Even though he jumped the DNC ship.

So I’ll probably write him in.

Nebraska so, feh.

But I have to vote.

State is trying to pass a bullshit amendment* (with the help of dems, no less) to allow public endowments to be invested in stocks. (they call it diversifying!!!!!!).

It will probably pass, but I gotta vote no.

*I made a comment a few days ago about Ben Nelson doing a commercial with our Repub AG and didn’t know what it was about, lo and behold it’s this damn amendment

McCain is repulsive. But you’re absolutely right, Paul on the tactics Obama has used. In addition to a reverse Southern Strategy, he’s also employed misogyny. I’m a white woman from a family filled with blue collar workers and roots in Appalachia. I’m supposed to reward that with my vote? The Democratic Party has made it pretty clear they don’t want me. If they did they would’ve resolved MI/FL, party leaders would’ve said something about the misogyny, they would’ve put some pressure on Obama to clean up his tactics (Ted Kennedy was only too happy to call Bill Clinton and lecture him about being tough on Obama, then - of course -leak it to the press).

Not to mention I genuinely don’t think Obama is ready to be president. So I’ve got a party that has made it pretty clear they don’t want my vote or care about my family with a candidate who, even if he somehow is elected, I believe will be a weak and ineffective leader and who will likely institutionalize the loathsome people and tactics he’s relied on to win. Or I have McCain, who as I said is repulsive. Although he probably will cut my taxes.

Note to the democratic party, Hillary as VP will not do you any good, I’ll pass on listening to the misogynists (which turns out to be most of the MSM and Blogger Boyz) blame her when Obama goes down in flames in November. Let some white guy prop him up, let it be someone close to Hillary - like Wes Clark - if you want. But I don’t want to see Hillary trying to salvage this mess. She’s done enough to try to save the party from itself.

Andrew Sullivan - Black voters did it

In case your blood pressure wasn’t high enough this morning, this ought to do it for ya.

is highly overrated - sort of like having Liz Cheney on your team…the kiss of death (ask Rudy/Mitt).

Because I was told last night by an Obama person at Talk Left that I had no choice but to vote for Obama if I wanted to end the war, stop torture and protect abortion rights.

I noted that I voted Democratic in 2006 and so far, the war is still going on, we still torture, and the democratic Senate continues to confirm wing-nut judges, so she should forgive me for doubting that simply electing people with a (D) after their name is the answer to all that ails this country.

Although as I said, none of that makes McCain any less repulsive. Although as I also said, he will cut my taxes.

and vote if he’s the nominee, and it will be an anti-McCain vote, not a pro-Obama vote. I don’t like Obama because I don’t buy what he’s selling.

Plus, all you have to do is look at the lackluster first year of MA Gov. Deval Patrick to see how well Obama would do in the White House. Patrick’s race was Axelrod’s beta test for Obama’s.

unless Obama brings the whole party down with him in November (a distinct possibility, I’m afraid) Dems will still have control of Congress. If the party wants my straight ticket support in the future, they’ll have to start earning it all over again — and that means standing up to a President McCain.

Since Obama, Donna Brazile, David Axelrod and most liberal blogs say that they do not need my vote, then they won’t get it, the Repubs will.
Like you, I always walk into the polling booth and pull the big “D” lever. Well, it’s just as easy to pull the “R” one, especially the way Obama has “won” this primary.
And if anyone doesn’t like it, too bad. As Jack Nicholson famously said, “this ’party’ needs an enema”.

i’m with corinne.

this country can’t stand 4 more years of these horrors.

Gives Sen Obama a 10% chance of beating McCain in the GE.

I think you can vote for him in the GE without having to concern yourself too much about the consequences of a Obama administration.

Ah, the Democratic party. We have a candidate that’s very likely to win the general election, and one that is very unlikely to win the general election. Guess which one we’re gonna choose?

every time someone posts a “I won’t vote for” you just give the other side an excuse to do the same to you. I can understand the feeling, I can’t understand posting about it.

I advise everyone angry with Obama to find some Senate or House candidate to get excited about and try to ignore the Presidential as much as possible.

Hell, they won’t stand up to Bush and he’s at 28%.

I don’t know. I’m just very angry and depressed this morning and Obama is really a small part of it. My main anger is at the party, it’s been growing for some time. I don’t believe Senate Democrats have forced the GOP to actually filibuster a single vote. I understand not making them do it all the time, but how can Democrats claim to want to win (or to want to stop the GOP abuses) and not force a single filibuster? How can Reid not recognize Dodd’s hold? How can the Judiciary Committee approve Southwick?

Clinton wasn’t going to solve all of those problems, of course, but at least I had confidence in her ability to make the executive branch work with or without Congress’ help (and given the recent backing away on UHC by Schumer and Rockefeller, I’m going with without). But I have no confidence in Obama. Anyone who praises the GOP’s approach to regulating industry is either an idiot or a charlatan.

So essentially there isn’t any part of the party I have confidence in to represent my interests. The Democrats may not be as loathsome as the Republicans, but that isn’t saying much.

So what I’m asking myself this morning is where do I fit in? This is bigger than Obama for me. His campaign has only brought out in stark relief the problems I already had with the party. Is it better to try to limit short-term damage by electing Obama? Or simply ignore the pissing contests between the two parties, accept the entire system is broken, and work on things I care about outside the electoral system?

for that polling analysis.

I feel the same, I have been feeling the same since 2006. That is why I have been doing single payer blogging. Sometimes you have to withdraw from partisan politics for the sake of your mental health.

