-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/go-away-you-horrible-human-being.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
WILL YOU STAY HOME IF SHE IS THE VP NOMINEE, JOHN?
John, you have sacrificed gay rights on the altar of a candidate who solicits the support of homophobic ministers. How you do this is good faith is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps all the advertisement revenue from certain Democratic organizations requires you to attack Hillary Clinton, the one candidate who does view LGBT rights and human rights. And too bad your advocacy for the candidate who could care less about gay rights has failed: the LGBT community supports Clinton over Obama 67-33.
Mindless party unity is not very becoming. And your misogyny renders you a brute. Thank you for selling out yourself and the movement to Barack Obama. You have just relegated yourself to the margins of irrelevancy.
How does it feel to support a candidate who coquets with homophobia for electoral gain? How does it feel to lack any true conviction? You are a joke.
but in the end it won't matter, because obama is yet another in a line of stevensonian democratic losers who have no ability to connect with voters (and no,undemocratic "caucuses" have nothing to do with the way general elections work).
all that these short-term opportunists are doing is limbaugh's dirty work for him by doing everything possible to assure mccain's victory in the fall instead clinton's, who's the only true supporter of the gay community running for the democratic nomination.
obama is a loser and that is why the republicans and neoconservatives were singing his praises until he became the "presumptive" nominee in the media echo chamber. it's really sad to see people who claim to support the gay community play into the hands of the gop by allowing themselves to be used as shills for obama.
All my homo friends are for Obama and don't want to be pandered to by a Clinton who'll jack us off under the table while signing our rights to marry away and then run again in 4 years proud of the discrimination to gin up votes in the south.
Barack mentions gay people ALL the time, btw, and that gets a lot of respect.....especially since Clinton hasn't uttered the word lesbian in like 20 years.
ummmmmm this is not a hoookup site fireblazes, just thought id let you know..... LOL
change it for you. joe
John, whether you like it or not, Obama does not have a lock on the nomination. This is not tearing the Democratic party apart. If anything, what's tearing the party apart is hysterical overreactions like this post.
I can't help but think this situation is incredibly similar to Florida in 2004, when all the Republicans were saying Bush won and Gore should just drop out of the race.
Frankly, I think the risk of damage to the party comes from the Obamaites covering their ears shouting "Shut up, shut up, shut up" more than anything else.
I'll happily vote for Obama and I'll happily vote for Clinton, my "insanity" notwithstanding.
She makes me want to puke. When she told the story about poor people skipping meals so her campaign can continue is sickening. The Clintons will NEVER stop begging other people for money. They are parasites.
Now, go ahead with the "I don't hate her because she's a woman! I hate her because she's a bitch!" and "You bitchez are always looking for misogyny" arguments. I haven't had a chance to play Feminist Bingo for about 10 minutes or so.
has nothing to do with her being a woman, can the sexist crap. Criticize
her policies, record, and pertinent behavior without ONCE using a sexist
stereotype. Can you do it? Can you write a post that does that?
And look at all this straw you're wading around in! I don't know about
loathing men. The men in my life, I love very much. Men in politics, I
judge on their records. Love John Edwards. Hate George Bush. Both men.
Never said anything about their looks, penis size, sound of their laughter,
castrating tendencies (oh wait, that's only about women), their bitchiness
(oh wait, that's only about women, too!), etc. See how easy it is?
And nice "Look! Over there! Racism! So I don't have to answer to my own
sexism, because someone else did something bad, too!"
Really. It's predictable, and tiresome.
Tinfoil Hattie
Cartoon is apropos.
Eating shit kills brain cells.
she's at her absolute worst when giving a speech.
it's a droning, yelling monotone bore.
That's what's wrong with her.
Actually, I was very disgusted with you last year for your rabid support of Hillary. Couldn't figure out where you were coming from. Bill has charisma to spare, but he sure isn't sharing it with his wife. Unfortunately, even without opening her mouth, she is a loathsome character. Hard to be sure if she makes its worse by talking. Yeah, I supported her too, but that was way back around 1992, 93 when the Republicans did that hatchet job on her healthcare plan. But the more I saw of her, the more I found I couldn't stand her.
I would love to see a woman behind the desk in the Oval Office, but Hillary is not that woman. She is self serving and if she puts women in positions of power, she won't make the necessary changes to provide lasting benefits after her terms in office rather, like Pelosi, she is creating a legacy that will insure many, many more years of discrimination and hatred against women in power. Hillary is doing women no favors with her behavior, rather giving more fuel to the misathropes, missogynists and Neanderthals.
I know what might be driving them now. There have been some reports on how Obama has taken over and is consolidating the party into his party. And he is purging some of the Clinton structures put in place over 20 years and replacing them with his own.
It could be that the Clintons are terrified if they leave that Obama will purge everything about them out.
He is building a new democratic party that repudiates the dlc and clintonism. That has to terrify them. This is why they are going crazy.
Obama has embraced the 50 state strategy and partnered with the dnc. Open Left had a post last week about how Obama is taking over many aspects of the party.
It seems Obama wants to shut out people like Podesta and Clinton sympatizers and their little groups and rebuild it from the mess the Clintons left it in and under their iron grip.
The party is moving away from the Clintons and with the new day offered by Obama. A renewed party reinvigorated. This has to terrify the Clintons and their little minions.
she just said she would fight like mad for the democratic nominee. she also correctly noted that the primary has energized the party. how is that a bad thing? obama made a mistake avoiding the free press coverage in WV, coverage that would not have been possible without hillary.
hillary's a politician. obama is a better politician. everyone knows he is the nominee. we don't need the hysteria.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10315...
Some people just can't envision a campaign without mud.
lemme play out that sort of thinking:
dems don't win oklahoma, and they still win the WH.
neither Clinton nor Obama will win oklahoma,
ergo, Obama wins in November.... ;-)
and oklahoma has more electoral votes than WV.
I guess the DINOs really are crazy people.
Maybe this will work:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lancashire/2383225...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10316...
Geez, what a sacrifice. Sigh, only 8 more months of this fucktard....
--JOHN ARAVOSIS
God that makes me hot.
lol
:)
that little stat says alot about WV voters
I was banned several times for trying, sometimes hysterically, to point out what an absolute shit she is.
Times change .....
follow the example the obama campaign and tone down the hysteria just a wee bit.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/5/13/20401/9...
Delusional? Yes. Taking her supporters on a fool's errand? Yes.
Begging for donations? Pathetic.
Only fools will contribute to this multi-millionaires campaign, that is going
nowhere.
You really did used stick up for her. I remember because It caused me to boycott you. I couldn't believe you were being so blind. The boycott didn't last that long. I got over myself. Plus, I love this blog too much. I don't even watch TV news anymore. I rely on you and 8 other blogs to get my daily news and my quality of life has increased 1000% Don't let her stress you John. It's over. It's not worth it.
LOL! That's a good one!
I'm not so very fond of this post, but I like the ending! I guess we ALL lose except him!
obama is leading hilary by 20 points in two polls released in oregon.
and john this post was HILARYRIOUS but sad.
let's look at the best he has done.
