Okay, if you don't want John McCain as president, nominate the Democrat who can beat him.
You might need to take West Virginia and Ohio - just a thought.
Posted by jmac at May 9, 2008 02:03 PMclinton and obama both have electability issues. if that was our main criterion, neither would have been among the last two candidates. but one of them will be the nominee, almost certainly obama, and we have to win with that nominee. and a good place to start is by getting those who don't like obama (or clinton, for that matter) to take a good hard look at the alternative.
Posted by Turkana at May 9, 2008 02:06 PMJoe Doe doesn't have a clue about neocons.
Mary Doe is going to look at the colleague who stomped on the US flag at the twin towers rubble. She's going to look at the tape of the Democrat explaining why he doesn't wear the flag pin, then the tape of him saying in a debate he never said he doesn't wear flag pins, and on and on and on.
I'm praying the super delegates look at who can come closest to beating McCain.
Posted by jmac at May 9, 2008 02:38 PMAmen, Turkana.
80% of the country wants a new direction. 60+% want out of Iraq. 70% hate Bush. Majorities favor the Dems on economic matters, yet poster after poster seem to think the GOP is dealing from a position of supreme strength nominating old man McCain, a Bush bootlikker. Clinton and Obama are near identical on a great many issues, and close on the rest. Either should be a shoo in in November...except one is hated by 50% of the country and another has an "electability" problem. As you say, we knew that going in. But the country is ready for a change.
Assuming that Obama is not a neocon or is better than McCain. We have no information indicating that the assumption is wrong.
Posted by koshembos at May 9, 2008 02:56 PMjmac - I am not betting on supers having the spine to make a decision that goes against the corporate media. In fact, they bow to the power of the blinking light. You think they want to give up the chance to be on Ruusert's show?
I would go so far as to say that until the people recognize they are being sold a nominee whom the corporations want we will continue on the way we have since Bushie-poo entered the WH.
There wont be any universal healthcare nor will we withdraw from Iraq and leave all that yummy oil for somebody else.
The media hates Clinton and that was reason enough for me to want her even if I didnt buy into her - which I did.
We're pretty much hosed - imo - but Obama makes people think just having him on the label changes things.
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 02:56 PMSo who did John Edwards vote for in the privacy of the voting booth?
Posted by CG at May 9, 2008 03:22 PMI'm one of those liberal older white women Obama and his supporters have been insulting for the past several months.
Now, like abusive husbands who, after beating the @*#*# out of their wives, break down and beg forgiveness they expect us to forgive and forget because the other guy beats his wife even more often?
No thank you. Ain't gonna happen. They've made it perfectly clear in the past several days, if it has not been clear before, that they neither want nor need us.
I won't vote for McCain, but I won't vote for Obama either. Not that it will much matter. I suspect that, if Obama is the nominee, he will lose by historic proportions.
Posted by ff at May 9, 2008 03:25 PMI read that Edwards let "slip" he voted for BO, CG.
If the American boob doesn't understand what a "neocon" is at this late disastrous date, and if Obama can't explain that in the face of MSM lies and distortion, then the state of the demcracy is truly beyond hope and it'll be every person for themselves from here on out.
Posted by euzoius at May 9, 2008 03:39 PMlets call neoconservatism what it is: FASCISM
and republicans what they are: CRIMINALS
Anybody who thinks McCain can be morphed into Bush has been living under a rock for twenty years. Haven't you noticed that the media treats him like Bipartisan Iron Man? Do you honestly believe they're going to disavow their own bullshit just because Barack Obama wants to be president?
McCain will get the support of "postpartisan" independents and Democrats who don't want to vote for an empty suit. It's Obama's bad luck that the old goat got nominated, and it's our bad luck that we're nominating Obama. It dosn't matter what Obama-hating Democrats do. Vote your conscience.
Posted by cygnus at May 9, 2008 03:56 PMThe American boob voted for George Bush TWICE.
And now the media has anointed Barack. And just like Bush, Barack is claiming he's won - I won the first count, I won the second count. Well, let's see what the voters in W Virginia have to say about that in the General. I think West Virginia has gone with the winner in the last 40 elections. I don't think they will go for Barack.
