it sure feels good to be optimistic again, doesn't it, paradox ?

i am letting myself be bodaciously hopeful !

Katherine

"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

I wonder if his age had anything to do with it? What is he...in his forties now...ancient. McYoung, Barry Obama stumbling over the number of states in the UNION. Don't first or second graders learn this info. Barry Obama, just as feeble at his age as a 71 year old McOld. Must be the physical fitness of the candidate...McOld has it, McYoung doesn't.

How does that McOld do it, he's waring his reporters out. Three weeks at a time and send in a fresh one.

...
Ahead 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.

Were I President Obama, the first thing I would do is launch a stealth attack against the corporate media. Nothing can be moved forward unless that obstacle is removed.

In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama said something that is all the more remarkable for how little it has been remarked upon.

In defending his stated intent to meet with America's enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."

That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.

Read the whole thing. And also Tom Maguire, who observes: "Think about this - the probable next President of the United States does not know even the broad outlines of the history of American foreign policy from WWII forward and does not know the history of Democratic icons Roosevelt or Truman. " Then there's the fact that he's still hazy about how many states there are in the Union . . . . "I would tell him to check the flag in his lapel, but of course he won't be wearing one."
...
"One of Barack Obama’s Middle East policy advisers disclosed yesterday that he had held meetings with the militant Palestinian group Hamas – prompting the likely Democratic nominee to sever all links with him." I hope he didn't tell them that Obama secretly supports NAFTA . . . .

And to those of you wanting that 'dream ticket', the queen bee, Michelle wouldn't want another woman in the WH with any authority. It's called the 'queen bee syndrome".

How's this "newly minted president" going to address the landslide victories of his opponent in West Virginia and Kentucky? He's down by 40 points in the first and 35 points in the second. Seems those Democrats can't hear the momentum he supposedly has. Wonder about the second thoughts the earlier primary voters now have about their votes. How many would like to 'change' their vote to a person that could really win in November.

It's seemingly 1968 all over again for these Democrats. Humphrey did so well that year. Then there's the 1980 convention. Ted Kennedy advising Obama on how to maneuver at the convention or how not to?

Maybe a "president Obama" can address this...

A school in West Contra Costa County [California, east of SF bay] was being closed Friday in an attempt to contain an outbreak of Pertussis - also known as Whooping Cough, health officials said Thursday night.

The East Bay Waldorf School in El Sobrante posted a notice on school doors indicating that the whooping cough outbreak involved kindergarten students and their teachers.

First, our best wishes to all these children for complete and speedy recoveries. But here’s the problem - pertussis vaccinations are MANDATORY in California for admittance to ANY school or day care facility, public or private, for all children under the age of 7. CA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE
SECTION 120325-120335

The only way these children could legally have been attending school was if their parents applied for and received an exemption. So were they attending illegally or were they exempted? There are free and low cost vaccination clinics for children all over this area - there is just is no excuse of being unable to pay for it. And while I’m against government intrusion into private health care matters as a general rule, I believe the government must make an exception in matters relating to dangers to the public. Childhood vaccinations definitely fall within that category of exception, although apparently a lot of parents feel otherwise and requested exemptions. And note, the law does not require children to be vaccinated, it only requires vaccinations in order to attend schools or day care - settings with lots of other children present.

Paradox, this is in your area of the country. Care to comment on why this is occurring in a state that Democrats control hook, line, and sinker? Is this Democratic leadership at work? Or did the teachers there just allow these kids to attend without the required paperwork. Is that why they endorse Democrats so much...to look the other way when state laws are not followed?

peter, that's a mountain of republican hackwork you've piled up there. Are you getting paid for it? You'd better believe that intelligent leaders of the USA have met with their foes, as opposed to sticking their fingers in their ears and pretending they don't exist. This even extended to people like Nixon (remember the visit to China?) You prefer the catastrophic and witless Bush approach. Or the way that he "succeeded" so well in North Korea. Or Iran. Or how well Iraq has worked out. We're going to crush your torture-loving, morally bankrupt, incompetent and corrupt party in the fall.

Assuming your criminal president doesn't pardon everyone, a lot of your party leaders will be in jail on vanilla corruption charges. However, that's not really where the leaders of your republican party belong. Your party leaders belong in the dock in the Hague, and I devoutly hope they go there.

My god, peter. Your paranoia at being replaced by your betters is astounding.

para, Your statements made me feel so good I matched you donation to Obama. Thanks!

Is this the left's answer to the charge that your freedoms have been diminished under Bush?

"Were I President Obama, the first thing I would do is launch a stealth attack against the corporate media. Nothing can be moved forward unless that obstacle is removed."

Advocating for the government to "launch a stealth attack"??? Wow, what a dangerous thought. Is this what liberalism is for? Government attacking the media? Ever heard of Freedom of the Press? What other freedoms would you curtail if you were "President Obama"?

Yep, we're all going to come together and sing kumbaya.

All those hispanics pissed at they way they were treated in the caucus in Texas - they'll join in.

All the woman mad their candidate was drug through the mud by the democratic leadership and democratic groups

All the white middle class who pray in churches that offer hope and inspiration

And the Jews - they'll join in.

One big happy family.

In your dreams.

Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.

It's an unusual stance for a presidential candidate. Policy makers have largely treated monitoring of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as a legal matter left to the Justice Department since an independent review board was set up in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the union.

Phidy-cent, your governor has made the short list of VP candidates. Congrats, I hope you can spare him.

If petr pinhead wants to start his own wingnut blog, he is free to do so. TLC has been far too lenient with his antics to date and he is now showing that he plans to crap up TLC threads with right wing garbage trough cut n' pasting shit from here on out.

This thread crapping is intentional. It is likely something that he has been assigned to do or that he thinks the RNC wants done.

The proprietors here need to take control of the peter situation now. If he has some original comment that is germane to the post, fine. If he wants to continue in the above vein, which is all I really see him doing, then he should be banned immediately, just like scout was.

TLC is not the the peter pinhead show.

To manapp99

A stealth attack does not automatically imply something illegal or unconstitutional. Would you concede that an open and frank attempt to change corporate media would yield nothing? The stealth attack I propose is through legislative process; ya know? The kind corporate America wages against the rest of us? Below the radar?

Democrats in action...

Here's Massachusetts Democrats for ya...if you drive a car, I'll tax the street If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat If you get too cold, I'll tax the heat If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet...

Well, the unthinkable has happened. The legislature is looking into a new source of tax money, and the Globe does NOT like it one darned bit:

They want to go after private college endowments.

The proposal is simple, even seductively so: if a private college or university's endowment is over $1 billion dollars, then the state takes a cut of it -- 2.5% a year. For Harvard, the example cited, their endowment is $34 billion, so they'd be on the hook to the state for $850 million a year.

Now, the Boston Globe's arguments are fairly solid. For all the attacks on the Bay State, it is, indeed, a Mecca of higher education. And those schools do draw a lot of people -- and money -- to the state.

But on the other hand, that sort of thing is a long-term investment. Massachusetts has a short-term money crunch, and the government there is constitutionally incapable of cutting spending or doing anything else to fix the problem short of raising taxes. And it's not like these schools are going to up and move out of state -- they're not like private businesses; they have far too much invested in real estate, not to mention traditions.

But the whole matter brings up a question that has been bothering me for some time about college and money: why have the costs of a college education been rising so damned much, well in excess of the inflation rate?

Harvard is sitting on $34 billion and you want to go after corporations. From one of the bluest of blue states, no wonder people are leaving there in droves, moving to red states for better treatment, lower taxes.

No assignment or anything Euz. No money either. Did I post any thing on the recon threads...nope, not till very late in the day. Others have been offending your policy concept more than I.

And TLC is not my "show". It never has been and never will unless I was to be invited to join the cast. I'm not holding my breath waiting at phone for that.

"A stealth attack does not automatically imply something illegal or unconstitutional. Would you concede that an open and frank attempt to change corporate media would yield nothing?"

Yes, a stealth attack does imply something illegal. No, actually, it advocates it. How would the government attack the media and it not be unconstitutional. You may not like what some in the media report on but government intervention is never the answer. This would be a major infringement on rights. Not like the imagined ones the left thinks have occured under Bush.

