OK folks - I am putting on a flame suit.....

It used to be that my choice for the democratic nominee was based purely upon preference, I harbored no ill will nor dislike for any of the candidates.

That has all changed.

I can now say that I truly dislike Hillary Clinton. I think Obama may be lacking in experience, but what he lacks in experience, he makes up for in integrity, IMHO.

Sen. Clinton has manipulated situations time and time again, and all she is doing at this point is tearing down our presumptive nominee so that John McCain does not have to engage in "dirty" politics. :puke: Great job Hillary.

My fundy, repuke MIL happens to support Obama in this campaign. If Hillary is the nominee, she will go back to her repuke ways and vote McCain. My DH says the same. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for anyone but the nominee, but it will pain me to do so, as I truly believe if Hillary is the nominee, she will do no better than McCain.

Clinton supporters who I may be "friends" with on DU are free to put me on ignore for the rest of the primary season, or forever if they choose.

:thumbsup::hi:

Oops, are we still angry at France :rofl:

:hi:

I love that pic.

and how Hillary is openly discussing stealing pledged delegates, and how they are thrilled to tear the party apart so Obama is a damaged candidate - maybe its the PMS, but I hate the two of them this morning.

Yes, it will pass - but right now, I would sooner spit on them than vote for them.

I am so angry- and I normally don't post when I feel this way.

enough.

Sometimes it is good to let out that anger :hi:

and McCain that compels me to vote for her should she wrest the nomination away. That difference is the Supreme Court.

But I take your point.

They can't stonewall for 4-8 years.

The dems don't have the luxury of waiting for the next election anymore.

lever in the GE should she win.

And I will be holding my nose as I do it.

We support the Dem nominee or we will really be toast.

mccain will get it proving she doesn't care about the supreme court.

She thinks she's gonna have everyone over an extortionist barrel.

I hope Obama wins the nom cause I think he'll take mccain.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I have Repubbie pals who will vote for Obama over McCain. However, they will NOT vote for Hillary. I have know some of thise Pubbies for years...all the way back to when Ronnie Raygun was running and they gushed about that POS to the point I was ill. For a Reagan supporter like this to come on board for Obama? Wow...tells me he is the ticket for us to get the WH and beat the Pubbies badly.

There is NO doubt in my mind that Hillary is a fucking loser...my opinion.

That's rather telling, but not in a good way. She sees Obama and McCain as similar, in that they both "earn" her fundy vote? Consequently, the "opposite" of Obama-McCain is Clinton...

To me, that is a positive endorsement for Clinton. You may not have intended it that way, but that's how it comes out.

A great deal of his support is anti-Clinton.

to the general.

There's a good chance they won't vote or might vote against McCain if he is running against Obama. They'd likely vote against Hillary, however.

The Religious Right is not strongly ideologically tuned to the Republicans except on a small set of issues, issues that McCain doesn't share. That's why they don't like him.

McCain has rounded up enough assorted wingnut pastors who will beat the bushes for him, yet at the same time he can play both sides of the street with the "Just because they support me, doesn't mean I agree with everything they say" line--classic triangulation. Brilliant, too. He can convince the Fundy freaks that he'll take care of them, and convince the 'Seculars' that he isn't really rapture-ready.

He's inoculated himself well on that score. I wouldn't be surprised if ROVE showed him how to navigate that mine field.

Where are they gonna go, these religious righties? He's their ONLY option. If they want to keep rolling down the track on the "Federal Faith-Based Initiative Gravy Train," they're gonna support the guy who will continue to shovel the dough their way.

They aren't going to POUT, and take their ball and go home, and refuse to vote "on principle." There's MONEY at stake here--federal money. LOTS of it. It's a POWERFUL motivator to Get Out the Vote.

All politics is local. They'll vote for the guy who will keep them on the payroll, like him, or not.

And it is a fact that when a base is less enthused, then fewer of them will show up to vote. That happens all the time -- it takes motivation and effort to go to the polls, and someone like McCain will entice fewer of them to show up, regardless of endorsements.

That's the ULTIMATE thing that "they really want." Those faith based funds.

He's the best they are gonna get. And he has their MONEY.

You think they'll get that dough from Obama or Clinton? Dream on.

They'll show up to vote, so their pastors can keep riding on the gravy train that they've come to RELY ON.

Their pastors will sell the guy like he's a brand new car. You watch.

