home

Time to Get on Board

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:02:19 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm getting ready to head downtown, to the Big Tent, the Streets, the Pepsi Center and to check out CNN's The Grill Room.

I'm glad to see Big Tent Democrat's post that Hillary is asking her supporters to focus on electing the next Democratic President.

I'll be as clear as I can: TalkLeft and all three of its authors, and this week's guest contributor, support the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. I have since the day Hillary dropped out in June, asking readers to respect her and her decision.

Despite my aversion to Sen. Joe Biden on the ticket, keep in mind it's my individual reaction to his decades spent promoting ill-advised and draconian crime legislation. It in no way means that the Democratic ticket isn't the preferred one over the other options in November. [More...]

Voting is a personal matter. Regardless of how I end up voting or not voting, I encourage everyone, particularly Hillary Clinton supporters on this site, to get on board and focus on taking the White House back from eight years of abysmal Republican leadership. As I wrote here in May, life is too short to be consumed by irrational hate.

Note to site readers: As is stated clearly on our home page, commenters do not represent the views of TalkLeft. They are commenters not bloggers.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

< Clinton Calls For Unity | Changes Needed at the Top in Indianapolis >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Time to Get on Board | 205 comments (205 topical)
    Thank you for this eloquent post (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:05:41 PM EST
    PS with regard to your personal aversion to Joe Biden, maybe recalling Feather Duster Roosevelt ran with arch conservative John Nance Garner and went from being considered a light weight (hence the nickname Feather Duster) and turned out Ok, might make you feel a little better.

    I'm on-board (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by eric on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:06:35 PM EST
    and even though I am not particularly enthusiastic about it, I'll be voting Obama/Biden.

    I'm on board ... (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:08:54 PM EST
    but I'm packing my pea-shooter.

    Thank you ,Jeralyn, (5.00 / 3) (#230)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:01:38 PM EST
    for making it clear how important it is to look carefully at the huge differences between the democrats/obama/biden and GOP/McCain/Bush/Cheney.

    As Hillary said, she will be there in the White House to hand that pen to Obama to sign the healthcare bill she will champion thru congress.

    Hillary will be there to greet our brave soldiers as they finally really come home to their moms and dads like my wife and I...home alive and excited for their futures..not in a wooden box.

    Hillary is a great and proud democrat and when that GOPer in that townhall last year asked John McCain '' how do we beat the b----?'' and McCain joined in with the room in laughter...he did not understand that the answer is

    John McCain, you will never beat Hillary..or Bill..or Obama...or Joe Biden..or Ted Kennedy..

    You are not nearly good enough to beat that crowd
    when they unite and set their mind to it..hear that?

    [ Parent ]

    Request, clarification please (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:11:38 PM EST
    I know you have said many times in the past, but I think another clarification is in order. What is your view on commentators who are not planning on "getting on board" but still maintain the site rules about civility, etc? I stopped participating after the primary and have only recently found myself back here (too many good blogs and comments to miss). But I never see myself getting "on board."

    So I ask, what about people like me?

    I am just like you (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:18:56 PM EST
    Away for quite a while after the Obama selection and now back.  Still not on board.  Just can't do it.  "Democrat" is only a name at this point.  I am mindful of the philosophy of this site.  I am not rah, rah for anyone, especially not Obama.  What a pathetic turn of events when the crie de couer is "Get on Board."  I understand it well and get the point. Hoping to find some reason to support Obama.      

    [ Parent ]
    Think about this... (1.00 / 0) (#161)
    by Nevart on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:23:10 PM EST
    Here's one reason to get on board.  So McCain doesn't get to name the next three or four or five Supreme Court justices.

    Unless you think 11-year-old girls who are raped by their fathers and might die from their pregnancy should be refused an abortion.  Because that is what the GOP platform says (ableit not in those words).

    [ Parent ]

    The GOP already has 5 votes on SCOTUS (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:31:09 PM EST
    They could repeal Roe anytime.

    If they did, it would put the issue to Congress and the state legislatures, and most voters are pro-choice.

    Got any other arrows in your quiver besides "the GOP supports raping 11-year-olds?"

    [ Parent ]

    War in Iran? (5.00 / 0) (#205)
    by Nevart on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:46:35 PM EST
    War in Iran?  Endless war in Iraq?  More jobs overseas?  More tax cuts for the rich?  More letting big oil set the energy agenda?

    Also, Stevens is the only "GOP judge" keeping the SCOTUS from overturning Roe.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama (4.00 / 4) (#217)
    by Emma on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:54:02 PM EST
    supports the war on terror.  To me, it sounds like endless war in Afghanistan and war in Pakistan.

    Obama has walked back his opposition to NAFTA.  Sounds to me like he's not really focused on jobs going overseas.

    Obama's taxes on the rich won't take effect for 10 years.  That's right.  10 years.  I wonder if he knows he only gets to be President for 8, if that.

    Obama voted for Bush's energy bill with its record gifts to oil companies.

    The SCt already has enough votes to overturn Roe.  For the last decade the question has been do we have enough voters to enact choice through other means.  The way Obama is pandering to the right-wing evangelicals, that's a more complex question.

    [ Parent ]

    rallying cry (5.00 / 0) (#225)
    by jedimom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:58:55 PM EST
    no more wire hangars!!, that rallying cry isnt going to do it for me, and frankly the threatening tone it almost always comes with like 'where are you gonna go', just heard Carl Bernstein say that again, really undermines the whole unity schtick. Just sayin'

    [ Parent ]
    Some upcoming cases The Supremes (5.00 / 0) (#261)
    by byteb on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:17:54 PM EST
    will hear because it ain't all about abortion:

    Coeur Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council: Whether Army Corps has authority to issue permits for dumping dredge into waterways w/o satisfying CWA.