You know it is funny. The right complains about the left wing MSM and left complains about the right wing corporate MSM. It is all about perception but to advocate the government interfere with the media is madness. If the government you back has the power over media content and were to make it be fair in your eyes, how would you prevent a government you did not agree with from using the same power to go the other way? Are you really willing to give up a free press to get to your idea of fair content? Remember if you train a dog to bite, you risk getting bit yourself.

As to the post, it's great to feel optimistic for a change. Like another famous "inexperienced" Illinoisan, Obama is a fabulous orator and an excellent speechwriter. He will be able to present the choices to the people, and properly characterize the horrendously stupid neocon warmonger McSame, assuming the MSM opts to cover his statements.

But one cannot discount our recent history and the abomination of the 2004 election, where Pinhead Majority made clear that it could not be expected to think straight. They can no longer see the big picture--bad judgment plagues them. And they don't know very much to boot.

Unfortunately a democracy is only as sensible as its citizens, and they in turn are only as functional as their media permits. Our citizens are fairly crappy and our MSM is corrupt. Plus we now have literal propaganda machines like Fox that the MSM continues to enable and validate. So the components of the equation don't cause one to have loads of confidence in the "answer".

We've seen many disappointed Hillarians declare that they'll never, ever vote for Obama. The reasons appear not to be because of anything Obama has said, but because of what some "A-list" bloggers wrote or because they were dissed by some mean anonymous Obamans on the internet. I take them at their word, and hope time has an effect.

I had hoped that people of the Left were made of somewhat sterner stuff.

"There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures."

Barak and Hilary know this. It's one reason that Hilary will not quit. This is an unprecedented opertunity to steer the nation onto a progresive course.

Where's HotYoungJudith when you need her?

uh...to say something....

People get the government they deserve. If we are willing to look the other way while office holders enrich themselves though a revolving door of lobbying, think tanks and officeholding, then what we suffer from now is what were going to get. There's more to life than waiting on the next tax cut gimmick. But we've been told to keep shopping and have faith while the country literally, as in New Orleans and the Minneapolis bridge collapse, falls apart.

I write that abopve to say that all Obama has been saying this whole campaign is that we have to save ourselves. If we don't demand anything more out of our public servants than Reaganesque short term thinking, more short term thinking is what we are going to get. All of our problems from oil dependency to income inequaility are going to take hard work to overcome and positive change won't happen overnight. We're going to have to demand more out of ourselves in terms of deferred gratification, but the time for pretending that tommorrow will take care of itself is over. The sooner we realize this and accept it, the sooner we can get out of the hole.

Warning: Long post.

I have been a registered, voting Democrat for 22 years, as long as I have been able to vote. I have identified as a Democrat for 33 years, as long as I have been politically aware. I'll let you do the math. I haven't missed a general election yet. I have made it to most of the off cycle (local votes on local issues not held in November) votes. I am probably what you would call the creative class. I am college educated (Environmental Studies). I have lived on an organic farm. I have a graduate degree (Business). I live in blue Seattle. I am pro-choice. In the 1970's, as a child, I recognized the need to switch away from an oil economy.

And I am somewhat offended and disheartened by Paradox's naive statement that

"No self-identified, registered Democrat is staying home this year, no matter what happens, the Independents are all breaking Democrat and we have awesome internet activism machines, Jesus what a rout it’s going to be."

Given that at least this self-identified, registered Democrat is definitely, seriously considering not voting for Obama if he is the nominee I think that Paradox needs to take a deep breath and take a long hard look at reality. As a matter of fact I would need to be convinced that Obama is the right person to be President, not that McCain is the wrong person.

I'll tell you why.

Until a few weeks ago I had a Kerry/Edwards sign in my window to show my disgust with Bush. I didn't start out this election cycle with a preferred candidate (other than not wanting Kucinich because I knew he couldn't win in November as core Democratic his ideas might be).

But my candidate of choice started to emerge back in January. I don't remember the exact dates of all the events, but here is a list of the various things that began to turn me against Obama (no, not for Clinton). Obama saying that he would get Clinton's supporters but she wouldn't get his. Michelle Obama's unwillingness to state unequivocally that she would support Clinton if she was the nominee. The online communities slamming of a hardworking and committed Democratic candidate that drove me from sites like Huffington Post and Talking Point Memos. MoveOn.org's endorsement of a candidate during the primaries. (Particularly when Clinton voted to defend MoveOn and Obama didn't -- something that just confounded me.)

Driven from my normal sources for news that was not likely to get much play in the MSM, I started reading new blogs, like The Left Coaster. Here I discovered eRiposte and read about the differences between Clinton and Obama (articles that seemed to me to be the best researched and documented around). I noticed that the MSM was giving Obama a pass and buying into what is now called Clinton Derangement Syndrome (I will admit, that I was at first worried about Clinton's "negatives"). The heavy hitters in the Blog-o-sphere where saying the same thing as the MSM. That was a big red flag. I blame the MSM for much of the current mess we are in. And I blame current DNC leadership, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for a serious lack of spine in not forcing the Republicans to actually filibuster and veto and letting the MSM paint Democrats as "do nothing" and ineffectual, rather than showing Republicans to be obstructionist.

Then came the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida. More DNC lack of understanding of how to win. No vision.

Throughout all this I started learning more about Clinton. I knew she was a fighter based on all that she had to put up with from the Right Wing Noise Machine. And the more I learned the more I became impressed by her knowledge of policy; her understanding of politics; her grace and poise under pressure. I saw her give well thought out answers under attack in debates. I saw her display humor. I came to actually like her.

I also came to know more about Obama. I learned about his "present" votes. I have heard that he was essentially handed bills that others had worked on in the Illinois Senate (I had no idea that the job was only 55 days a year). I learned that he aided and abetted a slum lord. I learned he didn't see much difference between Bush's position on Iraq and his own when he could do something about Iraq, despite having been against the Iraq war when he was in no position to do anything. I have seen him speak without a teleprompter and off the cuff. I learned that he didn't hold any hearings on NATO despite NATOs crucial role in Afghanistan. His excuse, too busy campaigning for President. I heard him offer a universal health care package that leaves 15 million people still uninsured and is unworkable. I just heard him say that he has been to 57 states and still has two more to go. I have learned that this man can't handle pressure.

So here I am faced with a choice. Vote for a strong, smart leader or vote for a charismatic unknown. The Democratic party needs leadership. It needs a fighter.

We need a fighter because the Republicans, while on the ropes are still fighters. They still have the MSM in their pocket. They still have access to huge amounts of money.

Obama offers the Republicans a perfect opportunity to frame him. Clinton has been raked over the fire. Obama has nowhere to go but down, Clinton nowhere to go but up.

Back to my feelings about the heavy hitters in the blog-o-sphere and the DNC, because it is at the core of why Obama will have to campaign for my vote harder than McCain or Clinton as a write in.

If the people who claim (legitimately or not) the thought leadership of the Democratic party aren't willing to give all Democratic candidates a chance to make their case; aren't willing to take chances (like rearranging the primary season to better reflect America and real voting patterns); aren't willing to challenge the mainstream media; are able to connect with the base of the party; well then, I think that the Democratic party needs to loose again because they obviously haven't learned what it takes to win and to lead(I never thought we needed to loose before, we just didn't have a fighter in the ring for the past two election cycles). Here is my biggest fear -- Obama wins, and turns out to be another Carter and I have seen nothing to convince me otherwise (although I think Carter had better ideas than Obama) and the Democratic party is trounced for the next 20 years. If McCain wins, I think that Americans will not be able to simply blame Bush, but will see that Republican policies, no matter who is in office, are simply wrong. I would trade 4 more years of bad policy for 4 years of okay policy followed by 20 years of bad policy.

Please convince me I am wrong. But don't give me reasons why Obama is better than McCain. Give me reasons why Obama is truly "the change we have been waiting for" compared to Clinton. Show me what he has done that shows me what he will do. Don't simply point me to Obama's website. Point me to third parties that compare Obama's record to Clinton's in the way that eRiposte did. Then address his electability in realistic terms. Use past voting patterns in the electoral college. Address how he will fight back against 527's.

I don't want hope, I want facts that lead me to believe. More of the same from Obama supporters will only harden my view that he is the wrong person. Help this self-identified, committed Democrat believe in the Democratic party and Paradox's hoped for rout.

Sorry for the long post. I love America and I think that Democratic values really do represent what America was intended to be. I am just frustrated by thinking like Paradox's because when I hear that stuff I know we are going to lose again. Something we, and the world, can't afford.