Idaho 4 Electoral Votes
Obama 79%
Clinton 17%
Obama +62%
Hawaii 4 Electoral Votes
Obama 76%
Clinton 24%
Obama +52%
Alaska 3 Electoral Votes
Obama 75%
Clinton 25%
Obama +50%
Washington 11 Electoral Votes
Obama 68%
Clinton 31%
Obama +37%
Georgia 15 Electoral Votes (Competitive with Bob Barr)
Obama 67%
Clinton 31%
Obama +36%
Colorado 9 Electoral Votes
Obama 67%
Clinton 32%
Obama +35%
Minnesota 10 Electoral Votes
Obama 66%
Clinton 32%
Obama +34%
http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?s...
Which one of these states does West Virginia negate:
Kansas - Obama won by 42%
Colorado - 34%
Minnesota - 34%
Georgia - 35%
Virginia - 28%
Idaho - 62%
North Carolina - 14%
Mississippi - 25%
Maryland - 25%
Wyoming - 24%
Vermont - 21%
Wisconsin - 17%
Hawaii - 52%
Washington D.C. - 52% **
Louisiana - 22%
Nebraska - 35%
Illinois - 32%
Alabama - 14%
Utah - 18%
North Dakota - 25%
Alaska - 51%
South Carolina - 29%
States Clinton won by 14% or more:
Oklahoma - 24%
Arkansas - 44%
Massachusetts - 16%
New York - 17%
Rhode Island - 18%
And Terry kept saying that these floor fights were a good thing ... really? Whose party are you and Hillary working for if you think it's a good thing.
She keeps reporting history of how no Dem has won the white house w/o winning WV ... well no Democrat has won the white house when it has gone to a floor fight EITHER!
Hillary is a menace to Democratic society. The Clinton's ego trumps everything.
Voters will vote for the undead McCain just to avoid hearing her voice for four years.
but not quite.
he is so buckin' for vp.
please please please let it be Huckabee.
By Steven Thomma and William Douglas | McClatchy Newspapers
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/36952.html
---snip---
Turnout in West Virginia appeared average, according to Sarah Bailey, West Virginia's deputy secretary of state. That would be a letdown from the surge of voting in earlier states, a reflection perhaps of the fact that Obama didn't compete heavily in the state or that voters sensed that the four-month campaign was nearing a conclusion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlBuPi5phe8&feat...
Queen of Snots
she isn't worth it.
If Sam Nunn is VP, does that mean Obama will break his promises on DADT?
I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton, but this shrill hysteria from this site makes no sense. If you want to beat John McCain, don't go after Hillary Clinton - it just alienates her supporters - who are needed in the general election.
We've got baggage and the wagons are rolling.
Onward to November!
They both just need to go away.
And while we watch this go on, we should remember that at this point in 2004, Kerry had raised $100,000,000 for the summer season. That is exactly what we should be doing instead of gagging on the Clintons' subtle race baiting. This must stop.
They love the drama. It makes better TV. And that's all they're really about. MSNBC showed a good bit of Obama's speech today in Missouri. When he was done, they cut back to Chris Matthews, who then shat on Obama's speech, calling it a dull "seance". Actually, the crowd seemed quiet because they appeared to be listening to his details. Apparently, if it isn't full of screaming cheers, it is not "good TV", and therefore, it isn't an "effective" speech.
Hillary is crazy, she is too delusional to function.
The Super-delegates and the rest of the Democratic party even Hillary supporters have to be adults, there are real issues to deal with, we cannot afford to indulge the Clinton's
Read the full article at:
http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=E3B...
Obama had more to do with those three elections than Hillary, who wasn't even around.
Obama campaigned with the guy who won in Illinois and was linked to the guy who won in Lousisiana by his opponent.
As far as I know, Hillary was just trying to keep tabs on Bubba while all this was going on.
think so.
Your comments in this email are laughable. "The guy" who won in Louisiana
did so because he ran an ad distancing himself from Obama. He's a
conservative Democrat, that's why he won in a Republican district. And,
Obama couldn't be seen anywhere near him or it would have cost him the
election.
As for your insulting and moronic comments about Sen. Clinton or "Bubba,"
they don't even deserve a response beyond this:
DO NOT WRITE TO ME AGAIN.
Especially since they've got their own resident go-to-bigot in Pat Buchanan.
Hillary is NOT going away! Get over it, deal with it, suck it up, and stop your pathetic whining!
Mario
What part of "It's over, you lost Hilary" does this woman NOT UNDERSTAND?
"ohn: You are so right about the Clintons - some of us have been saying exactly the same things while most of those who post here, including you, were cheering them on as America's royal family. But two things: what is being revealed is that Obama is not going to be able to carry the white working class and rural vote, period - end of story, and therefore he will not win, no matter how many African Americans,white wine drinking liberals, and overprivileged college kids (who are pretty much his coaltion now) come out, 2) criticiizing West Virginians and denigrating them because they happen to have a different point of view that you is unAmerican, fascist, and worse of all, a kind of elitism by a group of people who have no claims at all of being superior in any way - it is also a confirmation of the growing feeling among many Americans that Obama and his supporters are out-of-touch with average Americans. So score one for being right that Clintons are fundamentally evil, but deduct one for being so ideologically driven as to not to see that Obama and company are no better at all. It takes more to be a successful president than a pretty face able to spew forth preprogramed ear-candy. Obama has no more to do with most of us than that mulitmillionaire gigolo the Democrats nominated last time, and he is going to lose by a landslide.
"
And yet "somehow" Obama has gotten more votes and carried more states than Clinton. Quit drinkin the koolaids, the reality is that come election time, Clinton isn't going to be carrying WV either. The truth is that Obama will carry all the traditional blue states, just like most other Dem candidates, and the really important bit is that he can compete in states that Clinton doesn't stand a chance. Clinton has won pretty much just in states that are true-blue anyway, or where Dems don't stand much of a chance no matter who is running.
Also, not to point out the obvious, but most of the population of this country lives in areas that Obama will have very little trouble winning versus McCain. There's a reason California has 300 something delegates and WV has like 30, they are nowhere near as important in terms of the election (Despite all the plattitudes about every vote counting, it's kind of obvious our system is rigged towards the large population states deciding POTUS). The bottom line is that most of the population center states that Clinton has one will more than likely go to Obama. Most people I know who voted for Clinton voted for her because they liked her, not because they disliked him.
Time to stop propagating the "Clinton myth" of greater electability. The MSM has been singing it lately because it's the only thing that keeps the boobs tied to the tubes so to speak. Bottom line, Clinton lost. If she is "more electable" then logic dictates she would have, gasp, won. It takes more than the "Right" skin color to win an election. Clinton has run a piss-poor campaign, made incredibly dumb decisions at every turn, shown she can take the second biggest warchest ever compiled and not only blow it, but go into debt! What part of this, except for the theoretical parts people like you still cling to, make her the better candidate?
It is way past time for her to get out of there and leave sometime for fundraising for all the Democratic offices.