    Arizona v. Johnson: Whether police officers may search someone during a routine traffic stop. Fourth Amendment boundary testing.

    Cone v. Bell: death row inmate and whether Fed Court can consider issues state court dismissed on state procedural grounds.

    AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen: Justices will hear pregnancy leave discrimination case

    Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications: Antitrust

    Harbison v. Bell: Whether poor death row inmates seeking clemency have a right to federal taxpayer-funded lawyers

    Peake v. Sanders:  Department of Veteran affairs liability issue

    [ Parent ]

    and there's more... (5.00 / 0) (#265)
    by byteb on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:18:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The GOP have (none / 0) (#238)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:07:11 PM EST
    4 conservatives in Scalia,Thomas,Alito and Roberts. kennedy is split. he would uphold Roe vs Wade. But the day is close when Stevens and Ginsberg will be gone. You want to trust McCain to pick the next two?
    The next one will tip the court one way or another. You want McCain and his crew picking that next couple of justices?

    [ Parent ]
    OMG, really? I never heard that one before! (5.00 / 3) (#250)
    by echinopsia on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:11:32 PM EST
    Wow! That's something I never considered!

    /snark.

    Next time you want to post this glaringly simplistic and much debunked argument, please save space and time by using one word: coathanger. We'll understand.

    Meanwhile, why don't you read the myriad counterarguments to this tired trope and figure out why it's not a convincing argument.

    [ Parent ]

    That's not nice (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:16:07 PM EST
    Jeralyn doesn't have to prove to you or anyone else that she is worthy of your readership.

    I'm not getting on board, but as Jeralyn says, voting is very personal. I'll do what I can short of voting for this ticket to push for the issues that I believe in.

    I think her use of the term ... (5.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:37:18 PM EST
    "irrational hate" both now and in May goes beyond the pale.

    It's her site, and she's welcome to say what she chooses.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Some commenters here (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:25:22 PM EST
    have rationally expressed their opposition to Obama and others filled the comments here with personal attacks, character attacks and personal vendettas.

    All points of view are welcome here, the comment rules are pretty clear.

    [ Parent ]

    Thank you for providing this board (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Grace on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:00:57 PM EST
    for rational discussion.  I'm glad that you accept all supported viewpoints and that this hasn't become an "echo chamber" or cheerleading website -- not because that would be bad but because there are already plenty of those.  

    Plus, you have good posters with lots of different opinions.  ;-)  

    [ Parent ]

    I deleted that comment (none / 0) (#154)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:20:11 PM EST
    for falsely stating my position. I clearly said above regardless of whether I vote for the ticket I encourage everyone else to do so.  I did not say Biden was no longer a deal breaker to me as the commenter stated. I am not saying at this time what my vote will or will not be other than it won't be for someone other than Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    To be clear... (1.00 / 5) (#169)
    by Nevart on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:25:41 PM EST
    A non-vote for Obama is the same as a vote for McCain, in the real world.  cf, Ralph Nader, 2000 and Florida.

    [ Parent ]
    No it isn't (5.00 / 6) (#182)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:29:21 PM EST
    If I choose to support the Green Party candidate, it's not a vote for McCain. If I chose not to vote, it is not a vote for McCain. If I chose to write in my preference, it's not a vote for McCain. If I vote for McCain, then it is a vote for McCain. Quite simple really.

    [ Parent ]
    not hardly (5.00 / 0) (#247)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:09:47 PM EST
    Not voting or voting for anyone BUT Obama or McCain only deducts one vote from Obama without ADDING a vote to McCain.

    A vote FOR McCain actually hurts Obama twice by deducting one from his column and adding one to McCain's column.

    If there are only 10 voters in the country and 4 vote for Obama, 1 for Nader, 1 for McKinney, 2 for McCain and 2 don't vote, Obama still wins the general election.

    If, on the other hand, all those non Obama votes actually go to McCain, then McCain wins 6 to 4.

    [ Parent ]

    Personally (5.00 / 1) (#251)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:11:43 PM EST
    I always thought the loss in Florida had more to do with Pat Buchanon, confusing ballots, and the supreme court.  I never did understand all the "anger" at Nader voters.  I was more "angry" at Bush voters personally.

    [ Parent ]
    Nonsense.... (4.00 / 0) (#187)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:31:39 PM EST
    a vote for Obama is a vote for Obama.

    a vote for Mccain is a vote for Mccain.

    a vote for Nader is a vote for Nader.

    a vote for Mickey Mouse is a vote for Mickey Mouse.

    Not voting is not giving a sh*t.

    [ Parent ]

    Or it is giving a sh*t about the party (5.00 / 7) (#214)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:52:20 PM EST
    and the process.  Just to clarify what many commenters have said is their reason for doing so.

    It's that or, y'know, "blood in the streets," unquote Brazile.  Not voting seems a better form of protest than what the bully threatened, doesn't it?

    [ Parent ]

    I'd agree... (none / 0) (#253)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:13:24 PM EST
    if there were only 2 choices, Obama and McCain.  Than a no vote makes sense.

    But we've got Nader and McKinney on most of the ballots, and other fringe candidates on a handful.  If you're looking to protest vote, you should look at the 3rd-8th options....otherwise the people you're protesting think you're just another of the 50% who never vote and don't give a sh*t.  If you wanna get the D's attention, get Nader or McKinney 10% or more, that'll wake 'em up right quick.  