Actually I just wanted to note that the post calls for an Obama loss:

"...in an epic record-shattering loss by Barack Obama and all the rest of us."

I guess I hope you get what you are asking for.

peter, kindly STFU.

Thanks for pointing that out Bill.

Boy, am I embarrassed. I missed that typo. Given the rest of Paradox's post, I am sure that "loss" was supposed to be win. But I was guilty there of reading what I thought was there rather than what was written. Much like I think Obama supporters see what they want Obama to be rather than what Obama really is. Passions can blind us all. I let my complete frustration at Paradox's naive sentiment get in the way. I should have acknowledged the typo in the set up to my response.

I know and accept Clinton's potential problems, which is why it took me a while to actually support her candidacy.

I don't wish to engage in nit picking on the "stealth attack" metaphor. Nor do I want to be baited into a drawn out argument of what you think I mean and the consequences that might follow.

Do you remember the "fairness doctrine"? How about noninterference with the content of public television? How about the Murdoch empire or Clear Channel? After watching the "Dean Scream" where the audience noise had been filtered out for effect and then run on a continuous loop until he was laughed out of the race, or the Jermiah Wright "story that would not die" until it died quietly after North Carolina.

I am not advocating censorship or government control. I am advocating fairness and accuracy and a means to achieve it and enforce it. The founders envisioned the press to be an intrinsic part of our democracy. Pollution and corruption of that medium is destructive and antidemocratic.

Tell me Don. Why didn't Air America take off? Why didn't Democrats support this voice from the 'other' side? One by one they lost money/support. One by one they left the airwaves. One by one their frontliners have left to make a living elsewhere. Even Randi Rhodes got sanctioned for her opine against Clinton.

The fairness doctrine is a good example of what not to do. Who is to decide what is fair? A government official? You would have a different opinion on fair coverage than I would so who would be the judge? Public TV and radio should also be abandoned for the purpose of not having government interfere with media content. As far as the Dean Scream or Rev Wright, you saw the coverage as did millions and yet you seemed to have gleened the "real truth". What makes you think that you are so much smarter than the rest of the population that saw the same thing. There are many POV's in the media and we are free to go to any for our information. I would not want to see this change.

The founders envisioned a free press and therefore said so in the 1st amendment. Look at it this way, would you have wanted President Bush to be the decider in what is "fair" in the media? I doubt it. It is imperative that we do not let the government regulate media content in any way. As for corporate ownership look at MSNBC. It is owned by the same corporatation as NBC and yet is way left in content. Apparently they did not get the memo saying all content must be right wing. There are plenty of left wing talkers both on TV and radio all paid by corporations. Would you want to force Air America to run Rush after Randi Rhodes just to be "fair"? I would not. I listen to left wing talk on sirius and can always go to the right wing patriot channel when I want that POV. I do not want to lose this freedom and I don't think most Americans do either.

SeaMBA, thanks for your post. I recognize the journey you've taken.

"just as I am implacably certain John McCain and the Republicans are about to get the unholy shit beat out of them in an epic record-shattering loss by Barack Obama and all the rest of us. No self-identified, registered Democrat is staying home this year, no matter what happens, the Independents are all breaking Democrat and we have awesome internet activism machines, Jesus what a rout it’s going to be."

SeaMBA, you had it right the first time, Bill has it wrong. The "loss" is referring to Republicans not Obama.

January Party.

Here's whats on the agenda:

$150 oil; hard currency (euros) demanded.
$1.75 Euro.
Stratospheric budgetary and balance of trade deficits (financed by the friendly government of the Peoples Republic of China).
2+ million human beings in US prisons and jails.
The worst income inequality in 60 years.
A collapsed residential real estate market with hundreds of thousands of foreclosures.
Cars abandoned at the Mall for lack of fuel; people living under bridges in increasing numbers.
Losing wars in at least two countries and possibly Iran as well.
Huge storms ginned up by climate change.
No constraints on domestic CO2 production at all.
Complete contempt from the rest of the world.

Oh this is going to be party for the ages....More like a going out of business sale. Everything must go!

BTW, is eRiposte on vacation? Sabbatical? Ill?
Haven't seen any posts recently....

paradox, i don't know whether to laugh or cry at this:

"No self-identified, registered Democrat is staying home this year, no matter what happens, the Independents are all breaking Democrat and we have awesome internet activism machines, Jesus what a rout it’s going to be."

both empirical and extensive anecdotal evidence indicate otherwise. hell, I'M one of those democrats who's staying home or voting only downticket. if you can't fathom why, see my last comments to turkana's "vindication." i know many other lifelong dems who feel the same way i do, and last i checked, about 40% of clinton's voters refuse to vote for obama in the GE, and that number is GROWING.

if we weren't democrats, i could scarcely believe how oblivious my party is to the warning signs ahead. the OFB is crowing at his hoard now--while utterly failing to see that obama is a clear case of sharply diminishing returns for the GE.

we are so screwed. i guess it's time for me to go laugh. or cry.

I rang a bell myself, $100 to the Obama campaign at precisely 0638 on this glorious May morning, the very first of 23, 22 to go. Thank you so much, President Obama, I so look forward to the next 22, and if I could be so bold, I would respectfully request that it not be spent against another Democrat, sorry sir, I’m just that way.

Presumably this respectful request goes out to all Democratic candidates. Please clarify.

If you spend any time watching CSPAN as I do you will notice the timidity of the most democrats in Congress. That is a direct result of hostile media. The allowance of Keith Olberman as the token liberal does not offset, Morning Joe, Glen Beck, Tucker Carlson (when he had a show), Chris Mathews, the whole FOX network. Remember the Phil Donahue expulsion. How about the current pentagon involvement with analysts? Do you really think that would have been reported had the war gone well or if Bush ws popular?

Media empires throughout our history have fronted for abominations like McCarthyism, the Palmer raids and various immoral wars we have pursued.

As for Air America it is number one in Portland, where I live. It has had troubles in many cases because religious groups have purchased the radio stations out from under the AA show and changed the fromat ( I believe to suppress the message). Rhandi Rhodes has a different story as to why Air America and she parted ways. Advertisers are skittish about supporting a left leaning show in many demographics precisely because the right wing noise machine has succeeded in demonizing the word "liberal". And lastly, do you have any doubt whatsoever in your mind that Hiullary would have had a huge advantage in this race if the right wing media had not succeeded during the 90"s by branding her? The negatives she had to overcome were both astounding and unfair because they were cooked up in the right wing media and megaphoned into the mainstream. That is not healthy for democracy. I believe lawsuits should be allowed with much less hiding room for the media. Basic justice demands it.

I think we all can gander at why eriposte hasn't been doing their usual weekend posting. However, it's unseemly to pick on him or her unpresent, so I'm not going to say much else. I encourage the rest of the thread to follow the lead.

Gloating will be a verbal spanking offense. And I probably qualify as a CDS sufferer.

Peter - take your overstuffed colostomy sack somewhere else.

Hey maybe Eri's getting ready for something like this...

From Corrente

The math doesn't add up very well for Obama, but they don't care. They drink whatever they do and think we can overcome...well folks they can't. You can't, no matter what Paradox says here. The math does get better with Clinton. She was the best 'hope' for this year. I'm glad that so many went the other way. McOld will do so much better and it's the Democrats this year who will be bitter. The recriminations heading Obama's way will be just awful. SeaMBA does have it wright.

And Wright will be back for more...in October especially with his book. A great October surprise and it's not from a Republican. The swiftboating coming from Wright, other Democrats.

In defending his stated intent to meet with America's enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: "I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."

That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.

WHAT?

Kennedy talked to...hm...Nikita Khrushchev about--what was it again? Soviet missiles in Cuba aimed at the US? Right, Kennedy never talked to any of our adversaries.

FDR and Truman? Again, ever heard of the late, great Soviet Union? Yes, we were temporarily allies against Germany during World War II, but otherwise?

Hey Riverdaughter, maybe this helps:

Hominid Views

Hominid Views

These are from your side of the isle. Clinton knows this....Obama's oblivious....just hoping it's not true.

I neglected to address one of the most important and telling defenses of media law reform; the internet. Does anyone seriously believe the current progressive surge would have occurred without the internet? Traditional media had moved us steadily to the right and shaped dominant opinion for three decades before the internet. We were able to "glean the truth" about media manipulation precisely because of the media lacks control of the internet. We need more than that thin line of defense.

