http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/c itations/dead_ender_11/

It's probably as old as the phrase "dead end" itself.

Actually it was coined back in 1997...Why can't he use it?

Really?  I've heard this phrase used in many instances in both political and non political circumstances. I know it's getting more play because Andrew Sullivan mocked NoQuarter and their deranged fanatics on his blog. I've seen it used around here for some time now too.  After lurking for some time over at NoQuarter I have come to despise a specific type of Clinton "supporter".  Hence, deadenders.

I'll try to avoid using the word though. I understand where you are coming from. ; )

something about it! Demand that your candidate stop the war NOW!!! Nothing is stopping him going into the senate today and drafting an amendment to start removing troops NOW! Demand accountability, dog him, trail him, start letter campaigns demanding an end to the war NOW!

Why are you agreeing to wait until he's elected and in office 7 months from now when it can be done today and if it fails, table another amendment, and another, and another until it passes? Put his feet to the fire, ask him to show us his fortitude by doing what you expect him to do but only when elected? why is it acceptable for you to wait and allow him to do nothing until sometime next year? Otherwise, don't come here and try to put a guilt trip or use emotional blackmail on us because we refuse to vote for him!

We, women, are the ones who repeatedly have had to send our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons/daughters to fight wars declared by men! Maybe, now, you'll understand why we didn't want another man as our nominee, when we finally had a woman who could be viable to do the job! We are fed up of men continuing to make decisions which affect our lives, our loved ones and our reproductive choices/rights. We have had enough!

My ex-fiance is a MIA from the Viet Nam war + a few friends were also killed. I waited 7yrs before dating again, just in case he might come back, there's not a day that I don't say goodnight to him before falling asleep.

My family used to vacation in Atlantic City for the summer. Summer 65/66/67, all my male friends, in my age group, were still there; summer 1968, no one was left, they had all been drafted and some had volunteered; summer 1969, 3 never came back. I also remember seeing John McCain, on his first day back, in the spring of 1973, along with the other POWs being paraded up Market Street to Union Square in San Francisco and a man next to me saying: "poor guys, today a parade, tomorrow they'll all be forgotten!" My godson is a marine pilot. 2 months ago, finished his second tour in Iraq.

Saw Obama on TV Monday, wavering on bringing the troops home as he had promised, stating flatly and firmly that he is against all timetables to do so. You're setting yourself up for a huge disappointment! He's not going to screw up his re-election campaign for 2012 by fu@%&ing up on the war! He might reduce some troops but there's no way he's bringing all the troops home until after 2016.

If you want an end to it, force him into it, start your own peace movement! By the way, this is your generation's war and please tell me, where is your peace movement? where are your tear-gassed demonstrations? where are your university/college sit-ins and protest groups? where is your music? It's easy being an armchair peace activist.... what have you done personally, except vote in a primary to nominate a guy, whose only anti-war activity, was making a speech against the war, but has continually voted to fund it every single time! Where were his protest marches through the streets of Chicago, a la MLK and Jesse Jackson during the Viet Nam war? Why didn't he take to the streets or organize pre-anti-war marches in Chicago if he was so anti-war, after all, wasn't he a community organizer? would have been a breeze for him to do so!

He's even skipped the vote on John Kerry's amendment, a couple of months back, to set a timetable to get the troops out and his response, when asked why he didn't show up: "this happens when you're in a presidential primary!" Funny though, Clinton found it important enough to show up and vote for it! He's got his priorities right, doesn't he, for the anti-war candidate?
If you're so angry about this war, why didn't you make him accountable for his non-vote? why did you give him a pass on an amendment which could have shortened the war?

Personally, I think McCain, having seen war up close, will be the candidate to bring the troops home before any democratic candidate. I will not vote for him, because his party has too many crazies, but I will vote for Nader and if not on the ballot, trade it with someone else where it can make a difference.

Obama will do nothing as Samantha Powers warned us in an interview on the BBC.

www.counterpunch.com/mcquade05222008.htm l
and
www.counterpunch.com/leupp05122008.html

Sadly, a popularity contest says nothing about his ability to govern.  I mean, look at Bush....

