Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

They loved Gore's concession speech too. They always say the D finally seemed authentic, finally stopped calculating, blah blah, when what they really mean is that they're happy the D lost.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Did I mention Bullshit?

Unswayed -- voting McCain.

sorry, i don't tolerate that. jeebus krist, he's older than dirt, more forgetful than my grandmother, in bed with more lobbyists than a dc madame, and a warmonger of the very first order who endorses torture.

now, i'm not going to tell you to vote for obama; it's fair to say that he isn't going to represent progressives or our interests and may in fact make things worse in this country. but it's 100% guaranteed that mccain will, and that his stated mission is to continue the rollback of liberal and progressive values and traditions and laws, while increasing the fascist tyranny his party has embraced.

i'm sorry, but if you are a fan of this blog and not a plant here to make us look bad, there's just no fucking way you can willfully pull the lever for mccain. there are other options including nader and mckinney, if you're that much of a purist.

but the Democratic Party's.

If there had been a VOTE button on the C-SPAN website last night, where I was watching HRC, I could conceivably have voted early for BHO then and there, because she was so effective, but the downside the whole time and into today is that her speech fundamentally appealed to me as a fighter and a Democrat, and the main reason I'm NOT voting BHO: the future. The next 40 years. I still believe that an Obamacrat party will effectively kill any viable progressive/liberal politic in this country for the rest of my lifetime.

And this was underscored by what HRC was saying but nobody else was, and which BHO in all likelihood will not, either.

Incidentally and O/T, the "Daily Show" episode last night completely killed my post-Hillary unity buzz. They had a simply disgusting sketch in which HRC supporters were insulted and taken through various "therapies" for not getting with the program, including a children's program. John Oliver even threw in the OFB talking point about how she agreed to spike Florida and Michigan.

(Of course, in RealityLand, FL and MI AREN'T ANYBODY'S to SPIKE!! Not BHO, not the RBC, and not even HRC, lover though I do. These people are really intent on alienating fence-sitters and the entire base...)

http://james-eng.newsvine.com/_question/...

until paragraph six.

Interesting, too, to see how many don't read that far.

Policy not party!

and reinforced why millions voted for the fighting Dem--instead of the one who doesn't even want to be seen as or govern as a fighter or a Dem.

all we needed this cycle was a partisan fighter--we're not getting it.

I'm going McKinney on top, and only downticket Dem.

Well played VL, very well played sir.

Just get over it Obama! Isn't it clear it's not working? It's been obvious for months now that this Unity Schtick was a loser, and yet you still continued on with it. Was it vanity? Ego? All about you?

This was HRC's challenge to Obama last might. Big Dog is going to do the same tonight. The punditry was too dumb to notice last night, looking only through their narrative prism of whether she would "support" Obama or not. She clearly was supporting him, if he is a DEMOCRAT that is! I think they will be a little more on to it tonight, although still looking to see if Bill is "mad" at Obama. High school clique thing, is Sally still mad at Jenny? Meanwhile, the adults are at work.

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

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

Because....

4) Nader is beneath contempt now and forever.

&) 3rd-party votes, unfortunately, are still just votes being thrown away. In a perfect world, I like the idea of smaller parties dedicated to some principle such as the environment or personal liberty, and slowly building them is something I can get behind, but I don't like that I never hear from the Libs or the Greens or Nader except every four years. Not enough serious hard work going on there.

g) Since 05/31 and Michigan, I am actually afraid for the first time in my life that my planned undervote - abstaining in the POTUS race - will simply be stolen or commandeered for BHO, given my Democratic plans for the downticket races.

!) An undervote is just another disaffected no-show. And a 3rd-party vote just depresses the overall turnout for the viable candidates. The Democrats only have to produce one vote to make up for me if I undervote. This new DNC regime, with its new maps and new coalitions and new preachers and new pro-lifers, will have to produce 2 for BHO if I vote McCain.

If it's not clear, I want to actively vote AGAINST this coup of the Democratic Party. If they can demonstrate in the next 2 months that what I've seen with my own eyes for the last 2 years is not actually what's going on, and BHO is just a useful tool for getting somewhere, I may change. But right now, I have no investment in these people succeeding, and some in their failing.

2. It’s not my own POV, but there are some who believe it’s in the best interests of the donkey party and the country if the Dems lose this election, and so they are voting for McCain. I’m happy to hear their arguments, even if I don’t currently find them convincing.

for all of you who agree with this point, let me ask: have the last 8 years "helped" the dem party or liberal/progressive causes? this is the logic of the naderites, and i'm sorry, but clearly "there is a difference." what on earth would make you think 4-8 more years of rethug rule would "help" anything other than republicans?

let's review: in the last 8 years, dems have moved to the right, failed to control congress or present significant opposition to republican policy, failed to end an illegal war, allowed domestic and politically based spying on americans...i mean krist, this list would be 100 pages long and i'd still not be done.