I generally don’t criticize people for refusing to vote for any particular person. We are all entitled our own opinions. And who am I to say that any particular statement or vote or association should not be a deal breaker?

Voted for Nader in 2000? Fine by me. Refuse to vote for anyone who voted for AUMF, Edwards included? Okay. Won’t vote for Obama because of the McClurkin incident? Your choice. Hillary hiring Mark Penn was beyond the pale? To each his own.

But comparing the Obama campaign to the GOP Southern Strategy of the past 40 years? That’s a good one. I’d like to hear you explain that one ten years from now.

Q: So, after 8 years of George Bush and the promise of more of the same under McCain, you couldn’t bring yourself to vote for the Democratic candidate?

A: Are you kidding? Some supporters of Obama said that Bill Clinton’s “Fairy Tale” comment had racial connotations…and that WASN’T TRUE! And I haven’t even mentioned what BLOGGERS were saying.

Q: Wow. Sounds like Lee Atwater on steroids to me. But given the economic, environmental, and foreign policy challenges facing the country and the world, you couldn’t move past that? Obama never accused the Clintons of being racists did he?

A: No, but what does that matter when Daily Kos commenters are insinuating that the Clinton campaign was trying to paint Obama as the “black candidate”? Some things are more important than the life and death struggle of billions.

DCBlogger said “every time someone posts a “I won’t vote for” you just give the other side an excuse to do the same to you.”

I think my gang might shoot our mouths off about “”Not voting for Her come hell or high water…”, but it’s so much hot air. Obama has the youngsters, AAs, and the organic natural yogurt-eaters who simply don’t vote R, and can’t stand the New McCain. Of that demographic, the only one that might be sluggish to the polls on Hillary’s behalf are the first-time voters, but they are a tough group to motivate no matter who’s running. The way I see it, if Hillary wins, it will be because she managed to level the popular vote (san MI, FL), thus giving her, as yet uncommitted, SD supporters enough reason to get off the pot and support her in a floor fight. It would be a messy win, but not without legitimacy, and not enough to substantially alienate the OBF, IMHO.

The same threats coming from the Hillary camp are not so easy to dismiss. Principally because she commands a fair number of conservative democrats for whom a McCain vote is not necessarily such a big departure from their values. He is, for all his recent pandering, a centrist at heart. But a person’s vote belongs to nobody but them (I wish the howling Democrats had remembered this before accusing Nader of being a “spoiler”). So, what will be will be…

He is, for all his recent pandering, a centrist at heart.

He is not, and never has been a centrist, he has the voting record from hell.

If he were, I’d be very tempted to vote for him.

But that’s my problem. I’m very angry at the Democratic Party. This goes back to the 1990s for me when so many in the party helped knee-cap Bill Clinton in a sign of how reasonable and bipartisan they could be. Yet, I cannot ever support McCain.

OTOH, I’m pretty sure the next DNC head, Donna Brazile, told me last night the democratic party doesn’t need me. So maybe I shouldn’t worry about my vote. They don’t seem to.

“…. struggle of billions.”

Which is why Obama’s truly universal health care plan is such a critical part of his electoral strategy.

Oh, wait….

He was demagoging mandates and running Harry & Louise remakes on that, wasn’t he? Sorry.

And I wasn’t being fair, was I? Space said “billions,” but it’s only 47 million Americans without insurance. Sorry. Again.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I’ll survive 4 years of McCain. The choice, if Obama is the nominee, is between a Hard Core Republican, who we can probably get rid of in 2012, or a flimsy Democrat, who if elected will tarnish the Dem brand so badly, we won’t see the White House again until 2020.

If Obama is the nominee, it makes no difference to me who wins.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Our financial engineers haven’t stolen enough already?

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I’m going to work for some progressive woman candidate at the local or state level to help me get over the distaste I’ll have at pulling the lever for him.

I’ll vote for him because of my experience working for the Federal Government for two years in DC. There are a lot of great folk in DC. Careerists who have been waiting for a Dem to get rid of the crummy appointees that are ruining our country. I know that a lot of people point to the Supreme Court as a reason to vote for Obama but really its the Cabinet Secretaries that effect a lot of our everyday lives.

As I’ve posted over at Riverdaughter, I don’t want another Elaine Chow in charge of Labor who will do everything in her power to screw over the little guy.

I don’t want another Corporate Lobbyist in charge of the EPA trying to get his buddies to drill in Alaska, kill people in mines because of lax safety standards and to allow testing of pesticides on our children without our knowledge.

I want grownups in the Justice Department that won’t prosecute Democratic Governors and put them in jail for political reasons. I want Gitmo to close. I don’t want government lawyers writing memo’s justifying torture.

There are a lot of government workers who are due to retire in the next 2-5 years. I’m talking 20-30% of them. Do we want or need the Repubs to be able to place their people in career positions and to stay there for the next twenty years? No.

These are the reasons why I’ll be pulling the lever for the Candidate with the D after their name even if I feel like crying when I do it if it’s Obama.

OT: In a perverse sort of way I’m happy that I’ve seen the sexist underbelly of progressive politics. This political cycle has really made me focus on what’s important and to stiffen my spine in regards to fighting for who I want elected.

I think he’s allowed himself to appear like a pandering fool over the last 4 years, but he is pretty much standing right next to Lieberman (quite literally on occasion) in terms of his core beliefs. Although Huckabee was probably further to the left on social issues (even while he was clutching onto the starboard wing in terms of his religious fanaticism), McCain was definitely the most moderate of the R pack.

under President McCain?

