Time to Get on Board

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 >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you for this eloquent post (5.00 / 2) (#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?


    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.      

    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).


    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?"


    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.


    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.


    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'

    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


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

    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!


    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.


    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.



    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.


    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.  ;-)  


    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.

    To be clear... (1.00 / 4) (#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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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?


    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.  


    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.  


    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.

    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.


    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?

    Heh (none / 0) (#95)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:57:02 PM EST
    You vote your conscience (5.00 / 11) (#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.  


    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.


    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.

    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)


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.  


    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
    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.

    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!

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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?


    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.


    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.


    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.

    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
    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.

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


    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?

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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
    I have no irrational hate (5.00 / 8) (#112)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:02:31 PM EST
    My hate is very rational based on much thought.

    I don't hate Obama.  I don't respect him, but I don't hate him.   I really hate the Democratic Party.  I feel deceived and betrayed.

    Our votes are our own.  Their is no "board" to get onto.  The ship has sailed, deliberately without us.

    There Are Definitely Differences (5.00 / 0) (#118)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    But on the core issues that mattered to me--constitutional freedoms, education, health care, the economy--not so much.

    I could be supporting Hillary Clinton right now exactly the way Jerilyn talks about Clinton supporters getting behind Obama--not as enthusiastically but supporting, or at least voting for in November.

    It's approximately the pivot I made in 2004 from Dean (that was fast!) to Kerry. Of course if Dean had gone the distance Clinton went in the primaries, that pivot would have come (I hope it would have) with considerably greater painful effort.

    That's why I empathize with the resistance so many still feel.

    Too bad that on at least (5.00 / 2) (#260)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:17:11 PM EST
    two of the issues you raise (constitutional freedoms and health care), Obama's positions aren't far from McCain.  Obama torpedoed any chance for health care reform with his Harry & Louise ads, and he voted for the FISA capitulation bill.

    As for education and the economy...well, Obama hasn't made thsoe issues much of a priority in his campaign, so who knows what he would plan to do.  I do know that he likes to brag about how he stands up to teachers' unions and backs some form of merit pay, as well as will probably advocate for school vouchers to religious schools as part of making faith the core of his administration (even if some related entities to those schools discriminate in their hiring practices).

    So, based on your criteria, I guess Obama's in a big mess of trouble with Democrats.


    I'm not a Republican (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:05:05 PM EST
    And I'm not a sheep.  I can think for myself and to whom I give my vote.  The political parties have their candidates and it's up to them to put candidates I can support.  Statements of "Get over it", or "Get on board", "We're united", "The party will be united", etc. are no substitute for a good candidate even if repeated zillion times.  Good candidates bring unity, not empty words.  I know that Hillary would have never alienated purposefully a group of voters to win.  That would have a Pyrrhic victory, and that's what Obama got.

    something just occured to me (5.00 / 3) (#220)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:55:41 PM EST
    When in recent history has a political party had such a weak and divisive candidate that it's Leaders were literally BEGGING for it's Base to "get on board" and please, please, pretty please vote for the guy?

    It's amazing, isn't it?  When the Party itself is having a major problem getting it's Base to support the Candidate the Party Elite selected -- against the express will of it's Voters --, you know you have major, MAJOR problems.

    Major problems.


    Im trying (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:06:01 PM EST
    I really really am.
    but I wont lie.  I aint there yet.

    It's not about how Jeralyn votes (5.00 / 7) (#133)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:09:15 PM EST
    She doesn't want her blog to become a means of organizing agains the Democratic ticket, so the blog supports the ticket. I greatly respect that. What Jeralyn does with her vote is not our concern. This is an Obama/Biden friendly site, although one that encourages clear-eyed thinking and focus on issues, not personalities.

    If your vote (or non-vote) is not being driven by "irrational hate" then don't worry; that comment wasn't directed at you.

    If somebody (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by Emma on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:07:53 PM EST
    wants to tell me, or suggest to me, how to use my vote, what he/she is going to do with his/her vote is certainly my concern.  Although Jeralyn is not the blog, there is no blog without Jeralyn.  They are not separable in the way you want to claim.

    Jeralyn can clearly state:  "No anti-Obama organizing" without telling people it's time to get onboard the train she might very well pass up herself.  I'm happy not to organize against Obama here.  I'm not so happy that I'm being told what I "should" do with my own vote by someone who doesn't want to discuss her vote.  


    you are exactly right (none / 0) (#172)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:26:27 PM EST
    thank you.

    I love this blog! (none / 0) (#189)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:32:16 PM EST
    It's nice to be able to come here and discuss things, even when I disagree. Sorry you are having to put in extra time cleaning this thread of nonsense.

    +100 (none / 0) (#218)
    by lambert on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:54:28 PM EST

    Isn't this just another way of saying ... (5.00 / 0) (#138)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:11:10 PM EST
    sit down you're rocking the boat.

    Often, I think, it's the job of progressives to rock the boat.

    rock the boat (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:29:21 PM EST
    just dont tip the boat over

    although (none / 0) (#191)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:32:37 PM EST
    I may not follow my own advise

    If (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by tek on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:12:32 PM EST
    all Democrats aren't on board with Obama it's totally Obama's fault.  It's no more appropriate to demand that all liberals get behind Obama than it would be for those opposed to him to insist that ALL Democrats stand up to the leaders of the Party and the DNC and demand that they admit they have corrupted the election process in an undemocratic way and step down.  Then they should call for a totally fair, unmanipulated roll call and give Hillary the chance they STOLE from her on May 31st and throughout the primaries when Obama got DOUBLE DELEGATES for AA districts--Donna Brazile's new affirmative action rule.  These people have totally subverted democracy in this country and I am very curious as to why.  I don't see any justified reason behind it.  

    depending on what state you live in (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:17:19 PM EST
    many Clinton supporters will have many choices this fall.