"our" democratic leaders are mostly fools and cowards. the *only* way to achieve any of our progressive goals is to put them into a comfortable seat in which they don't feel as if they have to cave to every last republican demand, secure in the knowledge that 1) we elected them and 2) they answer to us and 3) they should fear us more than the republicans.

for the love of all that's unholy, i don't understand why so many progressives fail to learn from our fascist counterparts' success with that strategy. take the example of the 'club for growth,' to start with. when a republican isn't fascist enough for their liking, they run an even more to the right winger in the primary and scare the shit out of whomever of the two wins. why we don't do the same on the left is beyond me. i guess we like to lose, or something, as the mccain supporter above seems to prove.

I think we do need to destroy THIS DNC to save our democratic values. Nothing, or very little, about this election cycle speaks to me as a feminist, a gay rights advocate, an environmentalist etc.

Barack Obama's campaign has conducted itself shamefully, and pulling the lever for him condones treating women and gays and lesbians with disregard or downright contempt.

I must admit, I am fortunate. I live in a state that is SO blue I can happily vote for Cynthia McKinney, proving once and for all that the 26 year old white male entitled blogger boys are correct...I am a racist republican.

If I lived in a swing state, I would have to vote for McCain. I need to drive a stake through the DNC's heart twice, not once as a third party vote would do.

Most of all, I hate bullies and the "might makes right" mentality so evident among Obama's volunteers. It reminds me of Reagan's young right wing punks in their Khakis and button downs. They are too creepily similar.

Excellent post, vast left. Although I nearly slammed my lap top closed before finishing it because I thought you'd morphed into Taylor Marsh.

and the Democrats have not only FAILED to bring one, their platform this year is proudly announcing that they're going to go to DC and lie down with these dogs.

CD sez:

let’s review: in the last 8 years, dems have moved to the right, failed to control congress or present significant opposition to republican policy, failed to end an illegal war, allowed domestic and politically based spying on americans…i mean krist, this list would be 100 pages long and i’d still not be done.

I can forgive a lot of the Democratic impotence.

Part of this was 9/11 - which, let's face it - was a horrible, horrible experience. Part of it was being saddled with 6 years of a "War Preznit", and part of this was public dislike of Democrats and liberals as defined by the SCLM. Part of it was obviously the threats and elbows and corruption encountered when you're "working with" the Rethugs every day.

And yet, and yet...

There is that polling number about Congress' popularity. Even accounting for the endless propaganda of the last 28 years about how we're supposed to hate Congress and Government (particularly Democratic ones), and given my built-in skepticism of polls, an approval rating in the teens is just shocking.

I think people in their hearts wanted and want more fight. Look at that crowd reacting last night not just to HRC, but really to anyone who talked about clean sweeps and routs. It's not just that party loyalists eat up red meat; "Change" is a really tired meme with the base. And why would the famed "Obama Republicans" vote for a watered-down Republican agenda when they can get the real thing?? Polling really does show that most people DO NOT WANT the real Republican thing.

Remember that Republican "gaffe" a few years ago? That bipartisanship is date rape? The man was right.

And yes, he was right.

Ok, I hate to cross-comment a comment I made to a cross-comment I made from here to TalkLeft but this is what I commented:

There is nothing Bill Clinton can do tonight except be an advocate for the Democratic party, Democratic ideals, and Barack Obama in that role as the leader of the party.
I don't think Obama really understands what that means yet. He is the LEADER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Because of that he cannot by definition be post-partisan. Bill Clinton is going to explain it to him tonight, in front of the entire Democratic party and in front of most of the free world which has televisions. He will explain what Democrats have always stood for, how Democrats are better than Republicans, and what Democrats will do to improve our future.

The only variables are how the Village will take it and what Obama will do Thursday in response. This is a battle for the soul of the party, or rather, whether the party will have a soul or not. The ball is in Obama's court after tonight, is he up to the challenge?"

Whether the party will have a soul or not. That is the question. The only person who can answer that question in this election cycle (chtulu help us) is Barack Obama. The Clintons are holding his feet, ass, head, and torso to the fire of Democratic history. They are challenging him to stand for the historic progressive ideals of the party. They are adults, they are not children and they are obviously not concerned with the childish concerns of the childish Village or the adult-children in the party who curry their favor.

We are really witnessing a watershed moment in American political history. Every bit as important as Hubert Humphrey's call to the party to abandon states rights and embrace human rights.

Which side are you on Obama? Which side are you on?

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

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

Telling Clinton supporters or other non-Obama supporters that Obama is the bestest, most awesomest gift from god ever bestowed on the Democratic Party is not going to help Obama at all with people not already on board. Not only that but it's kind of a hard one to swallow from someone Obama race boated.