The truth is that I will largely be unaffected personally regardless of who wins the election. I have a secure job. I have health insurance. None of my family or friends are in Iraq. I have sufficient money, I can get an abortion and I live in a state (California) that’s never going to restrict them anyway (not to mention I’m rapidly approaching an age when it’s not a problem). And global warming probably won’t be a total clusterfuck until after I’m dead.

So long as I don’t care about my country living up to its values or the welfare of anyone outside my immediate family, the person who is president has very little effect on me.

Now, I know there are those of you who will be affected, but someone has to take one for the team. Might as well be the poorest and most vulnerable. As Jay Rockefeller and Chuck Schumer indicated, UHC just isn’t possible right now. Besides, Obama is the future. So here’s a hearty thank you in advance for taking one for the team so that the rest of us can enjoy our future. And by future, of course, I mean tax cut.

Is it better to try to limit short-term damage by electing Obama? Or simply ignore the pissing contests between the two parties, accept the entire system is broken, and work on things I care about outside the electoral system?

the latter, and vote your conscience, instead of your party.

I hate to quote Ronald Reagan, but he did say something apt here “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Party left me.”

First, space is right on the money with that comment.

Second, in February, Shane-O posted the following:
http://www.correntewire.com/enough

“What mystifies me is that the many Progressives here that once touted the virtues of John Edwards have radically swung to the center to support Senator Clinton.

Is it that someone bet on the wrong horse (pony)?

So the solution, it seems, has become – “I just won’t vote.” “I’m withdrawing my registration as a Democrat.” Go ahead. Hold your breath and stomp your feet because you aren’t getting everything you want in a candidate. “

People like vastleft expressed disbelief that such a sentiment existed: “Shane-O, how many Correntians have said we’re not voting for the Dem in November?”

Now a few short months later, people are embarrassing themselves with their adolescent foot stomping.

One of two things is going to happen in the next few months. Either people like Paul_Lukasiak are going to post a mia culpa saying that these kind of “I WON’T VOTE!” comments were just emotional outbursts based on facing the grim reality that Clinton isn’t going to be the nominee. Upon reflection, they realize how much worse a McCain presidency will be relative to (alleged) unsavory primary campaign tactics.

Or, they’re going to actually sit out the election, and then wonder why they are increasingly marginalized and disregarded by everyone. And a year into a McCain presidencey (god forbid), they’ll be slapping themselves in the head like thousands of Naderites.

One thing the Republicans have going for them is that even though many of them hate McCain, they’ll still hold their noses and vote for him come November. They know that as much as they don’t agree with him on many issues, in the aggregate, they believe that McCain will be better for them than Clinton or Obama. Consequently, and sadly, they show a maturity and awareness of the larger picture that is lacking amongst a lot of Democrats.

It’s this lack of maturity and essentially the shortsightedness that led a lot of people to vote for Nader in the past. You’ll find very few former Naderites proud of that decision.

A PoC who has much trouble supporting Obama’s candidacy, surrounded by PoC who either actively or casually support him. The PoC I talk to are not as rabid as the Blogger Boiz, and most never knew of Obama’s actual positions - or lack thereof - nor his history when I talked with them. Many either still don’t know - or don’t care about this.

However, there is another issue at work here: I have noticed that the tenor of the online backlash of Obama and his candidacy has started to spread as a backlash against African-Americans as a whole. Not so much here, but I’ve seen this acrimony grow on many other Clinton-leaning sites - and now, like a cancer, may be on the verge of metastasizing.

This is a dangerous proposition. Should Obama get the nomination - and get bounced by McCain (which is most likely going to happen) - the blame will most likely be placed on the shoulders of African-Americans for the crime of voting for someone who happens to look much like them (let’s remember that America -in general - regards people with even as much as a drop of African ancestry as “Black”); speaks like them (sometimes); and comes across as someone who has been through the same struggles of life in America as they have (even though he has not). I don’t hear as much vitriol about the Leisure class sect that flooded the caucuses to pad Obama’s early totals - and this saddens me. Also, there is not alot of discussion of the SCLM complicity in both Obama’s ascension and H. Clinton’s denigration these days - sadly, there is almost no online discussions regarding the SCLM at all (save Somerby’s great analyses at Dailyhowler.com). Nor does there seem to be much discussion on the political games by Dean and Pelosi.

IOW, there is plenty of reasons why Obama, but the focus seems to be narrowing to AAs lately. I wish I could say that I’m surprised, but since AAs have been blamed for everything from “The War on (Some) Drugs” to “Crime” in general (showing a Scary Black Guy always pulls in ratings), as well as Welfare (Reagan’s “Black Welfare Queen” crap - when the majority of people on Welfare then-and-now are White, but AAs get thrown under the bus in order to tank Welfare), I’m not surprised. Also, let’s not forget the first reason why “Qualified” people were not getting good jobs - African-Americans were taking them with “Affirmative Action.”

There is going to be long-term damage that comes out of this nomination battle at this rate. And, the GOP could not ask for more here. AAs have, on a whole, voted solidly Democratic longer than most other large groups of the American population, and now, this base, regardless of the outcome, may be targeted for erosion - by other Democrats. AAs don’t often vote Rethug (when they get the chance to vote, that is, considering that AAs are very often targeted for “Voter Caging”), but as far as the GOP is concerned, removal of the AA vote from the General is a goal always worth fighting for. But this time, there is not really a need for a Katherine Harris to do it directly; get the Democratic factions to turn on each other and grab popcorn.

Shorter LiS: If we want to start the blame game, let’s start at the top - who were responsible for bringing about the untenable choices we have today. The working poor - in particular People of Color - get blamed too much for situations they have no control over as it is.

