home

Weds. Open Thread

Here's a place to continue the discussion.

Please stop commenting when the comments reach 200. Our servers cannot handle more than that.

Don't be a blogclogger, be civil and remember we are not discussing anticipated smears on any candidates or their family members.

This space is for your comments, not for reprinting articles from elsewhere, press releases etc. Don't try to use TalkLeft as an organizing ground for your pet causes or movements. It's a site for news, discussion, commentary and analysis. Don't put email addresses and phone numbers and long lists of contacts in the contacts. We don't have the bandwidth and no one is interested in scrolling through them.

I'll be cleaning the threads as I have time, don't bother responding to the violators, just point them out.

Comments now closed. As for those of you who disregarded my repeated warnings the past three days not to comment about anticipated smears on any candidates or their family members, your comments have been deleted and you are probably now banned from the site.

< Clinton Dems: Will Obama Fight For Them? | "Unity" Jimmy Carter Style >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Women and self-promotion (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:15:25 AM EST
    Anyone here recall a study showing that assertive women who tout their accomplishments elicit more negative reactions than men who do the same?

    Heads are exploding over Hillary's non-concession speech last night and that may be part of the explanation.

    Also, my theory is she is just more confident than he is and anytime the two speak side-by-side some will be upset but they won't know why.

    I remember this (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by BoGardiner on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:41:25 PM EST
    It's a corollary to studies that show that women are raised to be far more modest in touting their accomplishments, which is a disadvantage in the workplace.  So when one does it, it seems "unfeminine."

    Parent
    See works by Deborah Tannen (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:54:47 PM EST
    for starters, on differences in communication style.  Her books collect together and cite lots of studies.

    Parent
    Probobly the same reason (none / 0) (#63)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:38:23 AM EST
    some people find the mother in The Manchurian Candidate unbelievably creepy and Hannibal intriguing.

    Parent
    Speaking for yourself? n/t (none / 0) (#201)
    by BoGardiner on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:50:18 PM EST
    What does Hillary want? (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:15:34 AM EST
    I can't help it, I just got such a kick out of that line. :)

    Um, I'd think that was obvious. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:26:50 AM EST
    It's not Health Care Czar.
    It's not Vice President.
    I think she's running for some office or other, let me think, I'm sure it will come to me...

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:39:07 AM EST
    You know, I understand that a lot of people are asking, what does Hillary want? What does she want? Well, I want what I have always fought for in this whole campaign. I want to end the war in Iraq. I want to turn this economy around. I want health care for every American. I want every child to live up to his or her God-given potential, and I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible.


    Parent
    seems clear to me (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:43:35 AM EST
    I dont see what the problem is

    Parent
    How are any of those (none / 0) (#144)
    by FruitlandGenerics on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:03:13 PM EST
    incompatiable with voting for Obama? Because they sure are with voting for McCain.

    Just a thought from an Obama supporter, eager to work with Clinton supporters to elect a Democratic president this fall.

    Parent

    Well, this is a switch!! Have whiplash?? (3.66 / 3) (#210)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:05:50 PM EST
    You should..
    an Obama supporter, eager to work with Clinton supporters
    is a total 180 from the trash we have been subjected to by Obama supporters since he declared he was running. The fact that you are "eager" is amusing. Too bad you weren't "eager" to be polite over the last year. Or even "eager" to forgo the slimy attacks and innuendo that the Obama team has flung at the Hillary supporters, and Hillary, for the last year or so.

    I am not eager to work with Obama supporters. I am waiting for them to PROVE that he is worth voting for. If they don't, and I doubt they can, I will write in Hillary. I will never vote for a Republican, but I will not vote for an unqualified candidate just because the Democratic Party was stupid enough to nominate him.

    Parent

    Hey now (none / 0) (#216)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:11:35 PM EST
    Some people suck.  Other people don't suck.  Let's not tar this individual with the bad conduct of some other people who happen to support the same candidate.

    There are some over-the-top Clinton supporters whom I certainly wouldn't want to be associated with.

    Parent

    In my opinion (none / 0) (#147)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:04:44 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure none of them are compatible!

    I also happen to think that if you have two people who are both popular and committed to the exact same goals, you ought to try and get them to team up.

    Parent

    Personally, it's not my first choice (none / 0) (#166)
    by FruitlandGenerics on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:15:42 PM EST
    but if it's what's needed, it won't stop me from voting for a joint ticket.

    I think she could have a great role in this administration, and she certainly would be a tireless advocate for health care reform.

    What that role should be, however, should be up to the presumptive nominee.

    Parent

    I loved it, too. Of course, a lot of guys (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:01:37 PM EST
    don't hear the dog-whistle to women in that . . . except our Steve M.

    Talking with several women friends last night, each and every one mentioned that line, with great laughter -- and each and every one of us also won't forget the line about being "invisible."

    And much more that Clinton said that made it, actually, a speech about gender -- to women.  So media didn't realize it was a speech about gender, because they only expect that to be lecturing them rather than rallying the troops.  And it was so subtly done that it's part of what puzzled media so much, expecting a concession but getting a speech that made them say "what's that"?  

    That's what perfectly done dog-whistling does.

    Parent

    I'm basking in our South Dakota (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:15:46 AM EST
    win.  A great day for the women of that state.  Whatever happens now, after a ten day losing streak in February, Hillary really came into her own as a leader.  It's been incredible to watch.

    And a slap on Tom Daschle (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by TalkRight on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:18:22 AM EST
    When will these leaders recognize the will of the people.. ask Kerry, Edwards the same question .. !!


    Parent
    Someone last night here listed (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:04:33 PM EST
    all the states won by Clinton and lost by party leaders for Obama:  Massachusetts/Kennedy and Kerry, Nevada/Reid, California/Pelosi, now South Dakota/Daschle, etc., etc.

    No wonder they're angry at her and scared by her -- Clinton really didn't need them to win their states.  And now they have to wonder what that means for their own careers. . . .

    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:18:48 AM EST
    Tom Daschle really delivered that one, didn't he? With some extra special help from Ed Schultz.

    I think we should all email him and say THANKS, TOM! ;-)

    Parent

    From a (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:42:01 AM EST
    local newspaper:

    Obama emphasized his message of change. Daschle was featured in some of Obama's campaign ads.



    Parent
    Don't forget to email the large mouth bassboy... (none / 0) (#124)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:54:15 AM EST
    Ed Schultz has been nothing buy annoying this campaign cycle.  As I said yesterday, I wouldn't trust Daschle to deliver my lunch!!

    Parent
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:21:22 AM EST
    Loved the comment yesterday (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:28:33 AM EST
    about Hillary winning Mass/CA/SD in essence, shouting downs Kennedy/Kerry/Pelosi/Daschle. Great point!

    Parent
    Kerry is now scrambling in Mass!! (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by befuddledvoter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:40:33 PM EST
    For the first time he is personally calling state delegates for his seat.  Seems there is another Dem who wants to run and the other dem is backed by many in the Mass. state legislature who supported Clinton.  Kerry does not want another Dem, even though he is favored to win, because he wants the summer off.  LOL

    Parent
    That's what the SDs haven't (3.00 / 1) (#223)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:21:22 PM EST
    thought about. The fact that Hillary won the most congressional districts, and that her supporters tend to vote the undercard, and in special elections. Obama's don't, as far as anyone can tell. That does not bode well for Obama's supporters in the DNC and the SD ranks.

    Hillary's supporters are quite capable of organizing opposition to them and winning their seats right out from under them. And I doubt Obama will campaign for them, he will be too busy with his own campaign. Although I think they can probably get him to put them in as a footnote in a speech when he campaigns for himself in their states. And I am really hopeful that Hillary will be too busy as well. Heh.

    Why are people who make a living in politics so effing stupid about political reality?? Do they really think we are going to forget what they have done this year? If they do, they are not only stupid but blind as well. Better they should be voted out of office. For the good of the country, of course.

    Parent

    Shared that with Tom Vilsack? (none / 0) (#130)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:56:37 AM EST
    And the Romeny folks (3.00 / 1) (#27)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:28:11 AM EST
    are loving their win in Montana

    Parent
    I have decided (5.00 / 6) (#39)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:32:41 AM EST
    I am going to start calling people like you "unity ambassadors."

    It seems like a respectful title to me.  Congratulations.

    Parent

    Steve, you are a true gentleman! (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:34:11 AM EST
    personally (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:42:29 AM EST
    I like UNITS

    Parent
    Ooooh oooohh how about (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:49:13 AM EST
    BIG UNITS

    (BIG for Barack Intraparty Goon)

    Sorry couldn't make it work with Sen Obama.

