home

Sunday Morning Open Thread

Your turn.

Comments closed.

< Unity: The Day After | How Can Obama Lose The Election? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Got Nothing (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by creeper on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:02:49 AM EST
    I've just been labeled a "yapping puppy" by an Obama supporter.

    I don't think that falls under the heading of "unity".

    That was a really dumb comment (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:03:43 AM EST
    on Al's part. REALLY dumb.

    Parent
    Which Al? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:04:43 AM EST
    Giordano or Sharpton?

    Parent
    former (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:05:11 AM EST
    Hard to tell them apart (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:07:20 AM EST
    Similar hairstyles, y'know ;)

    Seriously, with friends like these, Obama has no need of swiftboaters.

    Parent

    Didn't you know? (5.00 / 18) (#6)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:08:17 AM EST
    Unity comes with a sharp swift whack to the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

    Parent
    should I send them a copy of (5.00 / 3) (#166)
    by nycstray on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:55:36 PM EST
    The Power of Positive Training? Or leave them to clean up their own puppy messes?  ;)

    In case anyone's wondering . . . POPT does work with people too, lol!~

    Parent

    They get to clean up (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:11:27 PM EST
    their own messes for a bit...

    Parent
    I call (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:16:20 AM EST
    it "sledgehammer unity" or to women it's "get in line and shut up". They just can't seem to help themselves.

    Parent
    The mentality behind it (5.00 / 8) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:18:08 AM EST
    is that no Democrat actually supported Hillary Clinton. Her candidacy was all a Republican trick, you see!

    Parent
    No "true" Democrat.... (5.00 / 6) (#62)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:52:30 AM EST
    ...whatever that means these days.

    Parent
    Saw this on No Quarter...and those are (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:17:45 PM EST
    their tactics...not a very honorable bunch imo.

    link

    Parent

    Two Sides of a Coin (1.20 / 5) (#119)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:25:52 PM EST
    I can understand your fascination/attraction as they are your counterpart.

    Parent
    Alas, squeaky cannot help itself... (5.00 / 7) (#169)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:58:00 PM EST
    Yappy or not (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by standingup on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:56:38 AM EST
    your vote still counts the same as Al's.  Consider the source and it's much less of an insult.

    Parent
    Yapping puppy . . . (4.50 / 2) (#9)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:09:29 AM EST
    Isn't that old-school Communist Party rhetoric--you know, "running dogs of imperialism," that sort of thing, "capitalist lickspittle", etc? Surely this are NOT mental associations the Obama campaign wants.

    Parent
    Showing my age here, but..... (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:08:24 PM EST
    ...does anyone else remember Papa Was A Running-Dog Lackey Of The Bourgeoisie from National Lampoon's Lemmings? I've got to track down a copy of that again. I wore it out in vinyl.

    Parent
    Well, this "yapping puppy" (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by A little night musing on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:09:11 AM EST
    just wants to say...as someone else (sorry, I've forgotten who it was, meant to give you a 5!) said,

    BTD, you really live up to your screen name. (And the loveable part, I agree with that too!)

    Thanks for everything you do here.


    A serious question... (5.00 / 9) (#8)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:09:14 AM EST
    I asked before and not no answers from any Obama Supporters...so I'll try again:

    There is a comment in another post about an Obama supporter saying "I heard him speak" as his reason to support BO.

    If that's all it takes...hasn't all of America already "heard him speak"?

    And didn't half of Dems want someone else?

    And if he really is/was so inspirational, why didn't he blow HRC out of the water with voters after Super Tuesday in February?

    And why did he only win via Super Delegates?

    And why - seriously - isn't he ahead of McCain by 25 points in the polls right now?  I mean, these are his glory days...but the "old man"/Bush II is right there with him?

    I have my answers to these questions?  What about some answers by a BO supporter or two?

    Don't these facts actually make you (even) slightly nervous?

    I asked last night (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by pie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:16:30 AM EST
    about a progressive movement.  What is a progressive and why is Obama considered one?

    Crickets.

    Hard kwestins, I guess.  Troubling that we're not getting answers.

    Parent

    I am stumped too (5.00 / 10) (#44)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:37:00 AM EST
    I have a good many friends who are progressive and/or feminist who preferred Obama in the primaries. Some said it was her war vote - however seeing Obama's record in the Senate I don't know that he would have voted against the majority. He is not a rebel or a radical in any way.

    I guess they wanted to believe hope/change was enough.

    I outgrew those hopes in 2000 when a lying rich guy who couldn't make sense 'won' over an honorable progressive who was really smart.

    Do people not pay attention?

    Parent

    He WOULD have voted against it? Rilly? (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:55:04 PM EST
    The same guy who can't take a straight up stance on anything?

    The same guy who's brilliant campaign is based on not leaving a paper trail and avoiding anything "controversial" by voting Present -- cause yes or no might (:: eek eek ::) sully the suit later?

    He's brave in his imagination, a downright champion in his hypothetical scenarios and a veritable lion of the civil rights movement in his rhetoric.

    But he's a chickensh!t coward in standing up against injustice when it matters most: when it's happening right under his nose.

    CLUE: denounce the bigotry when it's happening, Senator Obama, don't look the other way or USE it to score personal points when a worthy colleague and campaign rival is besieged with a historically unprecedented onslaught of bigotry. (My, isn't the b!tch divisive!)

    Parent

    Hard Kwestins? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:45:55 AM EST
    Not really so hard. I answered the progressive question on a thread yesterday. And I'd be happy to reengage on that point in the future. Right now I don't sense that there is much openness to such a discussion. Most folks here still want to argue points that have already been resolved by the primary process. With the passage of time it might be possible to move the discussion beyond that. Let's be patient with each other.

    Parent
    true to form - (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Josey on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:58:19 AM EST
    DK front pagers are still focused on bashing Hillary and evading Obama's positions on the issues.
    DK hate trumps issues and solutions.
    shocking! ;>

    Parent
    They don't speak for Obama (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by lgm on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:11:10 PM EST
    Commenters on DailyKos don't work for Obama or speak for him any more than commenters here work for and speak for Clinton.  After Clinton endorsed Obama and asked her supporters to vote for him, many here are not willing to do that.  

    Clinton is not able to deliver 100% of her supporters to Obama any more than Obama is able to tell his supporters what to say (or not say) about Clinton.

    Parent

    I used to get myself in a mighty snit whenever anyone accused anyone at dKos of being on the dole.

    But after what I've seen the past six months, oh yea, I believe without a doubt there's some people there on the dole. Can't name names - won't name names - but yea, I believe it.

    But I also think there are Republican operatives there, and it disgusts me even more that dKossians fell right into their trap(s).

    Not too bright. And very destructive.

    Parent

    I don't believe all questions have (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    been answered beyond the primaries. I believe the system  and the voters were cheated and gamed and lied to. So do we now just say, oh well, party, party, party? Some do, I don't, and I will not come "home" as long as Obama is the nominee, especially w/o Hillary to watch over him. If the SD's had gone for Hillary, would you still feel the same way? You may say yes for this post, but most I've read, the nasty, vile, hate-bating ones, would not have accepted it. Please do not ask me.

    Parent
    I wasn't on yesterday (none / 0) (#83)
    by pie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:04:16 PM EST
    for most of the day.

    Go ahead.  I really want an answer.

    Parent

    Putting Social Security On The Table, (5.00 / 10) (#182)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    running "poison pill" ads against UHC, having "cure the gays" ministers campaign for you , approving Republican government regulations and adopting a foreign like the great icon Raygun are the NEW progressive standards.

    Glad to say that I'm a good old fashioned liberal and these positions don't appeal to me at all.

    Parent

    Not all people can be hypnotized (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:25:21 AM EST
    Don't you remember when they use to have a hypnotist on TV and he would take a group of people and talk his talk and he would have them raise their hands and some people didn't and some only one hand, and he would only keep the people with both hands up to work with? Those were the people he could truly hypnotize. Apparently some of us don't raise our both hands. I am making a joke about this, but maybe  his tone of voice really does hypnotize some people. To vote for someone because you heard them speak and without specific references to what he said, we might wonder about that. Wouldn't that be a hoot. Subliminal messaging.

    Parent
    to your point (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Y Knot on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:42:02 AM EST
    First off "I heard him speak" isn't the only reason I supported him, so I'm not about to defend that as being a good enough reason alone. But to your points:

    I don't actually think all of America has heard him speak, no. I think a sizable percentage frankly hasn't been paying that much attention to this race, yet. It sometimes seems unthinkable to me because I've been following this race for almost 18 months, but we still have six months to go.

    Why didn't he blow out Clinton seems obvious to me.  She was an incredibly popular, formidible, talented and inspirational figure.  She is, by all measures, an excellent candidate for President.  The fact that he managed to edge her out at all was an amazing feat.  But to turn it around. In six months, he managed to go from tied for a distant second with John Edwards to beating one of the most formidable candidates imaginable.

    Yes, half of democrats wanted someone else. But had Clinton won, her detractors would be able to say the same thing. Its a problem we would have had to face either way.    

    These by the way are not the Glory Days.  He's just come out of the toughest bitterest and most divisive primary we've seen in a generation. Whereas John McCain has literally coasted for three months.if anyone has in their glory days its him.  And yet, the best he can do right now is tie Obama?  If Obama can manage to unify the party (and I grant, that's a big if) he'll crush McCain.

    Parent

    OK... (5.00 / 7) (#59)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:51:17 AM EST
    (I wasn't citing your previous comment...I didn't see it...I was quoting from someone else's.)

    1.  Since when did HRC become a formidable candidate?  All we heard for 8 months was what a monster she is and has no experience except being married to a former POTUS.

    2.  Also, all we heard is that she ran a HORRIBLE campaign and deserved to lose...but NOW, Obama was the victor against a tough opponent?

    3.  I suspect that while some Americans may not have been listening to BO "speak", a lot more than you think have their mind made up already.  

    4.  And, historically, there are three big days for any candidate:  upon "winning" the nomination; selecting his/her VP; and the week after the convention.  So these are one of those Glory Days for BO - and he still is not beating McCain by the  numbers he should.

    And finally, doesn't any of the "bother" you...even a little bit?

    But thanks for answering.

    Parent

    Number 4 (5.00 / 8) (#100)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:15:00 PM EST
    The polls next week will tell the full story, but I've been expecting Obama to get a bump since last Tues and haven't seen it yet.