    I live in NC.  Obama isn't going to win here no matter WHAT i do with my vote.  I will be checking the rules in my state about write-in votes.  If I can write-in Clinton and have it counted as a vote for Clinton, I will do so.  If not I will leave the top of the ticket blank.  Either way, I want my vote to count as a protest vote this year.

    Now, if the polls tighten up and it looks like Obama may have a chance in NC, then and only then will i vote for McCain.

    My one and only goal this fall is to do what I can to make sure that neither Obama nor the DNC are rewarded for their behavior this year.

    I said all along the only way Obama would get my vote is if he named Clinton as VP.  And, I intend to stand by that.

    I will vote dem on the rest of the ballot in an attempt to unseat "Liddy" Dole and to keep the NC gov in the dem column.

    Show don't tell (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by s5 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:17:46 PM EST
    I know all the contributors of Talkleft will vote for the Democratic ticket, but supporting Obama and Biden is something entirely different. The bulk of what I read on the front page here is criticism and disappointment of Obama and Biden, with occasional jabs at McCain. What ends up happening is that the words you write here create a community around dissatisfaction.

    I hardly think Obama is above criticism, but it's not the time for that. We need to get him elected, then we can have someone who is basically on our side who we can criticize and disagree with and pressure, rather than someone who is completely hostile to our priorities. Once he's in office, go after him for every bad policy. Force him to explain himself. Pressure your own senators and representatives to go up against him when he makes a bad call. Hold him accountable for when he runs for reelection. And make sure he remembers that impeachment is always on the table.

    I hope Talkleft will shift its focus to things it actually likes about Obama and Biden, rather than repeating the post about how he should have picked Clinton as his VP. I agree that Clinton would have been a great choice, but surely there are other things to say about Obama and Biden that align with your values.

    If not now (5.00 / 3) (#232)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:04:09 PM EST
    When? Once he has the power. do you really think you can change policy then. He'll be like Bush and consider the election a "mandate" from the people. Look at his policy shifts just since the primaries. If he needs the party behind him, he needs to be behind the party too.

    Telling people (5.00 / 2) (#236)
    by eleanora on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:05:46 PM EST
    how and what they can post about on their own blogs is not doing your long term goals any favors, IMO. Jeralyn has created a community at Talk Left that demands civility and accuracy from its members, not slavish obedience to a single point of view.

    I respect her stance, as I expected her stance (5.00 / 5) (#166)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    ... but I am not bound by it.

    In my view, Obama is not merely unqualified, but unfit and unworthy.

    So is McCain. It's a race to the bottom.

    But as always, the moral choice comes down to consequences. Would a McCain win or an Obama win leave better prospects for a progressive future?

    I'm going with McCain. Behind the fog of sentiment, Obama has been telling us pretty clearly what kind of change he has in mind. He believes he's The One chosen to liberate the Democratic multitudes from a misguided belief in the good government can do for the people.

    The Democratic Party has abdicated, and politics is broken.

    You're right, Jeralyn, life is short. I do not imagine I will live to see a renaissance of meaningful democratic politics ... but I will do what I can for distant possibilities, for young people I know and those I'll never know.

    With four miserable years of McCain, there's hope. Obama leaves none.

    McCain it is, then.

    excellent question (5.00 / 0) (#173)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:26:43 PM EST

    If our history had been full ... (5.00 / 11) (#188)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:31:55 PM EST
    of people who willingly "got on board", when they thought it was wrong, women would never have gotten the vote, segregation and the Vietnam War might never have ended, our children would still be working in factories and so on.

    In fact, if "get on board" was the prime dictum of our society, a British flag would still be flying over our capital.

    Some people will never get on board.  They prefer to man the lighthouse, and make sure the ship of state doesn't crash against the rocks.

    Great Post! (5.00 / 7) (#211)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:49:45 PM EST
    The problem we're facing now is because too many people got on the bus before they found out exactly where it was going.  

    Learning French and going to (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:01:15 PM EST
    live with a family there is the experience I credit with teaching me the value and importance of trying to figure out a way to speak someone else's language when you are clearly failing to connect in your own.

    The point was driven home most in my interactions with the dog and the five year old child in the family.  Lol - years of French study from kindergarten on and I really didn't "speak" French when I arrived.  The dog didn't understand English or hand signals and the child thought I was uber-stupid because I couldn't say anything but oui, non ou peut-être.  I got with the program.  It was mostly there.  I was being shy.  The adults understood, but the little girl and the dog didn't so for them I made an effort to overcome my self-conciousness and did my best to speak their language.

    Anyway it taught me that I should at least try and really listen to other people to understand where they are coming from.

    Coming up with a list (5.00 / 1) (#237)
    by blogtopus on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:06:59 PM EST
    of all the reasons why Obama is bad for the future... so I can chew each reason up and spit it out to prepare for possibly voting for him.