(Sorry for the lengthy rant. I’ll step off the box now)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

http://hominidviews.com/

A: Are you kidding? Some supporters of Obama said that Bill Clinton’s “Fairy Tale” comment had racial connotations…and that WASN’T TRUE! And I haven’t even mentioned what BLOGGERS were saying.

this has nothing to do with his obnoxious supporters as such — its about Obama’s tacit approval of race-baiting. When his campaign’s “how to play the race card” memo came out, heads should have rolled. LOTS of them — anyone who was involved in any way in the creation and distribution of that memo should have been fired.

No one was fired. That was all the permission that Obama’s supporters needed to turn the campaign into a festival of racial resentment.

And Obama played into it every chance he got. Remember the debate and his reaction to being asked questions about his past? Most of the questions that Obama was asked were completely legitimate — it had been weeks since Obama had agreed to a debate, and the questions that got asked were mostly (except for the stupid flag pin question) about stuff that had entered the popular sphere in the interim — this was the first chance the country got to hear Obama respond to those questions, and see how Clinton responded to his response.

Obama never objected when Clinton was subjected to that kind of treatment — but he played the “victim” card to the hilt, signalling to his supporters that they had the right to resent his treatment.

“I don’t believe Senate Democrats have forced the GOP to actually filibuster a single vote.”

The MSM was not using the word “filibuster” when the GOP was doing it. There was some blog reporting about this. Anyone remember where?

The Dems did more than is obvious and some of the Dems are great. Some are compromising too much with the GOP.

I agree the Dems have some big problems right now and need to fix them pronto to keep people like us and also to keep true to the Dem platform.

“I didn’t leave the Democratic Party, the Party left me.”

I believe that was Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, DLCers like the Clintons.

But point taken.

Lieberman left the party after Ned Lamont beat him in the 2006 primary. The same Lieberman, BTW, that was chosen by Al Gore as his running mate. Oh, and the same Lieberman, I might add, attacked the Clintons incessantly over the waste of time known as the Lewinsky Ordeal. And this is same Lieberman, who - unlike Senator Clinton, has been a Bush rubber stamp from Day One - and who could be counted on for “bi-partisan support” of Republican initiatives.

And, tell me, dear Space, when have the Clintons EVER addressed a REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION? Or, for that matter, when have the Clintons ever been INVITED to speak at an RNC Convention? Short answer: never have and never will. Zell Miller on the other frickin’ hand, did.

This DLC equivocation is a tired talking point, often trotted out by the so-called Progosphere to justify CDS - and nothing more. It’s time to put this to rest, please.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

… and they were dead right.

“It’s this lack of maturity and essentially the shortsightedness that led a lot of people to vote for Nader in the past.”

It wasn’t a lack of maturity, dude. It was because a substantial number of progressives legitimately thought the DNC was full of shit. The “lesser-of-two-evils” mentality is confined to the immature, because it renders only one outcome as absolutely certain…

Naderites didn’t owe Democrats any more than Libertarians owe the GOP. The accusation that third party voters are simply foot-stamping protest voters doesn’t hold water, IMHO.

I would be a serious bummer if a substantial number of Hillary supporters sit out November simply through bad feeling. But those who sit it out, or vote McCain, out of an honest sense that such an action is in line with their values, then power to them.

They’ve simply held cloture votes. They have not forced Republicans to talk on and on to prevent a vote. That’s part of why the media has gotten away with not using the “F” word. Democrats haven’t forced a single, good ol’fashioned filibuster. They’ve allowed Republicans to repeatedly kill popular legislation with a cloture vote.

As for who I’ll vote for, given where I’m likely to live in November, it won’t matter. But I have two rules in politics:

1) Ask nothing for your vote and nothing is what you’ll get;

2) I only vote for people who has ask for my vote.

Obama has months to prove what a good uniter he is and do both of those things. If he does, he’ll get my vote. If he doesn’t, I may still check his box to vote against McCain, but I may not. At that point, I won’t feel like I owe him anything. Why should I feel obligated to vote for someone who hasn’t asked for my vote?

Reagan said it in 1962. Perhaps Miller and Lieberman have also said it, but Reagan said it first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reag…

The DLC is perfectly happy with either of the two candidates. Al From, in fact, said he was “very happy about the two candidates” Americans are considering. This was back when Edwards was still in, and it was pretty clear the two candidates he meant.

Austen Goolsbee is Sen Obama’s chief economic advisor, but he has a couple of other jobs, too. Including Chief Economist for… the DLC. He’s the guy who’s gonna sell Social Security down the river. Real Democrats don’t want to sell Social Security down the river.

Anyway, we have two DLC candidates, and whichever one gets the nomination gets my vote. Neither of them are as bad as McCain, but sure looks like we’re gonna get McCain anyway.

has not worked for your guy so far (he can’t crack the white / working class / senior / latino vote - see BTD at TalkLeft or Paul’s posts for the data), so, you might want to try a different strategy. Calling us (over the course of the prinmary in general)
- racist
- bitter
- dead-ender
- emotional
- immature
- low-information (the creative class word for “stupid”)
- uneducated
will not resolve the legitimate issues for your candidate. Arguing that our candiate is no longer a democrat and stating, as Brazile did, that we’re not needed to win will not get you any points either.

The abuse and hectoring we had to deal with has not changed that and cranking up the volume will not accomplish that either.

Agree to debate, sit the Mi/Fl delegate, stop the race-baiting and misogyny and answer policy questions, that might do the trick.