Obama's pin

In an otherwise low-key question-and-answer session, Hillary Clinton was at her most intense when asked whether she favored curbs on the Internet, on which news services have several times made headlines themselves with their coverage of the president's purported affair with a White House intern. "We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this, because there are all these competing values.... Without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function, what does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation?" she said. -- Reuters, Feb 11, 1998

seaMBA, you describe yourself as an environmentalist. If so, you know that if we do not pass and sign an extremely strong CO2 emissions bill in the next 4 years then the tipping point will be reached and the planet doomed. Once the tipping point is passed, nothing can be done, ever. Game over.

So your idea that it be "better" for the party to lose this year and let Repub policies continue for another 4 years means 4 more years of doing nothing on global warming (with McCain vetoing adequate measures and all Repubs supporting him) or, with a Dem president, passing the Boxer bill and the strong House version and saving the earth for all future generations and species.

So that's what the next election means---a Dem president that will save the planet or a Repub that will cause the tipping point to pass and doom the world forever. How much are you gonna care about American politics then?

A similar answer could be given for the Supreme Court, but that's not nearly as crucial.

It won't be "better" for the nation for McCain and his vile criminal Repubs to retain the executive branch. Period.

We know you wanted Dem Hillary, but you got Dem Obama. You'll have to do what's best for the country and planet when you vote, but a Dem loss won't be the doing one blessed thing to help either.

Well, I think you're wrong about Democrats who will not stay home from voting in the GE. I've been a Democrat since my first vote, over 30 years ago. I come from a long line of Democrats. If Obama is the nominee, I will not vote, period. At first I was just going to vote the rest of the ticket and not vote for President, but after the behavior of Howard Dean and many in the Democratic party, especially those who have done all they can to stop a re-vote in FL and MI, I decided that I won't vote for any Democrat. I'll give the DNC one year to clean up their act, if they don't, I'll re-register as an Independent or a Republican.

So you'll start to lean towards the Repubs because they have a much, much stronger position on championing and supporting participatory democracy and voter rights, mary ellen?

You might want to do a little bit of "research" on that issue first, word to the wise.....

Euzoius. Thanks for replying. One more stone on the scale against Obama. You didn't point me to anywhere that shows me Obama is the one to get done what needs to get done. You seem to think that simply having a Democrat in the White House and everything will be hunky dory. If you want to get these things done, get behind a fighter, get behind Clinton.

But my point was as much a cautionary tale about why we are likely to lose. Remember, there arent' enough die-hard Democrat to win. If Obama has pissed me off, what about those Reagan Democrats? Paradox seems to be an ostrich with its stuck in the sand. By all measures Bush should not have been elected to a second term. Yet some how enough people in the states with the right combination of electoral votes believed he should be.

I stand by my conviction that I would rather take the risk that we pass the tipping point under a McCain presidency and have the Republican (in particular NeoCon) brand tarnished for good, than to risk not getting anything done under Obama (where is the proof that he can get it done) and still passing the tipping point while at the same time leaving the Democrats to wander the desert for another 20 years. I have come to believe that Obama is that dangerous.

I'll ask again -- please point me to something that convinces me otherwise.

Maybe it's time for all members of the liberal blogosphere--commenters included--to reveal how old they are. If you can't recall, in excruciating detail, things like Michael Dukakis' 17% lead coming out of the 1988 Democratic convention, I'll take your opinions with a huge grain of salt.

Obama looks like a loser to me. Happy talk never works.

"...an epic record-shattering loss by Barack Obama..."

Yup. I bet he will will by 7 states. I anticipate that he is the only person campaigning in all 57 states.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpGH02DtIws

Barack Obama: "....I've now been in fifty-seven states...."

seaMBA---So you're sanguine about passing the irreversible tipping point so as to get the enormous benefit of having "the Repub brand tarnished for good". That's terrible short-sighted judgment. I could make an MBA joke, but I won't.

You are asking for "proof" that doesn't exist, as I suspect you know. That you think Hillary has "proven" she "can get something done" is comic. And I can see that your mind is probably irrevocably made up and closed to Obama. Pity.

The planet and its innocent wildlife would have preferred that environmentalists like you take the "risk" on the "unproven" Dem that you'll be presented with rather than enable the (known) denialist and anti-environmentalist Repub party to certainly destroy the earth forever.

Well, you've got some time to think it over. Try focusing on the natural world and its irreplaceable beauty over the next several months. That will be lost forever, for all future generations, and all species. Because vile Repubs were enabled by Dems.

The planet is counting on us, and all that's necessary for evil people (like Repubs) to prevail is for the good to do nothing. Or fume. Or vote third party.

seaMBA---So you're sanguine about passing the irreversible tipping point so as to get the enormous benefit of having "the Repub brand tarnished for good". That's terrible short-sighted judgment. I could make an MBA joke, but I won't.

You are asking for "proof" that doesn't exist, as I suspect you know. That you think Hillary has "proven" she "can get something done" is comic. And I can see that your mind is probably irrevocably made up and closed to Obama. Pity.

The planet and its innocent wildlife would have preferred that environmentalists like you take the "risk" on the "unproven" Dem that you'll be presented with rather than enable the (known) denialist and anti-environmentalist Repub party to certainly destroy the earth forever.

Well, you've got some time to think it over. Try focusing on the natural world and its irreplaceable beauty over the next several months. That will be lost forever, for all future generations, and all species. Because vile Repubs were enabled by Dems.

The planet is counting on us, and all that's necessary for evil people (like Repubs) to prevail is for the good to do nothing. Or fume. Or vote third party.

Posted by euzoius at May 10, 2008 03:09 PM

So typical. This was the kind of condescending bullshit I got from the Obama supporters when Edwards withdrew. I had no intention, whatsoever, of ever getting on the Clinton bandwagon, but there is where I ended up. You people just act as if the person isn't serious and push them away with your impenetrable, smarmy condescension. Like any good cultist when confronted with questions.

Like I've said for a few weeks. I don't HAVE to vote Democrat. You don't own my vote. I don't owe you a damn thing. And voting Green is a perfectly acceptable alternative, no matter how much you and the rest of the Obamaphiles cry and whine and wish to call people names and point fingers because we ask questions.

Now, answer his damn questions instead of putting him down and acting as if he's got a defect in his soul. Or just admit you've got nothing but the kook-aid.

But don't you dare expect me to drink the kool-aid without asking what's in that glass. I have not, nor ever will, drink the kool-aid unless I know exactly what's in it. You show competence and do a better job of addressing my core values or you don't get my vote.

We can all relax. It's over May 20th. The anointed will take his crown after presenting the math lesson.

That's the day I tear up my voter registration card and mail it to the DNC.

Dear Paradox:

I marvel at your optimism, only time will tell if these newly registered Democrats, especially the young will vote in the general election. What you, and many in the moveon.org wing of our party fail to understand is America as a whole is not extreme liberal, it is slightly right of center, as such, the only possible way that a democrat can take the White House would be as a centrist DLC type democrat.

This is clearly evident by Obama failing to make inroads with whites earning under $50,000 without a college diploma and women, now maybe in time he may be able to resolve this before the general election, but it will be a difficult process for him. Let's also keep in mind that Obama will have problems with the Jewish vote for obvious reasons, the Catholic vote, Obama referring to an hypothesis of his daughter with an unintended pregnancy as "punishment" his stand on abortion esp. partial birth will be troubling for him in the general. He will have to define himself on guns, gays, etc and that marxist nonsense he uttered in San Farancisco will not play in "Middle America" he will need to take a more moderate approach.

As for independents trending for Obama I do not agree, Independents predominantly have a libertarian/republican pedigree; they tend to be moderate to liberal on social issues and fiscally conservative. You will have to convince me that independents will go along with Obama's spending over ten years and his health plan and spending for education. When Obama eloquently speaks of these people get inspired until they see the price tag on all these liberal agendas then sticker shock sets in, property taxes, capital gains etc.

1. $65 billion a yea health plan
2. $15 billion in green energy spending
3. $85 billion in tax cut and credits
4. $25 billion a yearincrease in foreign aid
5. $18 billion in education spnding

We are talking over $200 billion, $800 billion over 4 years plus other things I have not mentioned. The question you have to ask yourself is will Independents go for for this financial agenda of Obama's, I find it hard to believe they will.