...but he isn't inclined to give them money. Looking at his list of issues, I don't see any faith-based issues there. He doesn't talk about them either, unless I have missed something.

And I think you are overestimating the effect of money compared to issues that are very emotional to the religious right.

His enthusiasm for stem-cell research?

Come ON. The Office of Faith Based Initiatives in located IN THE WHITE HOUSE. They get the pile of cash, and THEY dole it out.

You're naive if you actually think they are in this for "religious" reasons, these pastors. They're in it for the DOUGH. The dough they've gotten USED to over the years.

And their followers will do what they say. If they get a lot of money, they'll be VERY enthusiastic about McCain.

You watch.

And will not vote for Hillary because of it.

The independent vote will go to McCain if Hillary is the nominee, like it or not.

The only way the Dems can get the swing votes is for Obama to be the nominee. If not, these will go to McCain.

JMHO

The ABC followup report is devastating.

Whatever the HC supporters on DU wished to be the results of Obama's Wright controversy, it appears they're going to see worse for their candidate. Obama came out of the Wright controversy looking like a statesman, and Hillary's starting to look literally ridiculous and farsical.

A vote for Obama is really a vote that ensures McCain's ascendancy to the WH.

She harbors some serious hatred for all things Clinton. And I find your interpretations rather telling as well.

I do not feel as strongly as she does, but hey, different strokes...

You were the messenger, not me!

:shrug:

and delve into perhaps, say, the "fundy" connection of religion, or perhaps link Obama's corporate policies with your "Repuke" characterization. I make these points solely as EXAMPLES of an effort at interpretation, mind you.

I don't know anything about the woman beyond what you tell me. I find her default, from Obama to McCain, out of the norm.

Sounds exactly like mine, though I'm not sure that she knows Obama's a Democrat...:crazy:

You are too funny :hug::hug:

But she's 80. And she watches FIXED News, so she's bound to be uninformed...:eyes:

I have Repuke pals...no fundie Repuke pals, tho. And my Repuke pals literally HATE Hillary even more than they HATE McCain. They do, however, like Obama and his ideas and they are for change since they see the USA as having gone in the wrong direction. So, if it is Hillary, some will pass on voting and others will vote for McCain solely because he is a Repuke or their hatred for Hillary is greater than their hatred for McCain.

So, Clinton is NOT the opposite of McCain and Obama....it's just an issue of who is more hated: Hillary or McCain. Obama is NOT hated as those two are, but he appeals to people all across the board, like Reagan Repukes and Dems.

I've generally seen Clinton as being the default for those who don't like Obama, AND those who don't like McCain. She's regarded as a centrist candidate, even though she's more liberal than most give her credit for.

I do think she's more electable, but far be it from me to tell you about your personal experience.

The fact that a "fundy repuke" voter would lump McCain and Obama together isn't insignificant. I think it's more than "hatred." If you don't, well that's your view. Comparing him to Reagan sort of proves my point, too, even if you didn't intend it that way. If people are seeing him as a new Reagan, they're seeing a Republican with a smile who is going to screw society six ways to Sunday. That's not terribly positive, IMO.

...that Hillary is pretty generally disliked by most. Polls evidence that her negatives are over 50% ~~ and I have seen it for years. I started working in Dem campaigns in 1960 when I was 12 years old and worked in the JFK campaign. I have never failed to work in a national campaign for the GE since that time no matter who was the candidate I supported in the primaries and he did not make the nomination for the GE. However, this year, not only will I not work in the GE campaign if Hillary is the nominee, I will not vote for her either. I used to just dislike her. At this point in time, I truly hate her. While I would never under any circumstances vote for McCain, I cannot with a clear conscience allow myself morally to vote for a liar and racist like Hillary Clinton. Sorry, no can do.

If she hits me this way...and I should add I have NEVER voted for a Republican EVER for ANY race...I am sure you can see how she hits those who are not staunch Dem, straight ticket voters as I am.

I can tell you that I do know people from all of my prior Democratic campaign activities and most are closer to my POV than they are to yours. This was not so evident in the beginning, but as her dirty campaiging, racist actions and lies become more and more evident, she is more and more disliked and more and more come over to Obama.

I know what a HUGE deal it is for me to not be able under any circumstances to vote for the Dem at the top of the ticket. If I feel this way about Hillary Clinton, I can imagine how others feel.

The Dems will lose to McCain if she runs...there is no doubt in my mind on this. The feeling on the ground is very, very anti-Hillary.


