Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

One of my closest friends shipped out for Iraq today.

Stop threatening to extort us with your vote.

I don't want another friend, another relative, another loved one to get sent over there.  I can't stop this war, and none of you can either.

We've got to deal with this like adults, and with the fierce urgency these times deserve.

Some of you Clinton supporters have yet to show the grace that Senator Clinton and the bulk of her supporters have.  Some of you are threatening to vote for McCain, or write in someone other than our nominee.  That is absolutely your right and your choice.

But you absolutely disgust me if you're going to prattle on about how your feelings, or those of your candidate, are more important than who wins in November.  Whatever point you're trying to make, however right you might be, I cannot and will not say nothing on a day like this.

I'm sorry if I've been offensive.  I'm sorry if I'm a touch overwrought.  I just can't take this idiocy from the minority here who seem to think that their grievances are worth allowing or causing (in their own small way) the extension of this war.

My uncle made it back alive.  I hope my friend does too.  I hope they all do.  I hope that the Iraqi civilians stop suffering.

I wish this had never happened.  But it has.

I'm begging you folks (and you know who you are) to put this into perspective.

Thank you.

---------------------------------------------

Edit: this diary is not directed at honest supporters of Senator McCain or honestly aggrieved Democrats who prefer Senator Clinton. This is directed *specifically* at those posters *here* who have said that they will vote for McCain if they don't get what they want. If you are not in that group, I'm not speaking to you. Others may comment, of course, but I'm not dogging Clinton supporters writ large. I'm addressing a particular group.

Tags: urgent (all tags)

Comments

470 Comments

This takes the cake..

Look, if Obama isn't getting the love, maybe its because he doesn't seem to care about those whose votes he doesn't really want.

by architek 2008-06-10 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: This takes the cake..

thread hijacking.

by Jess81 2008-06-10 06:57PM | 0 recs
Obama COULD stop the war..

He just would have to do what he needs to do to win. If he is unwilling to bend, because of pride or previous commmitments, then he might find less people are enthused enough about him to vote. Guilt tripping people is not the way to get votes. It drives people away. Is that what you are trying to do? If I were Obama, I would try to change people's opinion of him. Actions speak louder than words.

Read my sig.

by architek 2008-06-10 07:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama COULD stop the war..

You make me ill....

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama COULD stop the war..

Then please, please articulate in clear and brief language exactly what it is he has not done that he should do in order to satisfy you!

He has praised Senator Clinton and her supporters.  He has made efforts to help pay down her debt.  He agrees with Senator Clinton on nearly every issue there is.  He is consulting with Elizabeth Edwards on health care.

Please, tell me what he needs to do and I'll send him an e-mail myself asking him to consider it, providing its sane.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama COULD stop the war..

apparently, now that he's won, he should "do the right thing" and offer to be Hillary's VP instead.

at least, that is what some people are acting like they think he should do.

by 2501 2008-06-10 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama COULD stop the war..

Sex change?

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-10 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama COULD stop the war..

It would make him/her truely historical.

by Okamifujutsu 2008-06-10 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama COULD stop the war..

Clearly he must favor building more secret prisons, grabbing people from the streets of allied countries, torture, sexual humiliation, the end of civil liberties, the end of due process, immunity for military contractors who rape and murder, private armies deployed in the US-- and, most importantly, he must start wearing pantsuits.

by wrb 2008-06-11 05:51AM | 0 recs
Hey that's an unfair question for a troll n/t

by Tenafly Viper 2008-06-11 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama COULD stop the war..

Ok.  But he's not going to do any of these:

1.  Say explicitly that he will never convene a bipartisan commission on Social Security.

  1.  Swear on a stack of bibles that he will not try to raise the capital gains tax higher than 20% (which is what it was during Clinton's administration.
  2.  Deliver a speech on ageism and refrain from campaigning against McCain in a way that implies that because he's 71, he must have Alzheimer's, that all old people are incipient cases of Alzheimer's and are unable to comprehend anything.
  3.  Include mandates in his health plan.
  4.  Appoint a VP who does not have a prolife or sexist past.  Preferably Hillary...but not necessarily.
  5.  Deliver an anti sexism speech.

Heck.  I'd settle for 3 or 4 from that list.

That would turn me from an I shut my eyes & vote for him, but I 'll be-planning-how-to-commit-suicide-on inauguration-day person to someone who can go back to making phone calls for Democratic candidates and sitting the DTC office during election season.

by LIsoundview 2008-06-11 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama COULD stop the war..

I must say I'm surprised you manage to fit that ego past doors.

If you have a legitmate concern voice it, but the fact is that this sour grapes, immature 'I want' stuff is just stupid.

by drache 2008-06-10 09:16PM | 0 recs
I don't want to guilt-trip you

into voting any particular way.  I just want to let you know how little respect I have for you.  That's all.

I feel like many people on here that are openly THREATENING to vote for McCain (rather than just saying it as a matter of fact comment) in order to show us how hurt their feelings are, are only making public fools of themselves.  It's like going to Walmart with a child who threatens to never love you ever again because you won't buy her that toy.  That kind of blackmail doesn't just NOT work, it also makes people think you're an emotionally retarded moron.

by Dumbo 2008-06-11 02:51PM | 0 recs
Talk is CHEAP!

It costs a lot less to barrage the net with Doublespeak than it does to actually DO anything, like put together a WORKING healthcare plan and commit to it.

by architek 2008-06-10 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Talk is CHEAP!

For someone who goes on and on about health care for others you show a remarkable lack of empathy.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Talk is CHEAP!

You are so short-sighted and rude!!!

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 07:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Talk is CHEAP!

What is John McCain's healthcare policy, again? Surely you can't believe his is better than Obama's. On a scale of 1 to 10, Hillary's was about a 9, Obama's an 8 and McCain's a 0!

by southjersey 2008-06-10 08:14PM | 0 recs
why did so many people commit ratings abu

se against arch in this particular comment? Remember i said this comment!

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-11 04:35AM | 0 recs
Not abuse at all

It used an offensive term to describe Obama (engaging in "doublespeak") without substantiation.  It didn't address the diary's main point about the importance of ending the war.  It was a comment, almost by definition, designed to troll for an argument.

by corph 2008-06-11 06:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Not abuse at all

"Doublespeak" is a completely legitimate word to use when describing a politician, imo.  I don't find it particularly apt for Obama, but hey.

I've had my scraps with architek but most of his comments in this thread are dissenting opinions, not trollish ones.

by Koan 2008-06-11 07:01AM | 0 recs
McCain's plan is better?

That seems to be what you are saying when you say you will not vote for Obama based on that issue.

The fact is, Obama's health care plan is much closer to Clinton's plan than McCain's non-plan.  Furthermore, it seems rather clear that Clinton has negotiated a leadership seat at the table regarding   this issue.  Whatever bill eventually makes it to the President's desk for signing, you can bet HRC will be the driving force behind it.  Obama would sign that law.  McCain would likely veto it.  If you like Clinton's position on healthcare, your best chance of making it happen now is to support Obama.  Voting McCain will just torpedo it.

by protothad 2008-06-11 04:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Talk is CHEAP!

I get that Clinton supproters are grieving. I'm sorry your girl lost.

But I would suggest, that instead of hurling insults and threatening the Dem presumptive nominee, you come up with real reasons not to support him.

And no, saying "All he does is talk," doesnt count.  He does a lot more than talk.  Please feel free to do some of your own research and see that.  

If you come up with some real issues that he is on the wrong side of for you, then fine.  Otherwise, please look into your heart and ask yourself why you really want to help put McSame in the White House.

I didn't love Kerry, but I worked my ass off for him.  I would have worked my ass off for Clinton.

by GingertheDem 2008-06-11 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Talk is CHEAP!

Well, I wasn't happy that he voted for Cheney's energy bill.

And I wasn't happy that he voted against the upper limit on credit card interest.

I detest the position he outlined on Social Security (bipartisan commission, only privatization off the table) 5/17/2007 on Stephanopoulous.

And he's crazy to still be pushing more than 20% capital gains tax, and thinking it's going to raise that much money.  People just stop trading.

And I prefer mandates (but it looks like HRC may have fixed that complain).

That said, I'm voting for him in Nov, but I am severely severely unhappy about it.

by LIsoundview 2008-06-11 02:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Talk is CHEAP!

Architek,

I'm sorry you're being so piled on with troll rates for expressing your opinion.  I think politically we're on a similar page.  I like the MyDD community overall though so I don't want to get in any more fights over who I'm voting for in the fall.  I don't think I'm going to change anyone's mind here and I don't think anyone here is going to change mine.  

by BPK80 2008-06-11 10:12AM | 0 recs
Re: This takes the cake..

Maybe you're seeing what you want to see, and if a Mack truck of common sense were to hit you it'd roll right through?

Now, would you care to actually respond to what I've said in some meaningful way, or will you find some way to tie this back to health care?

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 06:58PM | 0 recs
Obama's healthcare plan can't work.

Why?

by architek 2008-06-10 07:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama's healthcare plan can't work.

But McCain doesn't even have a plan!

by southjersey 2008-06-10 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: This takes the cake..

he/she did not insult you, yet that is the first response you make. maybe you should read that post again and look at your own behavior.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-10 07:25PM | 0 recs
Re: This takes the cake..

I appreciate your unnecessary attempts at moderating this diary.  I would pay you, but frankly I can't be bothered.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: This takes the cake..

Maybe you should step down from the soapbox and try to empathize with people whose family and friends are putting their life on the line so you can sit over here, safe and sound, and bitch about our nominee who is trying to get our military home safe.

You're selfish...

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 06:59PM | 0 recs
No, you're selfish

Its not just healthcare.

Pride is one of the seven deadly sins too, along with greed.

Don't try to blame the victims.

You are the ones who  have to convince us, remember?

You might try fixing the adverse selection problem. Leaving out one fifth of Americans (like injured vets- most of whom would definitely be in that one fifth Obama wont end up helping!)

WON'T CUT IT.

Thats the truth, deal with it.

Just say no to greed.

by architek 2008-06-10 07:07PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

You can't even say one nice thing about his friend who is now on his way to Iraq defending you.  Your rants don't even make any sense...I respect the soldiers who are putting their lives in danger just so you have the opportunity to keep on bitching and all you see is me, me, me, me...I don't want to convince you of shit, in fact I will say right here, right now...GO VOTE FOR MCCAIN I don't care, I really don't....

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Is self-parody one of the seven sins?  I forget...

by username 2008-06-10 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

And screw your sig...It's juvenile, like your arguments...

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Architek is right about the veterans healthcare. Obama wants it to continue as a discretionary fund and the vets need and ALL veterans service orgainizations want mandatory funding, which Clinton was for.

My husband is a disabled Vietnam veteran and I've been a veteran's advocate for over 30 years. This is a huge issue to veterans and one I hope Obama rethinks and changes his position on. The Democrats are for mandatory funding, the Republicans want to leave it a discretionary fund. Support the down ticket democrats in Congress and get this done.

Yellow Ribbons don't bandage wounds. Support Veteran Funding.

by Justwords 2008-06-10 07:42PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

But this wasn't a diary about healthcare...

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

It was about how people should support Obama because troops are still being deployed to Iraq.

However, Obama does not support giving wounded Iraq vets care when they get home.  Even if he supported an immediate total withdrawal, there would still be many, many wounded vets in need of care.  And his health plan doesn't provide it.

He should fix that.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

link?

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

"However, 1.8 million U.S. veterans under age 65 continue to lack health insurance or access to care at Veterans Affairs hospitals as of 2004. This means that one in eight, or 12.7 percent of non-elderly veterans are uninsured, up from 9.9 percent in 2000. [4] About half of the 1.8 million uninsured veterans are classified in the lowest priority group (P8), and are not currently eligible for VA healthcare, while the rest may be eligible, but live too far from VA facilities to access services. [5]"

http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?i mID=1&parentID=61&id=755

Obama's plan, without mandated coverage, will leave these uncovered vets...uncovered. 12.7% of non-elderly vets with no health care.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Barack Obama believes America has a sacred trust with our veterans. He is committed to creating a 21st Century Department of Veterans' Affairs that provides the care and benefits our nation's veterans deserve.

Allow All Veterans Back into the VA: One of Obama's first acts will be reversing the 2003 ban on enrolling modest-income veterans, which has denied care to a million veterans.

Strengthen VA Care: Obama will make the VA a leader of national health care reform so that veterans get the best care possible. He will improve care for polytrauma vision impairment, prosthetics, spinal cord injury, aging, and women's health.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/vetera ns/

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

What's he going to do about the ones who can't reach VA hospitals?

Personally drive them there for treatment?

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Expand Vet Centers: Vet Centers are often the first line of defense for veterans to get help in their communities by offering counseling for vets and their families.  They provide counseling for mental health care, sexual trauma and substance abuse. They also provide vocational and employment assistance, VA claims and benefits information, help for homeless veterans,
social service and health care referrals.  Barack Obama will
expand and strengthen Vet Centers.

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/VeteransF actSheet.pdf

Do you read any of the links I provide you?

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Sure. But I still don't believe the vets will be completely covered unless there is a universal mandate, which Obama still has not adopted. When he does that, I'll credit him with looking out for vets, as well as everyone else.

With a universal mandate, the vets could go to the closest (or best) doctors they could find, and not be restricted to these "Vet Centers" which don't yet exist and can't possibly go into operation for at least 18 months to two years after he's sworn in, if he manages it.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Typical nay-sayer....Good bye...

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

I'm sorry you misunderstood my comment. My comment was about VETERANS who are figting in the Iraq war you brought up as a reason to support Obama. When a combat veteran is all used up and can no longer serve on active duty- they are transfered to the 'care' of the Veterans Administration...which is two sided- benefits and healthcare for wounded veterans. The Veterans Administration is a discretionary fund- not a mandatory fund but the only agency set up to take care of VETERANS who come home from a war broken and Obama wants to keep it a discretionary fund, which means he does not support the 'troops' after they are all used up. Discretionary funds are at the bottom of the barrel in the federal budget...when money is tight- they tighten it up. Our country is treating these veterans 'on the cheap' or not at all and it's just as discusting, if not more so than being in Iraq in the first place. You want a president to bring them home and toss them aside? Have we learned absolutely nothing since Vietnam?  

by Justwords 2008-06-10 10:28PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish
Barack Obama pledges to fully fund the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to ensure so the VA can meet the needs of the veterans it serves. He believes the current administration has consistently underfunded health care for veterans and wishes to rectify the situation.
Already the nation's largest integrated health system, he vows to make the VA a leader of national health care reform so that veterans get the best care possible to include the expansion of centers of excellence and investments in specialty care.
Senator Obama has cosponsored measures that would provide additional funding increases for veterans. He reintroduced the *Lane Evans Veterans Health and Benefits Improvement Act to improve the VA's planning process to avoid budget shortfalls in the future( and has been a leader in fighting homelessness among veterans.
He authored the Sheltering All Veterans Everywhere Act (SAVE Act) to strengthen and expand federal homeless veteran programs that serve over 100,000 homeless veterans annually. As part of the SAVE Act, Senator Obama reintroduced legislation that would help veteran's transition from the DOD health system to the VA system by extending the window in which new veterans can get mental health care from two years to five years.
He also helped to pass legislation in December 2006 to provide comprehensive services and affordable housing options to veterans and passed an amendment to ensure that all service members returning from Iraq are properly screened for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI).

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 10:59PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

I'm fully aware that Obama's position is the SAME as President Bush's. To fully fund the VA.  The problem and unless you know a wounded veteran (and I'm guessing you don't by your lack of knowledge of the system) is that fully funding a discretionary fund means absolutely nothing except cutbacks, layoffs, long waits for care, benefit claims that take a minimum of 16 months. A priority One veteran gets a primary care visit every 4 months...priority one's are the VIP's, service connected most wounded, need the most care. What do you think happens to the Priority 2,3,4,5,6, and 7's in a fully funded VA?

Let me make this easier.... I am going to fully fund your gasoline expenses this year and add that in my yearly budget. The amount I have alloted you is $200, which will fully fund your needs. So your job is to do the best you can with the $200. That is how the Veterans Administration has been fully funded and will continue to be fully funded until the Democrats pass a mandatory funding law for the Veterans Administration.

There is NO psychiatrists treating the emotionally wounded coming back from Iraq. Congress passes bills to do that...but it's a discretionary fund in the budget and the VA can't afford to hire a psychiatrist for every VA clinic or to treat all the veterans with PTSD...so the only thing they can do is NOT diagnose them with PTSD.....high suicide rate, high self medicating, divorces, legal problems, family problems, job problems etc. etc. etc. because they have to work within the boundaries of a fully funded VA, not a mandatory funded VA- I'm only talking PTSD because it's the most in the news and everyone has read what's going on.

When Nicolson took over there was a 250,000 backlog in injury claims. When Peake took over there was a 650,000 backlog. So in order to try and play catch up...for any emotional wounded or enclosed TBI...any halfway qualified psychiatrist, psychologist etc....does not treat but does C&P exams and they are instructed, intimidated NOT to diagnose PTSD, because it also comes with compensation and treatment. (pills- that's it)

Please try to understand that Veterans deserve better than fully funding a discretionary fund- they deserve a mandatory funded Veterans Administration. Yes it's expensive. Freedom isn't free.  

by Justwords 2008-06-12 03:42AM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

I can understand that you are pretty much a one issue voter: health care.  Besides the fact that Obama is worlds better than McCain on this issue, you ironically fail to realize that there are other one issue voters out there about the war.

Simply, Clinton authorized the war and Obama spoke out against it.  You should respect their one issue view if you want others to respect yours.

by mefeck 2008-06-10 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

If Obama is so anti-Iraq war, why does he accept support from the following people?

Evan Bayh
Joe Biden
Max Cleland
Tom Daschle
Chris Dodd
John Edwards
Diane Feinstein
Tom Harkin
John Kerry
Blanche Lincoln
Harry Reid
Chuck Schumer

If he'd actually been in the Senate then, he would have voted for it too.  

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Are you kidding?  First, many people on that list endorsed Clinton and do you really expect him to say thanks, but no thanks?

Your logic is stunning.

By the way, are you sure all of Clinton's supporters always supported UHC?

by mefeck 2008-06-10 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Obama's supporters keep saying "He can't pick Clinton as VP, she's a pro war Democrat because of the AUMF!"

Well, Edwards, Biden, Daschle, Dodd, Lincoln, Cleland, and Bayh have all been said to be on Obama's "short list" -- shouldn't THEY all be disqualified too?

Or just Hillary?

It's your "logic" that has some problems.

And Hillary's not picking a VP, so support or not of Universal Health Care is a non-issue. I am sure if she had become the nominee that yes, her choice would have been a supporter of UHC.

What makes you think her supporters are NOT in favor of UHC? Give names and links please.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Because unlike most of those people it took until 2007 for Clinton to come to grips with the reality that her war vote was a mistake.

Also the vetting process isn't complete and no one knows what the standards are. Maybe support for the AUMF is a vetting criteria.

IMO the number one disqualifier for Clinton was the endorsement of McCain's CIC credentials over Obama's that's just too good of fodder for attack adds and it just isn't a good thing to have your running mate in the opposition attack adds.

If Clinton wants the Veep slot she needs to be out recanting some of her positions and arguments from the general explaining how the long 18 month primary contest has caused her to re-evaluate her oppinions regarding Obama's competence.