    Parent

    Love It - Unity Ambassadors (5.00 / 4) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:38:12 AM EST
    Job requires the same qualifications and skill level as the former head of FEMA. Great job Brownie.

    Parent
    Hahaha (5.00 / 0) (#90)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:01 AM EST
    I took that to mean 'Unity Units'!

    Hmm, I like mine better, no offense!

    Parent

    Great campaign Penn-ie (3.00 / 2) (#99)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:46:05 AM EST
    Which would make this thread at least (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:41:05 AM EST
    a Unity Consulate

    Parent
    I checked (3.00 / 2) (#57)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:36:27 AM EST
    and Unity is a two way street

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:38:15 AM EST
    But even on a two-way street, it's possible to drive in the wrong direction.  Please don't abuse your diplomatic immunity.

    Parent
    hey now (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:39:28 AM EST
    no preconditions!!!!

    Parent
    Please post a lot! (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:40:21 AM EST
    I hope we have tens of thousands of posters like you across all blogs until Nov election. I really do. I want to make sure there is no chance Sen Obama can win.

    Parent
    I believe you when you say (1.00 / 0) (#95)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:45:03 AM EST
    that your primary goal at this point is to make sure Obama loses.  Thanks for your candor.

    Parent
    And he can't do it without you (none / 0) (#211)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    and your beliefs losing it for your guy.  Keep it up, unity ambassador. :-)

    Parent
    Please see this comment: (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:36:34 AM EST
    http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2008/6/4/121220/7999/30#30

    Hillary's win there last night helped make this happen.  I am sure you can appreciate that.

    Parent

    Ineed, that is great news, thanks (none / 0) (#71)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:39:44 AM EST
    Senator Obama to give Hillary? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by TalkRight on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:16:48 AM EST
    give Hillary a lead role in passing Health Care Reforms.. !!

    HA!! Who is Obama to give?? Hillary deserves that and no one can take it from her!! Neither Obama nor his elitist supporters!

    Obama is (3.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Y Knot on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:28:22 AM EST
    the presumptive nominee of her party, and (one would hope) the next President of the United States.

    If its not up to him to offer to give her a position in his administration, who is it up to?

    That being said, I would agree that she deserves it.  I just don't see where it's offensive to use the word "give."

    Parent

    how about (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:31:31 AM EST
    if he asks her to take a leading role?

    Parent
    no no no (5.00 / 4) (#91)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:01 AM EST
    the weak man must be in control always.  He gives he does not ask.

    Parent
    I believe I said (3.00 / 0) (#112)
    by Y Knot on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:50:49 AM EST
    "offer"  and you're saying "ask".

    I think it's a quibble, but I'll concede the point.  He should ask.

    Then she should accept.

    The point is to finally, finally fix the health care system.   I think she'd be excellent in that role.

    Parent

    But they both (none / 0) (#149)
    by FruitlandGenerics on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:05:55 PM EST
    have the ultimate goal of providing health insurance to all Americans, unlike McCain.

    Our differences are minor compared to McCain...

    Parent

    Not really (none / 0) (#189)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:35:44 PM EST
    You haven't understood your own candidate's message.  The content of Obama's Change sctick is that he doesn't give a crap what you do.

    Parent
    She can do that from the Senate (none / 0) (#227)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:34:24 PM EST
    and do it more effectively since she won't be bound by administration policies in writing the health care program. In other words, Obama can't scr@w it up by insisting on things that he has promised to the health care industry. And if we get complete control of Congress, Obama won't be able to veto it without getting a really black eye politically. She should stay in the Senate, not tie herself to a potentially disastrous administration. Obama isn't good at the grunt work of elected office, and the Presidency is nothing but grunt work punctuated by a few photo ops and a state visit or two. Obama won't like it, or be very good at, in my opinion. So why should Hillary tie herself in any way to an unqualified President? She should stay in the Senate. She does that job so very well, unlike Senator Obama.

    Parent
    Ask her to do him the honor of being (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:35:35 AM EST
    part of an Obama administration should he win in November is the way it's usually put.

    Parent
    Don't think it's a position anyway. (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:59:20 AM EST
    Probably means from the Senate. Anyway, he's already Harry and Louise'd her.

    Parent
    No, he's only the presumptuous nominee (none / 0) (#214)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:08:16 PM EST
    because a presumptive nominee has it locked up with sufficient pledged delegates.  Please get that, once and for all.  It's how politics is done, and it's not one of the DNC rules that it can overturn just for him.

    Parent
    Somerby as always gets it (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:18:57 AM EST
    This concession narrative is something they made up, the fake rumors etc.  It's an artifice constructed by the pundits and they have convinced themselves that it's historical reality.  

    It's amazing (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:23:50 AM EST
    Can we get this deal for the general election, though?  Will they demand on a daily basis that McCain drop out?

    Parent
    Constitutional ammendment (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:26:19 AM EST
    to change electoral college to a November caucus

    Parent
    With extra help (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:33:32 AM EST
    from the DNC to divine how the people who didn't show up at the polls really meant to vote and thus give Obama more electoral votes than he actually won, plus a few extra to help with national 'unity'.

    Parent
    I play golf better than my husband does (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:39:13 AM EST
    so I always sport him a few strokes to make the round interesting.  My husband says that Obama needs an "election handicap" against McCain.  He thinks a state the size of Ohio might make the race more competitive.

    Parent
    They can use tarot cards instead of ballots (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:43:52 AM EST
    I think scatomancy is their preferred method of divination. Of course, Donna Brazile could just channel the spirit of her Momma or some other female ancestor if her mother's still alive.

    Parent
    Why bother? (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by felizarte on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:35:25 PM EST
    The DNC can just declare that so many intended to vote and that would be that.

    Parent
    Lance Mannion (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:34:43 AM EST
    Related to the media evaluation...Mannion has a follow-up piece on the Press Corps Hillary hate and coverage.  Mannion.

    [I know there are lots of people who for whatever reason have to believe that Obama is going to win the nomination because he's a knight in shining armor and his strength is as the strength of ten because his heart is pure.  I won't argue with you, for the same reason I could never bring myself to tell my kids there's no Santa Claus.  They had to find it out for themselves because I'm an old softie.]

    Parent

    No, the media knows what they were able to pull (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by mogal on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:54:03 AM EST
    off and I believe they are very proud this morning. Their sting operation worked. The United States was the mark.

    Parent
    Do we have the popular vote numbers yet? (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:19:09 AM EST


    Thanks Artoo (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by blogtopus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:21:46 AM EST
    She wouldn't be America's candidate without a little cheese, right?

    My wife pointed out all the articles stating "Obama wins nomination", and I said they'd rather spend 5 seconds writing one phrase than 20 minutes writing 3 paragraphs about how he technically hasn't won yet.

    I think Obama is just going after the lazy vote... which means a lot of bad news in November.

    There is no Unity Pony. (5.00 / 9) (#16)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:23:02 AM EST
    Went to the Orange and looked around.  Instead of "Our guy won, so let's rally 'round him and congratulate each other!"
    I found
    "OMG!  How dare she not concede!" (plus other sentiments best left unsaid.)

    Apparently, Clinton didn't follow the narrative certain concerned parties have written for her.  It might take them a while to "get over it".  We should be patient with them as they deal with their disappointment.

    I'll give them until August.  That should be plenty of time.

    It's strange (5.00 / 10) (#23)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:25:46 AM EST
    What kind of victory is it, where the losers are more energized than the winners?  Clinton supporters are energized and hopeful (telltale sign of a great speech) while Obama supporters are obsessing over that awful, awful woman.

    Parent
    phyrric? (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by kredwyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:28:50 AM EST
    No. (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:32:56 AM EST
    She just deprived them of their victory over Those Awful Clintons.

    Parent
    Excellent point (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:32:09 AM EST
    I'm wondering just how much energy Obama's supporters are going to lose when they finally have to drag themselves away from running against Hillary and turn to McCain.  It just won't be the same.

    Parent
    it WONT be the same (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:39:33 AM EST
    for several reasons.  not least of which is now we see who the MSM really likes most.
    and if they have really been FOR Obama all this time or AGAINST Hillary.
    any bets?

    Parent
    The Script Has Been Written (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by santarita on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:27:37 PM EST
    Some time this summer, gas prices will start to go down (thanks again to price and market manipulation by the Saudis and the Texas Oil Cartel, the economy will start to rebound (not strongly but enough to improve the stock market numbers and consumer confidence), Iraq and Lebanon will start to explode again and all fingers will point to Iran.  There will be some dramatic UN showdowns.  We'll lose, of course.  