    McCain's been within 3 point of Obama (when he hasn't been ahead) for a while now.  Last night Fox was bloviating over the most recent Rasmussen poll, which shows Obama 4 points ahead.  If that's the bump - 1 pont -- there's trouble ahead.

    I think Obama maxed out his appeal in February and March, and I just don't see anything he could do, aside from putting Clinton on the ticket, that would produce a big swing either way.

    And, if she's not on the ticket, I'm starting to wonder about the convention bump too.  I almost think a floor fight would have been better for the Party, it would attract more eyeballs than a Unity Snoozefest.

    (disclaimer: while I agree with BTD that Clinton on the ticket is Obama's only hope, I don't think she should accept, what a waste of her talents).

    Parent

    The Bradley Effect (5.00 / 2) (#143)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:41:41 PM EST
    Valhalla, I agree with the points you make.

    But only a few would be willing to make their true feelings known to pollsters and the public.

    We'll only know what chance Obama has of becoming President when every ballot is counted after Nov. 4. (if he's at the top of ticket -- yes, I'm still holding out hope for the best)

    Parent

    Obama's negatives, from a supporter (none / 0) (#49)
    by lgm on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:40:00 AM EST
    You asked "And if he really is/was so inspirational, why didn't he blow HRC out of the water with voters after Super Tuesday in February?"

    One of Obama's assets is his speaking ability.  Another strength is what he has to say.  He won many supporters in his speech about Reverend Wright.

    Why did he not blow Clinton away?  Why is McCain as close as he is?  For one thing, both seem to be great candidates (and Clinton doesn't just seem).

    But Obama has negatives:  

    • inexperience -- less than one term in the Senate
    • a lack of specific accomplishments
    • he isn't completely trustworthy -- claims not to have hears Reverend Wright's most interesting  sermon.
    • his health care plan is worse than Clinton's
    • he promises too much -- like that he will implement his health plan though it isn't really his call (Congress passes laws).
    • some baggage -- supported various bad bills.
    • Reverend Wright
    • A penchant for saying true but impolitic things -- bittergate.
    • His skin color
    • his gender (a factor with some Clinton supporters).
    • His name


    Parent
    Thanks for your reply... (5.00 / 4) (#65)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:55:19 AM EST
    I appreciate it.  But I am overwhelmed at the issues you cite as BO's negatives.

    (I don't want to address these - although they may be problems in the GE: Reverend Wright.  A penchant for saying true but impolitic things -- bittergate. His skin color. His gender (a factor with some Clinton supporters). His name.)

    But take a look at the issues at the top of your list.  And why, therefore are you a BO supporter?

    (This question comes from someone who truly believes that we need someone great as our next POTUS to make up for 8 years under one of the stupiest human beings in my lifetime).

    Parent

    "True but impolitic" (5.00 / 7) (#161)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:51:29 PM EST
    This is one of the reasons Obama will lose.

    The continual assertion that Obama's Bittergate statements were true.

    They weren't.

    And it wasn't simply impolitic, it was the worst form of elitism.  It showed Obama was unable to project himself into the lives of the people he was describing.  The group was simply a "they" to be derided.

    Given his history, it's shocking Obama would be able to do this.  And it shows both a lack of compassion and intellectual rigor.

    Parent

    Different standards for different folks (5.00 / 8) (#195)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:10:08 PM EST
    Small town and rural folks were held up for ridicule by Obama's supporters for clinging to their religion while Obama had no problem clinging to his relion (20 years) until it became a political liability.

    Parent
    Not your last point... (4.75 / 4) (#82)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:02:46 PM EST
    Most of us have been voting for men for years.

    Parent
    McCain starts out with 40% (none / 0) (#180)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    of the electorate. Obama also starts out with 40%. The remaining 20% are apathetic at this point. There is no way anyone is going to be blowing anyone out at this point, given those dynamics. This is the way it has always been in American politics. The opposition's core support makes your blowout scenario impossible.

    You're asking why didn't Obama blow out HRC? You should actually be asking why Obama was able to beat HRC at all. Haven't you read the post mortems? This is one of the biggest upsets in history.

    Obama got superdelegate support after he proved his viability as a candidate and as a money raiser. Also, Hillary's attacks and tactics turned off a great many superdelegates. Some of her more radical supporters didn't help either. While Hillary did not encourage these people, I think the association was nevertheless made between Hillary's tone and the stridency of some of her supporters.

    By the way, 90% of Hillary's supporters weren't interested in policy, imo. They liked her for intangible reasons, just like the person who embraced Obama after hearing him speak. You can wade through the comments here and other pro-Hillary sites; rarely will posters cite policy as the reason for supporting Hillary.


    Parent

    Huh (5.00 / 7) (#194)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:10:01 PM EST
    90% of Hillary's supporters weren't interested in policy, imo

    Your opinion would be wrong, like the rest of your little screed.

    Parent

    I stand by it (4.00 / 2) (#205)
    by Seth90212 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:16:03 PM EST
    Most Hillary supporters didn't know what exactly she was proposing and didn't care. People are never elected on the basis of their 10 point plans. They're elected on the basis of the visceral reaction they elicit. Or they're elected on image or presentation. I'm not saying this is right or wrong. I'm just disputing the original poster's contention that it is somehow wrong or unusual to choose Obama after hearing him speak. This is precisely why politicians have engaged in public speaking since antiquity. They do it to woo people and garner their support.

    Parent
    Interesting article in the Hou (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:11:28 AM EST
    Chronicle today about dems and health care universal health care

    The ignorance of what UHC (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:42:32 AM EST
    will entail was astounding in the primaries.  I can't believe democrats let Obama get away without offering a real plan.  It's a disgrace.


    Parent
    A Question for Obama Supporters (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:12:02 AM EST
    [I posted this once before, but I never got a response from any pro-Obama commenters. Not trying to be a blogclogger, and full apologies ot the TL gods for any infractions.]

    This is a sincere question for Obama supporters: What is the difference between Bill Clinton's "triangulation" (bad) and Obama's "postpartisanship" (good)?

    To me, they both sound like two sides of the same coin--with the difference that Clinton was operating in a political (massive GOP majorities in Congress) and ideological (no post-Bush implosion, no blogoshphere/media critique) environment far less hospitable to the enactment of a progressive agenda.

    Truly, this is a serious question, because it really disturbs me that his own supporters (those who I've spoken to so far) cannot tell me exactly what their candidate is talking about on this score.

    They aren't different... (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:17:05 AM EST
    on a rhetorical strategy level.

    Indeed...both are triangulation in that they are strategies used by a "candidate [who is] presenting his or her ideology as being 'above' and 'between' the left and right sides of the political spectrum."

    There's prolly a Greek term for it, but my Rhetoric dictionary is in box somewhere.

    Parent

    Hmmm. I ask a serious question... (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:17:41 AM EST
    upthread and also got no answers from Obama Supporters.  Crickets was it!

    Maybe...they don't have any answers or don't like the answers?

    ANOTHER SERIOUS QUESTION:  If Hillary manages to get true UHC through Congress will a "president" Obama sign it?

    Parent

    The key fellow Senators (none / 0) (#41)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:34:30 AM EST
    supported Obama. She will not be able to get her version of health care passed, IMO.

    Parent
    That wasn't my question. I said IF. (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:56:27 AM EST
    I think he would (5.00 / 0) (#124)
    by indy in sc on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:30:07 PM EST
    I disagree with Dem Cat.  Setting aside that I don't think her version would pass, if it did pass as posed in your question, he would sign it.  Above all else, he has always stated that he wants all Americans to have healthcare.  He is not going to be the one to stand in the way of it unless the bill presented to him is so lopsided in favor of the insurance industry and/or pharmaceutical companies that it would "shock the conscience" to sign it.  I doubt such a "shocking" bill would make it out of congress.  His main opposition to Hillary's version has been the mandate that imposes penalties on individuals who do not buy insurance.  He would get over that if it was the only barrier to UHC.  Remember that he said in his speech on Tuesday that when UHC is finally achieved, HRC will be instrumental to that.  Everyone expects that, unless Hillary is VP, she will be the sponsor of the bill that finally gives us UHC.

    Parent
    But his definition of "universal" (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:44:52 PM EST
    is not universal...it's doublespeak and he shouldn't get a pass on that.

    Parent
    Not doublespeak (none / 0) (#172)
    by indy in sc on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:59:31 PM EST
    just reality.  He has a version of "universal" health care that he has been pushing throughout the primary season. Most casual observers have noted that is was not truly universal because it only mandated healthcare for children.  As others have pointed out here, it is customary for the nominee to embrace some of the policies/programs of the other candidates as a "compromise" and in the name of "unity."

    Parent
    Universal means just that...again (5.00 / 6) (#187)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:05:38 PM EST
    he has "changed" what his position has been. He has not "adopted" another's healthcare plan, he is simply using samantics to "gather the flock"

    Parent
    I Love How The Actual Definition Of Words (5.00 / 6) (#214)
    by MO Blue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:23:08 PM EST
    have to be completely distorted in support of Obama's positions. Obama says words have meaning and his supporters say words have only the meanings that we chose to give them. Seems that Republicans are not the only ones who support the idea that reality is what they chose to make it.

    Parent
    I don't think he'll sign it (4.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:06:18 PM EST
    I think he has built himself up as an independent, a "truth-teller" to both the left and the right, and as such will need to show his independence from the Democrats in Congress. He has said he doesn't support mandates, and there are many non-progressives who do not support mandates, so it won't be a "let's declare that kittens are cute" kind of bill to which no one would object. Not signing it would show that he is strong in his convictions and that he is in charge. Signing it would be a capitulation to Congress.

    Plus, if it's her bill, then the media will be all over it, saying that he's a hen-pecked husband if he caves in to her on it. It would be a capitulation to HER. He will not sign it.

    But I think his allies in the Senate will recognize this and not want to cause trouble in his first year and won't let it pass.  After the first year, who knows?

    As always, this is just my opinion.

    Parent

    OK...but doesn't it bother you... (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST
    that a "Dem" POTUS would fight AGAINST truly universal health care?  I have a daughter and a brother without health care and it scares the daylights out of me.

    Who's he beholding to?

    Parent

    Easy. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by pie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:19:16 PM EST
    Progressive Insurance Company.  :)

    Parent
    YES (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:48:50 PM EST
    I don't plan on voting for Obama. My response was not meant to excuse him, but to criticize him. If he is elected, I hope he will surprise me. But I'm not betting on it.