This threatening "I got 18 million votes so pick me or else" nonsense isn't going to cut it. 60% of her voters automatically switched allegiances to Obama when he locked up the nomination. Most of the rest will come along as they get past the immediate emotional reachtion of the primaries and calm down and think about the situation.

I personally think that the vast majority of her voters who will vote McCain were agent provocateurs who weren't going to vote for her in the general anyway.

As far as peoples objections to Obama's healthplan not being mandated I think they need to step back a bit and realize that true UHC is a long term project and that it doesn't make much sense to mandate that people buy coverage when the programs aren't even in place yet.

Also requiring people make payments to an insurance company does not equate to UHC IMO it ammounts to little more than a garantied income for the very people who created the problem in the first place.

The only real UHC plan would involve putting the Health Insurance industry out of business and federalizing it.

The funny thing about it all is that the people who worry about it coming out of their taxes don't realize that they're already paying for universal care via their taxes as well as lower wages (because employers are picking up part of their health care costs) as well as the part they pay for coverage directly.

by Skex 2008-06-11 05:17AM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Obviously a single-payer plan is the way to go, but as you say, it's a long term project.  But a universal mandate is a bigger step in the right direction than an "voluntary" buy in that will load the insurance pools with sick people and likely cause a major collapse, which would further delay the chance of getting real UHC.

I agree that the people who think they aren't already paying for health care are short-sighted. But mostly they're just scared because they're already having trouble making ends meet and they're not thinking clearly (and they've been poisoned by Rethug ads about "taking away choice" and "Canada's health care sucks" (it doesn't.))

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 08:04AM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

My concern with the purchase of insurance being mandated is that it will mostly result in a big influx of cash to the insurance companies further increasing their political power at a time when we need to be figuring out how to kill them off.

Essentially Obama's plan provides a window through which real health care reform could be driven while Clinton's mandated program would have effectively cut off the option for a single payer program by granting financial success to the Insurance industry into perpetuity.

by Skex 2008-06-11 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Two questions:

1. How have your four days on MyDD been?
2. How many McPoints have you earned in that time?

by really not a troll 2008-06-10 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

How is this germane to the discussion at hand?  I wasn't aware there was a seniority policy at MyDD...let me look...NOPE! Doesn't exist.

My four days as an active poster have been great. Much more rewarding than my four months as a lurker.  

And yes, you really are a troll.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

The implication is that you joined as the primaries ended, with the express intention of tearing down the democratic nominee.

This is the definition of trolling.

by really not a troll 2008-06-10 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Riiiight.  The vast majority of my comments have been telling Obama-supporting nuts like you to STOP pushing the wedge in the Democratic party deeper because you're going to cost YOUR candidate votes.

Clearly I want him to lose.  

Idiot.

I started posting because I hate to see the Democrats shooting themselves in the foot YET AGAIN  and wanted to inject some sense into the discussion.  However, certain people are sense-proof.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:00PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Buh by now.

by RockvilleLiberal2 2008-06-11 03:18AM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

disagreeing with your particular viewpoint is not trolling.  Michigoose is making reasonable comments that are actual potentially helpful for Obama supporters.  You're not making helpful comments by calling everyone a troll simply because you don't like what they say.

by slynch 2008-06-10 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

I'm not calling everyone who disagrees with me a troll - case in point, Alegre. A genuine supporter with whom I had severe disagreements (to say the least).

I don't agree with lots of what I read. But when I see that someone has joined up after Obama became the almost-certain nominee, and that person is engaging in what appears to be excessive concer-trolling, I'm likely to comment.

In short, it seems unlikely that just as Obama became the all-but-certain nominee, a ton of genuine Democrats with lots of concerns/fears/resentments about Obama suddenly joined. There have been repeated attempts by McTrolls - some more obvious than others - to concern troll excessively on this site.

Sometimes I will be wrong.

by really not a troll 2008-06-10 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

I understand.  It's difficult to distinguish between a concern troll and a genuine concerned Democrat (like myself).  But, I tend to err in the opposite direction from you I guess.

btw, how do you determine when a person signed up?  I can find their userid (so I know, e.g., that I've been here just a little longer than you), but aside from going back through every comment, I'm not sure how you can pinpoint when someone first got here.

by slynch 2008-06-10 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

The comment pages follow a numbering system, so it's pretty easy to jump back to, say, the 6th page of comments. If it ends there, and it's from two weeks ago, I pin that as the start date.

It's possible that somoene could have made an account earlier and just not done anything with it ever, I suppose.

by really not a troll 2008-06-11 01:47AM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

that's odd, because I can only go back one page of comments at a time.  There's a way to jump back all the way to the start?

by slynch 2008-06-11 03:48AM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Once you go back to the second page of comments, look at the url. It ends in a "2". Just set that number the page of comments you want to look at. If the page comes up blank, it means the user doesn't have that many comments.

by really not a troll 2008-06-11 07:27AM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

There is no such thing as god, so I don't believe in sin.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-10 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

On the other hand, I have been touched by the FSM's noodly appendage.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-10 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

have you made the full leap into pastafarianism then?

by slynch 2008-06-10 09:10PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Yes and loving it.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-11 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Well, don't worry architek. I replaced YOU by driving my mother and father to register to vote for the first time in 3 decades.

Someone else on this site got one of my parent's votes, so you can have the other one.

You now officially don't matter as far as your vote goes, so go ahead and do whatever you want.

Anyone want to be the vote replaced by a couple of my friends I turned from the right for Obama?

by Darknesse 2008-06-10 09:10PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Er...I don't know exactly what percentage of the 17.5 million who voted for Clinton are planning to stay home or go for McCain instead, but even if the percentage is very low (10%?) I doubt you're going to come up with 1.75 million replacement votes on your lonesome.

Though, hey, if you can, maybe YOU should run for office.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

I am not really concerned about that, as I am confident that Obama will make an appeal to them.

What I am concerned with are the deadenders that are not going to move over no matter what. All Deadenders that I can identify I will be sure to replace.

Either way, you won't be holding us hostage, by threats or by fear like Republicans like to do. We are going forward with a progressive agenda, and if you don't like some of the particulars, that's just too bad.

Not everyone gets everything they want.

by Darknesse 2008-06-11 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: No, you're selfish

Er...I don't know that invoking that "17 million!" talking point, or references to 1.75 million replacement votes, is at all relevant to the point she was making.

I don't see 1.75 million idiots blathering on endlessly about how they just know that their candidate should have won, and how all evidence to the contrary is just plain wrong, and how if they don't get whatever that mysteriously elusive thing it is that they aren't getting, they're going to continue to be the nauseatingly persistent gadflies that they've shown themselves to be capable of on this site and on this thread.

No, there aren't even a half dozen of your sort remaining, and Darknesse can rightly claim to have neutered your pointless charades with her conversions. The overwhelming majority of that 1.7 million are moving on, if they haven't already. You and your fellow malcontents can grumble your way to collective irrelevancy, with my best wishes - don't let anyone here cramp your style.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-11 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: This takes the cake..

The Architek has spoken.  Lie back and think of Hillary, peons!

by username 2008-06-10 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: This takes the cake..

Folks let be honest and smart here for a second.

Obama ( whose foreign policy adviser indicated in the past ) nor Hillary would really withdraw out totally...

both would keep and will keep 60k strong at a minimum over there...

now if you voted for obama or hillary becuase of just this war--- you will be dissapointed.

by aliveandkickin 2008-06-10 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: This takes the cake..

How have your two weeks at MyDD been?

by really not a troll 2008-06-10 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: This takes the cake..

Is there ANY chance of you staying on topic?

Troll.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: This takes the cake..

I'm pointing at people who show signs of likely trollery: i.e., people who joined up extremely recently (i.e. after it became clear that Obama would be the nominee) and have spent all their time since then attacking the presumptive democratic nominee. This behaviour is much more indicative of a troll (someone who would like to see Democrats in general lose) than an earnest Democrat who simply has concerns about Obama.

by really not a troll 2008-06-10 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: This takes the cake..

Until they actually say something trollish you have no right to point fingers.  If they say something trollish, use the troll rating provided.  "Troll" status is not based on length of time on the blog.  I rather doubt the mods would appreciate you trying to drive new posters away.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: This takes the cake..

My troll-o-meter is a little more sensitive than usual today. People like this guy, painfully obvious trolls, have been popping up a lot since the primaries ended. If I seem a little overzealous - that's the reason.

by really not a troll 2008-06-10 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: This takes the cake..

Well, I haven't posted anything remotely like that.  So, really, reign it in. You are seriously NOT helping your candidate.  Take a walk or have some chocolate ice cream or something and cool down.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:18PM | 0 recs
What do you do with McCain points?

Can you redeem them for something?

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-06-10 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: What do you do with McCain points?

I want a coffee mug that says "REALLY NOT A TROLL IS".  

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: What do you do with McCain points?

That wasn't even me.

Not every person who says that you're wrong is going to be me - I have things to do.

by really not a troll 2008-06-10 09:14PM | 0 recs
Re: What do you do with McCain points?

Got anything good to say about our Democratic nominee?

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: This takes the cake..

Trolls out in force tonight.

by really not a troll 2008-06-10 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: This takes the cake..

I'd TR the comment but that would be uprating it...

by nathanp 2008-06-10 10:03PM | 0 recs
Or maybe because trolls are

Spreading lies, hate and Republican talking points under the guise of being Clinton-supporters.

(Supporters who, oddly enough, refuse to listen to Hillary who has said again and again that she endorses Obama.)

It could be so many things.

by BrighidG 2008-06-11 01:25AM | 0 recs
Oh, I forgot, Hillary picked much better advisors

to run her campaign.

by DaveG 2008-06-11 04:42AM | 0 recs
Gotta a cousin...

...on his second tour.  It hurts me to see people who say they are going to vote for McCain over Obama, I take it personally because a family member's life is involved...I will pray for your friend...

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 06:56PM | 0 recs
Same here...

Last time I talked to him he actually threatened to "personally kick the ass" of anyone who votes for McCain.  He is on his third deployement, sees no improvement, no reason to stay there, and just wants to come home to his family.

Even over the phone, I can here how this thing is changing him.

by protothad 2008-06-11 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Powerful diary.

I have 2 cousins overseas (one in Afghanistan the other in Iraq) and
can't feel anything but disgust for the people who complain about being blackmailed with the war. I have very little patience with deadenders.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 06:58PM | 0 recs
spacey...

you know i think you're pretty cool right?  but just an FYI - the term 'deadender' was coined by cheney and rumsfeld to refer to the iraq insurgents....

by canadian gal 2008-06-10 07:05PM | 0 recs
The phrase existed long before Rumsfeld.

http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/c itations/dead_ender_11/

It's probably as old as the phrase "dead end" itself.

by Firewall 2008-06-10 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: spacey...

Actually it was coined back in 1997...Why can't he use it?

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: spacey...

Really?  I've heard this phrase used in many instances in both political and non political circumstances. I know it's getting more play because Andrew Sullivan mocked NoQuarter and their deranged fanatics on his blog. I've seen it used around here for some time now too.  After lurking for some time over at NoQuarter I have come to despise a specific type of Clinton "supporter".  Hence, deadenders.

I'll try to avoid using the word though. I understand where you are coming from. ; )

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: spacey...

as others pointed out - i dont think that the word was invented by those two peons, but rather i think coined the term in the context in which you are using it...

by canadian gal 2008-06-10 07:59PM | 0 recs
I recall "Nixon deadenders'

used in the last few days before his resignation.

by benmasel 2008-06-10 08:48PM | 0 recs
Question re "deadenders" ... what is

the connection, exactly?   The fact that Clinton supporters are old and so ... almost dead?    Or the fact that they've come to the end of their own particular 'road' so to speak?   Or ...

by miker2008 2008-06-10 08:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Question re "deadenders" ... what is

"Dead-enders" is not a synonym for "Clinton supporters", it's a term to refer to those few so thoroughly wrapped up in identity politics or so enraptured with the candidate that they can never get past the fact that Barack Obama committed the unforgivable sin of beating her. They're so upset that it happened and so unwilling to grant him any credit for the race he won, that they can't bring themselves to vote for him, never mind that they're on the same side or even that she endorsed him.

It's sometimes misused on here to refer to people who are pro-Clinton and not anti-Obama. These sorts may not be pro-Obama per se, but they are Democrats who will likely be voting for him in November. Indeed, most already acknowledge that they will. They may aren't exactly thrilled about it, though, and spend a fair amount of time directing mild snark and criticism towards Obama and his supporters here. They aren't dead-enders, but it can be hard to tell them apart from the more subtle people who are.

by nathanp 2008-06-10 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

While I am with you, you need to understand that this was the most hotly contested democratic primary in recent history.  Clinton supporters are upset and they should be allowed to politically grieve.  They will come around eventually unless we push them into the "with us or against us" corner.  It is a strategy designed to fail.

To Clinton supporters:  When you decide that you are more open to Obama I would be happy to walk through his policies, his history, and how I feel he will try to shape our government.  Or conversely, I would be happy to tell you about the possible horrors of a McCain administration.  I didn't vote for Kerry; I voted against Bush.  This is not the ideal situation but I would understand if you choose to vote against McCain this year.

by CAchemist 2008-06-10 06:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Fair points.

I'm not trying to create a binary situation, a false dichotomy of the sort our current president has so often done.

I just want these folks to understand that there is a very real and tangible cost to Republican leadership at this point in time.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 07:02PM | 0 recs
If you're serious about ending this war, do

something about it! Demand that your candidate stop the war NOW!!! Nothing is stopping him going into the senate today and drafting an amendment to start removing troops NOW! Demand accountability, dog him, trail him, start letter campaigns demanding an end to the war NOW!

Why are you agreeing to wait until he's elected and in office 7 months from now when it can be done today and if it fails, table another amendment, and another, and another until it passes? Put his feet to the fire, ask him to show us his fortitude by doing what you expect him to do but only when elected? why is it acceptable for you to wait and allow him to do nothing until sometime next year? Otherwise, don't come here and try to put a guilt trip or use emotional blackmail on us because we refuse to vote for him!

We, women, are the ones who repeatedly have had to send our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons/daughters to fight wars declared by men! Maybe, now, you'll understand why we didn't want another man as our nominee, when we finally had a woman who could be viable to do the job! We are fed up of men continuing to make decisions which affect our lives, our loved ones and our reproductive choices/rights. We have had enough!

My ex-fiance is a MIA from the Viet Nam war + a few friends were also killed. I waited 7yrs before dating again, just in case he might come back, there's not a day that I don't say goodnight to him before falling asleep.

My family used to vacation in Atlantic City for the summer. Summer 65/66/67, all my male friends, in my age group, were still there; summer 1968, no one was left, they had all been drafted and some had volunteered; summer 1969, 3 never came back. I also remember seeing John McCain, on his first day back, in the spring of 1973, along with the other POWs being paraded up Market Street to Union Square in San Francisco and a man next to me saying: "poor guys, today a parade, tomorrow they'll all be forgotten!" My godson is a marine pilot. 2 months ago, finished his second tour in Iraq.

Saw Obama on TV Monday, wavering on bringing the troops home as he had promised, stating flatly and firmly that he is against all timetables to do so. You're setting yourself up for a huge disappointment! He's not going to screw up his re-election campaign for 2012 by fu@%&ing up on the war! He might reduce some troops but there's no way he's bringing all the troops home until after 2016.

If you want an end to it, force him into it, start your own peace movement! By the way, this is your generation's war and please tell me, where is your peace movement? where are your tear-gassed demonstrations? where are your university/college sit-ins and protest groups? where is your music? It's easy being an armchair peace activist.... what have you done personally, except vote in a primary to nominate a guy, whose only anti-war activity, was making a speech against the war, but has continually voted to fund it every single time! Where were his protest marches through the streets of Chicago, a la MLK and Jesse Jackson during the Viet Nam war? Why didn't he take to the streets or organize pre-anti-war marches in Chicago if he was so anti-war, after all, wasn't he a community organizer? would have been a breeze for him to do so!

He's even skipped the vote on John Kerry's amendment, a couple of months back, to set a timetable to get the troops out and his response, when asked why he didn't show up: "this happens when you're in a presidential primary!" Funny though, Clinton found it important enough to show up and vote for it! He's got his priorities right, doesn't he, for the anti-war candidate?
If you're so angry about this war, why didn't you make him accountable for his non-vote? why did you give him a pass on an amendment which could have shortened the war?

Personally, I think McCain, having seen war up close, will be the candidate to bring the troops home before any democratic candidate. I will not vote for him, because his party has too many crazies, but I will vote for Nader and if not on the ballot, trade it with someone else where it can make a difference.

Obama will do nothing as Samantha Powers warned us in an interview on the BBC.

www.counterpunch.com/mcquade05222008.htm l
and
www.counterpunch.com/leupp05122008.html

by suzieg 2008-06-11 02:28AM | 0 recs
Best article I have seen to date..

What it describes is a proto-fascist movement. Thats the historical context. Don't think it can't happen here. Remember 1934, Smedley Butler, etc.

In the current economy few people have time for real political activism. The Obama core backers are a fake grassroots movement. They want your vote, but the goals they have stated are theirs are FAKE.

They are against universal healthcare, that much is clear.

counterpunch.com/mcquade05222008.html

by architek 2008-06-11 02:55AM | 0 recs
Re: If you're serious about ending this war, do

Bullshit

The most important thing Obama can be doing to end the war right now is to win the general election. There is nothing legislatively the Senate can do as long as the Republican's continue their opposition and the president is ready to VETO any measure with out a veto proof major.

Short of Impeachment (a process that will have to start in the house) there is nothing legislatively that will stop this debacle.

So if you want to bring the war to an end the best way to do it is to put a president in power who won't veto attempts to end it and will examine the situation and determine the best course of bringing the conflict to an end.

As far as your accusation about where our peace movement is. It's everywhere. We tried the old way of having open protests before it even started the largest protests in the history of the earth and they didn't even amount to a speed bump in the rush to war.

There are so many systemic and institutional forces that have to be changed before our government will be responsive to that sort of behavior.

The most important of which is to break the stranglehold of a small number of mega-corporations on media.

bringing about political change is a team sport Obama can't and shouldn't be expected to do everything. Right now his job is to beat McCain in the general and win the Presidency. There are 48 other Democratic Senators and one independent who do the legislative side of the fight so concentrate on them.

As far as being critical of Obama the time for that is not now. Right now the goal is to get him elected if for no other reason than the alternative is unacceptable the time to hold his feet to the fire on issues and his commitments will be once he's in office until then this is all counterproductive.

by Skex 2008-06-11 05:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I'd say he accomplished being the first A.A. to be the nominee for either party.

by slynch 2008-06-10 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Sadly, a popularity contest says nothing about his ability to govern.  I mean, look at Bush....

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

true.  But I was just commenting on the not accomplishing part.  Frankly, I don't think he's very well-qualified to be COI, but I'm not sure who really is.  

by slynch 2008-06-10 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

uprated to counteract TR abuse.

by slynch 2008-06-10 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

GFORD, you want to explain why you TR'd this comment?  Go read the site rules.

by slynch 2008-06-10 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I mojo'd you back up.  Hopefully others will as well.

by CAchemist 2008-06-10 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

thanks.  Of all the things I've said, this one is the least offensive!

by slynch 2008-06-10 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I will respectfully wait until you have a more open mind.

by CAchemist 2008-06-10 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

When will people realize that experience means almost nothing with every single job in the world?  The important thing when considering a president is whether the candidate is a good person or not.  Do they actually care about people?  Do they have empathy?  Are they actually trying to help people?  It's an easy question with an easy answer.

