Who voted, who missed the vote and the problem with Obama supporters

[MagsDem]

Yesterday, Obama supporters were beside themselves with the non-issue that Clinton didn't vote on the telecoms immunity bill even though she voted against it previously (so was on record about it) and even though her vote wouldn't have changed the final outcome. Not just here, but on DKos and other blog sites. "It was critical" they claimed, even though it was no such thing. Now, today, when it is apparent that Obama was not there for the final vote they claim THAT wasn't a critical vote. In the meantime, Obama supporters avoid any discussion of the real issues. Much like their candidate, in MY opinion.

It's all such complete bullshit.

I just voted in a poll saying that I will NOT vote for Obama if he wins the nomination. That will be the first time I haven't voted for the Dem nominee in 29 years of voting. I have stated my reasons for that -- I don't find him trustworthy. And I find his dishonestly unusually self serving. My impression about Obama is that it is all about Obama. It's not about the agenda, it's not about the country - it's about him. I also think he is wholly unqualified, and my fear is that if he wins, which I think is doubtful, he will be our party's George Bush. A mixture of dishonesty and incompetence that will set our party back decades. Lastly, his policy positions are far from bold. They are old, reworked policies watered down to be palatable to rethugs. There is nothing "transformational" about them in the least.

But here is where his rabid supporters come in. I read these sites daily, and have for years. And you know, you COULD have convinced me to vote for your guy. I am a loyal democratic support with both my money and my time. But I had my doubts about Obama and you did nothing but confirm them. This guy spins this unity platform and his supporters are just absolute jackasses? They spew every right wing talking point they have ever heard about Clinton? They go into melt down mode when asked about Obama's policy positions like a 10 yr old kid who's been sleep deprived?

And frankly, his supporters in real life are no better. I've been to party meeting and caucus sites before, and we're all dems and we get along. But this year? Rude, pushy, insulting about Clinton. Yelling at people that dare not support their demi-God. Never in my life did I realize people like this even belonged to our party. My family has a running joke -- whenever we see someone rude in traffic, in a store, etc. we all look at each other and say "must be a republican" and laugh. But now it appears to describe members of my own party. It's sad. And yes, it confirms my fear that Obama is the George Bush of our party. Hillary is divisive? No, not like that she isn't.

And I am sorry I got down to that level and got rude back. I truly am. I'm not sorry I have challenged you on his policy positions. What I found out was that most of you support him because you hate Hillary (the right wing has conditioned you well), or you support him based on pure emotion. Many of you seem to realize his policy positions are far from bold. If you really believed in his agenda you would be able to speak to it and defend it, and tell us why it was better than the other candidate's policy positions and agenda. And most of all, you wouldn't be reduced to lashing out at absurd things like the telecoms immunity, then turning yourselves into knots trying to explain why it was fine for him to miss the final vote. Or the topper yesterday -- someone posting "Hillary is a LIAR!!!!" because she didn't publicly rake her former campaign manager over the coals on TV, because apparently that is what she is supposed to do if she is being "truthful."

The reality is that there isn't a lot of difference between Obama and Clinton policy positions and agenda except for her experience and his stated willingness to "work with" rethugs, versus her promise to "fight them."

But the bottom line is that, in my view at least, his supporters remind me of rethugs and their tactics. In nearly 30 yrs in politics I have never seen such hatred and nastiness. If I didn't know better I'd think the rethugs had paid you and planted you here. I want you to know that it has forever changed my view of our party as the good guys. I'm seriously considering changing my affiliation to independent. I am certainly not going to contribute to the party any longer. For years now I have had dear friends that have been turned off politics telling me there really is no difference between the parties. After this cycle I have come to believe they are right.

[TwilightGardener]

1. Oh well. Happy trails.

[MagsDem]

4. Thanks for making my point

I knew many of you would right in this very thread.

[Dawgs]

20. You expect people to not respond after your broad-brush attack?

And, it's write not "right".

[MagsDem]

34. Look at the responses to this thread...

Look at the threads by Obama supporters. Look at your snarky comment about a type. The broadbrush comments are well deserved. They aren't an attack. They are my observations. Can you really dispute what I have said? I really don't see how. The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

[Dawgs]

56. I can dispute that every candidate has supporters that are just like the ones you describe.

"The evidence is pretty overwhelming"

Interesting you say that, considering you haven't provided any.

