Anti-Obama? What do you hope to gain?

This diary was inspired by a comment in another diary that was left unanswered.  

So here we go:

If you are both a democrat and anti-Obama, what do you hope to gain from his loss in the election?  
Do you think McCain will improve your life more than Obama?
Are simply just mad at him and want retribution?  If you agree with Obama politically but still want him to lose, how do you rationalize your support for the loss of your political interests?

I am asking an honest question so please try to answer honestly.  If it is emotional, say so.  If it is a specific policy position, say so.  But please in all cases, I am really looking for an explanation of your position because I just don't get it.

Lastly, please no flame wars.  If people are to express their opinions freely, they should feel safe in doing so.  On the other hand, if someone uses a rationale that is simply not factually accurate commentors should feel free to link to factual information.



Display:


It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 4)

it's critiqueing racism and sexism and hoping to dissuade people from engaging in it.


by catfish2 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:35:34 PM EST

...by putting a racist sexist into office. (2.00 / 7)

Yep, that makes sense!

Oh, wait...no, no it doesn't.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:39:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 4)

Could you explain further?  I take your comment to mean that you are not supporting obama because he engaged in sexism.  

If that is how you feel that is fine but could you explain your vote in the larger context of all issues?  Was the sexism you believe he engaged in really a deal breaker compared to our future in Iraq, etc?


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:40:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 12)

Look, I appreciate the sentiment, but frankly, I'm tired of giving these people a soapbox. Any time someone posts a diary like this, the PUMAs and nutjobs emerge from the woodwork to post their nonsense. Frankly, I don't care whether 12 people at MyDD vote for Obama, and it's getting ridiculous how much effort some spend trying to sway them...if someone wants to be irrational, they're not going to be talked out of it.

Let 'em go. Who cares?


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:48:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (1.80 / 5)

If you want Obama to be president, you better care.  Because while there may only be "12" PUMAs on this site, there are millions who do not participate on this site.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:13:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 3)

Do you really believe that there are millions of Pumas?  I would put the number at 100,000 tops.  100,000 is still a lot of people but I just don't believe millions.  Any evidence/stats?

Are you conflating Democrats soft on Obama with PUMA?  They are very different groups with very different agendas.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:20:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (1.75 / 4)

I'm afraid if you or others think only 100,000 Dems are PUMAs, then we are on a long road to unity.  


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:27:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 2)

Please link me to some numbers.  Otherwise we are both just speculating.  Thanks.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:44:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (1.75 / 4)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl e/0,9171,1821662,00.html

"Yet almost half of Clinton supporters tell pollsters that they will not vote for Obama. And Clinton's big-money backers are deflecting money and energy away from their party's presumptive nominee."

Millions!

Get to work, Dems.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:54:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 4)

Okay, I was right.

You are conflating PUMA with Clinton supporters who don't like Obama.  They are very different entities.

Some Democrats feel Hillary lost due to sexism and/or was screwed by the party.  They are refusing to vote for Obama to show their anger over the sexism, etc.  They are PUMA.

Some democrats don't like Obama for a variety of reasons which have nothing to do with sexism in the primaries.  They are not PUMA.  Thinking Obama is too centrist does not make you PUMA.  Thinking Obama is not experienced enough does not make you PUMA.

I am not saying that we should not work hard to bring all parties back into the fold, but we must recognize that there are different parties to target.  Assuming all Democrats who don't like Obama are PUMA will not help the Democratic cause.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:03:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (1.66 / 3)

Hillary supporters, who are Democrats, will not support Obama.  That's not PUMA?  What, that's DINO?
PUMA is not just about the sexism.  But the bigger point is:  there are Dems who wont vote for Obama!  The party needs unification.  
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:07:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 1)

I agree there are millions of Democrats that Obama needs to work hard to bring into the fold.  We need to unify to win in November.  But not liking Obama does not make you a PUMA, sorry.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:13:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (1.50 / 4)

I think Democrats who won't support the Democrat are saying: Party Unity, My Ass.  
Of course, you may think otherwise.
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:19:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 1)

But then again you hide rated me for saying someone who tried to come here and state they were sure McCain was more the known progressive was full of shit, hmmmm.


by Dog Chains on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:21:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (1.66 / 3)

Off thread!
But to answer, you used profanity to attack another commenter.  You have consistently done this.  Then you write a MEA CULPA diary, and still use profanity.  Grow up!
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:24:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 1)

I apologize if profanity offends you, i didn't know it wasn't allowed. My bad Sometimes I use it to prove a point. I have posted thousands of comments and done it maybe 4 times, I hardly call that consistently but whatever, good luck to you.


by Dog Chains on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:31:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

By the way, hypocrite much? (2.00 / 1)

I thought this was a good thread because A). you were defending a PUMA and B)> you used profanity which is in their name...


by Dog Chains on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:35:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: By the way, hypocrite much? (none / 0)

He was defending PUMA because I asked about their rationale.  Although I totally disagree with him, he is well within the bounds of the diary.  So please stop your flame war.