Bush = mean-spirited, stubborn and doesn't care about blacks or poor people or non-Americans

Clinton = personal mistakes, but cared/cares about people.

Bush Sr. = well-meaning (I think), but wrong on most issues

Reagan = pretended to care and then implemented policies deliberately intended to hurt the poor and middle class; screwed over non-Americans

Carter = good person, cared about people, bad luck being way ahead of his time, much like Truman

McCain = dumped his first wife the first chance he had, called his second wife a cunt, wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, couldn't care less about Iraqis or Iranians

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-10 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Come on. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" was <u>fiction</u>.

"Being a good person" is utter nonsense as a criterion, because everyone's definitely of "good" is differently.  Many right-wingers would consider Bush "good" (and they've made Reagan a freakin' saint), while any candidate or politician who is pro-choice is an evil baby-murderer.  

You just can't go on whether or not the candidate "cares about people".  It flat out doesn't work. They ALL say they do -- and most of them mean it.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

That's a fair point.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

True.  Fair points, all.

I guess by "is a good person," I mean is willing to raise taxes on the rich, increase the economic floor of this country, treat people with dignity, not invade other countries, and put an emphasis on science and education.  So, basically, a progressive.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-11 10:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I like all the links you use to support your "facts".

by mefeck 2008-06-10 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I'm STILL NOT voting for Obama.

by handsomegent 2008-06-12 04:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I think some people, know what you're saying, and that's how they plan on taking out their revenge.  Who voted for Obama?- young women, who are going to get hit if Roe is overturned, and young people in general - especially African Americans who are going to suffer the most if the war in Iraq goes on, or god forbid, gets extended to Iran.

I already know of two posters here who are deliberately hoping Roe is overturned so that young women are taught a lesson.  Anyone who would advocate that isn't going to be moved by a plea to end the war.

by Jess81 2008-06-10 07:00PM | 0 recs
So, we have to put up with electoral cheating..

if we know whats good for us? Otherwise McCain will win?

by architek 2008-06-10 07:10PM | 0 recs
apparently we also have to put up with

non-stop, unsupported invectives.

by 2501 2008-06-10 07:30PM | 0 recs
Bzzz, wrong

I call bullshit.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-10 08:18PM | 0 recs
Okay, that tears it

You were on ignore, but you won't shut up.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-06-10 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: So, we have to put up with electoral cheating.

So it's cheating to give voters a voice via delegates? Interesting.

I guess all those people who voted "Uncommitted" didn't deserve to have a say in the election. I mean sure they got up out of bed and took time out of their day to basically vote "NOT HILLARY" but fuck them, right? It's all about the people who voted Clinton. They're the only ones who count and anything else is wrong.

Why don't you just admit that? The honesty would be refreshing.

by BrighidG 2008-06-11 01:23AM | 0 recs
Re: So, we have to put up with electoral cheating.

I love Hillary as next as the next woman, but you're noting but a disgrace and embarrassment to what she stands for, what she belives in and what she means to me.

by HillarysDesire 2008-06-11 05:10AM | 0 recs
Remember an ex-president speaking of

the difference between those who want a president and those who need one? Go figure.

by lizardbox 2008-06-10 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I must have touched a nerve.  This hit the rec list.

Thanks, gang.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 07:13PM | 0 recs
Yes, the BS has to stop.

It has to stop from folks saying 'vote my way or the soldiers die' just as much as it has to stop from folks saying 'my candidate on the ballot or McCain'.

I was a Hillary supporter.  Still support her, don't want her as VP, she doesn't need nor does she deserve to be relegated to an 'also ran' or a "Miss Congeniality" slot.  I also have a namesake nephew in Iraq right now, at this very moment.  Hillary didn't put him there, and I am not completely sure that anyone will 100% get him home safely.  All the candidates have problems with Irag, it's truly a quagmire that GWB brought us (do NOT insult me about the AUMF vote, I will not play those games).  Obama is the best choice for a withdrawal from Iraq from the two left standing, but I have to admit I trusted Clinton to do it more effectively.  I don't trust McCain as far as I could throw Andrew Sullivan.

There's a lot at stake in the coming election.  Folks can continue to piss off those still smarting because they were designated blue collar low educated racists, or they can stop demanding a 'unity pony' and acknowledge there were wrongs and move forward together, with a common goal.

We've had the equivalent of a domestic split within the Democratic party (hell, I left myself over FL); whether we have a complete divorce depends on whether each party stops demanding the other bury their hurts and step in line with the breadwinner, and both parties acknowledge some wrongs and move forward.

by emsprater 2008-06-10 07:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, the BS has to stop.

Well written.  You have my respect.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 07:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, the BS has to stop.

well said.  You've gained mine.

And good luck to your friend.

by slynch 2008-06-10 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, the BS has to stop.

We've had the equivalent of a domestic split within the Democratic party (hell, I left myself over FL)

just curious. did you leave in March 2007 when a committee containing (at the time) mostly Hillary Clinton supporters voted to strip FL of all their delegates?

by 2501 2008-06-10 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes, the BS has to stop.

Just curious, do you think that they made that decision on their own, or was it because of the hue and cry to 'punish' Florida for breaking the 'rules'?

Also, since over in kosland it was widely touted as truthful that it was a conspiracy to help Hillary by having her become the 'front runner' early (yet they also claimed she was the 'inevitable' candidate, so why would she have to become the front runner?) no one even would acknowledge that punishing the voters in a state overwhelmingly for Hillary to begin with and discounting their votes was not any help to her at all, and actually would cost more than any possible gain.

No, I left after it became clear that the DNC was not going to change their decision coupled with the fact that other Democrats thruout the nation for some stupid reason cheered that decision to not 'count every vote'.  I'm just as disappointed in folks who had such a short memory over 2000 that they would  now do the Katherine Harris dance on Florida voters, once again.

Oh yeah, thanks for the spin.

by emsprater 2008-06-10 08:12PM | 0 recs
On their own

You think they were that dumb that they would backstab their own candidate?  Yes, HRC had a bulk of the committee last year, lest you forget that again.  It was no skin off their respective backs until she lost 11 states in a row after Super Tuesday.

Unless you forgot that they didn't even bother with the caucus states because they deemed themselves "inevitable".  

Thanks for your revisionist spin.

by Regenman 2008-06-10 11:29PM | 0 recs
BS

Yes people will die, will be jailed without due process and will be tortured if McCain wins. Thats just facts.

And those so overwhelmingly petty or nasty as to further those outcomes deserve to be called on it and blamed if it comes to pass.

by wrb 2008-06-11 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: BS

I'm glad to see that you agree that those who effectively framed the CLintons and the majority of her supporters as racists deserve to be held accountable.

by emsprater 2008-06-11 07:09AM | 0 recs
Re: BS

You believe that those who deliberately framed the Obamas as racists, elitists, violent radicals etc should be held accountable?

by wrb 2008-06-11 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: BS

Yes, same as those who framed the CLintons as rascists bent on dividing the party.

BOTH sides have a lot to be accountable for.  See how that works?

by emsprater 2008-06-11 07:26AM | 0 recs
I fear you might not understand

you see, from your point of view this is blackmail by Clinton supporters to force what thy want, but don't deserve.  From Clinton supporters point of view, though, it is something different.  As hard as it might be to believe, they, too, are Democrats with the nation's best interest at heart, but they think that interest is best served with Clinton on the ticket.  Why?  Perhaps because the same reasons they did not support Obama previously cause them concern about him now.  Perhaps because they truly fear Obama, alone, is a losing ticket, and want desperately to win in November.  Yes, you do too, but the trap into which you fall is that you fail to reconize other people see through their own eyes, not yours, and truly think the Obama-Clinton ticket is stronger than Obama-somebody else.  When you look at it that way, it is not blackmail to get what they want but don't deserve, but instead an attempt to put OUR (yes, "our," for we are all Democrats with the same goal at the end) strongest foot forward.

Please note a couple of things.  First, I fully support our candidate, and that is Obama.  Second, my brother in law has been to Afghanistan twice and Iraq once, so I'm not coming at it from the point of view of somebody just sitting over here without any investment "over there."  

by dhonig 2008-06-10 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: I fear you might not understand

Fair enough.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I fear you might not understand

As hard as it might be to believe, they, too, are Democrats with the nation's best interest at heart, but they think that interest is best served with Clinton on the ticket.

so, go ahead and try to make reasoned arguments why Obama should pick her as VP all you want.

what crosses the line is saying, "if he doesn't, I'll vote for McCain."

the great majority of people who ever ran for president have lost. Hillary said it herself--it would be a horrible stain on the women's equality fight if the first time a woman came close to winning was also the time that the Democrats lost a must-win election because her supporters couldn't accept the fact that she wasn't the nominee.

seriously, if that were to be how things played out, it would be a very long time before people in the party were willing to risk getting behind a female candidate in a major way. women running for president would go back to Carol Mosely-Braun status--lots of nice things said about them, never given a chance in hell to win. and that's not blackmail, that's a reality check.

by 2501 2008-06-10 07:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I fear you might not understand

I resent this "People are only talking about not voting for Obama because they're upset HIllary didn't get the nomiation." This gets cause and effect completely backward.

I was in favor of Hillary because I thought, and still think (not that it matters) that she is a far stronger candidate for beating McCain than Obama was.  People keep saying "Tell Obama what he can do to win your vote" -- but unfortunately my reason for not want to vote for him are things he can't do anything about, like his meagre and lackluster history as a politician. He can't turn back time and learn his profession.  He's got to take office with what he has, and I don't think it's enough.

If he manages to beat McCain -- a big IF at this point, checking out the latest electoral maps -- I'm worried he's going to make an even bigger mess than we have now, then he'll go down in flames in 2012 and the Rethugs will be back in power for another 12 years.

I won't be voting for McCain. But at this point I see no reason to vote for Obama either. He needs to win me over on his own merits, and not just because he's not McCain. If he can't do that, I'll be writing in Hillary Clinton. Or perhaps Stephen Colbert.

As for HOW he's going to do that -- that's not my problem. It's his. And it's one he set himself up for by not completing at least one term in the national Senate before deciding he was ready to take the reins for the whole nation.  

And by the way, attempting a guilt trip with "Vote for Obama or you're against the troops!"  is a line fully worthy of a Rethug. ("Support the troops!" = "Anyone against the war wants our soldiers to die in vain, so support the war!") Congrats on sinking to their level.  However, I do hope your loved one makes it home safe. I still think Hillary would have done the better job of actually doing that than Obama will, though.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 08:26PM | 0 recs
Yeah that's a very good point. I

was an Edwards supporter and the other two were a complete toss-up for me.   I ended up choosing Hillary purely because I didn't like Obama.   His race baiting, his arrogant attitude, his lack of experience, and his associations with weird people.   It took a while for Hillary to grow on me, but grow she did.  She's really an amazing person with such brains, talent, heart, energy, and courage.  

by miker2008 2008-06-10 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah that's a very good point. I

All due respect, but I don't see how John Edwards is more experienced than Obama is.

And I say this as a big fan of John Edwards.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah that's a very good point. I

Actually my preference for Edwards wasn't his experience but his appeal to that great 'middle' that the party is now happily tossing aside as unnecessary.   So, electability.  But also his very progressive agenda:  no lobbyists (really), radical healthcare reform, great environment plan.  Basically, all his policy proposals were spot-on.  

by miker2008 2008-06-10 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah that's a very good point. I

Fair enough.  As I said, I'm a fan of Edwards.

I don't see Obama as straying particularly far from Edwards on policy.  I also don't see Obama as anyone's creature.

Just keep an open mind, that's all I can ask.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 08:57PM | 0 recs
The party is tossing the middle aside?

That is about the dumbest thing I have heard all election cycle.

by DaveG 2008-06-11 04:48AM | 0 recs
Re: The party is tossing the middle aside?

Hah, really? Have you been listening to the MSM much? I hear dumber things than this every week.

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 08:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah that's a very good point. I

just a minor point--he had at least completed a full senate term.

by slynch 2008-06-10 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah that's a very good point. I

State, not national.  He needs to get a feel for who among the Washington Rethugs can be worked with, who is willing to compromise, who won't compromise ever, who might cross party lines for a crucial vote if suitable coaxed.  In short, he needs that much-derided "insider" info.    Washington rewards those who know who the players are and how to deal with them. It chews up and spits out people who never develop that knowledge base, like poor Carol Moseley-Braun.

It's a process that takes time. And America is short on that.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah that's a very good point. I

wait--I'm confused.  I was responding that Edwards had more experience than Obama, because he had completed a US senate term before running for office.

But, I was wrong anyway.  I got my dates mixed up.  I voted for Edwards when I lived in NC, and then I moved, and it seems like it was more than 6 years when he ran with Kerry (but it wasn't).

by slynch 2008-06-10 09:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah that's a very good point. I

That term was not completed when he entered his first run for the presidency.  He had perhaps two more years in the Senate than did Obama at the same point in their respective races.  Obama's time in the Illinois state legislature offsets those two years, to my way of thinking.

Again, no dig at all against Edwards.  Just sayin'.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah that's a very good point. I

I like and respect Edwards, but I think he had a lot of the same weaknesses as Obama (which is why the thought of an Obama/Edwards ticket gives me a terrible sinking sensation.)  After all, Edwards didn't help Kerry at all, from the polls I've seen.

I liked Edwards for his populist stances and his heath care proposals (yeah, it's my #1 issue) but I wouldn't have voted for him for nominee either.  Washington is like L.A. -- it's who you know more than what you know that matters.  Sad, but true.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah that's a very good point. I

yeah, yeah.  You're right--see my response to Michigoose above.  I had my dates wrong.  I voted for Edwards in his senate run in NC, and then I moved out of state.  Seemed at least 6 years between then and '04.

by slynch 2008-06-10 09:43PM | 0 recs
Obama was a senator in a state where the

legislature is in session for only 55 days a year - so with perfect attendance, he's been a state senator for less than a year!

by suzieg 2008-06-11 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah that's a very good point. I

This comment . . .

was an Edwards supporter and the other two were a complete toss-up for me.   I ended up choosing Hillary purely because I didn't like Obama.   His race baiting, his arrogant attitude, his lack of experience, and his associations with weird people.   It took a while for Hillary to grow on me, but grow she did.  She's really an amazing person with such brains, talent, heart, energy, and courage.

. . . is uprated to counter TR abuse.  Those are all opinions.

by Koan 2008-06-12 08:51AM | 0 recs
Get over yourself

If you want to make a case that Obama lacks experience, fine. But stop pretending Hillary has superior experience. Obama has served 11 years in high-profile elected office, Hillary has eight years in the senate. Everything else is hair splitting as far as who had more experience as a prelude to public office. I'd be willing to concede Hillary a slight edge, but very slight. And considering the fiscal irresponsibility of a campaign 30MM in debt, its questionable whether that extra experience equates to better judgment, with or without her AUMF vote.

by 79blondini 2008-06-10 10:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Get over yourself

Her judgment is still terrible.  She jumped up and applauded vigorously when Bush said the surge is working during the State of the Union address.  This year.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-06-10 10:28PM | 0 recs
Precisely /nt

by 79blondini 2008-06-10 10:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Get over yourself

LOL. Video?

Really, you shouldn't be riding the judgment pony. Nothing Clinton did or didn't do compares to Obama's failing to disassociate himself from the Black Liberation Theorists well before he began his run for President.  Did he REALLY think it wouldn't be noticed and used? I think that was the most foolish political move I've seen, EVER.  It single-handedly derailed his plan to run as the post-racial candidate. I still can't figure out what he was thinking. Even HE knew it was a bad association, and he still went ahead with it.

What judgment did Hillary Clinton make that you are so critical of?

by SuGeAtARC 2008-06-10 11:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Get over yourself

They're no longer relevant.

by Jess81 2008-06-11 12:34AM | 0 recs
by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-06-11 12:37AM | 0 recs
Re: I fear you might not understand

Obama has proven himself capable every step of the way. Running  a national campaign for president is one of the few things in life one can do that is less complicated and stressful than actually running the country.

And all Hillary's experience did not enable her to run the campaign that would have won in 2008. McCain has tons of experience but he only won because he was the person the Republicans disliked the least.

So, maybe consider that Obama has done a lot simply in beating Hillary to prove that he does have what it takes.

by 2501 2008-06-11 10:40AM | 0 recs
Re: I fear you might not understand

Running  a national campaign for president is one of the few things in life one can do that is less complicated and stressful than actually running the country.

I disagree with this statement completely, and I wonder what makes you think it is in any way true?

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I fear you might not understand

Wait...I just realized your sentence makes even less sense than I thought it did the first time.  

You want to try saying that again?

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 03:25PM | 0 recs
B...S..,!!! What about the elections were lost

because your candidate was not up to par due to his lack of substantial foreign, economical and legislative experience? Furthermore, what does it say about him, not being able to appeal to, let's say, a quarter of the people from his own party and then expect the whole country to rally around him? Let us put the blame where it belongs before continuing to insult us!

by suzieg 2008-06-11 05:14AM | 0 recs
No

Wrong.  If Hillary supporters were now concerned with Obama's chances of winning the general election, too bad.  There is no other choice.  Hillary is no longer an option.  Instead, that means it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby a Hillary supporter says "I am not going to vote for Obama because he can't win.  I'll just stay home or vote McCain."  Guess what, that means Obama loses.  

/snark
No, that's not at all related to Hillary wanting to run in 2012.  
/snark

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-10 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Wow, nice way to reinforce those voters' decision not to vote for Obama. Keep it up and you'll get your candidate defeated yet with that attitude.

Sometimes I really have to wonder about Obama's "supporters" who write stuff like this.  With "supporters" like this he really doesn't need enemies.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Sorry (and by that, I mean I'm not).  I don't care anymore about Hillary supporters' whining.  Take time to rest and grieve.  I understand that and I respect it.  But coming here and saying stuff like "I'm voting McCain if Hillary is not VP" or "I will never vote for Obama" is neither resting nor grieving.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-10 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: No

So you can choose to go on attacking them and hardening their resolve, or you can be patient and quiet and let them have a chance to come around. They may or they may not, but you have the opportunity to NOT make it harder for them to vote for your candidate by refraining from being a jerk.

Really. Do Obama a favor and copy his attitude, okay?

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: No

You take blogs way to seriously. In the real world, unity is happening as we speak. Anybody who needs their bruised ego massaged by anonymous people on a message board needs to get a head check.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Unity is happening?

Links?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/10/e lectoral.map/index.html#cnnSTCOther1

I don't see a lot of unity there....

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: No

If I could rec this comment a million times, I would.

by LtWorf 2008-06-11 03:40AM | 0 recs
HA! HA! HA! Unity happening? Better give a look

at this burgeoning movement against your candidate:

www.justsaynodeal.com and www.millionwomenmarch.blogspot.com which have both just formed this week! The sisterhood is coalescing. Strength in numbers is their motto.

by suzieg 2008-06-11 05:33AM | 0 recs
Re: HA! HA! HA! Unity happening? Better give a

Astroturfing. 80% of Democrats plan to vote for the Democratic nominee, and only 6% plan on voting for McCain. By the way, that's a better ratio than the Republicans have, where only 75% of them are voting for McCain and 12-15% are voting Obama.

So what was that about "the sisterhood"?

by authority song 2008-06-11 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: HA! HA! HA! Unity happening? Better give a

C'mon, stop feeding the trolls.