[MagsDem]

65. Again you make my point...

"Interesting you say that, considering you haven't provided any."

I provided two specific samples in my post. All one has to do is look at the board for overwhelming evidence. And of course the evidence is right in the very thread. Obama supporters are simply impervious to facts. Very much like the rethugs I have spent my life working to defeat.

Thank you again for making my points for me. I know you aren't going to stop, so given that, I appreciate you supporting what I posted with your actions.

[bpeale]

130. put Dawgs on ignore. i have.

[Dawgs]

57. I can dispute that every candidate has supporters that are just like the ones you describe.

"The evidence is pretty overwhelming"

Interesting you say that, considering you haven't provided any.

[ThatPoetGuy]

42. Actually, it's "right."

He was using the word in its adverbial form, meaning precisely -- as in "right here in River City."

[MagsDem]

47. LOL - you are correct

I thought he was talking about a typo I might have made in my OP. Geez, they are so arrogant and cocky they think they can play grammar police when they don't even understand grammar.

[Laurab]

137. Another day, another anti-Obama post from you.

I'm pretty sure we all GET IT now - do you want everyone on DU to post OP's everyday on who they aren't voting for and why? Get over yourself - I don't CARE and I'd guess a lot of other people don't, either. You're just not that important - honest. You've made your point - a hundred times.

[Jamastiene]

145. Actually, that sentence is correct.

right being the location, as in right here in this thread Obama supporters would make the OP's point.

[DJ13]

2. I was on the record as supporting Obama

But if I hadnt voted for him in our primary that wouldnt matter, would it?

[Mojorabbit]

3. I don't care for either of them

but it was important to stand up and be counted on the issue of immunity for the telecoms. Both votes were going to pass anyway but this is our constitution we are talking about and if you want to be the leader of the country you need to be there to stand up when it matters. And the telecom issue matters very much.

[MagsDem]

5. She did stand up to be counted, and so did he

They are both on record as voting against it.

[Mojorabbit]

44. No, she is not on the

record voting against it because she was not there and did not vote. But then for me this was one of the most important votes of our time. Your milage may vary.

[MagsDem]

51. She voted against it weeks ago

Do you not realize they voted on cloture on this previously? My goodness, you all go off half cocked and you don't even bother to inform yourselves first.

[Mojorabbit]

64. I have followed every

step of this legislation. Spin her not being there for the final vote all you like. It was important to me to see our legislators take a stand. As I said, your milage will vary.

[MagsDem]

69. You know what, save it

Save your rabid, ridiculous outrage for someone else. She voted against immunity. She took a fucking stand. He took a fucking stand. NEITHER of them was there for the final, final, final, final, final fucking vote. Get over it.

[Mojorabbit]

85. I will show my outrage

as I like. I won't get over it. It is that important to me. You can gloss it over all you like. That is your right.

[MagsDem]

93. I said save it FOR SOMEONE ELSE

You're not impressing me. I know it's not PC to do it, but whenever I read posts like this one from Obama supporters, which is most of the posts I read from Obama supporters, all I can thinks is "how OLD are you"? You can take that to mean I think you ought to grow up a bit.

And by the way, were you like, gonna vote for HRC if she had voted against immunity all 19 times or something? Are you not going to vote for Obama because he didn't attend the final vote? Or is it just more manufactured outrage for you to bitch about in a desperate attempt to smear her so more?

That's why I think people like you are jerks, and I am sorry to see the party attract that kind of person. Have a nice day.

[Mojorabbit]

97. Listen up

I am probably older than you are and I am NOT an Obama supporter as I made clear in my earlier post.
You are acting like a two year old and I don't appreciate being called a jerk.
I am watching this race dispassionately as the candidates I supported have dropped out. You need to perhaps step back a minute and chill.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. suh-prise suh-prise suh-prise.

[MagsDem]

10. Ah, another Obama supporter

See how easy it is to pick you out based on your rudeness?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. I'm sorry, did I make you cry?

[MagsDem]

27. No, not crying, sorry

Cocky, aren't you? You really think it's a good thing that you and your fellow supporters turn people off politics? I really don't think most mature people that have devoted real time and effort into building the dem party would agree with that. I am pretty sure the people that cared enough about politics to set up this site wouldn't agree with you.