    Parent
    I'll Give It a Go (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:12:59 PM EST
    The difference between "triangulation" and "postpartisanship" requires a deeper look at political context and message.

    With regard to political context, triangulation was forced upon Clinton because he had to deal with a Republican controlled Congress for his last six years during a time when conservatism was ascendant.

    Obama, on the other hand, seeks to establish an era of "postpartisanship" only after establishing a strong Democratic majority in Congress during an era of progressive ascendency. Due to his background as an organizer, Obama understands that winning an election isn't enough -- progressives must also build a long-lasting movement to govern successfully. This requires messaging that moves the political debate back to the center-left, away from the extreme right wing values that were mainstreamed by Bush II in the wake of 9/11.

    When backed up by a strong grassroots movement, "postpartisanship" becomes a cudgel to threaten vulnerable Republicans in the Congress. They must move beyond right-wing partisanship and adopt mainstream progressive positions on issues like health care, global warming, etc or face annilation in the next election. And because this is about movement building and not just winning a presidential election, the electoral college isn't the only target. One key to building this movement is Dean's 50 state strategy and Obama's massive 50 state voter registration campaign to ensure that even red state legislators are not beyond the threat of a rising progressive tide in their states/districts.

    In short, Clinton was forced to triangulate from a position of political weakness. Obama seeks an era of postpartisanship that is backed up with progressive political strength. It is a new day.

    Parent

    Hmm... postpartisanship (5.00 / 6) (#137)
    by BostonIndependent on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:38:38 PM EST
    Seems to be a nice new term.. does it taste great, or will it be less-filling?

    To me this just seems like a code / rationalization for "we can compromise our principles, so long as we win"?

    moves the political debate back to the center-left, away from the extreme right wing values

    Sounds not that dissimilar to triangulation to me. After all, anything that happens in 2008 is surely bound to be post everything that happened in 2004.

    If you believe that such ideological issues can be put on a Cartesian plane and these were like points A-B-C.. the issue is not how much you move from C to B (voters who have given Dems the majority in Congress already KNOW that's happened), but how much ground Obama is prepared to concede in going from A to B. No Obama supporter thus far has been able to clearly articulate this IMHO -- because I suspect they (and the MSM) have not asked their candidate concrete questions and gotten answers they are truly comfortable with.

    Speaking of sustenance -- I'd rather not see the present laziness and ineffectiveness in Congress to deal with the war in Iraq, or real-issues that affect Americans, be sustained by a long-lasting movement.

    And another point -- if post-partisanship comes to mean relaxing our system of checks and balances.. (which I see a high risk of given Obama's inexperience) I'm not sure I like that formulation either, given all the relaxation that has already  gone on under Bush under the guise of fighting the war on terror.

    JMO.


    Parent

    OK... (none / 0) (#183)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:04:04 PM EST
    Based upon your response, you didn't understand very much of what I was trying to say. I obviously wasn't clear enough. The current stalemate on Iraq policy is the perfect example for why we need a progressive movement to both put more progressives in office and to force action on progressive priorities. I certainly wasn't suggesting that we build a movement to sustain that stalemate.

    Parent
    Obama's campaign said recently (5.00 / 2) (#191)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:08:28 PM EST
    that he would move more forces into Iraq, we would still be there. I have not heard the word, "end" the war since he entered this campaign. His surrogates have said that once he is in office, he will decide what to do, don't listen to what he says on the campaign trail.

    Parent
    Ok then.... (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by tree on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:39:58 PM EST
    When backed up by a strong grassroots movement, "postpartisanship" becomes a cudgel to threaten vulnerable Republicans in the Congress. They must move beyond right-wing partisanship and adopt mainstream progressive positions on issues like health care, global warming, etc or face annilation in the next election.

    In other words, "post-partisanship" is an example of "just words". Its a stick to beat Republicans with. Rather like the "movement" and "unity" are sticks used to beat recalcitrant Dems.

    This is feeling more and more like a Glorious Cultural Revolution.

    Parent

    Please, Tree (none / 0) (#216)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:25:23 PM EST
    I doubt that you're really that naive. While "just words," words are used to frame the debate. The Republicans/Conservatives have won the framing game for decades. If progressives don't master this game, we will never win. But the movement isn't "just words." The movement is a powerful network of like minded progressives who use their influence to turn the words into action. I'm talking about democracy, not Maoism.

    Parent
    Post-partisanship and triangulation aside, (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by votus on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:10:22 PM EST
    maybe we should curb our enthusiasm about the "it's a new day" aspect.  I'm thinking about the New Frontier, an earlier "can do" administration that set out to change the world, foundered, and segued to a miserable decade.  Competent government would solve our problems. Dreams and political strength??

    Parent
    Okay, (none / 0) (#104)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:17:25 PM EST
    that at least sounds more promising. Do you have a quotes from Obama himself indicating that this is in fact what he means by "postpartisanship"?

    Parent
    No, Sorry No Links (none / 0) (#126)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:30:44 PM EST
    As I said, messaging is an essential element of building the progressive movement. It would be counterproductive for Obama to make his strategy as transparent as I have outlined. That would only make him a target of right wing attack. But I would not ask you to simply TRUST Obama on this point. IMHO, it is essential that progressives apply pressure to get clarity on his policy goals before the election and hold him accountable after the election.

    Parent
    That's exactly what I was afraid of. (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:47:45 PM EST
    Look, I accept that's what YOU think Obama means by "postpartisanship," but the real question is what HE means by postpartisanship. And I gotta tell ya, he conduct in this campaign doesn't give a big reason for optimism, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

    Parent
    Maybe Reading About Alinsky (none / 0) (#204)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:15:19 PM EST
    Would make it clearer for you. I got interested in him because both Hillary and Obama came out of that thinking. Hillary wrote her Wellesley thesis on him.

    Parent
    Understood (none / 0) (#210)
    by Spike on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:18:10 PM EST
    To win, Obama will need to maximize his vote among two key constituencies: (1) Democrats; and (2) Independents.

    Talk of "postpartisanship" makes (1.) nervous while appealing to (2.)  The more Obama has to explain postpartisanship to make you comfortable the less value it will have in securing the votes of Independents.  

    You obviously have to evaluate everything that Obama is both doing and saying to determine if he merits your support. But I'm confident that you are not so naive as to expect a candidate to fully explain his agenda in a manner that limits his appeal to a broader group of voters.

    Parent

    But is this really true? (5.00 / 3) (#215)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:23:10 PM EST
    Polls show that today Democrats are trusted more than Republicans on every issue under the sun. Independents overwhelmingly voted for Democrats in the 2006 congressional elections. Saying the Democratic label is so toxic we have to tiptoe around and run as "not-really-a-Democrat Democrats" is straight out of the DLC circa 2002.

    Parent
    I didn't know (none / 0) (#68)
    by Y Knot on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:56:13 AM EST
    triangulation was bad.  I know the media says so but I think Bill Clinton did the best he could in a hostile political environment.

    And yes if Congress sends President Obama a UHC bill he'd sign it.  President McCain wouldn't.  And no, that's not me trying to scare people into voting for Obama that's just reality.

    Parent

    Today I go to see (5.00 / 8) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:18:24 AM EST
    Kenny Chesney, country western concert in SF at the Giants ball park.  The weather will be great.  

    Ahh, so great.  The next generation now is responsible.  I am off the hook.  

    OK, this made me laugh (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by A little night musing on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:22:34 AM EST
    ... not so easy to do today.

    The next generation now is responsible.  I am off the hook.

    snicker.

    I'm jealous of your weather though.

    The weather here will be ugly (hot). I've just realized that was why I felt so bad yesterday. I've got to get the AC set up before the Jewish holiday tonight...

    Parent

    Off the hook (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by oldpro on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:32:42 AM EST
    is right, Stellaaa.

    However, I draw the line at country music.  It's a personal failing.  I just can't reconcile cornpone and hip.  (It was just as hard in the 60s when hip JFK chose cornpone LBJ as a running mate...)

    Parent

    I love country music (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:37:05 AM EST
    Actually, I like all kinds of music.  It just makes me happy.  And it's the only music I can understand the words and predict what the next word will be.  

    Parent
    new country or old country? (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:24:19 PM EST
    I thought I didn't like any country music till I picked up Willie NElson's "countryman" which is 1/3rd country, 1/3rd Reggae and 1/3rd ska.  SOO good (though it took me twice through to appreciate it).

    That is as far as I have ventured by myself.  Sorta scared to go further.  As a black man my cred with be severely hurt by having a Garth Brook CD :).

    Parent

    I love it all... (5.00 / 3) (#164)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    it's simple and it's fun.  These days I love to listen to it more, cause I like to piss off the Creative Class.  Hah...hah.  

    Actually, I get into all kinds of music, I am not a very, "never like that".  I can go from Tammy Wynette, to Digable Planets, to Mario Lanza, to Vivaldi, to Glass.  Music is one thing I am not partisan on.  Ok, I don't like a few things: 1.  uber punk stuff that was just a cacophony . 2. What my kids call Emo.  This new kind of rock where it's supposed to be "about deep feelings" and all it is , is way too many words to make a good song, but the brat singing has to show something for all the years in private schools and colleges.  You know  the lyrics:  "that I am upper class privileged white kid from the suburbs and I am hurting".    

    Parent

    Paying debts off (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:27:27 AM EST
    So, historically, you guys are so clever, who else has done it in the past?  

    No foul language (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by waldenpond on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:28:25 AM EST
    That's a great post.  I would copy and re-post it without the sh!t or it will get deleted.  :)

    Thanks! I will (none / 0) (#36)
    by BluestBlue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:30:56 AM EST
    Sorry, strong feelings and strong words. I'll repost with an *! ;-)

    Parent
    Speaking of Unity, (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:32:18 AM EST
    I was struck by this comment from an article regarding Hillary's speech in the WaPo:

    "I would die and slit my wrist before I'd vote for Obama," said a Silver Spring woman in the Clinton volunteers section who gave her name only as Edith. She wore a sign pinned to the back of her Hillary T-shirt proposing: "Remember in November: vote present."

    Wonder how many other women feel that way. I have a niggling feeling it's a lot.

