MyDD :: tiny tent dems

tiny tent dems

by Jerome Armstrong, Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:12:02 PM EST

Basically (via BTD): "Their hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton has become more important to them than Obama's chances of winning in November."

After being gone a week and coming back to the situation at hand with a fresh view, that about sums it up.

This, in the context of a discussion about how Clinton is no longer considered a Democrat by many Obama supporters, because she dares to wage a hard-nosed campaign against Obama. The irony being that Clinton leads among Democratic voters in this nomination battle.

Update [2008-4-18 4:29:40 by Jerome Armstrong]: For the record, I am Big Tent Democrat. What Obama has done to bring in Millenial youth to the Democratic Party has been terrific. What Clinton has done in bringing in more Latino and Women voters has been just as exciting. Competitive primaries never hurt anyone, as long as those who both win, and lose, don't go to the extent of kicking the other side out of the Democratic Party.

Tags: 2008 election (all tags)

Permalink :: 310 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: tiny tent dems (2.00 / 9)

"Many" A few ardently shrill bloggers doesn't not mean "many". I would not, nor would any of my Obama supporting friends, think to question Senator Clinton's democratic creds.

Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome

by kasjogren on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:14:34 PM EST

Re: tiny tent dems (2.00 / 2)

exactly. another smokescreen.

semantics aside, is this thread any better then the ABC's Tabloid Debate?

there's better topics out there. I'm sure of it.

by alex100 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Indeed. (2.00 / 1)

Tom Watson has an EXCELLENT analysis on this topic:

http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/ 2008/04/the-small-d-dem.html

I'm United Methodist. I already have a Messiah.

by KnowVox on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:11:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Indeed. (2.00 / 2)

kos was a gung-ho republican back in the reagan-bush one era. he hasn't been a democrat long enough for me to place much value on who he thinks is a democrat and who isn't. i worked on campaigns starting in 1968, and had the job of putting the party back together in 1972, 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000, and 2004 after people like kos helped pick the nominees.

by campskunk on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 09:47:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Kos was a Cato Fellow? How about a link? (none / 0)

I did a search on this topic and couldn't find anything to confirm it.

by AdrianLesher on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:32:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Kos not a cato fellow (none / 0)

Neither Wikipedia nor the Cato Institute site lists Kos as a Cato fellow. Is your claim meant to be intentionally misleading, or is it just sloppy mudslinging?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Instit ute
http://www.cato.org/people/fellows.html

by AdrianLesher on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:48:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There is so much sock puppetry (none / 0)

and light and mirrors in Orange that it is impossible to know how many of the haters are real.
It would be so cool to see the place exposed from top to bottom. I'm guessing 5 or 6 hired hands make up 90% of the gas.

by internetstar on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:19:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is so much sock puppetry (2.00 / 1)

How does it help your favored site to denegrate another, supposedly philisophically aligned (at least w.r.t. the big picture), website?

Isn't that in essence the same issue that this blog post is supposed to be combating?

John McCain wants to make abortion illegal

by Lost Thought on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:25:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is so much sock puppetry (none / 0)

Um no, have you checked the UIDs there?

by interestedbystander on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:27:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So there is a law saying (none / 0)

only one id per location?

by internetstar on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:27:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There is so much sock puppetry (2.00 / 3)

You have zero evidence for that.

People made the same baseless charges when Daily Kos was dominated by Edwards supporters (virtually all of 2007 and much of January 2008). I was accused repeatedly of that.

The charges were false about me then and likely are now.

There are many reasons why Daily Kos is dominated by Obama supporters, but I do to think sockpuppetry is among the valid ones.

by TomP on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:50:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was on Daily Kos long enough (none / 0)

to know what was going on. And as you know, proving it would take a major endeavor, which is exactly why they get away pulling the crap that they pull.
Interesting how your spelling has improved.

by internetstar on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I was on Daily Kos long enough (none / 0)

According to polls, they must also have multiple phone numbers. And multiple "college student at rally" disguises.

4 years of McCain = 4 more years of Bush.

by ashriver on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:28:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: tiny tent dems (none / 0)

Seconded.

by LarsThorwald on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:32:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: tiny tent dems (none / 0)

We will see what kind of DEM she is after June 3 - I am withholding judgment until then. There has been just TOO much hate from her and her campaign for me to forgive and forget quickly.

It will extremely important for Obama to reach out to Clinton supporters, I think he will do that. He does need her to say its alright to support him.

Last night was tough for me. She very easily could have sidestepped the negativity of the first 40 minutes. Instead she piled on, useless gotcha bullshit. Obama had a similar opportunity with her Bosnia comments, he took the high road. You wonder why 1.5m people have donated to this man's campaign.