You also fail to take into consideration a possible improving economy, if that should happen and it is a huge "if" that would undermine Obama's mantra for "change" the status quo will start looking good, and never underestimate the American penchant regardless of party to vote their pocketbook, in addition many impassioned young voters may lose their zeal to vote, they may need a cause like a poor economy to keep them motivated.

My belief is that the our party will either win razor thin or lose huge presidentially, having stated that I do think it is likely Democrats will make large gains in the house and some in the senate.

Only time will tell if I am correct in my assessments

--Heather

seaMBA, you describe yourself as an environmentalist. If so, you know that if we do not pass and sign an extremely strong CO2 emissions bill in the next 4 years then the tipping point will be reached and the planet doomed. Once the tipping point is passed, nothing can be done, ever. Game over.

Posted by euzoius at May 10, 2008 01:46 PM

That's not what the science says. You're a shrieking ninny.

Why don't you start at the beginning, I wrote this a few days ago on the Father of Global Warming:

The PDF below contains "On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground" by Svante Arrhenius. Published in 1896, it is the first scientific paper to make an attempt to quantify the impact of carbon dioxide on the Earth's greenhouse effect. The paper also suggests that variations in carbon dioxide levels have important components in long-term climate changes, including ice ages and other global warming episodes.

Arrhenius calculated, crudely due to the what could be accomplished in those days, that a doubling of carbon-dioxide would result in a five degree (Celsius) warming. This number is larger, but not greatly different, from the one-and-one-half to four-and-one-half degree warming we now currently estimate.

Combining these calculations with existing work suggesting that the burning of fossil fuels could significantly alter the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Högbom 1894), Arrhenius later became the first person to predict the possibility of man-made global warming. Ironically, his prediction of global warming was based upon a steady-state useage of the fossil fuel use of the late 1800s. We can only hope that we can achieve enough reduction that his prediction comes true in a mere 300 years, one-tenth what he predicted.

Arrhenius.pdf

I put the link to my article so you could read the first Global Warming Paper. Written in 1896.

Or this one, ironically titled: Damn Hippie Scientists which points out the plight of the Emperor Penguin which is suffering the same ecosystem challenges as the polar bear.

Or In Exxon We Trust... where I post Dr. Hansen's work that the Bushies tried to hide. Including the 75M rise in sea level if ALL the ice melts.

So, enough with the guilt-trip. Global warming is serious, but that doesn't mean it's going to end all life on the globe. Or extinct the human race. No matter how much you want to emo-guilt people into voting for Obama.

I mean, fuck, that's just the same fucking crap the fucking Bushies did. Vote Bush or you're all going to die.... Jesus fucking Christ, I can't fucking believe you did that. I am, you might be able to tell, seriously fucking pissed. That's just bullshit. Someone asks a serious question and it's condescension and Right Wing Scare tactics.

Green Party here I come. And baby, I live in a swing state.

Don't forget the Hispanic vote.

euzoius, thanks again for responding. It certainly helps me clarify my thinking. Yes, I know that GWB gave MBA's a bad name. And for quite a while, well, MBA's weren't exactly known for creative thinking. But trust me, I am not short sighted or did you miss the part about being a child in the 1970's (8 or 9 years old) recognizing that we needed to get off oil, back at a time when it would really have made a difference. I am very good at long term thinking, and that is why I am not convinced Obama is good for the long term health of the Democratic party. And the long term health of Democratic party ideals represents the long term health of America, the health of the planet, and ultimately the survival of our species. Is that long enough thinking for you?

I am not at all sanguine about passing the tipping point. And perhaps tarnished is not strong enough a word for you. But the end result is what is important -- no neocon, anti-science, anti-individual liberty people in office for a good long time, not simply for the next 4 years.

On a side note, I agree with Cygnus on every poster providing an age reference point.

heather, your analysis is spot on; it's a more detailed and comprehensive explanation for what i wrote earlier: "we are so screwed." i think it's time for me to go cry now.

p.s. cygnus and seamba: i'm 27. but unfortunately for obama, i also know my country's political history and its voting realities. (not to mention the fact that obama's a black ross perot 2.0 with a (D) after his name.)

Hey moses, my post wasn't directed to you, so I really couldn't care less how deeply "pissed" and insulted you are. If you don't like my answer to seaMBA, tough.

I'm not condescending to anyone, just telling them the situation. If you want to think that the tipping point isn't upon us, fine. But that's the reality, whether you blogged about it or not. And Hansen is one of the chief scientists talking about the tipping point being "near".

Your citing of the 1894 paper as though that's the current word on the science is comic. If you want to read something current, check out B. McKibben's articlein the NY Review of Books "Warning on Warming" (available online) which discusses the latest IPCC report.

And I didn't say that humans would go extinct or that global warming "would end all life on the globe"---that's your foolish misreading. Although scientists do estimate that many thousands of species will go extinct as the planet's climate irreversibly changes. Humans will survive anything, just like the cockroach and the rat, our boon companions.

Hansen's chief concern is that the urgency of the situation is not being taken seriously enough---you apparently don't know that.

The earth's 10,000 year old stable climate is in grave peril. It stands on the edge of being turned into a "totally different planet" as Hansen describes it. That's the reality. And the Repubs don't care--at all. Something very substantial must be passed to rein in CO2 emissions in the next four years. If you want to call that a "Right Wing scare tactic" so you can feel better about not supprting the party's likely nominee, that's your perogative.

And as for your personal insults to fellow progressive Dem---fuck you, you simpleton.

I'll start - I am a young 177!

Moses - awesome post up there!

(I am not Judith/JudithOne)

I am younger than Obama and older than an ipod.

"What other freedoms would you curtail if you were "President Obama"?

I would ban stupid trolls.

seaMBA - I have been reading this blog for many months--possibly as long as you and for the same reaons--and I believe your original post also describes my situation to a T. Thank you.

Moses - excellent retort to euzious.

euzious - you obviously have no clue as to the definition of condescending. You are as much of an ass as our one-brain-cell wonder, peter.

Judith/JudithOne - your first post on this thread coming right after my posts makes it look like you mean me. I sure hope not. Turkana welcomed me here so I stayed.

so nobody takes me for a troll - I am Judith at Tom Watson. I was Judith at Talkleft but I dont post there anymore.

Oy, Hillarians and their crying of "condescension"...

Some substance, some substance, my kingdom for some substance!

"stealth attack" metaphor...

Don Beal,your not getting it. Manapp99 has no clue on the meaning of the word 'metaphor' obviously, even after you explained it. He is also using the same old worn and tired tactic of redirecting this thread. Ignore him or it.

Judith/JudithOne - your first post on this thread coming right after my posts makes it look like you mean me. I sure hope not. Turkana welcomed me here so I stayed.

Young Judy, no. I was responding to the troll Manapp99. My comment followng yours was purely accidental.

I get so sick of these whinning, brainless wonders who come here and think they know what they are talking about.

I think I just did it again. Young Judith, your cool. I mean after the other night with Iamcoyote, we are bonded for life.

many thanks _ I like ya too, Judith/JudithOne.

:-)

I'll have to come back after the election. I can't take this.

Humans will survive anything, just like the cockroach and the rat, our boon companions.

euzoius, I will argue that the "chimp" is proof we have devolved.

I don't know how you hung there today?

As usual, I agree with most everything you say.

You called this retched division among Democrats months ago. Way before these new commenters got on board and decide to call TLC home.

To try and help the Hillary camp understand that a vote for Obama in the general election is the best thing for this country is futile. Let them sulk, let them whine... as far as I'm concerned they will be as responsible as the neo-cons for the downfall of the U.S.A.

Dang! Young Judith said what I was going to say.

As for age, let's just say I'm the same age as Paul McCartney's daughter, 'kay?

In that spirit, here's my take on the Obama/HRC conflict.

Hey, the Beatles always make me feel better. Especially with John mugging for the camera.

The Republican Party is now the Torture Party.

Does anyone have any doubts that the upcoming, election year Gitmo trials are anything but a politically motivated ploy by Republicans in the Torture Party to "fix" the 2008 elections by trying to get the U.S. public "fixated" on post-9/11 show trials, orchestrated years and years after any "fair and speedy" trials would have been possible??

The corrupt and evil in the tortured Republican Party apparently knows no limits.