    Ok, now that's funny (5.00 / 0) (#73)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:57:08 AM EST
    I Know A Couple (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:00:34 PM EST
    At work, at least three women and two men have indicated vehemently -- without the dramatic effect displayed by Edith -- that they won't be voting for Obama at all (by either voting against him or not voting at all).

    I am tickled by the notion that only women Clinton supporters would be unwilling to vote for BO. There are lots of men too, and lets not lose sight of the few million who voted for Edwards, Richardson et. al. A good number I'm sure -- women and men -- will not automatically fall in line behind Obama just because their first pick endorsed him.

    Parent

    Yes, in fact there were all kinds of (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:02:42 PM EST
    men in the audience at Clinton's speech yesterday and I did not hear any talking heads mention that.

    Parent
    I Was One Of 'Em (5.00 / 8) (#102)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:15:43 PM EST
    Yes, there was a HUGE group of men there and many of them were obviously Clinton supporters, wearing Hillary T-shirts, buttons, caps etc. And I also resent the idea I've heard many non-Clinton supporters make that they are all gay. There are many married men, fathers, grandfathers and single men with their GFs (like me). It would behoove the Obama campaign and the DNC to pay some attention to us as well in the coming months. But of course, there's no guarantee we'll line up behind him in Nov. either. (I won't, sorry.)

    Parent
    At work, I know of only one (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:13:19 PM EST
    person who may be voting for Obama, and that's not certain.  We've become quite united now for McCain and that includes both men and women.

    Parent
    My problem with voting for McCain is.... (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:24:42 PM EST
    ...that I'd have to totally ignore him until the election in order to do it. I'm most unhappy with Obama, but McCain doesn't really stand for anything either except the Republican version of presidential ambition. I'm truly disaffected.

    Parent
    And JimWash was one of them there (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:16:07 PM EST
    and the thread closed before I could thank you, Jim, for giving us a good report -- and for being there, of course.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again: How is women's history like the Marines?  It takes a few good men, too (consider that men had to vote for women to get to vote, etc.).  

    Of course, sometimes a few good men is all we get -- in politics, in the workplace, in life.  But then, that's all that a good woman needs at her side.:-)  

    Parent

    You're Welcome :-) (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:19:28 PM EST
    I wouldn't have missed it for the world to be there to show Hillary my continued support for her. And I was glad to share the experience with all of you too.

    Parent
    In that order???? (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:25:32 PM EST
    "I would die and slit my wrist before I'd vote for Obama."

    Parent
    or accidentally push the wrong button (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:50:48 PM EST
    and mistakenly vote for McCain. Snark.

    Parent
    The DSCC sent me a letter asking me (repost w/**) (5.00 / 10) (#43)
    by BluestBlue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:36:54 AM EST
    To Congratulate Obama and tell him what issues I care about in the upcoming campaign.

    Make sure you go sign the DSCC petition and tell them what you think, what you value, and who you will vote for!

    Here is what I sent:

    You want my congratulations?

    I can't congratulate someone who did not earn the victory. This is how Bush "won" the presidency, twice, with no Democratic leader standing up for the truth. You rolled over then, but I will not roll over for you.

    If you want my vote, you'll need to earn it.

    Obama and the DNC have a lot to apologize for and a big hole to dig themselves out of. I need to hear explicit apologies for the misogyny, for the smears, for the lies, for the obscene gestures by Obama(It is on tape, don't deny it along with your references to sexist rappers.), for the bitter talk by Michelle Obama(the interview is on tape, don't deny it. I guess I'll just have to "think about it" like Michelle).

    Smearing my candidate and  myself by calling us racists doesn't make me want to vote for you. Won't get money for the DNC. Doesn't keep me in your party. And let me be clear about this. The Democrats left me, I didn't leave the party.

    I was a lifelong Democrat, but I am re-registering as an independent. You have been clear in your messaging that women are not valued. Women are not accomplished, women do not count. Don't blame Hillary, this is all on you. Obama, the DNC, Howard Dean, Donna Brazile.

    Obama's behavior has been immature and similar to the frat-boy currently occupying the oval office. It is conduct unbecoming to someone aspiring to the presidency. I don't like it in Bush, I don't like it in Obama. I won't accept it and most certainly I won't vote for it.

    Howard Dean has ignored the sexism and misogyny in the media and from his candidate. By the sin of omission he has personally embraced and furthered the misogyny. I wrote and called him repeatedly, asking him to stand up against it and all I got was silence. Donna Brazile has been a huge disappointment to me as has Claire McCaskill. Women may choose to support a male candidate, I've got no problem with that, but they do us all a disservices when they propagate lies and smears about a woman candidate, especially when she is a fellow Dem.

    Dean's and McCaskill's comments now are late and lacking. Empty because it is long past the time when they could have helped the situation. Along with Obama's race baiting (remember he admitted he was responsible for the memo on a publicly televised debate) you have created the division you now fear. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    Unity is a two-way street. You don't get to batter my worth day in and day out and then tell me I have to to give you my vote. That dog don't hunt. I have an education, a brain, and I have money. I am the creative class Obama thinks he owns. I support those that support me.

    This is what crystallized my resolve.

    "No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self." - Susan B. Anthony, 1872

    Words of wisdom. Words of a woman who knew the score long ago. Words that still ring true today. Words to live by.

    You are not entitled to my vote any longer, or my money. I will consider voting for a candidate that demonstrates they have the experience and accomplishments to get things done. Someone who cares about the issues I care about and proves to me he or she will work tirelessly to deliver the results to me.

    Voting present does not show me Obama vigorously supports women's issues, I have no confidence in his votes or voice. Don't tell me McCain is pro-life. At least I know where he stands; I have no clue what Obama "hopes" for or what he will "change". I have seen no evidence he can change anything except increase the lack of civility in the campaign and malign other Democratic candidates.

    The only "Change" I see is a "Democrat" stealing votes that he didn't earn. You stole 600,000 votes from Michigan Democrats that did not want you. The DNC gamed the primaries by refusing to do the right thing by Florida and Michigan (BTW, good luck with them in the General Election). You can scream that Obama has more delegates until you are blue in the face, if you counted all the votes, Hillary would have more delegates in addition to already having more actual votes. Your actions disenfranchised 18 MILLION Democratic voters. 18 MILLION. More than anyone else in the history of presidential primaries.

    Your "rules" won't matter in the General Election.  Only the electoral college map counts there and you obviously haven't looked at it. You didn't follow your "rules" anyway. Some of us actually read the rulebook. We know where you lied and what you did. We know that others received waivers for the same actions that Florida and Michigan took. We know it was within your control to do the right thing and incredibly short-sighted to do what you did. We understand fair reflection and how you ignored the rule requiring both Fair Reflection and PUBLIC meetings and decisions rather than back room antics. Either follow the rules or don't. But if you don't, please to try and take the moral high ground. Obama made a political decision to take his name off the Michigan ballot because he wouldn't win there. He isn't entitle to any votes. He also violated YOUR rules by holding a press event in Florida AND running ads on TV in Florida, by your RULES he is not entitled to ANY votes in Florida. Those chickens will come home to roost in the general.

    I'm not unreasonable, but I'm not stupid. Don't lie to me and think I won't call bulls**t on you.

    So if you want me to consider you for my vote in any election (senate, house, presidential, school board, whatever):

    Tell what is in it for me. After all, you are applying to work for me. I have a right to know what you will do in the job, why you think you can accomplish your stated goals, and how I know you will follow through on your promises.

    Tell me how you are going to get me TRULY UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE. Not the watered down proposal Obama has. Talk about selling out to the healthcare lobbyists! How will you cover every one and achieve cost savings by spreading the risk across all. I don't need more "wins" that feed the pharmaceutical industry with nonnegotiation clauses.

    Tell me how I can trust that you will support issues that are important to women, I need facts and accomplishments not pretty words.

    Tell me how you will turn the economy around, specifically. Tell what actions you will take to get new jobs.

    Tell me how you will fix the educational system. Both K-12  and getting more people into college without horrendous loans. What about a plan for retraining laid off workers. Let's not just talk about college for HS students, lets talk about getting older people and current workers back to college or into college for the first time. How do we fund that? They will be in the work force for a long time, they need skills.

    Tell me how you will insure my retirement. I've paid into Social Security and Medicare all my life. I want my benefits fully funded. Don't tell me you will cut them. If you do, give me my money back so I can retire when the time comes. Get me Health care so I  don't have to worry about what happens to me then, or choose between eating catfood and buying medicine.

    Tell me how you will nominate for the Supreme Court. How many women will you nominate or confirm? We are more than half the population! Will they be pro choice and pro constitution? How can I be sure you will follow through on your promises?

    How will you restore the constitution? How will you hold the telcos responsible for their wiretapping? They knew it was illegal, voting for their immunity will not earn my vote, quite the opposite.

    Tell me how you will support our veterans, past and present. How will you protect my parent's benefits EARNED in the Vietnam war? How will you provide for returning soldier's needs without taking away from my parents? The VA is already broken, as is the military, how exactly will you fix this?

    Tell me about the role of women in your administration and in your appointments - will they approximate the percentage of women in the country? Or how about going with the percentage of women that USED to make up the Democratic party? That would help, but you really need to apologize without equivocating. You were wrong and you need to own up to it, then start working hard to make it right.

    I don't know what I will do in the GE at this point. Hillary has been extremely gracious to Obama, but still they bash her and say she hasn't done enough. Of course  she has tried not to damage him throughout the campaign, regardless of what he and his supporters have said. (BTW, deal with your whiney obnoxious supporters. They have lost you almost as many votes as you have driven away yourself).

    I value Hillary's experience, persistence, courage, and tireless campaigning. I haven't seen those qualities in Obama. I have been working in Biotech and High Tech since I graduated from college. I look at this as a hiring decision. When I hire someone for a job, I look at what they have accomplished, not what they say they can do. I look at what they have actually done and the skills those accomplishments demonstrate. I don't see much from Obama. He may complain that Hillary doesn't respect his accomplishments, but he should be more worried about the fact that no one knows what they are. His supporters can't articulate them, he doesn't talk about them, and his resume is very thin.

    Obama can point to his speech on Iraq all he wants, but it is just words. At this point I don't even know whose words they are, Deval Patrick's? Axelrod's? Some anonymous speechwriter? I didn't see any actions to back it up. He never stuck his neck out when it counted or when there was any risk. Seems like his goal is just winning and cashing in, not working for me. Prove to me I'm wrong. And apologize for your wrongs.