    This is similar to what i told my brother in law and his new wife, who are expecting: Come up with a list of all the most undesirable traits from your families and yourselves, and build the absolute worst kid possible. THAT's what to stack your kid up against; if you have that list available, you'll be ready to deal with a lot of bad stuff and smile with glee. haha

    So, back to Obama. What I don't like:

    1. FISA
    2. Universal Health Care: Not going to happen
    3. Roberts support
    4. Religious groups involved in government
    5. Oil Drilling
    6. Inexperience on the world stage
    7. Sexist attitude not good role model material
    8. Race Card usage not helping racial divide

    Those are the quick and fast, anything else? BTW this is so I can eventually ACCEPT Obama, not to be mistaken for a list of why you shouldn't vote for him (subtle but big difference).

    If it makes you feel better, why not also come up with a list of why McCain is so bad, too. I'm sure everyone can get into THAT.

    Gay-baiting to win elections. (5.00 / 0) (#264)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:18:38 PM EST
    the democrats NEED US (5.00 / 2) (#242)
    by hellothere on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:08:01 PM EST
    to hold their feet to the fire and not just join in. look what that did for republicans. ignoring the problems doesn't cure them. and just saying i am voting for mccain insults me and 18 million others. at this point i have zero confidence in the democrats making a real effort to change anything win or lose. so what do i gain by voting for obama? i don't see it sorry to say.

    It is funny (5.00 / 1) (#255)
    by Matt in Chicago on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:15:09 PM EST
    I had hoped after 2000 and 2004 that the Party would go back and look at why they lost two elections that I believe they should have won.  You know, go examine their message and their platform... instead, they have (to my point of view) caved to their radical fringe in much the same way that the Republicans caved to their radical evangelical fringe.

    Signs are showing that the evangelicals are losing power... I wonder when the radical left will finally go the way of the Dodo??


    More of a problem is that men (5.00 / 6) (#252)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:12:39 PM EST
    are more united around McCain.

    Pelosi can't even figure out the polls.  Or she lies here in putting it on women.  Either way, she's a fool.

    It would be so easy to remedy (5.00 / 3) (#267)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:19:06 PM EST
    this situation.  Obama must come out courting hard on healthcare and the economy and he must come out swinging HARD left.  Will he though?  This is a hard thread to read.  There are a lot of upset people out there and rightfully so.  How many times will BTD post about what must be done and will they ever do it?  McCain really hasn't even started throwing punches yet, wake up Obama campaign.  Do it now.

    Just to be clear (5.00 / 1) (#284)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:32:34 PM EST
    I don't tell people how to vote. I said,

    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.

    Nor did I say everyone who disagrees is consumed by irrational hatred. I was addressing those who are.

    Comments are over 200 and this thread has closed.

    Irrational hate? (5.00 / 1) (#286)
    by lentinel on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:03:07 PM EST
    -"As I wrote here in May, life is too short to be consumed by irrational hate."-

    Would you characterize your statement that Biden would be a "deal-breaker" an expression of irrational hate? It seems to me to be an expression of personal feeling.

    You are perfectly entitled to consider that Biden is no longer a deal-breaker for you, and you are prepared to support the democratic ticket. You urge us all to "get on board". The greater good is the defeat of McCain.

    You also put out a call "particularly to Hillary Clinton supporters" to "get on board." "Get on board" means what, exactly? Do as we're told?

    Let Obama and his campaign, and you on TalkLeft, set about winning people over who have been alienated by Obama's actions as a Senator and during his campaign for the democratic nomination - including the unfortunate naming of the lackluster Biden.  Many if not all of these disappointing actions have been well chronicled by Talkleft. I am still reeling from them.

    Let Obama and those who are convinced that he is dramatically different from McCain set about motivating people to vote for him.

    I don't hate Obama.
    What's to hate?
    On the other hand, what's to love?

    Get on board? Not on your life (5.00 / 1) (#291)
    by Bornagaindem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:30:55 PM EST
    get on board -not on your life. Getting on board means being like a republican- my very first objection to Obama. I didn't like all his "we have to work with the other side" and "democrats are as bad as republicans" rhetoric.

    Obama's campaign is all about him. There are no ideas because he has never had any. He has no convictions, he has no agenda except to win the next office -for himself. He is clearly unqualified to be president. Name one thing he did for his district in Chicago as a state senator for 8 years.

    If the democratic party is willing to nominate a man who is less qualified for office than George W. Bush then they don't deserve my vote.

    With the house and senate firmly in democratic hands McCain can do no harm. It will be good for the congress -they will actually not have the cover of a democratic president and it will be good for the party. Hopefully it will force them to eliminate the undemocratic super delegates and caucuses. When 1.1 million caucus goers are able to force their choice on the rest of the party something is wrong with the system. That cannot be addressed while Obama's legitimacy rests upon that not being the case.

    An Obama presidency would be disaster. Some one who votes present instead of standing up for what he believes is not a leader and when some one says that is above my pay grade all I can say is "with all due respect senator the presidency is above your pay grade".

    Nice speech by Michelle Obama (5.00 / 0) (#296)
    by Realleft on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 11:22:20 PM EST
    And giving Senator Clinton the top recognition was classy.  Save Sen. Biden for 2nd mention, nice.  

    The sense of what might have been if Sen. Clinton was VP nominee is palpable.  Still, I truly think she'll be in a better position to do more in the Senate than she would have been able to in a supporting role as VP, and since Biden won't have presidential aspirations, I think Sen. Clinton will be back and at the top in 2016, stronger than ever.  I hope to see a Dem victory this fall and a rebalancing of power between the executive and legislative branches over the next 4 years.  Whatever her formal role in leadership in the Senate, she has major voter mandate to press forward on legislation that will change America.  