    Obama will make some trivial gaffes that will be blown out of proportion and the media narrative of Military Experience in This Time of Crisis is what is needed now will make McCain look like Gary Cooper in "High Noon" and Obama look like the deputy that comes in after the action is over.

    Parent

    I am less and less confident that (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:56:22 AM EST
    they will shift their attentions away from her to him at all.  The idea of beating her seems to have become a core priniciple of their coalition to such a degree that it makes me wonder if they can sustain their momentum without her to kick around.

    Parent
    Yeah - I just got taken to the woodshed (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:36:48 AM EST
    by one of the big boys for suggesting that offering Clinton supporters something to feel good about on the Obama front rather than just telling them to get with the program would be a good idea.

    Parent
    It's about power (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:41:22 AM EST
    They need her, and by extension her supporters, to submit to their authority.  Whether we all get to the same happy place in November is somehow secondary.

    Parent
    They aren't going to have much power (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:43:27 AM EST
    if they blow it in November.

    Parent
    The irony of it is (none / 0) (#195)
    by felizarte on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:40:41 PM EST
    Hillary could be the whitehouse janitor and she will still always have the AUTHORITY OF KNOWLEDGE.  NO ONE can ever take that away from her.   She will always be the GO TO person because she knows what to do.

    She has asked that her supporters be respected.  They won't and can't do that because they would have to start respecting her number one supporter--Bill Clinton.

    Parent

    You really got DH upset (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:48:52 AM EST
    Of course, you're right.

    Parent
    lol (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:51:58 AM EST
    ... and calling me drunk and delusional too.

    Parent
    Since I stopped contributing there in March (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:00:39 PM EST
    I find that I care less and less about what they think. They have no credibility with me anymore.

    Parent
    I'll tell you a secret... (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:09:17 PM EST
    While I am not drunk, I think I probably am delusional.  I always believe that Democrats will pull together and it is rarely true.  Worse, I keep trying to make it so.  lol

    Parent
    I keep remembering what (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:43:33 PM EST
    Will Rogers said.."I am not a member of an organized political party. I am a Democrat." Sadly, it's not funny any more.

    Parent
    Bravo Upsetting DH Is A Good Thing IMO n/t (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:17:40 PM EST
    Like taking candy from a baby. (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:25:28 PM EST
    Hardly an accomplishment. :-)

    Parent
    DH (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    went off on me way back in January when I told her that I thought Oprah might help Obama win Illinois and that's about it.

    DH's head about exploded!

    Where's Oprah now?

    Parent

    Trying To Recoup Her Ratings (5.00 / 2) (#218)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:12:19 PM EST
    which have dropped considerably after endorsing Obama.  

    Parent
    One thing that I didn't go into because (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by inclusiveheart on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:07:03 PM EST
    the exchange was already enough as it was was the revelation that I had today about the one way that I think Clinton could still win the nomination.  I think that if the Obama camp fails to go after Appalachia and resists courting Clinton voters, they are actually giving her an opening to come back in and legitimately challenge his nomination - which will have been delivered by super delegates who are going to get nervous if he doesn't make any progress on this front.

    If I were in the Obama camp, I'd be planning a full on initiative to go make as many Clinton voters feel valued by his campaign as would be humanly possible right now.  I'd try to do it as quickly and expeditiously as possible so as to narrow her opening.  If Obama plans to wait until after the convention to do this, I think he is at a much greater risk of being challenged at the convention.

    Parent

    A world without mirrors. (none / 0) (#173)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:21:01 PM EST
    Oy.  I shouldna have read the whole thing.  
    Gave you some recs while I was there.  Good effort.
    (Beyond that, I'd best not comment.)

    Parent
    It's funny but I read something yesterday (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:04:28 PM EST
    I can't remember where - they pointed out that Hillary's supporters reminded them of how people reacted to Bill's impeachment.  While Bill was going through the impeachment, his support soared and people rallied around him, no matter how bad the news was.  Instead of his support weakening, it actually grew stronger.  

    Hillary's supporters are much the same.  

    This would work to her advantage in November.  She's been thoroughly vetted.  The proof is in those 18 million votes.  

    Parent

    She has more super-dels today (none / 0) (#219)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:15:00 PM EST
    than she did yesterday -- eight more, according to realclearpolitics.com's delegate count: 1915 yesterday, 1923 today.

    Now that needs some 'splaining, huh?  Could it be a backlash about Uncle Howard and Aunt Nancy's "stern letter"?

    Parent

    Oops, misread yesterday's counts (none / 0) (#220)
    by Cream City on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:16:25 PM EST
    and categories -- but, still, she's holding her own and down by only one switch, it seems.  Hang in there, Hillary, to August!

    Parent
    No concession this week (5.00 / 12) (#17)
    by stxabuela on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:23:32 AM EST
    I just got a call from the Clinton campaign to confirm that I will be attending the state convention this weekend as a Clinton delegate.  My answer:  "Absolutely."

    Got the call last night. Also heard that Hillary (5.00 / 4) (#102)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:46:27 AM EST
    may show up.  Wouldn't that be grand?

    Parent
    The People Chose Clinton; Party Elders Obama (5.00 / 9) (#20)
    by GeekLove08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:24:26 AM EST
    Even after the media and superdelegates, rushing to endorse Obama before the polls closed, tried to suppress voter turnout, Clinton won South Dakota by 10 points, a state Obama was expected to win by double digits, yet no superdelegate (from S. Dakota) endorsed her?

        Stephanie Herseth Sandlin endorsed Barack Obama
        Tim P. Johnson endorsed Barack Obama
        Jack Billion endorsed Barack Obama
        Nicholas Nemec endorsed Barack Obama
        Sharon Stroschein endorsed Barack Obama
        Tom Daschle endorsed Barack Obama

        Cheryl Champman is currently Undeclared

    Show me again what democracy looks like?
    According to ABC:

        Clinton: 17,802,300
        Obama: 17,501,751

    Update: Tim Johnson may keep his promise to endorse the winner of South Dakota. This is why we do not have a nominee until the convention.

    I believe Donna Brazile said back in February that she would quit the Democratic party if Superdelegates decide the race.  I'd happily show her the door.

    (For links click here)

    BINGO! (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Radiowalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:13 AM EST
    I nominate this as Best Post of the Week!

    Parent
    ABC Pulled a DNC and (none / 0) (#31)
    by GeekLove08 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:28:50 AM EST
    took some votes away from Clinton.  hmm.  

    Earlier this morning, when I looked at ABC's site, they had Clinton's popular vote including Florida and Michigan at 17,802,300.  Now it is 17,802,135.

    How can she have less votes than earlier?
    http://abcnews.go.com/politics

    Parent

    They asked (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:14 AM EST
    Carl Levin to do a recount

    Parent
    As people pointed out here (none / 0) (#66)
    by Y Knot on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:39:13 AM EST
    when Clinton was behind on the popular vote, super delegates are not required to vote the way their state or district votes.

    Personally, I think the creation of the super delegates was a mistake for just this reason, and I strongly support a ground up reformulation of the whole Democratic Party primary process...  but  super delegates were created for precisely this reason... to sway the decision one way or the other in a very tight race.

    And let's be honest, this race is very tight.  I see a lot of people here talking about the will of the people... well Obama and Clinton have gotten an almost identical number of votes a LOT of people want him to be President too.  It could have gone either way, is my point, and that's why we have super delegates.

    Again, I think SD's were a bad solution to this problem, but it's the one we have and the one we have to roll with.  Let's hope Clinton uses some of the clout she's earned this year to change that for the future.

    Parent

    He said... (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:51:45 AM EST
    If I recall correctly these are people who stated that they would vote with their state.

    I don't like the SD system, didn't like it when Clinton had more, really detest it now (I don't like the caucus system either, and I've been saying that since 04).

    Unlike Obama supporters a few months back, I'm certainly not saying that SDs should vote with their district/state/whatever, but if they said they would, then they should.

    One of the things I find the most amusing is people who used to say, after Gore won more votes, that the popular vote was the will of the people and that Bush was an illegitimate president as a result of not winning it, are now saying that, hey! it's the delegates that count and that of course Obama is legitimate, even though more people voted for his opponent.

    Not saying you are doing that, btw.

    Parent

    That was when (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:17:15 PM EST
    Obama supporters wanted to petition and coerce SDs to be bound by their state's vote.