But, hey, what do I know, I’m all of the above.

I damn sure wouldn’t have been a Dem in 1855—I’d have been a Seward Whig/Republican. I’d probably have migrated Dem for FDR.

So what? Parties change and realign. The “creative class” is trying to infuse a libertarian ideology into the Dems and some of the best parts of the Dems are being pushed out as the “old coalition”. Perhaps a new alignment is approaching.

I’m looking for a new home, that’s for sure.

Last night I told an Obamaphile I didn’t trust Obama and he proceded to call me a cynic and said I was part of the problem, even though he couldn’t enumeate Obamas solutions. He cursed at me with a red face when I questioned Obama’s “diverse upbringing”—i’m sure he would have explicitly called me a racist if I wasn’t a dirty Mexican, but he essentially implied as much. (I’ll let my actual record on diversity and racial issues speak for itself.) He didn’t answer any of my questions, cursed at me with elevated voice and red face for 10 minutes and the Obamaphiles got all hurt when I added an expletives to “Obama lies with impunity”. How am I supposed to feel comfortable with this person as a political ally? They don’t respect me or my opinion and are happy to admit as much.

I am a career employee and I’m so depressed this morning, I’m not sure what to do. I can’t work for President McCain. OTOH, I’m not sure I can survive the two years it’s going to take for President Obama and his staff to figure out where the men’s room is. And I have no confidence that he will recognize, much less undo the damage done during Bush and there sure as hell isn’t going to be any accountability for what’s been done. The most I will say is that I don’t think he’ll do additional damage. McCain will.

But I agree that’s the main thing holding me back from completely writing off Obama in the fall.

I haven’t seen so much as a whiff of racism. Not even remotely.

By the way, I have seen racially condescending posts at big orange, not this year, but previously.

I don’t go to Taylor Marsh much and stopped going to Larry Johnson, they don’t get it. But the criticism of the Unity Pony at Corrente is entirely issue oriented.

Jesus, are you that miserable with a candidate that promises to reinstate progressive government in this country? Maybe we will find out he’s lying and he’s bought and sold, but right now he is saying the right things at a time when we need to hear them stated forcefully. Get on board please. We’re going to need everyone.

1. Those were the words of Lieberman and Miller. Make of it what you will.

2. Bill Clinton was still praising Lieberman and campaigning for him long after Lewinsky and long after Lieberman was Bush’s stock bipartisan Democrat. Only proves he’s not a good judge of character. See Morris, Dick.

3. Yes, Al Gore picked Lieberman. Bad choice. See Nader, Ralph.

4. Hillary Clinton still can’t bring herself to call for stripping Lieberman of his committee positions.

5. My point isn’t to tar the Clintons with the taint of the DLC. Many of the principles that the organization was founded on I agree with. I think the leadership has been lame, self-serving and hypocritical, but not fundamentally wrong. But I do bring it up to point out that the Clintons have strong ties to the single most prominent “bipartisan”, “centrist”, “triangulating”, “third way”, “unity” political organization in the Democratic universe. If any Democrat has a serious problem with Obama’s bipartisan rhetoric, it is beyond the realm of comprehension that they would not have a problem with the Clintons as well.

I think we will win this year. The Republicans are soooooo unpopular, and we are not even into hurricane season yet.

In 2006 VA Democrats managed to nominate a candidate who was unacceptable to women and blacks. Millions of blacks and even more women stayed home or did not vote in the Senate race. Webb still won. Obama really can win without Clinton supporters. Remember that back when the Republicans had a competitive primary the losing Democrat in the Democratic primary got more votes than the COMBINED totals in the Republican primary. The media’s greatest achievement is masking the sheer unpopularity of the Republican party. We just won a seat in Louisiana for crying out loud. So, yeah, they can win without Clinton supporters. I have made my peace with that, that is why I am sticking to single payer blogging.

Remember, in 1984 Ronald Reagen did not run on a platform of sanctions against apartheid South Africa, but he wound up signing the bill.

I can’t imagine Obama not moving further to the right to position himself for the GE but how will that work in unifying Clinton’s coalition into his column? Anyone?

Obama never objected when Clinton was subjected to that kind of treatment — but he played the “victim” card to the hilt, signalling to his supporters that they had the right to resent his treatment.

This is of course why it will be difficult for me to vote for him. But I will if I must.

But what it will also spur me to do is to support as many local and state level progressive women candidates as I can and urge others to support them too. As they used to say, don’t get mad - get even. I think that what’s going to help me through all of this is a concerted mission to combat sexism by pushing as many women into government as I can. If I am able to concentrate my efforts into something positive I won’t go nuts.

I remember reading about this rich gentleman in Colorado who contacted his rich friends to support progressive low level Dems who were running for offices like city council, school boards and state reps. A little bit of money goes a long way in races like those. I think that it’s an idea worth looking into.

You mean right foreign policy wise right?
If he were any farther right economics wise (look at his voting record—he aligns himself with Wallstreet and reps on economics) he would be Ron Paul.
His radical left social policy is embraced by many left wingers, and is more in keeping with Carter’s foreign policy. I wonder how many miles Israel will have to give up for Obama in order to keep American support.
Sorry guys but I’m not buying the argument.
McCain is more moderate both economically and foreign policy wise.
I didn’t buy the rhetoric with Bush and ain’t gonna buy it with Obama. A sheep is a sheep is a sheep is a sheep in wolf’s clothing is a wolf.

My drink of choice is Jack neat.
I like grey goose with Faygo Blue mist.
Sometimes I do Tequila with friends, and imbibe in a Mich here and again.