You have come completely unglued. You need to stop making a fool of yourself. Really. Get a grip.
Do not let the door hit you, you miserable shit.
My wife gets upset when I say "I HATE Hillary Clinton". And I know my dear sweet mother in her grave down in Alabama, who taught me to NEVER say you hated someone, that was a sin, is spinning in her grave at how often I use the phrase.
It is hard to find better words than "loathe" and "hate", however, to describe the anger any rational person, especially a Democrat, should have at her and Bill, who have proven to be blindly self-serving self-centered power hungry politicians.
And I have had enough of those in the past few decades to suffice for now, thanks very much.
.
Me , myself and I see no problem with her continuing on. I think for the remaining states, it's a must.
I like both candidates so I see it straight down the middle.I will support which ever candidate wins the nomination.
I also believe she should be the choice for VP, simply because Sen Obama will need the people who voted for her.
The way you wrote yer post shows yer disdain for her. I'm sure that will feed the rabid Obama supporters all the more.
I dislike both supporters who relentlesly bash each other. I don't see how they can help win in Nov. In short, yer screwin up the party. Try saying something unifying.
That ain't no way to win an election. We'll NEED those VOTERS.
Wondering about Bill Clinton? 20 million new jobs, 5.4 trillion dollar deficit. yeah, he sucked.
With her speech in WV, Clinton clarified her position in regard to the rules of the Party. Before and after the primary, Clinton and her surrogates, went all the way in what should be rightfully called a disregard of the internal rule of law of the party. Basically claiming that the rules must be changed, that the millions of voters who have already voted don’t count, and that the elected pledged delegates don’t count either.
What seems to only count for Clinton is the popular vote of some but not all contests (after all many caucus states don’t divulge their numbers) and the superdelegates. This is because those are the two only metrics that she can hope to change in her favor.
While it is true that Clinton and her surrogates have stopped the direct attacks on Obama, they have not stopped (and actually increased) their attacks on the Party’s rules and regulations as well as the will of the majority of its voters thus far.
The Clintons and their surrogates keep moving the goalpost as they see fit and they must have a lot of clout within the upper echelons of the party since no one (where are you Howard Dean?) is telling them they should stop their extralegal attacks on the Party’s rules and regulations.
On Meet the Press last Sunday, talking about the FL and MI delegations, Terry McAuliffe said that "the rule is 50 percent" and that he would be content with 50% of the delegations from those states seated. Now, two days later, they want 100% of the delegates seated as is, even though Clinton herself said back in December, that these primaries "will count for nothing".
Their rationale is that we need 50 states in November but they don’t seem to care about the fact that they might end up with 25 states if they keep pushing their unorthodox efforts and drive away a large chunk of Obama supporters in the process.
Since there is no logical explanation to Clinton’s refusal to play by the rules, the only possible explanation is that what we are witnessing is a pure and simple coup attempt by the Clintons and their surrogates. Now that they cannot win by the rules that they themselves have helped to lay out and that they have accepted at the beginning of the process, they feel it’s ok for them to demand that the rules be changed as they see fit in order to make the math work in their favor.
They now claim that they could win the popular vote but what they are not saying is that they are only referring to those states that hold primaries. Clinton knows very well that some caucus states don't release their popular votes results so, while with one hand she acts as the champion of democratic voters by demanding that FL and MI be seated, on the other hand she is openly trying to disenfranchise the voters of those states where caucuses are held.
Clinton has already passed the point of no return by openly declaring that the number of delegates needed to win the nomination (2,025) is null and void and that the new number should be 2,209. By doing so, she has done great damage to the integrity of the primary process. Clinton and her surrogates have clearly espoused the belief that the end justifies the means and they will not stop their attempts to win the nomination at all costs.
And so we find ourselves in this Orwellian land of double speak where Clinton pretends to be the champion of democracy and the popular vote while she’s openly and directly undermining the democratic process since her only path to the nomination is for the superdelegates to overturn the the will of the pledged delegates.
Clinton has taken a very dangerous route because if she believes that the Obama supporters will sit idly by and let her destroy the integrity of the electoral process of the Democratic party she’s highly mistaken. This was supposed to be the year of the Democrats, the year when the people throw out the Rupublicans because of all their failed policies. Instead, because of the thirst for power of one person, we are more and more likely to witness a civil war within the Party that will cripple it for years to come.
Way to go Mrs. and Mr. Clinton.
http://politicjock.blogspot.com/
But I think you folks got the jist of what I was trying to say.
Have a great day folks.
Well I guess if you think allowing an election with one candidate on the ballot is valid and Democratic then you also have to conclude that Saddam was a real President and not a Dictator.
Another lie. There were FOUR candidates on the Michigan Democratic ballot: Clinton, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel. There was also a fifth choice of uncommitted. Surrogates of Obama paid for ads to get people to vote for the fifth choice. Obama and Edwards both knew they couldn't beat Clinton in an early primary while they were focused on Iowa. But they knew that if they could put their votes together as uncommitted, so that she received less than 50% of the vote, it would be reported as a defeat by the media.
It was also Obama supporters in the Michigan legislature who blocked a re-vote. Just one more case of Barrack saying one thing, and then having his minions do the exact opposite.
Both candidates have done this, not just one.
I was a delegate to the 1980 Democratic convention when Ted Kennedy behaved so badly that it was embarrassing: he had to be dragged to the podium kicking and screaming after he lost to Carter and then wouldn't even shake hands with a sitting president while on national television. Now THAT had an impact in the general election.
We have six months to make this happen and we're in a strong position to increase our majority in both houses of Congress. So get a grip; stop with the hysterics. After June 3, when the majority of the Super Ds declare their support the money will begin to flow toward the down stream races and we'll still have five months before the general election.
So take a breath or you'll bust a vein.
As a Republican, I'm tempted to say "It's about time, but welcome to reality." We were right about them; there was never any doubt of that.
However, your reasons fall pretty far short of reason. Here's the clue:
Pretty clear indication that your emotions are doing your thinking for you. That's why you couldn't see what sort of person she was in the first place. And that's why you think she's such a bad person now -- not because you actually see how bad she is, but because now she's the one preventing you from getting your way.
I'm very sorry, but as an honest Republican, I'm not pleased to have that sort of support for my point of view. Sure, you're saying that about the Clintons now, but as soon as some other Messenger of Evil comes along and gives you what you want (you know, someone like a thoroughly dishonest, closet neo-Marxist pretending to be a centrist and offering "hope" and "change"), you'll be defending them the way you did the Clintons. Honestly, I'd much rather you calmed down and decided to make your decisions based on facts and consistent reasoning, even if at first your reasons led you to oppose my point of view; I have a much better chance of convincing an honest opponent than I have of swaying the emotions of a spoiled, selfish child.
The math also says Obama can't win. Think he should drop out, too?
Just wondering.
The fault for Hillary Clinton's campaign lies with Hillary Clinton. She ran an arrogant, front-runner strategy directed by some of the most inept losers to ever advise a presidential contender. Who hired Mark Penn? Howard Wolfson? Terry McAulliffe? She did. You want an idea of how her administration would function? Just look at her campaign. Broke, battered, directionless. By what measure would you expect her presidency to be any different?
