Watched her up close and personal out here in Silicon Valley while she single-handedly almost destroyed Hewlett-Packard. She'll do the same for McCain and the Republican Party. I'm very enthusiastic about her involvement.

Oh and, excellent reference there, The Wall Street Journal. Well known for the independent, objective editorial staff and management as well as for journalistic political neutrality. No bias apparent in that article at all, perfectly respectable to take Amy and Carly at their word for what kind of people were at the meeting and how well it went.

R.I.P., PB 2.0; strangled in its crib.

... but the fact that even her misstatements of McCain's policy proposals gets her press puts her in the forefront of VP candidates.... something Obama can't really hammer down right now, can he?

McCain has consistently voted against requiring insurance companies that pay for Viagra to pay for contraception for women and he has stated that Roe should be overturned.

But there are Democratic women who still support him? Amazing. I've heard of cutting off your nose to spite your face but this is way past that.

McCain's record speaks for itself. Don't just rely on the Wall Street Journal. Check out Project Vote Smart's info on McCain's voting record on abortion, health care and other issues that women care about: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category....

There are a lot of reasons to dislike Barak Obama, there are not a lot of reasons to support John McCain.

Is it me or does there appear to be a recent accumulation/infestation of cheeto-esque talking points with little substance? Hyperbole is good to make a point, but when used as a criticism of non-Obamaphiles its pretty lame.

Hope this is the exception, not the rule to what comes next.

They met to discuss possibly supporting McCain and wanted specific information on his positions on a number of issues and clearly trying to push him in a certain direction on those issues in exchange for possibly winning their support. What's wrong with that?

Now, I doubt they're going to get answers they like because McCain isn't good on the issues they raised. But it's good politics to try to use your leverage to move candidates in directions that you prefer. By making the meeting public, they were no doubt trying to move Obama* as much as trying to move McCain. And if they get McCain to move on issues like access to birth control, that's a good thing isn't it? If McCain wins wouldn't you rather he support access to birth control?

So what's wrong with any of that?

While I have no interest in supporting McCain, it's nice to see Republicans meeting with part of the Democratic base to try to win their support (and, yes, many of these people are part of the Democratic base whether Obama supporters and other Dems want to admit it or not). Usually, we get both the GOP and the Democrats rushing to make the evangelicals happy as we've already seen in the past month. And do you know why we see that every fucking election cycle? Because evangelical voters stay home if the GOP doesn't tend its base. So while the Democratic candidate runs from his base to the GOP's base after every primary, the GOP candidate stays home so his base doesn't. There's a lesson in there for the rest of us.

And while I have no desire to see a President McCain, if he does end up winning, I'd much rather see it chalked up to Obama being unable to secure his base or his problems with women voters than the storyling we've typically gotten which is that the Democrat lost because he wasn't conservative enough for white men. Because that storyline keeps moving the entire political discussion further to the right. It's also wrong as a factual matter, the difference between Kerry and Gore was how they did among white women (and perhaps if that truth was the media narrative the Obama campaign would be more concerned about making this voting bloc - rather than his Christianist friends - happy).

* I suspect that's why we suddenly have an influx of folks spouting the usual Roe talking points. These folks aren't just trying to leverage McCain, they're trying to leverage Obama instead of doing what they're supposed to, shutting up and sending Obama more money.

they're mostly unknown Hillary fundraisers, and really can't sway votes--Hillary can't either.

It's time we stopped looking for excuses to bash each other and got on with the business of beating the GOP this fall.

I think we can all three agree on that, can't we, FrenchDoc and Bringiton?

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

Jeez, it's Friday. Go get drunk or something. Or take it offline.

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

Hi everyone. I really support ANY negotiation with either camp for our ACTUAL RIGHTS, for "what we get," as Lambert says.

Where is the harm anyway in publicizing what Democrats want, and saying they have power?

Mr. Obama SHOULD be drinking tea with the powerful pro-Clinton faction of the party, and he HAS to NOW do this especially because he has betrayed his former campaign promises--to an extent never done by at least any recent Democratic candidate. Mr. Obama is CHOOSING to downplay MANY of his better policies and acting as if they are up for compromise. Mr. McCain is more progressive than Mr. Obama on several issues, notably campaign finance reform, earmarks, and parts of his environmental plan (he voted against the 2005 Cheney energy bill which Obama voted for.) All Mr. Obama has to do is stand up for the right things NOW.