In November, I will be voting straight Democratic Party, in the hopes of having elected Democrats reverse the blatantly fascist trend promoted for our country by the Republican Torture Party, but also in hopes that Democrats in Congress will conduct all the investigations necessary to root out all the evil that the Republican Torture Party has done to our nation, bringing charges against corrupt Republicans whenever and wherever possible, putting many of these soulless and anti-American individuals behind bars. And that a Democratic president will not attempt to block any of these investigations being conducted by Democrats in Congress, which will be a total reversal from what the corrupt Bush and Cheney have been doing over the time their sorry fascist asses were in the White House.

Which is why I think we should keep Gitmo open. However, we should remove all these "terrorist suspects" and relocate them stateside, thus making room at Gitmo for all the members of the Republican Torture Party once they've been tried and convicted, especially those tried and convicted for war crimes, like Bush and Cheney and all the tortured Republican lawyers in the Bush administration who've done so much damage to our democracy. I say, let's give them a dose of their own poisonous right-wing medicine, giving them a chance to reap what they've sown, firsthand, this lifetime. Then and only then can we, as a nation, put this sorry, Fascist Republican chapter behind us, and seek to heal the grievous wounds these Fascist Republicans have inflicted on our country.

"Humans will survive anything,"

...7+ years of Bush has proved that, and as long as 2 time Bush voters escape extinction guys like McCain can be president in the bleak future.

blue jean, that's cheating! He has 3!

;-)

What Paradox got for his dollar: a promise of change - what kind of change, who knows?
I think this is exactly right:
"one regretfully concludes that in this time and place, in your America, an extremely cautious, centrist-like, optimistic Democrat is all that was likely to emerge and survive". That is what Obama has clearly been saying he will be, which his most avid supporters refuse to hear. It will be an improvement but hardly a progressive dream come true. The thing that has encouraged me about Obama, once I got past the inanity of his campaign, is his responses to the Boston Globe questions on civil liberties, human rights, presidential powers, and international treaties. His responses were excellent, as were Hillary's.

blue jean, that's cheating! He has 3!

LOL! Depending on what you hear, he's got a lot more than that. ;-)

OK...just pick your favorite daughter then.

blue jean - nice musical reference. Quite eloquent...:-)

ok - I pick Heather's kid. In which case, go to bed young lady!

see you another day....

seaMBA, you're still not getting my point--the planet can't wait another four years. You're acting like Hillary is still in the running---she's not, she's lost. Time to accept it.

I'd suggest in the coming months some research as to how close to the abyss the earth's climate sits. Read the McKibben article I referenced to the friendly Mr. Moses above. Another do-nothing Repub president in 2009-2012 likely means the end of our climate, forever.

A Dem president means there's a chance. Which is the more important long term necessity for humanity--having a chance to protect our stable climate so it doesn't melt down from CO2 for 100,000 years or worrying about what supposed "harm" Obama will do to the Dem party if he's president?

SOS, thanks for the support. I thought maybe I was losing the ability to communicate!

the young judith: "I am younger than Obama and older than an ipod."

okay, that was adorable. :)

Obama and his supporters remind me of the Bush and his thugs in West Palm Beach in 2000. In fact, Obama seems to be another Bush with his divisive campaign and arrogance in declaring himself the winner on May 20th before all the votes have counted. His supporters screaming for the B*tch to get out only hardens my resolve to go vote ABBO- Anyone But Barack Obama. This new Democratic Party is not the party I signed on to. To me, this campaign has shown Obama Democrats to be as mean-spirited and vitriolic as Republicans - any very willing to NOT COUNT VOTES.

I will never forgive the way Obama and his minions seem so intent to not only beat Clinton, but want to totally humilate and destroy her. The treachery and betrayals by the so called "party elders" is breathtaking. I do not recognize this party anymore and do not care if they win. If fact, if Obama is the nominee I will use my vote not to vote FOR McCain but vote AGAINST Obama.

"Jesus what a rout it’s going to be."

I'm so old that I remember the old adage:

"Don't count your chickens before they hatch."

You say it will be an Obama blow out while I am afraid that he will be blown out.

You do not call half of the party six kinds of SOB and expect them to play kissy face and make up.

Just one man's opinion.

To try and help the Hillary camp understand that a vote for Obama in the general election is the best thing for this country is futile. Let them sulk, let them whine... as far as I'm concerned they will be as responsible as the neo-cons for the downfall of the U.S.A.

Wow, Seven of Six. That was awesome. Between that and your arrogant notion of "new" commenters calling TLC "home," you have done nothing to convince me that Obama supporters are at all concerned with the rest of the Democratic party. (Don't blogs depend on new traffic to survive and thrive? Or will you accept only pro-Obama traffic?)

I do not "owe" the Democratic party my vote simply because McCain is so awful. When you talk about "the downfall of the U.S.A.," you seem to be ignoring the 51% of us who are women. If you are a woman, you'll know what I mean when I say: I have taken harassment. I have taken assault. I have taken being passed over for promotions. I have taken being laid off because I was pregnant. I have taken story after story after story of women being raped, killed, assaulted -- often by the men who purport to "love" them -- and Barack Obama's silence on these issues is unconscionable.

Add to that the horrible instances of misogyny and sexism not only from Chris Matthews and his ilk, but also the "big" lefty bloggers and their hate-filled commenters, and I beg to differ with your assessment. The U.S.A., and Obama supporters in particular, owe every woman in this country a big fat fucking apology and an immediate about-face on women's issues. If you are a woman, I would guess that some part of what I'm saying resonates somewhere deep inside you. I don't owe anyone my vote. Obama should have been working his tail off to convince me that he has earned my vote.

To declare non-Obama voters responsible for the "downfall of the U.S.A" is laughable. If Obama takes this nomination, you will be BEGGING for the votes of the women he has disenfranchised. And then when we calmly say, "No, thank you," will you honestly be able to get behind your claim that we "owe" our vote to Barack Obama and the Democratic party and the U.S.A. and in fact the very fate of the world? Because it looks a lot different from this side of the gender divide -- at least for me and scores of other women.

Between that and your arrogant notion of "new" commenters calling TLC "home," you have done nothing to convince me that Obama supporters are at all concerned with the rest of the Democratic party.

If you weren't a drive by commenter, you would have known that I have always stated I will vote Democratic, either for Obama or Hillary.

BTW, Hillary's concern for the Democratic Party? Or is it her idea of self entitlement that reflects in each one of her supporters? Talk about arrogant!

(Don't blogs depend on new traffic to survive and thrive? Or will you accept only pro-Obama traffic?)

Some of us are regulars, we have been dismayed at the pro Hillary rhetoric from Steve's site. Most of us are all concerned about the division in the Party.

I feel that as long as Hillary is continuing with her campaign she is hurting the Party. But it is her right to keep going, so march on, no matter if hurts the Party or not. I think it's the wrong choice so I have nothing positive to say.

It's the blogfather's choice on how he runs his site.

The U.S.A., and Obama supporters in particular, owe every woman in this country a big fat fucking apology and an immediate about-face on women's issues.

Yes, yes... it's an issue that has been covered in depth here.

So if Obama ends up losing, are African-Americans going to demand a "big fat fucking" apology from Hillary supporters for slavery, lynchings, racial profiling and "an immediate about-face" on AA issues?

If Obama takes this nomination, you will be BEGGING for the votes of the women he has disenfranchised.

Please, vote your conscious.
Besides, this Primary isn't over... so until she concedes or all the unpledged delegates jump over to Obama then it's, "full speed ahead!"
Until it's finalized, I'll reason with Hillary supporters. When it's over then I'll beg.

The progress our Country needs to accomplish in the next 4 years trancends any person. Our only possible chance comes from whomever the Democratic nominee is.

If you're a Mother, tinfoil hattie, Happy Mother's Day!

There is an absolutely overwhelming sense of entitlement coming from the Clinton supporters here.
We've all supported primary candidates who did not win, a category which now includes Clinton. You're then faced with a choice between the candidates still in the race - that would be Obama and McCain.
Vote how you will. If you prefer the lifelong proponent of banning abortion, with one of the most anti-choice legislative records in the nation, go for it. If you want to be absolutely certain that we'll have a large army in Iraq in 4 years, go for. Tax cuts for the rich; huge budget deficits; no action on health care, climate change, and so on. These things are certain consequences of a McCain victory.