Edit to correct misspelling.

Your experience is your experience, but it isn't mine. You can claim yours is the "correct" experience, and I can, and do, dispute your assertion.

I am a Clinton supporter, but I am not so stupid or shortsighted to not understand that the next President will be picking a Supreme or two, and having someone with a (D) after their name in the White House is preferable to an (R).

I don't care for Senator Obama's political persona much--I find him glib, unseasoned, unvetted, and insincere, and that fake preacher voice grates on my ear like Reagan's "Well..."--but if he gets the nom, I will hold my nose and vote for him.

I won't take my ball and go home. I won't abrogate my responsibility to the party or the nation. I'm an adult in that regard.

And I'll be sad as hell when President McCain beats Obama like a rented mule and is sworn in.

I said under NO circumstances would I vote for McCain.

In fact, I have a deal with my best male pal if Hillary is the nominee: He is a pubbie and he will pass voting for McCain and I will pass voting for Hillary when we go to the polls.

I morally cannot and will not compromise my good values to vote for Hillary Clinton. I frankly see no difference between her, Bush and McCain. She is a corporate, war mongering liar as they are. Tell me that she would pick anyone different for SCOTUS than they would?

Hillary = Bush Lite. Obama was not my first choice, but...big difference...I can vote for him with a clear conscience. That is the HUGE difference with Hillary ~~ I cannot vote for her in any way. It goes totally against my values.

I guess I am a bigger adult because I find that even when no one knows what I do, I have to answer to myself and stick to my values: I cannot vote for a lying racist like Hillary Clinton. If you can and have a clear conscience about it...so be it. But don't expect others to give up their liberal and progressive values to vote for her with inferences that they are less than you are.

JMHO

When John McCain puts Alitito McThomas Scalia Jr. on the bench, I'll think of you. Hope those "principles" keep you warm at night. You sure are a bigger something, but "adult" ain't the right word.

You are woefully uninformed--either that, or you're working for the GOP. There's no other explanation for your post, because your opinions have no basis in reality.

Have a nice day.

...and I am trash? You are too much like your candidate and her failed campaign. Nothing you can say will ever force me to vote for a liar, war monger and racist like Hillary Clinton. Sooo....I made an agreement with another person who agreed to pass voting for McCain. In other words, my non-vote has -0- effect politically, but I given myself the right to look myself in the eye and know that I did not vote for someone like Hillary Clinton who I find morally reprehensible.

I guess we will just have to disagree...because I have no patience for someone like you who when confronted with the truth cannot recognize it. And I already think of you....all the dead soldiers and Iraqis that Hillary had a part in causing. How you can support someone who supports war and cluster bombs....beyond me.

Sleep well tonight knowing that some innocent child is missing a few limbs thanks to the NO vote of your candidate on banning cluster bombs.

So long....

That's what I intend to do. I will support my choice in the primary, and the party's choice in the general. You said you have a problem with it. I pointed it out. Now, if that's a "personal attack" to you, you have a challenge in determining the definition of that phrase.

Your little agreement with your mysterious buddy is pure nonsense. Your pal will probably sneak off and vote for McCain, muttering "Suckah!" as the ballot goes in the box.

By doing nothing, guess what you do? NOTHING. A passive approach to democracy is surely incongruent with that "Change" and "Believe" stuff that your candidate is shopping.

I have no patience for people like you, either, who are passive and smug in these crucial times, so I guess we do have something in common.

FWIW, your candidate's many votes also funded the purchase of the weaponry and the deployment of the servicemember who launched the weapon that dismembered that child you are crying faux tears over--but don't you worry your little head about that--it wouldn't suit YOUR agenda. See, he doesn't put his money votes where his mouth is, either. The weapon that killed the kid may have been made by General Dynamics, whose key board member, a fellow named Crown, serves on Obama's campaign, has bundled hundreds of thosands of contributions for BO, and has, along with his wife, given the guy a massive chunk of his own change.

You sleep well, too, now.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/31965

Which is demonstrably not true.

and that they have no business worrying about---like their deciding who might get married and who might not, or who might get an abortion and who might not--but issues, even if they aren't earthshakers, DO play a role. They get out the vote, and motivate the base. All they have to do is say "They" are "gonna take away yer GUNS!!!" and the polls are crowded.

It's not hard to rile 'em up with a faux issue.

