Nothing postive about Obama at all.

All about Hillary.

:)

These are the types of endorsements that one hopes for.

Will someone please call him some names so he'll shut up and go away?

I'm pretty much disgusted and appalled at the passive-aggressive nature of Andrew's statements - "here, let me stick the knife, in, twist it a couple times, and yank it out - there - that was fun!  Hey - now will you be friends with Barack and stop trying to make trouble?  Let's be friends, okay?"

What is wrong with these people - totally classless and clueless.  Hey, maybe that can be the theme of the Democratic Convention: "Clueless in Denver."  The featured Workshop could be "Finding Your Spine," along with "Winless in November: Learning to Love Moral Victory."  In a show of unity, Jeremiah Wright can give the invocation.

Like Obama, he is bored with the primary process. He didn't come out strongly for Obama's policies or leadership skills. He's just tired of the primaries.

It is up to Obama to tell his followers to support Hillary, since it is his followers who have created this schism in the first place. If they don't vote for HRC, I say, let's tell them what Obamans have told us at least 400 times:

"Fine. We'll win without you. Buh-bye then!"

And Florida and Michigan.

And the will of the people.

And isn't HRC still ahead in superdelegates?

And nothing will be decided till everyone votes.

Michele Obama says:

I've spent my life trying to convince him not to be a politician. Teach, write, sing, dance -- I don't care what you do. Don't do this. These people are mean." She says she has since come around, viewing her husband as someone "who could unite people around values."...

---------------------------------------- ------------

"Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics." - Michelle Obama

Posted by: Pat Johnson | May 01, 2008 at 09:20 AM

I'm so confused..... every time Obama should be accountable for something..... excuses come flying in and more super D's jump on board on his behalf! Is this country crazy or what? These super D's don't even wait around long enough to see how serious or valid these known issues will impact us..... is someone paying someone or is the agenda going to be carried out regardless of what happens to the American people. Something seems very wrong here.... do you guys agree?

-- oh please. Not this tired meme. I thought they got over it already. Geez they've even changed the signs, somebody please tell him whats REALLY going on!

truemajorityinaction.com  emailed requsts to sign a petition demanding that SDs follow the primary/caucus results in their respective states.

There was all sorts of trash thrown at SDs at "a-list" sites.

Now with the worm turning and and the spread of the Wright toxin we get this.

Suddenly SDs are good guys.

New politics. A load of sh*t from the start a load of sh*t to this day.

This guy did not just change his mind.  They always say that they jsut switched, and point to the latest utterance out of Hillary's mouth to justify it. Then they go on a diatribe about how terribly negative the Clinton campaign has been all along, reciting every Obama talking point.

And by doing that he was putting a really big piece of bait onto a fish hook and dropped it into the water.

That was the point of BTD's post.

The Straw Man:

Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.

Go back through the comment BTD is referring to...

He anticipates the Clinton campaign "will use the same words and the same language to attack me that Republicans used to attack me when I was DNC chair and I was defending Bill Clinton."

In other words, "They will say this about me..."

To my eye, that looks like he's sticking words in the campaign's mouth and then responds to his (not the campaign's) statement with:

"We need to unite the party. You can actually be for someone without being against someone else."

Your repetitive use of the comment doesn't make it any more on topic for this particular diary.

But, but Giiiiraldo... Hillary is a communist... Giiiiraldo...

When's Carville scheduled to be on CNN, because I'd like to see if he takes the bait here.

~~~Joe Anderson, Mayday, 2008, who, as I wrote earlier, now thinks the Clintons are the Roves among the Democratic sheep.

Yes, it is an MCM news changer!

Big Tent, or someone else, noted that Richardson was wangling for the veep slot with Sen. Obama.  Perhaps Andrew is deserting what he perceives as a sinking Sen. Clinton ship & jumping on the Obamarama.  To some extent, if these pilot fish swimming with the political whales wait too long, they are seen as johnny-come-lately.  Andrew may just be trying to "procure" a job--pun intended.

From my observations though, Joe Andrew bet wrong.  It seems reasonably clear that Sen. Obama will not have the 2025 delegates necessary for a first ballot nomination (or the 2209 or some other number depending on the FL / MI fix).  As a result, the convention will be a chaotic 21st century verson of the 1952 floor fight & Sen. Obama's 2000 delegates will become trade bait.

I love it.

Though I suspect your question was rhetorical, I will say that there is a balance of lackluster comments from both sides and in either case there aren't that many.  It's a blog, after all.

"Despite the fact that he is "unbelievably indebted and grateful to President Clinton," Andrew said, "I don't want to look my kids in the eye and say I'm part of that problem."

Okay. Another "eye looker" makes his case.

I don't think the Party wants to win the WH, if they let Obama take it through super-delegates. The country is in a huge mess, and who wants to do all that work? Its much safer, and far more comfortable to sit across the aisle and whine and spout nasty big words at the Republicans.

In the case of Andrew, he's predicting that the campaign is going to be mean to him even before they've had a chance to respond. So if the campaign does call him names, he can turn around and say "See? I told you the campaign was going to call me names."

Additionally, equating the Clintons with Rove/Atwater is a tu quoque fallacy.

On his first day, he put words into the campaign's mouth and implied that the Clintons were dirty dealers by way of Rove/Atwater references.

But...Brutus is an honorable man, eh?

Frankly, as a non-camp Democrat, I'm reallyreally tired of these types of references...they don't help the so-called "unity" efforts.

Oh...BTW...BTD? Check out his bio. He's been around for a very long time...and has never been known for temperate blogging (even in his guise as an Obama supporter).