Apologies? Clinton owes her supporters an apology for running an ineffective, divise, and dishonest campaign. Her supporters should properly be angry at her advisors. Or, perhaps, they might wish to read the NYTimes editorial board (which, remember, endorsed her.) Or Joe Conason, a stalwart Clinton supporter. Or hilzoy over at Obsidian Wings; she's a thoughtful person and hardly a gunslinger. When you see enough sources outside the campaign, many highly sympathetic at first, say that the campaign has gone off the rails, done and said things in a destructive way, and so on - at some point it's worth thinking that the blame isn't in the Obama camp. Or you can lash out.

mark: heh. well now that you put it that way, i prefer mccain. thanks for helping me make up my mind. good luck in the GE; you're gonna need it!

The U.S.A., and Obama supporters in particular, owe every woman in this country a big fat fucking apology and an immediate about-face on women's issues.

I get pissed the more I think about this line!
Why the fuck do "Obama supporters in particular, owe every woman in this country a big fat fucking apology?"
You should have left at "the U.S.A."!
It's society as a whole, the media especially, who doesn't highlight the plight of women.

mark: heh. well now that you put it that way, i prefer mccain. thanks for helping me make up my mind. good luck in the GE; you're gonna need it!

What fucking DRAMA!!!
Don't fucking complain ONCE in the future about the direction this country is taking.
Oh, but if Hillary was President... everything would be fantastic. She would be doing it this way... not that way... clutch the pearls... just don't fucking complain!

Drama queen Seven coming to the forefront.

Nice touch with the "Happy Mother's Day". Very well done. I'll second that notion Seven.

Happy Mother's Day!

Hey supporter of bu$h criminality and local scum bag... fuck off!

Judith/JudithOne - new name for you:

JudyBunny!

Seven of six - listen dude - cool yer pits. Nobody has to decide yet...nobody has won yet.

Kangaroo - thanks :-).

my, my, don't we have our knives out now?

"Don't fucking complain ONCE in the future about the direction this country is taking."

don't worry, i won't.

I get it now kangeroo... you're one of those waiting for Hillary in 2012... some of us can't afford another 4 years. I know most of my family members can't.

The empathy for the U.S. from Hillary supporters is underwhelming.

you don't get it. if obama gets the nomination, hillary wants me to vote for him--she's been unequivocally clear about that (unlike obama). unfortunately for him though, i'm not an automaton. i know what obama is and what he will do to our party and to the country, and the potential repercussions are massive.

the short-sighted, immediate gratification-hungry voters in germany thought hitler was going to save their country, too. and hey, whaddya know, according to some of obama's supporters, he did!

- - The empathy for the U.S. from Hillary supporters is underwhelming - -

I am underwhelmed by this kind of emotional blackmail.

I support Clinton because she is the one fighting for the hurting of the country.

So far, Obama's supporters like Pelosi and Kerry havent done squat.

i know what obama is and what he will do to our party and to the country, and the potential repercussions are massive.

You know for sure?

And McShame is the answer?

Wow... You folks have "lost your bearings'.

I am underwhelmed by this kind of emotional blackmail.

Oh please. I hear that 3 AM call right now.

Funny fucks!

hey - quit saying "you folks" please - you are addressing one person.

ya know, 7of6 - from your family postings I can tell you are having a rough ride. Been there myself for some of those things. Being the youngest in a very large family and having cared for both my parents - by myself - at a very young age until they passed I can sense your punchiness. So I cut you slack. But you are insulting me becuase I wont just switch from one candidate to another because you say so or I am a bad person. Truly - unimpressive attempt at emotional balckmail. And up yours nicely for pretending it has anything to do with a 3am phone call.

Truly - unimpressive attempt at emotional balckmail.

What part about vote your conscious don't you understand?

No, you mean I should vote yours.

Seven, sounds like you a tad worried given that you are already thinking about 2012. Tough noogies. This was suppose to be a primary not the total annihilation of one of our own (another repugnican trait, I might add). You reap what you sow. And forget about holding Roe v Wade over heads. Doncha know, Hillary's hags don't need it!

I love Moses!!

P.S. To SoS: it's 'conscience' not 'conscious'.

Young Judy;

LOL on the Beatrice bit! And thanks. Glad to see another Beatles fan.

You're right. Everybody needs to cool their jets a little and step back for a moment. Like it or not, both Obama voters and HRC voters need each other if we're going to beat McPain in November.

Kangeroo,

I know where you're coming from, but FL and MI WILL be seated at the convention; it's political suicide else. Maybe half the delegates will be taken from them, or maybe some other penalty. I don't know, but let's hold our fire until the last state has voted.

In the meantime, everyone, let's keep our powder dry. Sniping at the other side's voters helps no one but Republicans, like peter (Ick!).*

*Yes, I know I've been as guilty as anyone else. As Captain Kirk once said "We know we're killers, but we're not going to kill today." We know we're snipers, but we're not going to snipe today. (except at peter).

McCain just voted against the Fair Pay Act.
If you vote for him, or stay home and not support the Democratic nominee and the Democratic platform, Phylis Shafley is your sister.

McCain voted against supporting the troops.
With a sadistic explanation that it would give them too many options.

McCain has 59 registered lobbyists working on his campaign.
If you dont think he is a fascist, think again.

McCain was against torture before he was for it.

McCain did not support the government transparency legislation when he agreed to work with Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama had to find another member to work with him.

McCain will expand the war into Iran. He is a neo con in sheeps clothing. He has already pissed off the Russians.

Cindy McCains money has its origins in the Las Vegas Mafia. Her father did time in jail for Kemper Marley, and Hensley was rewarded with the beer distributorship. A reporter was killed in a car bomb investigating Marley. The mafia financed McCains initial run for office.

Barry Goldwater deeply regretted supporting John McCain. Goldwater was an honorable man, something McCain can never be no matter how the media tries to spin his character.

Is this the man you want for president? If not what can you do if you are part of the reality based community?
Vote for the Democratic nominee in November.

Sen. Barack Obama admitted today that he stopped wearing an American flag lapel pin out of fear that friend and domestic terror group founder William Ayers would “step on my chest.”
...
There’s nothing shadowy about this - it’s an extension of what the Obama campaign has been doing since he entered the race. He’s building a new Democratic infrastructure, regimenting it under his brand, and enlisting new technologies and more sophisticated voter contacting techniques to turn it from a normal GOTV effort into a lasting movement. h/t corrente
...
If Hillary gets the nomination, the AA’s blame racism and stay home.

If Obama gets the nomination, we get Dukakis II, and the AA’s (and the OFB) blame Hillary.

Sounds lose-lose to me.

peter, that pin crap makes anybody who talks about look like a dope. Like the man said:

"Go sell crazy somewhere else"

blue jean, it's not the votes i'm worried about. i'm worried about this being a hostile takeover, and just who, and how many people, are stacking the deck against hillary--which is why i'm not going to hold back and keep quiet. there's something very wrong going on here and obama's in the middle of it--which is why i don't want to have anything to do with him anymore.

the MSM is obviously rooting for hillary to lose--hell, they've declared her candidacy over in a historically unprecedented way, despite how close the race is--and that HAS to have an effect on voters, sooner or later. they're deliberately depressing voter turnout. so the real question we should be asking is this: why the f*ck are they doing this?!

a couple of observant comments on this question from derridog and alibe over at noquarter:

Comment by derridog | 2008-05-11 14:23:18

You’re absolutely right. The question that bothers me is why they want her out so badly. This likely means that the corporations don’t want the Clintons because they know how the government runs and historically have put the brakes on corporate greed. But the other question is: do they want Obama because McCain can knock him out easily or do they want Obama because he’s their guy -they put him up to this because he’s in their pockets and they want to take over the Democratic Party and knock all the progressives out of it and leave us with only easily ignored third parties.

I think the latter.

Comment by alibe | 2008-05-11 15:34:12

Me thinks you got it. By Jove I think you definitely have it. One party. No such thing as partisan politics. Just one party…bought and paid for. Same party, different spelling. Fascism by any name is spelled the same.

also see the comments here and here.

there are huge red warning signs all OVER the place re: obama's campaign, and i'm not going to be an ostrich about it. if my worst fears about obama end up being realized, then i'd rather be one of those who fought and lost than one who thoughtlessly and even cheerfully enabled him.

Mark Penn stacked the deck against Hillary. Obama had the better ground game. Hillary and Obama have been beaten up. They are both good candidates in their own way. Each has strengths, but only one can get the nomination.