Thanks


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:59:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 1)

PUMA. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding - maybe on purpose.
Here it is - unvarnished, truthful and very clear.
Especially the paragraph next to the finger.

http://uppitywoman08.wordpress.com/2008/ 07/05/the-number-is-growing-do-not-want- barack-obama/

Most of you won't like what is said - but that doesn't matter. The PUMA groups continue to grow. It won't help for you to disparage, berate or use sarcasm - it just makes us more firm in our belief that the Dems have made a huge mistake.


by Marjoriest on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:37:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 1)

I'd watch using her as a spokesperson, she has some really outlandish quotes in her arsenal. But if you feel that strongly about it, go for it, but why are you at a Democratic site if your goal is to make sure the D nominee doesn't get elected?


by Dog Chains on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:42:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (none / 0)

Outlandish? You bet! Love her!
And, in case you are living in Obamaworld, many PUMAs have dropped their Dem credentials and are now independent.
by Marjoriest on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:49:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 1)

That's your right, Sorry, I live in the real world, not Obama world, while he's not perfect, he's far more progressive than McCain, who epitomizes 4 more years of what we've already seen feel. Hillary endorsed, what else is there to do?


by Dog Chains on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:51:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (1.00 / 1)

Dogs that need to be chained should be ignored.  I have two lovely mini Doxies; they're the favoites in my neighborhood.  Well behaved, loving, and spoiled.
You get my drift....
Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:57:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (1.50 / 2)

can't answer rational questions asshole?


by Dog Chains on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:00:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (1.66 / 3)

You have been reported to the administrators.


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:18:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 1)

Thanks, coming from you, it's an honor. You call me out and insult me and your reporting me. What I said above is right


by Dog Chains on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:19:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 1)

Chitown, I'm reporting your sockpuppet.


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:13:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 1)

You have been reported to the admins, attacking another poster!


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:48:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (none / 0)

Chitown,

I asked for a substantive conversation and you gave me one.  We disagree but you acted in good faith so thanks.

I uprated all your comments in the diary as they were not TR worthy.  I left the TR for the comment I am replting to as I think it was pretty clear that you were goading dog chain into a fight.

Once again thanks for have a substantive conversation.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 01:57:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (1.50 / 2)

I think with your link and mine, the point is made.  Barack needs to worry about winning Dem voters, not Repub voters.  Pander to us!


Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:44:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 2)

May I ask how without getting torn apart? I really want to know how we can possibly reach you since he is far more progressive tahn McCain but your groups state they will never vote for him, so how does he pander to a group like that, who think there's nothing he can do?


by Dog Chains on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:50:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 1)

Kiss off...I'd rather suck up to Dubya...


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:46:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 1)

But the bigger point is:  there are Dems who wont vote for Obama!  The party needs unification.  

Mm-hmm. And let me guess, he can only unify the party and maybe, possibly win your vote if he picks Clinton as VP, pays off all her campaign debt, apologizes for all his blatant, insidious sexism and race-baiting and personally comes to your house to bake you some cookies.

CAChemist, see what I mean now about diaries like this?


by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:39:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wrong. (none / 0)

1. There aren't millions.  You pulled that number out of your nether orifice.

2. Even if there were (but there aren't), very very few of them would read the sniping on MyDD, so let's not get too carried away.

3. The polling numbers tell us that Obama is winning anyway, so even if it were true (and it's not), who cares?  We clearly don't need them.  I'm not suggesting we ignore anybody's vote if they are reachable.  Obama just doesn't need to devote that many of his resources to this shrinking group of ecalcitrants.  The polls say that Obama is beating McCain, he's beating him in states that Hillary won, and that bitter ex-Hillary supporters are rallying to him in increasing numbers.

4. Get over it.


by Dumbo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:22:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Seriously (none / 0)

there is nothing we can do to win you back, so basically we're going to have to try to win without you.

It's up to you to make your own conclusion on Obama, not us to beg and plead for your support.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:06:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Fuckin-A! (none / 0)

So, so right.  Just recognize it for what it is.  I have respect for people who disagree with me and want to vote for another candidate, but the whiners who still have hurt feelings that hang around to carp about it are not going to be retrieved through any group hugs on MyDD.

My 88 year old mother, who supported Hillary because (her words) she's white and Obama isn't, has finally given in and decided to vote for Obama, even though he's "colored," (her word) because she doesn't want to have to live through another Great Depression.  Her words.  I didn't apply any pressure to her.  She got over ir on her own.  

