A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoever it is.

So there's a few people running around thinking they would rather see a president McSame than the other dem candidate. Below are a few reasons to support whomever the nominee is whether it be Obama (most likely), Clinton (less likely), or some crazy convention coup by someone like Gore (very very unlikely, but being talked about).

    Cross posted at dailykos.                                                                                                                                              Leaving For Duty   

                                                                                                                   Franz Josef Glacier and the stream of melting ice!   

                                                                                                                                     Home Foreclosure, Los Angeles   
                                                                                                    Photobucket   
                                                                                                           polar bear   
                                                                                                             us soldier   
                                                                                                             Downtown Children's center for homeless kids   
                                                                                                                                                                               america WAR iraq SOLDIER troops death funeral,american family burial funeral sadness mourning   
                                                                                                                               National Debt Clock   
More FEMA Trailers   
My Soldier
Free Healthcare logo ©2006
wow gas prices!

coal
Fallen Soldiers

So on this first day of April no tricks from me, just a shout out to the fools who wax poetic about how they'd rather see McSame in the Whitehouse if their prefered candidate doesn't secure the nomination.
You would really rather see 4 more years of this?

Tags: Election 2008, Global Warming, housing crisis, Iraq War, National debt. (all tags)

Comments

163 Comments

Wow

I got it to work, kinda, now if I could only figure out how to get everything to the right of the page.

by Drewid 2008-04-01 08:07PM | 0 recs
Ooops

of course I meant left.

by Drewid 2008-04-01 08:28PM | 0 recs
Discussion is a good thing..

Pictures say a lot, but they can't express important details, like 'the devil is in the details' kinds of details..

Important issues require discussion and committments, not just 'hope'.

by architek 2008-04-02 08:33AM | 0 recs
Not just "Hope"

Not even the Hope Monger himself thinks that "just hope" is all it will take.

Lots of hard work and patience and resilience, that's what we need to get through this.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 08:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Discussion is a good thing..

What it will take is a president that either signs or vetoes the legislation passed by what will be democratic majorities in both chambers of congress.  If you want those bills signed into law vote for the democratic nominee.  If you want those bills vetoed vote for McCain.  It's that simple.  Let's not pretend like it isn't.

Your anti Obama sentiment cuts both ways.  Either your candidate is so weak as to have been defeated by a man who only offers talk of hope and isn't capable of much else as you insinuate.  Or Obama does, in fact, have much more to offer (GOTV, fundraising, community organizing, and yes charisma.  Let's not pretend charisma is a bad thing) all of which means that you should drop that particular talking point.

A little more time spent building up Hilary instead of just leveling attacks at BO might help her fav/unfav numbers and eliminate the Hilary as McCain surrogate talking point too.  Right now the fav/unfav numbers keep plummeting and the Hilary is a McCain surrogate meme is starting to look pretty well deserved.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Discussion is a good thing..

I completely agree with you.

But I think the point of the diary is that even though you and I may not think Obama is really capable of handling these issues or wouldn't be as effective as Hillary, we need to bite the bullet and vote for him against McCain anyway. The stakes are too high, and McCain won't even try to fix these problems. At least an Obama administration wouldn't stand in the way of progress.

Let's say Hillary loses the nomination, we can always support her for Senate Majority Leader where she will be able to push her agenda (including health care). President Obama wouldn't stand in the way of much of her agenda, but President McCain certainly would.  

by Turnpike Kid 2008-04-02 09:54AM | 0 recs
Exactly

A vote for Obama is also a vote for Senator Clinton's agenda.

Chances are, after it gets out of committee, Obama's health care plan is more likely to look like Clinton's.  Would he veto that?  Fat chance.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 10:03AM | 0 recs
Think about it, Clinton's plan will win

I think Clinton's plan will prevail.  She will either get the nomination and push her plan as president or likely gain stature in the Senate in return for her backing Obama if he gets the nomination.  If she becomes Senate majority leader, she will push her plan hard.  Either way, she will be well positioned to help push her version of the health care plan.

by nrioq 2008-04-02 12:06PM | 0 recs
Well it goes the other way too

Should Hillary pull out a victory, Obama peeps should support her, because the last thing we need is a president McCain.

by Drewid 2008-04-02 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Wow

Nice diary. Great sentiment.

kid oakland has a wonderful unity diary on the rec list over at Kos now as well.

by bookish 2008-04-02 05:21AM | 0 recs
I will gladly support him

Only if Florida and Michigan get re-votes.  Otherwise, if he wins by stealing the election, I will vote for McCain, as I will not be an enabler to someone who disenfranchises millions as well as being someone who has injected race into this campaign.  

I will not vote for Tawana Brawley politics unless he can show me he has the backbone to support the re-votes.  Besides Drewid, the guy hasn't won any big states necessary for the Democrats to win the presidency.  His largest was Georgia and that one will not go Democratic anyway.  He will lose without us all behind him and with what I have seen from his brand, Michelle Obama's brand and his mentors (who is waiting in the wings to come back if he wins) brand, I don't want the three of them in the White House.

I think he will continue to fight the re-votes because he knows they will hurt him and he is too delusion to give up ground when he has Howard Dean up his butt.

I think that is simple and easy to understand and I hope more people start expressing the same thing!

by cpa1a 2008-04-02 07:05AM | 0 recs
Re: I will gladly support him

What about Texas...thats a big state and he won it.  And that state is turning more purple every day...

by gabbie 2008-04-02 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: I will gladly support him

Obama lost the primary. He won the caucuses. And we don't vote in caucuses for president. Individuals have to walk into voting booths all by themselves with a precinct captain holding their hand and pull a lever or push a stylus. Obama doesn't win elections like that very often.

The kind of thuggery that was experienced in the caucuses won't happen in the general election, so he'll likely get his ass kicked.

by Little Otter 2008-04-02 08:26AM | 0 recs
Re: I will gladly support him

Remind me again who got more delegates out of Texas?  

The answer is Barack Obama.  You cling to whatever desperate, reality divorced rationalization you want.  We'll take the delegates.

I've got a little secret for you.  Ok, so it's not really a secret.  Really everyone knows it.  The race for nomination is measured in delegates.  Obama won Texas.  Since you represent a viewpoint opposite mine, I welcome you to keep losing credibility by insisting otherwise.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 09:39AM | 0 recs
Re: I will gladly support him

The reality - once again - is that Clinton won the primary in Texas. That is a true fact of real history. Obama won the caucus. That too is a fact of history. And general elections work like primaries, not like caucuses. For reasons I do not understand, Obama supporters arent' as capable of showing up and voting for him when it involves walking into a booth all by their lonesome (without a precinct captain cracking the whip) and pushing a stylus through a hole. It's mysterious but true.

by Little Otter 2008-04-02 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I will gladly support him

Obama has won more primary contests than Hilary.  True historical fact.  As usual, you are wrong.  Peddle falsehood to someone else please.

Overall, Obama carried the sate of Texas as it applies to the race for the nomination.  As you have been so kind as to point out (yet dishonest enough not to examine its entirety) there are 2 processes undertaken which determine the allotment of the state's delegates.  Once those processes have been completed the person walking out of Texas with the greatest number of delegates was Barack Obama.  Obama won Texas.  Hilary lost Texas.

Why do you have to insist that facts obvious to the whole world aren't so?

Of the the total number of delegates available in Texas, which candidate won more of them?

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 11:25AM | 0 recs
Not entirely their fault

I mean, it's not like the news organizations have been basing their nicely colored maps based on who got the most delegates.  They've been (extremely stupidly) basing it on the popular vote, so somehow Clinton still wins Texas and Nevada even though Obama got more delegates from each.

You can't blame folks for buying into that sort of narrative, which is fairly blatant pandering to a "horse race" narrative that they love so much.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 11:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Not entirely their fault

I'll buy that in defense of most people, but in this case Little Otter knows better and is simply dishonest.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 11:41AM | 0 recs
Point taken

I have no sufficient counter-argument for that.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 12:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I will gladly support him

Obama has won more primary contests than Hilary too.  You lose either way.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 09:40AM | 0 recs
MI & FL

Florida definitely won't get revotes; their governor and legislature are opposed to it.

Michigan probably won't because their legislature can't decide on anything they like and will prevent them from being prosecuted.

What WILL happen is that their delegations will be seated as soon as one of the candidates wins legitimately.  So if Obama or Clinton concede, everything will be fine, and they'll have learned their lesson for next time.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 07:21AM | 0 recs
Re: MI & FL

IF Obama wins because Florida and Michigan weren't counted, he'll no legitimacy whatsoever as the candidate. None. He'll be the guy who got elected despite not actually having won.

And you aren't going to turn Democrats out to vote if that's the case.

by Little Otter 2008-04-02 08:28AM | 0 recs
Giving Democrats more credit

I think we'll be smarter than that this year.  We've been through too much to be petty.

The delegations will be seated. What more do you want when they broke the rules in the first place?

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: MI & FL

The fla and mi votes are smaller than the margin by which Obama is winning.  You're perfect streak of being wrong remains in tact.

Additionally, almost every nomination race ever has ended without all of the states being counted.  It is the norm.  You are just plain wrong.... again.