And just like the Supreme Court, the Democrats are going to ignore voters in Florida and Michigan. Stop the vote count!
The crowning blow for me is I live in Texas. Hillary took it by 100,000 votes and Barack got the delegate count. Well, the delegates can have him. I'm hoping a 3rd party emerges this summer. Hagel/ Wes Clark would do.
Posted by jmac at May 9, 2008 04:04 PMhello all:
im catchin up reading all these posts. if hrc was more electable she'd be winning right now. period.
euzious asked for examples of how he's demonized the white working male vote. "bitter," doesn't count. pointing out the "what's the matter with kansas," syndrome and applying it to small town pa is not insulting. nash mc cabe anyone?
mc cain will abolish r.v.w. that should be a good thing right? he will continue the policies of gwb. habeas corpus, gone. wiretapping, continues, torture, continues. lets just pick you up on the street, call you an enemy combatant and hold you forever. that's what you have in store with a mc cain presidency.
but that's ok, cuz for reasons of your own, invented, perceived, stoked, by like minded opinion, you refuse to allow a chance for healing of the party. ok, i get it. perceiving his statements as negatives is ok. perceiving hrc's and bill's as racist or condescending, not so good. ok, i get it. double standards anyone?
if hrc was the winner, i'd gladly vote for her, not holding my nose at all, simply because any dem is better than mc cain.
my two month old daughter, has the right to choose. i hope she never has to make the choice, but the choice is hers. i'd like her to keep it thank you very much. my sister has that choice as well. i'd like her to keep it, also,
judith told me about voting for evil...
mc cain is evil. mc cain 2000 is not mc cain 2008. face it. vote for him, fine. a third party candidate will not win. mc cain, should not win, unless of course you want this dark period of our country continue...
nite.
Posted by anthony at May 9, 2008 04:37 PM"If Hillary were electable she'd be winning".
Did you miss the last two elections? It takes more than Democrats to win. BARACK = GORE = KERRY. We're putting up the same guy.
And his campaign just said he doesn't need the middle class!!!
So instead of writing a book entitled "What's the Matter With Kansas" we need to write a book entitled "When did Democrats lose their minds."
Posted by jmac at May 9, 2008 05:09 PMwhat do you mean, "allow" John McCain's presidency to happen? There's not a damn thing I can do to stop it even if I worked feverishly from now tim doomsday on his behalf. He will not have the numbers he needs in the fall. This is a catastrophic failure on the part of the DNC and other party power brokers who think that come November we will all get back onboard. Even if those of us who are truly disgusted did come back, you can not win against McCain with others who will see McCain as experienced and strong on national security. And racism hasnt even raised its ugly head yet. Obama is barely squeaking by with all of the strings pulled for him. In November, the AA vote will be diluted even further by Republicans. Dont you get it? He ca t win. No way, no how. Hillary was our only hope. Dont think I dont have a stake in this. My brother goes to train for his mission in Iraq tomorrow. It fucking sucks and I will hold all of the Obams supporters personally responsible if he doesn't come back. They are playing Russian Roulette with the country a d my brother's life.
But dont look to the abstainers for help. We couldn't even if we wanted to. It is statistically impossible.
river daughter - how is an Obama supporter responsible for your brother going to Iraq tomorrow? Or anything that may, God forbid!, happen to him. That is unreasonable.
Posted by the young Judith at May 9, 2008 06:07 PMMy brother goes to train for his mission in Iraq tomorrow. It fucking sucks and I will hold all of the Obams supporters personally responsible if he doesn't come back. They are playing Russian Roulette with the country a d my brother's life.
riverdaughter, Really think about what you wrote?
Your brother enlists during the bu$h years; you're not going to support Obama in Nov. election and it will be Obama supporters fault if your brother has misfortune in Iraq? Unbelievelably! First time someone has reached this far with the guilt trip to try and make me feel bad!
I thought my Hispanic Catholic Mom was good... riverdaughter you make her look sick!
If it makes any difference, good luck to your Bro... from an Obama supporter and disabled Veteran.