'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'

by stryan on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:34:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

too much hate.... (none / 0)

i agree with that. i must chuckle when i hear the Hillary supporters (I will say openly that I would vote for whichever Democrat wins the primary) talking about the Obama haters out here. i have never seen any Hillary supporters called the types of names that I was at sites like No Quarter. apparently i am a traitor, troll, and an enemy because i caucused for Obama in Seattle, WA. um. they're sick, folks.

by funknjunk on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:38:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: too much hate.... (none / 0)

Funny ... I lost all rating ability yesterday in the great Obama purge of 2008 ... I have been troll rated 2X in over 200 posts since March ... soviet style suppression ... America, 2008! =)

'The only people for me are the mad ones, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing ...'

by stryan on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:50:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

many, not most (2.00 / 1)

Well, cleaning up the place around here, separating out the haters, I happened to notice more than a few.

by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:12:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How and why did this hatred develop? (2.00 / 9)

I mean, I understand not agreeing with a policy or a program or a personal issue - but we're talking about absolute hatred - the dripping, nasty, evil kind of emotion that is beyond understanding.

How?

Why?

The Clintons, for better or worse, have devoted their lives to public service and, on the whole, have been good individuals, and good democrats.

What in the world happened?

I simply do not understand it. And the fact that Hillary will still stand by the party after what it has done to her is unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.

by CoyoteCreek on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:16:15 PM EST

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (2.00 / 1)

There's been plenty of nastiness to go around, so lets get off the soap box. Hillary has been relentless, as she has every right to be, and both sides have bruised feelings at this point. We will ALL need to get over it once we have a nominee.

by HSTruman on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:21:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Did you read Jerome's post? (2.00 / 3)

It's about hatred for the Clintons, not who has been nastier in the campaign.

"Their hatred of Bill and Hillary Clinton has become more important to them than Obama's chances of winning in November."

And my question related specifically to that issue.

How? Why? Do you hate the Clintons so much?

I would really like to understand and I am not standing on any soapbox...I'm plenty tall on my own.

by CoyoteCreek on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:36:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you read Jerome's post? (2.00 / 1)

Jerome, god love him, has a viewpoint on this contest that's pretty clear. So do you and so do I. My point, which I guess you missed, is that the campaign has contained sufficient nastiness to prop up both sides complaints about the oppositions' "hatred" for their candidate. By and large, it's all a bunch of BS.

I prefer Obama, so I'm more likely to notice ugly attacks against him. The opposite is true of you. The difference, as I see it, is that I'm not going to try and argue that Obama is pure as the fallen snow. Jerome's post, and your comments, make this seem as if things are all stacked against the Clintons. Which, frankly, is laughable if you actually watched the first 45 minutes of the debate last night.

Glad to hear you're tall though -- congrats.

by HSTruman on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:58:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you read Jerome's post? (none / 0)

I happen to view what Obama has done for the Democratic Party as fantastic, especially among the youth, millennial generation. I have the same viewpoint among Latino voters for Clinton.

by Jerome Armstrong on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:16:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you read Jerome's post? (2.00 / 1)

Don't forget the really older female voters that she has brought out.

"The Bumble Bee flies because it thinks it can."

by LadyEagle on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:29:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you read Jerome's post? (none / 0)

I agree with you. And as long as we get a nominee -- whoever that is -- by shortly after the primaries end, I think we will all end up saying that the drawn out process was good for the process precisely because we will keep drawing all the groups you mentioned out to the polls to vote for democratic candidates.

by HSTruman on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:37:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you read Jerome's post? (2.00 / 3)

But when you go to HuffingtonPost aka Obamingpost, when you go to daily kos, there is personal vitriol against Hillary as a human being that I have never read against Senator Obama.
The worst I have hear Senator Obama called was an empty suit, an elitist, or a silvery tongues politician.
On the other hand, supposedly progressives have called Senator Clinton a lying b*tch, a wh*re, and worst of all, a racist.

It has literally stunned me.

by Jjc2008 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:36:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you read Jerome's post? (2.00 / 1)

You must not pay attention to the diaries around here if you haven't seen equal vitriol against Obama. But ultimately, it's worth remembering that such comments and supporters are not representative of either campaign. If I equated the worst anti-Obama tangents to Senator Clinton, I would never vote for her in a GE. But I know that's not accurate, so I'll have no problem supporting her if she's the nominee. At the end of the day, both candidates are good democrats -- even if their respective supporters sometimes forget that fact in the heat of the moment.

by HSTruman on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:39:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Did you read Jerome's post? (2.00 / 1)

I did read the post and I know both candidates get some pro and con HERE. On the other hand dkos and Huffington have been spewing anti Clinton hate for a long time. I came here for some honest discussions.
Instead some of the same vitriolic folks from dkos have now come here too. It's like they cannot stand Hillary supporters having a place to discuss the pros and cons......
What's really funny is that I found this place on dkos...hearing it described as the Obama hating, militant pro Hillary blog. I got here and honestly laughed out loud. The first three diaries I read were pro Obama (granted they did not contain the vitriol of dkos diarists). And then I read a pro Hillary diary. And this is what dkos calls a militantly pro Hillary place. Give me a break.
And I had been reading trash attacks on Jerome Armstrong on dkos long before I came here. I thought for a while Jerome was some neocon troll who was going to left wing blogs to trash democrats. Lo and behold he is a Hillary supporter. Amazing

by Jjc2008 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:54:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No! no, No, NO! (none / 0)

"Equal vitriol" my ass.

From Tom Waton's page, linked by Jerome:

last night on dKos, Senator Clinton was referred to as "a vile succubus," "a vile excuse for a human being," "a complete scumbag," "that monster," and multiple versions of liar, some with gender-specific modifiers - and that was just one thread.