By drinking standards I am not the type to vote for Obama.
I wasn’t the type to vote for Kennedy either, now that I am retrospecting.

Will have to regroup and find a party that is more representative of me.
“The great divide in this country is not by race or even income, it’s by those who think they are better than everyone else and think they should play by a different set of rules,” —Bill Clinton

4. Hillary Clinton still can’t bring herself to call for stripping Lieberman of his committee positions.

She’s also not calling for pi or e to be made equal to 3.

It’s not possible to strip Lieberman of his committee assignments, the Senate is organized under a rule that is voted on at the beginning of the session and can’t be changed short of global thermonuclear war.

1. You made the equivocation of Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman to Hillary and Bill Clinton on your own. Or are we going to play the “Just Like” game here?

2. William Clinton hit the trail for Joe Lieberman, and pointed out that the Progosphere has a habit of targeting Democrats much more than they targeted Rethugs - which undercuts any goodwill they may have had.

3. And don’t ever forget that.

4. I was not aware that a JUNIOR Senator from New York - and a neophyte elected official - wielded that kind of power. That’s a job reserved for Harry Reid or one of the other Senior (read: More powerful) members of the Senate. Since this seems to be a game, neither has Senator Obama - nor any other member of the DNC. If Senator Clinton had those kinds of Superpowers, do you really think she would be wasting her time campaigning? After, her ONE vote in the AUMF forced a sitting President to order a country’s armed forces to invade another sovereign nation - now that’s power.

5. The “triangulation” you speak of came about when the core base of Democrats failed to support the Clinton presidency - starting with UHC; failed to stand up for themselves when they voted to raise taxes on the rich (so many Dems lost on this issue alone in 1994); allowed the GOP to define the narrative with their Contract On America - and yes, I know it’s really “With”); could not bring themselves to redefine “What Welfare Really Is” (which is partly why the “Welfare Issue” ended up being what it was - the Clintons had to force a compromise because the GOP planned on killing Welfare altogether); DOMA and “Don’t Ask” come about to blunt the GOP (again, they were looking for the kill here).

The “DLC” was founded in 1995 - shortly after the first GOP majority took office. Understand, first and foremost, the DLC’s existence would not have been required if Democrats weren’t scared of talking like Democrats and standing up for things Democratic voters believe in. The Clintons tried hard in the beginning, flawed as their approach may have been; but the Democrats as a whole, instead of helping to tweak the policy and act as a buffer against the GOP - as they do with Bush…and soon McCain - they left the Clintons to fight on their own with only a few staunch supporters in Congress.

Republicans, if you notice, don’t “triangulate” or go “centrist” because their supporters, with fewer exceptions than Democrats, remain on message regardless of opposition. And they win because far too many Democrats don’t know how to change the narrative - and their “more intellectual” supporters end up abandoning them when the going gets rough. Remember this going forward.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

I think it was founded in 1985, after Mondale’s spectacular loss. Clinton, Robb and some other southerners were the founders. At the time it seemed smart, in retrospect, clueless.

A look at how Obama got the money to run for president. HINT: It isn’t small donors.

Is this really the change we can believe in?

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

But I seriously doubt anyone knows why the DLC was formed at all.

Read this , and tell me how many of the goals of the DLC could be disagreed with on general principle. I’m sure that there are details that argued, but this is more process and narrative than endgame, which seems to confound those Beltway outsiders who do nothing but criticize Democrats more than they do Republicans.

And that is what irks me about DLC quotes and why I call it CDS; and more than a few of the people on the signatory list are not people who are considered Republican-lite/Bush-lite/Cheney-lite - and would bristle at such a suggestion.

I’m finally beginning to see the full disconnect going on (not pointing at you DCB, just rambling again). Republicans prey on Democrats using Process and Narrative. This is something that Obama, his campaign, his core support, nor Democrats in general have figured out yet. It’s this sleight-of-hand that allows the GOP, despite being out-numbered, to maintain power. Obama’s core support leveraged CDS, misogyny, and victim status to propel him to the front, all the while joining the GOP in a chorus to trash both Hillary and William Clinton on all sides.

In other words, the GOP Endgame, Part 1 - The removal of Hillary Clinton from the Presidential Race and the Neutralization of William and Hillary Clinton as being effective stumpers for Obama - came about because of Narratives (Hillary and Bill are Racists, Jeremiah Wright and Ayers, Obama the Secret Muslim, and so forth) and Process (full promotion of the “Racism Charges” against Hillary, positive promotion of B. Obama in Republican circles; full denigration of Hillary at the same time).

Then, GOP Endgame, Part 2 - President John McCain - begins. Thus, the Narrative (Obama is Absolutely Wrong for America - cue Scary Black Muslim Man and Super Angry Black Wife) and Process (Show Obama as being Out of Touch with Small Town America vs. American War Hero McCain) will slowly morphed to get us there. And Obama’s use the GOP Endgame to advance his campaign will prove to be his undoing - and America’s as well.

My sig still stands for me. Now more than ever.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

Worth a post, if you added some linky goodness. Always nice to call your shot…

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Obama’s core support leveraged CDS, misogyny, and victim status to propel him to the front, all the while joining the GOP in a chorus to trash both Hillary and William Clinton on all sides.

all that leaves out Obama’s ground game. He is doing what I have been begging Democratic politicians to do for decades. My friends who have volunteered tell me that they have never seen anything like it.

Clinton lost this the same way she lost health care, running a top down organization. And yeah, it is over, there is no way she can win the lopsided victories she will need to win outright, even with MI and FL. It is over. This will go on for the remainder of the states, but it is over.