Well... gee. I would have thought that the democrats and the country at large would have caught on by now. I guess 8 years was not enough, and that we will have to endure 4 more. Maybe even 8 if these stupid democrats continue down this path.
Posted by lectric lady at May 9, 2008 06:24 PMSevenofSix: I back the candidate most likely to get him out of Iraq. Obama is not going to win. He wouldn't win if I voted for him in the fall. It is statistically impossible for him to do so. He is unelectable. He will join the pantheon of failed Democratic nominees. The day we annoint him in August, it is over. You guys have no idea how attractive John McCain is going to look in the fall. Yes, I will hold them responsible. It isn't like you weren't warned. I know perfectly reasonable Democrats who think McCain is a great guy. We are in trouble and looking forward to 4 years of McCain. Now if you don't want that, there is an alternative who stands a better chance of winning. It's on YOUR head, not mine.
Hillary's still in it. She's only 171 pledged delegates behind. If she can take the popular vote super d's will vote for her.
And good luck and white light to the brother of Riverdaughter.
Posted by jmac at May 9, 2008 06:41 PMIt's on YOUR head, not mine.
Whew! Get real darling!
Nobody forced your brother to sign up, he did it on his own. Even during the bu$h years to boot.
He will join the pantheon of failed Democratic nominees.
And Hillary becomes Gary Hart I suppose... oh, the laughter! I crack myself up!
No sense in talking to you.
Haha Turkana, judging by the responses here you're not doing a very good job scaring them into supporting Obama. No surprise, really: first, your tepid support for Obama sounds phony and insincere when we remember your fervered denunciations of all those Obama 'cultists'.
Second, and more importantly, there is no longer any rational argument to be made to the Clinton dead-enders. After several days of reading their insanity, I now take them at their word: that they would prefer McCain to Obama no matter what. There's a name for people like those: Bush Republicans. Or, perhaps, Bush Dogs. If that's what they want, so be it. Democrats and them have nothing more to say to each other.
Btw, where did Minister of Clinton Propaganda eriposte go? Not a peep since Tuesday. Perhaps off to join the Straight-Talk Express?
If we are not to vote for McCain, it is up to the Democrats to give us something better. The Ds already have that (Clinton), But the DNC and the MSM act determined to not allow that to happen. Obama may possibly have the potential for it, but he (and especially his supporters) have not shown us that. (No doubt his supporters will disagree. That is their privilege.) But insulting Clinton supporters is not the same as convincing them. Quite the opposite, really.
Posted by jwrjr at May 9, 2008 09:03 PMHitched your horse to the wrong post Seven. At least Riverdaughter thinks so. So do many of the "Democrats" here lately.
Forget vindication, not what McOld is about. Ideology isn't either, he's more of a free spirit. Hey, I view this as a redo of the 1980 election cycle. I don't see much difference between this guy, Barry Obama and those before him...Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, and McGovern. Clinton was different, sure he was a rogue, but otherwise he did accomplish things good for both sides of the political spectrum. I'm amazed how tarnished his Presidency has gotten in the current primary season.
Barry Obama, should he get elected, will be like that Robert Redford character in "The Candidate". He'll say to himself afterwards, "now what do I do?". He won't know, all he is is speeches, wind, blown around here and there.
Yet, he won't get elected this year. Rev. Wright is writing a book this year...out in October for the best sales. Ace in the whole Seven. No 'swiftboating' will be needed this year. No 'swiftboating' excuses this year. 527's will be vocal on both sides sure, but, the Rev. Wright will have the microphone again...sometime before the election in November. People will be reminded of those glorious years from 1992 that Barry attended his church. What he was exposed to Sunday after Sunday. What he exposed his children to. What Barry Obama said he disowned only a few Tuesdays ago after he said he could no more disown him than he could disown his white grandmother.
No, this guy brought hate into this race through his followers. He didn't do much of anything to disperse it nor squelch it. He let it fester to achieve the victory that is so close at hand. Wonder about WV and Kentucky loses will do? Oregon is not a redemptive state for momentum. Someone has already talked about where this presidency will be won and he has alienated the workers there. Pa, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Mo, Indiana, Wisconsin, maybe even NJ. And your southwestern states will not replace the south this year...wrong candidate to run against...McOld.
