But I'm beginning to think that Harry Reid should get the boot - if he can be played this easily, then he doesn't deserve to be Majority Leader. He should have known that race would become an issue here and taken care to avoid this situation. Instead, he's being owned by this transparent bullshit.
If touchscreen voting machines had been involved in any way, large numbers of people would surely believe the election had been rigged in favor of whoever came out ahead.
True, people would believe that, but at the same time, a touchscreen does not permit an overvote, warns the voter in the case of an undervote, and ensures that every vote is equally as clear as any other vote.
That isn't true of Minnesota's system, and as a result, a number of voter's ballots won't be counted or won't be counted as they intended, in spite of the good faith effort of the canvassers. It's certain that "large numbers of people will surely believe that the election has been rigged in favor of whoever came out ahead" - because they already do, Mark Ritchie's efforts at transparency be damned.
Which is not to say that touchscreens are necessarily better, because they are flawed.
But I would be hesitant to sing the praises of a system that allows the voter to mark multiple candidates, mark the wrong spot, or otherwise spoil their ballot, all without their knowledge.
That her "ties to our community" weren't "deep and personal" enough for her to fully repudiate DADT before she decided to run for Senate and still aren't "deep and personal" enough for her to fully repudiate DOMA.
What with me not being one of Clinton's employees, her much-lauded loyalty to them does nothing for me, so I'm left with her positions on the issues, which might. I suspect the same is true for most Americans.
Who claimed that Clinton was clearly superior to Obama on these issues when at best, she was slightly worse.
She supported DOMA. Still does. He did not. Still doesn't. That's the truth, and I don't see any reason to ignore it, especially when her supporters are wrapping her - and themselves - in thoroughly undeserved self-righteousness.
I don't see any reason to give Clinton - or her supporters - credit for good work she doesn't deserve, especially in this context.
Really, Obama is taking his supporters for granted and promoting a bigot like Warren. He should be held accountable for that.
I don't see how lying about Clinton's record does that. In fact, I'd say it does what it has always done, which is allow Clinton to avoid accountability for her actions.
When Obama opposed it - because she "was fully in support for gay/lesbian rights?"
"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."
Exactly. Clinton promised equality, and delivered DADT and DOMA. So why would anyone trust her? Because she marched in a parade? Because she - like Bill before her - gladhanded a bunch of credulous gay supporters? They did that in 1992 and 1996, too.
Anyhow, everyone knows what these posts are about, and it's not support for equality. It's about Clinton supporters looking for a pretext to say "I TOLD YOU SO." So here they have it.
Apparently, Clinton supporters like KV, who find discrimination hilarious.
KV, you know, even if you do not care, that Clinton supported DOMA. You know that Obama opposed it. I don't know how you could reach the conclusion that "Hillary was the progressive candidate," but it clearly wasn't her position on equality that led you there.
Would Hillary have selected Warren? Yes, easily, as evidenced by the ease with which she supported DOMA.
If any donor contributes 200 or more, then the donation is reported to the FEC under the donors name. But I don't think that is the issue here.
The org is questioning whether Obamas donors are any different from past candidates like Kerry or Bush. The hype says yes, but the numbers say no. So the question is whether these are the right numbers to look at - does the mere fact that these contributions came in small chunks make some sort of meaningful difference.
All things being equal I don't see how they can be meaningful, by clearly others do.
There's no moral or ethical difference between a donor who contributes 1000 all at once and one who contributes it in chunks of 20.
I think there is a presumption that the small contributions come from working class donors rather than leisure class donors. If proven true, then I think that would have moral and ethical implications - but I don't see that it has been, at least not here.
We progressives are supposed to be concerned with facts, yes? If so, then I think the fact that Obamas under 200 contributors made up a similar share of his total as his predecessors should warrant some skepticism over how "revolutionary" his financing was - not defensive posts like this one, asserting that it simply Must Have Been So.
Both appeared on behalf of candidates following their election, so why shouldn't Obama?
I don't think it's at all important that Obama appear nonpartisan, but whatever importance is assigned to that appearance, it can't possibly be more important than the reality of having another Democratic vote in the Senate for the next SIX YEARS.
Not to mention that Georgia could do with Democratic leadership like Jim Martin going into the 2010 election.
On equality and the right to choose would have endeared him to moderate Republicans; they would tell themselves that he really didn't agree with the conservatives, even as the conservatives would tell themselves that he really didn't agree with the moderates.
As he's always run - on the assertion that his opponent is the anti-Christ. I don't think he's capable of, or interested in, a more nuanced argument for his candidacy.
I don't think Martin can win this runoff with a cautious campaign designed to minimize offense to conservative Republican voters. He should run a bold campaign designed to fire up and turn out the "change" voters who supported Obama.
For Jim Martin: "Unlike Saxby Chambliss, who's going to work for the Republican Party, I'm going to work for Georgia."
I don't think that Georgia would like its state election to be nationalized any more than Louisiana did. When the Republican sold their candidate as a strong supporter of the Bush agenda, Landrieu countered by arguing the need for an independent voice.