    To the Senate Democratic Caucus. I'll be looking at how you have acted and voted also. Those who dissed Hillary and made sexist remarks or stood by and said nothing don't demonstrate what I need to see in a candidate.

    My money and votes will go to those with a clear strong voice on the values that used to be central to the Democratic Party I joined long ago. My money and votes will go to those who strongly and openly support women: their issues, their advancement, and their opportunities.

    Visible strong actions are what I'm looking for, pretty words won't get the job done and won't get you hired. I've been in the real world long enough to know what to look for. Pretty words, immature actions, and lack of accomplishments aren't a recipe for success. Prove I'm wrong about you and you could get my vote.

    Take me and my 18 million friends for granted and you will lose miserably.

    And you also better stop slamming Hillary. No one else has ever been hounded to drop out of the primary, certainly no one who had more popular votes than the other candidate. Kennedy, Edwards, Bradley... look at history.

    Hillary has been more than fair. The 18 Million Hillary supporters will not go to Obama if he doesn't earn them. Stop saying this is Hillary's job. Obama needs to step up and take responsibility for his actions and EARN something. He won't game us like he did the system. He won't bully us like he did in the Caucuses. (and BTW, get rid of the caucuses. Not democratic. not fair. not just).

    If Obama loses, he will only have himself to blame. His nomination is illegitimate now. He took what didn't belong to him because he was desperate to win at all costs. He wanted it badly and he got it badly. Stop digging the hole and take responsibility for it. Stop blaming Hillary and her supporters. Be an adult for a change. Maturity in a president would be a nice change.

    I'm not bitter and I don't cling to guns and religion. I am intelligent and a do cling to my vote. It is my right. I don't owe you anything, you work for me. Support me and I will support you,

    So get busy if you want my vote. You don't get it automatically. You don't get it for nothing. Tell me what is in it for me. Show me what you have done for me in the past and tell me how you will do what you say you will do for me. Prove to me I should believe you.

    To summarize, let me give you the take home message again. Get a tattoo if you need to, but remember it if you want 18 Million votes.

    "No self respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her self." - Susan B. Anthony, 1872

    I wish I had written that! (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by camellia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:56:32 AM EST
    But I did send a similar but shorter message to them yesterday when I was extended the same privilege of congratulating Senator Obama, the presumptuous candidate.

    Parent
    Fabulous (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:01:57 PM EST
    I think this sums up everything many Clinton supporter are feeling and lays out what the DNC and Obama need to get going on.  It really resonates.

    Parent
    Wonderful work. (5.00 / 5) (#92)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:09:55 PM EST
    but one li'l quibble:  SBA's quote ended not with "her self" but with "her sex."  In today's terms, of course (and since "sex" just gets frosh giggling:-), that would be "her gender."  So simplest can be to just end the quote after "her."  Cheers, and thanks for helping me to script what I will tuck into the Dems' envelopes when I return them this Tuesday as part of the Independence Day movement.

    This Tuesday, the 89th anniversary of the first states' ratifications (first Wisconsin, then Illinois, although it typically screwed up so had to do a do-over, and then -- yes -- Michigan, the state where Dems even disenfranchise men now) of the 19th Amendment.  

    Parent

    Aug 26 in Denver (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Eleanor A on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:36:12 PM EST
    Should be fun to see what the Hillary delegates do August 26 at the Convention.  

    I'm gonna pack some purple/yellow ensemble, myself...(not a delegate, just going for the fireworks)

    Parent

    Yep. And Women's Equality Day (5.00 / 4) (#176)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:01:16 PM EST
    is my birthday -- mine and Gerry Ferraro's.  Let's see if she's there, hmm?  I so would like to be there, so it's wait-and-see whether Clinton and her supporters will be respected, our voices heard, and we are  invisible and our votes taken for granted no more.  That is not what the suffragists intended us to do.  

    Btw, I have a wonderful purple, yellow, and white sash and lots of repro suffrage buttons that I wear when speaking on Women's Equality Day.  I'm not taking any speaking commitments for it this year, not yet, while I wait and see. . . .  But somehow, I doubt we'll see what we need to see from the Dem power structure running the party and the convention party.  I know too much history.:-)

    Parent

    thanks Cream City! (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by BluestBlue on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:47:51 PM EST
    The Pic I saw with the quote on the banner had leaves in front, so it was hard to be sure of the last word. When I looked it up online, I must have gotten someone else's censorship!  ;-)

    Parent
    Good for you. (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:11:07 PM EST
    Bet you made them sorry they asked.

    Parent
    Brava! (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by cmugirl on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:38:15 AM EST
    I hope they get thousands more just like this.

    Really? (5.00 / 9) (#47)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:38:36 AM EST
    You think that?

    I hope not (5.00 / 7) (#57)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:50:36 AM EST
    the implications are too funny.

    Parent
    Looks like MyDD is now (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:45:24 AM EST
    officially turning into an Obama propaganda site.

    Just got this message from the administrators at MyDD:

    Tone down the accusations of racism and playing the race card.

    " if Obama and his supporters try to spread smears against McCain as they have done against Clinton -- accusing him falsely of racism, for example -- I will be all over those smears, doing everything in my power to expose them for what they are."

    The quoted passage is from a post I made at MyDD.

    Censorship is in full swing at MyDD.

    I read over there (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:53:12 AM EST
    that the Dem party is not divided at all but solidly behind Obama.  No worries, everything is great.  

    Delusional, I think so  :-)

    Parent

    It's increasingly obvious that (5.00 / 5) (#91)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:08:36 PM EST
    the plan at MyDD is to censor dissenting points of view even among Democrats, and then declare that "unity" has been achieved -- isn't it just marvelous?

    They just seem to love the echo chamber effect.

    Parent

    The Authoritarian Left (5.00 / 6) (#111)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:20:42 PM EST
    seems to have more problems with freedom of speech than the Authoritarian Right in some respects.  Of course, they both have their fascist tendencies.  I remember calling OpenLeft the Taliban of LeftBlogistan once and they didn't appreciate it.  :-)


    Parent
    Funny thing is, (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:13:24 PM EST
    I once upon a time thought that Democrats truly stood for a unified, less divisive society. I thought that Democrats would not inflame racial tensions, and make false accusations of racism, because that would go exactly against the principles of inclusiveness and racial harmony that I thought Democrats held as one of their most cherished values.

    My God, how I have been deceived.

    Instead, we are, apparently, supposed to keep our mouths firmly shut when we see a fellow Democrat trump up an accusation of racism we know perfectly well is false and unjust.

    I'm sorry, that's not me. And if that's what it takes to be a Democrat these days, count me out of the party.

    Parent

    I should mention that (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by frankly0 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:22:34 PM EST
    in the post of mine they quoted -- which apparently they have deleted -- I also said that I would vigorously attack any smears of Obama by McCain.

    Apparently, my evenhandedness in attacking smears on both sides was just too much for these people running MyDD.

    Parent

    If you'd read the subject line (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:49:29 AM EST
    you'd know that she put ** in place of the cuss word that would've required that the post be deleted.

    Last night I saw a Google News topic header (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by zyx on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:51:36 AM EST
    about how Universal Health Care is Dead-O because it's Obama and McCain.  There were a batch of stories in various newspapers about how, well, no UHC for Americans this go-around.  One or two hinted at the irony that the most-liberal Dem types supported Obama but his health care plan wasn't really going to be much different from what is in place...

    Pretty sad--there was an "OOPS" quality to this.

    If Obama wins (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:59:59 AM EST
    and the dems still control the Senate and House and we do not get a health care bill, even the one Obama proposed, I think there will be hell to pay.  So, we are obviously going to have to hold their feet to the fire and throw out the fools who don't support it.

    Parent
    A National Referendum (none / 0) (#85)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:05:24 PM EST
    Might wake them up. As it stands now, I seriously doubt that either Obama's or Hillary's plan would get any traction. Twelve more progressive Senators, maybe it would have a shot.

    Too many people are making too much money for things to change, imo.

    Parent

    post upthread has a link (none / 0) (#72)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:57:05 AM EST
    to a Houston Chronicle story on this very subject.  Oops indeed.

    Parent
    Froma Harrop (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:05:24 PM EST
    Her columns have always been a must-read for me, and I've RSS'ed her to make sure I never miss them. She is, some would argue, a massive Clintonista, but she has never written anything that wasn't already obvious. Only thing is she had the guts to put it in print.

    Parent
    She calls it like she sees it (none / 0) (#114)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:22:52 PM EST
    in this one.  Can't disagree with a word of it.


    Parent
    Yes, that was one (none / 0) (#125)
    by zyx on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:30:16 PM EST
    and one at SFGATE

    here's one at WSJ

    and there was one by Marie Cocco...

    Parent

    Why do you believe that? (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:56:00 AM EST
    He has done nothing but trash the idea for the past 8 months?

    Potayto, Potahto (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:57:49 AM EST
    Isn't the end result the same, if both involve "compromise" (your words) of progressive ideals? And Paul Krugman (among others) has documented Obama's numerous "straddling of issues" and "avoiding committment" on subjects ranging from health care to social security. And you don't address my claim the climate today is far more conducive to enacting progressive legislation than Bill Clinton term as POTUS. Why would we WANT to compromise, under these circumstances? That assumes, mind you, that the GOP has any interest in compromise to begin with. (Ask Senate majority leader-turned-ethanol lobbyist and Obama supporter Tom Daschle how that turned out).

    Added to this (as Krugman has pointed out) that, in Beltway/punditspeak, post/trans/bipartisanship is generally a code word for, "Democrats should bend over and give the Republicans whatever they want, with a smile." How will Obama's way of governing differ from this in practice? I think your definitions are just a way of putting a sleazy spin on a concept when it is applied to CLinton, and a noble one when applied to Obama. It still sounds in practice like six of one, half a dozen of the other.

    In addition . . . (5.00 / 5) (#86)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:05:58 PM EST
    Your definition of post-partisanship sounds VERY similar to the ideology that motivated the much-derided Unity '08 pseudo-movement. It may not be a coincidence, in this context, that Unity '08 founder  (and fairly early Obama endorser) Sam Nunn is apparently being seriously considered as Obama's Veep. Nunn, it is worth noting, is best remebered for knifing Bill Clinton in the back over gays in the military, and was one of the best known Senate DINOs before the term was cool.

