Dang if I can find it now, but I just read somewhere yesterday, that Obama and Rev Wright had a discussion some time back, and they both understood and agreed that at some point, for the good of O's campaign it might be necessary for O to kick him to the curb. Obviously, not worded like that, but that was the gist. Maybe a master googler could find it. I'm still trying.
If that was the case, it seems like Wright would have headed off the AA Pastors who may or may not be ready to denounce O?
Sorry the "uniters" decided this was a good place to spread their awesome message of hope and unity. Somehow the opposite world Jr created seems to have gained a new foothold in progressive politics...
I wonder if the Obama supporters would be so understanding if Hillary had said this? Somehow I don't think so. Just as when Clinton works with Senators from across the aisle, she's derisively called a triangulator, but when Obama talks of working with those across the aisle, he's praised as a uniter.
I understand you honestly don't see what "they're" doing, and maybe some of us have to learn again that the media and the Republican party will do anything and everything to destroy the Democratic Party and anything progressive or liberal.
If you want a clue what they're going to hit Obama with if he's the nominee, read this:
You are correct -- I am getting quite desperate. I keep wondering WTF you Obama supporters are going to wake up and see the set up here? Will it be when the press finally turns on Obama? Or will it be Nov. 2 when all those Republicans who switched their registration to Dem to caucus and vote for him in the primaries fail to give him their vote in the GE? Will it be when McCain is being sworn in?
Will progressives and liberals ever learn we can't and shouldn't trust the media and/or the current Republican party?
Yes, many of us are beyond desperate, and I certainly don't want to be in the position to say "Told ya so," because we'll all suffer from another 4 years of a Radical Regressive in the WH.
The real tragedy will be IF/when he wins the nomination, and the Radical Regressives have achieved what they set out to do -- then we'll see the reality of the "support" he's getting in the press and with Republicans.
Many of us are very aware of what's going on, and understand the set up. Many are so wrapped up in the "movement" they won't even see it when it starts happening. Maybe not even when President McCain is being sworn in.
My dad, 81 years old, physically could not attend a caucus. He never misses going out to vote, but he could not have spent 3-4 hours at the caucus, nor could many (most) of his buddies. We had one young woman, a single mother, come with her baby, but after a couple hours her baby would just not cooperate anymore and she had to leave.
Caucuses do not represent the populace, but only those who have the time, health, energy and desire to go.
Bravo!! You speak for me, Shazone and I applaude you for spelling out exactly what is so horribly wrong with the way many Obama supporters act.
I swear, I get to the point occasionally where I can't imagine even going out of my way to cast a vote for him if he's the nominee. I know myself well enough to know in the end I will vote, but that I am even considering not voting speaks volumes.
But, this line here says it all:
And know this: if Barack Obama is the Democratic candidate those swiftboat cannons are going to turn in his direction (yup, you can be sure of it!). And when you turn in the direction of Hillary supporters for a little assistance to fight back, you will find yourselves very much alone.
I believe you are correct. Our caucus (Northern NV) was swamped with Republicans and Indys registering Dem to participate -- mostly for Obama. Anyone who believes northern Nevada is going to suddenly turn a deep shade of blue in November doesn't know anything about this State and the hardcore conservative bent here. In my town, people still love Bush... Honestly. The only reason Clinton won NV is because of Clark County (Las Vegas), which is the only Dem stronghold in the State.
My friend's husband -- a lifelong, dedicated Republican -- came to our caucus, registered Dem and said flat out he was there to caucus against Clinton and would never vote Dem in the GE.
I have a sick feeling this goes on in caucuses all over the country, and this is why Obama does so well in caucuses in red states, and not in primaries in blue states.
We're being set up, and if Obama is the nominee, say hello to President McCain, or Huckabee... Sad but true.
Obama wins and will continue to win caucus states. This is not encouraging to me personally, as I am in a caucus State where Clinton narrowly won because of the one area of the State that is strongly Democratic.
Our caucus was swarming with Republicans, and there is no guarantee they will vote for a Democrat in the GE. In fact, one Republican I know personally gleefully stated he was there to stop Hillary and would never vote Democratic in the GE. One has to wonder how many of the Republicans were there with the same intent.
Democrats have to change the caucus system. If someone registers specifically to caucus, they should not be able to re-register back to another party for the GE. We're just asking for trouble, and as a result our weakest candidate will win caucus states.
If this is not the case, the only way we will ever know is if Obama wins the nomination. If he does, the "red" caucus states that he won Tuesday should theoretically go blue in unprecedented landslides. I honestly don't see that happening.
Where I live, there are still people who think Jr is a great guy, doing a great job. No way are they going to vote Democratic in the GE. I would bet the same is true of Idaho, North Dakota, Utah and other caucus states.
What a great job you did, and it's obvious you put a lot into this. Thank you!
Krugman says if Hillary becomes president there's a chance we'll get universal healthcare. If Obama became president, there's no chance at all.
Clinton, Obama, Insurance
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 4, 2008
The principal policy division between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama involves health care. It's a division that can seem technical and obscure -- and I've read many assertions that only the most wonkish care about the fine print of their proposals.
But as I've tried to explain in previous columns, there really is a big difference between the candidates' approaches. And new research, just released, confirms what I've been saying: the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage -- a key progressive goal -- and falling far short.
Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton's would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama's -- at only slightly higher cost.