Some streak though.  Kudos.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 09:43AM | 0 recs
Re: MI & FL

And yet, I'm right about this. If Obama wins without Florida and Michigan's vote counting, then he won't be a legitimate candidate, and will not be able to turn out Clinton voters in the numbers necessary to carry essential blue states.

All he has to do is say count their votes as they are. If he doesn't, then he won't be a legitimate nominee. It's that simple.  

by Little Otter 2008-04-02 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: MI & FL

No, you're wrong.  Absolutely.  All he has to do is point out at the end that the margin means that FLA and MI wouldn't have had any bearing on the outcome.

If it would make you feel better he can wait until the convention and then seat them even as is to prove that you are absolutely wrong.  Since it wouldn't change the outcome, he would be the legitimate winner either way.  SO YOU ARE STILL WRONG!!

God Damn it!! Have you ever heard of numbers?!  Are you capable of basic math?!   You wonder why there is so much anger and shouting down coming from the Obama side?!  You insist that 2+2=5 and then wonder why you aren't treated like an intelligent adult.  If your going to insist that it is dark out at noon most days then you will be treated as if you are either dishonest or unintelligent.  That's what happens.  Fortunately you are the exception and not the rule as you seem to think that you are.  

I would like to apologize to the other Hilary supporters in this comment section.  Please do not misunderstand me.  I know that we have disagreements and that's fine.  We can discuss our disagreements based on facts and figures.  We can even support conjecture through evidence and expression of our thought process.  I know that most of us, whether we are Obama supporters or Clinton supporters, are patriots and democrats as well as honest, good intentioned participants here.

Little Otter on the other hand is a purveyor of untruth, a denier of fact, a hater and a traitor.  Little Otter denies reality when presented with it and has already indicated that he/she will be attempting to throw this election (to give us our comeuppance) if we don't all submit to his/her blackmail.  Whether you are a Hilary supporter or an Obama supporter, if you believe in democracy and in the democratic party I hope that you too will find this tactic wholly unacceptable and also out of place in the comments of this particular diary.

I also understand that there are some honest Hilary supporters who still haven't decided to vote for Obama should he get the nomination.  It is right for these folks to say that they still need some convincing.  Please understand that I have no objection to that.  In fact, I look forward to Barack's efforts to do just that.  It'll be refreshing to see.  Little Otter, however, is a different critter altogether.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 10:32AM | 0 recs
No, you are not right.

McCain won the republican nomination before all the primaries.  How did he do such an undemocratic thing?  He did it by passing the delegate threshhold.

If Obama passes the delegate threshhold (including superdelegates, a phenomenon only the Democrats have) then he is the winner no matter if there are primaries left to run.  That's the way it always works.  Obama has not won it yet and there is still a slight chance Clinton will pull it out but whoever does cross that threshhold has won...with or without FL and MI.

by GFORD 2008-04-02 10:36AM | 0 recs
In addition

Also remember that, if we include Florida and Michigan, the delegate threshold goes up by about half the number of delegates in each state.

The net result is that Clinton would only gain a few delegates net and it would be harder for both of them to get to the threshold even with supers.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 11:39AM | 0 recs
Re: MI & FL

Without FL & MI seated BEFORE the nominee is named makes the election Illegitimate. So if BO dosn't stop trying to run out the clock and gets on board like a frontrunner that he states he is, he will agree to a revote and let the voters vote and accept the outcome. Right now he looks like he is deliberately stonewalling afraid to let the voters speak because it may not be favorable to HIM. Bad choice, bd politics, bad leadership, bad decision-making... Bad ALL AROUND

by JHL 2008-04-02 09:36AM | 0 recs
Not illegitimate

Illigitimate would be counting all the votes from states that blew off the rules.

Obama being the nominee without MI and FL's primaries counting is regrettable and not ideal, but still legitimate.

I suggest not getting into stonewalling, because Clinton waited six whole weeks into the primary to start raising a ruckus about FL and MI getting re-votes.  The popular perception is that she waited until it would specifically pressure Obama into okaying whatever plan (aka "non-caucus") she hashed out.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Not illegitimate

so what if she waited? She has consistently said "COUNT ALL THE VOTES". And it would be an illegitimate nomination ESPECIALLY if BO gets to seat FL & MI AFTER he's nominated. What is he afraid of??? If he is so confident that NO MATTER WHAT happen from here on out he'll be the nominee, then let's get ALL 50 States input.

by JHL 2008-04-02 11:26AM | 0 recs
So what?

She would've been able to change things a lot more easily if she'd raised her voice before the primary.

Since she waited, it looks to everyone looking objectively as if it were a blatant power play that she's only bringing up because her campaign's in trouble.

Which is true.

Listen, you're trying to accuse Obama of doing something that Clinton was planning to do until it became evident that she was losing.  Aim your criticism at everyone that's done the thing that offends you, or admit your bias and be quiet about it.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 01:21PM | 0 recs
Thanks...

...for the "reprimand." Having looked at your name I realized I shouldn't have expected anything less.

by JHL 2008-04-02 04:10PM | 0 recs
My name?

What's wrong with the made-up word I use as my handle?

Ad hominem attacks don't advance your cause much.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 05:07PM | 0 recs
Attack?

I didn't attack anyone. I have tried to keep the discourse civil. You on the other hand... 'nuf said.

by JHL 2008-04-03 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: I will gladly support him

This is bunk.  Most states in most primary years don't end up getting a vote.  Repeat, most primary years the nominee is determined well before all of the states have voted.  That's why Michigan and Florida broke the rules in the first place.  

Also, to blame Obama for this only robs you of credibility.  It is farcical at best.  He didn't vote to change the dates.  He was one of ten candidates, including Hilary, who came to a unanimous agreement about what to do in response.  It was the people in Florida and not Obama who decided to nix a revote.  It was the courts in Michigan and not Obama who put the kaibash on a revote attempt.  Therefore your statement falls into the "utter hogwash" category.

You are wrong.  Fortunately, if you look around, you will find that the number of people as delusional and short sighted as you is really pretty small.  (Hell this comment section is evidence of that)  You will be replaced by new voters and crossovers.  It won't even be difficult to find enough of them.  

I don't know if your decision is one of childish scorn, a genuine lack of ability to perceive reality, insufficient mental facilities, or a need for education, but it makes no difference as you have chosen to become irrelevant.

Good.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 07:35AM | 0 recs
Re: I will gladly support him

It's just never occurred to you that people who are educated, and have been around for awhile and are, well, smart won't see things in that way that someone with your particular worldview will.

My only point in all of this is that Obama's legitimacy, as a Democratic candidate, is going to rest on his willingness to count all the votes. If there isn't a revote, then that means counting the votes in those states as they are. If he doesn't support that, then he won't be held in the esteem necessary to have a real chance at winning. He'll be the guy who won because he didn't count all the votes.

Clinton supporters are the heart and soul of the Democratic party. She's won the majority of Democratic votes. She's won the states that are essential for a Democratic to win the presidency. Obama isn't entitled to her votes in those states. And especially if it's perceived that he's blown off Florida and Michigan, then winning  other states becomes essential and he and his campaign have consistently insulted, as you did here, the supporters whose votes they are going to need to win.

it's a numbers game, and while the numbers to win the nomination favor Obama somewhat now, the numbers needed to win  in November favor Clinton heavily. Heavily. Did I say heavily? And those numbers must include the fact that twice as many Clinton supporters are telling pollsters they won't vote for Obama as Obama supporters saying they won't vote for Clinton. Clinton supporters are in big, important blue states. Obama supporters are in smaller, far more likely to go Republican states. And he's not showing any particular ability to beat McCain in those states. There's the problem he's got.

by Little Otter 2008-04-02 10:11AM | 0 recs
Obama should and will support

whatever decision the DNC, FL and MI agree upon.  If he refused to do that I could see grounds for indignation but you and I both know he's an intelligent man.

by GFORD 2008-04-02 10:40AM | 0 recs
Are you saying...

that Obama supporters aren't true democrats because that puzzles this space heater/box fan democrat (yes I would vote for my space heater and box fan before I would vote for a republican)

by Student Guy 2008-04-02 11:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I will gladly support him

The last sentence in your second paragraph:

"He'll be the guy who won because he didn't count all the votes."

That's the rub.  He DOES win even if he doesn't count them.  He will not have won BECAUSE he didn't count the votes.  If we have a contest you and I and there are 10 votes total to be cast.  If the first 6 that we count go to you then we needn't bother counting the rest.  You've won and if I claim that it's only because we didn't count the last four votes then I am blatantly incorrect.

Where you and I really disagree is that I think that it is obvious to most people and you think most will see it your way.   I will agree that we shouldn't take that gamble if it is not necessary.  I think that Obama should insist that they are seated at the convention, but that leads to another of our disagreements.  

The decision not to seat the delegates was not Barack Obama's.  The power to have them seated is not Barack's until he is the nominee.  Dr. Dean is not wrong for what he has been forced to do.  I repeat forced to do.  The assertion that the votes in either state were not tainted and were fair and should be counted as is is dishonesty of epic proportions.  Revotes have been nixed through events beyond the control of Barack Obama.  Dr. Dean warned the states ahead of time.  He offered them a chance to go back after they broke the rules.  He included all of the candidates in the subsequent agreement in reaction.  Hilary agreed.  In fact, her campaign helped to fashion the agreement that the DNC and Barack Obama have honored.  Dr. Dean has bent over backwards to be fair.  