Look at the last election--the big issue was patriotism: "Did Kerry fight 'hard enough' in Vietnam?" Oh, and "not that it matters, he was actually....a JEW!" The ancillary issue was "Did he change his mind (aka Flip-Flop) on issues once too often?" Once those "issues" were solidified in the voters' heads, it was easier to sell differences on other issues as "automatically BAD."

It is the fallacy of projection -- believing that other people are more like us than they really are. Issue voters are the base of both parties. Swing voters are not issues voters -- that's why they are perceived as vacillating from the perspective of committed partisans. Swing voters base their votes in high-profile elections like the Presidency primarily on their personal judgments of the characters of the candidates.

Reagan Democrats voted for him because of his personal charisma, not because of any policy stand he had or any of the other million bogus reasons commentators have come up with. Now with Obama, the tide is running the other way. Swing voters, including many Republicans, find him individually appealing and that trumps things like his race or his very liberal voting record. I am amazed at some of the people I know who are supporting him, including the only fundie in my circle of acquaintance.

Clinton has serious character issues and will never be able to attract swing voters. She made the fatal mistake of believing that by adopting Republican-lite policy stands on foreign policy she could attract these voters. All she did was alienate much of her base, and that has cost her this nomination. If she had just stuck to what she truly believed and shown some integrity along the way, she could have been President.

that the candidate is like them, even if their own lying eyes tell them otherwise. And that "character" issue is grounded in how people feel about (drum roll) what side of the ISSUES a candidate comes down on. No gay-hating voter will vote for Clinton and no anti-abortion voter is going to vote for either Obama or Clinton because they ... uh ... like their SMILE, or think they can tell a joke, or something. Unless they're a complete moron--in which case, it's unlikely they'd find their way to the polls.

Reagan Democrats voted for Reagan because, on the issues that were important to THEM that didn't jive with the GOP platform, they convinced themselves--yes, they BELIEVED --that "He didn't really MEAN it." That his forays towards the far right were nudge-wink pandering, and that he was an avuncular old fellow that you'd love to have a glass of whiskey with--a wood-chopping, horse riding "real" man, a "regular" guy. That he was --oh, yes--JUST LIKE THEM--in his thinking. It's why they happily voted against their own interests, because they sold themselves on the idea that he WAS like them. They believed that.

If you want to talk about GOP-lite, you should tend to your own knitting. McClurkin and Kirbyjon Whatsisface were definite "signals" about Obama's attitude towards equal rights, and Obama's close association with billionaire General Dynamics board member and other members of the ultra-rich Crown family (one of whom serves on his campaign board of advisors) is also a "signal." You don't jump in bed with the military industrial complex without their expecting something in return, after all. And anyone who thinks otherwise is engaging in that very "BELIEVING" of which I am speaking.

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/31965

Look at the last election--the big issue was patriotism: "Did Kerry fight 'hard enough' in Vietnam?" Oh, and "not that it matters, he was actually....a JEW!"

No. The problem was Kerry really was for the war before he was against it (or whatever).

He didn't stick to his principles, and it cost him the election. It wasn't the swiftboating. It wasn't the purple-heart band-aid BS. It was the fact that people didn't trust him because he voted for the war but we all could tell he was against it.

As Truman said, given the choice between someone who actually is a Republican and someone who just talks like one, voters will choose the real thing.

EDIT: headline typo

You've tossed what you are calling a different issue (for the war before he was against it)--which I abbreviated as FLIP-FLOP.

It doesn't matter what the issues are, the Kerry example was simply that, an example--the fact is, people vote based on issues. Some are idiotic, others are not. For some people, the "cuteness quotient" of the candidate is an issue for them. Or the "youth factor." Or "coolness."

This time around, it's the economy leading the charge. For now, anyway.

The problem was not that he voted for or that he voted against. The problem was that people saw quite clearly that he voted in a way he didn't believe.

Swiftboaters, others took 'issue' with his Brahmin accent and high-falutin' ways, still others didn't like his goose-hunting costume and seemingly inauthentic stance on gun ownership, and still more found the windsurfing, Frenchy bike-riding exercising "elitist." Now, all of those things are part and parcel of his character, and his character was an issue because those GOP types launched repeated, coordinated, and vicious attacks against his character, and that, in and of itself, became an issue.

His IWR vote wasn't the problem with the center-right independents, it was all that other stuff. It wasn't a problem with the antiwar crowd, certainly. They managed to get over that vote without any trouble.

