should mention how he wants to use her skills in a very important position if she's willing.  He should also acknowledge he won by a hair and that the 'Get over it!' bluster is inappropriate when the party should be united with understanding between the two strong groups, which both want a Democratic victory.


    That would be excellent and yet (5.00 / 7) (#72)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:11:35 PM EST
    only this morning, J.J.Jr described Clintonites as the pus beneath the bandage that Obama has pulled off to allow the air to disinfect. He doesn't have a way with words like you do.

    Seriously?!??!!! (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by Emma on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:20:20 PM EST
    He really said that?  The mind boggles.

    If Obama can't even (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Landulph on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:00:22 PM EST
    control his own inner circle, how on Earth is he going to be President? I'm serious.

    Here's what was paraphrased from what was heard (none / 0) (#184)
    by andrys on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:54:17 PM EST
    for now.  Something was said on CNN so the actual quote will get around, and in no way can it come off as a particularly good or unifying statement.

    Looking it up on the web, I found it came from hillaryis44.org (not unifiers either) today and the commenter

    HillaryforTexas Says:
    August 25th, 2008 at 11:49 am

    Jesse Jackson Jr on CNN spouting off on how Obama has unified the party, because he pulled back the bandage to expose all the pus, so now it's healed. I guess we are the "pus".

    While that guess isn't necessarily the interpretation -- if true, it would not be good any way one looks at it...and that idea is one possible meaning; but we don't know yet that the paraphrase is accurate...  


    You don't give a link on that (none / 0) (#135)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:00:00 PM EST
    and nothing shows up on Google.

    Can you back it up?


    BTD would want a link (none / 0) (#173)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:19:49 PM EST
    for that one.  If it was on teebee, what show?  It might be possible to get a clip.  That's not going to help.  BTD has been on the issue of Obama's supporters as his worst enemy.

    No (none / 0) (#29)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:51:51 AM EST
    Well, I don't, anyway.

    Who has said she isn't doing enough? (none / 0) (#47)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:59:07 AM EST
    for starters (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by dws3665 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:00:49 PM EST
    James Clyburn.

    Color me shocked.


    bleep him. (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:15:29 PM EST

    Molly...... (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:01:58 PM EST
    ...please. You can't seriously ask this question around here. Not you!

    Who cares what some yahoo on a blog (none / 0) (#82)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:17:15 PM EST
    or some moronic politician says

    Bleep em all.


    "moronic politician" (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by dws3665 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:25:23 PM EST
    that's a pretty inclusive term. if we took this comment seriously, there would be pretty few voices to listen or pay attention.

    I have no problem with your advocacy for the Dem ticket -- personally, I will close my eyes, think of England, and pull the lever for Obama -- but please don't act as though every slap at Hillary from Camp Obama is meaningless and trivial. These kinds of remarks from Clyburn and others do nothing to advance the ticket, and your saying "who cares what they say" is insulting.

    They represent the Democratic candidate. I care what they say.


    Almost every pundit on MSNBC and CNN... (none / 0) (#185)
    by andrys on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 05:55:11 PM EST
    Nope (none / 0) (#49)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:59:47 AM EST
    They are a dog with a proverbial bone. They ain't giving it up.

    BTD it's kind of hard to believe in (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by Rhouse on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:46:59 AM EST
    UNITY with cr+p happening before the convention.

    check out the contrast (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by pukemoana on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:31:26 PM EST
    hillary aims for unity by attacking the republicans.  emil jones aims for unity by calling a clinton delegate an uncle tom.  one's working for the democrats, the other's working for obama, NOT democrats.

    Just wow (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by ks on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:07:16 PM EST
    Between this and the JJ Jr remark mentioned above, it seems that they can't help themselves. I need a word stronger than pathological to explain it....

    Can she go home now? (5.00 / 4) (#22)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:47:30 AM EST
    Has she done enough yet? Has he humiliated her enough? How do we tell him she's not helping his cause? If he wanted our votes, he needed to ask for them, not her. Better yet, why don't they all just go home. No, wait, Springsteen can stay.

    Is it unfair to ask (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:47:37 AM EST
    What Teddy Kennedy might have been saying about Jimmy Carter before the convention in 1980?