And please don't rag on the word "sisterhood". I know the other poster started it by using it wrongly, but it's a word that has a lot of power among women and I really don't like to see it sneered at. Sneer at the other stuff the troll said instead, pretty please.

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: HA! HA! HA! Unity happening? Better give a

It's offensive to suggest that "the sisterhood" is mobilizing to collectively smear Barack Obama, especially given that the actual sisterhood, according to every post-concession poll, plans on voting for him by double-digit margins. I stand by my comment.

by authority song 2008-06-12 03:17PM | 0 recs
Re: HA! HA! HA! Unity happening? Better give a

Repeating their error doesn't negate it.

by Michigoose 2008-06-12 05:13PM | 0 recs
In your rush to be angry

you misread.  Please read again.  I was writing about Clinton as VP, not as the candidate in place of Obama.  Your reaction is exactly the sort of reaction I was talking about, where your love of your candidate absolutely blinds you to what others are saying, this being a case in point.  

by dhonig 2008-06-11 03:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

then stop tossing so much? people mumble and grumble when they are disappointed. get over yourself and your control issues.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-10 07:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Have you tried your own advice?

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 07:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

try reading my posts instead of just knee-jerking troll responses

by zerosumgame 2008-06-10 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Oh trust me I have....

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

including the ones where I stated I had voted for him on Super-Tuesday? nah, I guess actually knowing what you are talking about is hard and stuff...

by zerosumgame 2008-06-10 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Having voted for Obama doesn't mean your posts are on point, gracious, or coherent.

And my not liking them doesn't mean your posts aren't on point, gracious, or coherent.

People react to what other people write.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 07:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

now post what that was in reply to. nothing quite as dishonest as taking things out of context. very rethuglican of you, your candidate McLame must be proud of you.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-10 07:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

that was meant for hootie, gosh it's so good to know what unthinking people toss around TR's for.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-11 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Like you calling people "fucking assholes"?

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

now post what that was in reply to. nothing quite as dishonest as taking things out of context. very rethuglican of you, your candidate McLame must be proud of you.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-11 01:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

no reply? gosh what a shock, after all you did your O'Lilelly imitation and now want to shout SHUT-Up don't ya? go back to McLame and brag about it.

by zerosumgame 2008-06-11 05:29PM | 0 recs
Ah, the guilt card

Thanks for playing it. I'm a better person now.

by Coldblue 2008-06-10 07:21PM | 0 recs
Re: Ah, the guilt card

If any attempt to explain to you that choices have consequences is to be guilty of guilt-tripping, then I pay that price gladly.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 07:22PM | 0 recs
What price will you pay?

Will you pay the price of supporting a candidate that just might lose the general election with or without 'this idiocy from the minority'?

by Coldblue 2008-06-10 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: What price will you pay?

I paid the price of supporting Obama and getting mocked for it.  

I'll pay the price any voter pays when they vote, the price of risk.  There is always risk, both in the chance that the candidate will lose, and in the risk that the candidate will fail.

It's a risk, Kerry was a risk, Gore was a risk, and Bill Clinton was a risk.  

You roll the dice, but you try to weight.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 07:37PM | 0 recs
Re: What price will you pay?

You realize there is no other choice now, right?  Obama may very well be a weaker general election candidate.  If I concede the point, what does that matter?  You still have two choices: vote Obama or don't vote.  Hillary is no longer an option.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-10 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: What price will you pay?

Keep that attitude up. It'll help Obama lose in November. I'm sure he'll thank you for it.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: What price will you pay?

It's not my job to convince the dead-enders that everything will be ok.  Vote for the anti-abortion McCain all you want.  I'm not trying to blackmail you.  I don't care what your reasoning is for voting McCain.  But if you vote McCain you are neither a progressive nor a Democrat.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-10 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: What price will you pay?

Not your job?

Don't you want your candidate to win?

If you do, part of your job should be making nice with Clinton's supporters. Not very many of them are really "dead enders", you know.  But I highly doubt any of them appreciate being referred to that way.

Seriously, being nice to, or at least keeping your mouth shut, about "dead enders", is something you can do to help your candidate that is easy and totally free. (And if you just refrain from responding, it won't even take any time.) How hard could it be?

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:30PM | 0 recs
So, Which Sub Group are You Again?

"YOUR candidate" seems to refer Obama supporters.

"not very many of THEM" seems to mean Clinton supporters.

And THAT leaves...

by RNinNC 2008-06-10 10:00PM | 0 recs
Re: So, Which Sub Group are You Again?

That leaves me uncommitted. I'm not (yet) an Obama supporter, and the "them" are the "I'll vote McCain!" Clinton supporters. I'm not one of them either, because I won't vote for McCain.

Does that clear things up?

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 10:06PM | 0 recs
Re: So, Which Sub Group are You Again?

Mojoe'd for being anti-McCain.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-11 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: What price will you pay?

Fair enough.  I do want Obama to win, and I am trying to convince anyone I know in real life why they should vote for him instead of McCain.  

Whether you like it or not, nothing I say on this blog is going to get any Hillary supporter to vote for Obama.  If they base their decision about whom to vote for as President of the United States on anonymous internet posts, god help them.

I was all set to Kumbayah our way to unity until I saw the continued repetition of the "Hillary for VP or you don't get my vote" bullshit.  And the sickening notion that some older women are going to vote McCain to punish younger women who might need abortions (this may be just a rumor...I haven't seen much evidence of this yet).

I'll try to scale back the bitterness.  

P.S.  When I say "dead-enders," I don't mean all Hillary supporters.  I don't even mean the ones who are not yet ready to coalesce around Obama.  5 months is a long time and I am positive unity will happen.  Dead-enders are those Hillary supporters who are going to vote for McCain or are trying to blackmail Obama with demands that Hillary be VP.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-11 10:03AM | 0 recs
Re: What price will you pay?

TR'd for supporting McCain.

by Hill4Life 2008-06-11 04:39AM | 0 recs
I don't support McCain n/t

by Coldblue 2008-06-11 05:00PM | 0 recs
I'm concerned too

My cousin serves in Iraq.  For me, the BS is why BHO has not shown much interest in dealing with Iraq, minus the speechs.  McCain hit him good on not visiting in awhile and not asking much during the Senate hearings.

Many of us feel BHO is not ready to be COI, not even close to ready.  He has five months to convince me, but if the election were today, I would vote for McCain.  And, yes, that is my right as an American and as a Democrat.  BHO would do his campaign some good to appreciate the depth of the concern people have about him.  And, I live in SF!

by Chicano 2008-06-10 07:33PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm concerned too

I hope your cousin is, and remains, well.

All I ask, in regards to our presumptive nominee, is that you keep an open mind.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm concerned too

Please vote for McCain. It's not like Barry Hussein a.k.a. Barky needs your vote to get to the White House.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 07:38PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm concerned too

yeah, he does.  You can't just go around telling everyone that he doesn't need their votes.  He does.  This will be a very close race.

by slynch 2008-06-10 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm concerned too

I'm more and more convinced Spiff is a Rethug. He really seems to want Obama to lose.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm concerned too

I don't think he is.  I think he's just fed up (and rightly so) with the "I'm voting for McCain" crowd and doesn't necessarily always see the difference between those of us who are not on the Obamamobile but will vote for him and the 'deadenders.'

by slynch 2008-06-10 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm concerned too

His attitude of "F** you, we don't need your votes anyway!"  is really damaging to Obama's chances, though.  Not because of him personally -- hardly anyone's paying attention to Spiff. But because he represents the sizable segment of Obama's national supporters who share his attitude of "Who needs YOU? We'll win ANYWAY, LOSERS!"  Obama *might scrape out a win if he doesn't bring Hillary's voters into the fold, but history and demographics are against him.

I mean, just look at the mess at Kos. How is that remotely helpful to Obama?  I just don't get these people.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm concerned too

Ugh, I didn't mean to bold that.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm concerned too

I agree.  The "we'll win without you" approach is (1) not a very good strategy, because (2) it isn't true.  This race is going to be extremely close, and if I were to bet on it, I'd lay 60/40 odds against Obama right now because of the alienation of Clinton supporters coupled with the forthcoming Republican attack machine.  If the Obama folks thought the Clinton campaign was racist, they haven't seen anything yet.

by slynch 2008-06-10 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm concerned too

Yeah, I throw up in my mouth a little when I think of the kinds of attacks the 527s are going to pull out. They're practically salivating at the chance to jump all over Obama. If they manage to erode his support by even a little bit, he's really going to be teetering on the edge without Hillary's voters.

The negative ads work, too, dammit. And I'm sure McCain will very carefully keep his hands clean. He'll probably even protest the ads. Which won't do a thing to stop them. SIGH.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm concerned too

McCain's "attacks" on Obama were just political posturing.

Notice how McCain went to Iraq several times, but didn't actually manage to notice a lot of shit there is fucked up? Can't remember the difference between Sunni and Shiite, between Al Qaeda and "insurgents", didn't notice it took 100 guys and three helicopters following him to make it "safe" for him to visit a market--or that the same market is now under the control of Al Sadr, and Americans can't even go there at all?

Obama will go to Iraq when he chooses, not when McCain tells him to.

by 2501 2008-06-10 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm concerned too

You're a pledged delegate, right?

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm concerned too

I'm concerned over the same issue and some others. I'm uncommitted on any vote for him today but I also think he didn't really expect to get this far and actually become the presumptive nominee.

The copy and paste stances on his website from others democratic legislation or reports ARE democratic issues but they aren't his ideas and he's still pretty soft on what the issues are. Now that he is the presumptive nominee I'm sure (or hope) that he will be coached well and add his own voice and style to the substantive issues.  

I too hope he understands the depth of concerns people have about him and starts adressing them.

by Justwords 2008-06-10 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm concerned too

Your concern is noted.

by nathanp 2008-06-10 10:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm concerned too
I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not a troll...
What city are you from?
Who would Corky support?
by nogo postal 2008-06-11 12:36PM | 0 recs
by nogo postal 2008-06-11 01:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Just remember, for every douche hole who says they're voting for McCain over Obama, there are two Republicans or Independents who will vote Obama ONLY if HRC is NOT on the ticket.

by BadBrad 2008-06-10 07:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I know several, as it happens.

The Obamacans are real.  

That doesn't mean they are more important than Clinton supporters, but they must be considered.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 07:40PM | 0 recs
Best Comment YET

On the money.

Just remember, for every douche hole who says they're voting for McCain over Obama, there are two Republicans or Independents who will vote Obama ONLY if HRC is NOT on the ticket.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-10 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Best Comment YET

More like way, way off the money.  In case you haven't been paying attention, Obama has already been (somewhat successfully) caricatured by the right as much more liberal than Hillary Clinton.  In fact, Clinton has garnered increasing praise from Republicans throughout this primary season: from Rupert Murdoch, Richard Mellon Scaiffe, Rich Lowry, Pat Buchanan, and other pundits.  And note that McCain complimented Clinton on Tuesday night.

Your whole premise--of the large number of Republicans who will will suddenly vote against Obama only when Hillary Clinton is on the ticket--is groundless, and not supported by any evidence.  This is the kind of thing that might have been arguable in 2006; but Republicans have enough on Obama already (on race, religion, and patriotism distortions) that, by and large, they will be against him as much as they might have been against Clinton.

by MMR2 2008-06-10 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Best Comment YET

See post below...Rasmussen survey today...

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Best Comment YET

In case you haven't been paying attention, Obama has already been (somewhat successfully) caricatured by the right as much more liberal than Hillary Clinton.

The right painting the Democratic nominee as "too liberal"?? Nooooo! That would never happen. Out of curiosity, which specific issue(s) do they point to?

In fact, Clinton has garnered increasing praise from Republicans throughout this primary season: from Rupert Murdoch, Richard Mellon Scaiffe, Rich Lowry, Pat Buchanan, and other pundits.

You also forgot about Rush Limbaugh. He was also working to drum up Republican spoiler votes. You REALLY think all of that means she has cross appeal? Wow. Just wow.

And note that McCain complimented Clinton on Tuesday night.

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-10 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Best Comment YET

And note that McCain complimented Clinton on Tuesday night.

I hit send too soon.

Yes, McCain is courting disgruntled Clinton supporters... appealing to the lowest common denominator hoping they will go to HIS (anti-choice) fascist side. How is that relevant to the topic?

by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-10 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

You got a poll for that?

Or is this just more ABH blackmail?

Note I am on record for NOT wanting her as VP.

by emsprater 2008-06-10 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

But despite the lingering questions about party unity, the poll did find Democrats appear ready to back Mr. Obama.

Asked whether they will vote for the Democratic nominee, 83 percent said they will "definitely" or "probably" vote for Mr. Obama, and only 6 percent said they will probably or definitely vote for the Arizona senator - much lower than some earlier projections in other surveys of party defections entering the 20 percent range.

As for Republicans, 75 percent of Republicans said they will definitely or probably vote for Mr. McCain, but 15 percent said they would definitely or probably vote for Mr. Obama.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008 jun/10/democrats-critical-of-outcome-po ll-shows

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Nowhere in that poll is the stated 'fact' (as claimed above by a commenter) that for every Clinton supporter who will vote for McCain if she is not on the ticket as VP that there are two Independents or Republicans who will NOT vote for Obama if she is on the ticket.  Perhaps he's counting the ones who wouldn't vote for a Democrat under any circumstances.

Sorry, that's the poll I was asking about, to support the commenter's 'claim'.

by emsprater 2008-06-10 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

If you do the math in the above poll....It comes out to 5 repug votes for Obama and 2 Dem votes for McCain....That's 2 1/2 to 1 for Obama...You asked for proof, I provided a poll from today...

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

So where are the "if Hillary is on the ticket"  numbers?

by emsprater 2008-06-10 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

His statement was about HRC not being on the ticket...Thus, these polls are legit as they do not use the premise of HRC as VP...

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 09:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Link to sources, please, or it's nonsense.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

See above...

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

HR'd for the sexist "douche hole" remark

by Justwords 2008-06-11 02:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

You know what.  I don't think Obama should need to do any more to appeal to this group of Obama or Clinton supporters in the primary than be the candidate.  His positions are 99% identical to hers.  If that doesn't get her supporters to vote for him then I have no idea what special treatment they need to do so. I don't think anything would be convincing at this point, since Hillary herself does not seem to be, and it's probably a moot issue.  

If she had won I would be nudging Obama supporters to do the same.  This is simply nuts, being asked to use the resources and good will that needs to pour into winning in November to make people here, who actually agree with him on the issues, who are Democrats, soothed.  

Feeling good may not be a part of this process for many people, but the welfare of our country should probably be.

If you see him as unsuitable to hold office, nothing he says or does will convince you anyway so let it go and vote down ticket and figure better luck next time.

by mady 2008-06-10 07:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

It seems to me a lot of HRC's supporters just want to be pissed off.  And frankly, their sore-loser mantra "I'm voting for McCain" is tired and old.

by BadBrad 2008-06-10 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

It seems to a lot of Clinton supporters that a lot of Obama supporters want all of us to just fall in line, no questions asked.  Some of us expect Obama to reach out and ask for our vote rather than demand it in the name of party unity.

by psychodrew 2008-06-10 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

What exactly should he do?

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Swallowing his pride and putting his former rival on the ticket might do for starters.

by MMR2 2008-06-10 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

That may make sense.  It also may not.  It's not as simple as giving what is demanded.  Picking a running mate is complicated.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Of course it's complicated; but the question I responded to was what Obama could do to bring the maximum number of Clinton supporters into the fold.  

IF the Obama campaign judges self-identified Democrats as a group whose votes it absolutely needs to maximize (in order to win the election), then putting her on the ticket would be the most likely way of doing that.  If the numbers prove otherwise, then they don't need Clinton on the ticket.  So I agree with you, this is complicated.  The tough part for the Obama campaign will be an impartial reading of the political reality:  Would Clinton's presence mobilize the necessary number of Democrats to win more so than another candidate, or not?

by MMR2 2008-06-10 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Yeah, that's my basis for saying he should take Hillary (although it would be a waste of her talents.)  She's the ONLY VP candidate I see as actually having votes to give.  All the others are "Well, maybe his state will support him," or "Maybe he'll appeal to those worried about how Obama will handle foreign policy issues."  They're all big maybes that probably won't pan out, whereas Hillary's voters are right there waiting to be snapped up. (Most of them anyway. Some really just won't go for Obama, whether from racism or other reasons. But that's relatively few.)

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 10:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Actually polling showed Edwards would be a huge lift in Appalachia.

by interestedbystander 2008-06-11 01:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Links please?

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Grow a vagina?

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-10 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Sexist much?

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

In light of diarists repeating the refrain that blacks only vote for Obama because he is black, I don't feel bad mocking the hypocrisy.  Many women voted for Clinton solely because she is a woman, but many many more did so because of health care.  

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-11 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

He's doing well so far.  Speaking positively about her in public.  I assume they'll go out on the campaign trail together at some point or something like that.  It'll take time to bring the Clinton people over.

by psychodrew 2008-06-10 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I don't think this is as much about Clinton as it is about Obama. Being nice to Clinton is nice and all- but I don't think that's what earns votes.

I was originally for Biden- you know how that turned out. Changed to Edwards and that ended the same way rather quickly. Picked Clinton on her policies and garnered a truly greater respect for her during her campaign. Obama is not someone I've warmed up to yet- I think if he talks more specifics, will be watching the town hall meetings and debates and watches how he handles himself as the presumptive nominee..not into attack politics, fear mongering, or the tit for tat I've seen so far between McCain and Obama so far...but the campaign for President has only just begun.
I'm uncommitted and will remain so until at least October....in the meantime the down candidates are getting hurt with the new no federal lobbyist,no PAC rules...so will be helping downline candidates. Since MoveOn is a PAC I'm sure they will be doing something for the down tickets since they are not refusing PAC money since it's about all they get.

by Justwords 2008-06-11 03:20AM | 0 recs
by USArmyParatrooper 2008-06-10 07:51PM | 0 recs
Since you asked nicely...

Some of you Clinton supporters have yet to show the grace that Senator Clinton and the bulk of her supporters have.  Some of you are threatening to vote for McCain, or write in someone other than our nominee.  That is absolutely your right and your choice.

We still have more than four months before the election.  Most of these voters will come back but talking down to them won't help.

by psychodrew 2008-06-10 07:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Since you asked nicely...

I wasn't talking down to anybody.  If it came across that way then I apologize.

I did qualify the diary, I did preemptively concede that my words were heated.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 07:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

this election was a SHAM....that's why we won't support it.

the dnc and media fixed the election.

hillary and bill were the racist bad guys.

if the way you win is by COUNTING all the votes, then count all the votes and go with the popular vote - the TRUE will of the people.

if you dont' want to count all the votes and just count some of the votes - then throw out the illegal caucuses.

if MI/FL were seated IN FULL AS VOTED - hillary would have 1725 pledged delegates and BO would have 1706.

so hillary is the rightful winner either way.

i'm disgusted at this party. the party that fought for every vote to count in 2000, but just not now. not when it doesn't suit them.

bo had the option of a revote and he didn't take it.

I CANNOT SUPPORT HIM.

I don't care about the war - I care about WOMEN'S RIGHTS and THIS WOMAN got SHAFTED.

by nikkid 2008-06-10 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

if MI/FL were seated IN FULL AS VOTED - hillary would have 1725 pledged delegates and BO would have 1706.