If you're foolish enough to try to punish the most gifted politician to emerge on the American landscape in a generation, by all means cast your vote for John McCain. You'll get what you deserve. The rest of us are moving on and leaving the cult of HIllary behind.
hilary has done a fantastic job bringing real progressive issues to the table, unlike BHO's empty stevenson-style rhetoric - and she is able to connect with real people unlike the so-called "creative class" that - along with blacks voting 9:1 along racial lines for their man - constitutes the sum total of BHO's support.
personally i want to see a floor fight at the convention and the party reclaimed from the absurd upper-middle-income "progressives" who seem to hate poor people (provided they are white) and working-class voters. the republicans already do a good enough job at that, we don't need a bunch of pampered, wealthy obamabots banging on about how unruly the working classes are.
The issue here is that the only possible scenario where Clinton could win would mean the destruction of the Democratic Party. If you think a convention floor fight where super delegates unite to deny the will of the voters by ignoring the overwhelming advantage Obama has in states, popular votes and delegates will not rip the entire party asunder, you're mistaken. The millions of new voters brought into this process by the fresh promise of Obama would be turned off for a very long time while minority voters would stay home in droves. It would, in short, be a disaster and ensure the election of John McCain.
She not only beat BHO last night SHE OBLITERATED HIM!!!
He didn't win California *
*He didn't win New York *
*He didn't win Texas *
*He didn't win Florida *
*He didn't win Pennsylvania *
*He didn't win Massachusetts *
*He didn't win Ohio *
*He didn't win Michigan *
*He didn't win Catholic voters *
*He didn't win Reagan Democrats *
*He didn't win women voters *
*He didn't win white voters *
*He didn't win Jewish voters *
*He didn't win the Latino voters *
*He didn't win the Asian voters *
*He didn't win the working class voters
**Obama's BLACK: that's what Hillary has left. It's no surprise to the rest of us.
BTW, regarding California, have you not seen the latest poll that said if the primary there were to be held again, Obama would beat Clinton 49%-43%? (Link: http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/05/would-ob...)
Democrats could run a ham sandwich in New York and Massachusetts and it would still win the GE.
Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in Michigan and even then, Hillary only got 55% of the vote. I don't know why more people don't bring that up. Her only opponents were Kucinich and Gravel and "uncommitted" and she still only got 55%. That doesn't say a lot about the depth of her support in Michigan.
Obama lost Ohio and Pennsylvania by under 10%, once all the votes were counted.
He lost the Texas primary by just a few points and won the caucus.
Obliterating Obama in WV is the best it's going to get for Hillary Clinton.
I don't even hate her. I wish her well and at one time considered voting for her - even sent money to her campaign, That was before she took the low road. I'm sad for her more than anything else, but I know now that I definitely don't want her for my President.
from postoffice.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net [10.0.0.1]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<smartmonkey@att.net>
-----Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to postoffice.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net.:
from postoffice.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net [10.0.0.1]
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<smartmonkey@att.net>
-----Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to postoffice.dsl.irvnca.sbcglobal.net.:
real Democrats know Obama is a fraud. we will either fight to the last vote. including florida and michigan and if we lose and the fraud becomes the nominee we WILL vote for mcCain to stop the monsters michelle and barry from taking over. Not a threat, John - a promise. It is obama that is the poison.
REZKO AYRES WRIGHT OH MY!!! REZKO AYRES WRIGHT OH MY!! As a LOYAL Democrat and a LOYAL American i will be part of the insurrection against the obama hordes in 2008!!! whoo hoo!!!
You gotta be a ringer. You're parroting Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, et.al. If you're a Democrat, Donald Rumsfeld was a great secretary of defense.
Clinton does not have more votes than Obama. She has fewer victories, fewer delegates and fewer superdelegates. Put down your Kool-Aid and face the facts. She can do whatever the heck she wants. So can you. But stop acting like you're in the majority, man. The Clintons are the face of yesterday's Democratic Party. Obama is the future. Wail all you want, but facts are facts.
Commenting with your back to the mirror, I see. This screed is just embarrassing. Who the hell are you to be telling anyone to get out of the race? As for the Clintons not giving a damn about the Democratic Party, what planet are you living on? The Clintons have done more for the Democratic Party and the people of the U.S. than you, me, and everyone else in our lifetimes combined.
I've been reading your stuff for a while, and it seems to me that, like Markos Moulitsas, your natural place is with the Libertarian Party. There's only one problem: the Libertarians are an outsider party that won't be holding the reins of political power in this country any time in the foreseeable future. You want to be on a winning side, so you choose the Republicans. But then the Republicans become overrun with warmongers and religious dogmatics--both anathema to the Libertarian mentality--so you switch to the Democrats and attempt to affect a hostile takeover with your own version of George W. Bush--slickly marketed, no accomplishments in public life to speak of, and no interest in anything beyond aggrandizing his own ego. The Democrats are FDR's party--the party of working people, not pusillanimous egocentric Randites--and the Clintons are true to us. Go away yourself.
Lost the house, Senate and governorships.
Red State Dems tremble at the thought of Hillary at the top of the ticket.
Clintons used the Democratic party as a vehicle to gain power, that is all.
Sen. Obama; just as you it seems Mr. Aravosis, is clueless and at heart couldn't care less about the people. Obama cares about Obama and no matter all your hatred against HRC, and all your frustrations for supporting such a weak candidate as Mr. Obama; he will not be elected US President because he is unfit, unprepared and unelectable. That much is clear to the majority of the people that will (and they will) determine the election. Take that to the bank Mr. Aravosis, despite all your irrational and pitful writings.
You are a sore loser Mr. Aravosis and all our insults will never compensate for the fatal flaws and failings of Sen. Obama as a presidential candidate. It is time for you to fall out of love; your infatuation is killing your senses.
The. Clintons. Don't. Forfeit.
Ever.
She. Can't. Win.
Why in God's name do you think Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the rest of those nitwits are working so hard to keep her in the race? The GOP wants her this fall. The baggage she brings to the race --starting with the fact that she has the highest unfavorable rating among presidential candidates in many, many years-- will dwarf the skeletons in Obama's closet including the Rev. Wright. All this malarkey about how she's already been vetted? Please. Wait until the 527's start sniffing around how and where the $108 million she and Bill have earned really came from or they start checking on which foreign nationals have given the most to the Clinton Library? This will make Whitewater/Filegate/Travelgate/health care debacle issues look like patty cake.
Not that it will mean much to you, considering how you're an A-list blogger and all, but you used to be one of my heroes, beginning back in the day when you and Mike Rogers were exposing right-wing closet cases.
And I applauded you, publicly, and repeatedly, for recognizing the Obama-McClurkin issue as the appalling slap in the face to the LGBT community it was. You GOT it, John, when hardly anyone else did. Have you forgotten all that? How did Barack become Jesus Christ, and Hillary become Regan MacNeil? They're both DLC corporatists, with precious little difference in their positions, and you know it.