Be FOR him or AGAINST Mr. Obama, but please, hold HIM to some STANDARDS. And this kind of pressure seems to be the only thing keeping him from going even further in the wrong direction--for example, having to justify his FISA vote seemed to cool him down some on that issue. There's no sense in having a candidate who once said the right things and then abandoned them. If we don't SAY anything, there's no price he has to pay for turning against the values he once espoused. Go read his speeches from even 2007 (and earlier)--he doesn't sound like that anymore. If he's President, we need to write him about things we don't agree with--why not try now and try to get things from him that could make some of us decide to vote for him? That he would feel he HAD to deliver as President?

Give your passion to the issues that would help people.

Sorry to preach to those of you already in the choir. Thanks for your support and insight. You here at CW are great.

got hungover on store-brand cheese puffs and and cheap light beer in Austin, or something.

Bringiton has a point, Lambert.

I'm learning -- being brought up short two or three times a paragraph, these damn days -- that there's a difference between using language the way I always have, as a tool, and using it as my bosses do -- as a WEAPON.

There is a difference between abstinence as one element in an array of strategies, and abstinence-only. One is a legitimate approach to teaching -- it's an option some people may be able to use effectively, some of the time.
(Bear in mind that abstinence has to be a cooperative behavior.) Abstinence, in some conditions, can work (ask anybody who's ever lived through US Air Force basic training. You don't have *time* to flirt, or opportunity to go beyond flirting!) -- but there must be exactly the right conditions.

Abstinence-only is destined, on the other hand, to FAIL.

This is why many of the godbotherers love it -- they know it will FAIL, and that gives them an edge to persecute their fellow human beings.

It's not enough for them to hate gays and divorce and a woman's own body-sovereignty (I'm talking about more than abortion here -- I'm talking about the right to eat and drink and wear clothes to suit herself, rather than live up to the judgmental demands of others -- and that covers everything from the way she wears her hair and the flavor of her toothpaste to the style of her underwear and her choice of contraceptives. A woman's ability to make her own choices in everything from her education to her wardrobe is under constant attack in our "never-too-rich, never-too-thin, gotta-be-sexy" society; sadly, it's not just the godbotherers who are attacking. Haute couture is every bit as misogynist as the Democratic party leadership that wouldn't stop what happened to Hillary Clinton) -- they have to hate kids and singles and, yes, sexual-abuse victims too.

I don't know why they want me to believe in the god they push so hard, because that god is so weak they can put limits on every aspect of existence and puissance a god should possess.

That's not the point.

The point is we're picking fights amongst ourselves, instead of taking the fight to the real enemy of the country.

Focus, people. BEAT McCAIN!!!!!

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

"As to the “sacredness” term, that is indeed the way most parents approach sex talk especially when they have daughters."

I would be interested in a link here, because this seems very unlikely to me. Even amongst many of the regular church-goers in America, I think the talk would be more about love and respect, for self and others, say, and safety. (I would hope that many would treat the sons pretty much the same in most ways here.) But I'm guessing too, and basing it on the type of sex and relationship lessons that many American churches teach. I would say that your point above is certainly true of many American Catholic churches.

But I do think--and didn't Mr. John F. Kennedy think too?--that that kind of talk belongs to the churches, not the Democratic candidate for the President of the United States.

I don't share the idea that the standard you are arguing for here, that Mr. Obama is like most parents, is the right one. He is not our neighbor; he wants to be our leader.

Sarah, do you have a link to what programs Mr. Obama is proposing to actually support?

"The point is we’re picking fights amongst ourselves, instead of taking the fight to the real enemy of the country."