But you keep it up. I'm sure there are more people you can turn off the democratic party if you really try. Karl Rove and the rethugs might even send you a thank you card someday.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

31. Pardon?

"You really think it's a good thing that you and your fellow supporters turn people off politics?"

People like me are seeing our candidate break record after record in primary attendance, we're winning in landslides, and people are coming across the aisle.

People like me have also seen this "I'm am a lifelong dem but I'm very concerned..." nonsense plenty of times before.

And frankly, I don't think anybody's falling for it.

[MagsDem]

38. Why do you think I care if someone like you is "falling for it"

The cocky arrogance is a turn off. It's a turn off here and it's a turn off in real life. Do you treat people like that in your real life? If so, does anyone like you? Have you ever knocked doors for a candidate? If you have, do you speak to them the way you address people here? I can promise you that you won't win anyone to the democratic party if you do.

You are so sure that Obama is going to win, and that people are flocking to the democratic party. But you honestly don't think they are going to stick around for our candidates when they find out you're no different than rethugs, do you? And this crop of Obama people -- let me tell you, I have been involved in politics a long time, and you will not win people to our side with the way you act. It should be obvious, but apparently it's not to folks like you. But no one can tell you anything. Cocky and arrogant, you know it all.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

43. But Mags...

why do you think anybody cares what you think?

[MagsDem]

50. I think people that value this party will care

It's not just me you are turning off. I would hope people realize you don't win political supporters by acting the way Obama supporters act. What's really curious is that these same people will get apoplectic over the thought that I won't vote for him the GE, but you don't care how many people you drive away from politics with your behavior. Those are also votes lost. And they give plenty of ammunition to the hoardes of people in this country that think there is no difference between rethugs and dems.

Let's put it this way, if your guy loses, which I think is very likely, you will have earned it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

52. Really?

People who value the party will care about somebody who threatens to leave because the best candidate won?

I'm not buying that either.

[MagsDem]

59. Let me be clear

I don't think he is the best candidate, but that is not why I am not going to support the party.
Just to make sure you get it, let me repeat that:

I'm not going to support the party because it has become filled with people like you.

I don't think I can dice it down for you any clearer than that. Now if you cannot read and comphrehend that then you have a problem that is going to take a reading tutor to solve.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

106. Let me make this perfectly clear.

I don't believe you.

Nobody makes any sort of political decision over something so petty.

[MagsDem]

109. Well then you have a lot of learning to do

If you had much experience in boots on the ground politics you would know that nastiness, the rudeness, the petty infighting and the uncalled for attacks are the number one thing that turn people off of politics.

People get into politics to change things for the better - they don't get into them to have others attack them or watch people be treated like shit. and most of us do it on a volunteer basis. In most cases you can't even pay people to be treated rudely, so I don't know why you think they are going to do it for free.

It ought to be self evident. But apparently it's not to you. I think you may well find out come Nov. All those kids you all keep telling us are swarming in droves to help Obama can be mighty fair weather friends, especially when they have a concert or a party to go to.

[Hepburn]

148. I am a life-long Dem and...

...you make me ill with your whining and mis-information. Grow up, will ya?

[dionysus]

14. here...

[ingac70]

7. Thankfully your in WA, so it won't make a damn bit of difference. n/t.

[MagsDem]

17. I think it will make a difference

I contributed bewteen 8 and 10 thousand dollars to the party and candidates last year (haven't done by taxes yet, so unsure of the exact total). It is my way of tithing since I don't go to church. Now I will contribute to charities.

Perhaps you really believe it doesn't make a difference when you convince people that democratic party loyalty doesn't matter. I think that would be the voice of ignorance speaking. You appear full of self importance, which is the way I see Obama. What you don't seem to realize is that no party can really afford to turn off supporters. You appear to have missed the point of my post altogether.

[GumboYaYa]

48. You know that political donations are not tax deductible....right?

Anyone who makes those size contributions has to know that...

Sorry, but your assertions re needing to do taxes to figure out political contributions are filled with enough internal inconsistencies, that they are hard to believe.

A quick way to get the number is to search online. I know that when I do that, all of my contributions come up right there in front of me.

[MagsDem]

62. Yes, I do know that

I use MS Money, and I won't know the total until I print the reports and sort through everything when I do my taxes. Plus, I have given some money to a few political orgs that have a c3 arm, but I don't remember how much to that and how much to the non-deductible side. I wouldn't trust the online search if I were you. I have found not all of mine show up that way. Obviously some campaigns do a better job of reporting than others.

[damntexdem]

8. No one owns our votes, not the Dem Party. But it's a shame you won't vote for Obama.

I loathe Hillary; but I have said that I will vote for her if she's the candidate, although I will do nothing else to support her. I urge you to consider a similar approach for yourself to Obama.

Nuff said.

[incapsulated]

9. All I can do is nod

Maybe I will change my mind later but you pretty much sum up my feelings perfectly.

This primary has made me disgusted with my party and disgusted with politics.

I know most of the hate toward Hillary is from "the left" of the party but it doesn't make it any less repulsive to hear democrats do their best to destroy not only Hillary but the only successful Democratic administration in my lifetime for some garden variety centrist with a lot of charisma.

If they were throwing Clinton off a cliff for some true progressive who preached a real message of change, rather than playing on emotion and stroking egos while winking at the republicans, it wouldn't hurt so much. I never said or believed Hillary was anything other than a politician ready for the job and capable of fighting the repukes, that is why I support her. But for this? American Idol?

Really, I've come to the point where I don't give a fuck anymore.

All I can say is: be careful what you wish for. You might get it.

[goldcanyonaz]

15. Bravo! I feel exactly as you do.

[MagsDem]

thank you fellow traveler

All I can think is that if this is the future of democratic politics it's not a fit for me. And yes, it is sad. We seem to be morphing into the same kind of people I have spent my life fighting against.

[leftynyc]

11. Please reconsider

I know many of his supporters on this board are assholes but there is just too much at stake here. I'm not sold on Senator Obama either but the supreme court is in the balance and it's just too important. Take a break from reading comments and just stick to the news. There isn't much difference between the two candidates (although his support for an anti-gay bigot makes me want to retch and I'm not even gay) and he's still head and shoulders above McCain. Yes, I know his supporters act like children at times (as do some of Senator Clinton's) but again, there is just too much at stake. Please think this through.

[MagsDem]

32. I hear you

And maybe if I turn off all internet usage and don't have to encounter another Obama supporter between now and Nov I might change my mind. But I doubt it. But all you have to do is look to the immature responses to this thread from his supporters and my point is made.

As for my vote, I live in WA which will safely stay blue, I am sure. The party won't miss my vote. But they will miss my money and my door knocking support for down ticket candidates. According to the Obama supporters here "who cares?" though, right? Cocky little bastards, aren't they?

[leftynyc]

46. LOL - I am in total agreement with you

If I actually cared what any of his supporters thought, I could never pull the lever for him (here in NY we still have the old fashioned lever machines - so quaint). And this state will also remain blue with or without my vote (or my mothers who now says she will never vote for Obama - dad, sis and I are going to have to work hard on her). But I've never not voted in a presidential race and I'm not going to start now just because the senator attracts assholes to his side. But, like you, he's going to have to do it without my phone banking or driving people to the polls. I'm sure his gazillion supporters will more than make up for it.

You know what's going to be ugly if he gets the nod - when the press does turn on him and the pukes really go after him (both things WILL happen, they're going to run around like their hair is on fire screaming about the unfairness of it all, beating their breasts about how biased the press is, etc. They think this halo treatment is going to continue. When they find that everyone has clay feet, it's going to be sad.

[Arkansas Granny]

60. You are exactly right about when the press turns on him. This will

happen if he does get the nomination. They've pretty much left him alone so far, but that will change in a heartbeat.

My biggest concern is that those who are so avidly supporting him right now in the primaries will become tired or bored with it all before November and not turn up to vote in the GE. While the youth vote can be very enthusiastic, it is not always reliable.

[MagsDem]

68. Just a riff of both posts - yours and the one you're responding to...

There is a certain amount of young people that show up for every election, readly to work. But in nearly 30 yrs I can tell you my experience is that it is fad for them. Only a very small subset are back the next cycle. I don't really think the party can afford to lose the long timers, but apparently Obama supporters feel we are disposable. That is part of what is so grating about it.

Obama support seems based on these fad voters, so while it may be wide, it may not be very deep. But hey, they don't need us or our contributions to hear them tell it. It will be interesting to see how they do. I, like you, think he will hurting come crunch time if they continue turning off so many people.

