Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH?

(Cross-posted at Clintonistas for Obama)

Beware, all progressives! There are wolves in sheeps' clothing among us. They claim to be Hillary Clinton supporters, but they're really not as of now. They claim to be standing up against sexism, but they're really not. And they claim to be standing up for voters' rights, but they're really not.

So who are these tricksters that we should watch out for? Follow me after the flip to find out...

I got an email this morning from "JustSayNoDeal.com". They claim to be disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters, but I suspect they have a hidden agenda that Hillary herself would vehemently reject. Here, why don't you read the message I was sent?

[...] On the evening of June 8, 2008, dozens of grassroots organizations and political activists convened a conference call and formed a coalition: Just Say No Deal. Its goal? : To turn the current race on its head and remind voters that all options are on the table this November.

Just Say No Deal is an umbrella organization giving voice to over 80 grassroots organizations, blogs and millions of self- professed PUMAs (Party Unity My A_ _) intent on one mission: NOBAMA! Coalition members are pushing varying agendas and voting strategies, but the factions are united in their unwavering decision to not "fall in line" by supporting Barack Obama.

Concerned citizens have come out of the woodwork to express their distaste for and frustration with party leaders and the outcome of the nominating process. The Just Say No Deal website offers those voters an array of choices to assist in their decision-making process. The coalition will continue to organize in pursuit of its mission of keeping another unqualified candidate from inheriting the Oval Office.

OK, so they don't like Barack Obama. But hold on, aren't these people supposed to be Democrats? Don't they care about the issues that Hillary cares about?

The more I think about this, the more one question pops into my head. Really, ask yourself this. Why are they going against what Hillary herself has said?

Why would anyone who has supported Hillary now throw support to this guy? Why would Hillary's LGBT supporters help this guy who is so strongly opposed to equal rights for all? Why would Hillary's blue-collar supporters help this guy who's so virulently anti-worker and anti-middle class? Why would Hillary's women supporters help this guy who's so extremely anti-choice and anti-women? Why would any of Hillary's supporters do anything to help elect John McBush (McCain) this fall?

Let's remember some important details about Barack Obama. He's pro-worker, pro-civil rights, pro-equal rights, pro-environment, and pro-peace. Oh yes, and he has the full support of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton.

So when you get any email from "Just Say No Deal" claiming to be something Hillary Clinton supporters should pay attention to, just don't. If we should say no to anything, we should really just say no deal to John McBush (McCain).

Get it? Got it. Great! :-)



Display:


Tips? Flames? Suggestions? (2.00 / 18)

You know what to do... ;-)


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:01:06 PM EST

Give you mojo and a rec? (2.00 / 5)

because that is what I was planning on...


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:07:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bullshit won't feed the Unity Pony (1.80 / 5)

Many long-time, vocal, visible, on-the-record Clinton supporters are NOT supporting Obama.

This includes some full-time, long life-time Democratic political activists -- amateurs and professionals.

Clinton doesn't own our votes. We know she'll support Obama, we understand, and we're not going along.

Accusing them of being "tricksters" is dirty blogging ... and shit like yours won't feed the Unity Pony.


¡Si, soy PUMA!
by RonK Seattle on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:27:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What's dirty... (2.00 / 9)

About speaking up against anti-Democratic trickery? I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone who cares about the issues that Hillary cares about would be doing ANYTHING to help John McBush. Yes, no one "owns" anyone's votes. But still, you can't call yourself a Democrat if you refuse to support Democrats and you can't call yourself a progressive if you won't support progressive candidates.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:32:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's dirty... (2.00 / 1)

Well, Can you define progressive, McCain is not a progressive candidate, he is far from it but the problem is that Obama is the same also.

We have a democrat that say he would faith as one of his priorities, is planning not to get near UHC, his enviromental policies sucks and they are even worth than of the McCains, His energy policy is stupid and he don't want to touch the mortgage crisis. Tell me please what was being progressive was all about.


by navid on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:03:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's dirty... (none / 0)

And you know this...how?


by tired of dynasties on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:14:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's dirty... (1.50 / 2)

um, maybe the same way this diarist "just knows" what everyone else's motivation is? And of course he does not address the McLamers disguised and pro-BHO posters her does he? nah it's still all the fault of HRC supporters they are all EEEEE-VIL!


by zerosumgame on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:21:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's dirty... (1.50 / 2)

Abd I don't see much of a reason to join up with people who predominantly voted anit-Clinton.

Fine if your FOR something, but looking around, it looks more like you were against something and that something was me.


by SophieL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:04:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's dirty... (none / 0)

Even those people who were primarily anti-Clinton rather than pro-Obama just had a different opinion than you concerning Clinton's character.

Why should your difference of opinion regarding the character of one politician, affect whether you should join them in the battle for (or against) another one?

Even if you disagree with some people on e.g. Iraq, you can still fight alongside them if you agree on issues of environment. And even if you disagreed with them on whether Hillary was good or not-good, why should that prevent you from joining them in the fight of Obama vs McCain?


by Aris Katsaris on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:12:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's dirty... (1.00 / 2)

"you can't call yourself a Democrat if you refuse to support Democrats and you can't call yourself a progressive if you won't support progressive candidates."

We sure as hell will call ourselves Democrats and Progressives, because we are. We don't want anti progressive Obama "bipartisan" cave ins to the right wing free market approach, we don't want Chicago style voter fraud, vote theft, and voter intimidation thugs taking over our party. We will fight this anti-democratic coup till you are defeated.

You don't get it:

I can live with another 4 years of John McCain in the White House, with what will likely be a veto proof Democratic Senate and majority in the House. I can be patient and wait another 4 years for a more progressive agenda to move forward. I cannot live with the takeover of my party by it's most corrupt, bought out wing. Then I lose all hope, there will be no "good guys" left to believe in. We will never give up.


by 07rescue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:50:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's dirty... (none / 0)

This is my first post here. Frankly, if you think a veto proof House and Senate is a likely outcome this fall, you're nuts. There's virtually no way the Democrats can gain a 2/3rds majority in either body, even if Obama were to win in a landslide.

Even if that were true, you'd still have to "live with" 4 more years of terrible executive orders, neo-con unilateral foreign policy, a federal bureaucracy staffed by right-wing ideologues, and Federalist Society judges appointed to all levels of the judiciary. Even a strongly Democratic Congress would not be able to dictate on judicial appointments and could only limit the damage.

I don't think any real Democrat wants that kind of outcome.


by MikeNY on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:10:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You mean like Scalia being confirmed unanimously? (none / 0)


by suzieg on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:28:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Having lived in Canada under a divided govt (none / 0)

I'm all for it! I second every word you posted!


by suzieg on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:26:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Gee (2.00 / 7)

How can there be a "unity pony" if people say there can never be unity?


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:47:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then you are no longer a Clinton supporter. (2.00 / 2)

Not sure what those people are,  but they need to take Hillary off their letterhead. She's on a different side from them. They are her political enemies.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:03:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then you are no longer a Clinton supporter. (none / 0)

I'm noticing some Obama people are having trouble separating the candidate's positions from the candidate's persona.

Saying you support a candidate's positions does not require you to imitate all, or any, of their actions.  

Hillary Clinton can do as she pleases, and so can any of her supporters. Some of her supporters disagree with her. So what? They're allowed.


by Michigoose on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:23:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then you are no longer a Clinton supporter. (none / 0)

Well disagreements here and there are healthy, but on everything?


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:08:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually it's exactly the opposite. (none / 0)

If you were a Clinton supporter, and now you plan in one way or another to support John McCain by not supporting Barack Obama, then you never were really a supporter of Hillary's positions. You were a supporter, if anything of her persona, or some other criteria.

Former Hillary supporters can follow her, or not follow her, as they see fit, but what they can't do is not support Obama and then say they still support her. They do not. They are on the other team.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:05:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Actually it's exactly the opposite. (none / 0)

I disagree. If I think Obama is unqualified to be President, I will not vote for him.   I think the reason we got Bush is that a lot of people, especially the "moderate Dems" who voted for him, went, "Well, it doesn't matter if he's incompetent, at least he believes the right things! And Cheney's there to keep him from screwing up too badly!"

And now look where we are.  

I don't believe in supporting a "correct thinking candidate" who I don't think can get the job done. That's self-defeating. And if he blows it, the liberal agenda is going to be blown for a very long time.  Much as the Republican agenda has been blown out of the water by Bush's behavior.  I'm not interested in becoming like one of those repentant Rethugs or moderate Dems walking around muttering "Why did I vote for this guy again? Because I thought Gore was wonkish? Because I thought Kerry was stiff? What a stupid reason to vote against someone. I should have been looking at resumes."


by Michigoose on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:26:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then you are no longer a Clinton supporter. (none / 0)

"Saying you support a candidate's positions does not require you to imitate all, or any, of their actions."

Right now Hillary's chief positions are the following:

  1. Obama must be elected.
  2. McCain must be defeated.

mainly because they're the two positions that will allow all of her remaining positions to come closer to reality.

Perhaps you support every other position of Hillary except these two? It would seem inconsistent: after all (unless she's a political novice), that she wouldn't have a pretty good opinion which election result would further her remaining goals regarding America, and which result wouldn't.


by Aris Katsaris on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:48:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then you are no longer a Clinton supporter. (none / 0)

I support the overall, long-lasting movement of the United States toward a more liberal form of government. I think this is where our country needs to go, and will eventually go. The question is how to best bring about this large-scale goal in the shortest time possible.  If I think putting Obama in office now is going to be one step forward and two steps back, then I won't vote for him.  

It's not enough for him to believe the right things. He also has to be able to make them work. Right now, I have severe doubts that he can. I won't be voting for McCain, but if Obama wants me to pull the lever with his name on it, he has to convince me he isn't going to be a liberal version of Bush -- looks good, people like him, and he's worse than useless in office, in fact setting his party's goals back in a huge way. Quite possibly destroying his party and causing a fundamental sea change in what it means to be a Republican.

Now, while I'm not at ALL displeased to see that happening to the Rethugs, I do NOT want to see a repeat on the Dem side.  And I'm not at all encouraged by the way the Dems have been chewing their own legs off in this primary. Obama has promised "unity" but all I've seen is division. And don't blame the Clintons -- if he can't get his agenda to hold over the Clintons' interference, he will NEVER be able to make it hold over the Rethugs, who will be much nastier than the Clintons ever were.