I am not saying that to be a jerk.  I am saying it because, if you aren't over estimating the number of people who will see it your way and throw the election (and I think that you are), we need to reconcile these things.  I don't want to see a fissure in the party,  but I will not be made to feel blackmailed by sore losers either.  I know that's not a nice thing to say, but I am truly trying to account for your way of seeing this, so please understand that a whole lot of us feel the way that I do too.

If you truly want to find a way for us to all come together then let's try to find a way .  I am willing to admit that we Obama  supporters (myself included) aren't helping, but if you're going to insist on a revote then we are at an intractable impasse.   That ship has sailed.  It'd be against the law in Michigan at the moment and Florida's legislature and voting public have nixed the idea.

If you won't vote for Obama without a revote in Michigan and Florida and we cannot have a revote in either state then time spent on you is time better spent where it could be effective from the standpoint of someone still in the fight for a democratic president.  I wish it weren't the case.  I don't want you and the others to walk away, but the condition that you demand is one that cannot be met.  Do I misunderstand you?

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 12:39PM | 0 recs
Re: I will gladly support him

I meant he DOES win even if he DOES count them.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I will gladly support him

Oh, Obama can still lose and anyone who is saying he can't, has no idea what they're talking about. Obama is 200k votes ahead of her in the popular vote and has, I think, only 4 more delegates than she does - that is, counting Florida and Michigan.

If all the votes are counted, and he's still ahead at the convention, he will fair bettter with clinton supporters. But he still needs to deal forthrightly with his misogyny - and i don't see him having the moral center necessary to do that. If he doesn't apologize for his comments and his wife's comments, he's just out of luck.

I wouldn't vote for a Dem who characterized Obama's work in the Illinois Senate as "shoe shining". I also won't vote for a Dem who characterizes Hillary's work in foreign policy as "tea with ambassadors". Both comments are equally offensive.

by Little Otter 2008-04-02 11:41PM | 0 recs
Re: I will gladly support him

Illinois > Georgia

by nrioq 2008-04-02 08:32AM | 0 recs
Re: I will gladly support him

Hey, I'm sure the mothers of those who die in Iran, the husbands of women killed in Backalley Abortions, and the children living on the street due to foreclosure will be understanding about how you're vanity made them suffer. I mean we're all forgiving of Nader voters now right? And we think those voters who voted Bush because of Gay Marriage were all good too right, I mean we don't hold them accountable do we?

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-02 08:51AM | 0 recs
Re: I will gladly support him

"Tawana Brawley politics" wtf? Seriously, that's pretty damn close to race-baiting there bud, that's saying you won't vote for Hillary because you don't support sleeping your way to the top, or perhaps "Eva Peron" politics.

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-02 08:53AM | 0 recs
The Stakes

I don't care if it's Senator Obama or Senator Clinton. I don't care about crashing the gate, I don't care about my vote not counting. I just don't care.

If you check my posts at DailyKos and elsewhere, you know I'm a single-issue voter, really. Two, really - but no one's going to fix the deficit that's going to destroy us in 30 years XD - but one that I can vote on, that I can almost feel within my grasp.

And that is the Iraq War. I don't care about African-American rights before the Iraq War. I don't care about Women's Rights before the Iraq War.

I don't care about the 5,000 people who will lose their homes tomorrow or the 150,000 people who sleep under a bridge, who served already, before the Iraq War.

Nothing comes before the Iraq War for me.

500,000+ Civilians Have died.
4,000 of our brothers and sisters have died.
An entire generation of Arabs and Muslims have lost their fathers, their mothers and their siblings and will forever hold us responsible for what will likely go down in history as the first truly great atrocity of the 21st Century, 9/11 be damned.

3,000 people doesn't compare to an entire nation that doesn't even exist anymore.

And your rights, my rights, her rights, his rights just don't mean jack-diddly to me when someone won't even have the misfortune - the misfortune of being oppressed because they're six feet under.

500,000+ people are dead. And here we sit, arguing over food over our tables which are blessed nightly; over what piece of the pie we're going to get, when someone half way across the world won't be getting any pie; over whether or not one candidate bombs a country with more passion or intelligence....

If I woke up poor tomorrow, living under a bridge, I'd have more than they. And that's all it takes to know I'll vote for the Democratic Candidate this November.

by Sir Hadrian 2008-04-01 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The Stakes

Yup, the war is my number one issue too.

by Drewid 2008-04-01 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: The Stakes

To me it's the restoration of the Constitution.  I cannot abide the idea that these people are "fighting for our freedom" in Iraq while our government destroys that freedom here (habeas, wiretapping, retroactive immunity, politicizing the DOJ, etc.) To reinstate the Constitution we need a democrat in the White House.  Any democrat... just so long as they won't veto the efforts of our congressional majorities to make this country American again.

Without Habeas you have no right to be heard in court.  If you cannot be heard in court you cannot claim any of your other rights and liberties.

I will vote for the democratic nominee.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 06:19AM | 0 recs
Re: The Stakes
Great comments in this thread. I'd give some mojo, but it seems that I got "tased"... So, instead you have my compliments and an IOU for mojo if I get my status back. The Stakes are higher than ever...
by power of truth 2008-04-02 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: The Stakes

Thank you.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 12:00PM | 0 recs
Highly recced

I wish I could rec it multiple times, but sadly I can only give 1 rec/diary.

by Student Guy 2008-04-01 08:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Highly recced
Thank you, one is enough.
Glad I finally got it to work.
by Drewid 2008-04-01 08:32PM | 0 recs
that supreme court building stuck out

not to mention, if a GOP President occurs, he WILL pardon Bush and Cheney. We need a Dem to investigate those bastards and indite them when they are gone, not let them get away with it like Richard Nixon did.

by DiamondJay 2008-04-01 08:25PM | 0 recs
Neither candidate will

pursue this.  But we need a Dem in the White House - damn straight.

by Xanthe 2008-04-02 06:17AM | 0 recs
Re: that supreme court building stuck out

Ditto, but I think Obama would pardon them for unity sake just like Ford did to Nixon....

I think they need to be impeached and future presidents shown they can't do what Bush and Cheney have done and continue to do.  Democrats need to grow a spine on this one!

by gabbie 2008-04-02 07:22AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

F$#@%!!

$78,010?? oh hell no.

by amde 2008-04-01 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

yeah, we're all socialists now.  the difference is some of us admit it and are willing to pay for it and others...well, you know.

by the mollusk 2008-04-02 05:32AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

But what if I think our guy just does not have what it takes and I trust the other guy to actually get the job done? This is not some grudge I developed. This is a feeling I have had since the beginning despite the fact I said in 2004 our guy would make a run. This is a feeling that this guy has yet to respond to.

by RJEvans 2008-04-01 08:33PM | 0 recs
I don't care who it is

The dem will be better than Johnny Mac.

by Drewid 2008-04-01 08:35PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't care who it is

But you are not answering my concern. Should I ignore the way I feel? What if someone told you to jump off a bridge but you know deep down inside of you, that is not what you want to do.

by RJEvans 2008-04-01 08:38PM | 0 recs
Having a president McCain
is jumping off a bridge.
As far as I'm concerned.
by Drewid 2008-04-01 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't care who it is

I think both of them are going to disappoint me and really let me down. They're going to waffle, extend it to 16-20 months. Going to leave people there to protect KBR and all those contractors and those hired mercenaries who don't deserve our sacrifice.

I think that.

I think a lot of things and I know it doesn't matter what I think right now because a lot of people are going to die before anything good happens. January 20th is an age away to a man who serves 160 days in hell with 80 pounds or more of gear.

300 stretches to 600. 2 more tours of duty.

All I know is, if you stand for something, and I think I can trust Senator Clinton and Obama on this - then I take your word for it at least once. I'll pardon anything they do wrong in the primaries but once they get into office, if they disappoint me, I'll figure something else out.

I don't know. I'd reserve the "vote to make a stand" or don't vote to make a stand till 2012. I want to give the Democrats one last chance.

They disappointed me in 2006 and I seriously worked my ass off for Pederson in this state, to no avail and I worked my ass off as hard as I could.

Being this emotionally attached to politics and believing in things is a constant series of let downs. But every once in awhile, there's a gem.

Gotta vote. And I know voting for Senator McCain will accomplish nothing except the obvious. Another 2,000+ dead. Another 150,000 civilians gone.

by Sir Hadrian 2008-04-01 08:43PM | 0 recs
your feelings are wrong

I say this on part of my brother who would like to leave the army and Iraq

by CardBoard 2008-04-01 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: your feelings are wrong

How are my feelings wrong? You can't tell me my feelings are are wrong, these are my feelings of the candidates. I'm talking about the candidates here.

by RJEvans 2008-04-01 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: your feelings are wrong

If your are implying the McCain is better than Hillary or Obama your feeling are wrong

by CardBoard 2008-04-01 09:07PM | 0 recs
Re: your feelings are wrong

I am not going to say whether your feelings are right or wrong.  They are your feelings... yours.  The trouble is your vote or your decision to not to vote affect more than just you.  