    Parent
    Perceptive of you. I have seen this (5.00 / 8) (#78)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:00:43 PM EST
    factor in the workplace, when good men who are friends, spouses, partners of good women finally see it happening not to someone they do not know -- so they may have bought that she brought it on herself, didn't have the resume, etc.  Instead, they see their friend, spouse, partner who has worked twice as hard or more than the man who gets promoted.  They see their friend, spouse, partner called awful names and treated as a sex object.

    And it radicalizes these good guys, at long last -- and there's no going back for women or men once radicalized that way.  The scales drop from the eyes, and there's sticking 'em back there again.

    Btw. same thing can happen for some fathers who see their daughters so dissed -- maybe dads who are called "pimps" and thus their daughters as well as their wives are "hos" to the "bros"?  The "daddy factor," I call it, and it has been significant in women's progress throughout our history; see marital property rights law, see woman suffrage when dads wanted their daughters to vote even when they didn't care if their wives voted.  It's historic distrust of sons-in-law. :-)

    Hey Cream - ot (none / 0) (#129)
    by DFLer on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:33:09 PM EST
    since this is open...I take this opportunity to direct to my response re WI to MN driving hints on Saturday Afternoon Open Thread

    Parent
    Just checked, thanks! (none / 0) (#197)
    by Cream City on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:11:24 PM EST
    As I don't trust DoT sites to be updated, from sad experience.  This is gonna be a great trip, if only the rains and tornados stop, huh?  My lovely Cream City is a mess -- after record snows, now record rains?  Lots of friends and family with water in basements, and my daughter had a hellacious night at work, where a construction barge on a river came loose from its moorings and damaged a bridge (not good places to be these days) next to her workplace, evacuated by the fire department -- amid a wedding reception, pity the poor bride and groom and guests sent out into torrential downpours.  Yikes.  Photos are at jsonline.com for disaster freeks -- and there will be more today, with more rain and many rivers and creeks rising fast.

    Anyway, yes, we have done the stretch of the Great River Road between lovely La Crosse and Prairie du Chien for the historic French culture before, and it left me hankering for more.  Plus, this way, my spouse does not get to take the fast route home from the Twin Cities past the Big Orange Moose statue.  It haunts my dreams, turning them into nightmares. . . .  I do hope to see Big Ole in your state someday, though; I bookmarked a site to weird Minnesota outdoor art and statuary, too.  Love my weird Midwest.:-)

    Parent

    Bros before hos (5.00 / 7) (#89)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:07:43 PM EST
    You mean he never saw those t-shirts, posters and campaign materials? They were at his rallies.

    I guess it's like Rev. Wright, then, huh? He just didn't hear that part. That's why he was so crushingly silent.

    Others have documented the sexism better than I. When he flipped the bird at Hillary, he flipped the bird at me. Sorry, no free passes from me.

    I doubt if Obama could have missed (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:29:59 PM EST
    David Shuster's outrageous attack on Chelsea and his subsequent suspension by MSNBC.

    Parent
    Or Keith Olberman's comment to snuff her... (5.00 / 5) (#138)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:38:50 PM EST
    Really, y'all, Obama and his supporters are really going to have to get over this passive-aggressive stuff. The electorate, those over 22 years old, really do see through it.

    Make a veiled attack, and then deny you made it. Parse out the words ("losing his bearings"), go to the Oxford English Dictionary, and claim others are gravitating to the most hysterical meaning.  Claim that you really didn't flip the bird when you flipped the bird and the audience roared. Let your followers propagate sexism, then say it wasn't you, really...

    All that bullcrap will have to go.

    That's why I love the people out there in Bitterland. They see through this stuff so much faster than the creative class.

    I feel I'm free of this election.  I leave for two months in Tokyo on Tuesday. I'm over this stuff.  It's a bitter memory, but it is indeed a memory.

    Bon voyage! And thanks for all the fish!

    Parent

    Do You Take AC or Limbaugh Seriously Too? (none / 0) (#174)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:00:21 PM EST
    Obama Said That? (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:17:31 PM EST
    Or some of his supporters? I heard a drunk on the corner screaming at me and all the others who walked passed him the other day too. Considering that you get to choose who you take seriously and who you do not, it seems clear that some Hillary supporters are looking to fuel their anger, an easy thing to do.

    Many Obama supporters are inspirational and wise, why not focus on them instead of the trash?

    Parent

    You didn't read my post, squeaky (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Upstart Crow on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    Does Obama take responsibility for anything? Is it always someone else's fault.

    Parent
    Not Sure Why (2.00 / 1) (#162)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:52:15 PM EST
    Some have taken run of the mill campaign offensives so personally.

    That is what pols do during a fight. From my perspective it was relatively clean. Obamamaniacs took Hillary's attacks personally as well.

    Is it that some supporters (and candidates) have sullied the honor of the other. Is this a tribal sort of thing that bears similarity to honor killings or stoning. I just do not get it.

    Both Hillary and Obama are Politicians, they are not gods or family or cult leaders.

    Parent

    Here's what you don't seem to get (5.00 / 6) (#188)
    by Nadai on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:05:49 PM EST
    When someone calls Clinton a warmongering sell-out to  corporate interests, it's an insult to her.  When someone calls her a b!tch, it's an insult to her and to me.  For the last several months, Obama's supporters, his surrogates, the media, and Obama himself, have insulted Clinton continuously in gendered terms - and have, therefore, continuously insulted me as well.  I'm taking it personally because it is personal.

    Parent
    You Must Be Angry All The Time (1.00 / 1) (#217)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:25:57 PM EST
    Take on insults directed at you personally and getting bent out of shape because of it seems hard enough, but to take on insults aimed at others must make for a very difficult life.

    You have my sympathies. Not sure what you are gaining by this unless St Sebastian is your ideal.

    Parent

    No need to seek it; BO angers people on his own (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:31:38 PM EST
    The dismissal of people legitimately angered by Obama's own words and deeds is a frail talking point by the Obama campaign, and neither addresses nor gives traction to the myth that angry potential voters are hyper-sensitive or imagined what their lying eyes and ears witnessed from the candidate himself.

    Turf and troll as they might, Club Obama's lame attempt to retrofit this spin onto reality won't win over the hardcore Dems they alienated, win over new ones, nor attract those Repugs and Independents the 25-cent Unity Pony Ride is supposed to do.

    I'm doubtful it will even hold over the Movement Voters -- exaggerated in both number and loyalty IMO -- to serve both as activists and people who turn out to vote.

    Parent

    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#128)
    by Boston Boomer on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:32:35 PM EST
    Would you please name a few of those "inspirational and wise" Obama supporters?  I'd like to see what they have to say for myself.  Is David Shuster one of them?  How about Keith Olberman?

    Parent
    Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:42:42 PM EST
    I believe Hillary's support lies in the (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by zfran on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:50:26 PM EST
    party, not the candidate, imo.

    Parent
    What Hillary Meant? (none / 0) (#171)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:58:50 PM EST
    I will take what she said. Seems to me that perspective is in order here. This is not a personality cult war, this is a democratic party nomination. Both candidates represent core Democratic positions and have negligible differences compared to  McCain.

    It is about hiring someone from the pool that will come closest to representing your political positions. It is not about selecting a lover or even a roomate.

    Parent

    Please (5.00 / 4) (#202)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:13:32 PM EST
    keep lecturing on what the political process really is.  It's very effective.

    Parent
    The difference between a drunk on a corner (5.00 / 5) (#142)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:41:35 PM EST
    and Obama's supporters is that his supporters are who he is attracting.  I doubt your drunk was attracting enough people to start a Movement, capital M.  They are also, sadly, a group he's put much into trying to attract.

    If the DK, MyDD, TPM etc crowd, and the NBC, MSNBC, and CNN crowds were truly a fringe minority of Obama's supporters, I would not hold what they do or say against him.  But they've become, in large part, the public face of his support.

    There are perfectly reasonable Obama supporters out there; I know some of them; BTD is not the only one.

    To say that Obama, who has used his money and influence to control the 'message' in new ways this year -- shutting down the Dem 527s, strong-arming DNC members -- must be viewed wholly separately from this very large number of crass, juvenile and offensive people, is a disingenuous argument.  And maybe it's not even Obama, maybe it's the 'New Coalition', so intent on burning their own base.  But that is equally worrisome.

    If Obama had disavowed any of the rampant CDS and misogyny, or even once indicated disapproval, that would be something.  Not much, but something.

    I'm an old-fashioned girl.  I truly believe in things such as honor and integrity.  I believe that those who have great power have great responsibility, responsibility to speak up for those who can't speak for themselves and speak out against injustice and hatred.  To not leverage it for themselves.

    A hero, a leader -- they make people better than they are.  They motivate people to strive for greatness themselves.  They don't mine the bottom of the barrel and then cry 'those were not the supporters I knew.'

    Parent

    American politics (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:56:36 PM EST
    has been "mining the bottom of the barrel" since Adams people called Rachel Jackson a fallen woman.

    Dont expect mere mortals to live up to the always-beyond-reproach standards of Our Lady and her  humble servants in the Lords work.

    Parent

    Obama needs to chastize those supporters (4.50 / 2) (#115)
    by kempis on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:23:21 PM EST
    There's plenty of room under the bus for the idiots wearing "Bros before Hos" t-shirts who support him.

    I've said for a while, he needs to Sistah Souljah those sexists and character-assassins who support him. If he TRULY practiced what he preached about "a new politics," he would have.

    Instead, he does things like grin when his audience booed Hillary during John Edwards' endorsement.

    Gah! I'll vote for him, but I feel like I'm voting for a childish man, like George W. Bush only "liberal," whatever that means these days.

    Parent

    Agree (none / 0) (#139)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:38:56 PM EST
    His job is large before him. But you cannot compare the barbs during campaigning for the nomination to now. Both Hillary and Obama did stuff then, that was about winning and not uniting. Now it is a different story.

    I follow Hillary's lead here. She obviously is a pro and expected all the crap that a fight entails, and dished out her own. Lower life forms posing as supporters said all sorts of things on both sides and that is to be expected as well.  

    But this is the cycle of Democratic nominations. Now those who believe that the Democratic platform is a better one than the GOP will come together to defeat McCain.

    Parent

    So its all just in how you describe it? (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:12:02 PM EST
    ...what if I said that triangulation was pragmatic and post-partisanship is naive?