What, did Hillary's WV win set you off, when you knew she was going to sweep WV anyway? Why these crazed calls for Hillary to drop out, when every Obama supporter in the country "knows" Obama already has the nomination all sewn up? What do you care, if you're so dead certain Obama is going to be the next president?
Hillary didn't cause "a civil war in the Netroots" -- Obama and the legions of his supporters did, by bashing the rest of us, telling us what old, irrelevant, uneducated, paleofeminist idiots we are, telling us to get the hell out of the way and let the "younger generation" take over, telling us how their "new" Democratic Party doesn't need us anyway -- THAT is who has created this civil war.
What makes me sick to my stomach is that it's not only split the Democratic Party -- it's split the LGBT community -- which is already half-dead in the water as a "community" to begin with. Your post is only symptomatic of that further split.
Attacking Hillary on this low level isn't going to win you any new converts, John. I've heard this same rant countless times, from countless others, and all it's ever done is push me further and further from Obama, and strengthened my support for Hillary.
The ironic thing is, I'm not even a real Hillary supporter -- but forced to choose, I'll take Hillary any day over the antigay, warmongering, GOP-admiring, flip-flopping Obama, and his campaign -- which seems to inspire nothing but intimidation and rage in his supporters.
I seriously doubt you are a Democrat, because no real Democrat would post the lies and distortions and outright carp that you just did.
But I am a Democrat, and I'm fed up with you and your ilk.
It was Obama and his campaign that went negative first - remember last June?
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/06...
It was the Obama, his campaign, and the MSM that created a racism issue out of nothing - Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment was about MSM coverage, Hillary's "MLK-LBJ" comment was dead on because it did take a president with courage to put his weight behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which DID start to turn MLK's dream into reality.
It was the Obama campaign who launched Harry & Louise-like flyers - his plan for health insurance leaves millions out, her plan is an attempt to cover everyone, you god damn progressive pieces of shit know this, yet you support crap like that.
It was the Obama campaign that was caught contacting Canada behind the scenes about NAFTA.
It was Obama who gave Hillary the finger in a scripted moment.
And it is Hillary Clinton with the strength to win Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida, among others - states that REAL DEMOCRATS want to win in order to win back the White House.
Hillary Clinton has been a loyal Democrat for over 35 years. Obama is what he is.
I'll be damned if I run across crap like what you posted, and not speak my mind. You should be ashamed.
John Dean
SluggoJD
Bubba lost House, Senate and Governorships when he was in office.
Red state downticket candidates freely state the Hillary on the ticket would kill them in November.
I just don't see how you can believe the Clintons are good for the party.
They are typhoid for the party.
Reagan was president from 1980-1988. Bush from 1988-1992. Clinton won, partly because of Perot. The right had already consolidated a lot of power prior to 1992, and Gingrich launched his revolution in 1994. People like you helped spread his message. And people like you continue to do so today.
1994 was the bad time. You don't speak of 1996 or 1998, because they don't fit your right wing talking points. "Red state candidates" what? Because your talking points say so? Bullcrap.
The Clintons are certainly not the problem...they are part of the solution, because they are smart, they see through people like you, and they are not afraid to fight. Which candidate wants universal health care? Which candidate does not? See, just those two simple questions blow a hole the size of Texas into your talking points' bullshit.
Universal health care is supposed to be a Democratic Party policy. You support those who do not fight for it - whether you support Obama or McCain.
I support the candidate who wants it.
You can lie, deceive, distort, manipulate...but you can't win.
Hisssssssssssss,
Catdancer
Geeze. You Hillbots think you own everything.
Obama won fair and square. Clinton lost the same way. Let her have her final weeks in the spotlight, but she's going back to the Senate, not 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
BTW, I certainly hope you follow the wishes of Sen. Clinton, who has said she will work heart and soul to elect Obama if she doesn't get the nod. Otherwise, I guess you'll be thrilled with 100 years in Iraq, no health insurance, continued tax breaks for the wealthiest, a rightwing SCOTUS poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, etc., which is what you'll get when you throw your vote to McCain.
Sorry but your "nominee" is getting CRUSHED even after he was declared the winner by the press! Does that tell you anything?
SO please tell me why delegates are more important than Votes? and where does it say in the DNC rule book that the person leading in delegates is the winner? IT says the person reaching a threshold WHICH HE HAS NOT DONE. and he will not do without a large percent of the super-delgates.
When Puerto Rico votes Hillary will not only win the popular vote (like she is now) but she will win it by 500K.
HOW and WHY should she drop out - based on fact and not your opinion
Please respond this time and do not lock my profile out again.
Edwards to Endorse Obama
Former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) will endorse Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) tonight in Grand Rapids, Michigan, ending a long period of neutrality for the two-time presidential candidate and giving the Illinois senator another boost of momentum as he draws ever closer to the nomination.
The endorsement was confirmed by a source familiar with Edwards' thinking.
Edwards has long been courted by both Obama and Clinton as he built a considerable constituency during his two unsuccessful runs for president. Edwards' strength was among rural and working class voters -- Obama's weakest area of support to date in the primary.
Edwards had largely disappeared from the political scene since dropping from the race in late January amid money troubles and daunting odds of ousting Clinton and Obama from their perches in the top tier.
In the immediate aftermath of Edwards' decision to drop from the race, both Clinton and Obama made a pilgrimage to North Carolina to huddle with the former candidate and make their pitch for his support.
By all accounts, those meetings left Edwards genuinely undecided. Obama's message of change and his call to end the influence peddling in Washington were clearly an obvious fit for Edwards' sympathies, but he retained some lingering concerns about Obama's depth of experience. Clinton, on the other hand, had considerable experience but struggled to represent the sort of change that Edwards believed was necessary to win the nomination.
Rumors flew for months about Edwards's leaning although of late it had been expected that if he endorsed a candidate, it would be Obama.
Matt Bennett, a former Clinton Administration official, described Edwards as the "troubadour of the working class" and said the North Carolina senator's endorsement of Obama makes it "tougher for Clinton to make the case that working class Democrats can't [or] won't support Obama."
We don't even need to go into her voting record in general or her race-baiting. Hillary needs to go back to being the pretend Senator from New York until we can organize a decent primary challenge to knock her off there too.
It's time for the Clintons to get off the stage.
A quote by Ghandi:
First they ignore you.
Then they ridicule you.
Then they fight you.
Then You Win!
AND WHAT DO YOU REALLY KNOW ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON, ANYTHING BESIDES WHAT YOU'VE READ ON HATE SITES OR HEARD ON THE CRAPPY NEWS MEDIA THAT ARE ALL REPUBLICAN OR DROOLING OBAMABOTS?
YOU ARE THE STANDARD LOSER WHO IS DESTROYING THIS COUNTRY BECAUSE YOU DON'T DO YOUR HOMEWORK. YOU BUY INTO THE BULLSHIT AND IGNORE THE TRUTH.
Or is it a left-wing conspiracy these days?