The people who come her to gripe about Obama and grasp at any new reasons to hate him, not because they opposes FISA or any other cause, but just because they can't let go of the campaign season, are trolls.  

There's no point in trying to change the mind of a troll.  They just enjoy all the attention.

How do you know when somebody's a troll?  When they are disingenuous and waste your time.


by Dumbo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:15:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (none / 0)


by trixta on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:13:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (1.50 / 2)

As I've stated in a previous diary, why PUMA exists (not the be all, end all):
  1.  The Democratic Party
  2.  The DNC
  3.  The MSM
  4.  The tactics of the Obama campaign

Purity! Or else!
by ChitownDenny on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:06:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 4)

5). Their are some racists running around claiming to be progressive...Barky, spade, inadequate black man, those are racist terms, let's not claim all these people are worthy of being respected for valid beefs 9although I'm sure some are)


by Dog Chains on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:23:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 1)

There is just as much responsibility from HRC supporters to create an environment where party unity can be achieved...and that can only happen if they are willing to forgive and have an open-mind.  Most PUMAs have neither.  If you think being opposed to Obama gives you free reign to bash and smear him and then call out "See Obama supporters don't want unity" when we defend him or give our opinion, you are sorely mistaken.


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:51:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (none / 0)

The road to forgiveness might start with giving back HRC the 4 MI delegates that were stolen from her and given to Obama, and by letting HRC be on the first ballot in Denver.  HRC's candidacy was just as historic as BO's, so it should be respected and given its due. Oh, an apology to HRC and her supporters for hijacking the Dem party would also be nice.

PUMA groups exist, among other reasons, because HRC supporters were intimidated or blatantly ousted from the progressive community which regularly convened over the internet and in other media outlets.  

For every action there is a reaction, as they say.


by trixta on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:29:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not pro-Person or anti-Person (2.00 / 1)

For most, nothing we or Obama do will be enough (unless he drops out) to satisfy these type of people.  It's sad that they are willing to put their country and their people through four more years of this bullshit.  Wild horses, a shot gun, risk of lost limbs, or death threats would have not stopped me from voting for any Democrat in the GE...These last 7 and a half years have caused my family and I some dire times...financially, socially and emotionally.  I take offense at people who are willing to put my family's and many families like mine at the disposal of John McCain and his continuance of W's policies.  It literally makes me physically sick.


A useless "Community Organizer" from Pennsylvania as noted by Republicans, Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin
by hootie4170 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Obama? What do you hope to gain? (2.00 / 3)

I've seen quite a bit of these fringe types talking about 2012, since an Obama loss would allow Hillary to run again.  For them, it's not about electing a Democratic president, it's about electing Clinton.  If they need to support Republicans and adopt their talking points to achieve that, so be it.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:43:37 PM EST

Gain understanding (2.00 / 3)

I'd like to know why many of you won't admit Obama's screw-ups? Obama is all over the place IMO. What exactly does he believe in? Don't worry, I'm anti-McCain too, only for different reasons...like "whining Americans" for example.


by soyousay on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:53:26 PM EST

Re: Gain understanding (2.00 / 4)

Actually, the only thing he has really flipped on is the FISA issue, which is indefensible and a horrible decision.

All the other flip-flops have been his positions the whole campaign people just haven't been paying attention.  The media is pushing it because it is July, he is winning, and they are bored.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:09:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gain understanding (2.00 / 2)

Actually, that's not true; here's a list.

He now supports broader authority for the government's eavesdropping program and legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in it, after opposing a similar bill last year.

After the Supreme Court overturned the District of Columbia's gun ban, the handgun-control proponent said he favors both an individual's right to own a gun as well as government's right to regulate ownership.

Obama became the first major-party candidate to reject public financing for the general election after earlier promises to accept it.

He not only embraced but promised to expand Bush's program to give more anti-poverty grants to religious groups, a split with Democratic orthodoxy.

He objected to the Supreme Court's decision outlawing the death penalty for child rapists, even though he has been anti-capital punishment.

Obama also said "mental distress" should not count as a health exception that would permit a late-term abortion, saying "it has to be a serious physical issue," addressing a matter considered crucial to abortion rights activists. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/070 8/11535.html


by soyousay on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:42:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gain understanding (2.00 / 7)

The second position is false, he stated he supported the decision specifically because even Scalia in the majority stated that the decision was solely based on the fact this law went to far but other regulations are perfectly valid.

The third is wrong as well, he stated he would try to reach an agreement with the other nominee, which would specifically indicate he had no intention of just blindly entering this public financing scam.

He has always supported faith based programs that don't discriminate, says so in his book, so no flip flop there either.