There WILL be an election in November.  Given the last 8 years, I don't think it's hard to see that elections WILL directly affect all of our lives.  In fact, voting for Bush or Nader or not voting in 2000 and again in 2004 HAS not just affected but ended around a million lives ( a million!).  No matter what you choose, it will have an effect.  

You may wish that we had an FDR to vote for.  I certainly do.  You may have a VERY strong distaste for one or both of the democratic candidates.  Again, I certainly do.  You may not think that either of the 2 will do everything or even most of what is most important to you.  Me again.  But you have to know that this election is MUCH bigger than you or me.  

Neoconservatism must be repudiated at the ballot box this fall so that the GOP is forced to change direction if they're ever to win an election again.  Don't misunderstand me.  I hope that they never win another election, but most of all neoconservatism has got to become permanent history and it must happen now.  This means a lot to me as my children are one and a half and two and a half.  I want them to grow up with the same american liberties that I have enjoyed and the 230 years worth of americans before me have enjoyed.  Neoconservatism stands in stark opposition to liberty.  Unitary executive, removal of Habeas, politicizing the DOJ, warrantless spying, a SCOTUS with an agenda, the list goes on.

 It is for this reason that I call neoconservatism the greatest threat to Jeffersonian government in our nation's entire history... worse than the Redcoats... worse than Pearl Harbor... worse than terrorism.  It is for this reason (mostly my kids) that I ask you to please vote for the democratic nominee.  We need a democrat, any democrat, in the Oval Office so that we won't have to fight a veto pen in our efforts to reinstitute the Constitution with the help of our legislative majorities.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 06:47AM | 0 recs
Re: your feelings are wrong

One could ask what your feelings are based upon?  Chances are it's nothing more than the perceptions you've formed of McCain (and maybe Obama) from the slanted media coverage you've seen.  

IMHO, gut instincts are the worst thing to make a political decision based upon, because they are so easily manipulated by the campaigns involved.  

And honestly the media worship of McCain is astounding to me.  Every time I see him, he comes across as a prickly, unlikable old man with nothing of substance to say on any subject.  Every time I read an account of his political career which doesn't fellate him, he comes across as an egomaniac, whose one saving grace is he's so concerned with his own popularity he refuses to be a "team player" with the other Rethugs at times, and would happily sell them all down a river if he thought it were advantageous.  

I honestly don't get it, and I assume that the glow will come off as there is more attention paid on the campaign trail - just as the glow came off Guiliani.

by telephasic 2008-04-02 07:56AM | 0 recs
Re: I don't care who it is

Quit whining and do/vote for who you want to vote for whether you vote based on your "feelings" or based on your "brains"...its your vote.  Vote for how you best can live with yourself and your vote.

by gabbie 2008-04-02 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

If you can rationally explain how McCain will "get the job done," then perhaps someone could answer your question.  But since it is just about impossible for a progressive to make that argument -- you know, because McCain's values are completely out of step with progressive values -- it's sort of hard to engage you.  

Look, you don't like Obama.  I get it.  You apparently have some vague warm fuzzy feelings about McCain.  Again, fine.  But on issues ranging from the courts, to the war, to the economy, to healthcare McCain is an absolute disaster.  In other words, he's not up for "getting the job done" in any of those areas.  Given that, I fail to see how you could possibly prefer him to either Democrat.    

by HSTruman 2008-04-02 05:26AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

i have the same feeling but what can i do if hillary loses. you dont trust "O" but you dont trust Mc. Its the lesser of two evils. it sucks especially since its so close between the candidates. but when somebody loses someone else has to be the winner. and thats what it comes down to.

by amde 2008-04-01 08:45PM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

You have to make your voice heard. A loss is only a loss if you let it stand.

You begin again. You make certain your wing of the party isn't destroyed by the DFA wing.

We as Democrats must realize we are an amalgamation of so many different strokes, that it's no wonder we offend and splinter so often that we lose elections.

We can really trace this back to the Dixiecrat and Silent Majority splinter in the 60s. Since then, we've had so many different types of activism and care.

And if the Blue Collar Majority feels it's not getting represented, you do have the choice of not voting for someone you find distasteful.

Don't let my feelings get in the way of yours. I'm  not suffering to the point of death.

I feel there are other ways though. Whereas I thought John Kerry was rather establishment in 2004, I still voted for him, though it didn't matter in my leans-red like a bitch state of Arizona.

I instead just got more involved in the community, made certain I wrote letters, got involved in blogging and made sure I got my word in in every conversation possible.

Sometimes the lesser of two evils is good, sometimes there's a third way - not voting. You've got to balance that. You may even want to try a different approach and go with a euphemism - "for the greater good".

At the moment, I'm ecstatic about Senator Obama and mildly pleased with Senator Clinton. In November, even if Senator Clinton wins on Super-Delegates, I'll vote for her because I believe the greater good comes from it. I hope we pick up seats, I hope we get some decent judges back into this country...

and if anything, I hope we, just for awhile, don't look like a pathetic fucking mess on the world stage.

But I totally respect anyone's idea to not vote for Senator Obama. This is a democracy and while I will always say - think of the men and women in Iraq - I will still call you a brother or sister in arms when all's said and done.

I've said some harsh things in public, but mostly private. At the end of the day, though - we go back to the drawing board. Or something :P.

by Sir Hadrian 2008-04-01 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

I'm just outside of Phoenix.  I am also excited about BO, but would vote for Hilary if she got the nomination.  

We're slowly becoming more purple that red in this state.  I just wish that we could give it a good shove to the left.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

Think of it this way...why are u voting for Hillary?  Then vote for which candidate is the closest to her on the things you care about.

Or, think of it as if you want Hillary to have a future in politics i.e. senate majority leader she can only be that if there is a Democratic President not if McCain is the president...

Also, McCain would set women back 20+ years bc his entire focus will be on the war and nothing domestic, which is IMO what women mostly care about, the stuff at home: education, child care, jobs, health insurance...Etc.  John McCain will not focus on that stuff.  Hillary will and Barack will...

For Hillary to succeed in her political/senate career will require a Democratic President.  Perhaps that will help you decide who to vote for if Hillary doesn't get the nomination.

by gabbie 2008-04-02 07:28AM | 0 recs
That's understandable.

We choose a candidate to support because we think they are the best one to do the job.  That's why I chose Biden.

After Biden dropped out, I took a look at the remaining candidates.  I liked Edwards but it was already obvious he was running distant third and I didn't want to have to go through yet another choice.

Having watched the early debates I had a lot of respect for Clinton.  I didn't know too much about Obama, the new guy, so I decided to watch the videos of his speeches, check out his bio and what he did before he went into politics.  I also watched a 45 minute speech by Michelle Obama.  After all of this I decided he had something special.  Plus the fact that my grandson, a first time voter, was supporting Obama.

I wavered around for awhile but finally settled on Obama...partly because of the lack of mandates in his healthcare plan.  It was/is my opinion that mandates requiring people to purchase something from a private vendor would be seized upon in the GE by the republicans as socialism.  Let's face it, neither candidate is advocating universal healthcare...they're advocating universal health insurance.

As the campaigns progressed I became more and more impressed with Obama and not sorry I made the decision.  I was so disappointed that Clinton's campaign chose to push her in a direction that didn't come naturally to her.  She is being marketed as Rambo and pushed to become more hardhitting and negative.  When she drops that pretence and acts like herself I remember why I initially liked her.

My point, if I have one, is you should watch the Obama speeches, check out his website, read everything you can about him.  I think you will be pleasantly surprised how likable he is and what a good fit he is for President at this time.

by GFORD 2008-04-02 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

Great post!

by Mostly 2008-04-01 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

Amen.

by haremoor 2008-04-01 09:42PM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

I wish I could push a super duper Recommend button with exclamation points on it for this diary.

by sclminc 2008-04-01 11:43PM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

I voted for Edwards in my State's Primary. I will vote for the Democrat in November.

It must ABSOLUTELY gall both Clinton and Obama to see some of their 'supporters' threatening to vote for McCain. You can damn well bet your last dollar that NEITHER of them support that ridiculous action....especially if done in their names! They will be shocked and dismayed and disgusted to have any of their 'supporters' vote for the Republican in November.

I guarantee that whoever gets the nod, the other will IMMEDIATELY throw their support behind the nominee/winner (along with Edwards and Gore and all other true Democrats). They will also ask their supporters to join them in doing so. Why? Because THEY ARE DEMOCRATS!

It will either be Hillary supporting Obama or Obama supporting Hillary come November. Anyone who truly supports either candidate here and now will stick with them in November and vote Democratic.

To say otherwise is asinine. At best.

by Kysen 2008-04-01 09:57PM | 0 recs
Right on!

Let's all come together and repeat after me...

"we have two awesome candidates"
"we have two awesome candidates"

one more time, with feeling

"we have two awesome candidates"

Stop the infighting and focus on getting a democrat, whichever one of the two remaining awesome candidates it might be, elected this Fall.

by toom 2008-04-02 01:57AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons

I never really believed that many Democrats would vote for McCain, or sit out, or vote Nader, or write-in someone.  Most of the people advocating that are now gone from mydd.  True Democrats can look past the superficial differences between Clinton and Obama and see they agree on virtually all the major issues.  They disagree strongly with McCain on all the major issues.

Every presidential election has candidates who don't make it to the general.  There will always be some bitterness, some hurt, and some feelings that the best candidate lost the primary.  But true progressives would never help the Republican just to stick it to the Dem nominee.

Great diary.

by Skaje 2008-04-02 02:00AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support

Thank you for the graphic reminder of why we are here.

by NeciVelez 2008-04-02 03:18AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

http://ivaw.org/

or an organization I belong to
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/

every day...every way...Stop McCain..

by nogo war 2008-04-02 04:48AM | 0 recs
Yes.

We've been suffering the Bush "administration" now for seven long years and counting. I can't wait to pull the lever for a Democrat to finally draw a line under the last years. It mystifies me how someone can call themselves a Democrat and not be filled to the gills with the exact same sentiment.

by MBNYC 2008-04-02 05:25AM | 0 recs
by the mollusk 2008-04-02 05:48AM | 0 recs
I posted this in its own diary...

...but this is a better thread.

___

Are you guys ready? Let's roll.

--Todd Beamer, passenger of United Flight 93, American Hero

I'm tired.  So tired.  I've been blogging here for a couple of weeks now, and I get discouraged at all the infighting and recrimination between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters.  When I went on vacation for a few days last week, however, I didn't see any of that from people.  

There were folks that were Clinton supporters and were suspicious of Obama, there were Obama supporters who were angry with what they saw as Clinton's dirty tricks, but all of them realize that we're at a critical juncture, and we can't allow ourselves to get distracted from the real goal.

The reason I quote Todd Beamer, one of the people aboard United 93 who pushed away the terror of impending death and saved countless others by not remaining a sheep, not remaining silent and pliant, is because, although our situation does not match the gravity of that for which his immortal words were spoken, we are nonetheless in a situation where we have a lot of opportunity to do good for something greater than ourselves.

George Bush was supposed to be a custodian president.  Given the reins of a flush economy, he could have just served out a term or two with relatively little flourish.  He was already intending to go into Iraq, but the case would've been a hard sell to even a Republican congress had 9/11 not fallen into his lap as the perfect lever to con us into a brutal and unnecessary war.

Because of this, we have spent nearly $508 billion in the Iraq misadventure and lost the lives of 4011 American soldiers and nearly 1.2 million Iraqis.  Thousands if not millions more people are facing life with limited mobility or dexterity or mental capacity due to heinous wounds suffered in the line of duty.  145 of our soldiers have taken their own lives rather than continue with their demons.

http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/

When I was in junior high, a bully, pumped on steroids, sucker punched me and knocked my glasses down the hall.  I got up and grabbed the nearest person that could've been the bully and took him down, only realizing my mistake after I'd already hurt them.  To my credit, I backed off when I realized my mistake.  George Bush would have beaten that innocent bystander to death while the real culprit walked off with a smirk on his face.

Why am I telling you these things?  Is it a long and tasteless April Fool's joke?  No.  I'm telling you these things because John McCain wants to further tarnish the sacrifice of Todd Beamer and his compatriots.  He would turn his eye to Iran, another country that was not behind 9/11, and extend the cycle of war for another generation.  He still does not see the difference between Sunni and Shia, or understand the 1400-year-old rift in religious dynasty that has split the middle east into countless wars.

Should we still be embroiled in Iraq when this happens, John McCain, who so bravely fought in one long war with a draft, may turn to Selective Service to supplement our already-cracking military.  There has been some reporting that the machinery for instituting the draft was spooled up in 2005.  An international coalition in this fool's errand seems unlikely at best; this might be the only way such a war would be possible.

John McCain cares little for the economy.  He and his family and his friends have done fine under the Bush economic policies of borrow-and-spend.  Why would he need to change?  Bush saw no need to take up the American people on our offer of service and sacrifice after 9/11, instead telling us to go on vacation, to go to the mall.  There is no "wartime economy," just an economy where more and more power gets siphoned off to corporate interests as plunderers try to make off with as much loot as they can before someone rational gets back into office and realizes that maybe, just maybe, putting the lobbyists in control of government policy regulation might result in problems down the road... and our home owners now suffer forclosures at thousands per day. Our gas prices reach greater levels than ever before. It costs more just to feed families because the cost of freight has gone up.  

All this is okay with John McCain.  Somebody else will have a look at it.  Lobbyists have been pretty good to him, despite their differences.  They even serve on his campaign, they can't be that bad, right?  The free market will sort everything out, anyway.  But at what cost to normal Americans like you and me?

John McCain is a hero himself, but he dishonors the sacrifices of Todd Beamer, of his fellows on United 93, of the firefighters that ran into collapsing skyscrapers just to save another life, of our soldiers that have given their lives or their limbs in the service of both an unjust war in Iraq and a nigh-forgotten just war in Afghanistan.  These men and women are heroes, too.  

John McCain and those like him starve the government when it suits their purposes, just to see how long they can go before fixing a bridge, in hopes that it won't collapse before someone else is in office.  The real heroes risked their lives to save a busload of children.

John McCain and those like him support a disaster institution that still has not provided a proper reckoning or repair of the worst natural disaster to strike our shores in decades.  The real heroes were those who went out to save people from the roofs of houses, and those who opened their own houses to refugees.

John McCain and those like him support new Supreme Court Justices with comparative records as thin as their commitment to the honest and neutral interpretation of the law.  Just one more extreme conservative justice to replace 88-year-old Justice Stevens, and women will start losing control over their own bodies and methods we deem as torture (as John McCain did once) or infiltration of our rights to privacy will become perfectly fine.  The real heroes were the members of the Justice Department who refused to politicize their jobs, and lost them as a result.

Many think that John McCain is somehow different from George Bush, that he is a maverick... but those days are long behind him.  Friedrich Nietzsche once wrote:

Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.

John McCain once could have been a great president, but he stared into the abyss too long.  He became the monster he fought when he quietly stood by and let Karl Rove and George W. Bush smear his adopted daughter Bridget, only 8 years old at the time.  He went back to these people for help.  He is owned by them.

His lesson is our lesson.  We cannot remain divided.  For years we have fought the Republicans.  Some of the most successful Democrats have won by emulating them.  We must be wary of losing our soul the way John McCain has.  

We get one shot at this every four years.  Our choices might end up not being perfect, might not be everyone's ideal, but we owe it to all the heroes that came before us not to let their sacrifices be squandered for personal gain of a cabal of wealthy men suckling from Haliburton, Airbus, or the Carlyle Group.  

Don't be a sheep.  Don't let neocons tell us what to think about our candidates.  Don't let fear win.  We need to stop John McCain, and we need as much help as we can get.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 05:59AM | 0 recs
Great diary
I wish we could just leave the pictures up with the diary title as a permanent part of every Democratic blog on the web.
People need to be reminded of what we've been dealing with the last 7 years.
THINK.
by skohayes 2008-04-02 06:12AM | 0 recs
Amen!!!!

by beachmom 2008-04-02 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

Not only beat me to it, but executed it in a way that I would have never come close to. Awesome post

by hotran 2008-04-02 06:31AM | 0 recs
A Reason NOT to support the demo nominee

is that our elections have frequently been bogus, and over run by republicans.

Our media is nothing more than the propaganda machine of the wealthy.

A candidate who became the nominee because of unethical tactics will not get my vote.  Ever.

Sorry, Obambi.  Go fuck yoursef.

by earthoat 2008-04-02 06:33AM | 0 recs
Re: A Reason NOT to support the demo nominee

Nothing will show those Repubs what for like letting them win!

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-02 08:56AM | 0 recs
Re: A Reason NOT to support the demo nominee

earthoat:  You often make some really good comments; but then you get yourself trolled or hid by adding in a nasty at the end.

by cameoanne 2008-04-04 05:55AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

i think you're posting this diary on the wrong website.

by campskunk 2008-04-02 06:38AM | 0 recs
O RLY?

Seems to me that both sites need this message

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/20080326democrats1.gif">
by sharpfork 2008-04-02 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

This is a unity diary.  Put this crap somewhere else.  

If you do this here, then someone has to point out to you that Obama supporters feel this way because giving Hilary the nomination would mean SDs overturning the results of the state by state voting whereas Clinton supporters can't make the same claim so there would be reason for the backlash.  Clinton supporters will then have to respond by pretending like sticking with the rules and the agreement that her campaign helped to create is unfair.  Next thing you know, we're on the path to McSame and more war, economic destruction, more loss of civil liberties, etc.  

The voting has gone how it has gone. The campaigns have done what they've done to court votes.  The delegates have gone to whom they've gone to.  We will have our nominee soon enough.  Attitude and anger won't change it.  Regardless, the nominee WILL be a democrat regardless of whether it's the one you prefer.

You can accuse those around you of inappropriate, childish, or unwise behavior all you want.  Until your behavior (such as your comments) doesn't implicate you in the same, your comments won't hold water.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 07:21AM | 0 recs
No.

Waiting for there to only be one candidate for there to be calls to unity would be even more disingenuous.  

Most supporters of both sides want us to come together, no matter who it's for.

Would you rather see yet another Bosnia or Wright hatchet job diary?  What point would that serve?

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: No.