    Indeed truemajority.com emailed its members soliciting petition support.

    I unsubscribed.

    What many people on this site believe is that SDs should go with the better candidate.  I don't believe all that many people who are regulars on this site would want to coerce SDs as the Obama camp wanted.  We just want them to think more clearly when making their choice.

    The SDs were created to stop a demogogue or when the people voted a sure BIG loser, like McGovern.

    If the SDs go in the direction the media tells us they're going, they will have become the foolish ones who've supported an unqualified weaker candidate over a qualified sure winner.

    I believe that Sds have been making their decisions so far for any one or more of three reasons:

    Obama has spread a lot of PAC money to SDs, the last I heard a half million more than Clinton.

    Democrats have a long standing fear of the media.  We've seen all too much of that in the past two decades. If the GOP attacks a Democrat and juices up the media, fellow Democrats pile on. Some Democrats piled on Bill Clinton and many others were silent.  Few came to his assistance. When Durbin got into the Nazi dustup, other Democrats piled on, including, indirectly, Barrack Obama. Almost no Democrat rallied to his side.  This phenomenon has been obvious and sickening for some years.  The press hates the Clintons, ergo cowardly Democratic SDs will gladly pile on.

    Some Democrats want to change the constituency of the Democratic Party, foolishly believing that they can shed an old constituency in exchange for a new one. Some of these same Democrats want to abandon the party's standing as a force for activist government. These are the high level Dems who keep talking about a new future for the party.

    SDs don't think like we do. They don't consider whether a candidate would make the best President. They're overriding consideration is their own hides.

    It ain't pretty and it ain't right. It is what it is.


    Parent

    Anyone watch the McCain speech? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by sweetthings on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:31:25 AM EST
    Awful. Just awful. Stunningly bad, actually. Even the guys at the Corner can't find much good to say about it.

    I can't help but think that the Straight Talk Express is headed straight for a brick wall.

    I beg to differ.. (none / 0) (#60)
    by TalkRight on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:36:49 AM EST
    The subjects within his speech were highly reconciliatory and almost a wink towards Reagan Democrats, who have always wanted to hear `positive' reasons to vote for him (aside from their utter dislike of Obama).

    For those on Obama's camp, the entire speech appeared "mean and bitter", since they have (naively) expected Republicans to treat their candidate with kid gloves all the way to the White House.

    At the end, McCain seems to have satisfied the former and disturbed the latter, all in a very effective package of "positive aggressiveness", even if his stumbling delivery was a bit `painful' to watch (he needs the same acting coach that trains Obama!).

    The themes that McCain touched upon were definitely the best of the night (in most respects) that gave a clear idea of how this election will fan out if Obama is indeed the nominee of the Democratic Party

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Y Knot on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:45:26 AM EST
    I mean, was it me?  Or did McCain's new found "friendship" and "respect" for Senator Clinton seem more than a little bit opportunistic and disingenuous?

    Really?  Pro-Life McCain (who reportedly calls his wife the "c" word in public) is now a friend to women?  I think most women would be smart enough to see through that.

    Parent

    he is against obama (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by progrocks on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:48:39 AM EST
    and therefore a friend of talkright

    Parent
    Heh (5.00 / 6) (#120)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:52:22 AM EST
    of COURSE it's opportunistic and disingenuous.

    McCain is doing the things that he believes will help him get elected, in this case reaching out to Hillary Clinton's 18 million supporters.  One would assume that anyone seeking the Presidency would look to do the same.

    To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, if Obama isn't interested in using that army, McCain would be happy to borrow it for a while.

    Parent

    Of course... (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:56:01 AM EST
    Of course McCain is self serving. He sees a whole bunch of voters who got thrown under the bus by Obama and he'll pick them up if he can. Makes total political sense. Remember, there are people out there, as strange at it seems to very liberal me, who are mostly Dem, but so close to the center that it wouldn't take much to push them to the R camp.

    I'll stay firmly under my bus, thank you, I won't vote for either man.

    As for McCain's speech, I just heard excerpts on CNN. I thought it was frigteningly good, actually. Obama sounds like a preacher, which I react very negatively to, McCain sounds reasonable, even when saying things that aren't. Ugh.


    Parent

    I can't beleive I wrote that. (none / 0) (#138)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:59:16 AM EST
    I wrote "I heard excerpts on CNN". Wow. That was a bold face lie since I don't have TV.

    I heard excepts on NPR.

    I lied, I lied, I lied!

    Parent

    Clinton and McCain (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:13:58 PM EST
    have been friends for quite awhile.

    Parent
    Regarding (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Grace on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:23:23 PM EST
    McCain's new found "friendship" and "respect" for Senator Clinton

    McCain has always been friendly with the Clintons (both of them) and has said so on more than one occasion.  In fact, I think it was a couple of years ago when he said Hillary would make a great president.  So, this is hardly something new.  

    Parent

    Are you serious? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by sweetthings on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:51:57 AM EST
    It wasn't mean and bitter. It was just plain bad. From almost any standpoint.

    First of all, as you note, his delivery was awful. After Hillary and Obama, both of whom delivered fantastic speeches, McCain literally looked and sounded like a bumbling old man.

    But even from a content perspective, it was bad. Sure, he was reaching out to disaffected Hillary voters, but that's not a very smart move for man who hasn't even shored up his own base. Just about the last thing a Real Red Republican wants to hear is his nominee sucking up to Hillary Clinton. Hillary is loved by Democrats and hated by Republicans for a reason, after all...she's one hell of a progressive fighter. Republicans rightly loathe her for it. So to have McCain, who is already distrusted by much of the Republican base, go out and 'wink at her supporters' is a disaster in the making. Anyone other than McCain could probably get away with it, but McCain doesn't have the trust of the Republican base, and speeches like the one he gave last night sure as heck aren't going to get it for him.

    And finally, McCain put himself forward as a 'change' candidate. That's a stunningly bad judgment call on the part of his campaign. There is simply no way he wins that fight against Obama (or Hillary, for that matter) in this of all years. If he tries to go forward on that theme, he'll be massacred. You don't fight the enemy on their home ground.

    If I were a Republican right now, I'd be very, very scared.

    Parent

    If I were a Republican right now... (5.00 / 5) (#163)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:13:58 PM EST
    ...I'd be LMAO at the Obama campaign's hamfisted attempts at "party unity" through its continued denigration and demonization of Hillary and her supporters. Reflexively mentioning Roe at every opportunity seems to be the extent of the Obama campaign's plan for unification.

    Hillary has earned the admiration who admire her for her hard work and determination--and that's setting aside the multitude of Republican and indy women who've crossed over to vote for her, and the many more of them who would cross over to vote for her in the general. For all of Obama's talk about post-partisanship, he's still considered, by the majority of conservatives, to be a fringe lefty out of touch with mainstream America. And that's before the GOP 527s get to work on him.

    McCain knows that all he has to do is raise the limbo bar of respect toward Hillary from the knee-length height Obama's kept it for a year to have a chance to woo disaffected Dems.

    Parent

    whoops... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Dawn Davenport on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:15:22 PM EST
    Second graf should read: "Hillary has earned the admiration of conservatives for her hard work..."

    Parent
    Relying on Democrats to elect you... (none / 0) (#177)
    by sweetthings on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:23:20 PM EST
    Is a horrible, horrible strategy for a Republican.

    Sure, you try and woo the independents. But only to the extent that you have your base solidified. To say that McCain's base is mushy is an understatement. Heaping praise on Hillary is not likely to improve that situation.

    I have no doubt that McCain and all the 527s are going to lay into Obama with a vengeance. But unless he can seriously up his game, it's not going to matter. The McCain we saw last night will not survive the first debate.

    I'm not saying that we have this thing all wrapped up. McCain has plenty of time to improve, and I suspect he will. I'm certainly not going to take him for granted. But McCain is floundering right now. Hopefully Hillary and Obama can toss him an anvil or two.

    Parent

    But he's not... (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:43:06 PM EST
    He's not relying on Dems to elect him, he's just seeing if he can peel off the mushy middle (remember when Obama supporters were so proud that he might be able to get those voters? He couldn't, though the narrative remains that he did) that IDs as "Weak Dem" or "Weak R".

    If he can get those mushy votes, he has a cushion against some of the more radical whacks not liking him.

    Parent

    I think you are very wrong about this (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:21:13 PM EST
    McCain's nods to Hillary won't bother the anti-Clinton Republicans now that (it seems) she has no way to be the nominee.  