I'd go on but anyone here with half a brain realizes you're liar or just patently misinformed.


by Dog Chains on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:52:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

quit with the cherry picking will ya (2.00 / 2)

I'd go on but anyone here with half a brain realizes you're liar or just patently misinformed.
Obama accepted public financing before he rejected it. I won't call you a liar because I have more class than that, but you are making excuses for your candidate IMO.

Excuses, excuses.


by soyousay on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:02:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: quit with the cherry picking will ya (2.00 / 4)

"I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.... My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election....If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." September, 2o07

Now where does it state he is opting in to the current system as is, it is pretty apparent he thinks the current system is inadequate. Classy my ass, you are full of shit.


by Dog Chains on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:07:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He would participate (2.00 / 2)

Asked last September on a questionnaire from the Midwest Democracy Network whether he would "participate in the presidential public financing system" if his "major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign," Obama checked the box marked "yes, "http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/p olitics/content/Questionnaire_Midwest_De mocracy_Network_Obama_02192008.pdf

It's murky--to put it mildly. If Obama had never checked the "yes" box, he'd be in the clear. http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stump er/archive/2008/06/19/the-problem-with-o bama-s-public-financing-acrobatics.aspx

by soyousay on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:22:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He would participate (2.00 / 4)

Of course he also added that quote above to the check box, specifically qualifying his answer. it's frustrating to see it taken out of context, but hey, it is what it is.


by Dog Chains on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:24:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gain understanding (none / 0)

And Obama supporters call these positions progressive?


by trixta on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:32:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not me (none / 0)

I never attempted to paint him as more progressive than Hillary...just a better choice IMO. Again, the liberal blogsphere fucks up again by misrepresenting someone as something he's not nor ever claimed to be.

The only reason why he was painted as more progressive was because he wasn't a Clinton.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:09:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

he didnt flip on faith based programs! (2.00 / 3)

he's been advocating that since he was in the state senate like 16 years ago.

why does everyone call this a flip flop? there is a clear distinction between the separation of church and state and this does not cross it.


by iamold on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gain understanding (2.00 / 4)

"Mental distress" is not, and should not be, cause for an exemption for third-trimester abortions. "Mental distress" is a catch-all category that includes things like anxiety and confusion.  Nobody, at least no major Democrat (and certainly not Senator Clinton), thinks mental distress should be sufficient for an exemption.

You're not drawing a distinction between mental distress and mental illness. Obama was, as he spelled out in his clarification. Serious mental illness is indeed a good reason to offer an exemption, as Obama, Clinton, and the Democratic platform in general agree.

Obama only brought up mental distress in response to a smear email asking about third-trimester abortions for women who were "feeling blue". His response should be read in that context.


by jere7my on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:02:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Gain understanding (none / 0)

Wow!  This from a Democrat?!


by trixta on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:32:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes. (2.00 / 1)

This from all Democrats who know how to read Roe v. Wade, including both Clinton and Obama. Do your research.


by jere7my on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:43:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You're wrong. (none / 0)

I'm trying to support Obama here.  Don't make things worse.  


by Dumbo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:35:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

No, actually, I'm not. (none / 0)

Huh?  I'm surprised by your response. In what sense am I wrong?

Both Clinton and Obama have said they would be okay with state-by-state restrictions (as currently permitted by Roe v. Wade) on third-trimester abortions, provided exceptions are in place for the health (explicitly including both mental and physical) of the mother.  This is 100% in line with the Democratic stance on third-trimester abortions, and, again, is a position shared by both Obama and Clinton.

That has nothing to do with "mental distress".  Mental distress is a very broad medical category, and includes things like anxiety and, as Republicans put it, "feeling blue."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_dist ress

Republicans sent out a smear email saying Obama was in favor of third-trimester exemptions for "feeling blue". Obama was asked about that in the interview, and responded that no, of course mere "mental distress" is an insufficient cause for an exemption -- nobody, including the courts that have ruled on the issue, including the text of Roe v. Wade, has found mere anxiety to be sufficient to grant a third-trimester abortion.  There has to be mental or physical risk to the mother.  That's in the text of Roe v. Wade.

The hoo-hah arose because some people thought that Obama was including all mental illness when he said "mental distress" was insufficient.  He wasn't -- he was drawing a distinction between mental distress (anxiety, etc.) and a real risk to the health of the mother (as set out in Roe). There is nothing unusual or surprising about this, and the clarification he sent out should have removed all doubt. But people are fond of their FUD.


by jere7my on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:42:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Minor correction (none / 0)

Sorry -- I should have said "Nobody ... has found mere anxiety to be sufficient to force states to grant a third-trimester abortion." It's always been a state-by-state thing, and Roe spells out that they must allow an exemption for the health (mental or physical) of the mother.


by jere7my on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 12:47:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Because it doesn't help to get into this (none / 0)

mental distress versus mental health debate.  Don't put us in the position of interpreting Obama's statement in the most pro-life-ish way and then trying to defend that position.