    Ooh, SNAP!!!! (none / 0) (#99)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:14:21 PM EST
    Well played, well played indeed!

    Parent
    Re: yesterday's concession/endorsement speech (5.00 / 5) (#112)
    by anniethena on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:22:22 PM EST
    As many noted, it was probably one of the best concession speeches. It was the most important endorsement considering from whom and when it came, but it was the "why" that made it the best endorsement.
    Senator Clinton forcefuly made the case for what the Democratic Party "family" stands - or at least it bl&&dy well should - and why it is so important to have a Democrat back in the White House.
    Think of all the other endorsements - hope, change, "my kids made me do it", "I can't put my finger on it" "he's going to be the nominee so let's hurry up and make it so", "he's got the most money"....
    She made the most convincing argument of all of them - and that on the heels of the obvious attempt by her own party to crush her. Abandoned by her political "family", treated with such utter cruelty by the entire "Village", she went out and endorsed her rival with dignity and conviction.

    I hope that Modo, Rich, and the gang at MSNBO will finally shut the frak up.

    Well (5.00 / 4) (#131)
    by Nadai on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:35:15 PM EST
    I hope that Modo, Rich, and the gang at MSNBO will finally shut the frak up.

    It's almost a hundred degrees here in Raleigh.  I don't think He11 has frozen over yet.

    Parent

    so. would you do everything Obama said? (5.00 / 5) (#132)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:35:22 PM EST
    Oh wait... snark. Of course Hillary supports Obama, and sincerely so. She's a great loyal Democrat. That doesn't mean all of her supporters will do the same. Some of them have different opinions. It's like they're completely separate people with their own independent thought.

    You are mising the point, but that (5.00 / 6) (#136)
    by Anne on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:37:43 PM EST
    doesn't surprise me.  And you are missing it in a way that conveys your contempt for those who supported - and support - Hillary Clinton, and for those who thought the Democratic Party should be holding to higher standards than it did in this cycle.  That contempt does little to persuade anyone to get on the Obama bandwagon, by the way.

    Now, I'm not "BluestBlue," so I can't speak for her, but her response was to a Democratic organization that seems to think it is entitled to her support and her cash - and her response to that request was to explain her disappointment and disgust over how the Party took it upon itself to manipulate and maneuver and cheat its way to forcing Barack Obama on us as a nominee.

    But, that's okay - you just keep missing the point; as an Obama supporter, I'm sure you can't figure out why the rest of us think there is a problem in the party and we're not just content to go along with it.  You just keep telling yourself there's nothing rotten in Denmark - by the time you figure out that there is, it will be too late to keep the stink from attaching to all Democrats for decades to come.

    Where do you buy your blinders?

    Hated the Nuke answer, hated the question more (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by Ellie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:43:03 PM EST
    I'm against nuclear proliferation. The question was also predicated on a hypothetical and an extreme one at that.

    If you're going to tap that, you best tap the kind of wouldda couldda shouldda hypothetical that Obama's been eating lunch off since the start of his self-congratulating position on congress's voting to cede powers of war to the whims of the Executive Branch.

    Saying that Bad Monster Lady voted for it, based on Bush admin lies and corruption, before Obama said he WOULD have voted against it doesn't pass the laugh test.

    And to show my sincerity in that regard, I'd give you a million dollars if my lottery ticket from 6 yrs ago paid off big so I'm the bestest friend you'll ever have.

    Just for fun (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:43:43 PM EST
    after months clicked on Yglesias.  Well, the first thing is an attack on BTD.  Go figure.  

    What did it say? (none / 0) (#151)
    by Shawn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:48:40 PM EST
    I don't really want to go there.

    Parent
    It's the rabid (none / 0) (#207)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:16:22 PM EST
    comments...

    Parent
    Funny (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by Nadai on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:58:13 PM EST
    I'm going to decide for myself, instead of stewing in thuggery and self-righteousness.

    We're discussing people not lemmings (5.00 / 6) (#186)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:05:16 PM EST
    but it appears that distinction may be lost on you.


    Oops! (5.00 / 7) (#189)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:06:19 PM EST
    History repeats itself. I now know how the moderates within the Republican Party felt after the Christian Right took over their party and they became disenfranchised. After reading several blogs the last few days I find myself in disbelief. As a liberal male I can't believe the dismissive attitude of people who profess to be the enlightened generation. If they took the time to step back and read what is being said even they would cringe. Since when did the democrat's have to have this lock in step mentality? It unbelievable. It may be time to end the two party system. I don't want to be like moderate Republican and have to hide for the next twenty years.

    Obama Supporter Here: Think I've been duped? (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Mickeleh on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:08:59 PM EST
    I have no doubt that Sen. Clinton's supporters are honorable, sincere, and passionate in support of her campaign. I have no doubt that Sen. Clinton is honorable, sincere, and passionate in fighting for her agenda.

    Here's where I find myself put off by many of the comments here. There seems to be such deep hostility and contempt for Sen. Obama, his background, his program, and his campaign, that I feel you are taking me and the more than 17 million voters who back it for fools.

    Are you at all open to understanding why we are attracted to his candidacy. Or do you simply write us off as dupes, drones, and naive idiots?

    I' m more than willing (5.00 / 4) (#206)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:16:21 PM EST
    to be open about him. I just haven't seen what others have that convinces them that he is a progressive? He supports faith based initiative and that scares me. He supports school viuchers and that concerns me too. I don't want to see the public school system destroyed. He supports the Patriot Act and I have major concerns about the government abusing it.(as they already have).

    Parent
    What turned me off to him were the viciousness of the attacks on Clinton and the spoiled brattery of his supporters.

    And I'm:

    1. not at all interested in associating with people who find me not just inferior, but profoundly distasteful because I'm female;
    2. even less interested in associating with people who are, imo, emotional children.

    I certainly don't want them running the country.

    And I believe the Obama campaign encouraged every single minute of it.

    Mm, sorry! Not interested,

    Parent

    I don't want (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Emma on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:12:24 PM EST
    Obama to follow Congressional Dems. I want him to lead.  And it's clear to me that on this issue, he won't.  In fact, I can't think of any issue he'll lead on as nothing I've heard from him talks about one thing he will lead on.

    The same dems who voted for (5.00 / 3) (#212)
    by pie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:22:05 PM EST
    Roberts and Alito, suspended habeus corpus, and are now, it appears, getting ready to cave on telco immunity, just to name a few of their special votes?

    Oh, goody.

    Depends (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:27:05 PM EST
    on the woman and what you mean by "power".

    "These guys" generalites are stupid and sexist, but I suppose you think you've earned the right to be as idiotic and superficial as your American male counterparts.

    Loving and empathetic (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:32:59 PM EST
    = "wimpy". Talk about internalizing the fascistic mentality.

    Yeah, loving and empathetic..and intelligent, creative, determined.

    So postpartisan is either being the majority or (5.00 / 1) (#224)
    by sallywally on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:05:00 PM EST
                                                                                                                                                                                                  renaming the same old thing?

    Either we get so many liberals into Congress that we just have the majority and can vote things into law? What's new about that?

    Or we "rebrand" the same old things, using a new word for whatever those same old things might have been. A shallow marketing tool, in other words.

    None of this sounds good. Clinton had real, concrete  policies with real, concrete results. Not just either gaining the majority or changing the words.

    Obama will have his chance to gain my support. At the end of that time, or let's say, by the time of the Dem convention, I'll be able to make my decision about who will ultimately get my vote.

    BTW, I went to the Obama site today to see his welcome to all us Clinton supporters, or whatever, and the home page was a big contribution page - my address, my credit card number, the amount of the contrition, etc. Very unimpressive...almost seemed greedy to me. Clinton has a contribution button but also her info.

    It reminded me of when I visited his site earlier and had to sign up as a supporter to even get into the site for information about his policies.

    This doesn't seem like a new communications sort of thing....more like a forced manipulation.

    If all this running to the (2.00 / 5) (#80)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:01:58 PM EST
    Rethugs dosnt put that legendary "empathy" myth to rest, I dont know what does.

    Empathy for an ambitious, powerful, white woman worth $ 30 mil, and, roughly 0 for the women of the M.E who posturing cowards threaten to "obliterate" and "turn to glass".

    We wont even get into what happens to poor and working class women in the U.S under the trickle down/piss-on-em agenda.

    I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

    And me, I've just been labeled (none / 0) (#10)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:09:45 AM EST
    an Obama supporter.  Apparently because I'm not in favor of HRC for VP and have been trying to suggest plausible alternatives.  

    Funny, I wasn't aware that all Hillary supporters wanted her for Veep, or generally thought in such groupthink ways.  

    This HRC supporter doesn't... (5.00 / 7) (#13)
    by Shainzona on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:11:33 AM EST
    Why should she do all of BO's heavy lifting and have to clean up after him for the next 4 years (which is all a BO presidency will be worth) and THEN be blamed for all of his failures?

    Just asking!

    Parent

    I didn't label you an Obama supporter (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:12:13 AM EST
    I only said I hoped Obama supporters have better arguments than yours.

    Parent
    Fair enough. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:16:42 AM EST
    I misinterpreted your post.

    Parent
    No worries :-) (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:19:18 AM EST
    Um (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:18:20 AM EST
    I am an Obama supporter.

    Is that an insult now?

    Parent

    Not to me it isn't (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:20:08 AM EST
    Yapping puppy, on the other hand...

    Parent
    Yapping Puppies (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by indy in sc on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:33:25 PM EST
    are very cute though ;).

    Parent
    Well, I prefer (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:51:00 PM EST
    mewing kittens, but I get your point. :-)

    Parent
    Now? (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:24:07 AM EST
    Old habits die hard. Even ones that are not so old, evidentially.

    Parent
    I think (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:19:49 AM EST
    the problem is that you were ignoring the problems Obama has with any VP candidate. Obama's problem is that he is so inexperienced that it's going to be hard to find any VP that will work for him.

    As far as Hillary goes, I don't think she really wants it anyway. Who would frankly?

    Parent

    brodie (none / 0) (#11)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:10:57 AM EST
    The last thread closed before I could respond, but I appreciate your point of view. I think Sen. Obama has some major problems in the Fall, and picking a substitute woman isn't going to be a strong choice. (I'm undecided as to whether I want Hillary on the ticket.)