You've missed my point entirely.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 07:41AM | 0 recs
Er, sorry

Distracted.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 07:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Er, sorry

I understand.  My 2 crumb snatchers have evidently decided that today is rampage day.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 08:03AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

This is where we are, so this is where the message goes. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' blog on which to post this message. The calls for unity are increasing at dKos, as well. Whether the majority of people there heed the message or continue their petulance is up to them.

But here, where the community is smaller, we really do have the ability to change the tone and elevate the discourse.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-04-02 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

Did you miss the bit that said cross posted at dailykos?

by Drewid 2008-04-02 10:25AM | 0 recs
Support the Dem nominee whoever it is.

Great positive diary!  Rec'd!

by NewOaklandDem 2008-04-02 07:47AM | 0 recs
McCain WILL kill Roe

Just one more justice will flip Roe vs. Wade and you can bet McCain (who has ALWAYS been pro-life) will appoint a justice to overturn it.

America, listen up!  JOHN MCCAIN WILL OVERTURN ROE vs. WADE

by jkfp2004 2008-04-02 08:16AM | 0 recs
Re: McCain WILL kill Roe

I think Obama will as well and will regard it as one of post-partisan triumphs. Don't even try and scare me with that one. Obama voted present and then lied about his reasons for doing so. He has no credibility on the subject whatsoever.

by Little Otter 2008-04-02 08:30AM | 0 recs
Now you're lying

Nobody gets a 100% from Planned Parenthood by being pro-life.

Illustrate exactly how he lied and managed to fool the one organization most interested in reproductive rights in the country, and we'll discuss the issue.  You CAN NOT spread that sort of misinformation and expect to be unchecked.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 08:58AM | 0 recs
Educate yourself

During Senator Obama's 2004 senate campaign, the Illinois NOW PAC did not recommend the endorsement of Obama for U.S. Senate because he refused to stand up for a woman's right to choose and repeatedly voted `present' on important legislation.

As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted `present' on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills.  In each case, the right vote was clear, but Senator Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

"When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass," said Grabenhofer. "He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now."

illinoisnow.org

by KnowVox 2008-04-02 11:52AM | 0 recs
Oh my

The National Organization for Women prefers Clinton over Obama.  Shocking.

Snark aside, I'll take the word of the foremost advocate of reproductive rights in the country, who was actively working on the legislation, over the state chapter of a non-specialized women's advocacy group.

It was the New York chapter of NOW that said this about Ted Kennedy when he endorsed Obama:

Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal. Senator Kennedy's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's opponent in the Democratic presidential primary campaign has really hit women hard. Women have forgiven Kennedy, stuck up for him, stood by him, hushed the fact that he was late in his support of Title IX, the ERA, the Family Leave and Medical Act to name a few. Women have buried their anger that his support for the compromises in No Child Left Behind and the Medicare bogus drug benefit brought us the passage of these flawed bills. We have thanked him for his ardent support of many civil rights bills, BUT women are always waiting in the wings.

"And now the greatest betrayal! We are repaid with his abandonment! He's picked the new guy over us. He's joined the list of progressive white men who can't or won't handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton (they will of course say they support a woman president, just not "this" one). `They' are Howard Dean and Jim Dean (Yup! That's Howard's brother) who run DFA (that's the group and list from the Dean campaign that we women helped start and grow). They are Alternet, Progressive Democrats of America, democrats.com, Kucinich lovers and all the other groups that take women's money, say they'll do feminist and women's rights issues one of these days, and conveniently forget to mention women and children when they talk about poverty or human needs or America's future or whatever.

"This latest move by Kennedy, is so telling about the status of and respect for women's rights, women's voices, women's equality, women's authority and our ability - indeed, our obligation - to promote and earn and deserve and elect, unabashedly, a President that is the first woman after centuries of men who `know what's best for us.'"

Kinda makes "Judas" look kinda tame in comparison.

This was such an outragious outpouring of ill-aimed anger that the national umbrella chapter said this:

The National Organization for Women has enormous respect and admiration for Sen. Edward Kennedy (D- Mass.). For decades Sen. Kennedy has been a friend of NOW, and a leader and fighter for women's civil and reproductive rights, and his record shows that.

Though the National Organization for Women Political Action Committee has proudly endorsed Sen. Hillary Clinton for president, we respect Sen. Kennedy's endorsement. We continue to encourage women everywhere to express their opinions and exercise their right to vote.

In short, while I heartily respect what NOW has been able to do since it was founded, I don't find the condemnation of one chapter to be particularly damning for Obama, especially when they knew that Clinton was going to be running.  Their agenda was showing.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 01:05PM | 0 recs
Snark aside

I'll take the word of the National Organization For Women (NOW) in Obama's home state who attempted to directly work with him on reproductive rights and found his actions to be evasive at best and lacking leadership. They were DIRECTLY involved in this legislation, and had a ringside seat.

I also agree with NOW in their assessment of Ted Kennedy, who chose to betray his constituents by announcing he wouldn't support Hillary Clinton, their OVERWHELMING presidental choice.

In short, I heartily respect what NOW has been able to do since it was founded -- protecting the rights of women nation wide. Their agenda IS showing, and I heartily approve.

by KnowVox 2008-04-02 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Snark aside

So, you agree with NOW for calling Kennedy a "betrayer" for endorsing Obama over Clinton, their "OVERWHELMING presidential choice," ten months before the presidential election?  Or are you talking about the primary, and if so, are we back to the specious argument that you attributed to Obama that even already-aligned superdelegates should go with their constituencies?

How do you even know she is their overwelming presidential choice?  I'd like to see your time machine, friend.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Snark aside

Ted Kennedy is a delegate to the Democratic convention, and democrats in the state of MA overwhelming voted for Clinton. No one needs a time machine to see that he's obviously betraying his constituients by voting AGAINST their preferred candidate.

by KnowVox 2008-04-02 03:09PM | 0 recs
STOP IT

Everyone-
If we ever hope to raise the level of discourse around here, we need to stop making assertions like this:
"Obama voted present and then lied about his reasons for doing so. He has no credibility on the subject whatsoever."

When the only source I know one could cite to back up such an assertion has clearly been refuted: http://mediamatters.org/items/2007121400 04

"We at Planned Parenthood view those as leadership votes," Pam Sutherland, the president and CEO of the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council, told ABC News. "We worked with him specifically on his strategy. The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time ... because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats."

by sharpfork 2008-04-02 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: 100% NOT TRUE

From IllinoisNow.org:

To be clear, voting "present" on those bills was a strategy that IL NOW did not support. At that time, we made it clear to the legislators that we disagreed with the strategy. We wanted legislators to take a stand against the harmful anti-choice bills being brought to the floor of the Illinois State Senate.

Voting "present" does not demonstrate leadership and does not send the clarion signal that one is unwavering in their support of a woman's right to choose. IL NOW knew that those bills were unacceptable to women. Except for these present votes, Senator Obama's record on choice has been excellent, but he has not taken leadership on the issue at the same level that Hillary has.

Ms. Brett asserts that the strategy to vote "present" was devised to give political cover to legislators in conservative districts. State Senator Barack Obama did not represent a conservative district and he could have voted "no" with little negative consequence in his district.

by KnowVox 2008-04-02 11:56AM | 0 recs
Come on.

NOW's loyalty to Clinton is admirable, but do you really think that they're greater authorities on reproductive rights than Planned Parenthood?

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 01:08PM | 0 recs
No, you come on

Illinois NOW worked directly with Obama on reproductive rights legislation in his home state. They were right there to evaulate his motives and effectiveness, firsthand. They chose to endorse Clinton, and it's easy to see why.

by KnowVox 2008-04-02 01:21PM | 0 recs
Yes.

It's easy to see why the National Organization for Women endorsed the first viable Democratic female candidate for President.  Very true.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 01:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Yes.

And it's easy to see why the Illinois NOW, who worked directly with Obama on abortion legislation in his home state, are NOT supporting him based on the positions he took.

by KnowVox 2008-04-02 03:11PM | 0 recs
Its easy to see how WOMEN who often have more

common sense than MEN, (I say that as a man) support the female Dem. candidate that stands for an end to healthcare TERROR in the US, not the candidate that has pledged to INCREASE MILITARY SPENDING, and who purports to be helping everybody on healthcare but in reality is just rearranging deck chairs so that those who get pushed off are a bit less visible (in statistics of 'uninsured')

Has anyone here watched Elizabeth Edwards endorse Hillary's health plan this morning?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/ 23919149#23919149

by architek 2008-04-02 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain WILL kill Roe

Oh come on. That's just garbage. Go read what the president of NARAL said. I can't believe you are that ignorant of this fact. This is one of the most important issues to me because it is up for grabs in this election. You can have reservations about Barack for whatever reasons you like, but don't spread blatant lies. Please.

by cecilybecily 2008-04-02 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: McCain WILL kill Roe

Go read what the National Organization For Women in Obama's homestate said:


"When we needed someone to take a stand, Senator Obama took a pass. He wasn't there for us then and we don't expect him to be now."

by KnowVox 2008-04-02 12:00PM | 0 recs
Right

You needn't post the text from the pro-Clinton site again and again.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 01:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Right

You needn't attack the National Organization For Women again and again. They know the issues that face women, and they choose to endorse Clinton.

by KnowVox 2008-04-02 01:25PM | 0 recs
Attack?