Show me any thread that contains even one reference to Obama that is comparable to these slurs, never mind four like these. You can't do it because it doesn't happen. I don't even see him being slimed that badly by the Freepers. Clinton faces it daily from members of her own party.

Obama supporters are so sensitive that the minute someone says something like "he's inexperienced" they think he's being totally trashed. Clinton and her supporters are subject to slams like this continually.

by creeper1014 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: No! no, No, NO! (none / 0)

Clearly you've never read any of Universal's posts.

Further, Dkos has a far larger number of diarists - and responders than you'll find here. "Liar" is hardly the prerogative of anti-Clinton sentiment - that you've found a few whose vocabulary includes other choice adjectives isn't surprising.

Furthermore, there are worse ways to attack one's character than by use of the slurs you've mentioned. Take that darlin' blogger, for example, whose site spouts right wing propaganda - or the many hateful and taunting diaries that get rec'd on this site with the regularity of Old Faithful. The use (or lack thereof) of creative adjectives lends little support to your explanation.

If you're wondering at the polarization that has occurred among Democrats, look no further than the righteous indignation of comments such as yours - comments that are absurd to anyone of an opposing opinion that has had to hold their own in the midst of a tsunami of negativity and intolerance.

It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel

by Sumo Vita on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:39:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big Orange (2.00 / 1)

I am fully aware of the number of posters on dKos. I left a two-year TU status behind when I gave up blogging there.

I note that in your response you still have provided no examples of vicious slurs against Obama. I was kind of hoping for a link.

My point remains intact.

by creeper1014 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:24:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big Orange (none / 0)

I have no desire to participate in any pointless "Is not/Is too" argument about which side is more vicious.

I have even less of a desire to supply you with links to perceived slights. The more angelic you believe your side to be, the likelier the chance that you'd be too partisan to even recognize a slur on the opposing candidate - even were it served up to you on a plate with bernaise sauce.

Good luck with your intact point - may it bring you comfort.

It is not because I cannot explain that you won't understand. It is because you won't understand that I cannot explain. - Elie Wiesel

by Sumo Vita on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 11:20:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree. The hatred is personal with HRC. (2.00 / 1)

I, literally, sit with my mouth open when I read some of the horrible, vile things that are said of her.

by CoyoteCreek on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:30:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Please, don't make me dig up (2.00 / 1)

some of the numerous out of bounds name calling against Obama. Just this morning, some little hotheaded fellow called him scum, etc. etc.. The Hillary fanatics' hands are far from clean on this issue.

It's been an education for us Obama supporters, too, believe me, a real eye opener, that there would be Democrats who could summon up such vitriolic hatred for such a nice guy.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:46:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (2.00 / 5)

I feel the same way. I am just bewildered--and devastated--that the Democratic Party has turned on the Clintons.

These are the good guys. We're not supposed to be a character-attack party at all, but when we finally turn it on full bore we go after our own people?

by Trickster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:21:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (2.00 / 2)

OMG, hyperbole much? The democratic party has turned on the Clintons? First of all, what a blogger says is not a bread and butter representation of a normal democrat. That is like saying a freeper is a standard republican.

I mean, just calm down. Everyone is all up in arms cause it's "go time" but only a very small minority on both sides are going this far and like the dude with tourettes at the bus stop it's just better to ignore it.

Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome

by kasjogren on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:25:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (2.00 / 2)

If you think I'm communicating a sentiment that just arose in the last 5 minutes because of something Kos linked to, you're way way off.

I have been re-evaluating, for the first time ever, my 36-year relationship to the Democratic Party very seriously for at least a month now. Basically, if the Party is going to trash Clinton and start praising Reagan, I'm not going along for the ride.

by Trickster on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:29:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (none / 0)

"I have been re-evaluating, for the first time ever, my 36-year relationship to the Democratic Party very seriously for at least a month now. Basically, if the Party is going to trash Clinton and start praising Reagan, I'm not going along for the ride."

Ditto here, that is exactly how I feel, and those are the lines along which I will decide where to put my time, money, and energy in the future. The Obama campaign has already permanently alienated me, the bridges are long burned there. The rest of the Democratic Party has turned on the Clintons to a degree I would not have fathomed before, it is unconscionable. The things that have been said about Hillary Clinton are so over the top I won't ever be supporting most of these Dems again.

I think the Left has long been horrifically abusive to the Republicans, even the moderates, and the more respectable ones who simply disagree out of a different perspective. I doubt that we notice as much when they are being debased in their attacks on the right, we don't notice until it is leveled at someone we think well of, then it becomes clear how outrageous and disgusting it really is.

by 07rescue on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:58:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (none / 0)

Basically, if the Party is going to trash Clinton and start praising Reagan

Well if that were happening you might have something. Not much but something. Clinton is going to lose because of Clinton. She ran a bad campaign, she didn't see the threat Obama posed to what SHOULD have been an easy coast to the nomination, and she was too loyal to people who were out of touch with America and it cost her.

