• on a comment on Choosing a VP over 6 years ago

    She carries some states that Obama does not, and she could probably bring them in even if Obama is on the top of the ticket, she also could pull in her anti Obama supporters and those still resistant to Obama.

    Of course on the other hand she brings baggage too, she would cost Obama in terms of independent support, cross over republican support, and we would really have to wonder how the Administration would function with her and Bill in the White House, they are not use to taking a back seat and following someone else's agenda, they very well could cause Obama a great amount of resistance and problems.

    Just some pros and cons to throw out there.

  • on a comment on Obama folks: Stop the hysteria! over 6 years ago

    nonsense about me being a cult member is utterly offensive and intolerable.  I voted for the person that I felt represented best the policies that I believe in and I diligently did my homework on the matters.  So for people trying to stereo type Obama's supporters as Black, youngsters, cultist, latte drinkers, unimportant, from states that don't count, blah blah are making many voters that are your EQUAL pretty angry.

    Just to let you know my profile..40 year old white male..married two children, don't drink latte's, lower middle class technical worker, 20 years as a Democrat.

    As you can see the stereo types do not apply to me and many other Obama supporters...so please stop saying that nonsense.  Half the country voted for Clinton and half for Obama...both were very strong and qualified candidates...end of story.

  • comment on a post The Truth About the Michelle Obama Tape over 6 years ago

    I asked you about this on Kos the other day and got Tboned for it, partially my own fault due to my newbieness in blogging.  Regardless, thanks for addressing this and shedding light on this issue and I am happy and relieved to understand it is nothing but a smear.  Thanks again

  • comment on a post "The End is Near" over 6 years ago

    The nastiness has come from both sides, unfortunately emotional over zealous supporters sometimes spew divisive hurtful comments, fortunately the candidates have not stooped to the level as some of their supporters.  Let us remember as both candidates have said, there is more uniting us than seperating us..even after this emotional roller coaster primary...we still have very similar goals and principles and know McCain does not represent them in the slightest.

    Kudo's to you and all the others trying to bring us together.  

  • While I may not fit the profile you talk about, I am a white male living in rural subburbs out side of Birmingham Alabama, just turned 40. I do feel for your disenchantment with the parties, I believe none of them are perfect and many times I share your conviction about why the Dems seem to coward away from standing up for their convictions as you described in your post.  

    I do not carry it quite as far as you do, such as blaming Kerry because the Republicans attacked his service and charecter, or condoning the Republican filibuster threats as an acceptable way to conduct business.  I blame the republicans for their foul methods of doing things, including their disqusting campaigning methods and I really do not want the Dems to simulate them...two wrongs do not make a right.

    I can't say that I understand why you feel betrayed, I thought that the RBC made the best call they could out of a bad situation that in reality they created.  In retrospect they should have only stripped half the delegates from MI and FL in the first place and the candidates should have participated and campaigned in the States.

    Given that they striped all the delegates, which meant neither candidate was entitled to a single delegate from either state, it made it very difficult to bring the two states back in fairly...there was no way to reset things and know what would have been if the process ran like every other state.

    I believe that Senator Clinton would have won Florida under normal situations, and Michigan probably would have been extremely close with either candidate winning by a very small single digit number.

    Essentially the RBC gave the wins to Senator Clinton and also chose to follow what the states proposed plans, which hopefully makes the voters there feel better since their represenatives outlined it in as fair of a manner as possible.

    It was a compromise for sure, I thought since the states violated the timing rule and the RBC issued 100% loss that bringing them back to the table should cause no harm  since originally neither candidate was entitled to a single delegate making them even, then bringing them back in should not change the standing and certainly should not give them a reward by making them a game changer in the primary season, that is what they wanted in the first place and that is why they were penalized.

    I am not certain and maybe you could clarify it for me. Some how I feel that a great deal of the hard feelings are coming from women who felt their time has come and felt Senator Clinton was entitled to the nomination, I do not feel anyone is owed or entitled the nomination based on their gender or skin color...they have to work for it and campaign and sale their policies to get it.

    If this is about a woman being President, I am sorry that you did not get to see it happen...one day it certainly will happen.  

    I understand you are no longer excited about the party, however, I do think you should consider what is at stake if McCain is elected into office and you know as well as I do so I will not bother to spell it out.

    I really wish you the best and hope you can mend your wounds and find a way to support the party, even with all of its flaws it is better the the alternative.

  • While I may not fit the profile you talk about, I am a white male living in rural subburbs out side of Birmingham Alabama, just turned 40. I do feel for your disenchantment with the parties, I believe none of them are perfect and many times I share your conviction about why the Dems seem to coward away from standing up for their convictions as you described in your post.  

    I do not carry it quite as far as you do, such as blaming Kerry because the Republicans attacked his service and charecter, or condoning the Republican filibuster threats as an acceptable way to conduct business.  I blame the republicans for their foul methods of doing things, including their disqusting campaigning methods and I really do not want the Dems to simulate them...two wrongs do not make a right.

    I can't say that I understand why you feel betrayed, I thought that the RBC made the best call they could out of a bad situation that in reality they created.  In retrospect they should have only stripped half the delegates from MI and FL in the first place and the candidates should have participated and campaigned in the States.