[leftynyc]

77. Every election we hear

about the youth vote and it always turns out disappointing. And Obama is not doing great (okay but not great) with senior citizens, esp the women who are the most reliable voters. A lot will depend on who McCain picks for VP. If he goes rabid conservative (say Santorum), I'm not worried - he'll scare the independents. But if he picks a Kay Baily Hutchinson, that will attract independents who just don't think Senator Obama has enough experience. It's pretty amusing to hear people think the senator will win 40 states - not gonna happen. It will be another very close election no matter who the nominee is.

[miceelf]

74. Honestly

If you were to start a similar thread with a similar amount of negativity, you don't think HER supporters would be doing the same thing?

[bpeale]

131. our dems helped the repugs to stack the supreme court the way it is

there is no reason to expect the dems will do anything different on their own. and without the rule of law, what difference does the SC make anyway? the democratic party has repeatedly sold us out on every conceivable issue and we're expected to keep on swallowing while they cum down our throat. well, no thanks! i'm sick of the dems. i'm sick of the repugs. and frankly don't see a whole lot of difference between them. we like to think we're better, but we're not.

[leftynyc]

135. You don't see a difference

between a Scalia and Alito versus Breyer and Ginsberg? Sorry, I do. I'm not happy with the dems right now either but I don't see the virtue in stepping away from the process in the name of party purity. I'm working with what's available to me.

[bpeale]

136. our dems helped to put those asswipes there. what part of that is unclear to you?

[leftynyc]

141. Whar seems to be unclear to you

is that presidents are allowed to put who they want on the court with the exception being unqualified judges (that's what almost derailed Thomas and should have). Breyer and Ginsberg were confirmed almost unanimously. The concept of advise and consent has been taken to its limits only since Reagan tried to put Bork on the court. This is the only real legacy any president has as it cannot be undone (except in very exceptional cases). And that's why I'll vote for whoever has the D behind his/her name for President. YOu don't see any difference and I think that's foolish. Now why don't you just stop trying to speak down to someone who has a family of lawyers and whose dinnertime conversation was often supreme court cases. I'm very aware of how it all works.

[dionysus]

13. here's your banky

[ClericJohnPreston]

26. Can't actually make an argument

can you? How hard is it for you, if you disagree, to frame a few sentences which reflect WHY you believe the OP is wrong.

Instaed, as she reflected, you go right ahead and make her case for her. The truth is, you are so much like she described, YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE YOU'RE BEING A "TRUE BELIEVER" HAS BLINDED YOU AS TO YOUR ACTIONS.

No thought Obamites....SICKENING!!!

[dionysus]

33. no, mr all-caps...

all the OP has been doing is start bullshit threads insulting Obama supporters. If you can't see that, you're the one being blind.

I am responding to the OP with all the respect it doesn't deserve.

[MagsDem]

39. No, they really can't

All these new democrats they claim to be winning over to our side will have the shortest party loyalty in history when they find out what are party is made up of.

[bvar22]

83. Short of Party Loyalty ?

Like those who threaten to leave the Party if their favorite doesn't win the nomination?

That kind of Party loyalty?

[MagsDem]

87. I can't help you if you can't read my post and understand it

But suffice to say that is not what I said. What I have said is that this rabid rethug like behavior is driving people away.

[BlackVelvet04]

16. I bet his supporters are the ones that were

screaming the loudest about bush supporters. People often become what they judge harshly.

[smiley_glad_hands]

18. I am an Obama supporter.

I have learned to ignore most of his other supporters. Sad but true.

[Pathwalker]

19. You should realize the purpose of those polls. To ban you

and anyone else who refuses to support the Dem nominee. DU rules have always stated that a poster must support the Dem nominee - always. These polls are being posted so that the bannings can commence when the nominee is chosen, since DU Administrators have stated that they know how posters vote in these polls, and have banned people who vote certain ways in polls. In one case, where they announced that they know how posters vote in these polls, they did so for very good reasons - the poll was exceedingly offensive. But, you should know WHY these polls are being posted - they are a trap, and you fell into it.

[goldcanyonaz]

23. Really? I still see all those who posted the ABC threads and voted No in polls if she is the nominee

[Pathwalker]

29. They will receive the same treatment, I would think.

I just wanted the truth to be out there about these polls, no matter which way it goes. It's a trap.

[MagsDem]

54. Yeah, and it's so hard to just sign up again with a new email address

I didn't fall into any trap. I know what the rules are. I have been coming to this site and posting off and on for 5 yrs. They can ban me if they want.

[AtomicKitten]

21. Obama voted AGAINST IMMUNITY. Hillary? Hello? Crickets.

[MagsDem]

63. So did she

And the rudeness of Obama supporters goes on.... and on, and on, and on.

[karynnj]

67. When did she vote against it?

She was not there on Dec 17, the first time it came up and she wasn't there today. The fact is that in neither case would her vote have made a difference - their only chance was in those cloture votes and they pass ONLY if they get more than 60 votes. It doesn't matter if it is 60 to 1 or 60 to 40 - it passes, likewise 59 to 0 fails as does 59 to 41.

I posted this same content yesterday. There was no vote yesterday that HRC could have impacted, as I'm sure Reid told her. She made her position known and it is completely normal for Senate Presidential candidates to miss votes.

There were Obama supporters making an issue of it, but some were reacting to a thread claiming he voted the opposite way that the OP refused to correct. This has also been an issue used by Clinton supporters against Obama on other votes.

[MagsDem]

70. Do you think anyone out there in voter land cares?

That's the point of this thread. They both voted against immunity for telecoms. They are both very clear on that position. Do you think anyone out there in voterland gives a shit beyond that? How can you think they do? Don't you think people have better things to do that rabidly go after each other on such arcane bullshit?

But does that stop them? Oh goodness no. It's pathetic. I'm sorry, but that's the way I see.

"This has also been an issue used by Clinton supporters against Obama on other votes."

Well you know, his habit of voting "present" or ducking out of voting at all on certain bills is an issue. It speaks to his willingness to take a stand that might be politically risky. Again, I'm sorry, but Obama supporters have to be willfully ignorant not to see the difference between that and her not showing up to vote on something she has already voted on before, and where her vote won't affect the outcome. But they have to make some equivelency out of it that does not exist, for what purpose? To excuse a problem with their candidate.

Well here's a clue. He is NOT perfect. Nor is she. And pretending he is is what rethugs do for George Bush. This crap is what I am talking about.

[karynnj]

140. HRC did not vote against it - dispute that by a link to a vote I missed in Thomas

What I wrote explained that her position and Obama's are known and they were against it. I also said that this was not a vote changed by their not being there and that it is normal that this happens.

I was SUPPORTING YOUR POSITION. I do not think that Obama is perfect - No one is. I was defending Hillary there - i'll try not to do it again.

[not_too_L8]

22. You say that Obama is about him......

but in every HRC speech she talks about what SHE can accomplish, what she will do, how strong she is....

Obama's speeches are what WE can do or accomplish, and how strong WE as a country can be

and the whole liar thing you have going on ALL politicians distort the truth!!!!

REZKO: from factcheck.org
Obama has a relationship with Rezko that dates back many years, but there’s no indication Obama did anything improper. Shortly after finishing law school, Obama, who had turned down a job offer from the developer, went to work at a law firm where he represented some community groups that partnered with Rezko to apply for housing rehabilitation loans. As a state legislator, he wrote letters to city and state officials in support of Rezko’s efforts to build apartments for the elderly with government money; the senator asserts that this was a project the community wanted. Obama got together with Rezko a couple of times a year, he has said.

[MagsDem]

76. Some lie easier than others and for bad purposes

For instance, your fact check says "his relationship with Rezko that dates back many years, but there’s no indication Obama did anything improper." So why does he pretend he barely knows Rezko? Why doesn't he simply say what the sentence above says?

Why then because maybe then he could'nt attack her "lobbyist" campaign contributions. Her claim is yes, she takes them, but she doesn't do them favors. And by all I can tell she is telling the truth. No one can point to any favors she has done. If he admits his relationship with Rezko it's going to be hard to use that line of attack against her. And the truth his lobbyists bundle money for him. So he doesn't take THEIR contributions, but he does take contributions lobbyists have collected from non-lobbyists.

So the attack against her is a lie. It's a baseless lie. Your momma would know it was a lie, so it's a lie.

She's not lying about him. She is managing to campaign against him without lying about him. Do you know why? Because one of the is going to be the nominee. And every lie they tell about each other is going to become part of the narrative in the general for one of them.

