Yes I agree he's got at least a 99% likelihood of becoming the nominee, but it bespeaks a kind of arrogance (which BTW the republicans are using very effectively to beat 'our' candidate about the head .... hint, hint, maybe if you want to be elected you cut down just a little on the arrogance?) to assert he's the nominee before the convention has been held.
It's wearisome and wrong to call Democrats who are critical of Obama 'racist' and 'closet republicans'. It doesn't further discussion and it doesn't foster unity. And this is especially true in light of the fact that Obama has gone so far to the right on issues of importance to progressives.
It borders on self-parody, don't you think?, to send a true progressive who backed Hillary (universal health care plan, support for privacy [FISA]) to GOP web sites because this one is reserved for the guy who doesn't favor universal healthcare and voted against privacy (FISA)?
I got newz for you, bobzcat: He ain't the nominee yet. And a whole lot of democrats -- yes democrats who were voting straight ticket 'D' before you walked this planet -- would prefer it if he never was. You might not like it, but there it is.
That requires no figuring at all: CNN is the biggest purveyor of celebrity voyeurism I've ever seen. As evidence, I present two letters I sent them long before they became the mouthpiece of misogyny in politics:
Dated December 15, 2006:
"'Bad girls' in the news."
Question 1: What does it take for a prominent young woman (Lohan, Spears, MissUSA) to be upbraided by the national media and publically rebuked by some disgusting middle-aged man (Lohan's producer, Donald Trump). Answer: Um ... party too much?
Question 2: What does it take for a prominent young man to be upbraided by the national media and publically rebuked by disgusting middle-aged men? Answer: Unknown. It seems the U.S. media (CNN included) have little interest in that question. I
suggest you send one of your brilliant young reporters to dig up dirt on all male actors and sports figures in the 20-25 year old range.
Think about it, CNN."
Dated May 8, 2007:
"Hammer's piece on Paris Hilton was VERY STUPID and VERY OFFENSIVE.
It's not Paris Hilton who is the problem, it is the MEDIA -- SUCH AS YOURSELVES -- who bring these people into our lives ... CNN and Hammer, shame. If you don't like Paris Hilton, then why don't you go and find some smart and well-behaved young women to report on? And you think of yourselves as a news organization."
And let me add this: If you are someone who ONLY wants to talk about the wonderfulness of a particular candidate, and how we can all work together to help that candidate win ... and if you despise and want to censor anyone who criticizes that candidate, then let me suggest something:
You should be posting/blogging to a campaign-related web site for that candidate. At such a site you will find like-minded spirits AND it will be entirely appropriate for administrators to "prune" comments against the candidate.
But if that is your orientation then I don't believe you belong in an open forum for all Democrats.
You ended your diary with a whopper of an oxymoron: "I'll spend my time and my precious page hits at a site that promotes discussion by doing basic pruning."
You don't promote discussion by pruning. Free speech is about letting everyone speak and may the most persuasive speaker, with the best command of logic and the facts, win.
Bad ideas and stupid people succumb to their own weaknesses and eventually die out / go away. If you don't like what someone has posted or has commented in reply to your own post, ignore it. If it's that bad it will fall of its own weight.
A devoted Democrat can still have serious problems with the chosen candidate. If you are an intelligent supporter of that candidate, you will read the comments of the 'disaffected' with interest because they reveal weaknesses that can and should be addressed.
No candidate is perfect, right? In a family or a company or any social group, problems should be open for discussion, right? Otherwise, the stiffling of dissent and discussion weakens the group as a whole. Right?
I'm saying "right" because, sadly, I don't think many of the liberal bloggers actually believe this. It is one of the core weaknesses of the progressive movement as it stands today. A complete intolerance for open discussion. Sheesh, who would've thought it.
Note - I agree fully with "pruning" comments that are hateful, insulting, incite violence, use excessive ugly language, ad hominem attacks, overly repetitive (to block discussion) or spam-like (to bring down the site), or otherwise violate terms of the blog site.
Right, but only one hitch. Obama can't talk his way out of a paper bag without a teleprompter scrolling empty words penned by the same guy who wrote Duval Patrick's schtick.
A friend's teenage son recently explained to me that McCain is a terrible candidate because he's so bad at reading from a teleprompter.
Obama is equally appalling at speaking directly, honestly, and extemporaneously. So OF COURSE he doesn't want more debates. He's probably sweating bullets at the thought of the three he couldn't squirm out of.
In a society based on free speech, it's important to focus on the words, not the person. There is way too much ad hominem attack going on around here.
This country was based on the right of anyone to try to persuade others using arguments, logic, and facts. Censoring someone because you don't agree with things he has said in the past ... um I think that's called a 'repressive regime.'
The way it works in our country is this. If a person says stupid stuff, don't censor him just ignore him. His stupidity will shine through and he will not sway anyone.
Attempting to censor people is a sign of fear and weakness. Fear that your own beliefs aren't persuasive enough, and may actually be incorrect. Tough, that's how the system works.
Liberal blogosphere has the 'repressive regime' feel. Lots of thugs yelling "He's not one of us, he's one of THEM! So let's GET im". That's ugly, man. And very counter to what democracy is about.
Fact is, they're both offenders. So let's move on and talk about policy.
Except ... hm ... the list of issues on which they disagree is shrinking daily.
By November, I wager, they will be identical in all respects except physical appearance ... the one thing Obama hopes to make an advantage ('symbolly' as he is) and McCain will try to downplay ('fossilly' as he is).
Oh please, being called 'racist' by an Obamabot is practically a compliment, at this point. You people have watered down the meaning of the term that much. Which is sad, for those who still suffer from the real thing.
I've heard Obama supporters say 'bros before hos'.
Matthews, are you kidding? He's a commentator on the most liberal-biased cable channel there is, has stated that his dream is to be a Senator, that working for the people is a higher calling than talking to the people, and looks like he has actually run for office in PA. So, what, you're going to say he doesn't have a card or badge or secret progressive handshake?
On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.
The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)
McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.