How does that work?

by animated 2008-06-10 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

full strength. BO would get ZERO for uncommitted because he removed his name from the ballot. If he didn't like it then he could have accepted the offer of a revote, but he has not right to take the delegates from the uncommitted votes.

by nikkid 2008-06-10 10:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

But that wouldn't add up to a lead for HRC, not even close. Which I'm guessing you realize.

by animated 2008-06-10 11:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

You don't care about the war? Wow.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

"I don't care about the war"

Fine.

I do care about women.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

That's a lie.

Hillary would have gotten 105 delegates in Florida to Obama's 67.  She would have gotten 73 to his zero in Michigan.  But we can agree that "uncommitted" means "anyone but Hillary."  So she can not have any of the 55 uncommitteds.  Obama is the only one left, so he gets them by default.

So she picks up a net of 38 in Florida and 18 in Michigan.  So instead of 128 behind him in pledged delegates, she's only 72 behind.  Yay!  She loses by less!

Stop this bullshit please.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-10 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I agree with you that it wouldn't make any difference...which is why I'm STILL puzzled why the DNC didn't just go ahead and do it. It would have quashed all (well, most...some?) of the "election fraud" cries and done no harm to Obama.  

To me it looks like another self-inflicted Dem injury.  

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Maybe because if there are no penalties for holding your state's primary whenever you damn well please, next time a couple of big states will have primaries in December and force a decision before anyone else gets a chance?

by katpee 2008-06-11 06:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I sort of agree, kind of.  

I think that the RBC should have cut both states in half (because there needed to be some kind of punishment) and then seated them "as is" but making the uncommitteds officially for Obama.  Almost no one would whine about the uncommitteds or the cut in half.  I think it was silly and a bad precedent to change the Michigan delegates based on exit polls, especially when it would have zero difference.

But that is Michigan's fault, because that's the proposal they came with.  Neither Obama nor Hillary asked for "cut in half, seated as is, uncommitteds officially for Obama."  So the RBC decided to go with the state's proposal as a sort of compromise.

I think Obama's camp should have offered the above proposal as a way to look magnanimous, knowing it would have no impact on the delegate race.  Oh well.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-11 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I'm just amazed at how far some people are taking this. We had a very hard fought primary, but some people are just going off the deep end.

If you need further proof, check out the responses to the latest hate post by NoWeWillNot aka Susan UNPC aka SusanHu, formerly the #1 diarist on this site:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/10/ obama-pound-who-cares-he-slapped-her-on- the-ass/#comments

by animated 2008-06-10 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I'm just amazed at how far some people are taking this. We had a very hard fought primary, but some people are just going off the deep end.

If you need further proof, check out the responses to the latest hate post by NoWeWillNot aka Susan UNPC aka SusanHu, formerly the #1 diarist on this site:

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/06/10/ obama-pound-who-cares-he-slapped-her-on- the-ass/#comments

**Hell, they're perfectly within their right to do so. I know you are upset that everyone does not feel as exuberant as you; however, in the real world, people make choices...all the...time.

by Check077 2008-06-11 03:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop
In a way aren't you doing the same thing? If we don't vote for Obama your friend could die because of our non vote?
You and the Obamacans can kumbayah without us.
by bsavage 2008-06-10 08:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I'm sure we will.

Buh-bye!

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

No, I'm not.

I've not threatened you with anything.  I've done nothing more than show you what's on the line.  There's no ".....or else I'll make sure my friend dies so I can guilt you."

Ball's in your court.  You get to decide what matters to you.  I don't get to tell you, and I'm not trying to.

But I'm not going to coddle any of you.  You wanna agitate for Hillary as VP?  That's fine.  That's absolutely fine.

But don't make threats without knowing the possible results of those threats.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Argh...really, you shouldn't assume that people don't understand the consequences of their actions (although, there were those Nader voters in 2000 I really wanted to have a talk with...).

Keep in mind that most or all of the Republican voters think an abrupt withdrawal from Iraq would mean more chaos than staying there and result in more attacks on the US homeland.  And a fair number of Dems don't like the situation in Iraq but are very unclear on what the least damaging approach to fixing things is.

Me, I'd like a time machine to go back and stop Bush's stupidity in the first place. Barring that, though, I don't see a clean way out. If we could teleport all our soldiers out of Iraq right now, this instant, would it be the right thing to do? Part of me says yes, part says no.

I basically agree with you that we should get our people out as soon as possible, but I don't want innocent Iraqi citizens getting massacred thanks to the mess we made, either. They're just as human as our soldiers.

Anyway, the situation is a lot more complicated than "Vote for Obama, our men and women come home. Vote McCain and they'll all DIE over there!" It would be good to acknowledge the nuances here rather than...well, guilt-tripping people.  

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 10:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Well, since Obama's the only real competitor to McCain and if McCain wins the war continues...

I don't see what about this is so difficult to grasp.

by BrighidG 2008-06-11 01:17AM | 0 recs
McTroll

TR'd for supporting McCain.

by Hill4Life 2008-06-11 04:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I'm begging you folks (and you know who you are) to put this into perspective.

Don't let a few cranky bloggers mislead you to think that there any more pumas than there are naderites.

by Freespeechzone 2008-06-10 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Pumas? 300 angry and bitter bigots. We can win without them.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

This is one of the charges that keeps the divide  wide open and ensures that it will not close.

Good work ..... for McCain.

You of all people absolutely know better.

by emsprater 2008-06-10 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

PUMAS? You read that filth over at NoQuarter? I HOPE those bigots and losers don't vote for Obama. We don't need the deranged and lunatic fringe to win this election. That's all they've got. They really think people give a shit what they do with their vote. After strolling through the comments section I can tell them what they can do with it. They can shove....they can vote for McCain. Good riddance.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 08:42PM | 0 recs
Actually, I heard of &quot;pumas&quot; here.

Party Unity My Ass.

And I'm with spacemanspiff 100%.

Accept their votes, but don't cave in to their demands in order to get them.

by Freespeechzone 2008-06-10 08:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

No, I never go to those sites.  If you value your blood pressure, why do you visit them?

And, by the way, repeating the meme that ANY  Clinton supporters are her supporters based on racism or bigotry doesn't make those who were labeled as such by the talking heads on teevee or folks like Markos decide to suddenly swallow their pride and come to 'your' side.

The majority of Clinton supporters are not bigots nor racists, as are the majority of Obama supporters.  It's wrong to say that because 90% of AA voters chose Obama because of racism just as it's wrong to continually imply that Clinton supporters are bigots.

So you are against bigotry, yet you have no qualms calling other human beings 'loosers'?  Kick any homeless folks lately ?

by emsprater 2008-06-10 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Huh? I never said all Clinton supporters are bigots. I have no idea where you got that from. Please don't twist my words. I'm talking of specific people who comment on that hate site and MyDD. Racism and hate are the order of the day over at NoQuarter.

I'm talking specifically of the people who comment on those NoQuarter and drag their trash over here. Since you don't know what I'm talking about (never been to the site) why are you even replying to my comment?

Your response to my comment didn't make anysense, I cleared up what you tried to insinuate. That's the only reason I responded.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I never said you called ALL CLinton supporters bigots.  I said (accurately, I might add) that you called a GROUP of Clinton supporters bigots.

You did.

You may well have reason to do so, but does it assist the dialogue towards unification if I call some of Obama's supporters rascists? No, so I won't, even though I could and be accurate.

Think in bigger terms than just what you want to spout off for yourself.

by emsprater 2008-06-11 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Yeah, Obama would be doing a lot better without some of his so-called "supporters". They might well be Rethugs in disguise, dedicated to making him lose by pushing all of Hillary's supporters into McCain's camp out of sheer disgust. Or at least convincing them to stay home.

Good going, brainless Obama supporters.  You intelligent ones (and I know you exist) might want to try to muzzle these losers; they're only harming Obama.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 08:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I would recommend that you use your voting power to vote the candidate who best aligns with your political positions.  Voting or not voting for a candidate based on some comments on a message board is silly.

by CAchemist 2008-06-10 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I note that someone decided to TR you because of the term 'brainless Obama supporters', yet the same person had no problem calling a group of Clinton supporters bigots.

Wonders never cease to bring about 'change' and 'an end to politics as usual'.

I'm left 'uninspired'.

by emsprater 2008-06-10 09:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Calling Obama supporters brainless is TR worthy.
Calling Clinton supporers bigots is also TR worthy.

They should both be TRed.

by CAchemist 2008-06-10 09:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

If you read my comment, I didn't say Obama supporters IN GENERAL were brainless. I said the ones who are taking an arrogant and dismissive attitude toward Hillary Clinton's voters are brainless, and I stand by that.  

I also said there were a lot of intelligent Obama supporters, after all.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 10:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Fair enough.

But by your argument it is okay that Hootie called a very specific group of Clinton supporters bigots.

by CAchemist 2008-06-10 10:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I wouldn't argue with that, actually. There ARE some racists in the Clinton camp, just as there are definitely sexists in the Obama camp.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 10:23PM | 0 recs
Voting FOR Obama?

That may make sense.  It also may not.  It's not as simple as giving what is demanded.  Picking a President is complicated.

Do we want to see fraud and intimidation become commonplace in the Democratic Party of the future?

Not voting for Obama is not the same as voting for McCain. For exapmple, my current plan is to write in Hillary Clinton. That is not voting for McCain or throwing my vote away, in THIS situation.

Its a protest vote.

Obama will win my state anyway, so its a moot point for me.

by architek 2008-06-11 02:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I missed the line "Clinton supporters are bigots"...where is it?

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Veiled in this line:

"Pumas? 300 angry and bitter bigots. We can win without them."

Spare me the explanation that will ensue.

by emsprater 2008-06-10 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

He's referring to the analysis that's been done of Hillaryis44.com.  310 posters are responsible for nearly every single post there.

And racism is quite common at that site.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 09:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Man with as much veiling that goes on at this site....I guess we could make mass assumptions...

by hootie4170 2008-06-10 09:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Do you know what PUMA stands for and who these people are?

This is the second time you take my words and make them fit your meme. PUMA are the deadenders over at NoQuarter. Most are bigots and bitter. Just take a look through the comments section.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 09:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I also see that the person who called a group of CLinton supporters bigots decided that calling any attention to his comment earned me a HR from him.

More 'change', I suppose, the same sort of 'change' the present administration brought us with the 'you're either with us or you're against us meme', and there can be no gray for these folks who only see in terms of black and white.

Yet they want a color blind world.

Sigh.

by emsprater 2008-06-11 07:05AM | 0 recs
You overestimate the impact

of a handful of bloggers.

by Freespeechzone 2008-06-10 11:01PM | 0 recs
Re: You overestimate the impact

It's the usual "1 to 10" concept -- one letter written represents roughly 10 people who thought the same thing but didn't bother to write. (It's the rough measure of interest that politicians and network execs use to gauge public opinions on bills and new TV shows.)   It's not the blogs, but the fact that the opinions they express can be assumed to be shared by a fair percentage of the non-blogging population.  Canaries in a coal mine, harbingers, bellwethers -- get it?

It's not true of every random blog, of course, but if you spot a running theme (or meme), good chance it's shared by some of the blogless crowd.  And ideas and opinions also disseminate outward from bloggers to the MSM and then to the blogless.

Blogs aren't nearly as important as bloggers like to think, but they're not completely without effect, not by a long shot.

by Michigoose 2008-06-10 11:23PM | 0 recs
More like 1 to 10,000

by Freespeechzone 2008-06-11 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: More like 1 to 10,000

Context?

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 08:16AM | 0 recs
My unsubstantiated guess is as good as yours

by Freespeechzone 2008-06-11 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: My unsubstantiated guess is as good as yours

Are you planning to post anything coherent any time today?

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 08:31AM | 0 recs
Try posting something coherant

for me to respond to.

So far you've provided nothing but jibberish.

by Freespeechzone 2008-06-11 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Try posting something coherant

Coherent is not a word.

Neither is jibberish.

Lord, but you're an idiot.

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Try posting something coherant

If I'm an idot, your obsessive engagement with me makes you a moron.

by Freespeechzone 2008-06-11 03:41PM | 0 recs
Neither coherant nor jibberish is a word.

Back to remedial English for you.

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Neither coherant nor jibberish is a word.

Back to remedial logic for you.

by Freespeechzone 2008-06-11 03:42PM | 0 recs
WHATEVER

No on is listening to you.  Damage has been done.

by easyE 2008-06-10 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: WHATEVER

I don't think the diarist cares about your particular brand of support.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: WHATEVER

Evidently not.

Enjoy your mental isolation.  Why bother reading if you already know all there is to know?

Damage has already been done and all that....

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

You see I am disgusted that you only think about your friends life. What about Iraqies lifes. what will happen to them.
We shouldn't have gone to Iraq in the first place but now that we are in there we cannot just get out. It is our moral responsibility to create an stable govermant and end the civil war that is the direct result of our actions, Untill then we should stay there. If I were thinking like you I should have been disgusted by Obama and his supporters because they have shown no consideration for blood of Iraqies. All they are concern about is about bringing back the troops not cleaning up the mess that we are responsibile for.

I'm sorry if I've been offensive.  I'm sorry if I'm a touch overwrought.  I just can't take this idiocy from the people who thinks the blood of volunteered American soldiers is more valuable than the blood of Iraqies civilians.

I am begging you instead of trying to convince us, try to make Obama put better Policies on  table.

By the way anyone who think withdrawing from Iraq will stop the civil war better read more about History of the region and the power structure there. If I could write a diary I would have explained in details why withdrawing now is going to be very bad for Iraqies (I admit that its going to be very good for us).

by navid 2008-06-10 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

If you think there would not have been a civil war the second Saddam or his son's were gone, you really don't know the history of Iraq.  As soon as the strongman was gone, the Sunnis and Shiites would have been at each others' throats.  The Shiites suffered horribly under Saddam's minority Sunnis.  You think they would have just quietly moved toward a peaceful democracy?  We made it worse.  But there was ALWAYS going to be a civil war.  Us leaving has no impact on that.

by ProgressiveDL 2008-06-10 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

"You see I am disgusted that you only think about your friends life. What about Iraqies lifes. what will happen to them."

Please learn to read.  I stated in the diary that I want the Iraqis to be safe as well.

And there's not a chance in a million that you'll acknowledge your completely boneheaded and incredibly insulting error.

Ass.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Can I get an uprate?  Campskunk HR'ed me.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

"I hope that the Iraqi civilians stop suffering."

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

You should direct your anger at Bush and company for endangering the lives of Iraqis is the first place.

Whatever happens to them after we leave is solely on their conscious, and I hope that one day they answer for what they've done.

But, you have to understand that we do need to get out. It may not stabilize, it may get worse, but regardless, it's not going to get any better.

And what is wrong with getting American soldiers out under those circumstances?

by Massadonious 2008-06-10 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Uprated because these are strong Democratic feelings as much as 'get out now'. Democrats are NOT united on the issue of Iraq. It did not deserve a hide rating.

by Justwords 2008-06-11 02:34AM | 0 recs
So, because of your &quot;concern&quot;....

...for the Iraqi people, you'd rather have people vote for a candidate who encouraged the war?

What color is the sky on your planet?

by xynz 2008-06-11 02:40AM | 0 recs
You do seem somewhat overwrought

Consider a few things.   1) McCain's "100 years" comment was exaggerated by both Obama and Clinton in a most disingenuous way, for purely political purposes.    He's said a bazillion times now that he didn't mean active combat but military presence (which we have in Germany, Japan, Korea, etc.).    

2) What makes you think Obama is going to get us out of there any more quickly than McCain (or goodness knows Clinton who actually named a date which Obama never did).   Samantha Power made it quite clear that Obama is making no promises about troop withdrawals during the campaign ... or at least none that he has any intention of keeping.   He's all over the place and nowhere, all at once.   He could do anything.   What if he decides to negotiate (since he thinks that's so important) before taking the guys out?   Negotiations can drag on and on.  What then?  Bottom line:  He has no timetable.

by miker2008 2008-06-10 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: You do seem somewhat overwrought

Hmmmm...........

One candidate makes remarks about committment to and in Iraq, and a willingness to deploy however many troops are needed.

The other says he wants us to get the fuck out.

Sometimes you can get lost in the nuance unnecessarily.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: You do seem somewhat overwrought

If there isn't any kind of plan for a phased withdrawal within a 4-5 months of his presidency, I'd be very surprised.

And, I do agree that the 100 years thing was overblown a bit, but really, do you think McCain, would really get our troops out before Obama....hell, any Democratic president?

by Massadonious 2008-06-10 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: You do seem somewhat overwrought

There's a longstanding train of thought that it takes a warrior to end a war.   A warrior negotiates from strength, understands "the enemy", and has nothing to prove.  Famous recent case is Olmert (who had little or no military experience) getting Israel into the messy and largely unsuccessful war in Lebanon.  

by miker2008 2008-06-10 08:50PM | 0 recs
Israel and Palestine will still be fighting

1000 years from now.

Its a waste of energy trying to stop it, or help either side. They are nuts.

by architek 2008-06-11 02:32AM | 0 recs
by nogo postal 2008-06-10 09:16PM | 0 recs
This isn't Redstate

Peddle your McCain apologetics somewhere else.

by BrighidG 2008-06-11 01:12AM | 0 recs
Right....

...McCain is only willing to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years, 1000 years or 10,000 years....if they're not getting killed.

In the meantime, McCain also wants to maintain increased US troop levels, so they can "complete the mission".

"Completing the mission" means a cessation of violence; that is, US troops are no longer getting killed.

So while the war rages, McCain plans to keep US troops in Iraq for an indefinite period of time, just until the killing stops.

Then, once the killing stops, McCain says the troops will stay there indefinitely.

This isn't at all like the Bush Administration policy.  That's the policy that says increased violence is a good sign: it means that the insurgency is growing desperate.  

With the Bush policy, whatever the level of violence is: it's always a good sign.

With the McCain policy, whatever the level of violence is: it's always a good reason to keep US troops in Iraq.

by xynz 2008-06-11 02:51AM | 0 recs
nominate Hillary and you will get your wish

by engels 2008-06-10 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: nominate Hillary and you will get your wish

Um.  I forgot my magic wand.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: nominate Hillary and you will get your wish

No, Engles.

by Massadonious 2008-06-10 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: nominate Hillary and you will get your wish

Hey everybody engels is back!!!!!! Please bless us with a new diary! PLEASE! Love your work.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 08:43PM | 0 recs
Re: nominate Hillary and you will get your wish
i observed "writers strike" @dkos and considering something similar for mydd.
i cannot write diary for pro-Obama blog, unless somebody can suggest some good topic.
by engels 2008-06-10 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: nominate Hillary and you will get your wish

You could choose a topic such as healthcare, war in Iraq, woman's right to choose, the environment, or war in Iran.  You could then compare the policy positions of Obama and McCain and describe to us which candidate has positions that are better and/or closer to Clintons.

by CAchemist 2008-06-10 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: nominate Hillary and you will get your wish

That is a great idea engels. You could compare and contrast the policy positions of McCain and Obama with Hillary. Great idea CAchemist.

by spacemanspiff 2008-06-10 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: nominate Hillary and you will get your wish
everybody knows that Obama's healthcare plan is wrong, just read Krugman from NYT.
And why I would write about the person who I dislike so much?
dkos and now mydd have plenty of people who has nothing better to do, so I let them waste their time.
I rather will plant a real tree.
by engels 2008-06-11 04:21AM | 0 recs
Victorian-era bee boxes

are fascinating, and relevant to the contemporary political environment, if you squint your eyes and imagine a few degrees of separation. Could be worthy of your skills.

by BobzCat 2008-06-10 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: nominate Hillary and you will get your wish

Heaven knows we have never seen a pro-senior diary on this blog. After all the insults maybe people would be willing to say something nice about seniors for a change.