    Very little ... (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:00:24 PM EST
    good.  And when he finally made his "unity appearance" on the stage of the convention with Carter it could not be described as enthusiastic.

    it is obvious (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by dws3665 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:59:37 AM EST
    that for some people in the media (and apparently the execrable James Clyburn), no matter what she says or does, no matter how many times she says it, or how forcefully and sternly she voices it, HRC will never support Obama enough. Or never "really" mean it.

    These people are blind, self-destructive idiots.

    Check out the diaries on Big Orange..... (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:00:25 PM EST
    ...about Hillary's statement!!! Oh wait, there isn't one.

    Look for the Clinton bashing diaries (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:35:36 PM EST
    you'll find several a day.

    Sorry to see ya go elixir. But, (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    next time you want to give us your take on this election, please don't be so disingenuous as to say you have been lingering on your decision. I remember you from way back when when you were not lingering. So, I wish you well, wish you wisdom, wish you knowledge and hope that if you do get what you wish for, the rest of the world will still be here to share it with you.

    Sorry about that (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by OldCity on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:16:57 PM EST
    but that guy...

    Well, let's just say that I couldn't not respond.  I may think that some things that go on within the party are counterproductive (vis' the current debate, for exaomple), but out and out falsehood and ignorance really punch my buttons.  

    Sorry Hill (2.00 / 2) (#18)
    by OldCity on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:46:20 AM EST
    So, you believe in the McCain message?  Is that what you believe?  He cleves that much closer to the HRC agenda?

    Why don't you walk down all the McCain policy points that you want pursued?  Which of the Supreme Court justices he will likely appoint will best preserve your principles and freedoms?

    When will you people get it through your heads that it's not just about the GUY?  It's about policy and the Supreme Court, etc!  Do you want to suffer for 20 years just so you can illustrate your pique?  

    Well, if we lose, you've foreitted your right to b!tch about anything McCain does, no matter how horrible.

    The comparison is remarkably imprecise (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:50:22 AM EST
    But did Nader voters forfeit their right to complain about Bush?

    What do you think?


    Hmmm (5.00 / 6) (#30)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:52:26 AM EST
    When will you people get it through your heads that it's not just about the GUY?  It's about policy and the Supreme Court, etc!  Do you want to suffer for 20 years just so you can illustrate your pique?

    So then you are conceading that Pelosi and company will not under any circumstances do their job and keep a president in check?


    So, again (none / 0) (#86)
    by OldCity on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:20:32 PM EST
    ...which McCain policies do you agree with?  Are you in favor of his equal pay stance?  How about his views on Choice?

    Do you want to see him nominate another conservative judge to the Supreme court?  

    Don't walk around the questions...just how identified are you with the McCain policy points?  And, be realistic...if he gets elected, you're going to get a conservative judge, or two, or three...look at history; majority be damned, he'll get judges he wants.  

    So, slap me down if you want, but answer those questions.  Because, if you truly believe in HRC's positions, and not just her, then you'd better realize that McCain isn't the guy for America.  And, no we DON't have a right to your vote, but we should expect it, if you're intellectually honest enough to admit that you don't support McCain's policies.

    Be specific...you've got the space.


    It's not always about policy (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:24:42 PM EST
    It's sometimes about temprament and competence.

    Give Me a Break (5.00 / 3) (#106)
    by creeper on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:39:12 PM EST
    In thirty years Democrats haven't done a damn thing about the issues you cited.  They folded like a two-dollar suitcase on Roberts and Alito.  When was the last time you saw THEM tackling equal pay?  Oh, and has anyone seen that Equal Rights Amendment lately?

    At least Republicans are honest about their positions.  Democrats sell out to the highest bidder just like Republicans.  The only difference is that they keep denying it.


    Well, I did say (none / 0) (#115)
    by OldCity on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:56:36 PM EST
    that the President, whoever he may be, will get his choice appointed.  That is the way it has always worked, for well beyond the 30 years you cite.  So, Alito and Roberts shouldn't have been a surprise.  It is worth noting that Roberts was confirmed before the Democrats regained the majority.

    McCain skipped a vote on equal pay in April, 2008, for God's sake.  As for the ERA, it gets reintroduced every congress...you seem to be forgetting the state role in ratification; the Democratic majority in the US legislature would have squat to do with that...read your history.

    Again, no answer to the questions...which policies of McCain's really ring your bell?  Obviously, you can't be fond of his positions on women's issues.