You cite Roe, but you forget US Supreme Court Doe v. Bolt, which is controlling here.  This is the law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doe_v._Bolt on#Broad_definition_of_health

   Broad definition of health

   The Court's opinion in Doe v. Bolton stated that a woman may obtain an abortion after viability, if necessary to protect her "health." The Court defined "health" broadly:
    "     Whether, in the words of the Georgia statute, "an abortion is necessary" is a professional judgment that the Georgia physician will be called upon to make routinely. We agree with the District Court, 319 F. Supp., at 1058, that the medical judgment may be exercised in the light of all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient. All these factors may relate to health.     "

   This determination that abortion will be available all the way up until birth, for a wide variety of reasons, has proven to be controversial -- "at least as controversial as its holding respecting the period prior to viability."[2]

Obama either misspoke or misunderstands the law, or was misinterpreted, and I don't see any payoff in trying to argue it with you when it's Obama I'm trying to support.  If he really believed what he said, then I disagree with him strongly but I still support his candidacy because I'm against the war.  Just don't what the Hillaryites used to do, which is try to defend the indefensible.  It's not a good way to defend your candidate.


by Dumbo on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 07:59:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

wow have you seen dailykos the last month? (2.00 / 2)

they DID. each candidate has their share of cultish voters. and each candidate has a bigger chunk of voters who will hold their feet to the fire. dont conflate the two.


by iamold on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:04:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

They don't care. (1.85 / 7)

They're fueled by nothing but their emotions. The vast majority have lost sight of reason.


Even John McCain lusts after teh engels.
by sricki on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 03:54:01 PM EST

Re: They don't care. (2.00 / 1)

If it is purely emotional, will they come around or are they lost for good?  

I am afraid that the puma, and puma-esque blogs do not allow for people to come to terms with the primary.  If people had time to breathe, to think, and then make a political choice, many would return to the fold, albeit grudgingly.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:21:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Many are lost for good (none / 0)

IMO. It will be their decision in the end to come around or not. Obama has to judge whether or not he can win without him. If not, he has to pander to them, but I suspect that won't even work.

If PUMAs are going to cause Obama to lose, it's already done and the only thing we can do is try our darndest to get him elected and deal with the consequences.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:12:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Obama? What do you hope to gain? (2.00 / 3)

My reason is emotional. I don't believe Senator Clinton was treated fairly by the party apparatus.  I liken the Party to a person who makes an offensive joke about race and everyone laughs uncomfortably and says nothing.

I can't laugh.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:24:03 PM EST

I agree with you (2.00 / 5)

I think Clinton was treated very badly and that Obama was treated like the messiah during primary season--by many Party leaders and the MSM.

It really re-awakened my sensitivity to sexism, even misogynism, as deeply seated in the culture.

But I'm still going to vote for Obama, though with little enthusiasm.  I think his campaign has been mostly smoke and mirrors, and I'm not surprised by the reversal on FISA, the absolute pandering on death penalty for rapists (from a guy from ILLINOIS, where so many falsely convicted death row prisoners have been exonerated!) and the sister souljah talks to black churches.  I'll vote for him unless he does something disgusting with the running mate choice or absolutely hurls himself to the right.

Because he is a better option than McCain.  


by Thaddeus on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 04:38:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (2.00 / 1)

I agree he is a better option, but I can't enable the Party's actions by voting for him. In my opinion everyone who supported Clinton and is turning a blind eye to this gives tacit approval to have future female candidates treated unfairly. It has become a component of a winning strategy. There is nothing to stop it from happening again.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:27:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (2.00 / 2)

If Clinton were simply a senator from New York I think she would have been treated very differently.  Not sure if that would have worked to her advantage or relegated to the ranks of marginal candidates.  There's simply no way she could have run, though, without bringing the benefits and baggage of being the wife of a previous president.

Say this as someone who could have never voted for her in the primaries, btw, but would have voted for her in the general (while still being bothered by this whole idea of dynastic succession, which seems very un-American to me).


by IncognitoErgoSum on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:37:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (2.00 / 1)

So your McCain vote is a message to the party that sexism should not be used as a political tool.  

While I disagree, that is a rational decision that I accept.

But how do you come to terms with the other issues you support as a democrat that will be crushed by a McCain administration?


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:39:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (2.00 / 2)

"rational decisions"? are you mad too. It is rational to say he's the better option but you just can't do it to punish people in power. yeah, so let's fuck the country up more(pardon my french) to prove points even though we can admit what we're doing could be wrong...That's rational?


by Dog Chains on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:54:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (2.00 / 2)

Nothing has been more crushing than the betrayal so many of us feel by our own Party.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:27:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think... (2.00 / 4)

the overturning of Roe v. Wade will be far more crushing.  Not to mention four more years of torture, war, and failing economy.