    It's ok for him to be gracious to the (seemingly) defeated, it's like this weird Ivanhoe-honor-y kind of thing.  Now that she's no longer a threat I fully expect a lot of Republican admiration for her, I would not even be surprised to find it a talking point memo issue.

    It costs them nothing and might gain them a few votes.

    McCain's speech, as far as I could tell, roadmapped the Repulican strategy.  While the delivery (and the venue, where the heck were they) were ineffective, the message was not.  His speech hit all Obama's weaknesses.  If I'm right, Obama needs to create some more effective responses than a rock-band warm up rally at a college campus.

    Change is not Obama's or the DNC's home ground.  Sayin' don't make it so.  

    Parent

    I'm a democrat and I'm scared! (none / 0) (#126)
    by nashville on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:55:00 AM EST
    18 million Americans turn to Obama... and wait... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by BoGardiner on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:31:52 AM EST
    My November vote is now between Obama and me.

    It's got nothing to do with Clinton.  There's simply nothing she could say or do, other than be his running mate, that would make it easier for me to vote for him.  It is a power Obama alone has.  I, like 18 million others, are simply unwilling to support a candidate who promises to dismiss me, my values, and issues, and much worse, re-mold the party which once embraced these things so they will be dismissed for the foreseeable future.  Thus far Obama and the pundits have deliberately misunderstood and mischaracterized what drives most Clinton supporters.  It's simple; time to stop this ugly, disingenous talk of our hidden agendas and acknowledge our true ones.

    What part of the following statement doesn't he or the pundits get?  In order for me to support Obama, he must acknowledge these errors in judgment and correct them.

    What does this have to do with Hillary Clinton?

    Hmm.  Still thinking.  Drawing a blank.  Except for one thing. She should give every consideration humanly possible to agreeing to be VP.  And this she has suggested she will do, which is the responsible and right thing to do for her country, and I believe her.

    Obama, this is between you and me.  Quit cowering behind Hillary, step out into the open, and meet me and my ilk  head on.   Stop petulantly expecting her, or some future HRC substitute as VP, to do the job only you have the power to do.  Stop weakly leaning on your fan base to make your excuses while you shirk your duty to your party and your country.  Surely you're not so foolish as to absorb your fawning fans' self-serving rationalizations, feverishly spouted everywhere today, that concessions are impossible by conveniently judging 18 MILLION AMERICANS as "too irrational and emotional."  Such talk is nothing but self-defeating cowardice.

    I, and 18 million voters, donors, and superdelegates, are waiting, Obama.  Still waiting...

    It seems to me (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:42:28 AM EST
    Anita Dunn needs to change her name to "Anita Pony."

    Parent
    Ivana Pony! n/t (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by janarchy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:46:10 AM EST
    Just sent off an e-mail to (5.00 / 3) (#141)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:00:14 PM EST
    Ms. Dunn explaining that since Sen. Obama mentioned in last night's speech that the american people should no longer be threatened to vote using scare tactics, these remarks regarding roe v wade are exactly the same thing.

    Parent
    Practically Lactating (none / 0) (#209)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:05:14 PM EST
    Anita Dunn's email is :adunn@squiermedia.com If I'm not supposed to do that Jeralyn, I am sorry and please tell me not to be it again. Thank you.

    Parent
    I think she has the pony, so (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:12:23 PM EST
    really, her name should be Anita Saddle.

    Parent
    Spot on, bo (5.00 / 0) (#212)
    by Lena on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:07:53 PM EST
    yup that's me too.

    As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing HRC can do or say to get me to vote for Obama. It's his chance at the nomination, his opportunity, and his responsibility.

    If he can't unite the party, how can he run the country? And if he's so petty and small-minded, why should it be my responsibility to be magnanimous and forgiving of his campaign's tactics? The Dems have been disappointing me since at least 2000, and this is just the straw that turned out to break my participation in the party.

    Seems to me he's already said that he doesn't need my support. So I'm happy to comply.

    Parent

    Mydd diary (1.00 / 3) (#51)
    by Artoo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:35:12 AM EST
    Got as far as 2nd sentence (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by BoGardiner on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:39:32 AM EST
    "Are you insane?" And quit reading.  

    If you think this is "good stuff," then you must think McCain is good stuff, because that's what such idiocy will produce.

    Parent

    Oh yeah (5.00 / 7) (#79)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:42:00 AM EST
    More threats of how horrible McCain is and how we have to fall in line or we're crazy.

    Good stuff, indeed.  What you're smoking, I mean, not the diary.

    Parent

    If you're an example of what this site will become (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:43:37 AM EST
    then I won't be hanging around here much longer

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Artoo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:49:33 AM EST
    Ever heard of hyperbole folks? I thought it made some good points, especially when it comes to McCain vs Obama.

    For the record, you now believe that I'm a bad example of what this site will become for posting a link to an article addressing the interests of Clinton's supporters, and you also believe that I'm smoking some "good stuff" because I thought it asked some good, pointed questions? Really?

    I mean, really?

    Parent

    Yes, Artoo (5.00 / 5) (#134)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:57:55 AM EST
    Really.  And the fact that you really don't get why you've gotten this reaction is something you ought to think about.

    One thing I've learned over the years is that very few people are crazy, even in the popular sense of the word.  People who don't think alike usually have either different assumptions about the world, different priorities, or different ideals.

    It can be very useful to try to understand how other people came to their conclusions, especially if you're trying to change their minds.  But if you start out with the belief that your assumptions, priorities and ideals are the only reasonable ones, you will understand nothing.  And you will, in all probability, insult the people you are trying to convince.  As you have just done.

    Parent

    Thinking about it... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Artoo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:04:20 PM EST
    I don't understand why I've gotten this reaction. I thought it was good enough to link it here. Clinton supporters do need to ask themselves those questions in my opinion.

    Instead they insult me. How nice.

    Parent

    No, Artoo (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:13:17 PM EST
    We insult you back.  Still not getting it, and not getting any closer to getting it.

    Believe it or not, I'm trying to help you here.  If you want to convince people of something, you have to start where they are, not where you want them to be.

    Parent

    BINGO (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:25:07 PM EST
    I
    f you want to convince people of something, you have to start where they are, not where you want them to be.


    Parent
    I get it, it's just apples to oranges... (none / 0) (#172)
    by Artoo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:19:28 PM EST
    I didn't start with the personal insults here. I linked to an article.

    Parent
    But (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:22:50 PM EST
    the article was insulting.  You linked to it and said was good stuff.  You put your imprimatur on it by doing that.  That makes the words of the article - the insulting article - essentially yours.

    Parent
    Whether the article is insulting... (none / 0) (#180)
    by Artoo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:24:59 PM EST
    That's open for discussion. The insults towards me are unnecessary.

    Parent
    When you posted that article (5.00 / 0) (#204)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:56:37 PM EST
    saying it was good, you insulted me.  I returned the favor.  It doesn't matter if you thought the article was insulting or not - I have no obligation to view it through your eyes.  This isn't rocket science.

    Parent
    For the record. (none / 0) (#215)
    by Artoo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:09:05 PM EST
    I apologize for any insult you saw when I posted that article. I meant none.

    That said, I do not appreciate the way you responded to me. It was unkind and totally disproportionate to what I posted.

    Parent

    It *was* unkind (none / 0) (#224)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:24:11 PM EST
    It was meant to be unkind.  I have a policy - I do unto others as they have done unto me.  Turning the other cheek is just a good way to get hit twice.  I may have been disproportionate - I don't think so, but then I wouldn't, or I wouldn't have said it in the first place.

    This is probably going to sound unbelieveable, but I'm not actually angry at you.  You haven't been nearly as nasty as many of the Obama supporters who post here, and your post about Clinton's speech was nice.  I don't even mind the "cheesy" comment, since it's true.  :)

    But I've spent the last months trying to escape from Obama's bullies, and I don't appreciate anyone who tries to browbeat me into supporting that man - as the author of that article did.  Coming especially one short day after Obama was declared presumptive nominee, my patience for that is so far into the red, I'd have to declare bankruptcy if patience were currency.

    Parent

    I don't support your candidate (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:18:16 PM EST
    and I won't in November. You expect every one to fall in line, but it doesn't work that way. There are plenty of blogs that support your candidate, and this one will too.  

    IMO a vote for your candidate is a vote for the mistreatment that the media, and your candidate's supporters have given to Hillary. I won't validate that mistreatment.