The democratic party on whole is trying to push her out, not because they OMG WTF BBQ hate the Clintons but because she has already lost and most people can see that if they take an honest look. Not handing Senator Clinton a nomination fight she lost is not hating or turning on her. It is just trying to get everyone on the same page cause we have a third Bush term to start running against.

Tony Romo for Secretary of Awesome

by kasjogren on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:36:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The "kitchen sink" strategy (2.00 / 1)

was started by the Clintons, and it hasn't helped. Face it, people, if Hillary had run a better campaign, she would be the nominee by now, but she had the wrong message (more of the same DLC orthodoxy that has laid the democratic party low for the last few decades) and jaw-droppingly inept management. Voting to invade Iraq and then not apologizing for sure didn't help, either.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:30:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

WRONG! (Sorry to yell). (2.00 / 3)

Paul Lukasiak had a post up at FireDogLake that talks about race and gender and polls, etc.
--------------

In the comment section he responds to this quote from an Obama supporter who said this: "I agree that Clinton's negative image was built on a myth UNTIL she started sounding like a Repub, trashing Obama and seems to be going for a scorched policy - that she is going to take Obama out and damn the consequences. I was an Edwards backer because I liked his policies. When he dropped out, I decided that I would probably support Clinton. Now, however, I cannot."

Lukasiak's response:

"Is it a timing thing? Because all the Democrats, including Obama, did whatever they could to "scorch earth" Hillary's chances starting in September. I don't know if people just forget about it, or don't think it matters, but Hillary Clinton was running a relentlessly positive, issue oriented campaign through last September -- in fact all the candidates were up until that point. But no one was getting any real traction -- Hillary's numbers went up all summer, and Obama's went down, Edwards couldn't get media and languished in third place, and there were another half -dozen "WHO?" candidates.

Running positive against Clinton wasn't working, so everyone, including Obama (except for Richardson) went negative on her -- attacking her relentlessly to drive up her negatives so they would have a shot.

So is it just the timing? Or have people forgotten about that.

And, when it comes to "scorched earth" campaign tactics, nothing beats the "swift-boating" of the Clinton on the race issue in South Carolina by the Obama campaign and its supporters. And it was "swift-boating", it was a big fat lie that Clinton was running a racist campaign, and the accusation made no sense; given the demographics of South Carolina, why would Clinton choose to start running racist then?

So again, I ask, have people just forgotten how we got where we are, or is it a question of timing? Is it okay to pull sh*t early in a primary season, but not later because of the potential impact it will have on the general election?"

by CoyoteCreek on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:39:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell). (2.00 / 2)

Is it scorched earth to point out Hillary's vote on AUMF? And was it okay for Bill to try and tie Obama in with Jesse Jackson?

John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion

by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:48:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And that's your reason to HATE the Clintons? (2.00 / 3)

By the way, racists don't quote Jesse Jackson and LBJ to make their points. And why in the world would the Clintons begin a racist kitchen sink campaing just before the SC primary - considering the demographics of that state?

by CoyoteCreek on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:55:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And that's your reason to HATE the Clintons? (2.00 / 1)

Because they knew it was going to be a loss, and it was the last primary before SUPER TUESDAY. It's spinning expectations - the black guy wins the black state, and now on to real americans.

Nobody said that they're racists but I'm sure they knew what they were doing. I've seen it done before. I'm a southerner and I grew up with this stuff. Pat Buchanan, who made his bones doing this saw it as it was happening and called the Clinton strategy a success.

by Mostly on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:18:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell). (2.00 / 1)

And your point is what? That Jesse Jackson is a terrible person? That being compared to a man who worked his entire life for the rights of the poor and the disenfranchised is a bad thing? Only an elitist liberal could see being compared to Jesse as a bad or racist thing.

by Jjc2008 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:28:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell). (2.00 / 2)

Give me a break with this swift boating in S.C. If the Clintons could not convince A.A.'s what they really meant by the statement, then that is no fault but their own. You're implication that they were swift boated implies that A.A.'s couldn't understand what Bill really meant.

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband

by venician on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:01:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell). (2.00 / 3)

You mean African-American's thought Barack was white before Bill Clinton pointed out he was black?

The fact that Jesse Jackson is considered a black pariah whose name cannot be mentioned in, you know, polite company points to the inherent reverse racism of Obama's entire enterprise. The name Jesse Jackson is being treated like a living slur. To reduce one of America's courageous civil rights leaders to a slur is itself racist. Jesse Jackson is forbidden, a taboo, historically erased, his name must not be uttered. That the racist media and much of black America went along with this Obama-inspired bait and switch charade was the worst aspect of this campaign. "Look Clinton said the forbidden word Jesse Jackson" "Get Bill, stone Bill he said the slur word, Jesse." Well Jesse Jackson was sacrificed so that Obama (an African not African American) could live. So be it.

by superetendar on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:21:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell). (2.00 / 1)

I don't think the problem was mentioning Jesse Jackson--it was conflating Obama with Jesse Jackson based purely on the fact that they share a race.

Imagine if Obama had dismissed Hillary's victory in Ohio as, "Well, Ohio always goes for the white candidate--that's nothing new".