Obama is weak of his own accord: his status has absolutely nothing to do with HRC. She doesn't weaken him; he is just weak. And she hasn't hurt the party; the party is dysfunctional.
We persevere. You scream.
Rock on.
I am so angry how the Democrat insiders have handled all of this...and how they have treated HILLARY. Under BUSH the American people have been disenfrancised, and for once in a long long long time all American's would be a part of the nominating process, if OBAMA and the Democratic Party really cared about the voters, they would have waited until they all have their vote.
I have been a passionate DEMOCRAT all my life, and now I am seriously considering registrating as an INDEPENDENT...I don't want to belong to a party that treats DEMOCRACY like this Democratic Party has done.
Hell, we might as well keep GEORGE W. BUSH in the White House.
hypocrisy of 'CHANGE', and yet, the oldest political tricks are used when
needed...so Change must be a selective premise...
I may be angry, but I don't hate!
SheShe
In a message dated 5/14/2008 10:27:15 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
writes:
Keep it going man!
"I am no better than any one person, and no person is better than me." We just have different opinions, and truth be known, we are more alike than what either one of us think.
And Obama has never lied...I could use this whole page to name his lies...In fact, I will do up a page and send it your way...What I find with Obama followers, is they almost always resort to name calling, but no substance...I guess because Obama doesn't have substance in his speeches...Just rhetoric and feely good words...I am still waiting to see HOW he is going to do anything...That is why I went with HIllary, because at least she has the courage to say HOW she is going to do what she says she wants to do.
GO BACK AND READ ALL OF OBAMA'S SPEECHES REGARDING REV. WRIGHT...OH, THE LIES HE TRIPPED UP ON, AND GOT BY WITH...
Wise up. Neither candidate has enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. They both need the supers delegates' vote. Hillary currently has the majority of the popular vote. She wins states we need in November that Barrack cannot win. It is precisely the job of the supers in these circumstances to give us the candidate most likely to beat the Republican. If they do their jobs, Hillary Clinton will be the nominee and NOTHING you can say will stop it.
Not going to happen.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton's assertions that she leads Barack Obama in the popular vote are a stretch, at best.
The New York senator is using such claims to shore up supporters and help justify why she's still in the Democratic presidential race despite trailing Obama in the number of convention delegates earned in primaries and caucuses.
The argument is supported only by using dubious math on two fronts: by excluding several caucus states won by Obama and by including Florida and Michigan primary results that the Democratic Party, to date, is rejecting.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hVDbYiVsSrdi...
Your blog, and the gutter tactics you have used over the last few months make you no better than the woman you shit on on a daily basis.
Shame on you.
If you are at all interested in the truth, read on about what happened in just one county in Texas.
I was a member of the Credentials Committee for the Democratic Party of Collin County, Texas.
After witnessing a complete disregard for the rules of the Texas Democratic Party at my own caucus and hearing stories of bullying, intimidation, and cheating at other caucuses, I obtained copies of the caucus sign-in sheets for my county and have been analyzing them since mid-March. The data I have compiled, the written records from the caucuses, as well as my first-hand experience as a Credentials Committee member supports many allegations and complaints against Obama supporters and the Obama campaign made by voters in Collin County, in Texas, and in many other states with caucuses.
Caucuses are extremely open to fraud. If my findings and experience are any indication of what happened at them, (and I have heard ours was actually one of the better run ones), the Superdelegates should take the information into account when deciding who to support. Ever wonder why Obama wanted to do a caucus in Michigan? I can thoroughly explain.
I also witnessed the almost complete disdain and dismissal for the grievances of Hillary supporters who sent complaints and challenges to our Credentials Committee. The committee was mostly pro-Obama, including our Chair, as was the person who was legal counsel to the Collin County Democratic Party. This same pro-Obama attorney was the Rules Committee Chair. Even when it was pointed out specific delegates were ineligible, it was completely disregarded. There appeared to be a systematic attitude of making sure Obama would be the nominee, come hell or high water.
I also authored the Minority Report for the Collin County Credentials Committee and submitted it to the Texas State Democratic Party. It details the many outrageous problems at Texas caucuses as well as the lack of proper handling of complaints presented to the Credentials Committee. Our committee did not thoroughly make sure everyone who voted in the caucuses had voted in the primary or in the right precinct, or were even registered to vote in many cases. I did. On my own.
I have seen evidence of fraud such as sign-in sheets (which are used to document votes) lacking serial numbers and having been printed off the State Party website and most likely passed around prior to the caucuses. I have unequivocable proof of delegates who must be ELECTED the night of the caucuses added days or weeks after the caucuses, and of caucus packets taken home by Permanent Chairs- which could subject them to alteration.
The complaints you may have heard about the Texas caucuses in the media from the Clinton campaign are not just whining. There were alot of shenanigans down here. 70% of the caucuses were run by Obama supporters. I have the data to back this up. The people in control are the ones able to cheat. Many Clinton supporters are FURIOUS because of their experience with the absolute rigging of caucuses in Texas. But then I suppose Obama learned well how to play dirty through Chicago politics.
So, John, Hillary makes you "yell at the TV like she's George Bush, and no one other than George Bush makes me yell at the TV - until now" ? How about this...Obama makes me so sick I would rather have four more years of GEORGE BUSH, than a sneaky, lying, unpatriotic cult leader shoved down my throat by the Democratic Party, Mr. Tingles Chris Matthews, or Oprah. I do not care what Oprah thinks I should read, eat or wear - and I sure as shit don't care who she thinks I should vote for.
You all are screwed, because you have done a bang-up job of alienating Clinton voters with exactly the kind of crap you wrote here. Good luck getting him elected with 70% of Clinton supporters turning their backs on a Democratic Party that did it first to them. There is no one issue the Democratic Party stands for that would make me feel as passionately about voting Democrat as I do about voting against The Chosen One.
Most of us absolutely plan to campaign DILIGENTLY for McCain if Obama is the nominee. If the DNC thinks we will all be joining hands and singing Kumbaya, they are delusional. If Obama was winning fair and square, I could take that. What I CANNOT and WILL NOT accept is how he got delegates in Texas, and probably other caucuses. He was given a free pass while Hillary was vilified in the MSM, his supporters have been vile to us and to her, and they are truly crazy if they think we will all be "one unified party".
Democracy?
We don't need no stinkin' fair democracy!
They honestly think the people who say they wo0n't vote for Obama are either racists, bitter old typical white women or "just mad 'cause Hillary is losing."
LOL
the reasoning power of... what?
my cat Sophie.
Sorry Sophie.
The reason some Clinton supporters won't vote for Obama is because of them and their hate mongering... but don't look to them to take responsibility. After al-l out with the old in with the new. A typical immature and consumerist ideology. The core that has worked for and supported the Democrats are called unnecessary and unneeded and RACIST! talk about an insult... so many of us marched and worked our asses off to give Obama a chance to be where he is. And now they express even more vitriol when some supporters say, OK, fine. then I guess I'll be moving on.
They don't get it. They treat us like enemies and then get even nastier when we eventually accept the invitation.