    Given that they striped all the delegates, which meant neither candidate was entitled to a single delegate from either state, it made it very difficult to bring the two states back in fairly...there was no way to reset things and know what would have been if the process ran like every other state.

    I believe that Senator Clinton would have won Florida under normal situations, and Michigan probably would have been extremely close with either candidate winning by a very small single digit number.

    Essentially the RBC gave the wins to Senator Clinton and also chose to follow what the states proposed plans, which hopefully makes the voters there feel better since their represenatives outlined it in as fair of a manner as possible.

    It was a compromise for sure, I thought since the states violated the timing rule and the RBC issued 100% loss that bringing them back to the table should cause no harm  since originally neither candidate was entitled to a single delegate making them even, then bringing them back in should not change the standing and certainly should not give them a reward by making them a game changer in the primary season, that is what they wanted in the first place and that is why they were penalized.

    I am not certain and maybe you could clarify it for me. Some how I feel that a great deal of the hard feelings are coming from women who felt their time has come and felt Senator Clinton was entitled to the nomination, I do not feel anyone is owed or entitled the nomination based on their gender or skin color...they have to work for it and campaign and sale their policies to get it.

    If this is about a woman being President, I am sorry that you did not get to see it happen...one day it certainly will happen.  

    I understand you are no longer excited about the party, however, I do think you should consider what is at stake if McCain is elected into office and you know as well as I do so I will not bother to spell it out.

    I really wish you the best and hope you can mend your wounds and find a way to support the party, even with all of its flaws it is better the the alternative.

  • comment on a post Fellow Clinton Supporters: Consider This! over 6 years ago

    I agree with you 100% and know our efforts are best served against McCain. Thanks for posting.

  • on a comment on Full Tilt Boogie over 6 years ago

    If the DNC stuck to their guns..neither candidate would have received a single vote...The Rules committee followed what the states thought was fair Hillary came out ahead and still people are screaming.  Can't please everyone...I bet most of these folks screaming are not even from either state.

  • on a comment on Missed opportunity by Obama over 6 years ago

    I have yet heard Hillary asking her supporters to stop the Obama bashing, nor has she apologized to Obama for any of the poor remarks that has come from her or her aides.

    You reference his approval rating that has dropped among women since February.  Yeah I agree it has and I contribute it to your candidate...that is when she started her scorched earth, kitchen sink strategy and proceeded to divide the party and make this nomination about race and gender in order to stop Obama's momentum.  So yes..you have a group of women hating Obama and a group of blacks hating Clinton and other supporters on both sides angry that this kind of crap is going in intra party in the first place.  I will be just too happy when this thing is over with...Our party has become as sleezy, mean spirited, and divisive if not more so than the republican party.

  • If you are going to make changes, inevitably you will make enemies out of the ones that are against those changes.  Excellent point.

  • rethink what you are saying...first of all there are reasons for the rules in the first place...have you even investigated why the states are kept from voting early and the consequences of not having some controls on the schedule would mean?

    Candidates with less finances could not even compete and gain any traction...why? Because it cost more to campaign in big states, also allowing big states to jump way up would mean candidates with big name recognition and or big corporate sponsors would have a completely unfair advantage in winning.  using the early state strategy it is more cost efficient to introduce the nation to the candidates and allow the other states to learn about their positions and policies before the huge delegate rich states weigh in and the early states also represent a good mix of the voters throughout the country.  Are you really proposing that anarchy is a good structure and rule of thumb to follow?

  • Health care plan...damn, they are targeting to do the same thing...reduce the cost and guarantee coverage...the biggest difference is making it mandatory, which I was against primarily because from the start Hillary never clarified a maximum cap leaving it in my mind to a complete possibility for insurance companies to abuse the hell out of us....I see she has fixed this now and kudo's to her...I like her new plan.  My question for Hillary...why so long on putting the damn details out...when I tried to research her policies all that was there in the beginning was vague bullet point policies...Edwards and Obama had large amounts of details...maybe this is why she did so poor in the primary run...inevitability must have replaced the need to define your policies and work for the vote and priviledge of being President...she did not start running until after super Tuesday...by that time she had already lost.

  • Didn't she propose a health care plan before that was so unmanageable that it got blown out of the water even by the American people...Neither Hillary of Barack will completely fix health care..the fix is to take profit out of it and that means kicking the insurance companies to the curb...neither is willing to do that.

  • Didn't she propose a health care plan before that was so unmanageable that it got blown out of the water even by the American people...Neither Hillary of Barack will completely fix health care..the fix is to take profit out of it and that means kicking the insurance companies to the curb...neither is willing to do that.

  • Shall we also discuss the Family, Peter Paul, Clinton body count legacy and tie that to the RFK Assassination misspeak...to name just a few things from a long list that their candidate has not been vetted or called on.  Imagine what they would say if we attacked back with all the ammunition we have...we would be called everything except a son of  GOD. I think they can start showing some decency and respect that the candidate they are trying to destroy is actually a fellow Democrat and not an enemy.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads