If a Republican supports Obama but not the Democratic party ideals and/or downticket races - then how are they any better/different than PUMA who will not support Obama but assuredly the Democratic ideals/downticket races?
Well, let's take a look at how the President is chosen:
Support for Ideals: 0%
So it seems to me that it makes an awful lot of sense to support the people who want to vote for Obama and disagree with those who want to vote against him, no matter what doubts and ideological disputes those people might be harboring deep in their souls.
The PUMA issue isn't "just" that these folks are choosing to vote against Obama. It's that they're doing everything they can to make a big fuss about it on sites (ostensibly) full of progressives, and expecting us to care. It's even more annoying than the Naderites who refuse to "compromise their values" by voting strategically, because most PUMAs you see around here ARE trying to be "strategic," holding their votes hostage for concessions from Obama.
The problem is that they're vastly overestimating their own "strategic" value; Obama would probably lose ten times as many votes as he'd gain by contorting his policies and tone and VP choice and whatever else TexasDarlin and Alegre would require to win back those relatively few PUMA votes.
And just for completeness, here's one last reason to prefer Republican converts to PUMAs: A lot of moderate Republicans aren't too happy to see their party taken over by neocons and morons, so they're actually considering Obama as the candidate whose policies most closely match their political ideology. The PUMAs, on the other hand, are explicitly voting AGAINST their political ideology (for President). Since policy is what's really important in politics, it's good to see someone choose policy and ideology over personal and partisan grudges; it's just the opposite to see someone vote against their own beliefs out of frustration for one political personality.
Opposition to telecom immunity is really not a "leftist" position. We're not talking about abortion, or school vouchers, or trade agreements, or gun control, or any of the many, many issues where there are arguments to be made on both sides. This is a simple question of government accountability versus totalitarian power. Truth versus lies. The reason "leftists" get so pissed over this issue, as Markos pointed out a few days ago, is that this one issue is SO FREAKIN' OBVIOUS. War funding, tax changes, sure, it makes sense for Democrats to negotiate on those. But all they had to do to prevent telecom corporations from getting away with felonies was sit on their asses... and they failed at that.
I agree that there is political calculation at the heart of Obama's position here, but it's not a matter of positioning himself as a "centrist." It's a matter of being a "good team player" and keeping quiet about his own party's cave to corporate interests.
I definitely gave my girlfriend a high-five when I read about the gay marriage decision here. ;-)
The most promising thing to me about the California case is that there doesn't seem to be a crazy backlash like there was with Massachusetts. Personally, I look forward to twenty years from now when the anti-gay-marriage people look about as good as "formerly" anti-interracial-marriage people look now.
A more interesting question would have been, "What bias do you think the media holds?" I'm guessing all of those Republicans would say the media is biased towards the left, and almost all the Democrats would say it's biased towards the right. So basically, people bitch when the news presents things that differ from their views.
If you posted this exact same diary on DailyKos, you'd have a hundred people saying, "Yeah, everyone but Olberman is off their rocker." If you posted it on some right-wing site, you'd have a hundred people agreeing that Fox was the only place to go for unbiased news. (BTW, it still surprises me every time I see someone on this "progressive" blog talking about how fair Fox was in the primaries. Seriously, FOX?)
You also have to bear in mind that perceptions of media bias is a spin game in itself. The right wing has been bitching for years about the "liberal media," even as CNN and the rest were covering every minute of the Monica Lewinsky crap and giving Bush a free pass on the Iraq-bin Laden connection.
So when this survey tells you that people THINK that Obama has been treated more nicely than McCain, think about how many times you saw Reverend Wright on the news and compare that to the number of times you saw Hagee on the news, and then start to think about where people's perceptions about media bias are coming from.
You bring up Obama as an "American Idol phenomenon." The important difference to bear in mind is that the winning of this election RUNS THE COUNTRY.
y.com? Best website of the last presidential election. The guy was a grade-A dork, he made me wince or snore every time he opened his mouth, but I proudly voted for him and encouraged others to do so as well because of those pesky issues.
If McCain is elected, we'll keep spending thousands of lives and billions (or trillions) of dollars in Iraq.
If McCain is elected, we'll keep selling out the country to corporate interests at the cost of the middle and lower classes.
If McCain is elected, we'll have a Supreme Court stacked with pro-corporate conservatives who'll not only overturn Roe vs. Wade but also continue to degrade our other civil liberties and prop up Big Government and Big Business.
I like Obama, but frankly, even if spent all his spare time kicking puppies he'd get my vote and my support.
I take it you're a guy... as a fellow Y-chromosome-bearer, I can say I tend to avoid bringing up abortion as an issue when talking to women, because it's too easy to sound patronizing or presumptuous.
I've seen women bring it up more directly without causing offense, so it may be a more acceptable approach coming from a woman.
If I were gonna try to push the issues, Roe vs. Wade wouldn't even be very high on the list, honestly. The economy, the war, and healthcare are pretty easy ways to distinguish between McCain and Obama.
Sorry, I meant "unity" to be in quotes; I agree that gloating doesn't help Obama's cause or the party's.
Reasonable people can differ as to whether it's self-destructive (to the Democratic party and progressive goals) for Clinton to have continued as far as she has, but IMHO, once the primaries are over on Tuesday, it'll be hard to regard any attempts to continue this primary until the convention as anything but damaging.
As for "spin"... I dunno. If this diary is referring to Hudson's diary as "trolling," I'd say that's some pretty heavy spin. Canadian Gal herself has made her case against BO's campaign in stronger terms than Hudson uses in that diary.
I just deleted a long counter-rant to replace it with this thought: can we just wait two days?
We all know nothing is going to change before Tuesday. Everyone on this site has chosen sides already, all the spin and counter-spin in the world won't change anyone's mind, and the whole situation is really going to change once the voting is finally, finally over.
Either Clinton will concede quickly, or the superdelegates will push her out, or the superdelegates will continue doing nothing and she'll push on to the convention. The first case would probably be disappointing for a lot of people here, the second would be even worse for those same people, and the third would be disaster for the party and possibly the nation, if it cost us the election.
But it seems silly to continue debating over hypotheticals that will be resolved in 48 hours. If Clinton concedes or is pushed out, I look forward to plenty of almost-gloating unity diaries from Obama supporters and almost-threatening GBCW diaries from Alegre and company. If Clinton stays along for the ride, things will get a lot more interesting as we get to see just how self-destructive Jerome is willing to let things become.
I'm not sure exactly what's going on here anymore. Clinton is "in it to win," sending protesters to bug the DNC, fighting hard against Obama... but a ton of her most vocal supporters won't shut up about her as VP.
Here's an honest question: do you honestly think Obama/Clinton would win the Appalachian vote? Because I'm thinking that Obama's race and negative perceptions of him (many of them stoked by Clinton in the primary) will send a lot of those voters to McCain, no matter WHO his VP choice is.
In any case, I don't buy the pressure. If Clinton has lost the primary, she should drop out, stop attacking Obama, and THEN ask for the VP slot. Maybe travel back in time and do that in March or April to save a lot of wasted time and money.