I'll take "feeling betrayed" over "bleeding to death from an illegal abortion because the economy's in the toilet so I didn't have the money to go to Canada for a safe one" any day of the week.

Oh, and as I said before...opposing racism and sexism in politics by voting for John McCain (the man who called his wife a cunt, Chelsea Clinton an ugly bastard, and still calls Asians "gooks") is like opposing women having a role in politics by voting for Hillary Clinton.  But I'm sure it sounded better on paper.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:47:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think... (2.00 / 1)

You and I have vastly different opinions on abortion. It is not an issue that drives me to vote Democratic.

I won't be voting for John McCain either.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:34:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How about the economy? (none / 0)

Is job loss more crushing than your wounded pride?

How about the deaths of soldiers?  Or Iraqis?

How about the continuation of torture and the disintegration of the Constitution?

I really hate to say this, but your feelings of betrayal are by far the lowest on most people's list of things that matter to the country.


Wouldn't it be nice if there were no rhetorical questions?
by Elsinora on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 05:30:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about the economy? (none / 0)

You must not have understood I have realized sexism was low on the party's list of priorities. That message has been fairly obvious.  


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 09:14:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (2.00 / 1)

I understand that you feel betrayed but how do you feel about letting go of your other liberal beliefs to fight on this singular issue?

As I see it you are looking for this scenario:  A large chunk of PUMAs stay home or vote McCain in November.  Because of the PUMA vote, Obama loses.  The DNC realizes that they should never take women for granted and work harder to push gender issues in policy and stop sexism in campaigns.  Is that right?

In the meantime, President McCain will stay in Iraq, replace at least two supreme court justices and probably go to war with Iran.  I just don't get it.  How do you balance your anger at the party with the policies of the republican party?


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 07:50:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (2.00 / 1)

No the DNC should step forward now with a full mea culpa and reparations.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:29:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (2.00 / 3)

Please describe this mea culpa and reparations.  What could the DNC say that would bring you back into the fold?


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:44:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (2.00 / 1)

An acknowledgment of the sexism in the campaign would be a good place to start. Make the rounds on cable, opinion columns, etc. and say unequivocally it happened, Democratic women complained, and the Party ignored it.

Get rid of Dean and Brazile.

Sexism should have its own category in the platform.

Ensure the convention is substantive rather than a coronation. A roll call vote with Hillary Clinton's name in nomination.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:14:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (1.50 / 2)

Why Brazile?

And should the rounds on cable also include a discussion of racism during the primaries?


by MeganLocke on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:27:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (2.00 / 1)

Brazile should go because of her bias during the campaign and her insinuations the Clintons were racists while claiming she was neutral. She said nothing about sexism.

Racism? Sure if the discussion on racism is about how wrong Obama surrogates and supporters were to label the Clintons racists.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:32:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (2.00 / 2)

I am sorry but the use of racism and sexism were both during the primary.  Ignoring the hurt of others does not help your cause.

Many people I know do not feel that there was sexism in the primary.  I am sure that angers you because it is factually accurate that there was sexism in the primary.  Do not be the denier that angers the african americans that feel the pain of racism.

If one is to be discussed, they both should be.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:37:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (1.00 / 1)

I think recognition of racism and sexism has to start with giving the aggrieved parties the benefit of the doubt.  You and I do not get to be the final arbiters of what is and is not racist, just as say, African American men do not get to be the final arbiters of what is and is not sexism.  

Your opinion is not more important than Donna Brazile's on that front - and suggesting that it is is to me as appealing as Chris Matthews getting to tell me what sexism is.

Incidentally, she never insinuated that the Clintons are racist.  A lot of people saw them playing racial politics, though.  Elections are a tough business.


by MeganLocke on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:43:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (none / 0)

MeaganLocke, I'm asking you take back the troll rating that you gave me on 6/27/2008. There was nothing in my diary that denigrated Obama. I was simply speaking on the state of the Democratic party. It seems the only way to do it is to give me a 2 and I'll in turn give you a 2 as well.


by Check077 on Wed Jul 16, 2008 at 12:34:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (2.00 / 2)

Yes, this is an important principle that the PUMAS believe in.  Enabling undemocratic behavior is. . . well, just plain undemocratic and self-defeating in the long run.


by trixta on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:35:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (2.00 / 1)

Really.  Is that why Obama supporters are welcome on PUMA blogs?  They are not and you know it.