It seems to me that we are instead discussing what is important and what matters to us, as individuals and as Democrats or Independents, etc. We fairly clearly have a number of issues on which we agree, and a number of issues on which we disagree. The arguments here, in part, are about which issues are important or shouldn't be. I really have no sense that most people are trying to fool anyone--rather that most are trying to articulate what is important to them and why. I hope many people will say what they think, and that we can keep our replies civil (this is not directed at anyone in particular and in fact due to a power outage I never saw the interactions Lambert deleted--thanks Lambert.) I know it's a hard line between the passion that carries our replies and being civil, especially in a larger environment where many of us were not listened to--but please try. It's important for people to be able to discuss their views and concerns and issues freely. I cannot subscribe to the view that the very discussion and understanding of what a candidate means should be repressed nor that we just need to focus on beating a candidate without understanding both candidates' views fully. In fact, in these days of some of the more fervent and at times repressive OFB, we have an obligation to support and provide free discussion--in which all are heard. We may not agree--and I think may not once all are heard. I know it's difficult, which I think many well-meaning people have found, both for and against Mr. Obama, to work with and perhaps fully understand a candidate like Mr. Obama--he, unlike Kerry or Gore, seems to want to keep all his options open as far as his policies (or even to exactly what political flavor they will take) but Mr. Obama's recent changing of many of his positions calls out for us even more as good citizens to reexamine his positions, and call him out on them where we find them wanting.

Ouch!

I like to think of myself as still virile, thank you very much! (Pile on, feminists, womanists....)

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

but, two points. Bringiton, while I agree with your assessment of Obama-on-sex-as-a-topic could be a measure of the man-as-father’s humanity, I don’t agree he was playing that role in this context of his Relevance interview. As he demonstrated immediately after Hillary suspended her campaign, that audience is a must have on his campaign’s top ten list of forums. Clear motive on this one.

I would also add, the lack of humanity displayed by ignoring misogyny’s role in his campaign is unconscionable. He was born from a woman, his life partner is a woman, and his daughters will become women. All inherit a world made sour (and dangerous) by such ignorance.

Secondly, Sarah, I cannot support Obama, not because he is not McCain, but because, as Lizza’s New Yorker article so methodically tracked, he has single-mindedly pursued his own ambition over the interests of his constituents. The only thing I can predict about Obama’s positions on the issues I care about is that they will depend on who he thinks has more power to promote him at the time.

Obama long ago abrogated his right to legitimately claim to have had a change of heart on reproductive rights or almost any other issue. Not only has he not articulated why he has gone back on former promises/pledges/platforms and denied he ever had a differing view, he has blamed those he considers hard of hearing, or dense, for having the audacity to hold him accountable to his own statements.

I, for one, will not be compounding my previous error of voting for democrats who do not meet the smell test.

"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away" -- Tom Waits

Top Dem Party Officials Send Sharply-Worded Email Demanding That Hillary Donors And Supporters Get Behind Obama -- http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsm...

Secondly, Sarah, I cannot support Obama, not because he is not McCain, but because, as Lizza’s New Yorker article so methodically tracked, he has single-mindedly pursued his own ambition over the interests of his constituents. The only thing I can predict about Obama’s positions on the issues I care about is that they will depend on who he thinks has more power to promote him at the time.

Best description of The Precious I have ever read.

Sadly, it's also the best description of any politician -- of any party, or in any position. Which is why we can't afford to let up. If The Precious is to be the standardbearer for the Democrats this fall (godhelpus), we cannot afford to sit idly by and let The Precious' flaws go unremarked and unrebuked.

But let us not lose sight of the goal, which is to get a Democrat elected in every race we can. Once we have Democrats in place, we can bend our efforts towards BETTER Democrats.

Lambert, I don't think the country needs a "father" in the White House. FSM knows Jack Kennedy didn't have that public image; within living memory, Camelot is regarded as the most nearly-perfect incarnation of the vision that I grew up believing was The American Dream.

I'd rather have Tim Allen (of Home Improvement) in the White House than either of the presumptive nominees, though. Flawed as he is and crude as his humor can be, Allen's had a lifetime of listening to and attuning his work to suit his audience.

SO much more qualified than a mere politician.

Asked you to focus on the job at hand, bearded librarian -- gotta keep John McCain out of the White House.

If we get Obama, we get Obama. If we get Cynthia McKinney, we get McKinney. If we get (by some miracle) Hillary, so be it.

Of those four I see the American people being pretty well screwed anyway, but the one of them who would be the savviest about running the country and the least likely to screw the most people more severely is Clinton, in my view. Next McKinney. Between Obama and McCain, it's not really a toss-up; it's just that the idea of having to choose between them makes me want to toss my cookies.

We can admit that we're killers ... but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes! Knowing that we're not going to kill today! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

by Matt Bors