    I support the Democrats.  It's a bit of a rough time right now, and I hope that a path is found that is wide enough for many to walk on.  It's not a matter of convincing people to support Obama/Biden, it's a matter of finding a plan for a team approach to changing this country that inspires enough people to vote for the possibility, even if they disagree with the specific roles as they sorted out.  

    Jeralyn (4.86 / 7) (#3)
    by facta non verba on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:07:14 PM EST
    With all due respect, that's eight years of abysmal Republican policies enabled by a Democratic Congress. Senator Obama voted for the Bush Cheney Energy Policies, Senator McCain did not. Energy is my single issue. That's one of the main reasons this Democrat will either vote Nader or McCain.

    Obama (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:18:41 PM EST
    Also voted for the best energy bill in the last 8 years.  McCain didn't bother to show up, and there was a crucial amendment that failed by 1 vote which would have made an even better energy bill.  Oh, and did I mention he has spent the last few weeks campaigning on OIL RIGS.  He has been very inconsistent on this issue, he even opposed tax credits for solar, wind, and geothermal energy as recently as 2006.  But yea, he's great on energy.

    Obama gave a handout he shouldn't have, but he hasn't tried to oppose fuel restrictions or funding for alternative energy.  At least he's trying to kick-start green energy as well.


    McCain is Light Years Ahead (5.00 / 8) (#48)
    by facta non verba on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:38:08 PM EST
    on energy. Obama is corn ethanol. That bill you refer to was subsidies to Iowa and Illinois corn farmers. McCain was consistently said it's a bad idea. He's right. The ROI on corn ethanol is 14%. The ROI on sugar ethanol is 70%. A five fold difference. McCain wants to eliminate tariffs on Brazilian ethnanol technology and on ethanol itself. Obama wants to actually raise the tariff. Energy is the one issue I know inside out.

    Obama on Ethanol


    Yeah - um - McCain has opposed (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:47:00 PM EST
    ethanol because he is for oil.

    Yeah (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:49:55 PM EST
    but so is Obama. He's now for drilling too!

    Only because he and the Dem (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:56:29 PM EST
    Leadership completely blew it on responding to the economic woes of Americans under spiking gas prices.  The GOP was screaming "off shore drilling" and the Democrats had nothin' except tire pressure advice.

    Now Pelosi is onto attempting one of her parliamentary tricks - which will likely fail - where she thinks she is going to be able to get a bill to the floor that has such a bad deal for big oil in exchange for access to the off shore drilling sites that they won't allow the bill to pass - they supposedly will ask for full royalties again, strip the oil companies tax breaks and cut all government subsidies to the industry - in other words she thinks she can insert numerous poison pills in the bill - I don't think she can pull it off - but that's the plan such as it is.


    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:03:36 PM EST
    I agree totally. And this is exactly why I don't see Obama winning as that necessary. After all, an Obama presidency would just be more of this inept stuff.

    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:14:07 PM EST
    Corn ethanol is a bad solution.  That's why Hillary did not make it the centerpiece of her road to independence from oil.

    Not quite (none / 0) (#175)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:27:16 PM EST
    The bill I refer to did a WHOLE LOT more than just add subsidies for ethanol.

    McCain has also not "consistently" opposed ethanol, he has flip-flopped.  From wash. post:
    "While campaigning in 2006 in the Midwest corn belt, McCain called ethanol a "vital, vital alternative energy source."

    He is no white horse on this issue.

    To me, the biggest difference between the two on this issue is this:

    Obama is too willing to throw money at this, sometimes funding things that don't need to be/shouldn't be funded.

    McCain is too unwilling to spend any money at all to jumpstart alternative energy.  Whether that be on ethanol, which is a good thing, or wind or solar which is a bad thing.

    In a bind, I'd have to pick Obama's approach because at least SOMETHING is getting done.  He certainly isn't perfect on this issue though.  Neither is McCain.


    Priceless (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Faust on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:20:45 PM EST
    this Democrat will either vote Nader or McCain.

    That about sums it up for me. Nader voters make me giggle. Nader or McCain? It's like 2000 all over again. Enjoy your piece of the "I got the Republicans another 4 years in the White House" pie.


    As a Nader voter.... (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:41:09 PM EST
    at least I'll have the ability to look in the mirror relatively guilt-free on the first Wednesday morn in Nov., not having voted to enable another 4 years of drug war and foreign occupations and govt. for the few at the expense of the many.

    Obama and McCain voters will not be able to say the same.


    Now, that's not how to have fun. (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:41:36 PM EST
    It's much more fun to find a Nader supporter in 2000, like a friend of mine who remains so proud of being such a (gray-haired, potbellied) rebel then.

    So when he told me that I was a bad Dem and ought to be all for Obama, like him -- and with the McCaskill reasoning that his kids are for Obama, yet, and I know those kids, and let's leave it at that! -- I just said that I finally could see his brilliance in 2000 and wanted to hear him tell me again about why I ought to vote for Nader.

    He still can't admit that he was wrong in 2000, so he said his vote hadn't made a difference because our state went blue.  If barely, then.  So I pointed out that he also had been pointing out that because of kids like his and others, our state went bluer than ever this year and remains that way.  So how I vote won't matter, either, this year -- and so I would follow his brilliant lead in considering how to use my ballot as a protest.