We should be able to deliver bottled hot water to dehydrated babies.
by Jess81 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:15:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Then you are only hurting future female (none / 0)

candidates.  How can anybody but core groups like Emily's List support the next woman candidate if every woman who hereafter runs for president has the burden, from the beginning, of running as the feminist candidate?  That might be enough to get your vote, but it isn't going to appeal to those concerned with other issues, and it places a terrible burden on future woman candidates.

In a previous diary, I recall a Hillary supporter saying that if blacks rioted in Denver when Hillary got the nomination via Superdelegate nullification, that that would be bad for future black candidates because nobody would ever want to vote for a black and risk a repeat of that.  There is nothing remotely close to a riot, in this discussion, but the same concern does apply, in reverse.  This isn't helping future women candidates.


by Dumbo on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:49:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Back in the day (none / 0)

when the purists at kos threatened to rise up in Denver against Hillary, I tried to explain that I thought that would only destroy Obama and any chance African-American candidates had at the presidency in the future.

It goes both ways. The worse thing that ever happened to this party is that a woman and an African-American ended up in a primary together. I think we would've been a lot better off if one or the other hadn't run this year.


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 11:17:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Then you are only hurting future female (none / 0)

What you say may be true. Right now democratic women are in the wilderness. What more is there to lose? We didn't have enough clout as a bloc to force a response on sexism during the primary. That is pathetic and not helpful to future women candidates or women voters.

Yet the coalition supporting blacks were worried about riots and black voter apathy. My candidate was encouraged to get out of the race. Superdelegates were put on notice and rushed to make a decision by Dean, Pelosi, and others. The lack of respect for Hillary Clinton's candidacy and her supporters was unprecedented and discouraging.


"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her." - Susan B. Anthony
by feelfree on Sun Jul 13, 2008 at 03:10:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I agree with you (2.00 / 5)

There was sexism in the primaries but there was also racism which many here seem to forget.  They are both bad so one shouldn't cherry pick.

As for "the messiah" thing.  There were times when Obama was covered by the MSM like pure gold, that is true.  There were other times, like the complete months of March and April, where he was ridiculed daily and harshly by the MSM.  In the end it probably balanced out so I don't think your "messiah" comment is objectively fair.

Lastly, I appreciate your grudging support of Obama.  I thought Kerry was horrible and that Dean got screwed in 2004 but in November the choice was easy.  I am hoping that the choice gets easier for a lot of angry dems as we close in on election day.


McCain = bad Obama = good
by CAchemist on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:34:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well... (2.00 / 4)

i find it surprising that people support hillary on the basis of FISA which she didnt even vote on PAA when she was in the area (full disclosure, i campaigned for hillary in 2 states and interned at her DC office for 2 years).  

and as a black person im offended that you're calling obama's speech at a black church, "sistah souljah", a term that was invented by Bill Clinton's campaign. you think that its not an absolute crisis that black men are more likely to go to jail and that OVER 55% of black families are single parent homes? A lot of it has to do with the residuals of past federal welfare policies that created a devastating welfare state in the black community.

Yeah I absolutely hate how hillary was treated in this campaign. i hate it i hate it i hate it. mysoginy is harder to detect, and surprisingly it came  from women too, i.e. katie couric who asked obama in an interview: "doesnt clinton make you go eww..." reinforcing the image that a strong woman is a shrill woman.

but i seriously think you're mistaken if you ever thought Obama was a liberal. maybe on social issues like gay rights yes, but there are conservative and centrist streaks throughout his state senate record, his years at the harvard law review, and conservative values like self reliance  were in his speeches since before 2002. im surprised no one recognized that his healthcare stance was more conservative than edwards or clinton's yet the media kept calling him too liberal.


by iamold on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:16:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well... (2.00 / 1)

Not only are they more conservative, they're ideologically market-driven, which has all SORTS of implications for his domestic policy.  I think Obama got tagged, falsely, as running to the left of Hillary Clinton because of the Iraq War.


by MeganLocke on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:57:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well... (2.00 / 1)

Yes, even yesterday on the CNN Clinton special "Never Quit", the WP commentator said that HRC, if appointed to the Supreme Court by Obama, would be to the right of Obama on most issues!  Huh!!!!!  She said this disdainfully and without any irony too, as if she were a progressive--but she (the WP commentator whose name I forget) is, in fact, a Republican.


by trixta on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 10:43:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Obama? What do you hope to gain? (2.00 / 2)


Do you think McCain will improve your life more than Obama?

Yes.  I have no idea what Obama stands for.  I'll take the devil I know.
Are simply just mad at him and want retribution?

No.  I'm mad at the Democratic party for continuing to nominate weak candidates and for disenfranchising voters.
 If you agree with Obama politically but still want him to lose, how do you rationalize your support for the loss of your political interests?