That swiftboating, the nitpicking, the carping about Teresa, the repetitive flip-flop accusations, the shitty media coverage that wasn't even subtle in its favoring of Bush, and worst of all, most of all, his failure to HIT BACK.

He came off as wimpy, aloof, and timid-- not "above the fray." If he'd stood up and said "Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on" to those Swiftboaters, that probably would have been worth several million votes. And he would have been elected by an "outside the margins" majority which would have been impossible to game without compromising several pollsters and drawing them into the cheating process.

People for various reasons did not trust or like him. It's not that they disagreed with him on any particular issue.

Obama's "Muslim faith" --that's an "issue." Clinton killing Vince Foster (that wasn't on the First Lady's schedule, either!)--that's an "issue."

"Issues" don't have to be true, important, or relevant. They reside in the MINDS of the electorate. And "trust" and "likeability" can even be defined as issues, too, for that matter, if they have enough of an impact and aren't overridden by "competence" or "experience" or "connections." They all fall under the greater "electability" issue.

I also have several friends who voted Rethug every election since 1980 who are supporting Obama. 90% of them said they were reconsidering when the Wright thing came about. Since that has blown over, almost 2/3rds of them are now back in Obama's camp.

Most of these folks are unhappy at the end result of conservative politics, particularly the economy but also the war. They arent true Democrats and never will be, but I really dont care about that. They want some sort of change, that is all they know, and they know McCain is not it. And they dont like the Clintons. Obama gets their vote by default because he is a positive force and isnt a Republican and isnt a Clinton.

That is where the non-Democratic support for Obama comes from.

Others less biased were able to see the comments for what they are, and not run ranting down the street, head-down, screaming about sniper fire.

If someone likes apples, they might like pears, but they might not like oranges.

Birds of a feather do flock together.

You have yourself a nice "rant," now!

:hi:

Know that you've come out for Obama, you'll probably get it in a PM.
I disagree completely with what you say about Sen. Clinton, but I think we can agree we need to come togather and defeat the GOP in the fall.

I ever alerted on a post that did not warrant it.

Thank you for the heads up.... :hi:

And like you, I would like to see us come together to defeat McCain in the fall.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...

I'm sure you just made many an ignore list :rofl:

:hi:

because I refuse to march in lockstep with the Obama Cult of Personality. . .

(~~~waiting for those Iconic Photos for the Home to appear. . .~~~)

As I say to everyone who comes over....Obama will not disappoint you. :)

:hi:

I have had some great admiration for the Clintons but after the way she has conducted herself and to top it all off that she cannot mathmatically win...they have all but withered away any love I have for them.

I still adore Bill but I will never, ever vote, support or defend Hillary Clinton ever again.


That is coming from their staunchest supporter since 1993.

As you pointed out, the mathematical improbabilities coupled with her actions have caused me to look at her in a different light.

I don't see "integrity" and Obama as synonyms as you infer. If he had so much integrity why did he ship Wright out of the country? Why didn't he let Rev Wright speak for himself? I could list other lack of integrity issues on Obama's part but you have made up your mind and won't listen so why bother.

Hello? Wright was in Chicago last weekend preaching an Easter sermon. WTF are you talking about?

:eyes:

:hi:

I may not be as well-informed as some, and yes, I get my news from the MSM...

Perhaps you should reconsider your approach.

Wright has been officially "removed" as an advisor. So was Ferraro. :shrug:

$4,800 to the Clintons...Oh, how I wish we would've gone to Atlantic City instead.

To look at the tape of HRC ,or "The Big Girl" as Patti Solis-Doyle annointed her whilst in the East Wing or "Hillaryland", in my town of Philadelphia, on St. Patty's Day, slowly, and ever-so convincingly re-creating for her rapt audience, the "landing under sniper fire in Bosnia" lie is to look at a really sick adult.

She & her husband think that if they emmote,let voices grow husky,and "Testify" that it is thus TRUE.

A couple of sick pups.

HERE'S SOME GREAT READING:



Anyone who would support HRC after her IWR vote hasn't had the priviledge to fight with men like these: My Heroes Bruce Crandall (CMH) and Hal Moore


Sure...I get to shout louder on DU,especially on IWR; because I earned it. And You???

Why is that name familiar? Is that the officer depicted in that Mel Gibson movie? We Were Soldiers... I think that was the name of it. I saw the bonus features on that DVD - in fact, I might have it - Doh! - and Moore was very impressive. A true hero.