Are you crazy?  I said that they did good things, but that they might not be the last word in a few areas, and this particular one.

I also suggested that sometimes their chapters don't always represent the whole of the organization.

Persecution complex?

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 01:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Right

Yes, I agree, but to dismiss Obama's 100% rating with planned parenthood is just disingenous. Anyone thinking Obama would appoint pro-life justices is just kidding themselves. Anyone who thinks McCain would be better on reproductive rights than eith candidate is just plain deluded.

by Drewid 2008-04-02 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Right

No one is dismissing Obama's rating with Planned Parenthood. But given his proclivity to vote "present" in the Illinois legislature on reproductive freedom issues, many women don't want to take a chance that he'll appoint justices who will do the same.

by KnowVox 2008-04-02 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Right

Well, we're kinda off topic, because this is more about any dem candidate vs. McSame, and anyone who thinks McSame is better than Obama on reproductive rights is seriously divorced from reality.

by Drewid 2008-04-02 04:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Right

And anyone who doesn't think that Clinton is better than Obama on reproductive rights is "seriously divorced from reality." Voting "Present" is not voting "Aye."

by KnowVox 2008-04-02 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Right

Sorry, gotta call bullshit on this:

"No one is dismissing Obama's rating with Planned Parenthood. "

That's what most of this thread has been about.  It all started with a statement that McSame would overturn Roe.  Then came the attacks on Obama as a choice candidate.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 04:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Right

Pointing out the truth about his "present" votes on women's reproductive rights is NOT an attack.

by KnowVox 2008-04-02 06:37PM | 0 recs
Re: McCain WILL kill Roe

Yes, but as I am from Illinois, and have read about those votes from key players in the pro-choice movement here, the "Present" votes were part of a strategy laid out by leaders of the Illinois pro-choice movement . I wish I was computer savvy enough to post a link, but you can easily google the topic and find out exactly why Obama voted "present". Google Planned Parenthood Chicago president Steve Trombley and Planned Parenthood Illinois president Pam Sutherland on this issue. It was a strategy to defend pro-choice dems in Illinois. Planned Parenthood contacted Barack because he was a key player in Illinois. Voting "present" is a way to vote in opposition of a proposed bill without letting that vote be used against you in future elections. Their hope was that fellow dems would follow suit and the anti-choice bill would not pass.

by cecilybecily 2008-04-03 01:16AM | 0 recs
Re: McCain WILL kill Roe

It looks like Obama listened to Planned Parenthood Chicago and Planned Parenthood Illinois instead who urged him to vote "Present" as part of their strategy. Do you think Planned Parenthood is anti-choice? Do you think Planned Parenthood advocates electing conservative judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade?

by cecilybecily 2008-04-03 01:20AM | 0 recs
This is the diary that we needed

Fantastic diary!  Pictures really do say a million words.  This is one of the most important elections in our lifetime.  For about a week, I was in a "I'll never vote for Clinton" mindset.  I feel guilty about it now.  I will vote for whoever wins the nomination because what we need now is a Democrat.  Period.

by nrioq 2008-04-02 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons

If those things are more important, then Obama needs to start campaigning actively for Florida and Michigan's delegates to counted as currently apportioned. Because without that action on his part, then no one is going to take seriously that he's interested in making the world a better place.

Obama and his supporters have spent a lot of this campaign engaging in both racist and misogynist rhetoric. To tell the recipients of that thuggery that they must look the other way because other things are more important misses the point that Obama isn't entitled to anyone's vote because of mistakes Bush made. If he wants me to vote FOR him, then he has to earn that and he's at a deficit right now, very similar to the one that Republican candidates traditionally hold in my esteem.

Obama made the mess in the Democratic party. He can clean it up. If he does, he can win. If he doesn't, he'll lose. It's that simple. But you don't get to demand the people who he has repeatedly insulted do his work for him.

by Little Otter 2008-04-02 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons

And I take that you think if Hillary is the nominee she pretty much has to apologize for her campaigns habitual race-baiting, or is that just on Barack? Seriously, dude if Obama's campaign is misogynist than Hillary's war room holds Klaverns.

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-02 08:59AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons

Not a shade of race baiting and you know it. If Clinton wanted to race bait, she'd be running Jeremiah Wright videos on Pennsylvania tv right and destroying Obama in the polls. Or she would have released those videos ages ago.

This is kind of low life rhetoric that makes it impossbile for Obama to get Clinton supporters to the polls. You're gonna accuse Clinton of being racist on obama's behalf? Fine, that just makes it even less likely that I'll vote for him.

Remember, Obama won red states. Clinton doesn't need his supporters in the numbers that he needs hers - and yet she has been for more gracious than he and his supporters have been to her and her supporters. You have neither equal cause for anger, nor equal ability to threaten. There's the problem Obama has - and it's a reason to support Clinton over him.

by Little Otter 2008-04-02 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons
Most Hilary supporters have already decided to vote for the democratic nominee no matter which gets it. Obama supporters have done the same. You are in the minority. It is a shrinking minority. Stop flattering yourself. What you have chosen is to become irrelevant by tipping your hand. Your candidate is likely to lose the nomination. You've declared that you won't be on our side anymore after that. You've said goodbye and yet you stand on this side of the door and pout as if you're going to somehow blackmail us all into changing our minds if you just stomp your feet one more time. We're democrats. We will vote accordingly in the election. Please join us. If you won't that's fine, but stop flattering yourself that your at the vanguard of some movement to really show us terrible democrats for not seeing it the same as you. I suggest that you either fill out an application for dictator of some third world country or learn to accept that in a democracy sometimes the majority doesn't see it the same as you. Sometimes the voting doesn't go your way. Deal with it.
by lockewasright 2008-04-02 10:07AM | 0 recs
Hillary is not race baiting...

If anyone has been repeatedly bringing up race issues, its Obama.

Farraro stated (accurately) that a lot of people are giving Obama SLACK, and being far more polite to him than they would with someone who was not black ON THE ISSUES which is allowing Obama to EVADE DISCUSSING THEM..

Obama's campaign is trying to drown out those requesting more specifics on his platform with STATIC OF EVERY POSSIBLE KIND in order to WASTE PRECIOUS TIME and preserve his supposed frontrunner status, which he knows wont hold up long under serious scrutiny..

by architek 2008-04-02 03:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is not race baiting...

Huh?  What are you talking about?  Your comment doesn't seem to have anything to do with mine.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 04:49PM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons

Also why would he campaign for Michigan to be seated as is? That would be retarded, you might have a cqase for him to argue that for Florida in the name of Unity, but doing it for Michigan would be stupid (maybe if he was given the uncommitteds there).

by Socraticsilence 2008-04-02 09:00AM | 0 recs
Everyone wants that

Everyone wants MI and FL seated at the convention; they will be.

Your perception of racist and mysogynistic rhetoric is extremely exaggerated.  Even if they're not, then you're also strategically not noticing the misbehavior of Team Clinton.

Takes two to tango, and any mess Obama's made, he's had a lot of help from Clinton with.

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons

You're just determined to be the least credible commenter anywhere in the www, aren't you?

This is a unity diary.  Take your unsubstantiated hate elsewhere.  Your candidate is going to lose.  It won't be the last time that happens if you stay involved with politics.  That does not excuse the spreading of falsehoods and vitriolic tantrums especially when the target is from your own party.

No doubt your response will demonstrate exactly my point.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 09:57AM | 0 recs
Unity, huh?
Good luck with that. Unsubstantiated hate? Falsehoods? Vitriolic tantrums?
And you wonder why Clinton supporters are angry.
Let's all have UNITY! Oh, happy day!
by georgiast 2008-04-02 11:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Unity, huh?

Saw it.  Called it.  Nothing wrong with that.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 11:34AM | 0 recs
Since you ignore the facts

and will not be swayed by logic or reason, I have to wonder.  

Will you pull the D lever in November or not?  What if you couldn't read the name next to the lever and weren't sure which D candidate was on the ticket?

Can you look at the pictures posted in this diary and say to yourself that you might vote for more of the same?

by GFORD 2008-04-02 11:13AM | 0 recs
Re: A few reasons to support the Dem nominee whoev

But all of that is trumped by the fact that posters on blogs supporting Hillary have hurt my feelings.  Sorry.

by Drummond 2008-04-02 10:51AM | 0 recs
Not Obama

This is a very inaccurate and misleading diary. Obama's position on Iraq is the same as McCain's, according to Obama's advisors. McCain is not a problem when it comes to global warming. There are some differences when it comes to domestic issues but McCain or Hillary are far superior when it comes to national security and foreign relations.

The reasons not to support Obama are myriad. The reasons to support McCain over Obama are many. If it comes down to Obama, millions of Democrats, about a third of the party, will either stay home, write in Hillary or vote for McCain. Whatever they do, McCain will win.

Hillary is the only choice if you want to have a Democrat in the White House on January 20, 2009. Obama is the biggest mistake since Dukakis. Nominate Barack and you shoot yourself in both feet, put them in your mouth, and roll downhill.

by Nobama 2008-04-02 11:29AM | 0 recs
Boooo

Do you really believe the words you actually took time to write. Either, any, ANY dem will be better than McSame on ALL issues.

by Drewid 2008-04-02 11:32AM | 0 recs
Speaking of inaccurate and misleading...