    Parent

    The point that is missed (5.00 / 11) (#132)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:57:00 AM EST
    by a rant like this article is that for many of us who support Hillary and will not vote for Obama, it is not about policy issues. It's about not wanting to support a party that has condoned vote stealing, disenfranchisement of voters, sexism, misogyny, and low life Chicago-style politics on the national level.  We thought we belonged to a party that was better than that. Printing long lists of differences in policy between the Republicans and the Democrats is a waste of space.  We are not "low-information voters" who need to be educated about the differences between Obama and McCain.  We're gone from the party. If Obama is going to be courting independents, then we're part of the group he will need to court. But we don't expect he will, and a surrogate doing if for him will never be enough. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." For us, that means stopping the insanity of continuing to support Democratic losers nominated by people who take us for granted.

    Parent
    I just quit smoking (5.00 / 5) (#136)
    by badger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:58:54 AM EST
    after 40+ years. That was a lot harder than quitting my habit of nearly the same duration of voting for incompetent Democratic candidates whose positions I disagree with will be.

    I don't think Obama deserves my vote - there's no reason I can see to vote for him except the trumped up "politics of fear" that he pretends to oppose. I'm not that scared of McCain that I'll vote for Obama. I won't vote for McCain either. Posts like the MyDD post you link are all based on fear and the fact that Obama (ostensibly) isn't McCain - hardly inspiring reasons to vote for him, and certainly no positive reasons.

    The article you link quotes: "The definition of insanity: repeating the same action and expecting a different result." That's how I feel about voting (again) for a Democrat who is far less progressive than I think the next President needs to be.


    Parent

    What, specifically, do you mean when you say (none / 0) (#137)
    by schmed on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:58:56 AM EST
    "dismiss me, my values, and issues, and much worse, re-mold the party which once embraced these things so they will be dismissed for the foreseeable future."  These wild accusations fly in the face of the simple fact that Clinton and Obama agree on most things, the question of mandates for health care being the one salient exception.  AS for re-molding the party, I suppose you refer to the way the DNC (NOT OBama) decided to interpret its own rules--a complicated subject that hardly requires Obama to admit the "error of his ways." I just don't understand the implicit assumption that a losing candidate (and her supporters), no matter how narrow the loss, gets to dictate policy positions.

    Parent
    They DO NOT agree on most things, except when (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:05:13 PM EST
    Obama says "I agree with Hillary." as he did in all the debates.  He doesn't know what he believes half the time.  

    Parent
    Cheated of a proud moment, but not what OFB thinks (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by BoGardiner on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:34:21 AM EST
    This is a moment I've fantasized about most of my life, the day I expected my heart would swell with pride for being a Democrat and an American, supporting our first African-American nominee.

    I've been cheated of that joy forever.

    I can't even begin to imagine the sense of being cheated of this joy if I were African-American.  Those of you who are, and are Clinton supporters, I'm thinking of you.  Obama should make it a top priority to sincerely contemplate and listen to you about what you found in Clinton that you have not yet been able to find in him.  For you and for me, a white woman, I hope he lowers the volume on his fan base so he can hear us, then find a better path than the one he's traveled thus far.  

    Cheated? Why? Because Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Anne on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:58:48 AM EST
    didn't concede on Obama's schedule?  If your guy has the delegates he needs, and is declaring himself the nominee, why are you prevented from the joy?  Is is that your joy is contingent on Clinton's departure?

    As much as you feel cheated out of your moment of joy, imagine how Clinton felt being cheated out of delegates she earned in Michigan.  

    Imagine all the other emotions she - and her supporters - felt as the media treated her like a second-class citizen for months, as sexist and demeaning comments were bandied about in the media with glee, with no outcry or protest from Obama or his supporters.

    I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for Obama to rein in the fan base - considering he's had the opportunity to set a unifying, hopeful and "new" tone that matched the lofty rhetoric he's been bestowing on the masses since he began this race - and didn't - I don't think we're likely to see some great change now.

    As a woman, I am proud of Hillary Clinton, and I know in my heart of hearts that not only will she make women proud, she will make America proud; I am not an African American, but if I were, and I were being honest with myself, I am not sure I could say the same of Barack Obama.  

    Parent

    I wasn't clear, sorry (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by BoGardiner on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:09:59 PM EST
    See my previous post on this thread. OFB is "Obama Fan Base" in Corrente parlance.  I'm an ardent HRC supporter saying I'll have a hard time voting for Obama.

    My point was that, as an added insult, not only am I deprived of the joy of the first woman nominee, but am deprived of the joy of the first black nominee.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#160)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:13:01 PM EST
    My opinion is that history gets made in November, anyway, and not in June.

    Geraldine Ferraro accomplished a milestone, but it's worth exactly one line in the history books.  A nomination is just a nomination.

    Parent

    still (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:43:39 PM EST
    as distasteful as I find agreeing with Tweety, it is undeniably historic.
    we should be proud that the democratic party was the first to nominate an AA.
    even if he will ultimately lose and make sure another doesnt get nominated for about the next 50 years (IMO)


    Parent
    Attacking each other now? (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:33:35 PM EST
    Obama isn't her guy and it's not helpful to be so confrontational though I know we're all on our last nerve today.

    Parent
    If you have been fantasizing about this.. (none / 0) (#150)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:06:53 PM EST
    then I suggest you see a therapist. There is life outside of politics.

    Beauty, and presidential qualifications, are more than skin deep.

    Parent

    Easy, folks (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by BoGardiner on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:11:39 PM EST
    Please see my previous comment.  Thanks.

    Parent
    Does anyone have any ... (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by NotThatStupid on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:42:21 AM EST
    ... statistics on the number of dolars spent per delegate, and per vote, by Senator Clinton and Senator Obama?

    I do for advertising (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:09:53 PM EST
    in this article

    the link in the article downloads a word doc

    Parent

    SO discouraged... (5.00 / 6) (#94)
    by nashville on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:44:51 AM EST
    just had a political conversation with best friend.  Politics has been off-limits this whole season.  :(  We used to really have some good talks lamenting this admistration.

    She and her whole family are died-in-the-wool democrats, heavy contributors, etc.  When she started talking bad about Bill Clinton, who has also been the beneficiary of the monetary support, I could not believe it.  She has been defending him agains the RW fervently.  

    I am sorry. It is just some really scary s&## to me when an ardent Clinton supporter suddenly finds them so bad & evil. I can't get over some of the things she said.

    I did tell her that from the point of view of a "senior, poor, undeducation, white, angry racist woman ... Remember how horrible it felt to have the republicans disrespect & mock ... well just imagine how it feels to have the same things done to you by supposed democrats just because you are a Hillary supporter."

    I thought last night that I had come to the acceptance phase of grief, but I am just angry and now also scared.  Think "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

    Guess politics is still off-limits for us.

    Sorry for the long post.  Kind of depressed and needed to vent.  Thanks!

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by BoGardiner on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:38:10 PM EST
    I so know how you feel, Nashville.  I've thought of of the Body Snatchers' analogy repeatedly.  Creepy, isn't it?  Just when you think you've got a handle on human nature, and figured out who your compatriots are, the pods split open and we're looking around for garlic and stakes.  Oops, mixing movies.  How DID they stop the pod people?  

    Parent
    IIRC (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:04:20 PM EST
    They didn't.

    Parent
    Oceandweller,I find it disrespectful to be (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:45:55 AM EST
    called not only various names but racist as well for not voting for Sen. Obama. I find that rather offensive. If Hillary were the nominee, I think having Obama on the ticket would be fine, because she would be teaching him (how to govern, respect, and grow-up). According to his handlers, he doesn't feel the need to woo her supporters. I am a Hillary supporter and will not come "home" as he predicts. He does not want my vote.

    I am sorry, but I am not understanding (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:46:20 AM EST
    What?

    Absolutely (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by Davidson on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:51:27 AM EST
    Look at the polls.  She destroys McCain, as she picks up the vast majority of the Obama base--and Republican women (Look at Survey USA NC polls: McCain crushes Obama; Clinton beats McCain!).  Throughout this campaign her voters have increasingly hardened against Obama, with significant portions, if not majorities, refusing to vote for him.

    Basically, Clinton's base is solidly behind her while Obama's base is soft.  In terms of electoral strength: he needs her; she doesn't need him.

    However, politically, Obama is backed by the establishment and they will not allow Clinton to be the nominee without Obama as VP, a ticket that would only bring her down considering his ties to Chicago and lack of qualifications.  She would still win, but it wouldn't be as much of a knockout with a VP of her own choice.