It was perceived as a thinly veiled attempt to paint Obama as a single-dimensional 'black' candidate.

by Brannon on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell). (2.00 / 2)

Except that Jackson also had a big win in South Carolina, and was the front runner in the early stages of that primary.
Comparing Barack's win to Jackson's makes perfect sense in that context, and yes, they are both black, but why shouldn't they be contrasted?

by skohayes on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:22:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell). (none / 0)

I learned something new today. Apparently Jesse Jackson and Barack Obama are the first two candidates ever to be the front runners in the early stages of a South Carolina Democratic primary, and then go on to win it.

In the history of mankind, in every single Democratic primary in South Carolina, the early front runner has gone on to lose--except for those two isolated cases, and therefore conflating the two is simply acknowledging a political similarity and not a racial one.

Thank you--knowing is half the battle.

by Brannon on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:23:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The reference to JJ was related to (none / 0)

a political position after the SC primary NOT the fact that he and BO are AA. THAT'S THE SPIN BO AND FRIENDS PUT ON IT in order to trash the Clintons and their long history of AA relations.

Now the Clintons are referred to as "massahs". Now how did that happen....exactly?

by CoyoteCreek on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:34:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell). (none / 0)

Bitter Much?????

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband

by venician on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:01:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell). (none / 0)

Do you contend that the Clinton campaign has not been exploiting racism in regard to Wright?

I thought it the ugliest cynical use of racism since Willie Horton.

And I'm shamed that it was done by Democrats.

John McCain: Cheney with a temper

by wrb on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:12:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell). (none / 0)

"Do you contend that the Clinton campaign has not been exploiting racism in regard to Wright?"--wrb

Hows that possible? You mean potty mouth "Bill's-been-riding-dirty-with-Monica" Rev. Wright? I'd say the Rev. Wright rode dirty on his African American audience all the way to retirement in a multi-million dollar mansion.

by superetendar on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:48:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell). (none / 0)

Do you object to the facts or the use of vernacular?

John McCain: Cheney with a temper

by wrb on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:50:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell). (none / 0)

Neither, I'm amused and entertained, though I'd rather confine sex jokes to a comedy club not the pulpit. My point was, though, that Clinton was the victim of the potty mouth Rev's unholy shit fit, not the racist victimizer you just tried to make Clinton out to be.

by superetendar on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:00:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell). (none / 0)

Sounds racist to me-- describing something we all know to be true in the language of them nigras is offensive?

John McCain: Cheney with a temper

by wrb on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: WRONG! (Sorry to yell). (none / 0)

Being called a racist these days is a diminishing insult. Like the falling dollar its losing its value to shock, its over utilized, rather like antibiotics.

by superetendar on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:12:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Funny how the biggest war critics in the know supp (2.00 / 1)

support Hillary: John Murtha and Ambassador Joe Wilson, to name two.

by mmorang on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:01:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Funny how the biggest war critics in the know (none / 0)

John Murtha was a war supporter and Joe Wilson is a relatively minor figure.

The MAJOR opponents of the war support Obama - Zbigniew Brzinski, Al Gore, virtually all academics and politicians emeritus who opposed it at the time.

by Mostly on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:20:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Funny how the biggest war critics in the know (none / 0)

Don't know the others, but Al Gore has spoken out about NOT supporting either candidate in particular. He has said he isn't going to get into politics at all, and is going with working with as many people as he can on the global warming issue, regardless of their political leanings.

by splashy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:07:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Joe Wilson voted for Bush (none / 0)

for crying out loud. Along with the shadowy Larry C. Johnson and many another operative. Now that Bush has made liars out of them, they don't like him so much.
As far as Murtha is concerned, you don'twant to go there. The man has been the biggest supporter of wasteful military spending in the congress, and the recipient of much largesse from the defense industry, not to mention having come this close to having been indicted for bribery.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:29:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Joe Wilson wrote an article that said Bush (2.00 / 3)

was purposely misleading the nation about Iraq and their weapons of mass destruction. His wife was targeted by the Bush administration for Joe's honesty and courage. So, he is no supporter of Bush.

Did he vote for him in 2000? I don't think he did, I believe he voted for Gore. He gave a contribution to McCain when he was running against Bush. You are probably lying. Where did you see that Joe Wilson voted for Bush? Bush Sr. maybe, but not George W. Bush.

John Murtha voted for the Iraq resolution along with John Kerry and John Edwards. He was initially a war supporter but changed his mind and became a huge critic and was attacked for it. He is strongly against the war now and supports Hillary. 35 generals also support her, how many generals support Barry?

by mmorang on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:46:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I stand corrected (none / 0)

I have Wilson and the highly suspect Larry C. Johnson mixed up. Wilson gave $1000 to Bush in 2000, which one would call hedging his bets, since he obviously wanted to stay on in some capacity whoever came up the winner. He has made no such side bets this time, having been the worst Obama basher of any Hillary supporter with any shred of credibility, now much diminished.
When Obama wins, I expect he'll need an experienced ambassador to Outer Mongolia.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:11:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I stand corrected (2.00 / 3)

I wouldn't bet on Obama being president this time. Maybe in the future but not this time. Either you are very optimistic or you're not too familiar with the numbers.