    And he finally gave up badgering -- that is his style -- and hasn't raised it since.


    Better (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by tek on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:24:33 PM EST
    serve that pie to the DNC and Obama's team.

    Energy? Drill here, Drill now McCain? (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:34:43 PM EST
    no further comment.

    Guess you (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by tek on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:17:43 PM EST
    didn't read where Obama said he would be okay with off shore drilling and last week Pelosi said the same.  So now what was your rant against McCain?

    I was thinking yesterday that I probably shouldn't come to this site this week because it would be gung ho hysteria about the Convention and Obama.  B'Bye bamboozled people.


    Until two years ago (4.00 / 5) (#39)
    by litigatormom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:34:55 PM EST
    the Dems were a minority in both the House and Senate.  Even now, because of Blue Dog Democrats (and Joe Liebertoad, CT for Liebertoad), the Dems in the Senate can't overcome a Bush veto.  

    Yes, the Dems haven't been as courageous as I'd like, especially in the last two years, and I especially wish Reid and Pelosi hadn't taken impeachment off the table, which was an acquiescence to Bush's continued abuses of executive power.  

    But to me there is nothing but wishful thinking behind the idea that we should let McCain take the White House in order to position the Dems to take it back in 2012, or to move the electorate further to the left.  I am someone who much preferred Hillary Clinton to Obama, but I think the country might not survive another four years of Republican rule, and there is no reason to believe that even a bigger Dem majority in the House and Senate will defy McCain.  I'd rather have a more centrist Democrat (which I believe Obama  is) than a Republican in the White House any day.

    McCain is a catastrophe waiting to happen.  Quite apart from the fact that he thinks jokes about bombing Iran are funny, is prepared to occupy Iraq for the next hundred years and thinks the Iraqi government's push for a withdrawal date is something we can ignore, thinks you're not rich unless you've got $5mm in the bank (or make $5mm a year, not sure which), the guy is losing his marbles.  It's not just that he can't remember how many houses he has.  He can't remember the difference between Sunnis and Shi'a.  He thinks Iraq and Afghanistan share a border. He's admitted that he doesn't understand the economy, and he shows no sign of being able or willing to learn more about it.  He's declining in to the mental state of second term Reagan. Pretty soon we'll see Cindy whispering to him, "We're doing the best we can."  That is, if Liebertoad isn't around to do it instead.

    And he thinks the biggest mistake we made in Vietnam is that we didn't stay longer. Can you say hundred years in Iraq? U.S. troops to Georgia? Can you say four more years of bravado, my dick is bigger than yours foreign policy? Four more years of the Unitary Executive, surrounded by neocons who tell him there's nothing he can't do as long as he's acting as "commander-in-chief"?  And pulling out the POW card every time someone challenges him?

    I can't. I'm voting for Obama.  Not with as much enthusiasm as I'd have voted for Clinton, but certain in the knowledge that he'll be a far better president than McCain. I'm not willing to destroy the country to save it. There is too great a risk the country will be beyond saving four years from now.


    Do you really want to make the argument (5.00 / 8) (#80)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:51:07 PM EST
    that gaffes are indicative of mental state? That doesn't seem like a winner for Obama.

    McCain's gaffes are of a (3.33 / 3) (#90)
    by litigatormom on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:55:06 PM EST
    different type and order than Obama's. I really do think that McCain's mental state is declining. If it's not, then his gaffes are just another sign of a completely detached, incurious mind; I've had quite enough of that after eight years.

    um, (5.00 / 6) (#168)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:25:35 PM EST
    you really want to assert that Obama Gaffes = good, McCain Gaffes = one step away from senility?

    Is this how your candidate is going to get votes?  I mean, ... seriously?!?


    I think McCain's volatile temperament (2.00 / 0) (#199)
    by byteb on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:39:08 PM EST
    and lack of mental acuity are valid (although delicate) areas that need to be explored.

    Irrational Hate (5.00 / 2) (#257)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:15:55 PM EST
    applies to comments no matter who it is you are targeting.

    You forgot that (none / 0) (#176)
    by byteb on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:27:18 PM EST
    he thought Putin was head of Germany.

    . . . or Biden, (none / 0) (#144)
    by Landulph on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:14:26 PM EST
    The thing is that - at least for me - (5.00 / 8) (#135)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:10:18 PM EST
    how I am voting - or in this case, not voting - has nothing to do with positioning for anything, and everything to do with finally reaching a point where my conscience would not allow me to vote for someone for whom the best arguments seem to be that he is (1) not Bush, (2) not McCain and/or (3) all we have.

    On top of all that, I am colossally disappointed in the Democratic Congress, and have no confidence that they would (1) push back against Obama when it's appropriate, or, (2) not roll over and give McCain what he wants, as they did in the Bush years.

    Thanks to the Congress and to Pelosi's refusal to consider impeachment, there will be waiting for the next president an abundance of executive power that has the potential to be severely misused in the hands of a rookie who likes the feeling of power, as well as by the Republican who may have some of the same tendencies.

    I don't think anyone here who is not going to vote for Obama is looking to destroy the country, but I think your faith that Obama will steer it back from the brink is just that - faith - because he has no record of real accomplishment that would suggest he has the interest in the work such a task will require.

    Given the choices, it's really almost enough to inspire...apathy.