Let me put it as nicely as I can: Obama cares about Obama. And I think he's a dick.

[not_too_L8]

99. lies easy

Again from my fact check

Clinton falsely accused Obama of saying he "really liked the ideas of the Republicans" including private Social Security accounts and deficit spending. Not true. The entire 49-minute interview to which she refers contains no endorsement of private Social Security accounts or deficit spending, and Obama specifically scorned GOP calls for tax cuts.

[MagsDem]

105. I actually heard him say that myself about SSI

So I think your fact check is wrong. :)

[not_too_L8]

100. more

Clinton: ...I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago. ...

CNN's Wolf Blitzer: Senator Clinton made a serious allegation that you worked for a slumlord. And I wonder if you want to respond.

Obama: I'm happy to respond. Here's what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That's what she's referring to.

According to an investigation last year by the Chicago Sun-Times, Antoin Rezko was involved in developing at least 30 low-income housing buildings in Chicago, in partnership with several community groups and using a combination of taxpayer and private funds. A number of the buildings fell into disrepair, collecting housing code violations, and Rezmar, Rezko's company, was sued on many occasions.

Obama was associated with a law firm that represented the community groups working with Rezko on several deals. There's no evidence that Obama spent much time on them, and he never represented Rezko directly. So it was wrong for Clinton to say he was "representing ... Rezko." That's untrue.

[MagsDem]

107. Okay, it's ridiculous to say Obama

Hasn't done favors for Rezko. Never represented Rezko directly? No, just his shell companies. Hell, he wrote letters to get him government money for his slums when Obama was in the IL state senate. Rezko has been Obama's political patron for 12 yrs -- since the day Obama entered politics. Now it's all "Tony who?"

But now that you bring it up, do you think you can split hairs like this, or Obama can and it makes him look better? It doesn't. It makes him look like a sneaky liar. Same with the lobbyist baloney. Lobbysist bundle money for him. But he's all against lobbyist money (when it goes to Hillary's campaign).

I just don't like him. I don't think he is honest, and if anything you just provided more evidence why I shouldn't.

[not_too_L8]

101. On HRC's behalf

It's true that Clinton sat on the Wal-Mart board for six years while her husband was governor of Arkansas, where the chain has its corporate headquarters. She was paid about $18,000 a year for doing it. At the time, she worked at the Rose Law Firm, which had represented Wal-Mart in various matters. According to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the company's founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices, board colleagues and company executives noted. She made limited progress in both areas, but she never voiced any objections to the company's anti-union stand, they said. But in 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution to her campaign from Wal-Mart, citing "serious differences" with its "current" practices.

[not_too_L8]

108. this is the last fact check

A direct-mail piece sent to voters by the Clinton campaign twists Obama’s words and gives a false picture of his proposals:

It says he "wants to raise Social Security taxes by a trillion dollars," a big distortion. Obama has said a “good option” would be to apply Social Security payroll taxes to incomes over $97,500 a year, but that would only affect taxes paid by 6.5 percent of individuals and couples. And he hasn’t formally proposed such a move anyway.


The Clinton mailer says Obama has "no plan" for a moratorium on foreclosures such as the one Clinton has proposed. That’s true, but Obama has his own plan for homeowner relief. The mailer leaves the impression that Obama has "no plan" at all, which is false.


It says Obama "voted for Dick Cheney's energy bill that gives huge tax breaks to oil companies," another distortion. By the time Congress passed the 2005 energy bill, it raised taxes on the oil industry more than it decreased them and also contained billions for alternative fuels research and subsidies for energy-efficient buildings and vehicles.

[adabfree]

24. ok but it won't stop the train!

[Scurrilous]

25. Geesh.

How many times are you going to post that you're not voting for Obama if he gets the nomination?

Give it a rest already.

:thumbsdown:

[NMMNG]

28. Hear, hear

I agree with you 100%.

And to anybody who wants to flame me or call me names, don't bother. I'm beyond giving a damn.

[HeraldSquare212]

30. "never seen such hatred and nastiness'?

You must have missed the swarm-postings re: cult, Reagan, present votes....

[mrreowwr_kittty]

37. Not to mention Handshakesnubapalooza.

Plus, notice how the OP got the now-obligatory Bush comparison in there.