GFORD, you want to explain why you TR'd this comment?  Go read the site rules.

Come on. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was <u>fiction</u>.

"Being a good person" is utter nonsense as a criterion, because everyone's definitely of "good" is differently.  Many right-wingers would consider Bush "good" (and they've made Reagan a freakin' saint), while any candidate or politician who is pro-choice is an evil baby-murderer.  

You just can't go on whether or not the candidate "cares about people".  It flat out doesn't work. They ALL say they do -- and most of them mean it.

well said.  You've gained mine.

And good luck to your friend.

Just curious, do you think that they made that decision on their own, or was it because of the hue and cry to 'punish' Florida for breaking the 'rules'?

Also, since over in kosland it was widely touted as truthful that it was a conspiracy to help Hillary by having her become the 'front runner' early (yet they also claimed she was the 'inevitable' candidate, so why would she have to become the front runner?) no one even would acknowledge that punishing the voters in a state overwhelmingly for Hillary to begin with and discounting their votes was not any help to her at all, and actually would cost more than any possible gain.

No, I left after it became clear that the DNC was not going to change their decision coupled with the fact that other Democrats thruout the nation for some stupid reason cheered that decision to not 'count every vote'.  I'm just as disappointed in folks who had such a short memory over 2000 that they would  now do the Katherine Harris dance on Florida voters, once again.

Oh yeah, thanks for the spin.

I'm glad to see that you agree that those who effectively framed the CLintons and the majority of her supporters as racists deserve to be held accountable.

I resent this "People are only talking about not voting for Obama because they're upset HIllary didn't get the nomiation." This gets cause and effect completely backward.

I was in favor of Hillary because I thought, and still think (not that it matters) that she is a far stronger candidate for beating McCain than Obama was.  People keep saying "Tell Obama what he can do to win your vote" -- but unfortunately my reason for not want to vote for him are things he can't do anything about, like his meagre and lackluster history as a politician. He can't turn back time and learn his profession.  He's got to take office with what he has, and I don't think it's enough.

If he manages to beat McCain -- a big IF at this point, checking out the latest electoral maps -- I'm worried he's going to make an even bigger mess than we have now, then he'll go down in flames in 2012 and the Rethugs will be back in power for another 12 years.

I won't be voting for McCain. But at this point I see no reason to vote for Obama either. He needs to win me over on his own merits, and not just because he's not McCain. If he can't do that, I'll be writing in Hillary Clinton. Or perhaps Stephen Colbert.

As for HOW he's going to do that -- that's not my problem. It's his. And it's one he set himself up for by not completing at least one term in the national Senate before deciding he was ready to take the reins for the whole nation.  

And by the way, attempting a guilt trip with "Vote for Obama or you're against the troops!"  is a line fully worthy of a Rethug. ("Support the troops!" = "Anyone against the war wants our soldiers to die in vain, so support the war!") Congrats on sinking to their level.  However, I do hope your loved one makes it home safe. I still think Hillary would have done the better job of actually doing that than Obama will, though.

because your candidate was not up to par due to his lack of substantial foreign, economical and legislative experience? Furthermore, what does it say about him, not being able to appeal to, let's say, a quarter of the people from his own party and then expect the whole country to rally around him? Let us put the blame where it belongs before continuing to insult us!

Wow, nice way to reinforce those voters' decision not to vote for Obama. Keep it up and you'll get your candidate defeated yet with that attitude.

Sometimes I really have to wonder about Obama's "supporters" who write stuff like this.  With "supporters" like this he really doesn't need enemies.

you misread.  Please read again.  I was writing about Clinton as VP, not as the candidate in place of Obama.  Your reaction is exactly the sort of reaction I was talking about, where your love of your candidate absolutely blinds you to what others are saying, this being a case in point.  

try reading my posts instead of just knee-jerking troll responses

Will you pay the price of supporting a candidate that just might lose the general election with or without 'this idiocy from the minority'?

yeah, he does.  You can't just go around telling everyone that he doesn't need their votes.  He does.  This will be a very close race.