I was seriously concerned the young Obama 'supporters' at MyDD wanted some president that was willing to start culling the old people.

Obama will officially be a senior in 9 years (55 and older and get senior discounts) or he could join the AARP in 4. Perhaps you could include something nice about his age in the Senior diary.

by Justwords 2008-06-11 02:15AM | 0 recs
Re: nominate Hillary and you will get your wish
writing about seniors is a good idea, i will try to find a time - thank you for suggestion.
However, don't expect anything nice about Obama from me
by engels 2008-06-11 04:24AM | 0 recs
This working-class white woman

Thinks your signature line is full of shit, btw.

by BrighidG 2008-06-11 01:19AM | 0 recs
Re: This working-class white woman

here you go again: i don't see any unity with people like you!

by engels 2008-06-11 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: This working-class white woman

Well, that's because you're a Republican troll. (Engels, really? That's the name you chose? Be less obvious next time.)

If you weren't you'd realize how saying "I don't see any unity with the Obama people" is perilously close to the ol' Republican card of "Liberals aren't so tolerant when it comes to racist/homophobic/misogynistic people like myself!!!1"

Another thing - so you're saying that the Democratic party doesn't need working-class white women? Funny, that's what you accuse the other side of saying.

Hmm.

by BrighidG 2008-06-11 12:37PM | 0 recs
Re: This working-class white woman
absolutely wrong.
you making are stupid assumption that 2 political parties are enough in this country.
GOPs are bad, but "Obama people" not good either.
you making conclusion that if I disagree with "obama Party" than I am republican - it is plain irrational.
I am going to assume that You probably had D or C- in college in math and similar subjects which require logic.
by engels 2008-06-11 01:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

This diary was about Iraq
It is about this...
http://icasualties.org/oif/
It is about torture...rendition..illegal telcom activity...etc..

c'mon englels&co  ...you won't leave..

yer blues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAvlYLCYO DU&feature=related

by nogo postal 2008-06-10 09:03PM | 0 recs
CPR for the antiwar movement

www.counterpunch.com/jacobs05222008.html

Getting Back on the Streets Again
CPR for the Antiwar Movement
By RON JACOBS

It is fair to say that the antiwar movement in the US is moribund.  A movement that put a million people in the streets a month before the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and has drawn as many as half-a-million protesters to protests as recently as January 2007 has failed to mobilize anything even near those numbers since then.  Part of this is because of differences among the leadership of the two primary antiwar organizations, part of it is because many people opposed to the war have put their energies--however misplaced-- into working for Barack Obama, and part of it is attributable to the belief that there is nothing one can do to stop the bloody occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.  The most recent example of this occurred during the week of March 15th, 2008.  Despite the announced intentions of both antiwar organizations to organize some kind of national march marking the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, there was no such protest.  Instead, hundreds of cities and towns around the country held smaller observances.  

In the wake of the failure to organize a national protest, some folks from the US who had formed a coalition following a 2007 international antiwar conference in London decided to step outside the existing organizational stasis.  They formed a steering committee with the intention of reigniting the national movement against the war in the United States.  The primary movers behind this effort include members of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), US Labor Against the War (USLAW), military veterans and individuals with decades of experience organizing against imperial war, and representatives of numerous local antiwar committees.  Characterizing themselves as the mass action wing of the antiwar movement, the steering committee in early spring 2008 put out a call for a national meeting of antiwar activists and citizens in late June of this year --a call which has been answered by hundreds of organizations and individuals from across the US.  Organizing under the name The National Assembly to End the Iraq War and Occupation, the steering committee has garnered the endorsement of several labor organizations and individuals like Cindy Sheehan, Howard Zinn and Mumia Abu Jamal.  In addition, a multitude of local peace and justice organizations, church groups and student organizations have signed on.

more....

by suzieg 2008-06-11 07:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Have you tried holding your breath until you turn blue?  Fwiw, the overwhelming majority of Clinton supporters have been a damned sight more gracious than the Obama supporters would have been had the situation been reversed.  One only needs to read the continuing invective against Clinton with  Obama having won; one could only imagine what it be like if he had lost.

But I don't know what you're worried about.  Clinton voters will vote for Obama but Obama voters wouldn't have necessarily voted for Clinton.  It's axiomatic...His Wondrousness himself said so.   Furthermore, Obama is going to roar to a landslide victory without the help of Clinton supporters who aren't enthusiastically on board with Obama...I've read it on the Internet, many times, so it must be true.

by InigoMontoya 2008-06-10 09:16PM | 0 recs
You hit the nail on the head....
One would think that once they got their way, the temper tantrums would end.  But alas the ingrained adolescent mentality of the Obamanation, regardless of their age or gender, is becoming more and more evident.
Besides their blatant acceptance of sexism and misogyny, they also have become agents of ageist nasty rhetoric.  And when anyone challenges any point of view, they name call.
I will vote for Obama.  After working for democratic and/or liberal values for four decades, I would never vote for McCain.
But I will not put up with the bs whiners from the Obama camp who have decided they KNOW IT ALL.  Apparently they think voting for American Idol is the same as voting for a president.
by Jjc2008 2008-06-11 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

...the overwhelming majority of Clinton supporters have been a damned sight more gracious than the Obama supporters would have been had the situation been reversed.

If I take an alternate route to work today, will a tree fall on me?

Seeing as you have this magic power to understand the consequences of all possible hypotheticals and all...

by juliewolf 2008-06-12 02:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

McWars is an idiot...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3TkRzZIT eo

by nogo postal 2008-06-10 09:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

for Imontoya

Breaking...
It's over..so I guess we will never know eh?

by nogo postal 2008-06-10 09:24PM | 0 recs
This diary is really over the top

I just had a close firend who got shipped out last week, and others in the past, including a few who have died.

Using this to make a point is LOW, really LOW. Nothing constructive comes of a diary like this, and it unravels the unity that was starting to build amongst both BO & HRC supporters.

Perhaps your anger should be aimed at the congress we elected in 06', didn't they promise to get us out of Iraq.

People can vote for whomever they want, IT'S THEIR CHOICE! You'll catch more flies with honey.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-10 09:25PM | 0 recs
Re: This diary is really over the top

I made it clear that people can choose to vote for whomever they like.

This diary is directed specifically at those posters here who have said that they will vote for McCain out of spite, not out of support for him.

They can do that.  But there's a pricetag attached to that, and I'm not going to let it go un-noticed.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-10 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: This diary is really over the top

This is still America, and people have a right to vote for whom they want.

Yelling at them is certainly not the way to get them to your side, it will only repel them further.

Imagine is you were talking to someone on the street and you approached them in this manner, it would turn them off. Treat people with respect and you'll have a lot more converts.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-10 09:35PM | 0 recs
Two way street

Do you even listen to yourself?

Do you think that those of us who are ethnic minorities just sit idly by when folks call us "chinks" or "gooks"?  Respect is a two way street and frankly all of us have enough life experience to determine if other people deserve it or not (especially when someone approaches us on the street in that manner).

by Regenman 2008-06-10 11:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Two way street

Wait, what? What does this have to do with the comment above it? Who mentioned chinks or gooks?

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: This diary is really over the top

The point of this diary is VERY CLEAR to all of us who rec'd it.

by nogo postal 2008-06-10 10:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

For several years AFSC had a traveling exhibit recognizing the Iraqi civilian deaths and troop deaths. There was a pair of boots with name age and home town for each troop. They were divided by State. Some had messages, photos etc placed by family and friends in different cities, I helped set it up in Denver. In Oct 2006 we were just over 2800.
Please take a moment(actually 5 moments) and watch this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4KfziodW BY

by nogo postal 2008-06-10 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I agree with you, Reaper--but you have to let it go.

The group you are speaking of, be they "Clinton loyalists" or "deadenders" or whatever label they want to use, will have to make their choice on election day.  They can follow their candidate (who will absolutely vote for Mr. Obama) or they can follow whatever their inner voice tells them to do.

In the end, it's just a blog and a lot of these folks (again, the ones you have specifically targeted) just want the attention--so stop giving it to them.  I don't give a damn who they vote for.  I've voted for my second or third choice (oft times holding my nose) far more often than my first choice over the years, that's what Democrats do when their favored candidate loses the nomination (be it Congress, the Senate, whatever).

Anything else will earn nothing but scorn and contempt from me.

And God speed to your friend in Iraq!

by AK Democrat 2008-06-10 10:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

A quick pile-on--Linfar and others have proven themselves to be Democrats above and beyond their loyalty to a particular candidate.  I have the utmost respect for and loyalty to those individuals.

I salute Linfar and every other ardent Hillary supporter who has come around behind our Party's nominee!  This group is far, far larger than the lunatic fringe.

Don't let Crazy make you Crazy!

by AK Democrat 2008-06-10 10:42PM | 0 recs
I respect this diary. I also respect the responses
Here's what gets to me. There is an absolutely brilliant diary by Meteor Blades on the front page of DKos. It discusses at length the absolute damage that sexism has done to this country, especially during this primary. The diary also focuses on race (Blacks) and decries the destructive sexist and racist onslaught that Michelle Obama is expected to endure running up to the GE. At the end of the diary there is a poll about the Iraq War.

It astounds me that a diarist felt it necessary to couch a brilliant analysis about how a Black woman will face an incredible amount of both sexism as well as racism within a call to people to look at what is going on in Iraq. What is most disgusting is that many responses are about golfing or the weather.

Until we agree that attacking people based on their belief that either sexism or racism is more egregious is just not the way to unite anyone, it appears that we will have these flame war diaries from now into November. Is there anyone unclear as to what that will mean to the chances of electing Obama?

Yes, I do feel cheated. I wanted to have both a woman and a person of color on the ticket. I still don't see how a Clinton/Obama was anything but a 16 year win/win solution for all of us. But the political operatives' machines started cranking out really intolerable sexist and raaist crap. Like many have noted, like Pharoah getting the slaves to fight amongst each other to cover yet another crime that was going to be committed. We all fell for it or into it.

I wish some of you would just stop defending Obama and attacks you believe are coming from those of us who are neither sexist nor racist. I sorely wish that an equal handfull of purported Clinton supporters would do the same. Bad shit really did happen.

I also see that Meteor Blades brought up the not so stellar record of people at DKos caring about classism and the poor. Why can't some of you people just agree with some of those people there, or my sweeping generalization about classism or sexism or racism or homophobia. Because you are individuals and you will take your time to believe what you believe and not stand to be insulted.

It would appear that most voters, throughout history, aspire in words to great and righteous things, but always seem to stop if it means paying higher taxes to actually fund health care for the poor or chronically ill or the elderly or veterans. Is it wrong for some Democrats to passionately and vocally believe that?

I won't be voting for Obama while holding my nose. I'll be wiping the tears off my face because once again racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, greedy self-possessed arrogant Republicans have thrown us against each other, knowing full well Democrats just will never be able to fall in line. Who we are should be a strength we work with not against

 They have our number and they keep dialing it. Stop picking up the phone already! The carrot is rotten. I don't even know what to say anymore except I can't stand to see us do this to ourselves, while allowing others to poke sticks at us for their entertainment. They'll make the profit off the show, and we'll just hate each other.

by Jeter 2008-06-10 11:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I respect this diary. I also respect the respo
Any response to THIS diary?
If you want to respond to kos..do it over there..
by nogo postal 2008-06-11 08:50AM | 0 recs
Re: I respect this diary. I also respect the respo

...it appears that we will have these flame war diaries from now into November. Is there anyone unclear as to what that will mean to the chances of electing Obama?

I would be personally surprised if it had any real impact whatsoever.

by juliewolf 2008-06-12 02:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

If you think Obama is going to yank us out of Iraq you're naive.

by rankles 2008-06-11 01:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Great diary.

In the end there will be a group of Democrats who will remain loyal to Senator Clinton to the end, but I think they will be a very, very small minority. I can understand not voting or even writing in Senator Clinton, but those who are saying they will vote for John McCain are irrational...but if that's how they want to vote, then that's their right. I just hope that they consider what, and not who, they are voting for when they step into the voting booth in November because this isn't about gender, race, popular vote, a rules committee...it's about the future of our country.

by GrahamCracker 2008-06-11 02:56AM | 0 recs
The are NOT being loyal to Hillary Clinton

They are being loyal to themselves. She is supporting Barack Obama. They are not supporting her. They are not supporting what she stands for. They are on the opposite side from her. They are her political enemies in this election.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-11 03:54AM | 0 recs
Re: The are NOT being loyal to Hillary Clinton

I don't think it's about loyalty. Just because I thought and still think that Hillary Clinton is a stronger candidate than Barack Obama and thus supported her during the primary doesn't mean I march in lock-step with her and everything she says or does.  Voting isn't about personal loyalty to a lot of people -- we're hiring someone for a job, not picking a  sports team to root for.

Anyway, the point is that for the PUMAs the issue isn't loyalty to Clinton. It's outrage over the sexism...and more importantly, the denial of it and the silence about it in the MSM...that's driving them now.   I understand that outrage and share it, but I won't let it make me vote for McCain.

(Of course I also have a ton of outrage over the way Bill Clinton has been savaged and left to die by the roadside by the Democrat Party after bringing them their only eight years of power in the last forty.  That's not related to sexism at all. That's just a basic sense of fairness.)

Anyway, outrage is not driving my voting, but I do understand those for whom it is.  It's not actually a loyalty issue any more. It's a protest movement. (And yes, McCain sucks on women's issues, so it's pretty self-defeating, but that's true of a lot of protest movements.)  

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 08:30AM | 0 recs
Exactly what I said.

Loyalty has nothing to do with it. They are soothing their hurt feelings while sacrificing everything Hillary Clinton has fought for her whole life, as if it never meant anything to them to start with. In part, they are also being used by Republican shills.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-11 11:25AM | 0 recs
No, not quite

I think they really did (and in calmer moments still do) support Hillary's positions.  But the sexist behavior of the MSM and a portion of Obama's supporters -- some of whom can be seen right here on this site -- has convinced them that striking a blow for women in whatever way can best make an impact is the important thing right now. They've decided it's time. As I've said, I fully understand their outrage, though I've chosen to express it differently.

I don't happen to think that either sexism OR racism is in the top five concerns for America as a whole right now (I put them behind health care, the war, the tanking economy, the economy of the tank (the gas tank, that is), and our global standing.  But people care about what they care about. They have that right.

I think there are things the Democrat party and Obama's campaign could do to reassure these women but the general attitude seems to be "F--- 'em." Which doesn't really help anyone, but oh well.

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 03:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Obama isn't going to get us out of Iraq, either.

by rankles 2008-06-11 03:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Do you believe that writing that a few times, worded slightly differently, makes it any more likely to be true?

I don't demand that every US soldier be removed in four years.  I can handle a limited presence (if the Iraqis want it), such as a division or so (10,000-15,000 total troops, depending) to offer heavier firepower for certain kinds of difficult operations.  I'm also okay with air support, though that could be staged from Kuwait or the Kurdish region.

The occupation has to end.  We cannot be the sword and shield of the Iraqi state.  We are exposing our boys and girls to too much risk for too little gain and no good reason.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-11 03:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

aha, you only support US military intervention if there is something to gain?

Is the politics of change I keep hearing about>?

Face it.  Obama is going to do exactly what Bush has been doing.

Only hillary had the guts to end this charade.  The messiah ain't got it in him, he's said as much.

by rankles 2008-06-11 05:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Have a donut for

1) Saying the Dem Nominee is the same as Chimpy McFlightsuit

2) Being a sock puppet (look at rankles and Junos comments side by side - notice anything?)

3) Messiah?!?!?

by John in Chicago 2008-06-11 12:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

rankles will not stop trolling either

by nogo postal 2008-06-11 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Why don't you stop trolling?

by rankles 2008-06-12 12:55AM | 0 recs
I've had it.

This diarist shows up with heart on sleeve pouring their feelings out over their anxiety over their friend going off to war and you pounce on them. Disgusting. These are not Democrat, or liberal, or progressive values.

I've thought up until now, "It's only been a week, really only a few days since Hillary's speech. Give them some time."

No more. It's time to deal in reality. If you can't bring yourself to  put your personal crap behind and support Obama at this point, fine. Let's call you what you are. Republicans. No more coddling and kid gloves. At this point you are not Democrats. You are not progressives. You are not on the same side as Hillary Clinton OR Barack Obama. You do not espouse her values. You are betraying what she fought for. You are being used by the McCain campaign and either don't know it or don't care. Hillary Clinton is fighting AGAINST YOU.

I'm sorry, but this disgusting lack of empathy is the last straw for me.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-11 03:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I've had it.

"""You are not progressives. """

For Obamatons, 'progressive' means;

Not counting all the votes.
Saying one thing one day to one audience, then saying a different thing a different day to a different audience.

Got it.

by rankles 2008-06-11 05:11AM | 0 recs
Troll abuse me all you want.

We have a nominee. You are either supporting Obama, or you are a Republican. Do not pretend that you are supporting Hillary Clinton, or anything she believes in or stands for, because you are not. You are supporting John McCain, and if that's the side you are on fine. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of us are on the opposite side.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-11 05:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Troll abuse me all you want.

So those of us who are undecided don't exist?

Got news for you....

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 08:36AM | 0 recs
Oh I've got no issue with undecideds.

So you're just now paying attention? If so, bless you and if there's anything I can help you with let me know.

BUT, if you were supporting Hillary Clinton and you're even thinking of voting for John McCain, or  staying home, or writing in someone else, then you are no longer supporting her or her ideas.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-11 11:21AM | 0 recs
Another perspective

I have a son, safely sleeping on the couch four feet away from me, who got back from Baghdad about a month ago ending the longest year of my life.

During that year I endured some of the shittiest insults imaginable from "progressive Democrats" for my support of Clinton if I dared to mention his deployment.  I was told I must not really care about his safety, did not really understand how she (apparently alone) was responsible for his being there, that his blood would be on her hands were the worst to happen, that he must be "sitting fat and happy in the Green Zone" if I could "forgive" Clinton her AUMF vote.

I typed my fingers raw trying to explain to knee-jerk idiots my belief in Clinton's AUMF voting statement and how she didn't owe ME any apology for the war Bush started and she vehemently stood against in that statement.  I grew completely fed up with folks throwing the war and her voting record on it at me when they showed no nuanced understanding as one would if they TRULY gave a damn about the war.

The war has been my premier issue from the day we all watched Baghdad struck and awed in 2002 -- including through the 2004 election when Obama said nothing against it in his address to the Democratic Convention, as Kerry refused to come out against it, as the entire Congress stood mute until John Murtha stood up against it  on the House floor and neither Clinton OR Obama got behind him.

My original support of Clinton was EARNED when she was the first Democrat to call for a SAFE withdrawl from Iraq, while her fellow Dems (including Obama) were still talking about immediate withdrawl the day after the 2009 Inaguration.

Anyone who uses the troops in Iraq as a leveraging tool this season offends me if they do not include the insights and opinions of the troops themselves.  Ask a recently returning GI and they will more than likely tell you they want to stay long enough to finish the mission.  The greatest insult to them, their greatest heartbreak, would be to abruptly pull them from the theater just as they are on the verge of bringing relative stability.