    [ Parent ]

    Nonsense (5.00 / 0) (#258)
    by denise on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:16:05 PM EST
    If I didn't care, I'd just get on board. If I didn't care, I wouldn't feel so hopeless.

    [ Parent ]
    What votes mean. (5.00 / 0) (#262)
    by alexei on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:18:19 PM EST
    I agree with every one of your comments except the last.  Not voting can mean what you say but it also can mean that you can't vote for any of the candidates and don't believe or your State doesn't allow write-ins.

    [ Parent ]
    As I said... (1.00 / 0) (#210)
    by Nevart on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:49:08 PM EST
    As I said, "in the real world," i.e., the one we're stuck in, a non-vote for Obama is a vote for McCain (and vice-versa).   Until we change to a parliamentary system with proportional representation.  In which case I will found the US Social Democratic Party.

    [ Parent ]
    In my "real world".... (5.00 / 3) (#240)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:07:46 PM EST
    if Nader gets the most electoral votes, he wins.

    So, if the majority of voters in a handful of the largest states vote for Nader, we're swearing him in in Jan.

    The un-real world is the one where everyone believes there are only 2 choices, and vote accordingly.

    I know what you're saying...and you're right, Nader has no shot.  But that's not the systems fault or the medias fault or "just the way it is"...its the fault of the voters and the voters alone. All we gotta do is pull the lever for him.

    [ Parent ]

    Do the math... (5.00 / 4) (#263)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:18:21 PM EST
    A vote for a third party candidate is not a vote for the other candidate.  

    If its 48 Obama, 47 McCain, 2 McKinney Obama wins.  McKinney's two votes are not counted for McCain.  

    PUMAs withholding our support from Obama means that he's gonna have to work harder to win.  According to him, his campaign and supporters, our reluctance to vote for him is irrelevant, because of the massive number "new voters" and "independents" that Obama will attract.

    We don't matter to Obama, or to the party leadershi, in this election.  And we're okay with that -- and we've "moved-on".   Whatever happens, we won't be responsible, because its not our job to win this election for people who think that we don't matter.

    Its like you want us to vote for McCain.  If we're going to be "blamed" for Obama's failure to attract sufficient support among the millions of Democrat- inclined voters this year who do not yet support Obama,  we might as well vote for McCain.  

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (2.00 / 1) (#216)
    by rdandrea on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:53:48 PM EST
    If you consider percentages, it's half a vote for McCain.

    [ Parent ]
    Hypocrisy (none / 0) (#231)
    by Andreas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:03:43 PM EST
    I clearly said above regardless of whether I vote for the ticket I encourage everyone else to do so.

    That does not make any sense at all.

    If you have a rational reason to encourage others to vote for Obama/Biden then that same reason applies to you.

    And if you have a rational reason why you don't want to vote for Obama/Biden then you should not encourage others to do so.

    There certainly are lots of reasons to encourage others not to vote for Obama/Biden.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, Jeralyn did say in her post (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:16:24 PM EST
    that she may end up not voting for the ticket herself.  

    So you're saying it is hypocritical (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:51:07 PM EST
    to label us consumed by irrational hate for not supporting a ticket that she may or may not end up voting for?


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#95)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:57:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You vote your conscience (5.00 / 12) (#12)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:17:32 PM EST
    and I'll vote mine.

    Don't be so hard on her (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:18:33 PM EST
    She's been really incredible to have a forum that respects different opinions. We should extend her the same courtesy and wish her luck. We can agree to disagree on what needs to be done this November.

    I've Always Enjoyed The Spirited Discussions (5.00 / 5) (#42)
    by flashman on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:36:09 PM EST
    here at TL.  I mostly disagree with the bloggers, and enjoy having the opportunity to say so.  Many times, I've wanted to quit, but it was always the other commenters, who have spoken their independent minds, who have prompted me to continue.  But when I read comments like this:

    they are commenters not bloggers.

    I find that borderline insulting.  Commenting is an integral part of a blog, and to dismiss those who participate and support the site doesn't make any sense.  Without commenters, you're just three people talking to each other.

    For stating my opinions here, I've been called, by the bloggers, "delusional" "insane" "foolish" ect. ( all in violation of the posting guidelines, BTW )  I've also been banned from commenting, though the band seems symbolic, since I am still able to post.

    Anyway... the independent thinking and wide-ranging opinions of the members, commenters are what keeps me coming back to TL.  You all have been my island of sanity in a very turbulent sea.  

    [ Parent ]

    She's not dismissing (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:50:11 PM EST
    She's saying that commenters don't speak for the blog.  (One benefit of that is so that detractors don't trash the site unjustly by linking to cherry picked comments.)

    I too am very very grateful to Jeralyn for this platform.

    [ Parent ]

    Blogs Are All About Discussion (5.00 / 0) (#219)
    by flashman on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:55:07 PM EST
    People who read blogs and write comments are not supposed to just swallow opinions.  We are here to hash through things and consider and/or debate each other's opinions.  IMO, we are just as much a part of the blog as the bloggers.  If that weren't the case, I'd go back to TEEVEE and newspapers.

    [ Parent ]
    It's really astonishing (5.00 / 2) (#249)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:10:43 PM EST
    that this is the only blog where you can state your
    position and argue with the opposing.

    I think it is the most Democratic political action in the entire party. A real Democratic mini caucus.

    I love it and the posters, even the opposing, are passionate and dedicated and either way are Democrats (but frustrated-heh). That is what Democrats do, they argue to death about positions and those that do so are the best. (In my opinion)

    [ Parent ]

    Can't get on board.... (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:19:48 PM EST
    a train that thinks I and millions like me should be arrested, fined, and/or caged.