    I...wow...such vitriol (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:39:17 PM EST
    Do you assume anyone who has a slightly concerned stance about Obama is going to vote for McCain? Do you really think that posters here are not familiar with the republican stance, McCain's stance, the differnces in those as well as what congress's responsibilities are? Do YOU not understand the purpose of a divided government?

    I have no intention of voting for McCain, I don't vote republican. However, I also don't vote for someone just because they have a D by their name.

    I need to know what Obama is going to do. I also need to be sure that congress won't just roll over for his choices either because let's be realistic, your words, Obama is no great defender of progressive ideals. I expect most real progressives will be a little peeved at his judiciak appts as well.


    my words? (none / 0) (#139)
    by OldCity on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:10:27 PM EST
    It's pretty clear from many of the postings here that many of the poster intend to vote McCain...they've written so.

    My point is, and will continue to be, that the party matters.  I'm tired of all of the re-labeling and new jargon...progressive, for instance is only being used because "democrat" and "liberal" were so effectively demonized by the right...

    Obama's values are equally and as historically Democratic as Hillary's.  His positions during the primary weren't radically different from hers...and that is why we see so much vitriol.  Because the positions were so close, it became a race about personalities and the first this and the first that...and then it became manufactured offense at manufactured disrespect.  It's wearying.

    I still haven't seen one person actually write that they agree with McCain.  I've seen them say we DESERVE McCain for not making Hillary the nominee.  I mean, in what twisted world does that make sense?  Do they honestly think that HRC wants that?  If they do, they sure haven't studied any political history...HRC's national ambitions will be fried forever if McCain loses and if the "rabid" HRC supporters are seen to be a root cause.

    So, my vitriol is fairly well placed.  At some point, the HRC folks have to bow to reality...their advocacy is beginning to contravene their message.  They can't do anything to change the party from the outside.  



    It's (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:28:36 PM EST
    not going to be Hillary's fault if Obama loses. It's going to be Obama's fault. That's something that people like you need to accept. Quit blaming everybody--Hillary, bill, the voters, the Pumas, working class voters etc. for Obama's poor performance thus far. The onus is on Obama to win. There is no one that can push him over the finish line. He's going to have to get off his duff and do some work. The fact that he's a bad candidate is not the fault of anyone but himself.

    It's funny that you say his values aren't that radically different from Hillary's. That's a one eighty from where it was before. The problem with Obama is that he has NO values, not that they are bad or that different from Hillary. He's shown he's absolutely willing to compromise any thing away in the face of adversity hence the Biden pick for VP. Apparently Biden's long history in Washington and his vote for the AUMF are no longer a problem. LOL.


    Oh, I'm SURE SotH Pelosi (none / 0) (#104)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:37:09 PM EST
    will stand forcefully up to McCain.

    What worries me more (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:40:04 PM EST
    is that she won't stand up to Obama.

    Last time I checked (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by justonevoice on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:53:10 AM EST
    my name wasn't on the ballot for US President.  Obama's is.  How is it MY responsibility for HIS winning or losing?

    I can see why the yootz like him:  "I'm irresponsible and it's YOUR fault."

    Keeeeeep it up.  More unity than this pony can stand!!


    LOL. Exhibit A. (none / 0) (#23)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:47:35 AM EST
    No one (none / 0) (#152)
    by daria g on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:43:01 PM EST
    In this country has forfeited their right to free speech.  Sorry, try again.  Also, no one is obliged to get your opinion through their heads.

    oops (none / 0) (#5)
    by DanR3 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:35:54 AM EST
    I think the McCain campaign just popped open the wrong end of a big can of whup ass.

    You'd really think republicans would learn to not mess with the Clintons.

    Um, no. (5.00 / 12) (#9)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:40:59 AM EST
    I'm sure McCain knew, just as all of us except for the Obamafans knew, how Hillary would respond.

    The thing is, to Hillary's supporters who don't like Obama, all this shows is that Hillary is a noble, and loyal, Democrat...something that Obama has failed to be, and is the reason why we didn't like him in the first place.

    Let's see Obama adopt Hillary's health care plan...let's see Obama cut the rhetoric about tearing down the separation between church and state, let's see Obama dial back his dog whistles to those who oppose women's reproductive rights and dehumanize gay people, let's see Obama look like he understands economic policy and the fourth amendment...then we might see some unity.  Otherwise, I think it will be more of the same.


    me! (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by jedimom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:43:17 AM EST
    well I think I am the anecdotal evidence of what you just posted here. I just commented below and I got from this exactly what you predicted :0>

    Thank you ,Hillary. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:45:13 AM EST
    The Clintons do not truck with this GOP crowd.
    As for Iraq, 500 or more american soldiers will probably give their lives between the Bush timetable(McCain has refused to embrace even 2011) and June of 2010 democrats timetable.