Ask a military person and they will tell you the military argued AGAINST the war in 2002 because they knew the mission was "unwinnable" but they were sent anyway.  Now that they have so admirably sacrificed under ridiculous circumstances, now that the surge IS WORKING, the military is arguing to let them finish their work and yet again, NO ONE IS LISTENING.

McCain WOULD bring a stronger understanding of the military to the Whitehouse but Obama will bring the diplomatic resolve we need to truly stabilize the region.  Military men and women will overwhelming vote for McCain, primarily because of the "God damn America" issue.  Clinton had earned their respect for her early emphasis on a safe withdrawl and tough talk on Iran.  (ask a Iraq veteran why the deaths are still happening in Iraq and the one word answer is invariably "Iran")

I will vote for Obama because of his social agenda and because I can get past the Wright issue.  As far as the war goes, I have no more confidence in Obama safely stabilizing the region as I do in McCain.  The candidate who best earned my trust on the war was CLINTON and I would personally poke out the eyes of any one-note moron who dared to say "AUMF" to my face.

What I'm REALLY F#CKING sick and tired of is those who would use the troops as emotional pawns -- be that Bushies and their "Support Our Troops" bullshit or "progressives" disingenuously twisting the "100 years" comment or using the deaths of soldiers as a high drama political gotcha.

Anyone who TRULY gives a good god damn about the troops should do the following before opening their mouth about them --

  1.  volunteer at the VA or a homeless shelter and donate to veterans groups
  2. FIND AND OFFER HANDS-ON SUPPORT TO THE FAMILY OF A DEPLOYED SOLDIER
  3. get passionate about veteran's benefits and push it to the top of your agenda
  4. buy every soldier you see a cup of coffee and personally thank him or her for their service
  5. listen to a soldier's perspective on the war, withdrawl and this election

or shut the f^ck up about them.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-06-11 03:53AM | 0 recs
oh wait. one more thing.

And anyone who continues to support Move-On after the "Betrayus" bullshit can kiss my ass and the ass of every deployed soldier or recent Iraq veteran.  Don't claim to care about the troops if you can still support garbage like that.  

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-06-11 03:56AM | 0 recs
Re: oh wait. one more thing.

So are you going to support Obama in the fall?  My sister is serving her second tour and hasn't seen her kids for over a year.  If we go to Iran, she'll be on the front lines.

Are you planning a vengeance vote for McCain?

by OVAH 2008-06-11 04:20AM | 0 recs
Re: oh wait. one more thing.

Oh and sorry for using my sister as an emotional pawn.  She's an emotional pawn to me and her kids (whom I help babysit when her husband works part time).  They really miss their mom.  Sorry if their emotions bother you.

Oh, and I'm glad to see you voting for Obama.

by OVAH 2008-06-11 04:23AM | 0 recs
Re: oh wait. one more thing.

Please don't lecture ME on the emotions of having a loved one deployed.  I've spent the last year eyeball deep in those emotions as both a mother and a supporter or other military families.

I only object to those who drag out "those poor troops" without ever having actually discussed the war or the election with a soldier or are utterly removed from the trials of military families and GIs but love to sling about the "horror" they clearly know nothing about.

clearly that does not apply to you and your family.  God speed for your sister and her children.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-06-11 06:27AM | 0 recs
Re: oh wait. one more thing.

"I will vote for Obama because of his social agenda and because I can get past the Wright issue.  As far as the war goes, I have no more confidence in Obama safely stabilizing the region as I do in McCain.  The candidate who best earned my trust on the war was CLINTON and I would personally poke out the eyes of any one-note moron who dared to say "AUMF" to my face."

I am not a vengeance voter.  I am an INFORMED voter who votes their issues and their conscience.  

When it comes to the war I have slightly more confidence in McCain than Obama in extracting our troops safely and allowing them to complete their mission AS THEY WOULD PREFER.  
However, I have more confidence that Obama will properly fund veteran's programs and better diffuse tensions in the Middle East.  
I don't have confidence in either of them keeping us from further conflict with Iran.  I still haven't forgotten the bumbling efforts of Lyndon Johnson in Vietnam.

I'm a person who most respects intellectual honesty and find the "100 years in Iraq" argument as lameass as the "she voted for war" bullshit. To just scratch the surface on that one, I doubt McCain will live another 100 years, and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be allowed to serve 25 terms.

I intend to fight like a hellcat for Obama's election, primarily because of his social agenda.  But I have limited faith in his strength as a CiC.  

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-06-11 06:24AM | 0 recs
Re: oh wait. one more thing.

"allowing them to complete their mission"

I'd like it if somebody could get back to me about what that mission is. I'm not trying to be patronizing, but the Bush administration has been very bad about defining victory and completion of what we're doing in Iraq, so I'm curious about what soldiers think completion would mean.

by pomology 2008-06-11 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: oh wait. one more thing.

Completely the mission would mean bringing relative peace to the country by rooting out pockets of insurgency and cutting arms supply routes from Iran.    Whole regions of the country are now "stabilized" in this fashion with Baghdad and a few other areas still struggling but moving in the right direction.

Sectarian violence has fallen with most of it now staged by insurgent cells to foment sectarian hatred.  Most Iraqis are no longer buying into that.    The insurgency is now directing all it's efforts towards unseating the Iraqi government.  In other words, we are no longer "causing" or the target of violence -- the Iraqi government is, thus the spate of attacks on the Green Zone.  

We need to push for diplomatic pressure on the new Iraqi government to clean up its act and the military has no control over the idiot Iraqi leaders we've supported.  

What they CAN control is the violence and the flow of arms into Iraq from Iran.

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-06-11 08:34PM | 0 recs
WOW!!!! bravo, bravo, bravo, clap, clap, clap

and a standing ovation!

by suzieg 2008-06-11 07:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Another perspective

or you can take direct action like I did..
Twice I was arrested for passing out fliers in front of recruiting stations.
The flier was titled
"How many people should a young person have to kill to afford College!"

Both times I was found Not Guilty using a landmark case Bock v. Westminster Mall Corp..

I am a disabled vet (1969-72) and whenever I visit the Denver V.A. I pass out lit for http://ivaw.org/
and http://www.veteransforpeace.org/

by nogo postal 2008-06-11 09:01AM | 0 recs
Welcome home!

by suzieg 2008-06-12 04:11AM | 0 recs
Diarist, thank you for this diary.

I wish your friend well. They will be in my prayers together with all those serving nobly for this unjust cause and immoral President. Look on the bright side. Those who have shown up here to attack you and voice their anti-Obama (and now anti-Hillary) sentiments have demonstrated your point far beyond the power of our diary. If I had only read your diary, I would have said, "It's early. Cut them some slack." Upon reading the comments I see your point. You're right.

by Travis Stark 2008-06-11 03:57AM | 0 recs
Perspectives

... everybody has one.

My nephew is fighting in Iraq right now to protect our freedoms, so don't be expressing your opinion to me!

by xdem 2008-06-11 03:59AM | 0 recs
..our freedoms... your opinion

"...to protect our freedoms, so don't be expressing your opinion to me!"

I'm hoping this is meant to be funny, because its some real, quality irony. I may steal it for a political cartoon.... its perfect.

by odum 2008-06-11 04:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Perspectives

How many tours has your nephew had to serve?
I hope he and all his "buddies" come back with healthy bodies and minds...
You might pass this on to him...

http://ivaw.org/

by nogo postal 2008-06-11 03:32PM | 0 recs
I would like to know how you felt about the

peace activists of the 60's when you came back home. I'm curious because I heard Obama call us (peace movement) responsible for the abuse the military men and women faced when they came home.

by suzieg 2008-06-12 04:17AM | 0 recs
I'll probably be tr'd into oblivion, but if your

friend didn't want to go to Iraq, why did he volunteer, presumably after we invaded and occupied so many years ago?  I'll most likely vote for Obama and I certainly hope you friend comed back in one piece, but who joins the military these days unless they are starving poor or actually want to go to Iraq?  Perhaps I'm being naive and missing something, but aren't most if not all of those who volunteered before we invaded Iraq finished with their service?  Again, I wish your friend the best, but the whole thing confuses me.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-11 04:30AM | 0 recs
PJ no TR from me, but...

there are many reasons people sign up to go into the army.  

for one, some are gung ho to kill some folks.  but for many many others they join because it's the only way out of a life of minimum wage jobs and struggle.  my hubby is one of those.  he joined in the 90s and was blessed to serve it clinton's peacetime army.  he is proud of his service.  i would hope that his time served would be respected just as much as someone who joined during wartime.

and for many who joined the army after 9/11, they thought they are going to get shipped to afghanistan to go after bin laden.  bush then pivoted - as we all know - and started sending our folks over to a sand trap for lies.

so ya know, if he joined up after 9/11, doesn't he have every right to be resentful that he's fighting in a civil war instead of trying to put bin laden's head on a stick?

by annatopia 2008-06-11 04:48AM | 0 recs
&quot;bin laden's head on a stick&quot;

Man, I love that image.  I just have to say it again:

Bin Laden's head on a stick.

F*cking Bush pisses me off so very very much.  We had a chance to hunt and kill (or better yet capture and put in a small box) this smirking nihilistic assclown - and demonstrate to those who hate us that we are not a country of assclowns by building schools, hospitals, roads, an economy (and on) in Afghanistan.

And Bush f*cked it up.

We have ALREADY SPENT what it would have cost to be DONE in Afghanistan...

(deep deep breath..)

I could rant for the rest of the morning and not be done.  We all "supported" Bush - and each other - on 9/12/2001.  In 2004 there was enough hope left that our government might get at least Afghanistan right eventually that the two parties could be made to look similar on topic.

Now here we are.

Fuck fuck fuck Bush.  Fuck Bin Laden.  FUCK!

When Sen. Obama talks about getting the hell out of Iraq and getting the freaking job done in Afghanistan his eyes tell the tale.  I think he agrees with me on this one.  We shouldn't give a rat's butt about Iraq, we should care very very deeply about Bin fucking Laden...

-chris

PS - sorry about the french.  It doesn't feel the same way using any other words, so I leave it as it is.  

by chrisblask 2008-06-11 05:18AM | 0 recs
Thanks to your husband for his service, and you

for your sacrifices as a military spouse.

Enlistment in the army appears to be for 3, 4, or 5 year terms, according to its website.  We invaded Iraq in March, 2003.  I'll give credit that not everyone knew it was such a horrible idea for a while after we invaded, perhaps until 2005, because of the administration's propaganda.  But by then we knew the war was illegal, that it was doing more harm than good with respect to national security, and more importantly on a personal level, that every warm body in the military was being sent to Iraq for multiple tours, no matter what any recruiter told them about serving their country in Afghanistan, or not being sent into combat zones at all.  By that time, everyone should have known that if they enlisted in any branch of the military, they WERE going to Iraq, with shitty armour and unprotected humvees.  

Unless you are enlisting because you are so utterly desperate financially and have absolutely no connections or hope, that your only chance to succeed is to literally risk your life in Iraq for a game of chance with the winning prize being a free education, I don't understand it.  Don't get me wrong, I know there are people out there like that, and that the number is growing, intentionally, due to Republican policies.  

Moreover, I don't have a long and proud history of military service in my family, but I'd like to think that if I did, my family would be pushing me to stay out of the military until we are out of Iraq.

by PJ Jefferson 2008-06-11 06:52AM | 0 recs
i hear you

thanks for the well thought out response.

by annatopia 2008-06-12 07:17AM | 0 recs
Re: bullshit jefferson
Young people volunteer beccause there are no jobs in small towns.
College is out of reach..
and yes some for a career.
No one signed up for multiple tours..
Your meme sounds pretty GOP to me...
by nogo postal 2008-06-11 08:54AM | 0 recs
Nice try, Reaper, but....

your diary and others like it won't fly here on MYDD with all the people blinded by their bitterness.

Try again in a month.

Best wishes to your friends in Iraq.  May they get home safe and sound.

by DaveG 2008-06-11 04:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Nice try, Reaper, but....

I don't really believe the worst of what we're seeing is bitterness. I think it's right wing trolling in the guise of bitter Hillary supporters. I have spoken to a lot of furious and sad Hillaryfolk, and to a person they see that McCain is a thousand times worse than Obama. (And that would be because they intelligently supported Clinton on the issues, and the difference with McCain on the issues remain stark.)

by rhetoricus 2008-06-11 05:02AM | 0 recs
Reaper,

because of the concerted attempt by the right wing to exploit any bitterness from the election we don't really know who we're dealing with here.

Usually you can hear the difference between a Hillary "supporter" and a Hillary supporter--the latter are torn, hurt, sometimes angry, but sincere, and are more willing to attack McCain than Obama. They clearly care about Clinton's issues, and back them even if they don't care for Obama.

The others just want to attack Obama, and to enflame. Until the admins decide that they truly do want a Democratic blog in support of Democratic candidates, and are willing to enforce that with bannings as enthusiastically meted out as in the primary, this will unfortunately continue.

My best to your family and friends in Iraq, and I pray every day for it to end.

by rhetoricus 2008-06-11 04:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Sorry about your friend.  But understand this - there are those of us who don't believe Obama is the best bet to end the war.  We don't trust him, don't believe in him or his ability to do anything.  To us, he is a smooth talker, flip flopping liar.  So your argument doesn't work for me.   I don't know who will bring them home quicker - so guilt trip #45  not working.

And yes - let Roe burn.  Let all those young women learn their lesson - they took for granted what we fought for.  Time for tough love I guess.

by emmasaint 2008-06-11 05:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

"they took for granted what we fought for"

By voting for a candidate that supports reproductive rights?

by pomology 2008-06-11 06:00AM | 0 recs
Hillary = All Women

to the true personality cultists, all women's issues  have been projected on to Hillary.  Nothing else matters.

by JJE 2008-06-11 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

"let Roe burn.  Let all those young women learn their lesson"

Further evidence supporting my pet-theory about the misogyny present among the deadenders.

Those "young women" will be voting to defend their reproductive rights -- you'll be fighting against both the rights and these young women. You don't resent them for "taking for granted what you fought for". You resent them for the exact opposite: that they're still fighting for it, when you obviously no longer give a damn.

Those young principled individuals suck when you've lost all your own principles right?

by Aris Katsaris 2008-06-11 07:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I suspect -- though of course I could be wrong -- that what the poster was getting at was this line of thought (don't agree with it, just throwing it out there as a possibility):

1) Failure to vote for Clinton gave us Obama as a nominee.

  1. Obama is weaker than Clinton and McCain will beat him.
  2. McCain will appoint right wing judges and Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

Obama's chances are looking better these days (though the Rethug smear machine hasn't really booted up yet), but if he does manage to lose to McCain there's likely to be a bloody party war over whose "fault" it was. Not a pleasant prospect.

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Obamans also thought Hillary should drop out of the race to give Obama a sweat-free ride to the nomination, accusing her of dividing the party and giving McCain an edge. Did you write and insist that Obamans stop "extorting" and "threatening" then?

It strikes me that the Obama side of whatever aisle is being walked down has this theme going on of arm twisting people to get what they want, and then declaring arm twisting to be over as soon as they get it.

There is a real and troublesome narcissism over there, a total lack of empathy and understanding, or even care, as to how others are perceiving Obama or how and why they're so angry about how the primary went down.  There is this black-and-white simplistic expectation to just "get over it (now that we got our way)."

Your problem is not with Democratic Clinton supporters. Your problem is with that white, blue collar voter (the ones you called Clinton racist over for having managed to woo back to Democrats!) who would have voted for the Republican candidate in just about any other year. So it isn't about pouters. It's about keeping the voters Clinton won back, which Democrats lost years ago and have been insisting we need back to win.

Not everyone is as secure about Obama as Obama's supporters are, and his supporters just do not get this.  I would never vote for McCain, but Obama makes me nervous as president AND as a General Election candidate. I think he's got enormous weaknesses that were brushed aside and forced away during the primary due to his love affair with the media and the blogs, but that will not be the case in the General.  I think Obama could soar, but I also think he could implode.

I think Democrats made another "Kerry" mistake.  Consider our lamentations jitters and regret.

by Juno 2008-06-11 05:54AM | 0 recs
Actually he's not another Kerry

You'd have to be naive to believe this. I don't know if you're willfully ignoring all the inroads he's making to reaching out to other groups like Evangelicals and the like to build a broader base for the Democrats to win in November. Or how he's taking McCain to task on the economy and today Iraq?

There is seriously no way you can prove he's another Kerry. Obama has a backbone and your bias and ego are clouding your judgment.

by heyhellowhatsnew 2008-06-11 08:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually he's not another Kerry

I don't actually believe he's going to get many Evangelicals voting for him. Certainly not in large enough numbers to make a noticeable difference in the GE.

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 03:58PM | 0 recs
No. I won't.

I have family there as well, and as you, I want the back home and alive.

But there's much more involved here, and with my vote, than just the war.  For me, this is not a one-issue issue.

I will use my vote as I see fit.  That is what this country and our system is all about.

by dcrolg 2008-06-11 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: No. I won't.
You can vote for Obama..
or support McCain by either a direct
vote or not voting.
Yes You do have a choice...
by nogo postal 2008-06-11 09:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Another poster yesterday astutely noted that it was Sen. Obama who said that Clinton's supporters would vote for him if he became the nominee but he wasn't sure his would her.

Stop yelling at us.  We've had enough of a dictatorial environment.  I thought Sen. Clinton would have been more capable of putting an end to this war than will be Obama, by the way.  Obama is a pleaser, and pleasers have a way of creating gridlock.

by Juno 2008-06-11 06:16AM | 0 recs
Thank you

Add me to the list of folks sick and tired of being yelled at to get on board, stop your whining, shut up about sexism, stop questioning the system and adopt the latest party line.

I'm a lifelong Democrat and damn sick and tired of having some last Tuesday Democrat hold their litmus paper to my ass to determine if I'm "real".

I have the RIGHT to question my party and my candidate, yes, even during an election year.  I have the right to have differences of opinion with Obama supporters and still not be labeled some traitorous McCain troll. And last time I looked I have the right to still express my differing opinions here.  

I get the part where Clinton lost and Obama was the stronger candidate IN SOME RESPECTS.  I get the part where he won, fair and square, in the process as it now exists.  I get the part where sexism alone did not cost Clinton the nomination.

But I still get to question how the hell we all ended up here, I still get to doubt Obama, I still get to feel we, but AGAIN, did not choose the strongest candidate for the fall.  

I won't be accused of "dividing the party" or "costing us the election" let alone "condemning more soldiers and Iraqis to die" or the reversal of Roe vs Wade because Obama continues to trouble me.

I'll vote for him.  I'll even campaign for him.  But I'm completely within my rights to voice an OPINION on Obama the Candidate and Obama the President.

Anything less and I'm doomed to another eight years of disenfranchisement, this time from the radical Left which is seeming no more tolerant of dissent than the radical Right.

I'll keep my voice, thank you very much.  And I won't be bullied, shamed, guilted or tested into silence and conformity.  

by grassrootsorganizer 2008-06-11 06:43AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you

Sound familiar? "You're helping the terrorists."  "Hate America first crowd."  Criticism of the president and/or country (same thing?) is treason.

Why are they panicking if Obama is such an agent of unity and hope and inspiration, all things they all insist they are not themselves responsible for promoting.