The more I learn about Obama's stance on issues, I don't agree with him politically.  I was against the new FISA law, I'm pro-choice, I'm against the federal government giving money to religious organizations, I'm pro gun control, and I'm for limited application of the death penalty.  So I don't agree with Obama on these issues.  

For any issues in which I might agree with him, he's very likely to change his vote when the actual time comes or not to vote at all.  How will that play out when he may be president?  Who knows!

Do you really want to risk the future of our country on such an unknown at this time?  I don't.


by lizpolaris on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:38:47 PM EST

Re: Anti-Obama? What do you hope to gain? (1.20 / 5)

Wow, lay off the LSD, you sound like a mental midget. Go back to no quarter and let us adult's speak regarding real issues, not your made up BULLSHIT


by Dog Chains on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:56:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Obama? What do you hope to gain? (2.00 / 4)

Congresses passes legislation which the president can then sign or veto.  If Pauly Shore were elected president on the Democratic ticket that would empower Dems in Congress to pass legislation on any issue they wanted (all he'd have to do is sign the bill).  If McCain gets elected Congressional Dems are basically out of luck, because the best they can do is pass bills McCain wants to sign (they're not going to have the votes to override a veto).

Think many Dems, ironically, have limited their vision because the GOP has been so successful in recent years.  They can't imagine the federal government's functioning in a manner where an imperial president isn't calling the shots (why?  because Bush was an imperial president and Clinton was limited to what he could accomplish through executive orders).

The US government is not supposed to work like this.  There's no question, however, that McCain and the GOP are quite happy for the federal government to continue working in this fashion.  What did the Dems get when they won control of Congress in 2006?  If we're honest, almost nothing (because they couldn't beat a veto).

The above explains why Democratic elites, btw, have nothing but contempt for the PUMA folk (if McCain wins you're limiting their ability to do anything as well, Dems in Congress will be sitting  on their hands for the next four years).

For every issue one can name, one has to compare what would happen with a Democratic candidate and a Republican president vs. a Democratic candidate and Democratic president (and it's very easy, the first scenario describes the past two years, the second would put every policy Dems value within striking distance).

But for many people, the show is simply more important.  Who are the Clinton dead enders?  They're people who are acting as if one of their favorite characters in a tv show got written out.  It's no more complicated than that.


by IncognitoErgoSum on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 05:58:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Obama? What do you hope to gain? (2.00 / 2)

oops, meant "Democratic Congress and Republican president", etc. (hope that was obvious).  Who would hold Obama accountable?  The Democrats in Congress.  Obama would need their cooperation to get any legislation passed.  McCain, on the other hand, doesn't need the Dems in Congress (he can do what Bush has done, ie. "Go screw yourselves", because he knows they're not going to support his agenda, and so he'll pursue it by expanding executive power).


by IncognitoErgoSum on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 06:02:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Obama? What do you hope to gain? (none / 0)

Dead-enders. Of no importance. They're people who are acting as if one of their favorite characters in a tv show got written out.  It's no more complicated than that.
Obama appears to think that way, too. Hillary and her 18 million supporters will come around. Don't pay them any attention.

Good luck with that attitude.


by Marjoriest on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:11:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Obama? What do you hope to gain? (none / 0)

Which Hillary?  The Hillary that still has tread marks on her face from being thrown under the McCain bus by you guys?  Hillary Clinton you mean?


by MeganLocke on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:31:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Obama? What do you hope to gain? (none / 0)

The above explains why Democratic elites, btw, have nothing but contempt for the PUMA folk (if McCain wins you're limiting their ability to do anything as well, Dems in Congress will be sitting  on their hands for the next four years).

Indeed: the "it's either Hillary Clinton or McCain" write-in campaigns turned out to have the opposite effect.  I think it was one of the Udalls who started to reply to some of them to the effect of "I get letters from supporters of both sides, and I have never, EVER, gotten a letter from an Obama supporter that threatened to vote for McCain.  Shame on you."  And then they'd endorse Obama.


by MeganLocke on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:34:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Pro-choice? (2.00 / 3)

What are you talking about? Obama and Clinton have exactly the same position on abortion -- they both approve of restrictions on third-trimester abortions, provided there are exceptions for the mental or physical health of the mother. They have both been quoted saying that, specifically, almost word-for-word.

McCain wants to repeal Roe v. Wade.

Voting for McCain is not a pro-choice decision. It is a decision made from a well of pettiness.


by jere7my on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 08:07:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Anti-Obama? What do you hope to gain? (2.00 / 1)

You should probably investigate John McCain's positions.  You just ticked off a bunch of reasons to oppose him, and ones that don't really apply to Obama at all (pro-choice, for examply).

I mean there literally isn't a single position you claimed that McCain does not oppose.  In all seriousness, are you aware of that?


by MeganLocke on Sat Jul 12, 2008 at 09:00:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

</