Clinton gave her supporters a reason to vote for Obama - he's a Democrat and because he's a Democrat he'll fight for certain things because that's what Democrats do. Now, it's on Obama on Thursday and through the election to prove that what Clinton said about him is true (see herb the verb's excellent analysis and posts on the challenge Clinton put out for Obama last night).

But this is why they're mad.* Hillary Clinton had the nerve to make an election about politics and policy. About what you believe in and not how personally awesome you are. The good thing she did for Obama was give a rationale to those of us who think Obama is a sexist, narcissistic asshole to vote for him anyway. The bad thing she did is make it incumbant on Obama to still earn those votes.

This last one he was always going to have to do. But for some reason this election season the candidate's campaign, his party, and the media have decided to whine about it and try to get him out of it. Well, the adult showed up last night and told him in no uncertain terms that there will be no television for him until he cleans his room.

* In addition, of course, there's the fact they hate her and so it's also no doubt annoying to the media (and the anti-Clinton Dem leadership) that she gave one of the best political speeches of the last decade, invigorated the convention, gave a rationale for the party beyond Obama, and generally showed that she is very far from politically dead. She's going to be a force to be reckoned with for at least the next decade and Nance, Barry, and Howard need to just get over it and accept it or else this is only going to get more painful for them. She has way more political skill (not to mention strength and grace) than the three of them combined.

party, or the Clinton party, or the Dukakis party, etc--why now does it have to be all about Obama?

making it all about him ensures his defeat.

but I have to *urgh* defend TPM here. They were actually calling bullshit on CBS.

Here is what Sargent said.

Ok, having done my duty, can I take a shower now?

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

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

anecdotal, but interesting-- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

"... With Barack Obama heading the Democratic ticket and plainly having trouble with working-class whites, Greenberg returned to Macomb in July for a new generation of polling and focus groups. Macomb's memories of Detroit's racial convulsions in the '60s and '70s have faded somewhat, he found, but race is still a key hurdle for many residents. Their economic anxiety has skyrocketed -- understandably enough, with the auto industry in shambles and not much coming along to take its place. Indeed, their No. 1 concern in Greenberg's survey (undertaken for the Democracy Corps) is the offshoring of jobs, with rising gas, food and health-care costs running a close second. Their ideal presidential candidate, Greenberg says, would be an "outsider, middle-class" senator who expresses their anger at their betrayal by America's economic and political elites.

And he wouldn't be black, either.

In Greenberg's survey of Macomb, Obama is trailing John McCain by 7 percentage points, which in fact means that he's doing better at this point of the campaign than John Kerry and Al Gore were doing four and eight years ago. But perhaps the most striking finding is the high level of support for Ralph Nader, who plainly offers some Macombers -- at least, before they have to actually vote -- an outlet for their anger, and a third way between McCain's standard-issue Republicanism and Obama's blackness. Eight percent of all Macomb voters surveyed back Nader, which includes 11 percent of Macomb's working-class Democrats and 12 percent of its white union members. Only 47 percent of Macomb's white union members back Obama.

..."

man, what an ego. This guy really shut the gates and locked them behind himself. I almost feel bad for what kind of delusional, insulated world this guy lives in:

* Back to Clinton, did you notice that she wore a Daily Kos-orange outfit? A signal to the PUMAs that their gig was up? Well, she could beat them with a 2x4 and they still wouldn't get the message because it ceased being about Clinton a long time ago...

I am jealous that women politicians get to be creative in their outfits and use color. I love color. I loved Pelosi's minty green outfit at Netroots Nation. Guys, on the other hand, don't have such flexibility. My own readers panned me when I wore an orange tie on Meet the Press (they didn't like the brown sports jacket either). I cried for days. Either that or I said "Fuck all of you!" I can't remember which it was.

Yes, Lord Cheesypoof, Clinton was giving you a big old wink and secret handshake for all you have done.

I hope posters will not deface Corrente by talking about voting for McCain, better to throw your vote away by writing in Hillary or voting for McKinney that giving your vote to a facist, and that is what McVain is.

President McVain will close our borders, make our currency worthless, and start wars.

President Obama will keep our borders open, repair our economy and sign HR 676 if we can get it to his desk. He may not support Medicare for All, but he dare not veto it. Something to think about when you trying to get your insurance company to live up to their responsibility.

At this point, repairing the economy, for any reasonable definition of "repair", requires taking on the Big Banx. Can he do this with D-MBNA as VP?

(Not that I entirely disagree. I do agree that a McCain victory is objectively worse, and even if that were only marginally true, that's still lives we're talking about.)

I feel like I'm in a life-or-death round of "Who's On First?":

Well, she could beat them with a 2x4 and they still wouldn’t get the message because it ceased being about Clinton a long time ago…

A-DUH!!!