I have two words to describe Obama's biggest problem: White Flight. He is doing very poorly with working-class whites. He will need about 70% of the hispanic vote to make up for it but guess what? They like McCain and love the Clinton's and feel that they have not been treated fairly.

Joseph Wilson is an American patriot who calls it like he sees it and in his opinion, Obama is not ready for prime time.

by mmorang on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:24:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Joe Wilson is certainly entitled to blow (2.00 / 1)

as hard as he wants, he'll be hell on wheels as ambassador to Tierra Del Fuego.
What is indisputable, and apparently really pisses a lot of Clinton democrats off, is that Obama beats McCain and/or Hillary in any combination in the polls. Once we have a nominee, all this kitchen sink shit will die down and Obama will get about a ten percent bump in the polls. I mean, come on, we've got a decrepit old geezer on the other team who has promised us a hundred years in Iraq. Howdy Doody would win with a D after his name. If we can't beat that PTSD afflicted, short-armed little bugger with the best orator the party has had since FDR, we'd better pack it in once and for all.

by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:17:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My money is on the decrepic old geezer (none / 0)

if Obama is the only other choice we offer people.

Apparently you haven't seen recent polls like these:

Why does Obama, a "transformative" leader do so much worse than Hillary versus McCain?

Massachusetts:

Clinton 56
McCain 41

Obama 48
McCain 46

New Mexico:

Clinton 46
McCain 49

Obama 44
McCain 50

Missouri:

Clinton 47
McCain 46

Obama 42
McCain 50

New York:

Clinton 55
McCain 39

Obama 52
McCain 43

Ohio:

Clinton 53
McCain 42

Obama 45
McCain 47

Oregon:

Clinton 47
McCain 46

Obama 51
McCain 42

Virginia:

Clinton 39
McCain 55

Obama 44
McCain 52

Minnesota:

Clinton 47
McCain 46

Obama 49
McCain 43

Wisconsin:

Clinton 46
McCain 46

Obama 49
McCain 44

Kansas:

Clinton 36
McCain 57

Obama 37
McCain 54

Alabama:

Clinton 34
McCain 60

Obama 32
McCain 64

California:

Clinton 53
McCain 40

Obama 50
McCain 43

Iowa:

Clinton 42
McCain 48

Obama 49
McCain 42

Kentucky:

Clinton 46
McCain 48

Obama 29
McCain 63

http://www.surveyusa.com/electionpolls.a spx

http://www.surveyusa.com/index.php/2008/ 04/17/april-head-to-head-contests-six-st ates-flip/

by mmorang on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:53:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (2.00 / 2)

Look, the Clinton's have their faults. Not all of the Clinton years were good. We lost both houses of Congress, more African-American men where imprisoned, the effects of NAFTA would leave many communities devastated for decades to come. The Clinton years were not all that glorious.

by regina1983 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:32:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But not bad enough to generate HATE (2.00 / 2)

And hate from "our side" at that!

So where did it come from?

by CoyoteCreek on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:40:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: But not bad enough to generate HATE (2.00 / 2)

It came from her increasing arrogance and that of her supporters that they and they alone are the only ones who truly understand the election and the issues at hand and that all of Obama's supporters were somehow too stupid to see that he is fooling us. That is an arrogant, demeaning, and condescending attitude and people got sick of it. Hillary lost this election as much as Obama won it. The anger comes from everyone in that campaign and that supports that campaign looking at me and saying "you're too stupid to understand what's going on".

Oh, plus the whole pandering to the right thing...

by Rockville Liberal on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:00:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pander to the right? Obama has demeaned... (2.00 / 2)

the only Democratic president to be elected to two terms since Roosevelt. He has trashed all of the good things that went on during Clinton's terms as POTUS. AND, he took a lifetime committment to AA and turned Hillary and Bill into evil "massahs".

To me, that's pandering to the right and using the same swiftboating Repug talking points of the past 18 years to dump on HRC.

by CoyoteCreek on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:27:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Pander to the right? Obama has demeaned... (2.00 / 1)

You mean as opposed to the Clinton's not so subtle intimations that Obama can't win because there are too many racist people that won't vote for a black man? Or that she was not a big fan of NAFTA even though she was a major cheerleader for it during Clinton's POTUS terms? Of that she now has a firm belief in the individual right to bear arms while having voiced strong opposition to that throughout the last 10-15 years? Trying to smear Obama through guilt by association that was perpetrated on them by the GOP? Claiming that Obama is elitist and out of touch as she and her husband pocketed $109M in 7 years? Giving an interview with the very VRWC she railed against for years in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review interview - which in case you forgot, basically accused her of having Vincent Fostered MURDERED. She has become what she hates most - the VRWC.

But thanks for not arguing against the arrogance and condescension since that would be a losing proposition for you...

by Rockville Liberal on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:22:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (2.00 / 3)

The mythology of Clinton being solely responsible for the Dems' minority status in Congress and the Senate needs to be addressed, as it was Congressional and Senate Dems themselves who had failed the American people at that point, and placing themselves in a position which made them easy targets for their GOP opponents. Blaming Clinton for the loss was a means to absolve themselves of any responsibility for their own shortcomings.