They wanted Kerry to lose against Bush in 2004. This whole campaign has been planned and calculated for years. Obama came along and has jeopardized this plan. He must lose so Hillary can run again in 2012 against McCain. They will try to damage him in order to hurt his chances in the GE.

This is why I can never support Clinton. They only care about their own ambitions.

...and I'm sure yours is the most important to you. I can't overlook the nineties when Bill and Hillary were in the WH. Those were the best times in the U.S. in American history, if you look at the numbers. They have a history I can use as a barometer of what to expect. Obama? I know virtually nothing about him, and I am not one to vote for a candidate based on hope and change. Every candidate promises that. The Clinton's produced. Words alone do not make a president.

I am a die-hard democrat. I will vote for the nominee, but I do not jump on bandwagons with new tires. I like to see a little wear on the treads. Do I want more of the same old stuff? If that means what we saw in the nineties, you damned right I do! I think too many people are caught up with the novelty of Obama. I am not. He has not proven hisself worthy of my vote over Hillary. MAybe he will get the chance if elected president. I'll certainly give him support, but will hold him accountable to get things done. I will compare his accomplishments with those of Clinton in the nineties. If he meets or exceeds those expectations, he will truly be one of the greatest presidents ever to grace the WH.

What do I expect from an Obama presidency?

He must bring 80% the troops home in two years
He must move to make the tax laws more fair to the middle class
He MUST give us healthcare reform
He must act to bring manufacturing jobs back home
He must hold his people accountable for their actions

I expect the same from Clinton if she is elected. If either fail to act toward all of these goals, they will be a failure.
I hold dems to a higher standard. The Bush adminstration has been a collosal failure on all accounts. If monumental reforms are not enacted, I will be disappointed.

to the discussion that seems to be lacking, not necessarily in this thread (yet :D ).

I will hold our democratic president, should we be lucky enough to get one, to many of the same standards you have set.

However, I cannot equate Hillary with Bill in that she will do what Bill did in the 90s. The Clintons are TWO individuals, each brilliant in their own way, and I think both of them have individual strengths and weaknesses. I cannot attribute to her what he has done, nor vice versa.

~peace

Bill had to deal with a republican congress for most of his presidency, which only adds to his greatness, IMO. If Hillary or Obama get elected, they will most likely be dealing with a sympathetic congress, which should make achieving these goals easier.

I am fully aware that Hillary is not Bill but I do believe he would have a great influence on her administraion if elected. That kind of influence I would welcome because I believe he is very intelligent and experienced in world affairs. Building a team to lead this country in the right direction is paramount to the next administraion. I know the Clintons know how to do this and I can only hope Obama can and will. If Obama is elected, I sincerely hope he will enjoy input from Bill Clinton as well. I also hope we will get new congressional leadership, as those we currently have seem uneffective and unwilling to make waves.

I wasn't comfortable with Obama for a long time because of those same reasons. Good luck.

I want to see universal health care, repeal of the Patriot Act, repeal of the Bankruptcy (so-Called) Reform Act,
an absolute end to the influence of K-Street, and end to the usury interest rates charged by the credit card and
mortgage industry and reforms that guarantee our independence on foreign oil. I also want to see an end to the
devastating Irag war and real pursuit of Bin Laden. If Obama can't do this within his first year as president,
(if he becomes president) he will not be worthy of a second term.

Thank you. As an Obama supporter, I will hold him to those goals as well. :hi:

Great post malta blue.



:toast:

:toast:

There is a symbiosis between elected officials and the financiers of campaigns that effects legislation. It results in felony conflict of interest that no one ever gets arrested for... it's always said to be "unprovable."

Why wouldn't a couple that have taken so much money from the Backers of Bush and Company take their marching orders from the same bunch?

We can't write this off to personal ambition.

and then there's

and probably would again... And I really used to like John McCain, since he went after this rogue administration more than the Democrats did, so what happened to him?! :shrug:

And, yeah, I think that we're still angry at France. *sigh* We might be able to mend some fences if we joined them in their possible boycott of the China Olympics, the country whose tainted products have harmed our pets and our kids, but if the corporate-loving Republicans have anything to say about it, I'm not gonna hold my breath...;(

And I too found McCain not that offensive until he was co-opted by the Bush War Machine....