I really don't think the US can afford another President who doesn't know what the heck he's doing. But it can't afford McCain either.  Thus, I remain uncommitted. If you find Obama's formless talk of "Change" and "Hope" reassuring, that's fine for you. It's not enough for me. I want nuts and bolts. I want to know how he's going to get bipartisan legislation passed when he can't even bring the Democratic party together.   I want to know how he's going to make things work. I'm an engineer -- I'm very into things that actually work, rather than things that look shiny and fall apart.


by Michigoose on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:36:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bullshit won't feed the Unity Pony (1.50 / 4)

"We know she'll support Obama, we understand, and we're not going along."

Right on, Ron. We aren't going along, and PUMA is all Hillary supporters. There is an incredible upswelling of Hillary supporters organizing volunteer cadres, fundraising to retire her debt and create new PACs to support primary challengers to the people who betrayed Hillary. We are fighting back against this takeover of our party by the corrupt Chicago voter fraud machine.

We aren't going along because we don't want corruption dominating our party, and because Barack Obama is not qualified to be president or commander in chief at a time of war. He is a danger to our country, and we are fighting to save it. He is not the legitimate nominee of the Democratic Party, if you count all the votes Hillary won on both delegates and the popular vote. He was selected, not elected. We will never support Barack Obama.


by 07rescue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:41:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I will not be voting for McCain because it's (none / 0)

perpetuating the 2 party system which are beyond corrupt! Neither party outshines the other!

I've taken a serious look at Nader and I will vote for him in protest and if he doesn't get on the ballot, because the 2 parties make it next to impossible to do by demanding 600,000 signatures from people who have not voted in the primaries. If this happens this year because of the record turnout, I will trade my vote to make an impact in a crucial state like I did in Florida in 2000, voting Nader in Texas in exchange for Gore in Florida. This time it will be the reverse!

We need more viable alternatives to stop the corruption in both parties!


by suzieg on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:37:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There is not a single PUMA who supports Hillary (none / 0)

They maybe did at one time. They don't anymore. Don't believe me? Why don't you ask her? The best the anti-Obama formerly pro-Hillary supporters can say is just that. They once were Hillary supporters, but they changed their mind when she went in a direction they didn't like.


Your old role is rapidly aging. Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand, for the times they are a changing.
by Travis Stark on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:08:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are a disqusting human being (none / 0)

You are calling out Obama as being corrupt and a danger to our country.  First  and foremost...which candidate defended special interest? which candidate was mostly funded by special interest? which candidate did not want to disclose their tax records and library records due to ties with Dubai and other connections that would come forth?  

There is nobody in their right mind that can say McCain is less dangerous than Barack Obama..well at least no Democrat.

I read about this PUMA stink bag of an organization and personally anyone associated with them can take a long trip off a short pier...if you align with this group, you are no Democrat and I and every other Democrat REJECT you and slot you in the likes of Joe Lieberman.


by netgui68 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:29:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not supporting Obama helps McCain. (none / 0)

If you can't figure that out, then you are one of McCain's prize chumps.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:56:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, I support McCain over Obama (none / 0)

Wasn't that explicit enough from the comment to which you replied?

I support progressive politics. I believe Obama will do irreparable harm to progressive politics, whereas McCain will only be another horrible POTUS in another dreary interval of divided government.

I supported and do support Hillary. I have been a Democrat and will be a Democrat at least until the convention ... at which time I may have to follow Obama's directive and become "post-partisan".

I support Hillary. I don't take orders from her. (Maybe that's the way it works in Obamawannaland, but the idea is certainly foreign to progressive traditions.) And nobody here is entitled to give orders on her behalf, much less slander her followers by claiming they're not counterfeit.


¡Si, soy PUMA!
by RonK Seattle on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:16:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, I support McCain over Obama (none / 0)

FAIL error, :%%%:  you must exit site and go back to McBush headquarters for new assignment. FAIL error, :%%%:  you must exit site and go back to McBush headquarters for new assignment. FAIL error, :%%%:  you must exit site and go back to McBush headquarters for new assignment.FAIL error, :%%%:  you must exit site and go back to McBush headquarters for new assignment.


by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:37:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yes, I support McCain over Obama (none / 0)

It's a good thing you're in Seattle where a McCainite's stupid vote will disappear in a sea of BLUE.

You must be pretty satisfied with Bush's proformance as pResident to be foolish enough to vote for McCain't.

You're Rossi sticker must be a big hit in Seattle too.


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:19:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not supporting Obama helps McCain. (2.00 / 1)

bite me TR abuser


by zerosumgame on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 08:12:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not supporting Obama helps McCain. (1.00 / 2)

Buzz off you rating abusing hypocrite!


It's time to restore balance and fairness to our economy,... It's time to stop giving tax cuts to corporations that ship jobs overseas... - Barack Obama
by Lefty Coaster on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:25:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (2.00 / 17)

This is an excellent diary on this, Andrew. The number of groups in this coalition-- including Riverdaughter among others-- just blew me away. Women are angry and rightly so, but McCain is not the answer. I think exposing all the harm McCain will do the democrat agenda and women's issues is the way to help dent this sort of angry effort.


by linfar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:09:45 PM EST

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (2.00 / 8)

I can't mojo that one enough.

You women are entitled to be angy about several aspects of the race.  I don't denigrate that.  But I'm glad you see, as I do, that supporting McCain is about as backwards a way to express it as there could possibly be.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:12:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So........ (2.00 / 2)

Because "sweetie" is so much more egregious than say calling a woman...i dunno...."cu*t"(edited because the epithet is really distasteful).  Or supporting a party that has a PAC with that acronym.  

I get you are mad. And you have every right to do whatever you want.  But the idea that McCain would be better for women than Obama is demonstrably not true.


by tired of dynasties on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:19:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So........ (none / 0)

It's really a matter of expectations. We expect Rethugs to embrace wacko religious nuts and to be sexists pigs.

We're very unhappy to find wacko religious nuts and sexists pigs in the party that's supposed to be above all of that.

Like, it's much more disturbing if a priest is caught shoplifting than if a teenager is.  The crime's the same, but the outrage will be much worse from the person we expected much better from.


by Michigoose on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:35:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So........ (none / 0)

I get that.  But a more apt analogy would be equating shock and outrage over a preist shoplifting with the shock and outrage from someone beating up your mom.


by tired of dynasties on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:52:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So........ (none / 0)

Wait, that's not an analogy at all. You've got two different people (a priest and "someone") and two different situations (a shoplifting and a mugging).  You have to keep SOMETHING constant or it's apples and kiwis.


by Michigoose on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:20:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Also cannot vote for Obama because of the (none / 0)

following:

counterpunch.com/frank06112008.html

excerpt:

June 11, 2008
Hopeless in Chicago

Why I Can't Support Barack Obama
By JOSHUA FRANK

Four years ago, as the sentiment against George W. Bush's administration mounted, the entire left-wing spectrum hung on tight to the coattails of John Kerry, grasping for dear life. Critics called it the "Anybody but Bush" syndrome, but it should have been more aptly coined "Nobody but Kerry."

Virtually every progressive cause, from labor to the environment, had been co-opted by a mindset that would have ensured more of the same. There was no pressure put on Kerry to change, and he didn't. As a result, the antiwar movement collapsed, with no demonstrations and a strict allegiance to the Democrat's pro-war campaign. Fortunately, the movement to end the war was resurrected by Cindy Sheehan's as she erected her tent outside the Bush compound in Texas months later.

Today we find our political climate in a similar state of shock.  Call it the "Nobody but Obama" epidemic. Senator Barack Obama has now sealed up the Democratic nomination, and the usual suspects, from MoveOn.org to Progressive Democrats for America, are falling in line. Sadly, what seems to be reigning in this year's election is even worse than the storm that flooded our issues in 2004.

more....

counterpunch.com/martens05052008.html
and
counterpunch.com/martens05062008.html


by suzieg on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:56:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Also cannot vote for Obama because of the (2.00 / 1)

So you got behind the candidate that voted FOR THE AUMF? and you are mad because she didn't win?

Give me a break.

The number of simpletons who have no grasp of reality in this race is amazing.

It's like a glimps into Bizarro world.

The woman who is attempting to capitalize on her husbands career is the feminist icon. The woman who's father owned a factory and served on the baord of Walmart is the one who understands the needs of the working class?
The black guy who just recently paid off his college loans who grew up with a single mother and an absenty father is hte elitist?

Every one of Clinton's supporters on the rules commity including one of the senion members of her campaign staff voted to strip FL and MI of their delegates before anyone thought Obama had a serious chance of winning with the only desenting vote coming from an Obama supporter yet Obama was the one who disenfranchised Fl and MI?

When Clinton was talking about the activist base being against her because of foriegn policy differences (read Iraq) she didn't claim that there was a misunderstanding of her position she recognized that there was a real fundamental difference. Her stance was not that the activist base misunderstood her position it was an admision that they differed from her.

The people who supported Clinton because they thought she was more centrist I get. The people who supported her because they don't think a black guy can win I get (don't agree with them) Even the people who cast their vote just because they wanted to see a woman in the office I get and can understand.

But anyone who is opposing Obama because he's not as progressive is in fecking lala land.


by Skex on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:34:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks, linfar! (2.00 / 8)

I know, I can't believe it either. In fact, take a look at how a thread at The Confluence simply turned ugly when I dared to mention that Obama is better on LGBT issues than McBush...

http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/ 06/11/dems-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-cowards -then-and-now/#comment-41576

I simply can't believe how these folks who are rightly angry over the crappy treatment Hillary got are WRONGLY directing their anger towards electing McBush. It's just crazy, and I don't think that's something Hillary would want us to do as people who support her.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:16:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, linfar! (2.00 / 2)

Why are you sliming riverdaughter?  Sjhe doesn't support McCain.  She's not planning to vote for him.  She allows her readership freedom of speech, but she has been clear she doesn't support McCain.  


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:30:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, linfar! (2.00 / 8)

Oh my god, I think I am going to be sick.

Riverdaughter might have been the most god awfull thing I ever read in my life.

ADleft, I dont know how you stomached it.

Here is what some degenerate said to YOU:

Atdleft: McCain's name is not "McBush." I guess you are OK with Osama Obama too.

Really,  this site is in LOVE with McCain.