Care to list all of the reasons to vote McCain over Obama, citing non-right-wing news sources to back them up?

by Dracomicron 2008-04-02 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Obama

"McCain is not a problem when it comes to global warming"

Unfortunately, that is not true at all.  I just spend the last three months researching congressional action on global warming, and I can GUARANTEE you, McCain's global warming bills were by far the weakest and least likely to be implemented.  They were the perfect bills for the oil and gas companies because it was clear that the McCain-Lieberman bill would have the least impact (if any).

If you would like, I can gladly e-mail you my research paper showing you that.

by jkfp2004 2008-04-02 11:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Not Obama

The reasons to support McCain over Obama are many.

Are you completely out of your mind?

by sricki 2008-04-02 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Obama

Your threats will not work. Vote Hillary or else! Obama will be better than McCain because he is a dem, also has a goal of troop removal, and will work with a democratic congress, meaning he will not veto! Plus, he will not elect a conservative judge to the Supreme Court, thus overturning Roe v. Wade.

You clearly have missed the whole point of the diary. We are calling for unity because of something greater than us. We are democrats and have been democrats for very important reasons. Republicans stick to Republican platforms, and those are platforms I staunchly oppose. You are so free to make your own choice, but I beg of you to think of countless others who will suffer with a Repub president. Please don't take away my right to choose, and please don't send my good buddy Josh to Iraq for 100 years.

by cecilybecily 2008-04-02 12:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Not Obama

I was about to unhide your comment until I read that ridiculous second paragraph.

by Kobi 2008-04-02 06:42PM | 0 recs
Do you have DailyKos account

They could/need hear this message too.

by jkfp2004 2008-04-02 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Do you have DailyKos account
Yup, hence the cross posted bit next to the soldier leaving.
It was lost in the storm overthere, much higher volume and all.
by Drewid 2008-04-02 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you have DailyKos account

People who view Kos are reading it here, too.  There is a growing sense for unity all around.  

by LarsThorwald 2008-04-02 02:04PM | 0 recs
Another thing to think about

with the nomination so close, both candidates are going to have the leverage to get something out of whoever wins.  If Obama wins, maybe Hillary will push him to bring in some aspects of her health care plan or force him to support her as Majority Leader or Sec. of State.  If Obama wins, he could demand Hillary change her message, play more to the Democratic base (apologize for the war perhaps?), and help insure his candidacy in 4-8 years.

No candidate is going to be going home empty handed.

by jkfp2004 2008-04-02 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Another thing to think about

Third sentence should said "If Obama LOSES"

by jkfp2004 2008-04-02 11:45AM | 0 recs
Mccain?

If you vote for Mccain,your a republican.You dont care what happens to our country.I willl vote for either Clinton or Obama.Anyone else?

by brcr63 2008-04-02 01:13PM | 0 recs
few reasons to support

I appreciate the message of your diary, and the way you chose to convey that message.

If Obama is our party's nominee, this is going to be difficult for me.  I believe that we each have an obligation to vote our conscience.  And, at this point, I just feel like I've come to far in this process, and learned too much about the man, to consider voting for him.  It was a mistake I already made once, in my state's primary.

But, how could I vote for a perpetual war in good conscience, you might ask?

Well, I probably can't.  But I am mature enough to understand that I am voting for perpetual war if I elect any of these three candidates.

Remember, for example, that Barack Obama's chief foreign policy adviser is none other than Zbigniew Brzezinski, the man who helped create Al Qeada in the first place, from a certain point of view (see: "Afghan Trap", during the Carter administration).  I know that other advisers to the Obama campaign parted ways with Clinton precisely because they did not think he was trigger-happy enough (for example, Rice).  Having surrounded himself with the most hawkish Democrats in the party, I've no doubt that his foreign policy will not be all that dissimilar from any of our other Presidents'.  I can see that his speeches are completely inconsistent with his staffing decisions (much like Dubya's message of 'compassionate conservatism' sounded nice, but should have been disproven by the folks he hired and associated with).

Given that America is going to keep acting like a schoolyard bully for a few more decades, all I ask is that we please have someone competent for a change.  The aftermath of Katrina was a national disgrace; a total embarassment, and something for which I cannot help but feel a share of guilt, even though it had nothing to do with me directly.  But it happened here, in America.  I hang my head with shame, thinking about what we've learned about the infiltration and subjugation of DoJ by Al Gonzo.  Our economy falling apart, and for reasons that have been discussed and predicted before Bush's second term began.

I go through these things in my mind and I just think: I want to elect someone competent.

by bobbank 2008-04-02 01:48PM | 0 recs
Re: few reasons to support

I think you misread Obama, but I respect your opinion.  I hope you respect mine enough to at least read one or both of his books before the election.

I understand your frustration, but I sincerely believe it is misplaced.  Getting out of Iraq will not be easy, but I no more doubt Obama's determination to end this war--responsibly, yes, with America's best interests at heart, yes--then I doubt my own name.  

There is a difference between McCain and Obama on the issues.  And I think if you listen, really listen to him--not at rallies, but in town halls where he interacts, or in interviews--then I think you may see that he is quite competent.

Is he new and less experienced than other presidential candidates?  Of course, but a review of history shows that "experience" in elected office is not a leading indicator of performance as President.  Will he have missteps early in his first term?  Undoubtedly, most Presidents do.

If it comes down to Obama and McCain, please reconsider.  There is much difference, and much good can be accomplished by a President Obama.

Will he be a perfect President?  Is he a perfect man?

No.

And Obama repeatedly says that.

Thanks for your thoughts, and for reading this.    

by LarsThorwald 2008-04-02 02:10PM | 0 recs
Re: few reasons to support

Mojo for manors.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 02:33PM | 0 recs
Re: few reasons to support

I think the difference between you and I is that you are judging him solely by his words.  The examples you gave were telling: read his book, listen to his speeches.

Why not: observe his actions?

It was in observing his actions, and observing his opponent's actions, that I changed my mind.  I began to feel like someone who had just emerged from the rabbit-hole, into an upside-down world where nothing was as the media and speeches told me it was.  This stark contrast between the world of words, and the world of actions, is what makes it easy for me to forget my manners at times.

It's frustrating.

But what really crystalized it for me was a conversation I had with my friend from MA, where I went to school and spent a good chunk of my life.  It was a real surprise for Clinton to have won MA decisively.  Having lived there, I can tell you, we absolutely adore Kennedy.  Where he leads, we usually follow.  So for the state to reject not only his advice but Kerry's, something had happened.

That's when I started to learn about another Axelrod client.  Deval Patrick, now governor of MA, had run on the same speeches, literally the same exact words, mind you, as Barack Obama runs now.  It was a similar story.  He had no experience.  There was no indication that he could do what he said he would do.  But he was a bright, young African American who had graduated from Harvard Law with honors.  And, as he told his constituents, he wasn't asking them to believe in him, he was asking them to believe in their own hopes.  And so the folks in MA did.  Hungry for change, eager for hope, they elected him.

Since then, he has been unable to get anything done.  He has been a failure by every measure.  His most advertised plans have been defeated by relatively minor players in the state legislature.  It seemed that, without the glamor of media hype and David Axelrod advertising, he just can't be effective.

My friend explained to me - before this story was ever mentioned by the mainstream press (and it still hasn't been, for the most part), that this was the reason MA would not vote for Barack Obama.  They had first-hand experience with the aftermath of an Axelrod advertising adventure.  And they were going through a rough case of buyer's remorse.

Never again, my friend told me.

I don't rule Barack out because his public record is so scant.  I rule him out because everything about his public record contradicts the rhetoric and promise of his campaign.  I'm feeling increasingly old-fashioned for thinking this, but I still believe that actions speak louder than words.

by bobbank 2008-04-02 03:00PM | 0 recs
Re: few reasons to support

I have to tell you, Bob, that while I disagree with you, I appreciate the fact you and I had a (brief) discussion that did not include name-calling and which actually--more than anything else I have read--has given me something to think about.  

THIS is the kind of discourse we need.  Not all the unpersuasive pettiness that abounds.  

Thanks, man.  

by LarsThorwald 2008-04-02 05:13PM | 0 recs
Re: few reasons to support

Please consider that the party of the president makes a difference when our democratic majorities in the legislative branch go to work on reinstating our civil liberties.

I hope that you were referring to the utter incompetence of republican leadership every time they take the reigns when you wrote the last part of your comment.

by lockewasright 2008-04-02 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: few reasons to support

Bush/Cheney has been a case study in incompetence.

I think I made my feelings on that clear in my post.  But that doesn't mean that I believe all Republicans are incompetent.

Putting it another way: I believe most Democrats and most Republicans are not sufficiently qualified.  I believe in equal opportunity criticism of our elected officials.

I do believe that Hillary Clinton is highly competent.  She has shown me a breadth of knowledge and depth of understanding on issues, and she has laid out specific, action-oriented proposals.  It's a shame the media finds debates on policy so boring - Hillary has taken steps, both as a Senator and as a candidate, to move us forward in addressing the current housing crisis.  But the media only wants her to explain why she won't quit.

I don't know how she does it, to be honest.  But I admire that tenacity so much.

by bobbank 2008-04-02 03:06PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------