The reason some are calling for her to drop out is so Obama can spend his money on attacking McCain. Some people are worried the Clintons will not use a more concillatory tone. Bill and Hillary have said some really uncalled for things about Obama after NC and IN that were mostly not necessary in the long run.

Hillary should be focused more on promoting her positives instead of attacking the presumptive nominee. Hillary should go on until one of them has the delegate count if she would run on her positives. It is important for the Democratic Party and the Democratic platform.

Those are the reasons.

Obama has been supported by 1.4 million individual people in America. I dont think a one party conspiracy could have arranged that. Use some logic here.

shano, you're a couple of steps behind. catch up on all of the facts, will ya? repeating obama's talking points will get you nowhere.

btw, obama will lose the GE. in the meantime the more important question for me is whether the democratic party, as FDR envisioned and built it, is about to be destroyed and remade in obama's image (yay!).

P.S. To SoS: it's 'conscience' not 'conscious'.

Thanks, I sat there stupified trying to remember how it was spelled.

It's time to kick the ineffectual Dino Dems (republi-con lite) (Rockefeller) and Blue Dogs (Hoyer) to the curb. The only way to do that is with new leaders. It's a youth movement, new politics, not the same old politics as usual.

Mark Penn was the worst thing to happen to Hillary. He's the main reason for me not siding with her. Nobody is going to be a cure all. I've always gone with the lesser of evils.

Sorry kangeroo, the Obama/Nazi schitck is pretty much the last grasp, isn't it? Sad, where did this thesis come from?

"as FDR envisioned and built it..."

Hey, you got some nice talkin' points there as well, kangaroo. How does the loss of southern white voters 30 years ago fit into your "about to be destroyed" scheme?

And please tell us what "obama's image" means to you, and exactly what would be so heinous about it. Please also make sure to quote his statements about the "new party" he's building, he must have said quite a bit about this momentous plan on his part.

(reads all replies. Throws up hands.)

if you don't see the similarities between what's going on now and signs that preceded some of the worst regimes the world's ever seen, then i'm not going to sit here and explain it to you. you'll see for yourself sooner or later.

all i'll say is that if you think obama is anything "new" or "left" or "progressive," you're in for a huge disappointment. he's history repackaged, 2.0.

and unlike some of you obama folks, i'd actually rather be wrong than right about all of this. only time will tell which is the case.

You have one vote kangaroo. (are you an American?)

The Democrat (possibilty of positive change)
The Republican (expand the neo con agenda, shrink the middle class)
or
throwing your vote away on a hopeless third party candidate.

I know, it sucks. But join the reality based community if you want to make a difference.

Maybe the guy Kang..roo is worried about is Auchi, N Auchi...living in Chicago. Is he pulling Obama's strings?

"it’s an extension of what the Obama campaign has been doing since he entered the race. He’s building a new Democratic infrastructure, regimenting it under his brand, and enlisting new technologies and more sophisticated voter contacting techniques to turn it from a normal GOTV effort into a lasting movement. h/t corrente"

Wonder....

kangaroo, i've been investigating new parties, and my state has several that seem promising. when we lose this one that was a gimme, the Democratic Party is going to be finished anyway, now is a good time to investigate the options so we're ready to pick up the pieces of this debacle.

aplae, i hear you, but i'm still pissed off as hell at obama's coup attempt, and i'm going to try my damnedest to get this f*cking hijacker off the plane before i jump off myself and start looking at 3rd parties.

i think commenter chancellor over at talkleft put it marvelously:

[A]s I see it, this year, the will of the voters is going to mean less than the power struggle going on within the Beltway Dems--aided and abetted by some in the blogosphere. The Mountain States are seen by these "new coalition" Dems as representing the best opportunity to counter the Southern Strategy of the Repubs.

As best I can tell, there are many in the Dem party who would like to write off the South entirely as an electoral strategy. This would mean being able to throw out the influence of the Carters, the Gores and the Clintons. Of course, they can't do this without replacement states to make up the votes. What they're hoping is that they can cobble together enough Libertarians in the Mountain States and the border states, such as Virginia and Missouri, to re-draw the electoral map. Obama is the candidate that they chose to draw these voters into the Dem fold.

The problem is that the big electoral votes are still in states where the voter demographics favor Clinton. IMO, the neo-Libertarians will do anything to stop Clinton in order to execute the first part of their strategy--including taking a loss in the GE, as long as they think they can pick up the congressional races. They're trying to prove a point here, IMO, whether or not it means winning back the White House. There's also a problem in that Libertarians are not Democrats, so we are seeing a fight not just for votes but for values. . . .

My guess is that they believe it's now or never, and that due to the state of the economy, the Iraq war/occupation and Bush's approval ratings, this is the time for the coup.

BTW, I do believe it is an attempt at an internal coup. IMO, the comments by Brazile were a slip-up in her anger--we weren't supposed to know that we were being told to go to the back of the bus and stay there, at least not until November. However, now that the plan is out there, you have people like Chris Bowers and Matt Stoller extolling the virtues of the new, neo-Libertarian party, formerly known as the Democrats. Maybe they think we'll change our minds once they tell us how wonderful everything is going to be under the new order. It's Animal Farm redux, best I can tell.

Obama can't do what needs to be done -- only the unrest of the working people (who Obama supporters do not,unfortunately, believe the party need to even pretend to represent anymore) and their ability to organize, disrupt, protest, serve consequences on the elite and "creative" class can do that. The only question to ask of any candidate seeking to be president is this; how will they react when that day arrives? With bloody suppression? With fear of the powerful corporate media and the way it can destroy them? With concern first and foremost for the protection always given the powers that be? By trying to be poplar with all people rather than calling out wrong doers and seeking justice? Will they listen and respond to working class frustration and demands? Will they dismiss the average Americans faced with increasingly untenable economic condition as merely "bitter" losers, or will they understand that if they don't listen and deal with them as equals worthy of respect, as citizens with a right to representation, as people whose perspective on economic issues is as legitimate, and based on more real experience and experimentation, than the brightest boys from the Chicago School of Economics, whose hard work, creativity, flexibility, spare change, well-being and mobility has provided our nation's economy's strength?

I think many in the Obama movement are naive about, or in deep denial of, the great crisis this nation faces. They want a candidate who makes them feel good -- which is a candidate who doesn't act as if any of the problems are overly serious or likely to affect their lives deeply or detrimentally.

All this velvet glove treatment of the messiah Obama is starting to make me nauseated! Ohhhhh don't say anything bad about Obama he is the "presumptive nominee blahhhhhhh blahhhhhhh spare me!

I am sick of this white guilt nonsense that Obama has to be the first African American president elected to make up for all the white racist supremacist past so we can absolve our white conscious guilt of our ancestors.

Thats what it is all about and everyone is afraid to admit it. How can a little known African American from the Illinois State legislature with little experience and an incomplete term in the
senate can be so close to the nomination?

We all know the answer to that now don't we. Oh he speaks so eloquently off a prepared memorized speech or teleprompter but when he speaks contemporaneously its his sentence structure is laced with long pauses ummmmmm's ahhhhhh's and other gramatical imperfections his pauses are so long enough for rip van winkle's nap time. It is like he has to make sure his lies are accurate and nothing he says he will be caught in a lie.

Obama is a con artist a hustler that refuses to pay his dues of experience, [I want the presidency and I want it yesterday]

In the state legislature he voted "present" over 120 times yet the media and his supporters allow him to get away with that garbage, goodness he"s African American don't you dare be critical of him you bad racist! Well what do you know the presidency has become an affirmative action program Senator Hillary Clinton had to spot the sainted Obama with a handicap.

Meanwhile the race card is being played against Hillary by Obama surrogates media included and everything that Bill or Hillary say about race is deliberately taken out of context and they are indirectly accused of racism and being racists! Good Grief!

Meanwhile Obama and Co. are using sexist code words against Senator Clinton many on air media Journalists make a point of saying Senator Barack Obama and just "Hillary" in the same sentence structure as to demean her stature and importance no no she is not Senator Hillary Clinton, no no she's just plain 'ol "Hillary" I have no problem with that if it were just a sentence structure focused on her, but when using both names then equality applies. Sexism is peachy dandy these days but say anything critical of our precious presumptive nominee we will tar and feather you! Get over yourself! that is a media invention... there is no formal status of presumptive nominee crapola you are either a nominee our you are not! Lets stop acting like social morons.

Senator Clinton You go girl! Do what you need to do

--Heather!