    Can't get on board a train that thinks it wise to spend more than you make.

    Can't get on board a train that opposes foreign occupations and invasions in words only.

    I don't think the station where that train stops is a place I wanna be....though I'm going all the same, whether the conductor is Obama or McCain.

    Oh well (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:20:57 PM EST
    His shenanigans on FISA were the final deal breaker for me. But I guess when gets to be the first Tuesday in November and you're staring at that ballot wondering what you can realistically expect from any presidential administration... it all depends on your definition of the words "deal breaker".

    Very few voters look at the GE as a big picture (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Saul on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:22:51 PM EST
     
    scenario like most political junkies do.   To most voters it is a personal choice of one candidate.  To want them to forget everything and just look at what is at stake if they do not get over the Clinton defeat can happen but very few will IMO.  Many also know what is at stake but since their choice of candidate did not win then many will say well that just tough and will not vote or vote for someone else.

    I have contiguously  said that the unique passion that has been demonstrated  in this past democrat primary will be what makes or breaks who wins this GE.  Especially if the passion is not used wisely by the nominee that won.

    Hilary is supporting Obama because it's  what her party needs her to do. Plus failure to do that will be looked it scornfully if Obama looses.  But I think deep down inside I do not think her heart is in it.

    I predict that the GE will be extremely close and  Obama has a very close chance of losing this election and if he does history will show that his pride was the main culprit.   Especially when he knew that if he picked Hilary the GE  would have been a slam dunk and to me that would show that he put his pride over the party's complete benefit and the democratic voters.


    irrational hate? (5.00 / 16) (#29)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:28:41 PM EST
    no, Jeralyn.  Not "irrational hate".

    Although I enjoy your thoughts and deeply respect what you do on this Board, those who are deciding not to vote for the Top of the Ticket -- or who may have decided to sit this one out -- are not doing so out of "irrational hate".  To label them thus is to suggest they haven't thought their process through, or that the Candidate they're not voting for is somehow innocent in pushing their votes away.  That all these wonderful, fantastic Dems under the bus somehow got here by accident.

    My decision to not vote for the Dem Ticket and relegate myself to voting downticket only came only after deep thought and a clear-eyed look at how Senator Obama ran his campaign and treated those who weren't supporting him.  And this is not a man I will ever vote for.

    But it's neither "irrational" nor is it "hate".  It's rational disgust and overwhelming sadness that the Democratic Party is no longer one I can support.

    I had a problem with that choice ... (5.00 / 6) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:40:54 PM EST
    of words myself.

    I will probably vote for Obama.

    But I think most of those who've expressed other views on this site have done it with a rational concern not irrational hate.

    [ Parent ]

    It was only a matter of time... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by LatinoVoter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:49:20 PM EST
    Today we are all busunderians.

    [ Parent ]
    Give me Liberty or give me Death (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by blogtopus on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:06:45 PM EST
    Those words are the highest of hyperbole, yet they are considered wise and intelligent words about the nature of being American.

    We have reached a point in America's history where it is failing on many different levels, not least of which is our level of freedom.

    I don't have children, so I can't speak from the point of view of someone who is leaving this nation to someone they love; this is my own, selfish view: America needs the Democratic Party.

    A Democratic Party should stand for everyone, not just the wealthy corporations, in that it should declare Universal Health Care (not coverage) as a right for All.

    A Democratic Party should stand for protecting its citizens from unchecked power in the government (not vote for FISA).

    A Democratic Party should listen to all its members, not just those who pack meeting halls and quash individual voices by drowning them out with scorn and dismissive rhetoric.

    A Democratic Party should respect the values of ALL, not just the patriarchal foundation that has led to rampant sexism in the form of unequal pay for equal work, loss of control over one's own body, and lack of respect for those who aren't just equal, but superior when push comes to shove.

    And finally, a Democratic Party should be better for the sake of being better, not just for the sake of not being as bad as the Republican Party.

    I refuse to accept Obama as somehow being the death of freedom in America, because he has not had the chance to prove himself in the big chair. But I also refuse to accept Obama as a better alternative for the very same reason. I don't know how I will vote in November, but the words of Patrick Henry will be ringing in my ear when I enter the voting booth, and it is up to Obama, not McCain, to show me this Democratic Party is going to support the American Dream.

    [ Parent ]

    The Democratic Party... (2.00 / 0) (#193)
    by Nevart on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:33:27 PM EST
    ...also needs to win.  The nature of the US' "two-party system" forces compromise on us.  We often have to vote for the lesser of two evils.  Sometimes, perhaps, it doesn't matter that much.  That's what a lot of people thought in 2000, and voted for Nader.  And look what happened.  I've got a 9-year-old daughter and one reason I'm voting for Obama (or against McCain, if you want to look at it that way) is that I don't want her to have to face the prospect of a back-alley abortion some day.  That's reason enough for me to overlook FISA.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorry to hear it (5.00 / 4) (#208)
    by blogtopus on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:48:53 PM EST
    But if winning at all costs is what you want the Dem party to do, then congratulations, you have your candidate.

    As for the back-alley abortions, let's be clear: There are already enough votes on the SC to make that a reality, and that is in large part to a congress that let it happen when it did not have to. Alito and Roberts were treated with kid gloves.

    What happens if Obama decides to support another Roberts (as he did for most of that man's confirmation process) and the congress supports his choice "in the name of Unity"? Wouldn't you rather have a congress who knows it blew it on the Pres, and wants to keep its job, so it actually works as an opposition party to the GOP Pres?