    To be clear (none / 0) (#125)
    by Davidson on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:54:36 AM EST
    She picks up enough Republican women to make a significant impact, not that she picks up the majority of them.

    Parent
    In an effort ... (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:57:46 AM EST
    to give myself reason to vote for Obama in the fall, I started making a list of all the Democrats I've voted for who I didn't like.

    I don't know why I thought that would help.

    Of course, it didn't.

    I just think of my distinguished (5.00 / 0) (#152)
    by Fabian on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:07:18 PM EST
    Senator Voinovich, who took many opportunities to verbally oppose the Bush administration and then meekly and quietly voted the party line with the rest of his GOP brethren.

    It's easy to talk tough.  Taking action is harder.  So I always look beyond the words, or if all I have to work with is words, I look for consistency and firmness.

    Parent

    You know (none / 0) (#156)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:10:15 PM EST
    I'm not sure I have EVER voted for a Democrat I didn't like.

    Some I didn't love, sure.

    Parent

    Just turned eighteen then? (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:31:57 PM EST
    Or are you just easy?

    ;)

    Parent

    Fairly easy (5.00 / 0) (#193)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:39:18 PM EST
    My first vote was Dukakis, as it happens.

    Parent
    Oh I have... (none / 0) (#191)
    by NWHiker on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:38:51 PM EST
    Weasel Ron Sims, my county exec, comes to mind. He just jumped on the Unity bandwagon and switched his SD status from Clinton to Obama.

    His policies have made my property worthless and my house unsellable,he's supported growth beyond limits and destroyed neighbourhoods by his under-handed techniques yet I've voted and revoted for him because he's better than the R. I'll be abstaining next time.

    Even when he tries to do good things, like site a homeless camp in what was a good area for it, he got people to oppose it: some were NIMBY, some were flat out pissed at he tried to push it through in an unscheduled meeting that took place on Friday at 4:30!

    Parent

    Sims (none / 0) (#217)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:11:53 PM EST
    is also partly behind the notion of charging tolls on ALL MAIN thoroughfares, not just the bridges.  It would be done via an electronic card and I assume you wouldn't know when you were being charged.

    And I could go on.  The man is disgusting.  

    (I'm in Sammmamish, BTW).

    Parent

    Lanny Davis (5.00 / 6) (#168)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:17:13 PM EST
    said in an interview on Fox just a while ago that he was getting a lot of hate mail from Obama supporters, including a high level Obama campaign official. The messages included being very angry about Hillary not saying what they wanted her to say and when, and saying that they felt like she was holding a gun to their head.

    Lanny's response was great about Hillary needing to land this large plane (of 18 million supporters) and if she crash landed it that night, it would have been a disaster. And what she is doing is in Obama's best interest.

    Did you see Ferraro on there (5.00 / 6) (#197)
    by Joan in VA on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:41:22 PM EST
    saying O supporters have tried to get her fired and thrown off Boards and such? The haters won't let it go. Not good at all.

    Parent
    You're the ones telling us (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by karen for Clinton on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:18:29 PM EST
    not to vote for McCain.

    So if Hillary wins the nomination in August, will you vote for McCain?

    If the obamacrats are as rabidly anti-McCain as all of them seem to be, ahem, ya know, the Roe v Wade TPM, and all that rot.


    please don't call (none / 0) (#183)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:25:40 PM EST
    Obama supporters names like obamatrons, etc. Call them what they are, Obama supporters.

    It comes off as an insult, as do terms like koolaid drinkers.

    Parent

    We had great news in South Dakota! (4.93 / 16) (#30)
    by Nettle on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:28:39 AM EST
    As you know Hillary beat the Daschle/Hildebrand machine, even in the county where Obama posed in front of the Corn Palace. :).  The Democrat turnout in SD was the highest for a primary there ever.

    And what did that mean? Every Dem, prochoice woman save one in a tight four-way won their primaries last night!  Martha Vanderlinde in Sioux Falls trounced her prolife opponents, one who switched parties just to run against her.

    My woman Senator Theresa Two Bulls lagged all night, hard on my fingernails, but as the last ten precincts in the state to be counted, the Pine Ridge vote, she went over the top and won by a mere 26 votes, probably looking at a recount but I'm confident.

    In every corner of the state Dem voters went with prochoice women.  This is great progress and bodes well for defeating the abortion ban on the ballot, too.  We're going after that sickly 16% number of women in the SD legislature and we're the ones who're making change by getting busy on the ground and local.

    Keep your eye on us in the November general!

    And chins up, everybody.  

    That's fantastic (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:32:43 AM EST
    I have to tell you this though, it's a little disappointing to see that a whole state apparently has fewer voters than the State Senate district I live in in Philadelphia. And South Dakota gets two U.S. Senators. . .

    Parent
    Big congratulations! (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:34:13 AM EST
    Good for her, good for you, and good for all the folks in South Dakota!

    Parent
    That's great news (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:34:21 AM EST
    I'm so happy the voters didn't let the media tell them the contest was irrelevant.

    I have such respect for all of you who work to turn the red states blue.  I know it's not easy sometimes.

    Parent

    That is wonderful news (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:36:17 AM EST
    I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with women, both as candidates and in general, now.  Hopefully women have been energized as well as outraged enough to make the feminist movement resurgent.

    Parent
    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Y Knot on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:41:53 AM EST
    That's fantastic!   I am really starting to believe we're coming to the end of the dark times the Republicans has put us through the past eight years.  

    (well, come to think of it, the past twenty eight... with an eight year hiatus in the '90s.)

    Parent

    As an Obama supporter... (3.40 / 5) (#6)
    by Artoo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:17:19 AM EST
    Hillary's speech was very, very good last night. I wanted her to concede, but that's just not who she is. She spoke kindly of Obama, which seems to have been lost on many people, and she rallied her folks one last time. I thought the hillaryclinton.com line was a little cheesy, but other than that, it was very good.

    She couldn't concede (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by scorbs on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:53:45 AM EST
    last night because she just won South Dakota and she was in front of a hometown crowd, who fought for her all season long.  Why don't people understand that?  She also has won the popular vote by 18 million strong so she is not the typical contender losing a primary season and there are all types of idiosyncracies involved, such as the fact that Obama really didn't win by pledged delegates.  Remember he won by SD's who declared themselves months before a convention where their votes only count.  Obama did not win the necessary pledged delegates.

    Get it yet?

    Parent

    Thank you Artoo (none / 0) (#164)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:15:20 PM EST
    I think your comment is very sincere and nice.  

    Parent
    Voting Machine virus (none / 0) (#14)
    by Step Beyond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:21:59 AM EST

    The Buzz
    (read the first comment too, even though I didn't write it, it is exactly what I was thinking)

    Two pieces of malicious software detected Thursday have been removed from Pinellas County's voting tabulation system.

    The two bugs, Flush.G and W32.SillyDC, work in tandem and go from computer to computer redirecting Internet browsers to sites the user hasn't selected. The worm is carried through removable media like USB drives, is easily detected and officials say rather harmless.



    What's wrong with this message? why deleted? (none / 0) (#22)
    by TalkRight on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:25:29 AM EST
    This one via Marambinder:
    Hillary for General Election

    Group Vows Half-Million Supporters Will Back Hillary in General Election

    Organization cites surging membership and closeness of previous elections in their promise to impact '08 elections

    June 4, 2008 -- HillaryGrassrootsCampaign.com, an organization with upwards of half-a-million supporters, announced today it is committed to breaking ranks with the Democratic Party and supporting Senator Hillary Clinton in the general election - regardless of her status as the party's nominee.

    HillaryGrassrootsCampaign.com is not associated with the official Hillary Clinton campaign. However, the organization says it is filled with disaffected supporters who are ready to be "former" Democrats because of the contempt and disregard that has been shown to the many party faithful who support Sen. Clinton's presidential candidacy.

    "We've already registered more than half-a-million supporters and our numbers are growing daily," said Robin Carlson, HillaryGrassrootsCampaign.com's campaign representative. "The treatment from the Democratic Party and the media of this historic candidate has energized voters across our nation," Carlson added. "To throw that support away with such contempt and disregard would be a huge mistake."



    You can comment on it (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:30:46 AM EST
    But you cannot use TalkLeft to shill for it. TalkLeft will not be an organizing ground for a third party candidacy. Hillary is a committed Democrat and so are we.

    Cutting and pasting multi-paragraphs from elsewhere is beyond our site capacity.

    The correct way to do it is to mention and link to the article (in html format), quote a few lines and give your opinion on it.