“Republicans, if you notice, don’t “triangulate” or go “centrist” because their supporters, with fewer exceptions than Democrats, remain on message regardless of opposition.”

I disagree. They certainly have moments of admirable solidarity, yes, but the 2006 libertarian exodus, and now the nomination of McCain (who is a moderate Republican, IMHO), demonstrate that the GOP’s position does not benefit from being inflexible indefinetely. After the disaster that their “solidarity” has earned them over the last 8 yrs, Newt is absolutely right in pointing out that marching to the same tune is going to cause the GOP even more harm in the future than it already has.

The fact that Duncan Hunter is virtually unknown among R voters, and Tancredo couldn’t even get his foot in the door, whereas what the Freeper’s graciously term RINOs were dominating the field and headlines, it is most certainly the case that the GOP is prepared to move to the centre.

Absolutely true.

Was it a money thing, or a world view thing, or what?

Incidentally, if the Obama campaign isn’t top down, that makes it all the worse. That means that we have a mass movement, with a permanent presence — does anyone imagine the OFB will fold after the general, win or lose? — that’s leveraging hatred of women as a conscious political tactic. There is nothing good about that at all.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I agree with you about the campaign, but about Hillarycare.
And lambert, like the new sig :D

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

This is actually something that I’ve been mulling over for some time. If I’m not traveling through three states to deliver stuff today, I’ll see what I can do.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

Rino’s are one of my favorite animals….I never was a big fan of the Flintstones. What was the Sabertooth cat’s name anyhow?

“The more I think, the more I think about how pissed off I am…now I know how blondes evolved”—jeqal

Obama’s ground game is clearly a world view thing. You can’t carry something like that out unless you understand it, it is not something a political consultant can do for you.

I disagree. They certainly have moments of admirable solidarity, yes, but the 2006 libertarian exodus, and now the nomination of McCain (who is a moderate Republican, IMHO), demonstrate that the GOP’s position does not benefit from being inflexible indefinetely. After the disaster that their “solidarity” has earned them over the last 8 yrs, Newt is absolutely right in pointing out that marching to the same tune is going to cause the GOP even more harm in the future than it already has.

Number one, you’re calling a man who defends Bush’s Iraq Policies, calls a withdrawl from Iraq “reckless,” and has been saying since 2004 More Troops Are Needed in Iraq Because We Cannot Fail a Republican Moderate? DO NOT F#@$@# WANT. Ever.

Number two, whether you realize it or not, 2006 proves the Process & Narrative vs. Endgame completely. Democrats talked Endgame (Getting Out of Iraq, Holding Bush Accountable) and the people apparently wanted this. 2006 comes along, and Democrats take both houses again.

But then, Nancy Pelosi, before she became Majority Leader, Takes Impeachment Off the Table. She attempts to explain that her actions were for the greater good here , but only serves to underscore why Democrats are no good at Process and Narrative. Republicans during the Clinton Administration did not have the Senate majority to make full Impeachment, but did it anyway - and the vote was too close for any comfort. Since taking the majority chairs, Pelosi, Reid, and the Democrats have allowed the GOP to continue to control Narrative and Process, despite GOP holding Minority Party Status.

What goes on in Freeperville is actually irrelevant to the discussion here; the GOP continues to control what is talked about and how. And, regardless of American discontent for Republicans, Democrats don’t get more traction because too many are too busy making nice with Republicans on the wrong things.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

Per Prof. Krugman for starters:

When it comes to foreign policy, Mr. McCain was never moderate. During the 2000 campaign he called for a policy of “rogue state rollback,” anticipating the “Bush doctrine” of pre-emptive war unveiled two years later. Mr. McCain called for a systematic effort to overthrow nasty regimes even if they posed no imminent threat to the United States; he singled out Iraq, Libya and North Korea. Mr. McCain’s aggressive views on foreign policy, and his expressed willingness, almost eagerness, to commit U.S. ground forces overseas, explain why he, not George W. Bush, was the favored candidate of neoconservative pundits such as William Kristol of The Weekly Standard.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/e…

I can find lots more.

Libertarians may have split with the GOP, but Libertarians also have a tendency to vote GOP more often than Naderites vote Democratic. Second, the GOP uses this to their advantage - thus making every single vote that doesn’t go to the Democrat, the GOP’s ultimate enemy, a tacit vote for the Republican.

The biggest problem most Democrats have with Progressives seem to center on two fronts:

First, the vitriol of the Far Left Progs seems to be reserved for Democrats for not supporting specific positions (like the AUMF vote) or specific causes (like strong environmental measures), instead of at Republicans for deconstruction of protections and agencies charged with enforcement (notice how unhealthy the air, water, food, drugs and plastic goods have become over the last few years under GOP rule?). And, instead of supporting Democrats who may be on the fence or in slight support of the issues Progressives hold near and dear, the Democrats in question get bashed for “not going far enough.” So, the Democrat suffers backlash, and the GOPer, who does not support pretty much anything Progressive, takes over and plays “Whammy!” with the Treasury.

Second, possibly related, is that Progressives push for the endgame with no regard for the opposition to the goal or the process by which the goal must be obtained. And, far too often, the Progressive Endgame has little regard for the working serfs and their immediate and far more critical concerns.

Fuel efficient and clean energy burning cars? Great. Except that new cars require financing because they don’t come cheap, and thus, the poor get locked out of this technology for at least several years before they wind up on used car lots.

Recycle trash? Fine idea. Too bad the schools are failing in the area because of lack of tax revenues.