    Well, I am getting on board for what will (5.00 / 1) (#234)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:04:13 PM EST
    do the least amount of damage to America, imo.
    Unfortunately, neither one of these candidates (assuming obama is the nominee) is right for America.  Hillary was the "one that got away". I have the utmost respect for Hillary, but just because she tells me I should get behind obama, it isn't enough, sorry.

    Pelosi and Reid have given Bush (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:19:35 PM EST
    everything.  So why are Democrats different?  FISA was the coup de grace.

    Really? (4.75 / 4) (#22)
    by Matt in Chicago on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:22:03 PM EST
    If someone honestly thinks that Obama is not the right choice for the job, the advice is to get on board?

    Sorry, I can't get behind this Party before country mentality.  I want Obama to win because he is the best choice for the job, it is not enough for him to simply be a Democrat or Not Bush (see 2000 and 2004) or Not McCain (current rhetoric).

    Obama has to prove himself and so far he has made some wonderful speeches, I am waiting for more substance (I already like the style).

    As always, just my opinion.

    If it seemed as if the party was trying (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:49:56 PM EST
    to make the candidate a better Democrat, or even a halfway decent Democrat, then 'get on board' might have some power to it.

    But this Democratic party is just egging the candidate on in the opposite direction.

    Being thrown under the bus has become a big joke, but it has a very serious foundation.  Being 2% less evil is pretty much canceled out when the 2% less specifically excludes the traditional base of the party.  I really can't support a party or a candidate whose real sloganeering says 'we don't give 2 bits about you or your interests, get over it', not even if it was 5% less evil.


    Messages Like (4.60 / 10) (#6)
    by flashman on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:11:37 PM EST
    "Time to get onboard", "Just 'get over it'", "Where else you gonna go?", "Just being wrongheaded" and so forth are messages that I find very uninspiring.  Gosh, if that's the messages to Democrats, it's no wonder we are in a vitrual tie in polling, instead of enjoying a comfortable lead, as we should be.

    I'll probably vote straight party-line, because, at the end of the day, I'm still a Democrat.  But I have never heard in all my years of supporting Democrats a messages that so fails to inspire.

    I can be a good democrat (4.91 / 12) (#9)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:15:29 PM EST
    and feel good about my vote and choices while voting downticket only. I intend to always remain civil and try to post in a manner that makes sense and is not insulting but I can't see myself 'getting on board' with the top of the ticket unless there is some extraordinary reaching out done by Obama during the convention.

    I told the person all the way up until the (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:20:07 PM EST
    election. At this point the DNC and Team Obama are fighting gravity(uphill battle) though.

    I agree with you that I won't jump (4.75 / 4) (#14)
    by dk on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:18:39 PM EST
    on board unless Obama does some reaching out, but I don't agree that it can happen at the convention.  The convention is really just about PR and speeches.  "Just words", so to speak.

    If Obama takes actions to reach out, I could see being convinced.  Otherwise I'll just be voting down ticket.


    For me (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:21:52 PM EST
    it must happen at the convention. Simply must. He needs to show respect to both president and Senator Clinton for their accomplishments respectively. He also needs to ensure there is a visible, transparent floor vote and not one that is tallied and certified in hotel rooms prior to the evening festivities.

    Always? (5.00 / 0) (#209)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:49:01 PM EST
    Then what were all those floor fights about that I watched lo those many Dem convention years?  Those last-minute switches, when conventions actually used to be exciting and riveted Americans to their tvs?

    Um, just how old was this all-knowing delegate?


    This train is headed for a wreck.. (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by chopper on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:07:33 PM EST
    Train wreck link (none / 0) (#244)
    by chopper on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:08:55 PM EST
    Onboard (3.50 / 2) (#259)
    by MrPope on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:16:51 PM EST
    I will be voting for OBAMA...  if Hillary had won... i would have been onboard with her.

    We can have 4 more years of BUSH... we just cant.

    I will move to canada... and i stand by my word.

    i am starting  Obama or Canada Movement... McCain cant send my kids off to 5 different wars if i am a Canadian citizen.  Let him send yours.

    I would like to see a roll call (2.00 / 0) (#54)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:40:15 PM EST
    On people support so we know where everyone is coming from.  It would give everyone's comments a bit more perspective.

    For example- everyone knows I support Obama.  There is a prism to which one can look at my comments.  

    Likewise, if you are reluctantly voting for the ticket (I am assuming that is many people), it would help to put light on your concerns.

    And if your are Not voting for Obama, but voting democratic and Not voting for McCain (again many people here).  That would help.

    And if your are voting for McCain, let people know.  

    I think this woud help lighten the debate allowing others to know where you are coming from and your goal in writing whatever you write.

    My vote (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:46:08 PM EST
    is my own. I don't have to tell anyone how I intend to use it.

    <grin> it feeld like there should be a: (5.00 / 1) (#246)
    by Matt in Chicago on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:09:38 PM EST
    Nah, Nah, Nah!  After that post :)  Sorry I couldn't resist!

    And in all seriousness, you are quite right...  Telling me to "get on board" is not going to affect my vote on iota... well, that is not true... keep it up and you might just drive me away.


    As of right now? (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:01:52 PM EST
    No one. I'll say it loudly too and to any and everyone I meet if you like. I don't think that's gonna be much of a boon to Obama though. On the contrary when the chick who works the Dem booth routinely can't find much nice to say about ya, then you know you're in trouble.