    One point I'll concede here is that (none / 0) (#28)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:22:13 AM EST
    it's just  too soon after the end of the primary contest, with feelings about my candidate still being fairly raw, to promote a non-HRC woman for VP.  If our nominee is as smart as I think he is, or as I think his campaign team is, then he'll use the next 2 mos wisely to lay the foundation in the direction in wants to go for Veep.  

    This process is just beginning, and Dems are weighing in on both sides of the Dream Ticket issue.  It's premature, but it does make for lively discussion.  And keeps some of us off the streets and out of trouble ...    

    Parent

    You say smart. (none / 0) (#32)
    by pie on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:26:58 AM EST
    I say conniving and manipulative.  :)

    Intelligence is an important attribute, even a necessary one for a leader to possess.  But being smart certainly does NOT make one a leader.

    Parent

    Tomato/Tomahto (4.00 / 1) (#160)
    by indy in sc on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:51:02 PM EST
    One issue I've had with Obama supporters (of which I am one) is this unrealistic belief that he is somehow beyond politics and has not used or will not use political tactics or make calculated or politically expedient decisions in his bid to get elected.  

    Parent
    Great letter (none / 0) (#35)
    by Katherine Graham Cracker on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:30:08 AM EST
    Would you mind if I copied it and sent it around with attribution of course.

    I take on a 60's Professor's condescension... (none / 0) (#37)
    by SunnyLC on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:31:22 AM EST

    "My (Unpleasant) Encounter with an Honest-to-God Radical 60's Professor Whom I Finally Got to SHUT UP..."

    http://tinyurl.com/4lz39d

    You know the type...the ones who want to "destroy America" like Rev. Wright...The guys who really understood the 60's better than anyone (at least according to this guy..."

    A story of triumph!!!


    Sunday NYTimes on why Clinton lost (none / 0) (#58)
    by lgm on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:50:53 AM EST
    The NYTimes has a piece today with contributions on why Clinton lost.  I wonder what people thought of it.  I thought some of the Republicans (except Whitman) were pure spin.  For example, Clinton is more left than Obama (more radical -- and better -- health care plan).  

    Most upsetting was Mark Penn, who is "credited" with most of the bad advice she took.  I didn't think she was well served with "ready on day one" or the 3am commercial.  There are stories of backstabbing in the Clinton organization and this seems to fit that.  He takes credit for his contributions and blames the fundraisers.  

    I'll Pass (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by JimWash08 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:07:42 PM EST
    But, thanks for sharing that. I would have missed it, now that I've cancelled my weekend subscription to the NYTimes. And looking at the list of people they solicited views from, I'm glad I did.

    Parent
    More of today's bloviating (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Eleanor A on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:17:49 PM EST
    Dan Balz in Washpost on the new electoral math

    Chuck Todd with yet another screed on "why Hillary lost"

    I'd actually agree with a couple of points in the Todd article, namely that Hillary shouldn't have let the Deaniacs control the DNC.  (But seriously, is it true Penn didn't know CA wasn't winner-take-all?)

    Not sure I'm buying the whole thing, though.  Todd's thesis is that the Dems won Congress in 2006 "without help from the Clintons".  Yeah, right.  I'm sure nothing about the healthy economy and international credibility the U.S. held during Bill Clinton's two terms had nothing to do with boosting the Democratic brand.

    The WashPost article is just more palaver about states that could or could not be in play.  Apparently the list of states Obama plans to target first is Iowa, Virginia, North Carolina, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado and Ohio.

    Good luck with that.  Seriously.  North Carolina?

    Parent

    Halperin's column is right (none / 0) (#64)
    by andgarden on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:54:48 AM EST
    Agree and disagree (none / 0) (#108)
    by samtaylor2 on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:18:36 PM EST
    I never thought of triangulation as dishonest.  I just thought of it as completely amoral.  It was a tool to push policy forward that took the other sides arguements and made them their own so they cound't shoot down the policy.  Unfortunately, to use it, there was too much compromise (think welfare reform and gays in the military).

    When listening to Obama, I think what he is talking about is refraiming the argument so that (as an example) paying for day care insn't a liberal or conservative idea, it is an American idea.  He takes his views and instead of discussing them in relationship to one group, he makes them universal- thus hard to attack.  I personally believe his eliquence is such an amazing political gift that will allow him to be succesfull.

    I honestly don't see how this is (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:28:44 PM EST
    different from what Bill Clinton did. I am not following you on what the difference is, except that you hate Clinton and love Obama.

    Parent
    Yes, (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:37:25 PM EST
    I'm confused too. I remember when the netroots thought a bi/postpartisan approach was a bad thing.

    Parent
    Hang on . . . (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:36:21 PM EST
    Shouldn't we WANT to "brand" good ideas as Democratic/liberal? Wasn't that the whole point of Howard Dean's "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party" line? Isn't that how the GOP shifted the political dialogue to the right in the 80s, by making the words "Republican" and "conservative" synonymous with strength, patriotism, and competance (however undeservedly) and "Democrat" and "liberal" equal to weakness, treachery, and ineptitude? And, in a time when the GOP is less popular the syphillis, doesn't this just play into the hands of John McCain, who was (ostensibly) a bipartisan maverick before it was cool? How does the approach you describe encourage people to vote for DEMOCRATS as opposed to Republicans?

    Parent
    Do you honestly believe (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by standingup on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:39:57 PM EST
    what you wrote?

    he makes them universal- thus hard to attack

    How will that prevent the Republicans from saying anything they want to about a policy when the mount an attack against it if they choose to disagree with him.  

    Parent

    Exactly! (5.00 / 7) (#147)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:44:28 PM EST
    They'll call federally-funded daycare fiscally irresponsible, causing higher taxes, a giveout to minorites/the poor/whatever the despised group of the week is, or even incipient totalitarian socialism. Sound silly? It happened in the first year of Bill Clinton's administration with his nice, moderate compromise of a healthcare plan--remember the Harry and Louise TV ad? As John Edwards said, "You can't nice these people to death." But it sure sounds like this is what Obama is intending.

    Parent
    Some of us (5.00 / 3) (#178)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:02:13 PM EST
    don't understand the sheer Awesomeness that flows from the Precious  :-)


    Parent
    one example (5.00 / 4) (#184)
    by bjorn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:04:05 PM EST
    it might be easier for us to understand this point if there was one example anywhere in which Obama had actually done this already.

    Parent
    I don't which (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by standingup on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:06:57 PM EST
    troubles me more, that he this is what he is using for his campaign or that people are actually buying it?  

    Parent
    The fact that people (5.00 / 6) (#201)
    by RalphB on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:12:58 PM EST
    are actually buying it royally pisses me off.  What has happened to critical thinking in this country?  Is it completely dead?  Jeez.

    Parent
    Look at the results (5.00 / 3) (#209)
    by Landulph on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:17:08 PM EST
    of our last two presidential elections. Need you really ask?

    Parent
    Femism was, (none / 0) (#154)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:48:56 PM EST
    among other things, supposed to have something to do
    with the recovery of the capacity for empathy and a more wholistic approach to problem solving.

    Do tell how this new found affection for the cuddly, self effacing McCain and his thug agenda relates.

    Please.

    Feninism (none / 0) (#155)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:49:55 PM EST
    Try again (5.00 / 6) (#167)
    by Nadai on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 12:55:56 PM EST
    And no, feminism is not about "the recovery of the capacity for empathy and a more wholistic approach to problem solving".  Feminism is about society finally acknowledging, after ten thousand years of male dominance, that women are people just as much as men are, with the same rights to self-determination, self-respect, and power that men have.  Apparently, you have mixed feminism up with the worst of New Age blather.

    Parent
    New Age Blather (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Valhalla on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:03:57 PM EST
    is what happens when you're cutting and pasting.

    Parent
    Seriously (5.00 / 5) (#203)
    by Nadai on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:15:08 PM EST
    These guys just cannot stand the thought of women having actual power.  We're all supposed to be Counselor Troi.

    Parent
    Try again (1.00 / 5) (#179)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:02:54 PM EST
    Go ahead and be a female version of the same sorts of behavior that ensured "male dominance" and then explain why anyone should care about your struggle.

    I already care a little less after reading your post.

    Parent

    So the only reason (5.00 / 5) (#200)
    by Nadai on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:12:37 PM EST
    you "care" about the rights of women is if we're all lovey, empathetic, forgiving little wimps?

    I'm heartbroken that your "support" has lessened.

    Parent

    I don't agree...actually... (5.00 / 4) (#213)
    by kredwyn on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:22:10 PM EST
    I'd direct you to the thinking of Carl Rogers re: the "empathy" and "problem solving" things. His style of discourse sought to locate some sort of middle ground space from which to work.

    Feminism...on the other hand...

    Ultimately, "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."

    While some feminists engage in a form of invitational (Rogerianesque) rhetoric, not all feminists agree that a "touchy feely" form of empathy is the way to go.

    Parent

    Most of your posts show little (5.00 / 0) (#219)
    by tree on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:32:03 PM EST
    empathy at all. Most are filled with anger. So, by your own reckoning, why should anyone else care that your miniscule empathy has shrunk yet again?

    Parent
    Btw, I said (none / 0) (#185)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:04:57 PM EST
    "amongst other things", but see and read what you want.

    Parent
    I'm Hillary Clinton and so can you! (none / 0) (#222)
    by roadburdened on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 01:44:25 PM EST
    I know Obama supporters loved his speech on Tuesday. And I know Clinton supporters loved her speech yesterday. I thought they both rang false. If I vote for Obama, the ice caps will stop melting (and we'll achieve post-racial unity!). If I vote for Clinton, it's the triumph of identity politics. They're both too flawed and egotistical and narcissistic to allow them to represent huge issues like sexism and racism. And they both hang their hats on these issues to fuel their own self-promotion.

    That doesn't make them ineffective politicians. I hope Hillary works on health care in the senate. And I hope Obama starts bringing the troops home. But I don't want to hear about Obama's family anymore (I'm still waiting for the Jewish uncle and the gay step-sister to pop up). And I don't want to hear about what Hillary thinks she represents to women. It's incredibly sad that Hillary couldn't be an astronaut, because those fifty smart, ambitious women decided that being an astronaut sounded like a much more enjoyable experience than running for president.


    So postpartisan is either being the majority or (none / 0) (#223)
    by sallywally on Sun Jun 08, 2008 at 11:02:33 PM EST
                                                                                                                                                                                                    w q