Dammit - I LOVE FRANCE :rofl:

:hug:

And nuxvomica's Dad, who was a lifelong and activist Democrat, told me that he also liked McCain, back in 2000, but the man's ambitions seem to have gotten in the way of his good judgment. ;(

See you in Paris in the Springtime...:hi::hug:

New York can elect a Democrat to the Senate

now :banghead:

:rofl:

for his father's old seat...:patriot:

the hillbots can't take the blinders off and see the truth.

some might consider my "koolaid drinking habits" offensive :rofl:

It's great to have you with us!!!:toast:

And we're not usually like this. The primaries bring out the worst in everybody, but things will settle down, once we have a nominee...:hide:

Rhiannon:hi:

I am rather fond of it myself.


I think I need to do something with my hair though..... :rofl:

I need a shave. But I think that my cat looks rather fetching...:rofl:

You owe my employer a new keyboard.... :spray:

That was the last thing I expected :rofl::rofl:

But I was so proud of my new headgear that I couldn't help myself... And I know how many DUers love kitty pix...:rofl:

I just had to share that with you. I ran across it earlier this week at about 4am when I couldn't sleep. And it won me a DUzy this week...:woohoo:

If you see Gina, ask her if this is a good pic of me. I've been friends with her since the '80s, but she hasn't seen me recently...:evilgrin:

Sorry about the keyboard. Tell Joe that it was my fault...:hide:

to say :rofl:


On Edit: She says the tinfoil really accentuates your eyes :rofl:

And I thought that she'd like to see a recent pic of Stripey, too.;)

Complete with chin straps. Reminds me of that scene in Signs. Priceless! :rofl:

Is that the 800 lb gorilla in the room?

BTW - I am NOT insinuating you are 800 lbs - just in case....

I am deeply wounded and offended.
I would not expect this on GD-P
:rofl:

I put the disclaimer in there....

:rofl:

:kick:

and vote McCain".

I'm wondering what you base this curious statement on. Her Senate voting record? Where she voted with the Democratic majority 97% of the time?

She will vote for Obama if he is the nominee, and for McCain if Clinton is the nominee.

what's it based on?

Especially since she's going to vote for McCain over Clinton. That is completely nonsensical.

McCain really does have "repuke ways".

likes Obama's message of change. SHE (the MIL) will revert to her repuke ways....

Mostly, as some of us keep trying to convince DU-type activists, most voters don't vote issues, and don't really care about issues. They care about character, and for many reasons, some fair and some unfair, a large portion of the electorate don't like Senator Clinton's character.

Senator Clinton's (wrong-headed and Carvillian) way of appealing to them has been to adopt Republican-esque measures like the anti-flag-burning law or the IWR (or even, going back further, the assault weapons ban -- gun control was for a long time a conservative hobby horse until Sarah Brady (R) realized she could get Democrats to take the heat for it).

On edit lest my meaning get lost: I know Clinton was not in Congress when the AWB was voted on; I'm speaking more generally about the DLC theory of how to win elections, which has basically shown that with a charismatic Presidential candidate -- which she is not, by most of the country's reckoning -- you can win the Presidency provided you have a strong center-right third-party candidate and simultaneously disastrously lose Congress. The "repuke tendencies" are "free" trade, hawkish foreign policy, and "tough-on-crime" feel-good but ultimately pointless gun control bills (the last were a complete misfire, if you'll pardon the pun, but they were proposed to appeal to crime- and minority-wary suburban voters).

n/t.

This latte's on me :bounce:

Thanks for the welcome. :hi:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:rofl:

:rofl:

I am way past "dislike". I think you'll get there eventually.

How dare that WOMAN, that B!*%&h run for president! The only place that women belong is
in the kitchen and the bedroom. If she'd been in the bedroom satisfying Bill, Monica
would never have happened!

:sarcasm:

their actions are terrible this election.

unless It's researched first to be the truth.

If anyone doesn't think she will continue the war (and who then knows about Iran or Syria ) they are fooling themselves.

MSM is covering up her "LIES" over her terrorist statements. besides ratings, there is a BIG question mark over why this would be then.

Nothing was MISSPOKEN, nothing was a "MISTAKE", it was LIES.

She LIED Today, in Greensburg PA during a press conference, and in TX on Feb 29th in Waco.

to nominate her. I made no decision until I saw how Obama was being received. I saw an Obama victtory speech right before a McCain one.