Compared to the Nixon/Ford, Reagan/Bush and Bush/Chaney eras, the Clinton era was practically a golden age. It's all a matter of perspective.

by SoCalHillMan on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:58:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (2.00 / 1)

Really. Some people here forget about Abscam, the House Bank scandal, the post office thing, all engineered by Dems that had been in office for years and years.
Bill Clinton did not lose the Congress-corrupt Democrats did.

by skohayes on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:32:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (none / 0)

i'm glad someone figured that out. They cite triangulation, but that didn't begin until AFTER the elections that year. they also forget the Reagan Revolution.

"there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right in America"-William Jefferson Clinton, forty-second President of the United States

by DiamondJay on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 11:45:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (2.00 / 1)

The Clinton years were fantastic economically and forein policy-wise. The Clinton's are held in very high esteem in much of the world.

If Ronald Reagan had Bill Clinton's economic record they would have carved his face on mount Rushmore already. Low inflation, low interest rates, low unemployment, strong dollar, budget surplus and strong economic growth, etc. He's the first Democratic president to be elected twice since FDR.

The standard of living for blacks as well as employment and home ownership was never higher than under Bill Clinton. Blaming him for blacks being incarcerated is ridiculous.

If you want to pretend that the 1990's were not a good time for America you are destined to be a permanant minority party.

by mmorang on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:09:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (none / 0)

No it isn't ridiculous. He signed laws that gave harsher sentences for drug crimes which unfortunatley affected many minorities. Get your facts right.

by regina1983 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:11:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (none / 0)

He also provided more federal funds for additional police which brought the crime rate down. I'm sure that resulted in more people being incarcerated in the short term. That's a good thing.

The AA community prefer less crime like everyone else. I think the drug laws should be eased for casual users but in the mean time, stop doing crack cocaine if you think the sentenses are too severe.

Considering all the important issues that a president has to deal with blaming him for harsh prison sentenses seems a little ridiculous.

My facts are staight and you didn't name one factually incorrect thing I've said.

by mmorang on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:12:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Make Up Your Minds (2.00 / 1)

I've heard many, many Clinton supporters contend that Hillary has received much more than a majority of Democratic votes, and now you're saying that the Democrats have turned on the Clintons and hate the Clintons?

Well that's quite a stretch, portraying Hillary as the Dem's choice and the victim of unfair acrimony at the same time.

Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie

by toyomama on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:37:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton is effective (2.00 / 4)

Her health plan scared the crap out of the industry, and they have been out to get her ever since.

The last thing that big money wants is an effective democratic president.

by internetstar on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:22:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Big money, as in big pharma? (2.00 / 2)

The folks who have given more money to Hillary than all the other candidates put together? Those people?

by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:31:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Big money, as in big pharma? (none / 0)

A majority of those donations are from individuals that work in the industry who like her health care plan.
When you take out the individual donations, Clinton isn't even in the top 25 Congress members for donations from the pharmaceutical and health care industries.

http://mediamatters.org/items/2007091700 05

by skohayes on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:39:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This must be the link you were (none / 0)

looking for:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The health-care industry, once a fierce critic of then-first lady Hillary Clinton's reform plans for the sector, is now lavishing campaign contributions on the U.S. senator ahead of her expected presidential bid.

According to Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign finance filings, Clinton has received $781,112 in contributions from the health-care sector during the current election cycle, which makes her the No. 2 recipient of funds from that sector, behind only Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who received $977,354."

Rick Santorum, what a guy.

"Clinton, the only Democrat to be in the top five in total donations from the sector, is also the No. 1 senator in terms of donations from nurses and health professionals, and the No. 2 recipient of donations from employees of hospitals and nursing homes, as well as insurance companies."

by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:24:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This must be the link you were (none / 0)

Actually, it was this one:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/pa crecips.asp?Ind=H&Cycle=2008

You'll notice the top five are all Democrats and not one of them is Hillary Clinton?

by skohayes on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:29:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So, the above mentioned article (none / 0)

is erroneous, is that what you're contending?

by ReillyDiefenbach on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 08:36:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So, the above mentioned article (none / 0)

The "above mentioned article" has a link to the Open Secrets page from PAC donations in 2006 (she's not on the top 25 in that list either, by the way)- I just thought 2008 would be more relevant.
It proves my point.

by skohayes on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:42:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Ah, CNN. AOL Time Warner is yet another (none / 0)

corporation that feels threatened by the idea of the MOST EFFECTIVE ADMINISTRATION in 100 years, returning.

General Electric is another. I bet you have lots of Chris Matthews to wow us with.

by internetstar on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:04:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ah, CNN. AOL Time Warner is yet another (none / 0)

Do you also have a problem with OpenSecrets.org?
Why not address the issue and stop attacking the messenger?

by skohayes on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:58:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (2.00 / 2)

Not unbelievable. Sad maybe.

Fact is, many dems (ok, BO supporters) perceive Clinton as running a dirty campaign. Whether the campaign has been dirty (and which side is worse) is absolutely debatable, but the perception is there.

As an Obama supporter, clearly I am biased towards one candidate but I have lost a lot of respect for the Clintons over the course of the campaign. I would never doubt their dem cred, etc, but I would not be sad if they just drifted off and we didn't have to look at them for some time.