I wish you hadn't put that link up.
It can't be a real site...


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:33:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, linfar! (2.00 / 2)

Nope.  The site is not inlove with McCain.  Not even close.  


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:35:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, linfar! (2.00 / 6)

I suggest you read the link, I have never seen such McBush sword swallowing in my life.

I almost have to believe it is a parody site but it's not.

Isn't it just ironic that there is no such nonsense on the Republican side,  for all their twisted logic they know better than to lose on purpose.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, linfar! (2.00 / 6)

masslib1, please give it up.

You can't put paint on a turd, and call it a Picasso.


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:10:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's really too bad... (2.00 / 11)

I used to like riverdaughter when the folks there were sticking up for Hillary, but now they've simply become anti-Obama and anti-Democratic. And btw, there was another person, "benintn", that tried to reason with the riverdaughter crowd... But they simply trashed him until admin erased all his comments. I was flabeergasted at that, since benintn didn't even write anything offensive!

In many ways, these anti-Obama crowds have become just like their "oppressors". I was part of Alegre's Kos strike because of the nasty treatment we Hillary supporters were getting there. But now, these same people who once complained of "bullying" and "censorship" are doing the exact same thing to anyone who suggests that we follow Hillary's lead and support Obama.

It's bizarre.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:42:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's really too bad... (2.00 / 1)

Ah, they can't be oppressors.  It's one of a handful of sites not devoted to Obama.  She doesn't and has never supported McCain.  Nice to see you sliming her.


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:46:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Come on, masslib... (2.00 / 6)

I'm not "sliming" riverdaughter. I'm only pointing out the obvious, which is that the community there has (d)evolved from Democratic and pro-Hillary to anti-Obama and somewhat pro-McBush. I mean, how else can you describe a site where pro-Obama comments most often get scrubbed while comments praising McBush get celebrated? It's bizarro-world.

And btw, Confluence is not "one of a handful". There are MANY nasty GOP blogs out there, like Redstate and FreeRepublic.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:53:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, masslib... (none / 0)

No, it certainly hasn't.  That's not at all the obvious to anyone who spends time there.  You ought to be ashamed of yourself.


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:57:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I also checked out the site... (2.00 / 4)

and I'm now flushing my eyeballs with Nitric Acid.


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:14:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I know... (2.00 / 4)

I might need to do that again. And again, I also supported Hillary... And I was also furious with the media elite for how they bashed her and trashed her. But now that we have a nominee Hillary's backing the nominee, and the media elite are now trying to trash our nominee, shouldn't these folks NOT be using the same smears used against Hillary on Obama?


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:19:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I know... (2.00 / 4)

I agree. And it can happen to anyone, really. I have been guilty of going overboard in the past, and losing perspective.  This seems to be what is going on over there.

I supported Hillary, then Edwards, then Obama, so I was never hard core in any direction.  I like to think that I made my final decision based on what was best, from my personal perspective.

P.S. I've having a bit of difficulty typing right now, as I apparently blinded myself with the acid.  All in all, I consider it a fair trade in order to get rid of the after image.


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:27:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, masslib... (none / 0)

That does it, Andrew.  You're off my list.  Comparing River Daughter to Red State is beyond the pale.  


by Tolstoy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:20:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on, masslib... (2.00 / 1)

You and masslib are seeing this as personal when it really isn't.

It's not Riverdaughter, who I'm  sure is a perfectly wonderful person.  It's the site.  The site's content is grotesque.


When you start out making the "slippery slope" argument, where do you draw the line?
by Jess81 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 06:05:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's really too bad... (2.00 / 5)

masslib, I have been having the same experience as Andrew. It has gotten very ugly. And if you won't vote Obama, who the hell is left? So people are going for McCain. It is nutz.


by linfar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:34:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's really too bad... (none / 0)

Some just won't vote, which happens every election on both sides.  Some will eventually vote for Obama.  Some will write-in Hillary.  WTF?  Don't go to her blog.  People there don't want to be convinced.  They want space.  Why is that such a problem for you?  It's a tiny slice of the blogosphere.  He's up 6 points in the poll.  There's room for a tiny slice of decent.  This isn't a dictatorship for crissake.


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:38:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's really too bad... (2.00 / 3)

I'd rather a big ol slice of decent.


by vadasz on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 03:43:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's really too bad... (1.00 / 2)

" And if you won't vote Obama, who the hell is left? So people are going for McCain. It is nutz."

No, it's not at all nuts. We had to sit and watch at the RBC meeting as the corrupt Chicago voter fraud/election fixing machine stole votes from Hillary and gave he nomination to Obama. We watched caucus fraud, and attempted voter fraud in many other states. As someone who believes in both democracy and the Democratic party, I cannot countenance the takeover of my party by it's most corrupt wing. Especially not when both Houses of Congress will be controlled by the Democratic Party. There will be no oversight, no watchdog, no enforcement against our own, and that is the stuff of nightmares for our democracy. They could fix elections for the indefinite future, and then, if you disagree with them, you are silenced and destroyed, the way Hillary was.

They couldn't control Hillary, so they destroyed her and have anointed someone they can control, who has no experience, hasn't done anything important in his entire political career, has no political capital of his own, and is completely dependent on them.  They will pull his strings and he will do what they say.

Don't think for a minute that any of us prefer John McCain, that's bullshit. But we cannot allow the destruction of our democracy by our own party's hand, and we will do everything necessary to see that these thugs do not take over our party. If there is no Democratic party we can believe in, then there is no hope left. Our only choice is to fight.

Drivel about the policy positions of Obama vs. McCain is irrelevant, you are wasting your time discussing it. The Democratic fish is rotten at the head, and the stench permeates all the rest. McCain getting in is the collateral damage we will have to tolerate.


by 07rescue on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:13:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Beautifully said! (1.00 / 1)


by suzieg on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:05:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's really too bad... (2.00 / 1)

This nonsense about the RBC is just that nonsense.

Everyone of those people who sided with Hillary in wanting to count those bullshit fake illegitimate contests voted to disenfranchise FL and MI and didn't change their tunes until it became clear that it was the only way to buy Hillary a chance at the nomination.

There were no votes stolen in Michigan because there were no legitimate votes cast in Michigan.

It was a mess true that and the outcome was far from ideal but Clinton and her people had far far more culpability in that mess than did Obama.

I guess Projection isn't just for Republicans.


by Skex on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:46:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

His name ISNT McBush. (1.00 / 1)

and using it makes you seem petty.


BHO/HRC 08
by omar little on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:27:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: His name ISNT McBush. (2.00 / 3)

And Dubya's name ain't Dubya, or Chimpy. And I could fucking care less if anyone thinks me calling Bush names is petty. McCain calls people names too:

Domenici: "Asshole"
Grassley: "Fucking jerk"
His wife: "C***"


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:41:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not really (2.00 / 4)

I've made a few comments there that got zapped instantly


You say that no right wing memes will be used to attack Obama and yet are citing Fox News Channel and a republican strategist.  This is the same Fox News that told us that WMD were found in Iraq...  Are they really trustworthy

BTW I read every now and again and you do make some valid points

That was one of them that got zapped.  I still have a few up in the same vein that haven't been purged yet.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:46:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not really (none / 0)

Yeah, so?


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:51:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess there isn't (2.00 / 5)

freedom of speech there, (there really isn't true freedom of speech anywhere). unlike what you said.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:57:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I guess there isn't (none / 0)

There's no free speech on any privately run board.  The right to free speech only applies to protection from government censorship.

I wish people would quit making that mistake. Private individuals and organizations can censor the crap out of you; you're not protected.  Only the government is prohibited.

Free speech is not allowed here, or DKos, or NoQuarter, or anywhere. What the mods want goes. Anyone who can't deal with that reality needs to go start their own blog.


by Michigoose on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:45:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you mean like on kos and huffington post? (none / 0)


by suzieg on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:07:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not really (2.00 / 6)

"Yeah, so?"

Thanks Mr. Cheney.


Obama/Adam West or Bruce Campbell or Lucy Lawless '08
by Purple with Green Stipes and Pink Polka Dots Dem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:17:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good luck... (2.00 / 4)

I guess it's a miracle that my comments still appear there. But who knows, maybe after today I'll join you in the glamorous "Banned from the Confluence" club. ;-)


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:54:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not banned yet (2.00 / 3)

But I probably will be the next time I post, I like to point out where they go against their own rules...

I liked how in your comment people said that they don't need to know Obama's positions to know in what direction he will push.

Here's hoping that there is a record youth turnout in CA to ensure that the Supreme Court ruling stands.


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:59:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm hopeful... (2.00 / 4)

That we'll see that. Democrats are energized this year. Rethugs aren't. And her in Cali, the number of newly registered Democrats is outnumbering the number of newly registered Rethugs by a margin of about 10:1 (no, I'm NOT exaggerating!).

Oh yes, and I wonder what these anti-Obama "Democrats" that like McBush would say when they realize that McBush supports the ban on marriage equality here.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:04:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, linfar! (2.00 / 7)

my guess is these are pug trolls, trying to keep Hillary Hate alive, to keep her supporters pissed off so some of us might vote for McCain. Or it's ugly sexism that no longer has an outlet.  yesterday someone tried to smear Cindy McCain, and I pointed out that sexism is sexism, and we sure don't want to be called hyprocrites for not liking it when it happens to Michelle.  This is the unity phase, it's time to talk about Barack's positives and go after pugs, not fellow Democrats, which would be both counter productive, and would serve in the end to tarnish Barack. hillary was able to ask her supporters to switch to Barack and many have, others may take a tad longer, if they're left in peace anyway. but Barack looks like he hasn't been able to stop the Hillary Hate, even though he's begged his supporters to lay off, to show he's won by acting like Hilary has lost (which she has) and not like she's so good she might be able to grab it from him if his supporters let up from the hate.  Really, repeat after me, he's won, it's time to blog about him and not against girls.  


just say it: Medicare for All
by anna shane on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:29:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, linfar! (1.50 / 2)

Heh. I get this image after reading your post of a place called "OBAMA'S CLUBHOUSE" with some of his friends nailing up a "NO GURLS ALLOWED!" sign on the front while Obama keeps trying to pull the hammer and nails from their hands without hurting their feelings....


by Michigoose on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:27:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Donnie McClurkin (1.20 / 5)

is on the McCain team now?


by Caldonia on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:35:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donnie McClurkin (1.28 / 7)

no, donnie is solid for obama. he's gonna get one of those faith-based grants to set up a treatment center to cure people of teh gay ;-)


by campskunk on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:41:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Gimme a break... (2.00 / 6)

So now McBush is more pro-equality than Obama? I never said that Obama is perfect. In fact, I was VERY angry when McClurkin-gate first arose. But really, it's time to look at the big picture.