But I don't think that even with all of the strings he pulled, and all of the strings pulled for him, that he is strong enough to divorce the party from its roots.

Yet.

It's true, Hillary lost, but just barely, and downticket Democrats simply aren't able to run on the thin gruel Obama is attempting to sell. Ultimately I think the Clintons will win this one. If only that it is easier to sell something (or the dog you know) than nothing (or the dog you don't know) and Obama has nothing to sell (he is even losing his touch on the money, and buying them off was the only thing he had to offer downticket dems and party functionaries).

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

Around these parts we call cucumber slices circle bites

I hope posters will not deface Corrente by talking about voting for McCain,

In the sense that such threads rarely end well, I agree that a round of "I'm voting McCain." could be considered trolling or even "defacing".

But not mentioning him by name, given his "only other viable candidate" status, is like not discussing the elephant in the room if "Not voting BHO" is to be a part of any conversation.

The Dems have done a bunch of things that I can't support or endorse with my vote. IMHO, it's not a matter of political purity or even the inadequacy of the candidate. 05/31 (the RBC meeting), in particular, was bad. Really, really, really bad. The pro-life pandering is a very close 2nd.

And there are other things, but none of them - even the god stuff and the gay-hostile stuff, which I've endured before and will endure again, shook me to the core like 05/31, or scare me like not having a forceful voice for pro-choice in the future.

I could hold my nose and vote for a BHO in a party-free world, but I think you're going to have to cut something off me to get me to pull for Nancy's favorite nominee for POTUS at this point.

My local D is caught in the crossfire, as far as I can tell. I'm not punishing him, or cutting off my nose to spite my face there. I really am able to approach this strategically. I may not come to the same conclusion as you, but that's what makes a horse race.

well, let's be fair. *we* failed to pressure them this time around, with primary challenges and punishment for those dem leaders who've been feeding us all this bullshit about why they can't do shit for.

no one, and i do mean no one, is angrier with pelosi than i am. i worked for her, blogged for her, supported a lot of ideas and positions b/c i really thought her being speaker would make a difference. it didn't and that's why i'm very glad to see sheehan running against her. i just wish it were happening to all of them, well, almost all of them. by my count there are only about 25% in congress who can be trusted to do right by progressives, and they are mostly women and not-white people. the rest can go to hell, afaic.

i've said it many times, that if the blogosphere wants to be taken seriously, there's only one way: put the fear of gawd into 'our' pols, just like republican interest groups do. our leaderz aren't the only ones with a hangup on "civility." but there is absolutely nothing uncivil about organizing, fundraising, and doing meme/ad generation for a new generation of dems, like burner and edwards. some in the blogosphere have been very good in supporting them and others, but not enough.

"... Politics is rough, but failure to fulfill your political duty (to the veteran, to the cancer patient, to the impoverished mother), is unforgiveable. Not hope. Not change. Duty. ...

Obama wanted to be the Democratic nominee in the worst way possible. He got his wish. Tonight, Hillary showed him the only way out of his predicament.

It is now all on Obama's head to show he is half the Democrat she is." -- http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/08/d...

Ann Price Mills--said it all--

http://alegrescorner.soapblox.net/showDi...

I want someone to stand up for the middle class. He picks Biden as his VP. I want a truly progressive platform. He gives me platitudes. I want honesty and respect. He shows me neither.

If he was someone to take seriously, he'd allow an honest, open vote on the convention floor. He won't, so he ain't the one.

At least try and keep your story straight in the same physical post.

I just re-read it.

What story am I switching?

It would help if you asked a detailed question, or pointed out the flaw, instead of doing snide.

and even if you did, it might not work out very well. A lot of us were big John Edwards supporters early on (come on and admit it), and now we are glad he didn't get the nomination. We only moved on to support Clinton or Obama as a poor second choice.

I had hoped before it all got started that Gore would run, and maybe that would have been great, or maybe he would have ended up as a disappointment. His Leiberman VP choice back in 2000 was pretty awful.

I remember both the good and the crappy of the Clinton years, so I wasn't to hot for another centrist Clinton administration. I thought Obama had some promise until the FISA vote. Maybe I still have a flicker of hope as far as environmental issues are concerned.

I'm old enough to have not voted to re-elect Jimmy Carter. I now admire the hell out of him as an ex-pres. My wasted vote went to Barry Commoner, if anyone remembers that name (probably not). At least I didn't vote for Reagan. The point is, we almost always end up with a couple of shitty choices and can pick the least shitty one or maybe feel better by posting an irrelevant vote.

Hillary is a dead issue, and we now have two choices not to some of our liking. Why continue to fret ad infinitum? Let's get on to issues and candidates we think have some promise.