That is very different from "hating" the Clintons. Maybe "disappointed" is a better word.

How did this "disappointment" develop? Things like "Shame on you Barack Obama" certainly did not help things, especially as the facts tended to catch up with the "outrage."

It's just the beat of time, the beat that must go on
If you've been trying for years, we already heard your song

by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:27:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (2.00 / 2)

I agree. Disappointment is how I feel. As an African-American it feels like your best friend has decided to not only run you over but back up and do it again. People want to scream that Barack is playing the race card. Do you think that black people are stupid? I've only been here for 25 years and know racial code words when I see them.

by regina1983 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:34:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (2.00 / 1)

So you know what she didn't cry for katrina means?

White people aren't stupid either

by DTaylor on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:53:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (none / 0)

It means she didn't cry for Katrina.

by Mostly on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:22:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (1.00 / 1)

"People want to scream that Barack is playing the race card. Do you think that black people are stupid? I've only been here for 25 years and know racial code words when I see them."--regina1983

Well, looks like you will soon you will have your transcendent, post-racial candidate as leader. There will be no more race cards to play, code words, all racism will end. Barack will let all African-Americans out of jail that Bill Clinton unfairly imprisoned, all black people will be truly free and America will have paid the highest price by giving the country to the most inexperienced president ever to lead. Can't wait to get this over and done with frankly.

Fast forward to 2012, America will have paid its final racial debt and then we can finally get back to healthcare, the economy, education, things that will benefit ALL Americans.

by superetendar on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:57:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Again, do you think black people are stupid? (2.00 / 1)

I have NEVER said that Barack is going to wipe away our racial prejudices. What will happen if he wins(which I think is very likely) is that those racists whom both parties have been pandering to will lose. That is what will be great about him winning the fact that a majority of people can realize that a candidate who happens to be black is the best person for our country.

by regina1983 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:04:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, do you think black people are stupid? (2.00 / 1)

"That is what will be great about him winning the fact that a majority of people can realize that a candidate who happens to be black is the best person for our country."--regina1983

With much respect, I pick my candidates on matters like universal healthcare with mandates. But I now recognize that there is some deep seated, desperate need to, as you put it, show that "a candidate who happens to be black is the best person for our country." Let's do it, get it over and done with and satisfy this need for the next 4 years, then we can finally get back to the real issues. Let's shake this fever so that everyone can be happy and then we can choose a new president in 2012 for less symbolic reasons and more substantive ones like healthcare and education. That's all I'm saying.

by superetendar on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:31:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, do you think black people are stupid? (2.00 / 1)

This is pretty obnoxious, asserting that blacks support Obama because he's black and white's support him because of white-guilt.

You've drawn this conclusion because you can't imagine any other reason to support such an 'inexperienced' candidate. What you fail to understand is that most of his supporters see his lack of indoctrination into the Beltway culture as a positive. He's perceived as an outsider and this is a change election--it's that simple.

by Brannon on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:57:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Again, do you think black people are stupid? (2.00 / 1)

Whatever! At this point I've thrown in the towel, lets just give Barack his due, 4 years as the first black president, the destroyer of the Beltway, whatever symbolic hope you've invested, lets just do it, get over it and get back to the real business of running the country for concrete reasons in 2012.

by superetendar on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:08:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

AHA! (2.00 / 1)

Sounds like David Dinkins. Yup, let's just give the brotha four years so the black folks will shut up.

You are wrong. I'm voting for him because I like his policy proposals and he is a breath of fresh air.

Screw you mofo.

by regina1983 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:47:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (2.00 / 5)

Those Obama ads with "Harry and Louise" were a low blow to Hillary and the race baiting of the Clintons which started pre SC was the Obama strategy to hurt and hit the Clintons where they are the strongest.Shame on Obama! Admit it! Obama's campaign and the 4 page memo started this race baiting, sexism and misogyny and that is when I lost my respect for Obama. His silence on this showed he was the one who would say and do anything to win. And is fear of counting Mi and Fl confirms my opinion.

by tiffany on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:42:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (2.00 / 1)

Making the Clintons out to be racist is something that John McCain would NEVER do.

by DTaylor on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 05:54:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are right!! (none / 0)

He would be considered a hypocrite.

by regina1983 on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:05:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (none / 0)

Obama's race and Clintons sex cancel each other out. So please stop with this sexist racist crap.

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband

by venician on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:06:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (none / 0)

Obama's race and Clintons sex cancel each other out. So please stop with this sexist racist crap.

"In the primary you should vote with your heart, but in the general, you should vote with your head" Hillary's husband

by venician on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 06:06:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How and why did this hatred develop? (none / 0)

They run even in Michigan, according to polls. Obama is slightly up now, actually. Michigan would not get Hillary the delegates she needs.

Florida alone, even if seated now, wouldn't either.

by rhetoricus on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 07:53:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not just BO supporters. (2.00 / 1)

I was a late and reluctant BO supporter, by default. I was a Kucinich, then Edwards supporter.

I am a pacifist, a populist, and for universal healthcare. I am for impeachment. I am for turning the neocons over to the Hague and investigating them for connections to every foul thing that's happened in this country since Feb, 2001. I want my Con