Have you seen this?

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/conten t/lgbthome

Has McBush even addressed LGBT issues? Or for that matter, renounced the support of homophobic pastors like Rod Parsley speaking up for him?


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:48:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gimme a break... (1.33 / 6)

i dunno. ask a mccain supporter, instead of attempting to pretend that anyone who tells the truth about the role misogyny played in this primary contest and doesn't like the way the contest was rigged is supporting mccain. i'm not.

you used to not make all these sloppy mistakes in reasoning back when you supported hillary. oh well.


by campskunk on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:52:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gimme a break... (2.00 / 3)

Not everything is a comparison.  You ought to let people express themselves in peace.  It's not going to effect the election.  


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:54:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gimme a break... (2.00 / 2)

He renounced Parsley, but not over his homophobia.  Homophobia is just fine with McCain.


Join the Matthew 25 Network and help Democrats win the next generation of evangelicals.
by mistersite on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:55:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gimme a break... (none / 0)

Don't even go with Obama and LGBT issues. The man is against gay marriage. Against it. Period. He "believes marriage is between one man and one woman." So I don't think you can use LGBT issues to sell Obama.


by SophieL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:13:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gimme a break... (2.00 / 1)

And he would repeal DOMA. Name any other candidate for president in the history of the Democratic party who took a stance that progressive.

Or were you not disappointed that Hillary said she wouldn't repeal DOMA?


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:44:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gimme a break... (none / 0)

Where have you been for the last year?

Hopefully, the Advocate is a reliable source:
Tracking Hillary's stance on DOMA, distance from Bill on LGBT issues

"Senator Clinton believes that each state should make its own decisions regarding marriage or civil unions, but once a state legalizes such relationships, these relationships should receive full federal recognition and benefits,"


by SophieL on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:06:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gimme a break... (2.00 / 1)

She stated that she would only repeal section 3.


Visit Election Inspection for analysis, polls, and predictions!
by X Stryker on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:52:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donnie McClurkin (2.00 / 2)

McClurkin is an ass. Obama needs to send him packing. Nobody in the press much cares tho if yu have a gay bashing MC on your gospel tour.


by linfar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:36:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donnie McClurkin (2.00 / 1)

The press didn't care that Obama did.  


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:41:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donnie McClurkin (none / 0)

Obama didn't care that he did.


by Justwords on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 05:25:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donnie McClurkin (1.00 / 0)

LOL!


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:25:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Donnie McClurkin (none / 0)

Praise the Lord.  Let's see - Obama's outreach to evangelical youth - Joshua something - to evangelicals - matthew something - gays?  Leviticus something?


by Tolstoy on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:27:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thanks, linfar! (2.00 / 5)

No. Hill doesn't want what is happening. I read the comments Andrew--phew. It is like what happened to me at Hillsvoice. The anger is just blind and mean and all turned on Obama. It is not rational.


by linfar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:48:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I fear our dear friends (2.00 / 1)

with whom we formerly fought in the trenches take more offense at we Clintonistas who have accepted what they can't than they do with the tried and true Obama people.  It grieves me, because though I know a lot of cranks are part of this anti-Obama nonsense, I know the people who are in this thread with whom we have shared this long (and now painful) history are not cranks.


Our long national nightmare is over.
by Beltway Dem on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:10:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (2.00 / 1)

That's one of the things that bothers me the most:  folks jsut seem to dismiss the fact that women are angry and that they actually have the right to be angry, and they deserve the time to deal with it before they are pigeon holed into making a leap that some can make easier than others.  I say all this as a male.

Also, some Gays are still disturbed that we see Wright and Trinity and now Johnson placed aside for political expediency, but McClurkin was kept no matter the cost.

Folks should also note that all of these feelings(yeah, I know no one gives a tinker's damn about our feelings) don't mean we won't pull the lever for Obama in teh GE, but it is something that fuels the fire of some of these groups and could help folks learn how to defuse them and how to help them overcome their disrust of Obama.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:37:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (2.00 / 2)

Thats all good and well, but here you have a WHOLE site and movement driven to make McCain win.

I suggest reading the link provided by the diarist, but I warn you, if you are a Democrat be prepared to get that feeling when you look at a fatal car accident scene.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:41:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (2.00 / 1)

Actually, I see those type car accidents all the time, look at my name and you'll see 'ems'.

I don't shock easily, but I also have the common sense not to go into a redneck bar wearing a pink tutu. If the site makes you ill, don't go there. I've never once gone to any of the sites that folks continually hoist up here as so indicative of 'Hillary supporters'.  There's no need to, and I'm a Hillary supporter!

It's early, and as some have pointed out, at least one of the sites listed is not 'for McCain', but doesn't police their commenters speech as some other sites do.  

Give folks time to deal with the situation.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:53:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (2.00 / 5)

I think you are an important voice on this emsprater. I spent a week crying. I did. I couldn't have written a diary to save my soul. But I was for hill more than I was against Obama. I am wondering if--for a lot of these other people-- it was the other way around. Also, the sexism was outrageous, but what else is new. It wasn't really shocking to me! And the media, they did it all to Gore. The irrational turn to McCain is what puzzles me.


by linfar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:52:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

No, it's not the other way around.  And, almost no one there supports McCain, certainly not Riverdaughter.  


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:55:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (2.00 / 5)

# garychapelhill, on June 11th, 2008 at 1:23 pm Said:
redsox....I have to call bs on you. why would anyone with half a brain vote for him after all of the negatives you listed. When you get down to it, you're still making the "bush's third term" argument, which doesn't fly here. Many of us believe Obama WOULD be worse than mccain. He is a lot more like bush than mccain is. I'm voting for Mccain (if obama makes it through the summer) because he's not bush's third, obama is.

keep defending the diarist,  you know lying isn't nice.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:02:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (2.00 / 1)

I was not as deep in denial as some folks were because I felt this would be the outcome for a while now. Once they were able to frame the Clintons as rascist or her supporters as bigots, there was nothing left but for Mamma Cass to sing.
That 'acceptance' didn't dampen my dismay nor my resolve to continue my support for Hillary in other ways.  Back before some of us left another site, I went on record early on in a Peter Daou diary begging for Hillary to put forth an edict that no one in her campaign, be it Bill, staffers, volunteer or paid were allowed to make any comment whatsoever about Barack Obama, and that she never speak directly of him either.   She didn't listen, and look what happened.

I've said I will most likely vote for Obama in the fall, I've never stated any possibility of voting for McCain, I can't understand that leap of logic either.  My fear is that some of these folks will be so turned off that they sit home and we loose potential voters.  Some here say 'so what, good riddance'.  Sorry, with the exceptions of gaming by Katherine Harris and the DNC, every vote counts!


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:09:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (2.00 / 2)

Why on earth would gay people be concerned about Wright and Trinity. Since Trinity is a church that is supportive of LGBT rights?

The fact is a small number of certain women are angry at the wrong person for the wrong reasons.

Most of the people still bashing Obama are people who weren't ever going to vote for a Democrat anyway.


by Skex on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:06:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

It's not a concern about Trinity or Wright because of their stance.  It's a concern with Obama about his choices and his decisions.  He distanced himself form Wright, then Trinity and now Johnsosn because of political expediency; in other words, he had more to loose by continuing those associations than he had to loose by distancing himself from them.

We see he did the political math with McClurkin, and came up with a different answer, more to gain by continued use of him than to loose by cutting ties.  That's why it sticks some of us directly in the political 'eye'.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:14:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

First Obama did not toss Wright under the Bus, Wright dove under it. Notice we haven't heard a peep from him since Obama distanced himself he's kept a nice low profile proving to me that Wright unlike many deluded Hillary "supporters" understands what is at stake.

As far as the situation with McClurkin goes, It is unreasonable to expect every associate of anyone will agree 100% on every issue. Further if we insist on only associating with people who agree with us there is absolutely no chance that we'll ever change the minds of those who don't.

Sounds to me like McClurkin represents an in road to the people who need to hear the alternative message. Those people getting exposure to different ideas can only lead to better understanding.

I suspect that the majority of Gay people understand that just as the vast majority of women (as shown by recent poling) understand that Obama is a far better candidate than McCain.

There's an old saying in politics. Do get anything done you gotta get elected first. Obama seems to understand that.

No he's not perfect the perfect candidate could never get elected in this country even if they were to exist.

But he's a damned sight better than the alternative and only Republican or an idiot would think otherwise.


by Skex on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:59:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

Yep, you are right, he's better than the alternative NOW.

Also, I have to thank you for your reasoned response that discounts how some gay folks feel about the situation with McClurkin.  We 'got' what it was all about, but we also 'got' how as a minority group, 'we' were less of a voting bloc that needed to be reached out to, because our vote was already considered 'in the can' for Obama no matter which path he choose with McClurkin.  On the other hand, some 'progressives' had to be catered to in regards to Johnsosn, and the middle of the roaders had to be catered to with regards to Wright and Trinity.  They mattered, gays didn't.

We got it , and he has our votes, but it is still a matter of fact that he has some of them begrudgingly because of valid reasons.

"There's an old saying in politics. Do get anything done you gotta get elected first. Obama seems to understand that. "

Sounds to me like you're saying 'he'll say anything to win'.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 11:57:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

You misunderstand.

If you only speak and associate with people who agree with you how are you ever going to change the minds of those who don't?

The biggest weapon against bigotry and prejudice is familiarity.

See most people are decent enough and when an emeny is humanized it is harder for them to hate. That's just reality. That's why most propaganda promoting violence is aimed at dehumanizing an opponent.

I've been on both sides of the gay is a choice debate through my life (I just never thought it was an invalid choice) and lately I'm pretty much on the nature rather than nurture side of most behavioural debates.

Still that doesn't mean that there aren't millions of people who believe that it's a choice. In the end though whether homosexuality is a choice or innate does not and should not matter.  

A person is a person whether they are gay straight bi, black brown pink or purple whether they are male female or something in between, and what bit of geography they happen to have been born on shouldn't matter either.  