    I love my brother, but your comment reminds me of the time he said he was thinking of voting for Bush and not Kerry because he didn't want his family to blow up in a terrorist attack at his local grocery store... he's a smart guy, too, as I assume you are also smart. Don't fall for the 'vote Obama or the coathanger people will be knocking on your door' gambit; we passed that point a couple years ago.

    [ Parent ]

    So Obama and the government (5.00 / 3) (#235)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:04:37 PM EST
    will be listening in when you call Planned Parenthood for help for your daughter?

    Not a good option.  I didn't like that grin on his face when he voted for FISA.  Not the guy who says you should call your minister first.

    I have a daughter.  And I don't think that the GOP is going to give up Roe v. Wade.  It's too good for them, so they want to keep using it.

    But they, and Obama, do want to keep chipping away at it, and there already is not enough left of it.

    So I would suggest that you also stay up to date on what is happening in the new Dem headquarters city of Chicago.  Where women are reviving the great Jane, the organization in which women took care of themselves and their daughters before Roe v. Wade.  There is a great book on it, btw.  Another good one for the bookshelf is Our Bodies, Ourselves from those days.

    Oh, and please don't use the phone to call Jane.

    [ Parent ]

    I just (5.00 / 10) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:29:21 PM EST
    can't get too motivated to vote for a candidate who's motto is "not mccain". I'm sick of hearing McCain is evil or McCain is bad or whatever. It doesn't make me want to vote for Obama. 2% less evil is not a reason.

    Obama is just an awful candidate imo. He's been willing to compromise literally everything away so far and if he makes it into the WH, McCain might as well have won. The drama and turmoil that his campaign constantly puts out there is a real turnoff too. I would rather have a grown up in the WH. I'm tired of immature whiners like Bush.

    I don't hate Obama (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by dianem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:33:07 PM EST
    I do hate the way he, or rather Axelrod, ran his campaign.  Personally, I'm sure that Obama is a very nice person. He is certainly charismatic, a good family man, and I believe he is well-intentions, if a bit ruthless in how he goes about achieving his goals. A lot of politicians are ruthless. If he had used these tactics against McCain I probably would not be nearly as offended. But he didn't. He used them against people I admire, solid Dems who didn't deserve to be tarred the way they were. I am very afraid that the Democratic party is so obsessed with gaining back power that they are sacrificing the honesty and integrity that made them different from the right wing. No, they weren't and aren't perfect. But I sensed a certain idealism in Kerry and Gore that I don't see in Obama. I think that we stood a pretty good chance at winning the general election in spite of the right wing machine - but Dems don't want to vote for the kind of politics we saw in the primary.

    I will fight for the downticket Dem in my district, a man who stands to take a seat that is practically owned by Republicans. He's a bit of a longshot, but has a better chance than any Dem in recent history of doing it. That's my way of fighting for Democratic principles. I'm glad you're not rejecting people who don't support Obama. We're not necessarily lost to the party, but a lot of people could be pushed away if the conventional wisdom of many Obama supporter's (that we are traitors to the party) is widely accepted. I'm not a dem anymore (that has nothing to do with Obama), but I will almost certainly never vote Republican, and I am likely to support the Dem candidates now and in the future.

    Misspeach, don't leave (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:33:21 PM EST
    I will be all alone.  This is by far the best site for real political coverage.  I understand Jeralyn's point and it is a very good point.  Obama is all we have.  However, you don't have to get on board.  I am not.  I never recall being so "befuddled" as my name suggests.  It just won't go away.  The way the Clintons were treated amazes me.  Politically stupid is a gross understatement.  The insults lodged at supporters of Hillary Clinton is nothing I have ever witnessed in one's own party.  The attacks on Bill Clinton, of all people, as a racist simply infuriates me.  The Rulz Committee just handing Hillary Clinton's earned delegates to Obama
    was a travesty.  Now to make matters worse, Obama
    petitions to count all the votes so that FL and MI will be fully seated and his request is granted, now that it does not matter at all.

    I am the last person one would expect to be on the fence come the election. I am.  I strongly believe that the Democratic establishment needs to learn a lesson.  All votes count.  People choose the nominee.  Democratic Primaries should mirror the GE, just as the Republicans do.  

    If I sounded harsh, (5.00 / 6) (#99)
    by misspeach2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:58:01 PM EST
    I meant to. I am an education professional whose job is to show teachers how to get students to meet higher standards. The first step is to set higher standards for them. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy TalkLeft and have appreciated Jeralyn's hospitality, something I have thanked her for often. However, the  standards that she expects politicians to meet has become just to have a (D) after their name. She has written multiple posts about why she doesn't want Joe Biden to be anywhere near the presidency, but when push came to shove, she is supporting him for VP. Maybe she won't vote for him in the privacy of the voting booth, but she is giving his candidacy the support of her blog. If she's not voting for him herself, but expects us to, then that is the ultimate hypocrisy. I do enjoy reading TL, and I'll probably still drop by to read occasionally, but I have nothing left to say. I am disappointed in Jeralyn's post today. It's like an "A" student has turned in "D" work. It's difficult to hand that paper back to the student, but that's where I'm at.

    [ Parent ]
    If you believe that Obama (4.85 / 7) (#73)
    by facta non verba on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:47:59 PM EST
    is all we have you are condemning the Republic to a grave. No where in the Constitution does it say anything about a two party system. In fact it doesn't mention parties at all and there weren't any parties until the 1820s when the Jackson Democrats and the Clay Whigs arose. In the 1850s the Republican Party came along and the Whigs disappeared. Until the 1950s there were vibrant third parties even if none them captured the White House their ideas made into both parties. The eight hour day a Progressive idea, workers compensation insurance a Socialist idea.