They don't get it.
It isn't about Clinton losing. It is about how she is losing and the ugliness of it all.
Anyway, though they try to paint us as racists if we do not vote for Obama I for one did support Obama for a very long time, wrote to him and urged him to run so I will tell you I cannot wait to have a black man in the White House. Just not this black man.
My mother in Collin county and my sister in a different city in Collin county all experienced intimidation and very unusual tactics of verifying votes.
It does not just end there. I was elected a Clinton delegate to the senatorial convention and the same frustrations followed me there. The credentials committee was pro-Obama and even when they did uphold a Clinton challenge, the Obama campaign lobbied to have the decision challenged on the open floor of the caucus. Given the majority of Obama supporters at the convention, each challenge would have been overturned and Obama would have won every decision - regardless of right or wrong. They even had a girl carrying a sign at the convention that would be held up to inform the crowd (Obama supporters) when to raise their hands and vote. It was despicable. The only thing that saved sanity is that a citizen commandered the microphone and put forth a motion to accept all committee decisions as stated. The Obama people were furious.
My personal expereince at the senatorial convention (I can verify this in writing) was an Obama delegate was seated after the appropriate time and we agreed to let her vote (because every vote should count) even though we did not have too. Her vote created a tie and Clinton lost a delegate on a coin toss. Literally. The delegate was later revealed not to have been a delegate or an approved alternate.
A friend in Mansfield Texas had to call the police to come and be in the room to ensure no one would be intimidated or forced to leave. The irony - you listen to the news and all you heard was how Clinton supporters were lodging complaints. Like we were sore losers - even though she won the state outright when each person only got one vote. We had to complain or we would have been run over by a bus. I would wager a lot of money that many of Obama's delegates are stolen to use a word the POOR JOHN uses.
She will win the popular vote and will be the nominee so all is right with the world for now. Dems know all to well about buyer's remorse and they are feeling it. The super delegates will sort this out. I have to have Hope.
Women MUST find out if their employer is shorting their pay in no more than 180 days. If they find out they are getting less pay than men after that time, they have no legal recourse.
This is what you advocate when you vote for McCain.
Do you think Hillary has any chance in hell of winning a National election in the future if she hurts this Democratic chance for the presidency in '08? I think it highly unlikely she would ever again be seriously considered by any majority of voters in America if she helps McCain take office.
Why cant she see what every other candidate saw when the numbers were against them? Bwecause some people called her some names? Look, both candidates were beaten and bloodied by this long campaign. No just YOUR candidate. Both of them.
Hillary had a huge lead, in superdelegates, in name recognition, in money raised. Mark Penn lost this election for Hillary. She is responsible for hiring him. All your anger against Obama is utterly misplaced. He won fair and square, and Mark Penn caused Hillary to lose. Thats who you should be venting about. Not a fellow Democratic candidate.
Please, do not vote for McCain. Never, under any circumstances. We really do not want this nut in.
There was a time he may have been an alternative to a very weak Dem. but that time is long past.
Obama may or may not be weak, I don't know but he has the Democratic establishment behind him and I'm sure he will get council on who to choose for cabinet positions who will council him, inform him and help him catch up to the reality behind the office. It is going to shock him/them when they see the mess left behind, the things we know are bad enough what we don't know has to be much, much worse. I was once a supporter of Obama. Various things brought me to neutrality while I researched both candidates as fully as I could.
They both have flaws and both have goodness, they both have strengths and weaknesses.
The hatefulness and ugliness of the ObamaCons is no reason to vote for McCain though yes, it does give one pause. If these are his supporters what is it going to be like trying to do the activist work with them. Will they be bullies in all aspects of their lives? Do they prefer ugliness to co-operation and camaraderie?
Will they even show up?
I haven't seen any evidence which says they will.
Also Dawn, don't forget what you encounter in places like this, huffbama post and the rest of the so called "progressive" blogs are not typical of all O supporters, just the loudest and most vitriolic. There have been many O supporters who have been just as disgusted with these people as you are they just aren't heard from. They leave because if they mention anything resembling a decent word for clinton they are attacked.
(lots of friends have told me some real horror stories.) They have also been disgusted by the media coverage and feel somewhat uneasy about the media coverage, the sexism and misogyny as well as certain elements of the Obama campaign tactics. They get that he isn't perfect and still choose to support him just as we get that Hillary has flaws. You have to take the whole person into account which unfortunately so many O supporters do not. Meaning they do not allow for his humanity. This makes me nervous because if he should win the Presidency the moment he signs a bill or supports a policy they disagree with or who knows what, they will feel betrayed, they will turn on him and attack him with the same venom.
The clay feet syndrome.
Please Dawn,
McCain is as bad as Bush if not worse.
If you cannot bear to pull that lever for Obama then write Hillary in. You will still be heard but without the burden of having voted McCain into office.
I have no idea what I'm going to do. I always thought I would vote for whoever the nominee was but I confess to being tempted to writing Hillary in. I do believe she would have been the strongest leader. As grown ups we know we won't always agree with everything a President says of does... God knows there have been times I was annoyed with her in this campaign. As grown ups we also know that demonizing another human being is not just destructive to that person but it is destructive to the party and it is destructive to one's self.
Seriously, would you want to be any of these hate-mongers?
Look, Hillary and Barak are basically the same candidate, and both are much better than McCain. So you can get your panties in a twist, kick over the checker board and go pout in the furnace room, or you can be an adult and drop this drivel.
I really, truly, honestly, sincerely, don't care who gets the nomination, as long as that person wins the election. We can't afford a president McCain. End of story.
Hillary and Barak have very similar policy platforms. They would both appoint supreme court judges who would be much better than anything McCain would come up with. Those are the facts, but it seems like we aren't interested in facts, just pitching glamour fits.
I really wonder how many of the people in these comment rooms who get people all riled up are just GOP members who are trying to make a stink.
You keep saying this garbage but no one actually cites any credible sources to back up what they say. The sources, when someone actually does post them are never credible. If you research you can find some very old neo con and far right wingnut sites with these exact same accusations, talking points, lies and smears that you now find all leftist sites. Sometimes they are word for word. Now that is just sad.
Oh, sometimes there is parroting of the MSM... which is then decryed as corrupt, idiotic, whores when they dare to question or criticize Obama so how can that be taken seriously.
Yeah, I've been wondering how many people on the so called "progressive" blogs are GOP myself. I never thought of hatred as a Progressive value.
I'm going back to being a liberal.
BTW. Did you see where HRC is actually ranked as more liberal that BHO?
He is in the exact middle- befitting a President really. You have to please everyone.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080521/pl_nm/usa_p...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FSPcJtsXLs&eurl...
She's not a DINO (Democrat In Name Only) ... she is a republiCON who has infiltrated our party and cares only about herself.
How republicon of her!
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05...
I recently read she's a vegetarian.
Get over yourselves, and go back to where you belong--the Rethug Party which just loves to keep you in poverty and ignorance.
I think John's egging them on now.
Spioken like a typical Obama Con... the new neocons.