They routinely here say that people who don't think and speak as they do should be banned.  It does seem the standard response to any criticism of Obama, bening, real or imagined, that the sayer is a troll, not a real Democrat, a "DINO"...blah, blah, blah.

I've been called not a real American for criticizing Bush, a terrorist lover, etc., and now I'm called not a real Democrat and a McCain lover.

So much for change!

by Juno 2008-06-11 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you

I agree completely. The "if you're not with us 100% you're a traitor!" attitude of a small percentage of Obama supporters is very offputting. They're doing far more to damage their supporter than help him and they seem oblivious to the fact (unless they're Rethug trolls, in which case they're doing a brilliant job, I must say.)

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Thank you

Eloquently put. But at least in the context of this diary, it's somewhat of a straw man. I think the diarist was quite clear about targetting those resorting to "feelings" blackmail with threats of voting for McCain, not those simply voicing an opinion.

An opinion to which, of course, you have every right. And speaking for myself, not for a second would I doubt your sincerity. But given the surfeit of concern trolling here, the motivations of those that have magically made their appearance over the past few days to share their "concerns" with us, concerns that have no end goal other than pointless negativity, should rightly be regarded as suspect.

The question isn't of the relevance of dissent on this thread (or this forum) but rather, to it's purpose. While it's possible to get into endless arguments over motivations - certainly not something easy to prove - the innuendo in far too many of those "doubting" posts is unmistakable. And as far as I'm concerned, more power to those willing to call them out.

by Sumo Vita 2008-06-11 09:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Clinton lost. What the hell does it matter anymore what you thought Clinton capable of doing, or Edwards, or Biden, or, Dodd or Gravel? What the hell does ANYTHING about ANY of the losing candidates matter anymore on either the Democratic side or the Republican one?

The fight is between Obama and McCain. Surprisingly it's not about Clinton at all, except in the sense that Clinton's now one of many of Obama's supporters.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-06-11 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

You just don't get this. and you're not helping your cause.

You also are only furthering my belief that Obama can't change anything.  You're behaving like Republicans: dictatorial, bullying, intimidating, rude, pejorative, arrogant.

by Juno 2008-06-11 07:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

No, you're right: I still don't get what people's beliefs concerning Clinton's competence should affect their vote in November in the Obama vs McCain matchup.

As for behaving like Republicans, I think you value style over substance way too much.

I can respect someone who honestly votes for McCain because they consider him the best choice for their country: I can't respect those people who basically say they'll vote for McCain because they want to punish the Democratic Party for not picking Hillary, or who explicitly say they want to punish young women by having Roe vs Wade burned, like emma-something said in a recent post.

by Aris Katsaris 2008-06-11 07:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I am not yelling at a single Clinton supporter that has not threatened to vote for McCain without actually supporting McCain.  People who use their votes for the purpose of extortion are the target of this diary.

Are you such a person?  If not, I wasn't talking to you and you should not take offense.  If you are, then you should.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-11 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

This on the other hand, is directed at honest McCain supporters.

by CrazyDrumGuy 2008-06-11 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I would never vote for McCain, but if you want to court other Clinton voters, even the ones on this site, you might catch us flies with honey.

We all want our troops home, but using guilt to motivate voters will only keep them home in the fall.

I have had trouble with ardent Obama fans during the primary, lots of trouble, because of a self righteousness that I find dogmatic and disturbing. Luckily Obama does not reflect this.

As a urban, young, masters degree holding voter, I am not your typical Clinton supporter. So far only Obama the candidate has convinced me to vote for him in November, but we cannot rely on him to go every where, his base, YOU, must work the field until November and you arguments to convince my fellow Clinton supporters are not persuasive in the least.

I will vote Obama in the fall and be proud of doing so, and try and convince as many people as possible to do the same. Some how I think my tactics will be much more successful.  

by brooklynboi 2008-06-11 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

The irony is that Obama supporters are having hissy fits to get what they want!

Lol.

by Juno 2008-06-11 07:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Thank you for the zero rating.  Only proves my point that Obama supporters can dish but can't take.

by Juno 2008-06-11 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I'm sorry about your friend is getting shipped to Iraq. I'm also sorry that some people are acting like giant babies because they don't see the bigger picture and whats at stake, and that their wounded pride is more important than other people's lives.

by heyhellowhatsnew 2008-06-11 08:10AM | 0 recs
Also

I'm always amazed about the legwork that some Clinton supporters expect Obama supporters to do because he won the nomination to earn, placate and beg for their votes, when it was obvious that if Clinton won, we were just expected to hop aboard and they wouldn't reach out to us at all.

Working together goes both ways, and no one is going to beg you or bend over backwards for your ego. There are lives at stake here and its more important than your internet nerdery.

by heyhellowhatsnew 2008-06-11 08:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Also

Repeat: It was Sen. Obama who said that Hillary's supporters would vote for him but that he wasn't sure if his would vote for her.

You're using a hypothetic of which there is no evidence or proof, which renders it moot.  

by Juno 2008-06-11 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Also

Do you want your candidate to win in November or not?

Would you feel good about yourself if he lost because you refused to try to coax more Hillary supporters over to his side? "We lost, but at least I never PANDERED!"

Nice slogan.

(And yes, I know he might win anyway. But why would you want to take chances?)

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 08:39AM | 0 recs
Obnoxious

Very stupid.

by Al Depansu 2008-06-11 08:20AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I am sorry your friend is going to Iraq.  I am afraid that the Republicans will reinstitute the draft.  I have a son who will be 17 in September.  Just for this reason alone I would never vote for McCain.

However....I also am tired of being browbeaten for being less than enthusiastic about Obama.  I am tired of taking shit for questioning him and feeling uncomfortable about him.  Not everyone is going to have a crush on Obama and his supporters need to get over that.  Maybe they won't drive me away but they might drive others away and can we really afford for that to happen?

I also think it's highly inappropriate to harrass people about their vote.  

by JustJennifer 2008-06-11 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Yeah. What she said.

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 08:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Nothing I said, wrote, or thought was meant to harass anyone unless that person has been here threatening to vote for McCain unless Hillary is either our nominee or our VP nominee.

If you are not one of those people, then this was not directed at you.  Differences of opinion are absolutely fine, and I take no issue with an honest supporter of Senator McCain or an angry supporter of Senator Clinton who has not come to terms with our presumptive nominee.  That's fine.  I honestly respect both positions.

However, some have come here to threaten to vote for a candidate they don't actually support, just out of spite.  I'm dealing with those folks.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-11 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I understand where you are coming from.

by JustJennifer 2008-06-11 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

This diary is directed toward those who threaten to vote for McCain. Those people should be harassed when they post here.

by nogo postal 2008-06-11 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Imagine this primary race was the reason you, as an older person, got involved in blogging, and that Clinton was the reason for your renewed interest in the democratic party. You are pissed because the first time you gave a damn you lost.

Now the blog you enjoyed says outright that they will "harass" you while you decide on the rest of the field for your vote.

We need to convince these people the awesomeness of Obama and his commitment to what we believe in, not harass people. We need to keep those on the fence reading our sites so that they keep engaged and interested, not drive them off. I like the debates that go on here.

by brooklynboi 2008-06-11 09:13AM | 0 recs
Harrased?

Nobody should be harassed here. Harassment is NOT the way to bring people to your side.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-11 09:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Harrased?

I am harassing no one.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-11 09:30AM | 0 recs
I never said you were harassing anyone

I was responding to nogo stating that it's OK to harass them.

by Chelsea in 2020 2008-06-11 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop
This is a Dem place...
Most(not all)of Diaries or comments here touting McWars over our Party candidate are feeble trolls.
I will call out any comment proposing McWars over Sen. Obama our Party candidate...
Trolls will never be offended by my response anyway...
by nogo postal 2008-06-11 12:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I know the stakes are high, but being called an "internet nerd" just for thinking that the tactics being used by Obama supporters looks more like gloating that mending. I'm not asking to be pandered to, but my vote will be easy to get in November, because I'm a die hard democrat and actually think Obama is great, I just worry that Obama supporters are alienating people for no good reason.

Your tactic should be:

"Look the stakes are high, Clinton said as much in her bid for the presidency, will you help us with that cause by making Obama president and stopping the failed policies of republicans? Can we count on your vote as fellow democrats looking for change we can believe in?"

not:

"Stop whining, we won, support Obama or your sending kids to their death."

Notice the difference in tone.

by brooklynboi 2008-06-11 09:06AM | 0 recs
**Applause**

You're expressing this concept very well. Here's hoping you're listened to.  

I'm trying to come up with catchy names for the two kinds of Obama supporters I see here: The Honeys, who are happy to put their ego aside in the name of helping their candidate win, and the Vinegars, who seem contemptuous of the very idea that they could benefit their cause by taking a conciliatory tone because it's beneath them.  I don't think either of these is going to catch on, though. Gonna have to keep working on it...

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 04:04PM | 0 recs
Re: **Applause**

Into which group do I sit?

You'll recall I was the first to post here that I had donated to Hillary's campaign after she conceded.

Life is nuanced.  

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-11 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: **Applause**

I don't know -- I don't track every poster, just the ones who stand out noticeably as one type or the other. There are more Vinegars than Honeys, but the Honeys are generally better writers.  Spacemanspiff, for example, is a very sour Vinegar, as are the people who post "I'm tired of the Clinton supporters whining! They'd better vote Obama or else John McCain will destroy the U.S. and they know it! They're just pretending to be mad so people will talk nice to them, and I'm not gonna fall for it!"

So which category do you put yourself in? Do you think it's beneath you to woo Clinton supporters, or would you be happy to do anything that isn't illegal, immoral, or fattening to get more votes for Obama?

by Michigoose 2008-06-11 05:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

The person writing this made clear it was written under emotional stress...a little slack if part went too far.

tap yer toes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGWsGyNsw 00

by nogo postal 2008-06-11 09:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

78 of you folks have rec'ed this.

Thank you guys.  I do appreciate it.  Especially from you, Linfar.  That was very kind.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-11 10:17AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Linfar's evolution is causing me to ...perhaps...just perhaps..will cause me to take more seriously future posts by her...

by nogo postal 2008-06-11 10:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

Sorry, but what's important to me is removing the malevolent, malignant growth on the Democratic?Party named Barack Obama. He and his supporters have brought a level of meanness and dishonesty into the part that is indistinguishable from the Republican tactics of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater. And frankly, their indifference to his mediocre healthcare plan is depressing. He's not a uniter as he claims to be, but a divider and conquerer; his manipulation of racial discord, the crooked caucus activity, as well as the exclusion of Florida and Michigan votes all demonstrate this clearly.

And I'm supposed to support these people for unity? Well, a big metastisized tumor consuming me would be nice and unified too, but it would of course kill me. I'm going to oppose Obama for the same reason I'd get radiation or chemotherapy, and that means voting McCain.

Obama is not going to end the W-ar any sooner than Clinton, or McCain. It will "end" when the oil cabals secure the oil rights there, which may or may not happen regardless of who is president. Then and only then will the US declare victory and get out, no matter how the narrative plays out on TV.

As for women's rights, just watch Obama's Annie Oakley speech again, which his upporters thought was "brilliant", and tell me he respects women more than McCain. You can't. Choice or no choice, people know a sexist, mysogynist jerk when they see one.

And I just can't see McCain shoving anti-choice judges down our throats like Bush did. He gives a hoot about the environment, and quite honestly, I trust him more than Obama to reign in the secret renditions, the crazed neocon militarism that kidnaps, tortures and kills (allegedly). I just don't trust the Obama zealots with the powers of the presidency as expanded under George W. Do you?

Sorry if this is BS to you, but it seems like basic democracy to me: Obama was selected, not elected, much like Bush. And I'm against that kind of thing.

by valleyboy 2008-06-11 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Hey troll!
hey VB..
I am using the Democracy of MyDD to hide your hateful troll attempt..
Yer Blues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAvlYLCYO DU&feature=related
by nogo postal 2008-06-11 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

"I just don't trust the Obama zealots with the powers of the presidency as expanded under George W. Do you?"

Emphatically, yes I do.

"It will "end" when the oil cabals secure the oil rights there..."

You're an idiot.  I don't care how much pressure Exxon and the rest bring to bare.  If the President, the Congress, and the electorate want it to end, it will end.

You're entitled to your own opinion.  Your opinion is, at best, imperfect.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-11 02:06PM | 0 recs
I appreciate this diary

but some of the comments in here make me realize why I don't want to be part of this community anymore.

Goodbye.

Obama '08!

by notme54 2008-06-11 12:26PM | 0 recs
Most of the BS left

for Hillary is 44 on the day of alegre's last post, June 8:

Photobucket

Seriously, admins...take a look at this. It's pretty telling about the crew that controlled the wreck list for so long.

How about full amnesty for the lot...square one, we're all pals?

by Poor Yorick 2008-06-11 01:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Most of the BS left

I'm not sure what your point is - I am not alegre - but I suspect your monitoring of other websites has something to do with why my post was disappeared. Censorship in the name of what - freedom? Unity? Preaching to the choir? (no I wasn't going there)

by valleyboy 2008-06-11 02:52PM | 0 recs
You're going to have to clarify

I don't have an idea what you're talking about. Censorship? Huh?

My point is that - in light of the graph above - a theory that deadenders from His44 were running the recommend list on this site isn't some form of tinfoilhattery. Especially over the week previous to alegre's departure, the graph lines for the respective sites are mirror images of each other, ergo as His44ers came to realize that Clinton was leaving the race, they (along with alegre) left MyDD and returned to their cave.

I'm really confused about your "my post was disappeared" line.  Please explain.

by Poor Yorick 2008-06-11 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop
New to MyDD and I have to say that I agree with you 100%.
I am so tired of asking these Clinton supporters to really stop and think about what they are doing by voting McCain. I have ask them to try speaking to a Mother who has lost a child in Iraq and to try to explain to her why voting McCain makes any kind of sense at all.
They usually respond with something that makes no sense at all and then rant in incoherent sentences.
by Grissom1001 2008-06-11 01:26PM | 0 recs
Big Love

Obama employed a very cynical (and maybe necessary) tactic against Clinton. He and his team convinced a percentage of the public that the Clinton's were race-bating.

That is the perception of many Hillary supporters, including myself.

Right or Wrong, fair or unfair, the reality of the situation is that ir Obama ignore the almost 18 million votes Hillary received and doesn't put her on the ticket he will lose a significant number of her supporters. It is not a small problem and all these diaries will not change the dynamic.

The party has been split and one way to bring us together is to put Hillary on the ticket. The ball is in Obama's court.

by mmorang 2008-06-11 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

That's okay. I think some of these posters may have it coming.

by spirowasright 2008-06-11 02:07PM | 0 recs
What has got to stop is the arrogance of

some.
The implication that Hillary or her supporters are war mongers has p*ssed me off beyond belief.  And the egotistical belief that the only people that matter are your friends at war is a turnoff.

Some of us care as much about the childrn, the elderly and poor who are dying from the heat or the cold because they cannot afford the utilities.
Some of us care about as much about children and teens dying in the streets from violence.
Some of us care about the disparity between the rich and the poor and how this country is being turned into a plutocracy.

No offense, but the soldiers who are in Iraq are not the only people on the planet whose lives have been adversely affected by the right wing mentality.  

Damn right the bs should stop and some of you need to understand reality.  We are electing a president, not a savior.  Democracy takes HARD WORK not just pretty words.  Some of us have been working for decades for things like civil rights, human rights, women's rights, children's rights, the environment, fair wages, unions, healthcare and peace.
Suddenly you are screaming in our faces that WE don't get it.  You are talking down to us.....as if we are not cool enough and hip enough to get what is important.  We get it....but I wonder if you do.  
There's more than one group of folks to fight for....I appreciate those who volunteered for service.  But they are not the ONLY people who matter.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-11 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: What has got to stop is the arrogance of

Anyone who had worked and cared for those things sincerely would not vote for McCain.

by PantsB 2008-06-11 03:05PM | 0 recs
And I wouldn't ....and I have

stated that back since I began posting on dkos in 2005 and here later on when I felt so nauseated at the hate mongering towards Clinton on that site I had to leave.

Just because a few Clinton followers have said they would vote for McCain, does not mean ALL.  Just like I presume a few Obama followers who swore they would go republican or stay home if Clinton was elected...
does not represent all.  Even when Michelle Obama said she was not sure she could ever support Clinton, I did not take it to me ALL Obama supporters felt the same.
So the arrogance of making a chew out diary here for a few bugs the hell out of me.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-11 05:15PM | 0 recs
Re: What has got to stop is the arrogance of

"Democracy takes HARD WORK not just pretty words.  Some of us have been working for decades for things like civil rights, human rights, women's rights, children's rights, the environment, fair wages, unions, healthcare and peace.
Suddenly you are screaming in our faces that WE don't get it.."

Just asking..if you are so committed..can i assume you have forced your local govt to arrest you for speaking out in the past 6 years?

If you respond and ask for some proof I have concerning..I will gladly link...
I'm fucking tired of older folks pulling the "card" on younger folks who are getting involved.
It's like when I go to the Denver V.A. and see fellow Viet Nam vets wearing hats/shirts/badges trying to demonstrate what happened 40+ years ago.

hell I will link on just one..(yes I am one of the two who fasted for ten days of incarceration.)
My other arrests are nobodies business...

You bet I proudly wore my colors in the pic..
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_409955 7

by nogo postal 2008-06-11 03:24PM | 0 recs
And I am sick of your kind with your

ageist insults..

Fuck back at you buddy.  The world did not suddenly change because I did something or you did something.  Get over yourself.  Democracy takes work...not drama.

by Jjc2008 2008-06-11 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: What has got to stop is the arrogance of

I noticed the age of all those incarcerated. Pretty much the same OLD people who always protest causes.

by Justwords 2008-06-12 02:05AM | 0 recs
Re: What has got to stop is the arrogance of

First off, I stated in the diary that I want the Iraqis to stop suffering as well.

Secondly, the point of this diary was specific.  Don't be so obtuse as to think it represents the sum total of my thoughts, views, goals, and hopes.

As to needing more than words?  Obama is working to get elected which is something we have to do in order to actually change some of these momentous issues.

You wanna help the freezing and the starving?  You wanna help the victims of street violence?  You wanna deal with the ever-widening gap between the richest and the poorest?

You've got two possible presidents in 2009.  Take your pick.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-11 03:26PM | 0 recs
censoring for freedom?

I am not one of the people the diarist addressed this too:

"This is directed specifically at those posters here who have said that they will vote for McCain if they don't get what they want."

But my post was deleted anyway, even though it was non-abusive and certainly not disrespectful to the diarist's loss. Democracy without freedom of speech is the real BS here.

by valleyboy 2008-06-11 03:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

This is a two-way street.  I watched an Obama surrogate on MSNBC last night announce that if Hillary were Barack Obama's Vice Pres he would have to have someone taste all his food before he ate it.  That's dispicable.

STOP IT is a command for both sides, you partisan hack.

by mtnspirit 2008-06-12 07:51AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

You're a loony, frankly.  Loony's are entitled to their own opinions, but frankly if history has not taught you the folly of adventurism, then nothing else will.

by Reaper0Bot0 2008-06-12 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Why the BS Has GOT to Stop

I believe in staying in Iraq as long as needed.

As long as is needed for what, exactly?  Not snark: a serious question.

by Koan 2008-06-12 08:30AM | 0 recs
I believe

that no Democrat would believe what you believe.  I believe that you are a troll.

by