    Who is going to tell those families that they needed to lose their son or daughter because the democrats were squabbling? Hillary and Bill know that their are young americans lives at stake here and they are proud democrats. Thank you, Hillary.


    Yup, too bad Obama (5.00 / 9) (#25)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:47:37 AM EST
    voted several times to keep funding the war, and has said that his decision on when to withdraw from Iraq depends on circumstances on the ground (which is exactly what Bush said).

    When Obama starts acting like a Democrat, maybe more Democrats will support him.


    Obama has (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:52:37 AM EST
    said 16 months from day on on a withdrawal. He continues to have that position. That would be June of 2010. I pray my son will not be back there by then as he has already been stop-lossed by Bush and has another 9 months in Iraq on yet another combat tour. He had a mate get killed 9 days ago in an IED explosion. Bring them home.

    I hope your son comes back (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:55:54 AM EST
    soon.  I really do.  But Obama has said that his 16 month plan depends on circumstances on the ground.  It is exactly the same rhetoric that Bush has used.  Samantha Power, one of his top foreign policy advisors, had to resign from his campaign because she was caught saying that Obama's plan to withdraw the troops was not definite, but only a best case scenario.

    I'm afraid you are only hearing what you want to hear from Obama, you are not hearing what he is really saying.  


    Are you (none / 0) (#65)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:06:56 PM EST
    suggesting I should trust John McCain/Bush/Cheney who actually buried intel from iraq's own Intel chief who straight out told them in 2002 that Saddamm had not WMD?

    You are asking me to put my son and all of the sons and daughters of american military familes in the hands of people that sent 4146 brave american soldiers to their deaths after deceiving americans and even their Secretary of State Colin Powell as Ron Suskind's book makes clear?
    I do not trust the Republicans...and I never will again now. Hopefully the investigations going on in congress as we speak will bear fruit to make it clear to all americans how Bush/Cheney and McCain are directly responsible for the needless deaths of our soldiers. And the 12,000 who have lost limbs in iraq. And the estimated  50,000 with traumatic brain injuries that will go undetected and will wreak damage to our society in substance abuse and domestic abuse for decades. And the PTSD epidemic that could cause similar problems for hundreds of thousands of returning vets. As someone pointed out there was a Viet Vet with a sign begging for food in denver as they entered the city. Bush and Cheney and the GOP have ensured that it will be a common site for the next 40 years with Iraq vets who suffer from PTSD.


    No argument with you on Bush/Cheney (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    But you seem to believe that Obama, who has funded the war, who believes that paid military contractors are ok, who hedges about withdrawing troops, will get people out of harm's way.  I do not believe it, and I think that an honest look at what Obama is saying and doing backs me up.  

    So you (none / 0) (#151)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:42:07 PM EST
    are willing to trust McCain who advocated for invading Iraq as far back as 1998 ,who was on a committee formed in 2002 just for the purpose of advocating for invasion of Iraq..you trust him over Obama who is clearly on the record in 2002 saying that invading Iraq would be dangerous with sunni and shia at odds, with no way to know how we can disengage, with chances of inflaming the entire middle east with anti-american sentiment...

    Somehow you trust McCain to do the right thing when he was totally wrong and you distrust obama who called it exactly as it happened before it happened?  That defies logic.

    That is like saying you trust a fox to watch the henhouse over the loyal watchdog.


    As a person (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:13:11 PM EST
    who has done a year in Iraq and another year and half in Afghanistan I can tell you that I trust McCain more than Obama. You might not like that but that is how I feel and I have lost a lot of friends. My brother has also served a combat tour in Afghanistan. He too has more faith in McCain.

    It isn't easy to say but I have more trust in McCain. Obama is reckless and recklessness get more people killed than any other single thing.

    Further, the country we should get out of is Afghanistan. It is beyond saving.


    And I wish your son well (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by dissenter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:14:41 PM EST
    Be glad it is Iraq and not Afghanistan right now. Kabul and the Afghan Govt will probably fall by Spring

    How many people (none / 0) (#132)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:51:33 PM EST
    do you have to "get killed" in ACTUAL REALITY before you become reckless -- as opposed to being theoretically reckless the way Obama is?