They should all be treated the same.

But we're never going to be able to convince the biggots and haters if we do not engage them. If this character can be used to gain access to a new group of people who can then be brought into the progressive community progress will be made.

We bring a group in on one issue then they can be moved on others since when you get right down too it all progressive positions flow from the fundamental premise that people are fundmentally decent and for the most part share the same goals and motivations regardless of gender orientation religion race or any other criteria that could be used to divide them.

They want to be able to live a decent life provide sufficient food and adequate housing for themselves and their families have the prospect of leaving their offspring in similar or better situations than they themselves are and beyond that to be more or less left alone.

I do think it is important however to not get too worked up on single issue identity politics not because those issues don't matter but because if one addresses the broader socio-economic and systemic factors affecting peoples lives the rest will take care of itself.

This is not to say that people should not be out fighting for the rights of oppressed groups but that it should be kept in perspective of the overall goals.

Also I think many times people allow their cynicism to blind themselves to the very real progress we are making.

Consider the big issue over the last 8 years regarding gays is mariage. Now what does that tell you when you take it in context with the greater history. It wasn't all that long ago that the question we were fighting over was the right for gay people to live and it is a testament to the progress we've made as a society that conservatives have been fought back to arguing about mariage equality.

As Thomas Paine said "a long habit of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason."

We see this playing out in all area's of our society. The reason the right is so desperate in their attacks is because they understand that they are losing.

The younger generation doesn't care about a persons race or gender they have grown accustomed to people who are different in no small part to the efforts of the older generations who while unable to completely remove those prejudices from their own psyches have to a great degree managed to avoid passing them on to their offspring. That coupled with the social pressures that condemn such prejudices (promoted in no small degree by our entertainment media which for all its failing has done wonders in humanizing people who are different) have put us in the position today where a woman came with in spitting distance of and a black man did become the presidential nominee from a major party.

Unfortunantly however not all of the older generation is gone and despite all their best efforts they have not managed to stamp out those prejudices they picked up from their parrents. And they still make up a significant portion of the electorate.

There is nuance here but there is a difference between forming coalitions with people you do not share every value with and "saying anything to win"

This is the fundamental difference between the DLC Clinton brand of bipartisanship and Obama's brand.

Obama will go to a group that may not agree with him on issues regarding gay rights but who do agree on matters of fighting poverty and protecting the environment and will work with them on those matters where they share common cause with out compromising on those issues where they disagree.

His Bipartisanship is not about compromise it's not tit for tat you give me this I give you that. It's we may not agree on that matter but we do on this so lets work together to accomplish this and we'll just have to disagree on that.

This is how Obama can build a larger consensus while not compromising on his fundamental values. He'll just find a different group to work with on the issues they disagree on.


by Skex on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:41:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (2.00 / 5)

I'd like to add a little something important to this point as well. (You have my full permission to throw it in the diary itself, if you'd like.)

The McCain trolls aren't JUST pretending to be Clinton supporters. I've seen plenty of instances (DKos, Slate) where supposed Obama supporters have gone heavily into 'McCain plant' territory.

Some choice statements (paraphrased).

"Hillary Clinton is the worst thing to ever happen to America. What a bitch! HEY HILLARY, stop talking. You're not fit to polish Oboma's shoes!"

"NO VOTE FOR O"BAMA IF HILLARY IS ON THE TICKET! I'm serious. She is WORST for AMERICA! She will KILL HIM and take presidency. She's KILLED before!"

McCain knows that stirring the frustration and anger of Clinton supporters is his best shot at pulling some over to his side, and posing as idiotic, misogynistic Obama supporters is one of the best ways of doing that.  


by EvilAsh on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:24:04 PM EST

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (2.00 / 1)

Really,  if so I have never seen that here don't go to Kos but at least they give more power to users to make those people disapear.

Your examples are 100% McCain Trollery,  where the garbage I am seeing on Riverdaughter is simply McCain campaigning.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:51:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (2.00 / 3)

This is a good point. I actually neve considered it before.


by linfar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:53:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

I've seen it throughout the campaign, starting EARLY when the republicans were trying to take down Hillary. (Like everybody else, they didn't think Obama had a chance.)
There were the "Hillary is RACIST" rants that came out before Iowa, which were just silly because she hardly mentioned Obama until mid-December. I used to try to talk these people down, until I realized that they didn't give a damn about Obama, they just hated Hillary with a passion and were likely republican trolls. The easiest way to spot them was, and is, when they repeatedly misspell 'Barack Obama' in a variety of hilarious ways.

by EvilAsh on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:50:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What do we do? (1.33 / 3)

I think it's about time to pull the plug on these people.

I think they are dangerous and a threat to the election and to Hillary's reputation, let alone our party.

I thought if we ignored them they would calm down as their echo chamber got quiter and quieter.

Well it seems they are ready to mount a pro-mcbush campaign.

I am drawing mental metaphors of dogs with full blown rabies,  they were cute at one point but for the sake of humanity you got to take them down.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:37:19 PM EST

Re: What do we do? (none / 0)

Sigh.

Folks always want to kill or destroy that which they don't understand.

Your commentary is in the same vein as any commentary from GWB or Dick Cheney about Muslims.

I seriously doubt that some fringe groups are going to destroy Hillary's reputation (heck if a full blown stampede from the primary opposition couldn't destroy her rep, how can a few malcontents?).

To defuse these folks, we have to understand their problems, see things from their point of view.  At least that's what Obama said when he explained keeping McClurkin on his campaign stage, and what Obama supporters in general say about foreign policy issues: talk, discuss, without preconditions.

Not 'pull the plug'.


Hell's bells, even the GOP didn't have to crucify Eisenhower's record in order to make Reagan their 'saint'. We can have two great ones, you know?
by emsprater on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:47:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What do we do? (2.00 / 3)

The problem is how do you pull the plug? I think it is by harping on McCain. I have experienced some of their insanity now and it isn't fun. I am a turncoat, a dishonest writer, how could I have attacked Obama and now support him? Hill understands, but so many of her supporters don't. Of course, they do have a point. I mean I agree with a lot of their complaints--but to turn to McCain is just crazy.


by linfar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:56:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What do we do? (none / 0)

"Take Them Down"?  What exactly are you suggesting?

And what gives you the right?

These folks are entitled to their opinions and their site. Their chances of their actually affecting the outcome of the GE is nil. And the more attention you give them the louder they'll yell.

Just ignore them, in the name of whatever Deity you choose (or just in the name of good sense if you don't have a Deity(ies).)

"Take them down"....do you have any idea how crazed you sound?


by Michigoose on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:52:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What do we do? (none / 0)

Well no Im not crazy, I said up till now they I have lets just ignore them and make fun of them from a distance (flowbee, the founder of NQ).

I brought up the idea of bringing them down, but then I saw those two dumbasses from PUMA on Fox tv get schooled and made to look silly and petty (duh, fox is a right wing network) that I realized the only danger they now pose is severely embarrassing Hillary.

With all the talk of the new polls thats bad enough, then to have these jackasses rub Hillary's defeat through the mud just a little more.

We don't need people saying their Democrats like this.

Would you have been so soft on people had they does this in the GE in 1992,  how about 2004 it was done to Kerry.

These jerks show a complete disregard for the country, the constitution and it's citizen by supporting McCain just because their candidate isn't nominated.
How selfious.

I say take them down, especially the racists antiobama sites, that just embaresses the USA globally.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:08:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What do we do? (none / 0)

Again with the "take them down". Dude, you are scary crazy.


by Michigoose on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:18:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I believe they have vaild points (2.00 / 3)

and no less valid than yours.

throughout this nomination vetting process, almost half of democrats had issues with Obama.  No matter what flavor comes out of the woodwork, their issue(s)with Obama is still a problem for him and for the Party.

This is politics; this is for a big enchilada.  No one should take these emails with a grain of salt nor take a Democrat's support for granted.

I believe Obama should take the only viable path available and put her on the ticket, and move on towards November.  Otherwise, these voices will continue to vex the situation.


by dcrolg on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:53:12 PM EST

Re: I believe they have vaild points (2.00 / 3)

I agree completely. If he would put her on the ticket I think it would mostly go away. But I think Obama thinks he can win without her supporters. I think that would be huge miscalculation, but who am I?


by linfar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 06:58:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

dont you mean, who are we?:-) (2.00 / 1)


by dcrolg on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:05:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dont you mean, who are we?:-) (2.00 / 2)

I don't know, do I?


by linfar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:15:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Good one; good for you. (none / 0)


by dcrolg on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:51:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I believe they have vaild points (2.00 / 1)

I really don't think it would go away; it would just go more underground. Because the people who understood the importance of electing a Democrat would have voted for O whether or not HRC was his VP (particularly after she urged them to support him). I'd wager the majority of the howlers at this point are just people who don't like Obama. If he picked her for VP, they'd just start saying the ticket were upside down, and continue to try to undermine him in some backwards fashion.


should we go outside? / should we break some bread? / are you'nterested?
by Firewall on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:05:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I believe they have vaild points (2.00 / 3)

hmmm. I think I disagree. I think a lot of the outrage is fueled by the sexism in the media and the way the fix seemed to be in at the DNC. If he puts her on the ticket, it will evaporate. No question.


by linfar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I believe they have vaild points (2.00 / 1)

I think there would be a few holdouts, but it would bring over most of her supporters.  Seeing Hillary out on the campaign trail again would change a lot of voters.


I'm a Rick-o-phobe.
by psychodrew on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:08:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I believe they have vaild points (none / 0)

The holdouts would diminish. I believe that there is no way they would not vote or vote for McCain if Hillary's name was available.

For once, we would all be getting something we wanted, although not perhaps in the ideal way we each had imagined. But for once, all of us would be on the same side for real.

It would certainly make it obvious here who is a troll and who is not.


by SophieL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:12:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I believe they have vaild points (2.00 / 2)

Putting Hillary on the ticket would move me from the Uncommitted column to the Democratic column. I can't speak for anyone else, though.  I think she is a proven vote-getter and a good balance to Obama's weaknesses.


by Michigoose on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:54:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i sincerely object (2.00 / 0)

to the idea that obama thinks he can win without hillary's supporters.

that could not be further from the truth.

i do, however, believe he thinks he can win without hillary on the ticket.  on that, i agree with him, much as that may upset some folks.


Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:57:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i sincerely object (2.00 / 1)

I was referring to his strategy for turning red states blue. His strategy for winning the ge doesn't rely on places where Hill won big


by linfar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:59:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: i sincerely object (none / 0)

Maybe he can. But maybe he can't. His chances are better with her there. Why take chances? Most Democrats favor the Obama/Clinton ticket. That translates to more support.

I'm never going to understand the Obama supporters who claim they are desperate to beat McCain ...unless Hillary is on the ticket, in which case they're abandoning ship.  I think that reveals them as anti-Clinton trolls, not real Democrats.


by Michigoose on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:57:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You have your right (2.00 / 5)

to back Obama, but some of us Hillary supporters are struggling with how we take the next step.  That's how polarizing this race has been, and your mock outrage isn't helping the situation.


by izarradar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:04:33 PM EST

Mock outrage? (2.00 / 2)

There's no "mock" to my outrage. It's reprehensible that Rethugs are playing with the raw emotions of some Hillary supporters that the're actually getting some folks to pledge to support McBush over Obama. Please read my diary again. What does Hillary agree with McBush on? And why would she want her supporters to vote against their own best interests?


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:12:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mock outrage? (none / 0)

I think she was referring to your comments about riverdaughter.  Jesus, can't you just let people express themselves?  Riverdaughter does not and has never supported McCain.  


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:16:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mock outrage? (2.00 / 2)

sorry, masslib, Riverdaughter is on the mailing he is talking about. It was mailed to me too. She seems to be part of this very long coalition of groups.


by linfar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:30:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mock outrage? (2.00 / 2)

They put her on there.  She didn't request it.  Jesus, not every site in the blogosphere has to be an Obama site.  Feck sake, give people a little space.  the election is 6 months from now.  She has said she does not and will not support mcCain.  that ought to be enough for you.


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:32:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mock outrage? (2.00 / 2)

How would anyone know they just put her on there? That's nutz. She doesn't control use of her site's name? c'mon, now...


by linfar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:43:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mock outrage? (none / 0)

I don't think she knows anything about it.  They stole PUMA from her.


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:45:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mock outrage? (2.00 / 1)

Well, we could speculate on it forever I guess. Why doesn't she just come out and say she didn't belong on there?


by linfar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:58:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Mock outrage? (2.00 / 1)

I don't know, and I c ould care a less.  There is no reason to be sliming riverdaughter.  Go advocate for Obama.  Sliming one blogger who doesn't support McCain is just deplorable.


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:02:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You have your right (2.00 / 4)

izarradar, sending you some hugs. It's a huge step to change candidates. But I think Hill is right about how bad McCain would be. Take your time. I know you care and I support you


by linfar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:12:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

izzaradar (2.00 / 1)

as someone who's had her heart broken over quite a few election cycles, i say take whatever time you need to heal.

hell, you may never heal.  but you will get to a place where it's not as painful as it is now.  and when you get there, start digging around obama's issues page.  you'll find he has some great stuff on there for women and families.  things like UHC for kids, afterschool program funding, lowering college costs, etc.  i think you'll find a lot to love about his platform.


Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:41:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You have your right (2.00 / 1)

I completely admit that this is probably easier for me than most.  Most of the others worked a lot harder and donated a lot more money.  Take all the time you need.


I'm a Rick-o-phobe.
by psychodrew on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:04:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (2.00 / 3)

Here's my suggestion for what it's worth. For these folks it's personal, it has little or nothing to do with policy. It's all about punishment. When somebody is really angry rational arguments just tends to piss them off more. They know you're probably right, but they don't want to hear it.

So the more we try and persuade them they are wrong the more entrenched they become. Suggestion ignore, when you get an email just ask off the list.

Hopefully a majority will calm down realize they cutting off their collective noses. Others never will and will just let the anger fester and turn them into unhappy, miserable people.


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:08:14 PM EST

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

yes, emotional based decisions are never based on rationality and are usually later referred to as episodes of lost thought or "I don't know what I was thinking".  

So the best way is to let the jets cool and let rational thought seep back in.    

Also, I think it would help if Hillary gets out there and really starts to campaign and advocate for Obama.

If anyone is still left with a "decision" after that, well, then seriously that person is not a dem, never supported Hillary for the issues and quite frankly, that selfish asshole can go f him/herself for all I care.


by KLRinLA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

If anyone is still left with a "decision" after that, well, then seriously that person is not a dem, never supported Hillary for the issues and quite frankly, that selfish asshole can go f him/herself for all I care.

So how do you really feel :)


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:58:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

yeah , it is over the top and hyperbolic, but it really is getting frustrating because I don't think other supporters of various candidates in the past were benefitted with a grace period to mend feelings and "decide" between polar opposite presidential nominees, one of which having already been endorsed by said affected supporters' candidate.

I think after a period of time, people still on the fence should be considered suspect and should not be allowed to advocate positions on this website that undermine the goal/intent/desire of this website, of having Obama as president.

so yeah, f em, ;)


by KLRinLA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:57:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

In other elections, half of the party did not vote for someone else besides the presumptuous nominee.  You can compare this situation to any other one.  This election is not the same.


by Scotch on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:06:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

Nor are they doing it this time, not even close. See latest NBC/WSJ poll


Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
by jsfox on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:14:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

I am talking about the primaries.


by Scotch on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:15:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

Yes, but the end game is still the same, you can help the democratic nominee win or lose.  Based off of Clinton's endorsement of Obama, she says help Obama win.  Supporters of hers that go against that after a period of time are basically enemies to the democratic party and its chances of obtaining the presidency


by KLRinLA on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:17:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

What if we're just taking the "Michelle option" in that we have to think about it.


by SophieL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:17:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

well, it is hard to say how Michelle would feel if Clinton won the primary... back when she made this statement there was a contentious battle going on.  At that point, Hillary had yet to say that she would endorse Barack if he won.  So let's not take words from somebody in  situation  A and apply them to situation B, it is a dishonest argument.

But you can think about it if you want, but if you are advocating for anyone besides the democratic nominee on this website then you are the enemy.

So go ahead and think about it, but I must say, if you supported Hillary, it's a no brainer, unless someone is so selfish, irrational, and vindictive as to vote against the dem nominee out of spite because Hillary didn't get the precious.  


by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:13:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

I think after a period of time, people still on the fence should be considered suspect and should not be allowed to advocate positions on this website that undermine the goal/intent/desire of this website, of having Obama as president.

Wow!  Fascist much? And this website is about a lot more than just getting Obama into the White House, you know.

Also, unless you're a mod, I think you should hold off on getting dictatorial about what should happen here.  Perhaps you should go start your own blog.


by Michigoose on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:02:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

Yes I know, I should have said "a goal" and not "the goal".  But seriously, advocate against Obama and you are an enemy to this site.  The primary is over (yeah I know about Denver, but it's over).

Sorry if you think it is fascism, but this is a democratic site and we promote our candidate now and we don't have room for advocacy against Obama here, so skedaddle if you are against him.  I'd think the mods would agree,


by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:23:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

I'd think the mods would agree,

Clearly not, as I'm still here. You may have noticed.

And I don't know any of the mods here personally, but mods I know on other boards seriously frown on people trying to do their jobs for them and set standards they themselves have not set.

And the site's statement of purpose says:

"MyDD is a group blog designed to discuss campaigns, the progressive movement, and political power. "

It says nothing about the Democrats.  I'm progressive -- liberal and proud to proclaim it, in fact -- but I'm not a Democrat.  There are actually quite a few of us out here, you know.

I think you really need to go start your own site where you can actually make the rules, instead of trying to usurp that job from the actual moderators.


by Michigoose on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:46:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

Well certainly a progressive wouldn't vote for McCain, that's ludicrious.  And if you supported Hillary, then I'd have to imagine it was based on the issues.  If my assumption is correct, then lampooning an Obama presidency by voting for Nader or whichever 3rd P candidate you prefer, or not at all, would be contrary to the issues you supported in Hillary.  Also it would mean a greater chance that McCain is president,  which means you would now be a 100 times further from pushing forward the progressive agenda compared to Barack.

I assume you live in Michigan, that state is in play, your vote will be very important.  So you mean to tell me that as a progressive, you are willing to set back progressive ideals by a century?  You need to re-evaluate your no-vote/3rd P vote  sir/madam


by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 05:21:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

And by the way, read the new Rec'd diary, it's all about progressive getting behind Obama.  Then maybe you'll see why you should vote for Obama


by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 05:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

<quote>I don't think other supporters of various candidates in the past were benefitted with a grace period to mend feelings and "decide" between polar opposite presidential nominees, one of which having already been endorsed by said affected supporters' candidate.</quote>

You don't think they were "benefitted with a grace period"? What do you think was done with them, then? Were they taken out and shot at dawn?  Thank God, this is still a free country where people can continue to not support Obama if they didn't support him before he became the presumptive nominee.

I've never seen a campaign where the primary WINNERS were so intent on demonizing the other candidate's voters and driving them away.  

Really, this attitude of "We're gonna get those beeyatches over there for daring to continue hatin' on our guy!"  is  totally repellent, destructive to the party unity you claim to want, counter productive, no doubt embarrassing as Hell to your candidate if he sees these posts...  are you folk psychotic or what? This is unreal.


by Michigoose on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:12:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

Don't put words in mouth, my post was never about gender, whcih is another ploy by trolls to use to start flames.  It is about asshats who go around THIS site and threaten to vote for McCain who should get the boot and considered the enemy.  And if you are advocating against Obama then yeah, get the fuck off this website and do it at redstate.  


by KLRinLA on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:19:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

this was too easy (1.50 / 6)

dummy doesn't know how to conceal her identity on the domain name registration.  sigh

Domain Name.......... justsaynodeal.com
Creation Date........ 2008-06-09
Registration Date.... 2008-06-09
Expiry Date.......... 2009-06-09
Organisation Name.... DianaMantouvalos DianaMantouvalos
Organisation Address. P O Box 99800
Organisation Address.
Organisation Address. EmeryVille
Organisation Address. 94662
Organisation Address. CA
Organisation Address. US

Admin Name........... PrivateRegContact Admin
Admin Address........ P O Box 99800
Admin Address........
Admin Address........ EmeryVille
Admin Address........ 94662
Admin Address........ CA
Admin Address........ US
Admin Email.......... contact@myprivateregistration.com
Admin Phone.......... +1.5105952002
Admin Fax............