Anyone who doeswn't support Obama is a racist.
Well you know, there are some who are racists certainly but there are many who can't wait to see a black man or woman as President of this country. Just not this black man.
BTW, nice way to reach out and "be nice to Clinton supporters."
That is what Barack ordered isn't it?
I'm glad he realizes that he can't really win without all the people his sweet sypporters have alienated.
He really should have said something much sooner.
Don't forget most Clinton supporters started off happy as hell with both candidates and were very vocal about it and about their wholehearted willingness to vote for whoever won the primary. There were even a few Obama supporters saying the same thing.
I wonder what changed that? When you treat people as enemies you shouldnm't be surprised if they actually become enemies.
Gentleman and Gentlewomen,
with all due respect, I implore you to work quickly and decisively to end this painful and protracted primary race between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. I began as a Clinton supporter, but I am firmly planted in Senator Obama's camp now and I believe that Senator Clinton's refusal to bow out of this primary race gracefully is damaging our chances to beat Senator McCain to the White House in November. I cannot bear to see us lose the Presidency once again - too too much is at stake. I have always been a fan and supporter of the Clintons, but this primary season has been a painful event to watch. There is far too much at stake to allow Senator Clinton to ignore the greater good and only listen to her inner-ambitions.
Rules are rules, and Michigan and Florida chose to go against those rules and Senator Obama has not questioned the rules and therefore he should not be punished for following the rules. Senator Clinton was coherent of the rules back in December, but when the rules did not begin to play in her favor, she began to endeavor to change them. This is simply wrong. Again, I say, this is simply wrong.
I hope that the Democratic Party leaders will work quickly and swiftly to end this conundrum so that we may get on to the business of taking the White House back in 2009 - it is absolutely critical that we do not let Mr. McCain take office, as peace and prosperity for all will be greatly threatened by his being our leader. Senator Obama has the skills, the balanced disposition, the quiet and calm demeanor, the independent nature, and the worldliness to lead us at this time in our history. Please, please let us fight for him to be our leader.
Respectfully,
me
OK, that's that.
Thanks for solving it for us.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/21/jim-we...
In a way, I like Jim Webb...I think he can learn about social issues he's weak on and can accept Obama's platform. He's intelligent and I don't see him as a pure pol yet, the same way I see Obama. And Webb is no stranger to DC, having been Secy of the Navy under Reagan, before he resigned, so he does have experience in DC, yet also looks less like a DC insider.
OK, let's admit that "perception" is what some people vote for...and sometimes you have to compromise to get what you really want.
1. He can pick up the Appalachians. Just look at that clip I posted. He's one of them.
2. He takes McCain's "military" edge totally off the table.
I think the Clintons are representing DLC interests-- corporate interests, the telcos and the HMOs and the drug companies, the corporate world, and the right-wing Lieberman Jewish gang who have always backed the neo-cons, and the neo-cons themselves.
These people have been smearing the Democratic Party and Democratic values for years.
So then it is a life or death fight for the Democratic Party (and the country) with all of the bad actors who keep us from any meaningful reform, those who have all of the power now.
It really makes more sense that this is what the fight is about, rather than about Hillary's personal ambition.
But because it is hidden, and unstated, it is at once more pernicious, and more evil. It is the big lie all over again. The big lie -- WMD are why we invaded Iraq, etc. Never admitting what the truth is -- the simple truth. I'd say that is what is going on.
(Comment also posted at booman's.)
syolles
While on a superficial level this is (or has become) personal with Hill&Bill, the real fight for them is to continue advancing the blue-tinged version of the Corporate Party.
HILLARY MUST BE THROWN OUT OF THE PARTY.
HILLARY GO BACK TO YOUR PARTY.
I SHALL TRY MY BEST TO GET HER OUT OF THE SENATE WHEN THIS MESS IS OVER.
Sheeesh! Go away for a little while, then return to this.
John, you're going to have to get some smarter trolls than this!
Save this attack dog crap for the Repubs!! I concede that Clinton is not who I am voting for, simply because the Clintons have become too friendly with the Bushes.
But, please save the vitriol for people who have earned it FAR MORE: Bush, Cheney, McCain, and the whole GOP gang!
Even Nancy Pelosi deserves a major upbraiding for not allowing so much as one vote on impeaching the worst, most devious "Commander-in-Chief" in American History, bar none.
Save the HATE FOR THE GOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't let Clinton get to you... there's no need to be shrill. She is a Democrat and with the absence of Sen. Kennedy impending, WE NEED EVERY DEM WE HAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1. You said , "... she has caused a civil war in the Netroots" Maybe that was part of the plan. How else could the netroots have been brought down? After all, Hillary WAS, and still is, to me ... a Republican. Scaife, Fox ... she was forced to show her true colors. Shame on the part of the Netroots to fall for it.
2. I disagree with one thing you said. That she FORCED certain organizations to keep supporting her. ("How she has forced EMILY's List and AFSCME and the AFT to waste their money because of her.") They make their own decisions. Except for EMILY'S List, I don't believe any of these organizations are for women only. And, in all, honesty, EMILY's List has men in it, too (as donors). These groups should be ashamed of themselves. They CHOOSE to keep this charade running. And any other candidate who loses, because of not having campaign money -- should put blame where blame is due.
Living in California, I can assure you I get very mad at hearing that "average Americans" are with Hillary. Since when was West Virginia the heart of the U.S.? Far as I can see, her only true base consists of the elderly and uneducated.
The party's far left wing can't maintain the fraud forever. Some time betwen now and November 4 voters will find out why George Soros, DailyKos, John Aravosis, David Brock, Arianna Huffington, et al, got behind Obama before the bandwagon started picking up gullible liberals and centrists. McCain's winning margin will make the Nixon-McGovern race look like a bailbiter.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080521/pl_nm/usa_p...
How ironic that you are mad -- MAD, I tell you! -- at AmericaBlog ("This post puts you in the same class as Bill O'Reilly and your site in line with Fox News"), yet you have no problem with the entire Clinton campaign LIVING on Fox.
Are you THAT ill-informed, or are you just stupid?
oh, sorry if that offends any of you Catholic heathens."
the very large and white Pastor John Hagee
bend over and kiss your own ass.
We're not here to woo you. Get on the bus or get outta the way.
We can help to educate and empower, but the notion that we need to woo Clinton's supporters, that we need to be "nice" to them to get their votes for Obama, is really the most ridiculous argument.
It will take the majority of the citizenry to grab the reins away from the Neos of both red and blue persuasions (and electing Obama is just the beginning of the work ahead), and if the majority can't smarten up and act for the good of all, then we as a whole are doomed and we deserve it.
logic in making your choice you will vote for what is best for you.
If you need someone to explain it to you maybe you should just
not vote. Obama is much more of a Dem than Clinton ever was,
anyone that doesn't understand that is unreachable with logic.
Clinton voters who say they will vote McCain over Obama defy any
definition of Democrat that I know.
--mirth
F'n A right, mirth!
Well said!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/primary_rdp
Obama could be yesterday's stale toast?........