    What has McCain stood for in the last 8 years that proves he's trustworthy? That anyone would posit Iraq as the "good" intervention is beyond laughable.


    And how many times did Obama (none / 0) (#138)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:02:21 PM EST
    vote to fund the war?  And are we supposed to feel better because he would prefer continued war in Afghanistan?

    It's not that your argument is wrong, it's just that it's not FOR Obama.  If you want to convince people to vote for Obama, I just don't see how you're helping with this stuff.


    Lets see: (none / 0) (#144)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:28:58 PM EST
    he voted for increased funding for the war while McCain obediently enabled an orchestrated camapaign of dastardly lies in support of the intial (quite unnecessary) invasion; along with muzzling his b.s "maverick" tendencies for the last 8 years while one of the most myopic and corrupt administrations in U.S history had it's way with us and the rest of the world.

    Please, take some time and explain how, and, in what possible way, McCain has proven himself "trustworthy" at all.


    You do realize (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:35:19 PM EST
    that Biden was a huge cheerleader for the war as well right?

    Of course (none / 0) (#148)
    by jondee on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:37:33 PM EST
    it's always perfectly reasonable and understandable here that Mrs Clinton (AIPAC loves her more than she will know) gave her support to the Iraq invasion. Why that would continue to be true is a mystery that passeth all understanding.

    Unfortunately, I do not believe that (none / 0) (#124)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:11:32 PM EST
    congress is investigating anything worth anything because so many of them in congress were complicit in all this. It must have been easy for Sen. Obama to stand back, as a state senator, and give his anti-war speech to an anti-war crowd. Sen. Obama, like Pres. Bush has left himself an out to his "determination" to get out of Iraq and that is he has said he will consult with the Generals and go from there. That's what Bush has said and done. I hope your son does not have to go to Iraq and I don't want mine there either. I want them all to come home, but I do not see that happening any time soon. I think Sen. Obama is dangerous to this country. Perhaps I'm wrong, but everything he says and does goes against my grain. Rev. Wright and his reaction really hit home, his stance on women's rights, really hit home, his vote to spy on us really hit home, how he speaks of Pakistan really hits home. I think he's a danger to us all. I don't like McCain by the way, but this year my country before my party.

    I hope (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:13:01 PM EST
    your son is well but Obama has flip flopped on the 16 month statement iirc.

    Dk, it really is as simply ... (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:54:03 AM EST
    as that:

    When Obama starts acting like a Democrat, maybe more Democrats will support him.

    Unless and until Obama addresses this it will continue to be his biggest problem.


    I was anticipating her responding (none / 0) (#12)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:42:28 AM EST
    forcefully to McCain's attempt to co-opt her support.

    Regardless of how people feel about Obama, if you like the Clinton's fighting spirit I'd think you'd enjoy her smack down of McCain as much as I do.


    Looking forward to her speech Tues (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by DanR3 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:21:57 PM EST
    Yep. This is what I like best about Hillary and Bill. They have a better understanding than anyone about the GOP slime machine, and when they hit back, they hit back hard. The speeches by the Clintons Tuesday and Wednesday ought to be entertaining and I doubt you'll see McCain use Hillary as a spokesperson for his campaign after that.



    Hillary says vote for Obama (none / 0) (#90)
    by Lahdee on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:24:20 PM EST
    We may have our issues with the Obama campaign but it remains that Mr/Ms/Mrs American voter will hear Hillary supports Obama and even that may not hit their radar. In the weeks between the convention and the vote they'll see Hillary campaigning for Obama, and they might remember that.

    they may remember it (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by dws3665 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:27:25 PM EST
    but they will still criticize it for not being "enough" or "sincere" or "full-throated."

    You think they are rational, but again and again they prove that their CDS knows no bounds. Stop expecting them to wise up.


    Fortunately (none / 0) (#105)
    by Lahdee on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:37:38 PM EST
    it's a 0,1 kinda thing with voters.

    My concern (5.00 / 3) (#118)
    by Mike H on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    My concern is with the party loyalists, the tireless workers, who have been insulted and kicked by the Obama supporters.

    People like the PUMAs are being called all sorts of awful names, including "Republicans".  This is a willful disregard for people who have spent a very long time working hard for the Democrats.