    You may want to be careful (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:14:49 PM EST
    I got in trouble the other day for asking how someone would vote.  It's kinda their business.  However, you've been coming around here a lot, you can kinda start to tell.  There are those who counter every McCain is bad post with a "we're not voting McCain" line.  Obviously those people aren't voting McCain.  Then there are the ones who defend every anti-McCain post with a "he's really not that bad, and Obama's worse" post.  Those are probably the McCain voters.  The Obama supporters are easy to find.  They are the ones with the 2-ratings :)

    Don't need to ask (none / 0) (#206)
    by DanR3 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:48:51 PM EST
    There are people who have flat out stated they support McCain in comments of several of the threads today. You don't have to look far. Why they were here I don't know.

    Not there yet (none / 0) (#134)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:09:59 PM EST
    Biden was a step in the right direction.

    Obama could have made a larger step in the right direction.

    So I'm not there yet.


    Good luck Jeralyn (none / 0) (#4)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:07:49 PM EST
    and have fun at the convention.

    Vote your conscience? (none / 0) (#24)
    by Pianobuff on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:24:31 PM EST
    In the assembly line of articles coming out in the last couple of days, who knows if this is the final word, but if one believes this then HC is saying do what you think is best.

    I'm listening to a very interesting webcast where the topic is how much the baby boomer vs genx divide may be a more central issue than is apparent on the surface - the premise being that BO long-term hope is to be more of a third-rail candidate and a rejection of the ideals in both parties as expressed by baby-boomers.  Not sure how valid this premise is, but it is an interesting discussion at least.

    I am happy (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:31:13 PM EST
    to see Clinton is not telling her delegateshow to vote and that she understands many want to vote for her.

    "I will be telling my delegates that I will vote for Barack Obama," she said. "How they vote is a more personal decision. They want to have their chance to vote for me. That is what traditionally happens ... some people are having to make up their minds because there are arguments pulling them both ways."

    She respects us and it seems from her mentioning what traditionally happens that she is trying to also respect the process. My guess is that she realizes that if this is perceived in any way as a sham it could be a disaster for Obama/Biden.


    By the way (none / 0) (#26)
    by Matt in Chicago on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:26:06 PM EST
    I don't mean this to criticize you Jeralyn, quite the opposite.  

    I love this blog because people with differing views can have honest discussion... without them devolving in name calling matches.  The for us or against us mentality on many progressive blogs is so unpalatable... it makes me value this one that much more.

    A GBCW (none / 0) (#34)
    by Lahdee on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    How quaint.

    I guess I'm ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by desertswine on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:38:49 PM EST
    Ridin' with Biden.

    But not liking it much.

    It really IS your father's Oldsmobile (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:54:12 PM EST
    Eject! Eject! (none / 0) (#132)
    by kdog on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:09:12 PM EST
    Ridin' with Biden...what's he drivin', a prison van?

    Exactly. n/t (none / 0) (#59)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:41:39 PM EST

    Purity vs. pragmatism... (none / 0) (#93)
    by mike in dc on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 12:56:37 PM EST
    ...is a worthy debate...when we've already won a couple presidential elections in a row.  That's not the position we're in right now.  If we can't unify in a year when all other factors are breaking our way, then there's not a lot of hope we'll do so in less favorable election years to come.  
    Clinton was a great candidate who happened to lose the fight for the nomination.  Harsh and divisive things were said and done on both sides of the fight.  It isn't that much easier for Obama supporters to bury their bitterness over the harsh campaign, but I for one am willing to do so for the sake of the party and the country.  I hope that the vast majority of those who are still "holding out" will find reasons to do likewise.

    Well said (none / 0) (#200)
    by Lou Grinzo on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:42:35 PM EST
    As I've said here before, my philosophy on voting is pretty simple.  First, if there's any way possible for me to participate in an election, I will.  Second, for each office I vote for the person (or persons) I think will do the best job and actually has a reasonable chance of winning.  (In November that winnows it down to Obama and McCain.)

    If the second part of the above formulation means I have to "hold my nose" while I vote, so be it.  How I personally feel about a candidate, or about how he or she has treated me or any group I identify with or anyone I've supported, makes no difference.  

    I voted for Clinton in the NY primary, because I was convinced she was the best person for the job of President.  In November I will vote for Obama/Biden.  I'm not 100% enthusiastic about it, based purely on Obama's professed policy positions, but I'm convinced down to my DNA that he will be a better President than McCain.  That's all that matters to me and especially to my nieces who will have to live with the ramifications of this election for a long time.


    point out the commenter by name (none / 0) (#129)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:07:51 PM EST
    who is rating comments a "1" for point of view and I will erase their ratings. You can leave the name in comments or email me.

    I also wanted to state for the record (none / 0) (#194)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:33:50 PM EST
    I have nothing but respect for Clinton's decision to support Obama.

    the Commenter Obama Voter (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:45:18 PM EST
    has previously been banned on this site under 2 different screen names. I have now vaporized Obama Voter. You may not re-register using another screen name once banned from the site.

    I will be deleting comments in response to Obama Voter's comments.

    Thank you! (none / 0) (#223)
    by suki on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:56:38 PM EST
    Trying my best. (none / 0) (#224)
    by eleanora on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 01:57:25 PM EST
    I've voted straight Dem since I turned 18 in 1992, and can't even imagine ever voting R. I'm looking for the ticket to speak out forcefully for strong Democratic principles this week, so I can give not just my vote, but also my voice, my time, and my active support to getting them elected.