    The two party system is broken. Either we create a new paradigm or Ben Franklin's dictum will finally come true: A Republic if we can keep it.

    Voting for Obama is the death knell of this Republic. His inexperience will actually cost lives. Had he been President when he uttered those pandering comments about Jerusalem, he would have set off riots across the Islamic world.
    That's why judgment matters. Obama doesn't have an iota of it. Putin will run circles around him. Sorry but unlike BTD I believe in a strong national defence.

    [ Parent ]

    All we have (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:34:17 PM EST
    as Democrats at the moment.  Obama is it.  I do support a third party but you have to admit there is no chance in hell third party candidate will win.  Won't happen this year anyway.  I am really disgusted by the Dems.  I cannot stress that enough.  The whole machine selected, groomed, manipulated and contrived the Obama nomination ab initio.  

    So, for this year, it will come down to the two major parties.  

    [ Parent ]

    Aww, what happened to the old jalopy? (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by ineedalife on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:35:33 PM EST
    Did they threaten to take your credentials away?

    Well life isn't too short for rational hatred. I ain't votin fer em!!!

    Ummm...Jeralyn, that picture (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:37:28 PM EST
    looks like some weird two-headed man-creature. Hard to get on board with whatever that is. Maybe something more flattering?

    Shades of Rosie and Ray! (none / 0) (#266)
    by DFLer on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:19:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Politics is the art of compromise (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by robrecht on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:38:36 PM EST
    Whenever I get discouraged about Obama's weaknesses as the Dem nominee, I think of Cheney's upcoming convention speech.

    Why don't you put some expectations (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by nycstray on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:38:46 PM EST
    on Obama? It's his job to win over voters. If he had any substance*, he would be talking directly to her voters, including PUMAs.

    *I'm being polite there  ;)

    It's the DNC's (5.00 / 1) (#243)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:08:41 PM EST
    problem to figure out how to bring the PUMA back to the party. This group is trying to demand the democractic process be returned to the people. They are the only ones who are standing steadfast against the dramatic revisions to the rules so the votes of the people could be ignored and they could choose the candidate.

    Neither candidate has enough pledged delegates going into the convention to win the nomination. The SDs have not voted, they don't vote until convention. That wasn't a little over-sight on the part of party leadership.

    [ Parent ]

    Time for Obama to get specific (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:39:16 PM EST
    I personally don't know any Democrat that wants another Republican admin. Obama needs to quit worrying about the evangelical's and republican's and put his focus on Democratic values and voters.  

    Republicans have a lot of issues with McCain and yet the polls are showing McCain is getting better support from Republicans than Obama is from Democrats.

    Obama did the Saddleback deal to show how open he was to religion. Maybe he needs to do a one on one special where he really discusses specific Democratic values and where he wants to take the party. (He could do like Hilary and buy an hour on Lifetime) The debates won't address specific Democratic or progressive concerns.

    I completely agree, (5.00 / 0) (#221)
    by Matt in Chicago on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:56:11 PM EST
    My biggest fear is that he doesn't want to talk specifics because that means he can't appeal to everyone anymore.  Nevermind that his lack of specifics are starting to really turn people (me) off.

    [ Parent ]
    Hang around (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Pianobuff on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:39:17 PM EST
    For what it's worth, I'm one of those "average right of center" people, and I probably spend as much or more time reading content on this site than any other though - largely due to the fact that the conversation seems to be often the most reasoned and respectful that I've found on both sides of the net.

    Hope you stick around.

    Thank you Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:41:52 PM EST
    Eloquent as always.  

    I am both supporting Obama/Biden, and sending a contribution today to help Hillary retire her debt.  

    Time to take back the White House, and significant expand the congressional advantage.  

    Although I just wrote a post a little (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by litigatormom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:43:35 PM EST
    upthread saying that I am going to vote for Obama, I agree with this statement. Obama has not reached out to Hillary's voters nearly enough, and he has not treated her with as much respect as she deserves. The DNC acted abominably this year.

    But somewhere upthread someone questioned voting for Obama as putting party before country.  For me it is just the opposite. Voting for McCain because we are pissed at the DNC and Obama for their treatment of the Clintons is, IMO, allowing our desire to reform the Democratic Party and push it farther to the left ahead of the well-being of the country. I don't think the country can stand four (or God forbid, eight) more years of Republican rule.  It is already going to be hard enough to pull the country out of the deep hole the Republicans have dug for us.  In four or eight years the hole may have closed up on us and buried us alive.

    The problem (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:47:08 PM EST
    I have, is that I don't think Obama has what it takes to solve those problems. Obviously McCain doesn't either. I think we're going to see a continuation of the problems we have right now no matter who wins. If you don't have any confidence in Obama's ability (he's shown no leadership whatsover in his political career that I've seen) people could at least rationalize that if McCain gets in, he'll take the hit for all that's wrong.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, perhaps you and I differ (5.00 / 0) (#102)
    by litigatormom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:59:00 PM EST
    I have "some" confidence in Obama, rather than "no" confidence. Not as much as I'd like, but McCain scares the bejesus out of me.  I don't see McCain "taking the hit" for the continuation of our problems.  And I don't see our problems merely continuing under McCain, I see them getting exponentially worse.