Now I hear we have 57 states..."can you spell potato Mr. Vice President?" Way to go Barry, he must be counting all those protectorate territories we have.
Posted by peter at May 9, 2008 09:18 PM"It is wonderful to be back in Oregon," Obama said. "Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it."
The Times' conscientious Robin Abcarian thought she heard something different there. She checked her tape recorder. It had captured what he had actually said -- 57 states now. A new Louisiana Purchase that's gone unannounced so far? Was he channeling his inner John Kerry-Heinz 57 personality? Many thanks to the LATimes
Posted by peter at May 9, 2008 09:44 PMI wonder if his age had anything to do with it? What is he...in his forties now...ancient
How does that McOld do it, he's waring his reporters out. Three weeks at a time and send in a fresh one.
Posted by peter at May 9, 2008 09:49 PMAhead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country “to speak with one voice at this critical moment.”
Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq’s weapons programs “may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored.” However, he urged Bush to move “in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse.”
h/t corrente
This guy's to be a president Barry Obama's Chief of Staff. All is forgiven now that Obama is the leader.
Posted by peter at May 9, 2008 10:10 PMturkana, i've weighed the pros and cons. at this juncture--a rare, once-in-a-generation opportunity to shift the country leftward and to get some real progressive policy enacted--obama is likely to squander our golden opportunity in one or both of two major ways:
(1) his GE chances are dire, especially since he's way past the point of no return in terms of alienating a large and growing number of clinton supporters, like me; and
(2) he won't be able to handle the job of governing--it's way too much right now and he will, in all likelihood, screw it up royally. i'd rather mccain do that for us than a so-called "Democrat."
as to the second point, in short: letting an inexperienced 3rd party impostor like obama hijack and destroy our brand--assuming, arguendo, his joyride miraculously manages to vault him into the white house, which i consider less likely by the day--is ultimately tantamount to signing up for an inevitable 12 years of neocons after the guy's first administration.
i'm willing to deal with mccain until the party gets its sh*t together and gets obama the hell out of the dem party. he's the epitome of a 3rd party candidate, so why the f*ck doesn't he run as one--instead of hijacking and exploiting our brand for a free ride? no thanks. (i still love you though, turkana. and eriposte.)
Posted by kangeroo at May 9, 2008 11:02 PMp.s. i'm also not going to let my party's nomination be dictated by an utterly corrupt media that can, and in all likelihood will, turn on obama. they want obama for a reason (hint, hint, nudge, nudge: it's probably the same reason they wanted kerry and demolished dean).
p.p.s. *sigh* oh clever, kewl obama, he and his fratboyz sure had a big bag of fun there with his repulsive, misogynistic, race-baiting strategy, didn't they? it sure must've been fun while it lasted, and it succeeded marvelously for him, too--in securing the nomination and ensuring all but certain defeat in the GE! i'm sure they'll all guffaw just as obnoxiously when they discover in november that payback's a b*tch.
Posted by kangeroo at May 9, 2008 11:27 PMJust prior to the November 2004 election, Hunter S. Thompson wrote this in RollingStone Magazine:
The question this year is not whether President Bush is acting more and more like the head of a fascist government but if the American people want it that way.We've been advised by some recent comment, that certain Clinton supporters whose "feelings are hurt", should be treated with tender loving kindness, and ought to be wooed down the road in favor of the party's nominee, (and I suppose offered flowers and olive branches and monogrammed keys to the kingdom) in order that these same people should not vote for fascist powers in 2008.
But it appears that the childish fits and the lowdown personal attacks against Obama, and the prattling recitation of unfounded charges against him will not cease.
The 2008 election is going to demonstrate what it is, exactly, that the American people want; and it will not be a poll. It will not be an opportunity to rant; it will be a decision.
Posted by Copeland at May 10, 2008 01:11 AM"Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states?"
Yes peter, if you visit a state more than once, it would count as another state traveled too.