It was not a pretty sight. Obama had a cheering stadium of people of all ages and ethnicities. McCain some very old white people standing behind him. You know that old smug republican look? And the audio indicated his speech was given to just a room of old white republicans.

That is when I knew Obama has the talent.

Back then I was cool with Hillary. In the past 3-4 weeks I have come to despise her. Not for anything about her personally. No, I despise her for the things she has done.

America doesn't need to be saved from a President Obama by Hillary.

Hill has only shown ever-increasing levels of vitriol and nastiness as the pressure on her increased.

be torn apart by this hatred.

Welcome to DU :hi:

respect and kindness to all of the opposition. Obamaites have never been mean, narrowminded or
unfair to the opposition. Obamaites have never been namecalling or users of the "race" card. . .
no vitriol or nastiness there at all. Obamaites ALL have risen above the fray and taken the high
road at all times. . .
:sarcasm:

in my posts, and therefore do not lump myself into your categorization.

I always felt the Clinton's were way to chummy with the Bushes. She sounds more & more like W & the Repuke mantra everyday.

She is tainting our party w/her nasty tricks (Rovian in nature). IMHO she is just waiting around for us to have FL & MI revote or delegate inclusion forced upon the party. There needs to be a DEFINITIVE & FINAL decision handed down on those states NOW!! Otherwise, her remaining in the running is just bringing us all down.

I was sad when Kucinich was forced out by the MSM; then when Edwards exited. Obama is not my first pick, however, he seems the best we have to offer now. Hillary supporters need to realize it is her time to bow out gracefully, too.

She CANNOT beat McCain. There are way too many independents & Repubs that would NEVER vote for her.
Obama doesn't have that kind of baggage.

Obama the former cocaine user and Resnik friend can beat McCain? Obama, who claims to have authored numerous
laws that (strangely) don't show him as author can beat McClain? Obama, whose wife was never
before proud of being an American can beat McCain? Obama, whose close family friend declared
"God Damn America" CAN beat McCain?

had their own real estate, poor choice in comrade issues:

Whitewater
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/history/A0852144.html

William Lerach
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/jail-top-democratic-donor-clinton-friend

Norman Hsu
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/31/fugitive_fundraiser_now_in_jai.html


Bush cocaine use:
http://www.progress.org/drc12.htm


So please, those in glass houses should not cast stones....

I rest my case w/you. :hug:

this, Malta Blue, we need your voice!

Yes, it's called my dear/darling/damned husband, depending on my mood that day :P

For the sake of those that imagine all criticism of Clinton is "irrational", it's a good idea.

with her then teenaged daughter, running for cover, and fleeing the tarmac.

The video shows quite the opposite happening.

:shrug:

I already know about the McCain 'endorsement', can you think of anything else?

... exactly what is a DH? (MIL is mother-in-law, I gather; and I assume you're not an American Leaguer.)

Re: A vote most vile.... I'm right there with you re: how I'll feel about voting for Hillary this November. Though if McCain were to make a promise to replace left-of-center SCOTUS members with like judges, I'd be on the fence.

p.s. Re: ignore lists... I wish there was a way of knowing on how many ignore lists one is included. (And it'd be handy to know whether you're responding to a post by someone who has you on ignore.)

A DH is a "darling/dear/damned husband" depending on your mood.

re: ignore lists - If I have made it to anyone's ignore list, then I am sure I didn't need to associate with them. I have spent the majority of my time at DU hanging out in the lounge, so I rarely get into brawls with anyone. Maybe some people might tire of looking at my dog or kid pics so they put me on ignore :shrug:

:hi:

And now you can YouTube'm, too!

:hi:

:hug:

What the Clintons have one this primary season is UNFORGIVABLE. :puke: :puke:

:hug:

Good to know you've got my back :pals:

It's time for her to go. She does not deserve the presidency.

but I also truly feel sorry for her in some ways. She looks like she is sleep-deprived, stressed and at the end of her rope. I do not wish that upon anyone, really, I have been there before.

I hope she can find it within herself to do what is best for the party and recoup her losses, and finally find some inner peace.

if she should prevail through any of the machinations she and her campaign have proposed, via superdelegates or projected electoral votes, what will the Day After look like for our party? How will disenfranchised Obama voters and African-AMerican Democrats feel about the democratic Party gifting the nomination to Hillary though she lost the popular and delegate votes. Has she thought it through? Does she really win that way? Does she want to?