Tech Name............ PrivateRegContact TECH
Tech Address......... P O Box 99800
Tech Address.........
Tech Address......... EmeryVille
Tech Address......... 94662
Tech Address......... CA
Tech Address......... US
Tech Email........... contact@myprivateregistration.com
Tech Phone........... +1.5105952002
Tech Fax.............
Name Server.......... yns1.yahoo.com
Name Server.......... yns2.yahoo.com

via the googles, she seems to be a legit clinton supporter who works in public relations.  with that type of background, she probably knows how to make a lot of noise.  probably more noise than whatever this movement warrants.  ug.


Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:39:01 PM EST

All hail teh google... (2.00 / 1)


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:56:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: All hail teh google... (none / 0)

Also know that she spells her Diane, when talking to the press.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:58:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Great diary! (2.00 / 4)

The internet is going to make easier for these groups to organize than in past elections, but it will also make it easier for us to fight back.  Hopefully, a lot of these people will realize they are making fools of themselves and come back to the Democratic Party.  Unfortunately, we have Faux News ready to invite these fools on anytime.


I'm a Rick-o-phobe.
by psychodrew on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:47:19 PM EST

And that's what freaks me out the most... (2.00 / 2)

These "PUMA" people don't realize they're being used to make Democrats look pathetic while they pump up McBush. It's really sad to see.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:55:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And that's what freaks me out the most... (2.00 / 1)

A part of me blames the DNC.  I wonder if there wouldn't be just a little less anger were it not for those four delegates in Michigan.  


I'm a Rick-o-phobe.
by psychodrew on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:25:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And that's what freaks me out the most... (2.00 / 1)

There would be a LOT less anger.  I'm in Michigan, so I know. Not that many people know the details of the DNC deal, but there's a general feeling that the voters got shafted.

Much of Michigan is just not pleased with Obama. (In the southwestern part where I leave, at least. Detroit may be his, and the Yoopers are usually conservative voters regardless.)


by Michigoose on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:05:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great diary! (2.00 / 1)

This is the face of the PUMA movement?

haha,  oh keep bowing your heads to Neil Cavuto.

Look, the Democrats have gotten some STARS from the Gop fallout of the last 15 years and I mean game changers (before you start trashing kos and arianna remember that the creator of Media Matters was campaign staff for Mccain in 2000).

Please, lets do a trade and give these bumbling stumbling idiots to the republicans, kinda like pow exchanges in war time.

Those voices, they sound like concerned ann coulters, its just grating.

oh another thing, look at how they grasp for mental straws.....
God I hope they don't have kids of youtube age.


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:56:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great diary! (none / 0)

So does anyone recognize these clowns from the blogs?

Or are they tv commercial actors that Diane Mantouvalos pretends to be friends with?


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:05:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Great diary! (none / 0)

Wow, I actually watched the whole thing, and I think I actually saw Fox do it's first serious interview ever.

Just as I thought they were trying to push the whole racist supporter(Hariet Christian) or Puma "revolution"  he just handed their asses on a plate to these clowns.

Wow, Democrats against Unity are easy to beat.

Whats funny is these two clowns probably thought they would get a free ride, and that Fox is fair and balanced (as McCauliffe said and many supporters at the time agreed with)


http://www.truepat.org/
by CrushTheGOP2008 on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:32:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (1.66 / 3)

Maybe they're Hillary supporters and not Hillary slaves.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:50:30 PM EST

So now I'm a "slave"? (2.00 / 1)

How trollish of you. So now, I'm a "slave" for choosing the candidate who's best on the issues? So do you now call Hillary a "slave owner" for suggesting she owns me? Wow, and I thought you liked her.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:57:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: So now I'm a "slave"? (none / 0)

No you are not a slave. It is perfectly reasonable that you have made a choice to support Obama. Just as it is perfectly reasonable for Democrats who supported Hillary to not support Obama. No one is required to support Obama simply because Hillary said so.

The position of Obama supporters appears to be  Hillary supporters should be Hillary slaves and there is no freewill in politics or within the Democratic Party.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:15:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

I agree -- there's a vast difference between being someone who supported Hillary because she was the right choice, and being someone who automatically does whatever Hillary does because they're in love with her personally or for whatever reason.

I supported HIllary because I thought she was best, and I still do.  But her actions don't determine mine; she has items on her agenda that are not mine (such as maintaining a viable career in the Democratic party).  It's fine that she's decided to be on Obama's side, but that in no way compels me to follow her.

Voting for a candidate is like having a preference for someone in the company to get promoted. If your favorite doesn't get the promotion, that doesn't mean you suddenly start running around doing that person's bidding. That's ridiculous.


by Michigoose on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:16:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (2.00 / 1)

I respect your support for the Democratic Party and the Democratic nominee for president, Barack Obama.  However, the Democratic Party has much to atone for, IMO.  As such, I see many Democrats making THAT point clear to party come November.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:53:28 PM EST

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (2.00 / 2)

I think the party has to fess up and "atone" too. This is exactly the wrong way to make that happen. I think  women could take a page from the AA playbook in bringing the Dem Party around.


by linfar on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 07:56:16 PM EST

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (1.00 / 0)

Please tell me how else to have the party "atone"?
I will gladly push it as an issue.
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:00:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well said, linfar... (2.00 / 2)

Yes, the DNC has plenty of issues to take care of. And yes, the best way to do so is to reform the party from the inside instead of destroy it from the outside.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:02:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well said, linfar... (1.00 / 0)

This isn't an argument I'm going to continue.  I'll just say that Obama has stated Dean will continue to chair the DNC.  Well, there is historical precedence in that decision.  However, what changes without change?


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:09:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Voting against Obama (2.00 / 2)

is not punishing the party!

It's punishing the poor.
It's punishing the troops.
It's punishing the LGBT community.
It's punishing immigrants.
It's punishing every child in America who can't afford to go to private school.
It's punishing the environment.

Let's find another way to punish the DNC.

Not this.  Please not this.


I'm a Rick-o-phobe.
by psychodrew on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:32:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voting against Obama (1.00 / 0)

Once again, I am open to that suggestion.  Please offer suggestions.  I will gladly push the meme.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:36:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I don't know. (2.00 / 1)

I wish I did.

But I know this.  If Obama goes down in defeat, the Clintons will be blamed and we will be WORSE off than we are now.

Further, the war will continue, the economy will stay in the tank, the SC will be packed with little Alito's.

I just don't understand what it is that a President John McCain doesn't send chill up the spine of every person who voted for Hillary.  I just really don't.


I'm a Rick-o-phobe.
by psychodrew on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:46:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know. (1.00 / 0)

"If Obama goes down in defeat..."  Obama will be blamed and those Democrats who pushed/supported him will be blamed.
Let me be clear; I'm mad as hell, but I haven't decided what to do with the top of the ticket come November.  The good news for Dems is that, based on my geography, it doesn't really matter.  ;)
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:53:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know. (1.00 / 0)

Curiously, a lot of my friends and associates are (um, were) Hillary supporters.  We all recognize the impact that has in IL.  ;)


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:56:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I don't know. (2.00 / 2)

I don't think the Clintons are going to be blamed. The election is 5 months off.  If Obama looses, he will look pretty bad blaming it on someone else who ran against him in a primary 5 months previously.  Besides that, people who voted for Clinton aren't owned by her.  She put her support behind him and has no control over their votes. Obama has 5 months to control the election, make a case for himself,raise and spend millions upon millions of dollars, and put to rest anything that came up in the campaign.  If he isn't able to do that then it will look really lame for him to not take the blame himself and actually will make him look like a poor candidate.  It would be scapegoating and weak to not take the blame for a loss, and I don't and won't buy it.  It has been a democratic competition, is still one, in a democracy.  All is fair.


by Scotch on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:04:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Voting against Obama (2.00 / 1)

I did not like the way the DNC or the Democratic party 'elders' handled this whole election cycle. We have a system, which we don't like, but they made and apparently they don't like if they can't push out an entire field of candidates and limit it to one early in the process. Old politics...Iowa and New Hampshire pick our candidate and the others are to drop out of sight. The democratic convention is no longer where the candidate is decided but a room full of baloons and confetti and rah rah rah. If August is 'too late' to allow all states to vote and pick a candidate at the convention- then move the convention up, change the nominating process and get rid of this screwed up delegate split where a candidate can get 70% of the vote and end up with only one more delegate than the loser with 30%.

Okay- sorry got off topic and into a rant. It's too late to change our nominating system for this cycle but as races get closer in competition (like the last two presidential races and this democratic primary) then our system needs changing for the year 2012. Florida should have been given a waiver just like the other 3 states because part of their moving it up early was to get paper trail ballots. They should have resolved this in the beginning with both Mi and Fl rather than waiting until May 31st when they knew it wouldn't be 'game changing'. The process then became unfair because of the foot dragging of the DNC and the RBC.

I am an undecided voter. Undecided whether I will vote for Obama (depending on how he handles himself and how the next 5 months goes) or will sit it out and not vote. I have that luxury. I live in CA.

I did what I did to 'punish' the DNC already. As a registered Democrat for over 40 years- I changed my registration to 'Decline to State'. As a DS in my state I can choose whatever primary ballot I want to vote on. I could as an Independent also ...but didn't want to join the Independent Party. When the DNC sent me another one of their emails asking for money. I unsubscribed. They send you to a screen that asks you why. I simply said- 'changing party affiliation'. They don't make it easy to unsubscribe because they have to email you a 4 digit code to finish the process it took me two days and 4 tries to get them to email me a 4 digit code. After the down ticket primary in my state on June 3- I sent the DNC a copy of my change in party affiliation the same day I sent it to the Secretary of State Elections Division in my state. As an AV- not an LV...they do keep track. They (the party) is 'wringing their hands' over the divided party...they deserve to and maybe take a look back at what went wrong and improve the system in the future.


by Justwords on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 04:55:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

She never released her delegates to vote for Obama.  She still is waiting for Obama to mess up.


by dogman on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:42:31 PM EST

It's standard practice. (2.00 / 3)

She'll release them at the convention just as the losing candidates in 2000 and 2004, did.


I'm a Rick-o-phobe.
by psychodrew on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 08:59:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's standard practice. (2.00 / 3)

I don't know why people don't know how it has always been done before.  I have a feeling that a lot of them were just born to politics, yesterday.  


by Scotch on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 09:07:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

yep (none / 0)

I have a feeling that a lot of them were just born to politics, yesterday.
That's also why many want Democrats to behave like Republicans. No disagreement permitted.


by soyousay on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 10:13:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There are at least two levels to that (none / 0)

1/ new voters.  Nothing at all wrong with that, and everything right.

2/ newly interested existing voters.  Folks who have not made a hobby out of politics in the past who are only now digging into the gritty details of it.  Nothing at all wrong with that, either, and everything right.

But your assertions that follow are imho without merit on two levels as well.

1/ I don't believe it is necessarily true that debate is an intrinsically exclusive possession of either party.

2/ You may be referencing the resistance here to diaries with titles like "Obama as always throwing all his friends under buses".  This opens the definition of "converation and debate" and how conversations and debates may or may not vary from "concern trolling".  Interesting topic, but not in the direct realm of your comment's assertion.

-chris


Motley Moose: Progress Through Politics
by chrisblask on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:43:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's standard practice. (none / 0)

They were.

And the DNC just handed them the future. Hillary wasn't kidding when she reiterated, "we will have to work hard..."


by SophieL on Wed Jun 11, 2008 at 11:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say No Deal... To Obama? OR McBUSH? (none / 0)

Heh. I'M still waiting for Obama to mess up. Well, not exactly waiting -- more like dreading. If another Wright-type situation pops up between now and November, or something nasty rises from the sewers of the Chicago political scene, it could get really ugly.  

So here's hoping Obama's really taken a good broom to his closet of skeletons.  


by Michigoose on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:31:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

With Obama, we're not just waiting for the (2.00 / 1)

"other" shoe to drop...it's more like following a centipede. I share your concern.


by BJJ Fighter on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:35:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Centrists are starting to come around.... (1.00 / 1)

Many of us who consider ourselves centrist Democrats were ready at one point to bolt, and vote for McCain. And it wasn't because Hillary Clinton lost; it was more about policy issues, like free trade. At this point, it looks like Obama is starting to see reason and tack towards the center:

--In an interview with John Harwood of CNBC earlier this week, he said that he would consider shelving tax increases, should the economy still be in a slowdown come January 2009. That's a start, and a step in the right direction.
--He's started wearing the American Flag lapel pin, which he once called a symbol of oppression. So again, he's starting to come around.
--Word has it that the campaign is slapping a muzzle on Mrs. Obama, which is good. Life is depressing enough without having to hear her many grim speeches.

The pragmatic center is a good place to be...Barack, welcome aboard. Now if he comes out in favor of increased exploration and drilling for energy, I'm there!


by BJJ Fighter on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:15:54 AM EST

Re: Centrists are starting to come around.... (none / 0)

For the longest time in this party, I've been looking for what I call "non-DLC" centrism which is centrism not driven by opinion polls.

If that's what this is, I'm happy.  If it is poll-driven stuff, not so much.


I wonder why everyone in the blogosphere feels the need to measure his or her Sebelius.
by AZphilosopher on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:36:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It was clearly thought up by somebody with... (none / 0)

...a marketing background.  PUMA is evocative of several things that would make it stick in people's minds:

1) the shoes

  1. the term "cougar" which is often applied to people of the appropriate demographic under certain circumstances.
  2. a fierce cat

The cuteness of the acronym and the multiple things it evokes is an indicator that opinion research had something to do with this.  So, this is an indicator it is an astroturf organization.


I wonder why everyone in the blogosphere feels the need to measure his or her Sebelius.
by AZphilosopher on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:33:39 AM EST

It was Riverdaughter, (none / 0)

the inimitable goldberry.  She has a ferocious wit and an uncanny knack for words.  I was haunting the Confluence, which is certainly the most or one of the most visited sites on WordPress, when she announced the birth of the PUMA (Party Unity My A**) Party.  

By the way, she has taken no sacred vow to not vote for Obama.  She has taken a sacred vow to make him worry about their votes.


Our long national nightmare is over.
by Beltway Dem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:05:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It was Riverdaughter, (none / 0)

With the noise that that group is making combined with the polling data, it might be best to just let every individual face the ultimate existential dilemma in the voting booth.  The question is how many would actually be able to pull the trigger.

They probably came on a bit too strong to cause a change in behavior.  I'm sorry if I'm sounding way too confrontational on this, but I seriously think one of the best things to do is to start calling bluffs.  Especially when it seems like the amount of work that goes into placating the NOvemberists can be spent picking up/registering people new to the system.


I wonder why everyone in the blogosphere feels the need to measure his or her Sebelius.
by AZphilosopher on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 12:52:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My guess (none / 0)

is that the Obama supporters from the primaries and the newly minted Obama supporters who supported Hillary in the primaries will be pretty patient well into July.  Somewhere in there, some strain will start to enter the Democratic blogosphere for people who haven't signed on with the Party.  Closer to the convention, my guess is that the dead ender remnant will cross an invisible line into trolldom.


Our long national nightmare is over.
by Beltway Dem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:04:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: My guess (none / 0)

I'm not saying to drop a hammer on them but that outreach may not be cost effective and as such should be a low priority.

When you use the rhetoric they do, you are not saying "make it better".  You are saying "ignore me".


I wonder why everyone in the blogosphere feels the need to measure his or her Sebelius.
by AZphilosopher on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:24:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are probably right, (none / 0)

I guess because these people have been friends, those of us who support Obama now after we supported Hillary in the primaries want to see them come along.  It may be a pointless effort.


Our long national nightmare is over.
by Beltway Dem on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:44:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You are probably right, (none / 0)

I know I was unreachable in '00.  I constantly had my eye on the AZ polling data to see if I could get away with voting for Nader.

But because of that experience, I came back and voted Kerry in '04 despite the fact I was TOTALLY opposed and I thought he had zero chance of winning (in fact, I was rooting for him to be primaried in previous years because I didn't want him to run).

This may be the best thing in the long term for party unity even if there is a loss (though I am a solid Obama supporter).  My biggest obstacle is Democrat pols from the '90s and Obama is PUMA's.  With both palates cleansed, we could probably do business later.

I know this election is either going to be the Democratic Goldwater election or the Democratic Reagan election.  I just don't know which it is going to be.  I look forward to welcoming folks home when they do come.


I wonder why everyone in the blogosphere feels the need to measure his or her Sebelius.
by AZphilosopher on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 02:14:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bite me (2.00 / 2)

Back in 2004 I remember clearly my frustration with Naderites, Kucinich write-in voters, Green Party kids and all my anarchist pals who refused to vote for Kerry for their long list of screwy reasons even after Chomsky said he'd vote for the first time to vote against four more years of GWB.

Before and after election day I listened to all the sanctimonious bullshit reasons in the book for not voting for Kerry --  he wasn't against the war ENOUGH, the two-party system was corrupt and neither party was actually better than the other, voting was the delusion that kept the masses from rebellion blah blah blah.

I was downright embarrassed for the process that nominated Kerry and the noodle-necked candidate himself, but my eyes were bugging out at the thought of four more years of illegal war, lost civil liberties, torture, false imprisonment and other Constitutional asswiping by the Bush Administration.

I'm voting Obama and campaigning for him, but as I read the progressive blogs I have to wonder how many Latter-day Obamacrats out there were sitting on their voting hands in 2004 because Kerry wasn't exciting or pure enough for them or because they had to prove something with their Nadar-based insanity.  Isn't it so cool to be different?  

For one I know I couldn't throw a hot rock and not hit a "disaffected youth non-voter" on any college campus in 2004.  Pardon me if the new surge of youthful Party zealotry and "get on board" ism pisses me off a bit.

For ONCE in 34 years of voting I had a candidate I could truly believe in come within a hair of the nomination.  And when it TRULY mattered the most in 30 years -- when we had the chance to throw the assmonkey out of office and save us all the four more years of death, destruction and waste we are confronting today -- I remember where the youth vote was, I remember where the Left vote was, I remember the piss-poor turn-out from the African American community.

I'll vote for and campaign for Obama, but pardon me my bitterness.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 07:51:10 AM EST

Re: Bite me (none / 0)

Please watch minute 12:50 through minute 13:30 of this episode of South Park:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes 103531

Thanks!


Obama 08!
by comingawakening on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:39:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bite me (none / 0)

please watch from 17:10 to 21:27 of this one:

http://www.southparkstudios.com/episodes 103531

Thanks!


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:28:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Damn internets! (none / 0)

wrong episode, same time frame

http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/10 02/


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:36:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bite me (2.00 / 1)

Sexism is real but so is racism and if HRC supporters don't support Obama, you're are making racists happy. We should all join together to fight sexism and racism and not against each other.

Did you see the votes in West Virginia and Kentucky? It's real.


Obama 08!
by comingawakening on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 09:40:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bite me (none / 0)

ahm, yeah, I noticed.  Racism has been pretty f^cking obvious to me for about, I dunno, 45 years now.  And it's been awhile since any high profile Democrat has been pro-racism.

Does it count that I've been trying really really hard for a few decades now to make racists UNhappy?  

If I vote for Obama, and knock doors for Obama and donate Obama...do I still have to smile while doing it?  Or will that mean the racists won.


Sexism is real.
by grassrootsorganizer on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:40:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bite me (none / 0)

I empathize very much, the Kerry situation was very not good.  That was the most shut down primary I've ever seen.  I was in CA and I was one of the 18% that was an Edwards dead ender.  In some sense I wish we could have had the airing then that happened this election.

I know that's not a comfort when your goal is to win the primary but the real "borg" candidates were Gore in '00 and Kerry in '04.  


I wonder why everyone in the blogosphere feels the need to measure his or her Sebelius.
by AZphilosopher on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 01:58:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just Say (none / 0)

What you are missing is that there a lot of middle-of-the road Democrats, especially in more conservative states (Kentucky comes to mind), that strongly preferred Hillary and is going to have a hard time coming around to Obama.

Kentucky had a CLOSED primary.  Meaning only registered Democrats.  You can call them "trolls" or whatever makes you feel good, but they were registered as Democrats probably long before anyone ever heard of Barack Obama.

Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, are also examples of the Kentucky demographic. You can ignore a 2:1 loss to Hillary if you want to, but those are real voters that sent that message.


by WolfmanJack on Thu Jun 12, 2008 at 10:28:57 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.