    Parent

    Lanny Davis (5.00 / 3) (#110)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:50:15 AM EST
    If this isn't ok, I apologize, but Lanny Davis, ultra-committed Clinton supporter, is organizing an effort to have Clinton considered for VP.  It seems way to early for that, but I respect his caring for and committment to Hillary.  If she ever decides to suspend, I support her in considering VP.

    If anyone is interested... he said he has his petition at www.womenforfairpolitics.com

    I hope that is ok. It certainly is in support of a Democratic win in Nov.  :)

    Parent

    may be the phone numbers on the top gave an (none / 0) (#98)
    by TalkRight on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:45:57 AM EST
    impression in the earlier post that it was kind of an organizing effort.. but was not my aim.. will keep that in mind.

    Parent
    I think they want an independent run (none / 0) (#26)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:27:51 AM EST
    May be she can run with mayor Bloomberg! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by TalkRight on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:30:00 AM EST
    that would be sweet!

    Parent
    she wouldn't have a problem raising money (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by ChuckieTomato on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:36:15 AM EST
    I'm absolutely confident of that

    Parent
    That would (none / 0) (#50)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:34:53 AM EST
    certainly solve any fundraising issues. ( If he spent some of his own cash.)

    Parent
    No under-promising. (none / 0) (#44)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:33:49 AM EST
    I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.

     King Knute was a piker.  

    He can slow the rise of Oceans? (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:01:36 PM EST
    Cool!

    Does he also have a Green Lantern ring?

    ;)

    Parent

    History starts now (none / 0) (#53)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:35:44 AM EST
    Don't you want to be on page one?  Give it some thought.

    Parent
    While I Think the Ticket (none / 0) (#54)
    by bob h on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:35:47 AM EST
    would benefit enormously from having Clinton on it, I do not want it to occur as the result of public pressure from the likes of Lanny Davis.  It will just make Obama look weak, caving in on his first major decision, so I would say cool it to all public pressure on him.  Can't somebody tell Lanny, et. al., to cool it?

    Jimmy Carter disagrees with you. He said it (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by Teresa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:42:05 AM EST
    would be a huge mistake since 50% of the country doesn't like her. I'm not sure what that says for Obama when she can get more voters than he can.

    I don't want her anywhere near that ticket but for different reasons than Pres. Carter.

    Parent

    I thought I saw her favorable (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:47:31 AM EST
    approval rating yesterday was at 74%. Someone may want to check it.

    Parent
    right (none / 0) (#111)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:50:36 AM EST
    I read that also (none / 0) (#140)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:59:31 AM EST
    I wonder if posed the question, "who best serves the country post election in that capacity" if he would keep that answer. So much emphasis is put on "winning" in November without considering the strategic aftermath of a win. John McCain will not win. McCain is already chasing Obama talking points which is the sign of someone who is trailing, and will continue to lose esteem until November. Convincing voters to vote for change is one thing, convincing lifetime politicians to adhere to "your" policy vision without muscle behind the policy will net you nothing.

    Parent
    I would not be concerned (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:49:44 AM EST
    about how one "looks". What I would be concerned about is how half of the party voted for her and half of the party voted for him yet he found it in his heart to select someone else. To me it is not even a question of who "helps" him win. Dick cheney and this admin have forever changed the role of the VP and Hillary can twist arms, use extensive political capital, is widely respected by foreign heads of gov't and is qualified to be the president. To heck with who helps us win, I want her as VP because she helps make BO's administration stronger. We need a very strong administration as we are facing the most challenging times since the FDR days. Shaky economy, ill advised war, foreign relations nightmare, lack of funding for infrastructure, oil dependency, lack of funding in R&D to break dependency, credit crisis, housing crisis, trade discrepancy, lack of h/c for all americans, insane medical costs for every american insured or not, ineffective and dormant congress etc. We need every ounce of muscle we can afford in the WH to get things done. A token VP to win a state or two would be a considerable failure in my estimation.

    Parent
    I would offer (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:56:51 AM EST
    a different perspective.  Obama could show, beyond his claims in words alone, that he is a uniter and a leader by choosing Hillary for VP.  I think too many people feel he talks the talk but can't walk the walk.  If he can rise above the animosity and put the interests of the party and the nation first, he might gain some respect too.  Just a different way of looking at the situation.  

    Parent
    A suggested theme song (none / 0) (#116)
    by scribe on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:51:38 AM EST
    to go along with the coming, stern letter from Pelosi, Reid and Dean (the earlier thread's comments closed before I could post):

    Johnny Cash, "Tear-stained letter"

    Or, if that one's not to your liking, perhaps

    Johnny Cash, "Letter edged in Black"

    If you're going to click through, please, please, please do yourself a favor and don't watch the video accompanying these songs - they're not of The Man in Black (the one is stills of him, the other a tribute to someone) and, besides, when you close your eyes you can go into the theater of your own imagination and script your own video of Nancy, Harry and Howard penning their missives, to accompany the songs.

    Cut out the caps, okay? And write in complete (none / 0) (#127)
    by Angel on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 11:55:21 AM EST
    sentences where possible.  Your posts are too hard to read.  And try to make it coherent while you're at it.  

    Agreed (none / 0) (#179)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:23:42 PM EST
    there is no need to shout with capital and bold letters. The preview button is your friend.

    And don't race-bait.

    Parent

    There's a rat.... (none / 0) (#157)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:10:26 PM EST
    in the Patriots clubhouse.  Link

    I wouldn't let Kaczur in the huddle of my Sunday rec league team after a slimey stunt like that.  Stand up guys and gals are a dying breed.

    One thing about Obama's (none / 0) (#196)
    by LoisInCo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:40:56 PM EST
    speech last night kinda bothered me. He said " We honor John McCain and his accomplishments, even as he seeks to deny me mine." ( Or that was close)

    What did that mean? I havent heard any sort of attack on Obama's accomplishments. Or did I miss something?

    I am REALLY not trolling (none / 0) (#213)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:08:03 PM EST
    But what exactly are his accomplishments? I was talking to an Obama supporter friend this morning, and I tried to think of some, but I really couldn't. I don't mean stuff like being a lawyer, professor, etc. I meant on the political scene.

    Parent
    A week or two ago (none / 0) (#221)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:16:43 PM EST
    McCain said that Obama "did not feel it necessary to serve his country in uniform," or something like that.  I think it was part of the argument they were having over the new GI Bill.

    Parent
    Today McCain is saying (none / 0) (#230)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:53:34 PM EST
    Obama doesn't support the troops, since he voted for no-funding w/o withdrawal deadline.

    Parent
    This urgency to end the race is a red flag (none / 0) (#202)
    by dwmorris on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 12:50:19 PM EST
    It seems like the Clinton campaign is trying to buy time --- and the Obama campaign (including their unofficial surrogates in the MSM) seems too anxious for her to concede ASAP.

    Why?

    The Clinton campaign says they need to bring things to a graceful conclusion. The Obama campaign says they need to move on to the GE.

    I'm sorry, but none of this passes the smell test.

    A plausible (conspiracy?) theory ---
    The Obama campaign is afraid of some event that will affect the SDs en masse. They need to push Clinton past the point of no return before the storm hits. Clinton's refusal to budge suggests she knows, or at least hopes (audaciously perhaps), that something is on the horizon.

    The "rumor that must not be named" is rapidly gaining specificity and perhaps the Republicans have been forced into a use-it-or-lose-it situation by the blogs.

    I think you (none / 0) (#225)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:25:24 PM EST
    might just be on to something

    Parent
    however (none / 0) (#226)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:27:10 PM EST
    its wasted effort if thats the case for the Obamans.
    the supers can change their minds until the convention.  itsa long time till August.

    Parent
    They want her to concede - not suspend (none / 0) (#229)
    by dwmorris on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 01:46:41 PM EST
    As evidenced by all the buzz about closure and the deals being offerred (Obama is not going to pay off Clinton's campaign debt and/or give her the VP slot if she doesn't concede first).

    My read is that they are trying to position themselves to survive a scandal big enough to shift a hundred or so SDs by pressuring Clinton to concede ASAP.

    If there is a catastrophic meltdown ... then, as you say, all bets are off at the convention.

    Parent

    Saddened (none / 0) (#231)
    by thentro on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 03:10:30 PM EST
    I am saddened that my note of thanks to Talk Left was removed from this open thread (#104) . I have never had a comment removed from this page and have always tried to be respectful and engage in polite discussion. I did repost it with apologies, but that was because the last set of comments were closed and I was looking for feedback. It had a rating of 5.0 when I last checked. :-(