Let's visit McShame and the Keating Five:
In 1989, the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of Irvine, Calif., collapsed. Lincoln's chairman, Charles H. Keating Jr., was faulted for the thrift's failure. Keating, however, told the House Banking Committee that the FHLBB and its former chief Edwin J. Gray were pursuing a vendetta against him.Gray testified that several U.S. senators had approached him and requested that he ease off on the Lincoln investigation. It came out that these senators had been beneficiaries of $300,000 (collective total) in campaign contributions from Keating. McCain received $112,000 by 1987 from Keating and Keating's relatives and employees to McCain's Senate campaign, more than any of the other Senators. In October 1989 The Arizona Republic reported that in addition to campaign contributions, McCain's wife and her father had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. The paper also reported that the McCains, sometimes accompanied by their daughter and baby-sitter, had made at least nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard the American Continental Corporation (parent of Lincoln) jet. [Hmmmm, what does that remind me of?] Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain also did not pay Keating for some of the trips until years after they were taken, after he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln. Lincoln Savings and Loan's collapse is said to have cost taxpayers $3.4 billion (in 1989 Dollars, now an estimated $5,640,600,000.
Where are Cindy McShame's tax return's peter? Remember when your party reemed Theresa Heinz Kerry... guess what's coming dude?
We're just warming up fuckhead!
Posted by Seven of Six at May 10, 2008 05:36 AM
KANGAROO - you bought the kool aid if you think Obama would move this country LEFTward. He is right of center on business, trade, and don't forget the Republican health care plan complete with insurance-loving ads.
He did a good job on hoodwinking - I'll give him that.
Posted by jmac at May 10, 2008 05:57 AMOops, sorry Kangaroo - misread your post.
Posted by jmac at May 10, 2008 06:00 AMOops, sorry Kangaroo - misread your post.
Posted by jmac at May 10, 2008 06:00 AMThanks for your GE posts the last few days, Turkana.
Even as an Obama supporter, I've felt every time I logged onto DailyKos the last couple of months that I was walking through a once beautiful park where I could hardly see the grass for all the unscooped, unthinking anti-Hillary turds scattered over it. And my visits to Taylor Marsh have dwindled to nearly nothing for the corresponding reason.
It's been painful to watch. I've been grateful for this site, where (commenters aside) you and eriposte have given me a relatively calm picture of the beefs the "other side" has had with the Obama camp. I'd like to apologize for the ugliness that's poured out from my side of the netroots. For what it's worth, every misogynistic slur and every "she's playing the race card" parsing has always felt like a punch in the stomach to me. That toxic waste doesn't remotely represent the attitudes I hold toward Hillary, nor the ones I hear from other Obama supporters in real life.
All that said - it seems that all the BO posters think the reconciliation has to start from the HRC side, and vice versa. Seems to me it has to come from both sides, and both sides should be eager to start it. But I'd like to know from Hillary supporters: what words or actions on the part of the Obama campaign would you count as genuinely conciliatory?
Posted by nicteis at May 10, 2008 08:07 AMseven of six, that post is hilarious!
Posted by the young Judith at May 10, 2008 11:16 AMnicteis: too little, too late. it's laughable that you even ask. gee, i'm sure you were SOOOO concerned when you saw all those hateful diaries shooting up the rec list on daily kos, day in and day out, week after week, month after month--that you probably voiced your protest and tried to stop it at the time, right? you resisted the hate, defended hillary, and boycotted the site, right? riiiiiiight.
have fun at the coronation may 20. i can't wait to see your faces in november!
Posted by kangeroo at May 10, 2008 11:46 PMWell, some say history repeats itself, but I contend it is only an echo. there are a number of new factors since it looks like Obama is the nominee.
The main factor in his favor is money. He has 10 times more than McCain. The other is the record number of new voters being registered. I wish every single person on the Democratic blogs who say the Democratic nominee cannot win would have to register one new voter every time they say such a thing.
That would be a start. It reminds me of a non profit club I used to run. Everyone complained, but when you gave them the tools to act- no action, more complaining. haha.
Barry Goldwater at the end of his life had deep regrets about supporting John McCain. We should all heed his warning. McCain will be a disaster for this nation.
Posted by shano at May 11, 2008 04:02 PM