    Obama is something of a cipher, I agree. But there is a significant chance that he will learn and grow into the job, IMO.  The chances of a Democratic controlled Congress pushing him a little further left, assuming that they truly reflect the will of the people, is far greater than such a Congress pushing McCain anywhere except Veto City and more secret executive orders that are so classified that we don't learn about them until the damage is done.

    [ Parent ]

    Look (5.00 / 3) (#126)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    at Pelosi and see where all that is going. The Dems we elected in 2006 have failed on so many levels it's not funny. I was where you are 2 years ago. I had great hopes. I just see Obama as a continuation of the failure of leadership like Pelosi. If you look at it that way, getting Bills vetoed would be even better than putting Pelosi's bills forward.

    [ Parent ]
    When you hear Pelosi say (5.00 / 4) (#215)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    "thank god for Obama" then you Houston, we have a problem! For all the reasons so many have stated and I agree with about not voting top of the ticket, Joe Biden, who I actually like, voted for the Iraq war. All we ever heard was Obama's stance against the war and he constantly reminded us of everyone's else bad judgement in that vote. Words do mean alot, and his words are empty and scary!

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:08:02 PM EST
    likes the secretive stuff too. After all, he supported FISA legislation. He wants all that power just as much as McCain does. Do you honestly think he'll undo any of it? I don't.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama wasn't alone in voting (none / 0) (#137)
    by litigatormom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:10:55 PM EST
    for that bill.  I was very disappointed in that vote. Very.  But the Democratic leadership negotiated it. And yes, I think that McCain is far more likely to abuse that power, and give himself more, than Obama is. There is at least a chance Obama will fix that legislation with a solid Democratic majority. There is absolutely no chance that McCain will.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:33:18 PM EST
    won't fix it. That bill is here to stay. If it was so important to the Dems then Pelosi could have kept it from even coming to a vote. This didn't happen without Obama's approval. I guarantee he'll do nothing to change the FISA bill.

    [ Parent ]
    you're right (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:50:23 PM EST
    anyone who will devote two pages in his book to beating up and attacking the opponent he already beat in his US Senate race obviously has a strong streak of petty vengeance.  And, with CDS still rampant in his campaign with no effort made to rein in his most abusive supporters, his taste for revenge is even more prevalent.

    And to fix the FISA bill means he wouldn't have access to info with which to "punish" those who dared disagree with or run against him.

    Oh!  Has Obama made any comment whatsoever asking people NOT to riot in the streets if he loses?  I know some of his most vocal supporters are promising it, but has he said anything to dissuade them or is he turning a convenient blind eye?

    [ Parent ]

    Obama was alone in being the one (5.00 / 1) (#248)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:09:48 PM EST
    that the Dem leadership picked as the nominee.  So he could have kept it from even coming to a vote, if he wanted to appeal to the core Dem base.

    But he wanted to pander to the right some more.  That's all.

    [ Parent ]

    Most of us aren't voting for McCain. (5.00 / 4) (#84)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:52:39 PM EST
    The part of me that can't get over my principles to vote for Obama is the same part of me that can't protest vote for McCain.

    Many PUMAs feel the same way, although Obama makes it harder every day to not protest vote.

    [ Parent ]

    Most of us aren't voting for McCain (4.00 / 4) (#85)
    by dianem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:53:33 PM EST
    I'm sure as heck not. There seems to be a widespread assumption that people who don't like Obama are automatically supporting McCain. That's not true. A lot of us are simply voting downticket or not voting at all. Regardless, we will not have 4 more years of Republican rule. Unless things go even worse than I expect them to, Dems will have solid majorities in Congress after the elections. No more obscurity. It's up to them to do somthing with their majorities.

    [ Parent ]
    Markos was on NPR this morning (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by bjorn on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:47:10 PM EST
    telling everyone listening that Hillary supporters would all end up voting for Obama because of the choice issue.  Just the sound of his voice and those words made me want to NOT VOTE!

    Boy, he's behind the times, isn't he? n/t (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:58:13 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Kos better hope that McCain (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by Matt in Chicago on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:00:35 PM EST
    Doesn't pick a Pro-Choice candidate in spite (and over the strenuous objections) of his conservative "supporters".

    Am I the only one tired of having to vote for a candidate because they support ONE issue?  The old argument that they might be wrong on issue A to Y, but on issue Z they are perfect!!!  Is really wearing thin with me.

    [ Parent ]

    He's sounding pretty shrill these days (5.00 / 3) (#120)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:04:49 PM EST
    If choice is all they have I'd expect a loss this year? When choice really mattered Dems kept their powder dry.

    [ Parent ]
    Kinda ironic (5.00 / 7) (#124)
    by Landulph on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:05:32 PM EST
    the lineup of anti-choice preachers at the convention, innit?

    [ Parent ]
    And another thing . . . (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by Landulph on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:12:10 PM EST
    Polls show Obama is doing quite well among women. It's MEN that he is losing by a larger margin than Kerry 4 years ago. This may indicate that Markos' sterotype of the "disgruntled Clinton voter" may need an update.

    [ Parent ]
    Everyone knows (none / 0) (#98)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:57:58 PM EST
    I have always spoken out against the kinds of personal attacks Markos makes on other politicians.

    [ Parent ]
    Not Vote and Throw Up (none / 0) (#222)
    by zfran on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:56:16 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Hmm, "railroading the voters" (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:51:25 PM EST
    is not a good way to put it, in my opinion.

    I preferred the Oldsmobile.  The metaphor of the freedom of the open road and all.  Just saying.

