You use "Republican" as though it were relevant to this discussion and somehow explained your inability to handle dissenting views. If I tell you I am a Democrat who has voted straight ticket since 1972 and my parents were FDR democrats, you will no doubt find some other reason to believe that what I say has nothing to do with the Democratic party or your candidate's chances in November. And yet, what I say has EVERYTHING to do with them because I'm not a lone oddball but one of thousands, if not millions, of people who feel the same way. You don't even pause to wonder how a died-in-the-wool Democrat like myself might be so disgusted with Obama. I find that extraordinary.
Yeah, that's "the new progressivism" led by former republicans (Markos of dailykos, Huffington of huffingtonpost) who practice all the dirty tricks and censorship that they learned through their previous affiliation.
You have to understand, the new progressive is not particularly tolerant of dissenting opinion. He is a somewhat tender fellow, suffering from unclear thoughts, weak logic, and rampant emotions. He is easily threatened by words that cause him to doubt his convictions and thus he must suppress such words by any means necessary.
What's with the over-the-top partisanship here? Truly, on what can anyone base blind adherence to someone whose positions aren't even known? He's got a paper thin track record. He's equivocated on the big issues (NAFTA, Iraq). He gutted his own anti-nuclear bill in IL to suit a campaign contributor (Exelon). He's hit the wrong button in the state senate (voted 'yes' when he meant to vote 'no', this by his own account). He doesn't know how many states are in the U.S. He's done very little to help his African-American constituents in Chicago. He's changed his position on Rev. Wright several times. He's going to "try" to reduce greenhouse gases by 80% by 2050, but has no clear plan for doing so. He's not sure about drivers licenses for illegals. I mean, on what policy (name one, any one) are you absolutely sure he'll be on your side come 2009?
Unity does not mean obedience extorted by being bopped over the head by a bully. Nor does it mean sheep-like adherence based on ignorance (ignorance following directly from having the truth denied you by censorship of free speech).
Unity comes when people in a position of leadership create unity, by appealing to truth and shared values and ... showing leadership! Power has to be judged legitimate, if people are to unite and follow. So far in the area of leadership, I've seen nothing, zip, nada, zero from the DNC or by the SEElected (not EElected) candidate.
I've been voting straight-ticket Democrat since 1972, long before many Obama supporters took their first breath. And before me, my father and mother were straight-ticket Democrats. I belong to a party with an honorable history of supporting all the people who struggle for a better life, not just some. A party that gave us intelligent and courageous leaders like FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter & Clinton. It is "my" party (you know, as in 'mydd'?).
This year my party got hijacked by special interests and has moved into a truly strange and creepy zone of suppressing free speech (witness this site) and denigrating huge swaths of the party membership (women & moderates). Even the most loyal person cannot yield to every misstep, and sometimes loyalty means speaking up against injustice.
as he's a moderate, believes in public service, and shares some of my values. Green party is running an African-American woman (Cynthia McKinney) and I will be looking closely at her as well. One thing for sure is that I wouldn't vote for Obama if he were the last Democrat on earth.
If any pro-Obama fearmongers want to challenge me on Iraq or Roe v. Wade, read this: 1) Irag is getting better, just as anyone with any knowledge of electoral history KNEW it would do during the summer months preceding a Presidential election (Bush has the power to make it better and making it better helps the Rep candidate); 2) More kids die in inner-city violence right here at home, every YEAR, than have died in 5 years of Iraq. What's the Obamessiah planning to do about that? Chicago had one of the highest crime rates in the nation throughout Obama's wonderful terms in State and U.S. Senate.
On Roe v. Wade: 1) O'Connor, a Reagan appointee was a staunch defender of Roe: 2) Roe is established law and unlikely to be overturned; 3) RU232 and other morning after drugs are making abortion increasingly unnecessary.
Obamabots and in-the-tank admins of this site, please refrain from flaming me and yanking my comment offline (as you did a few minutes ago with my perfectly-reasonable post about Alice Palmer and Obama's violation of the voting rights act). I know it is exceeding difficult for you folks to hear the truth, but in this case my comment is given in answer to a question posed by the actual diary.
"The Alice Palmer stuff is veering into dangerous territory. Obama didn't throw her off the ballot, he brought up legitimate concerns with her pre-candidacy work and signatures (and, in fact, with all of his rivals)."
That is way off the mark. Alice Palmer had already SERVED admirably and with her community's support, as State Senator. Therefore any reasonable person would assume that she had the necessary support in her community to run again and would give her the benefit of the doubt. But no, not Obama and his gang of thugs.
They even challenged signatures that were printed instead of in cursive! That's pretty much the same as the Southern racists who gave literacy tests to citizens before allowing them to register to vote. That practice, BTW, was struck down by the Supreme Court as discriminatory to voting rights. But it's ok with you if Obama strikes names off a list because maybe the person doesn't know how to sign in cursive?
Oh yes, he did. Have you forgotten, already, the memo circulated in SC in which their racist crimes were outlined? Have you forgotten the firestorm of MSM bullshit about Bill Clinton that was spread in obedience to David Axelrod's talking points? How quickly you forget.
to be VP. How many times do Hillary and her campaign have to say it? Besides, it's just logical: Why play second banana to a second banana?
My advice to Hillary: Get with Bill and apply your considerable intelligence and talents to a difficult world problem (genocide or the Middle East) and leave the children at home to play in the sandbox of dirty U.S. politics for four years.
You're kidding right? That CNN panel has hated Hillary since at least mid-January. They've done nothing but trash her, no matter what she says and no matter what she does. They are idiots with NO journalist credibility whatsoever. I'd place Toobin in the number 2 "misogynist loser" spot, right after Jack Cafferty. Brazile & Martin can be excused for their anti-Hillary bias on the basis of race (that is the rule we're all playing by these days, right?). Carl Bernstein, dinosaur has-been from a truly misogynist era of American history (ditto Gergen who BTW knows a thing or two about narcissism). Campbell Brown and Cathy Crowley get a half pass for being ignorant tools of an incredibly male-dominated and female-hating network (long before Hillary hit the scene, CNN was bashing Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan every day). And finally, yes good old Wolf Blitzer, the coward who famously ducked bombs falling miles away in Baghdad 1991. He's still ducking them, in the Situation Room 2008. "Best Political Team"? Biggest political joke.
like all the little messy issues that their annointed one's poor judgement keep introducing into the dialog. They prefer to stomp it out, wipe it from their poor fevered consciousness. Of course, to do that, they have to suppress free speech in everyone else. Cost of doin' business I guess.