    Forget the media.  These folks are the friends, family, and neighbors of potential voters, who could easily be turned off of Obama because "Sid and Sally" who are "lifelong Democrats" are talking about how unhappy they are with the party and the candidate.

    I'm offended that Democrats are treating each other like this.  That it's somehow seen as legit to say that Hillary ran a "Rovian campaign".  Among all the other nonsense that has passed in the run-up to the convention.

    And it would have been SO easy for Obama and his supporters to head this off at the pass.  By being GRACIOUS in victory.

    But they couldn't do that.

    Remind me again about what goeth before a fall?


    This is a concern (none / 0) (#125)
    by Lahdee on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:16:33 PM EST
    I for one, a long time Democrat, who worked her butt off in 2004 for John Kerry, won't be lifting a telephone or delivering a flyer for the Obama campaign. I'm not pleased about that, but watching Clinton supporters so virulently disrespected and attacked by those who affirm the candidate Obama, I can live with it.  
    I will actively boost my local candidate for congress and I will vote the ticket, however support of Obama's candidacy, for me at least, is better left to others.

    Excellent sound bite. (none / 0) (#121)
    by eleanora on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:07:25 PM EST
    "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I do not approve that message." I wouldn't put out a campaign ad on this, because Obama/Biden needs to stop letting McCain lead them around by the nose.

    But I'd definitely flood the news shows with sharp, smart surrogates and a forceful clip of her saying that, plus a clear list of talking points about Republicans being up to their old tricks again. And bam, another dent in McCain's straight talk persona. She showed 'em how, I hope they paid attention.

    I hope they paid attention? (none / 0) (#140)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:11:11 PM EST
    Why would they start now?

    I know, I know. (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by eleanora on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:33:48 PM EST
    I keep hoping they'll surprise me with something good for a change.

    Is THIS supposed to be unity? (none / 0) (#130)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:39:23 PM EST
    Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are working on a deal to give her some votes in the roll call for the Democratic presidential nomination, but quickly end the divided balloting in unanimous consent for Obama.

    I fail to see how this is going to bring anyone together or satisfy those of us who want a moment honoring Hillary's historic run.


    Liberals who want to ensure our party stays (none / 0) (#150)
    by MyLeftMind on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:39:56 PM EST
    liberal won't effect change by voting for McSame or not voting top of ticket.  Four more Republican years will bankrupt our country, and when McSame says he'll reduce government spending, he's lying.  Plain and simple.  Obama is honest enough to admit we need to raise taxes.  How else are we going to pay for what Dubya has done?  Some folks here have said over and over that they won't vote for Obama.  So be it.  My question is, how many more times will you have to say it on this blog?  Why keep trying to convince other Democrats not to vote for our candidate?

    I'm really interested in hearing from people who are not so dead set against Obama that they have to call him names and declare they'll never vote for him.  Hillary is taking a stand this week asking her supporters to support Obama, and they're both asking us all to stop the divisiveness.  We spend so much time on this blog arguing about Obama and the primary that we never get to the important stuff, which is how can liberals/progressives/lefties get our candidate and our party to support and promote our issues.  What will it take for the rest of Hillary's supporters to decide to vote for Obama and to work to get him and our party to reflect our values and ideas?

    Please don't reply with the standard "too bad, it's too late, nothing will work" response.  For those of you who feel that way, fine, vote McSame or leave the top of the ticket blank.  I've already heard that many, many times here at TL.  Please allow others to answer this one particular question instead:  If you are willing to vote for Obama if he does something different between now and November, what is it that you are looking for?  What can he do to win your vote?

    Heh (none / 0) (#155)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:44:05 PM EST
    And his came over LEGALLY from Kenya.  Also, he's not a dual citizen.

    Apparently you don't know WHY they built America though.

    what was the legal test? (none / 0) (#157)
    by OldCity on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    when your ancestors got here?  Arriving?  My father arrived legally, was naturalized and earned two purple hearts in Viet Nam.    

    Additionally, you should do a little research.  Obama isn't banned from any elected office.  He was born in America.  That makes him an unquestioned US citizen qualified to hold public office.    

    You didn't even bother to check on that, did you?

    That's why people like you will always look stupid.  Don't even have the time to confirm the fallacy of your own prejudices.

    small request (none / 0) (#176)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:30:44 PM EST
    Could you remember to put the persons name on the subject line?  It makes it easier to find for those of us on deletion duty.  :)