    Been there (none / 0) (#233)
    by CST on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 02:04:11 PM EST
    But you should let your french neighbors know you are "American" too.  And that New York is just as much a part of America as the rest of the country.  They need to know that our country has some good ones to go along with the bad!

    Biden and the Supremes (none / 0) (#288)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:10:37 PM EST
    Why should I vote for Biden when he is very much responsible for Justice Thomas? Why should I care for the Democrats when they did nothing to stop Alito and Roberts?  Enough excuses. Enough fear mongering.

    Sure are a lot of absolutists.... (none / 0) (#289)
    by OldCity on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:11:25 PM EST

    When people serve on a jury in a civil matter, their burden is to decide if the preponderence of evidence favors one side or another.  They're not required to absolutely agree with every facet of either side's case.  And we, Americans, agree that in the main, that's the best system around.  And, we respect the process.

    Obama isn't the be-all and end-all.  But, he's better than the alternative that McCain presents.  It's really that simple.  He's better than the other guy.  You might not agree with everything he says...you might not like the fact that he's the nominee.  But, he's the Democratic candidate.

    The differences between the parties are stark on so many issues.  It's amazing to me how many people focus on one little agenda item to buttress their refusal to support this nominee.  It's as if the principle of opportunity cost never existed.  

    And, sure, people are certainly entitled to vote for a third party if they want.  But, the numbers bear out that their votes will affect them negatively rather than the opposite.  (that is, assuming that they don't actually want a republican in the White House)  

    So, if you can truly say that McCain is going to benefit the country more than Obama, and say it with conviction, despite all evidence to the contrary, by all means, go ahead and support someone else.  Or support no one.  Just remember when the urge to complain rolls around in March, or April, what you chose to do.  

    Get on board? Not on your life (none / 0) (#290)
    by Bornagaindem on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:30:31 PM EST
    get on board -not on your life. Getting on board means being like a republican- my very first objection to Obama. I didn't like all his "we have to work with the other side" and "democrats are as bad as republicans" rhetoric.

    Obama's campaign is all about him. There are no ideas because he has never had any. He has no convictions, he has no agenda except to win the next office -for himself. He is clearly unqualified to be president. Name one thing he did for his district in Chicago as a state senator for 8 years.

    If the democratic party is willing to nominate a man who is less qualified for office than George W. Bush then they don't deserve my vote.

    With the house and senate firmly in democratic hands McCain can do no harm. It will be good for the congress -they will actually not have the cover of a democratic president and it will be good for the party. Hopefully it will force them to eliminate the undemocratic super delegates and caucuses. When 1.1 million caucus goers are able to force their choice on the rest of the party something is wrong with the system. That cannot be addressed while Obama's legitimacy rests upon that not being the case.

    An Obama presidency would be disaster. Some one who votes present instead of standing up for what he believes is not a leader and when some one says that is above my pay grade all I can say is "with all due respect senator the presidency is above your pay grade".

    I will probably vote (none / 0) (#292)
    by Jjc2008 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 03:45:32 PM EST
    for Obama/Biden but at this point I will not contribute to or work for a party that gives power to Howard Dean and Donna Brazille.

    i respect sen. clinton's decision, (none / 0) (#294)
    by cpinva on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 07:38:13 PM EST
    i just don't happen to agree with it. if sen. obama wants my support and vote on nov. 4th, he better start acting like it, instead of just taking it for granted. his (and, by extension, his supporter's) behaviour during the primaries was, to be kind, appalling. i will neither forgive nor forget.

    there may be some (the owner and contributors of this blog among them) willing to develop short-term amnesia; i'm not among them. i'm funny that way, go figure.

    sen. obama's primary campaign (as proven by his selection of sen. biden for veep) was a fraud perpetrated on the public. he may be the dem nominee, that doesn't change the fact that he's a fraud. sorry, it just doesn't.

    the racist and mysogynistic comments, from him and his supporters, clarified, for me anyway, what sen. obama is truly about. it isn't a pretty sight. his total inability to generate an articulate, original thought, with respect to any issues, should be a flashing red light, to anyone not blinded by his PR.

    again, i respect sen. clinton's decision. that said, please do me the courtesy of not insulting my intelligence, by asking me to blindly support someone wholly unqualified to be president, just because he claims to be a democrat.

    Jeralyn: I don't want to be... (none / 0) (#295)
    by mabelle55 on Mon Aug 25, 2008 at 08:29:29 PM EST
    disrespectful here or to you, but I think it's high time for the blogosphere to LAY OFF the moral preachiness about supporting Barack Obama/Joe Biden/Democrats.

    Your headline: "Time to Get on Board" isn't helpful.

    I admit right here that I was angry about the primaries; I was angry that Clinton lost; I am angry that Obama chose a consummate Washington insider as his running mate after everything he said about the Clintons during the primaries; and I am angry -- especially -- that the "get on board" meme continues to be used as a weapon.

    I'm not supporting John McCain. But I also have a very strong independent, non-authoritarian streak that just bristles when anybody, ANYBODY! tells me to "get on board" or "get over it" or "grow up" or any number of other phrases.

    You will not get Clinton loyalists onboard the DNC train this way. You just won't. And I'm disappointed that TalkLeft and you seem to feel compelled to join in this tactic.