Buy more home grown foods and healthy alternatives? Swell. Except that “fresh” foods are more expensive than pre-processed junk - even moreso because of fuel costs and the side effects of Ethanol production - and as such, a healthy diet ends up further away.

Complain about the bombs being dropped in Iraq and Afghanistan? Love to. But I’m too busy dodging gunfire in Newark, Philadelphia, NYC, Miami, Chicago, and elsewhere.

Process, narrative, and opposition. On the outside, it seems so easy, until you have to face these items. I should also point out that if your core support wilts like rusted metal, what other choices are you left with when facing the opposition (example - The Clinton Presidency in 1993 with UHC)? Until the online (and off-line) Progosphere figures this part out, Democrats will continue to fracture at the core - and Republicans will dismantle the country in the process.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

Hardcore Rs label him a liberal on domestic policy and Ds label him a wingnut on foreign policy. But put it in perspective; neither Hillary nor Obama are very serious about pulling out of Iraq. And you’re right, the same can be said for the rest of the Democratic party. Hillary has said that she will “obliterate” Iran if it attacks Israel (regardless of how utterly ridiculous this scenario is but to the most fanciful neo-con), and Obama will, apparently, gladly march into Pakistan without consultation with its sovereign government. Labeling based on foreign policy is never very clear cut; you can count as many interventionist liberals (Sudan, anyone?) as isolationist conservatives (Balkans anyone?).

I consider McCain to hang on the left hand side of the GOP based on a combination of his domsestic voting record (which is slightly to the left of his Republican colleagues, regardless of how “conservative” that may still make them in the eyes of Democrats) and his attitude towards bipartisanship. I don’t think I’m wrong in saying that he is considered moderate by the majority of Americans (it certainly appeared that way in 2004!), as demonstrated by the number who have said they will switch sides if Obama wins the nomination.

As for the justification of being disappointed with the DNC, I’m not arguing with you. I was merely highlighting that the GOP is not utterly intransigent, and in fact it is dangerous to think that they are. The buggers are prepared to change their stripes whenever the situation suits them (classic example: see John McCain).

Out of context. She was talking about an umbrella of deterrance. Telling Iran that these countries are under our nuclear protection, a nuclear strike on these countries will provoke nuclear retaliation. It wasn’t limited to only Isreal, she wants other Middle Eastern countries involved as well.

The umbrella was a very effective policy in the Cold War, but know everybody uses to paint Clinton as a warmonger.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

… as aeryl is doing, one by one, but I don’t have time to write it right now.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Or a realist. I didn’t say I disagreed with her. I’m just saying that the difference between conservatives and liberals on matters of foreign policy are complex and not so amenable to the conventional left vs right differentiation. For example, is the desire for troop withdrawal from Iraq a liberal or a conservative position right now? Not easy to answer. It requires that the motives for such a desire are clearly stated before such a label can be supplied. McCain claims to wish to remain in Iraq in the interest of Iraq (in addition to Al Qaeda… or Hezbollah, or whatever terrorist organisations he is confused between these days), which puts him in the same pot as the original liberal signatories of the Euston Manifesto (which has since been co-opted by sympathetic neo-conservatives).

and I never will be. Obama supports too many things that I oppose and will not have my vote (though I am voting since I strongly believe that downticket is important and it’s a gubernatorial election year here.) I don’t want him to “fix” social security nor do I want him to continue deregulation. And those are only a few. I don’t feel he even pays lip service to things that matter to me, but then again, his campaign and the DNC seem to like to make it a point of saying that my vote doesn’t matter to them. I’m sure if all the other people whose votes didn’t matter stayed home this year and Rick Larsen lost his seat to a Republican. Not sure if they care about statewide seats like us being stuck with Dino Rossi)

happily immune to all religious indoctrination

it should read: I’m sure if all the other people whose votes didn’t matter stayed home this year and Rick Larsen lost his seat to a Republican they’d care

ihappily immune to all religious indoctrination

I consider McCain to hang on the left hand side of the GOP based on a combination of his domsestic voting record (which is slightly to the left of his Republican colleagues, regardless of how “conservative” that may still make them in the eyes of Democrats) and his attitude towards bipartisanship.

Specific votes, please. His voting record is actually very clear that is he is hard right all the way. And as for “bipartisanship”, do I really need to remind you of what Grover Norquist says about bipartisanship?

Briefly

- Campaign finance reform
- ANWR drilling (he’s rated way higher than most Rs on environment; not that he’s a tree-hugger by any means)
- Torture

As I recall, both conservative and liberal groups tend to place him towards the left of the Republican party in terms of his voting record.

And didn’t Bill C call McCain a moderate himself in the not-too-distant past?

1. McCain-Feingold, which apparently doesn’t actually apply to him, in the best hard-right tradition.

2. I’ll grant you this one, he’s mostly voted against oil exploitation in ANWR.

3. Torture, in which you say you are against torture, but vote to legalize any interrogation method the president wants, in the best hard-right tradition.

McSame was the sponsor, along with JOHN Warner of Virginia, of the war crimesMilitary Commissions Act. McSame is not the first torture victim to make this career change, it is shockingly common.

McSame is a war criminal and would not be received in polite society in a healthy political culture.

thanks—-very well said—i always bring up the Supremes alone, but vital policy that affects us all really is made daily in the various Depts and Agencies in the Executive—DOJ and FDA, etc, especially.

(but then that brings up the important point of who Obama will appoint, and then who those appointees will hire—will they all be wimps who won’t fight and want unity and to be post-partisan too? ugh….)