    Interesting analysis of Obama/Biden ticket (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by OisforOpportunist on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:51:32 PM EST
    Here's the link to an interesting analysis of the Obama/Biden ticket and the 2008 elections from a decidedly leftist point of view:

    http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug2008/bide-a25.shtml

    I don't feel filled with irrational hate (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:53:53 PM EST
    Who here feels filled with irrational hate?

    In the electric kool-aid acid test tom wolfe writes about how the merry pranksters had a rule that you were either on the bus or off the bus, and that they simply didn't want a bunch of people hanging around because they thought it would be cool, they just wanted people on their bus who were really into what they were trying to do.

    I think I respected that at the time.  

    I think that this post signifies that TL now squarely sits on the Obama/Biden08 bus.

    And it won't happen overnight but there will be some changes.

    But I also think "irrational hate" was a very poor choice of words.  If someone cares about Obama winning, they would look to garner support for Obama by earning that support, not by demanding it and putting out there that those who have not yet decided to give Obama his support are filled with irrational hate.

    Voting is a political matter (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Andreas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:57:16 PM EST
    Joseph Biden was and is one of the most enthusiastic supporters of the criminal invasion of Iraq. A vote for Obama/Biden is a vote for further wars. This is not simply a "personal" matter.

    Biden will have a big voice (5.00 / 0) (#128)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:07:04 PM EST
    in foreign policy.  What does that say about Obama and his change?

    [ Parent ]
    It says that his Change PR blitz is hoooey (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:21:02 PM EST
    Which is good.  I was starting to believe it wasn't.

    I actually had it in my head that Obama would be running off to have face to face negotiations with world leader antagonists without preconditions.

    I am now somewhat assured that he will not be doing that.


    [ Parent ]

    I was wondering when (none / 0) (#113)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:02:44 PM EST
    That was going to come up.

    But I don't think Biden is responsible for the war.

    Anymore than I think Murtha, Cleland, Edwards or Clinton are responsible for the war.  

    Everyone knows I have spoken out endlessly and consistently on this issue.  That I think "for the war" rhetoric is not only an oversimplification of the issue... to the point of being intentionally misrepresentational about the politician in question -- but also far more helpful to the republicans than it is to the democrats.

    It's one of my biggest issues with Obama.  He used that rhetoric for Political Gain.

    [ Parent ]

    So Biden is not responsible for what he does? (none / 0) (#136)
    by Andreas on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:10:54 PM EST
    You do not deny that Joseph Biden supported and supports the war. But you do deny that he is responsible for the war. That only makes sense if you deny that he is responsible for what he does.

    [ Parent ]
    It's the beauty.... (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:29:00 PM EST
    of being a congress-critter, you are never responsible for anything.

    It's the only job where you can say one thing, do the exact opposite, and still get re-elected based solely on the letter after your name.

    And you get to give yourself a raise...its a helluva gig, I tell ya.

    [ Parent ]

    That's not what I'm saying (none / 0) (#254)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:13:27 PM EST
    And I care too much about the argument I'm making to see it caricatured.

    Because people have some emotional AND reasonable attachment to Feingold's stand on the war, it has always been a good tactic to point out that his vote on Roberts was not so good.  But the point I make about Feingold and Roberts is NOT that he agreed with how Roberts would use the power he would be given but that Roberts had, through executive priveledge on judicial appointments, a sort of right to some support if, in the mind of the senator, the man was deemed qualified for the job.

    So.  I do not say Senators are without responsibility.

    But I also think to say Feingold is now responsible for every judicial decision handed down by Roberts is laughable.  Silly.

    I hope that explains my argument to some degree.

    It really shouldn't be that difficult for a voter to comprehend what I'm saying.


    [ Parent ]

    I don't hold Biden responsible for the war (none / 0) (#151)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:18:28 PM EST
    I know he would have used the authority differently.


    [ Parent ]
    Unless Senator Obama makes an effort to (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:59:04 PM EST
    earn my vote, I will happily remain under the bus rather than aboard it.

    Obama's lack of experience, coupled with his willingness to undermine core Party principles, is a combination I find personally untenable. His resume cannot be padded at this juncture, but Obama can make a concerted effort to fight for progressive values during his campaign. He has not done so.

    More importantly, I am deeply upset by the devolution of Democratic Party values, particularly since 2006. Obama is merely the personification of this trend, thus the rejection of his candidacy is a succinct yet effective manner of relaying my dissatisfaction to the Democratic Party elite.

    My concern is that an Obama presidency has the potential to do more long-term damage to Party and Country than a McCain presidency. I will not betray my conscience or cheapen my vote simply because anyone, including Hillary Clinton, asks me.

    Why should voters get on board just because (5.00 / 4) (#104)
    by carmel on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:59:09 PM EST
    they are told to? We are not mindless sheep that will just vote for someone because of the "D" next to their name - especially after this farce of a primary and now coronation. Obama/Biden is Bush/Cheney Redux, newly packaged for the younger generation. On CNN this morning the commentators were even talking about how Biden was Obama's Cheney, like it was a GOOD thing! No, an inexperienced president being led around by those surrounding him is not a GOOD thing, it's a BAD thing! We have just lived through 8 horrible years of it! It would be awesome if one of these talking heads just looked at the camera, after being asked another stupid, inane leading question about how great Obama is, and say you know he isn't all that great, Hillary would be much, much better.

    The Truth is Coming Out (5.00 / 0) (#256)
    by chopper on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:15:28 PM EST

    http://wewillnotbesilenced2008.com/video/index.htm

    [ Parent ]

    I have no irrational hate (5.00 / 8) (#112)<