[MagsDem]

78. I didn't miss it

Cozying up to rethugs is an issue. Some of us may well want a president that will "work with" rethugs. Others of us may want a president that is going to fight them. That is an actual campaign issue.

Present votes are an issue. The speak to his willingness to stand up for what you believe in, and take a politically risky stand when necessary. That is a legitimate issue.

Her vote on AUMF is a legitimate issue.

But Obama supporters don't stop at legitimate issues. And when their candidate is challenged on a legitimate issue they go into melt down mode. They don't address the issue, they don't defend their candidate. The attack the person who is critical of their candidate. And with all the maturity of a 10 yr old, I might add.

And that is why they are accused of having a cult mentality. Clinton, Edwards, et al supporters are hardly the only ones to notice that. I can tell you their behavior at our caucus was absolutely appalling.

[Matariki]

35. I voted for Clinton at my caucus and I think you are off base

When you say you won't vote for Obama if he wins the primary, do you mean you will vote for McCain, or simply stay home?

[MagsDem]

79. No, I won't vote for McCain

And no, I won't stay home. I will vote in other races. Just not for president.

Edited to add: Why would people assume that just because I think Obama will be a bad president it would make me think McCain would be a good one?

[Matariki]

90. I wasn't assuming you would. That's why I asked.

Unfortunately, not voting pretty much just aids the other side, i.e. one less vote canceling votes for McCain. I understand not wanting to be complicit in something you strongly believe is wrong, but I'd really suggest looking deeper into Obama's voting record, and not pay as much attention to the behavior of some of his supporters. It's not as bad as all that.

[BlueEyedSon]

36. You are an effin idiot if you vote for McCain

[MagsDem]

45. Where did I say I was voting for McCain?

Nasty people that make assumptions and attack with accusations. Are you getting the point though they you don't win votes by attacking people?

[GumboYaYa]

40. Sour grapes make good whine.....don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[RoadRage]

41. Yup.. now I know why I should have ignoored ya a few days ago.

Off you go! Buh-Bye. This topic has been beaten to death.. Obama voted on the vote that mattered, and was only gone for the last vote for the day that NEITHER candidate particiapted in, and they weren't needed for. But you already know this.. as you know a lot of facts that you skew for Hillary.

I like her if Obama doesn't make it.. but idiots screaming from the rafters like you don't do her any good.

Feel free to respond - i'll know I got a reaction if i see "ingore" below my post.

[Viking12]

61. I thought I had added her to my "I" list when I updated it

I'm glad I saw this thread so I can update it again.

[MagsDem]

117. People with an "I" list have a problem...

Having an "I" list means one of two things, as far as I am concerned.

1. You're not mature enough to skip what you don't want to read on your own without having it vanished from your site. I always wonder, is there a gun to your head that makes you read something you don't want to read unless it's hidden from you?

2. You really can't stand to see differences of opinion. You just can't handle even knowing / hearing / reading things you might not agree with. You insist on closing your mind to opinions that may differ from your own.

I feel sorry for people with "I" lists.

[emilyg]

49. K&R

I'm with you.

[JackORoses]

53. Waaaaaaaah! I'll never vote for Obama! Waaaaaaaaaaah!

Noone cares, dude.

get over yourself.

[MagsDem]

80. Exhibit A of the immature Obama supporter above

LOL - I know you kiddies can't help yourself, but it is amusing that you jump right into the thread and make my exact point for me.

[JackORoses]

94. you made the point by being a typical Hillarite

I just called you on it, and it pisses you off.

I hope you are enjoying this Primary season. Stay tuned, more fun is on the way. Toodleoo...

[MagsDem]

110. It really didn't piss me off

It just makes me think you're immature. Most of your posts look like they were written by a 5th grader, IMO. I don't know who anyone could look at them and not wonder if you are even old enough to vote.

[JackORoses]

114. what's is so mature about this 'Not gonna vote Obama' post?

Are you taking your toys with you?

[MagsDem]

119. What's immature about it?

There is a problem here and it needs to be addressed. The rabidness of some people on this board, on other forums and in real life is turing people against the party. I stated the problem and my reasons for feeling that way directly, but with respect.

And of course, true to form the Obama supporters respond with disrespect and namecalling, which frankly I don't even mind at this point because it bolsters my point.

I don't have any "toys" to take with me, no. But I do have money and boots, both of which are going to stay home until I can feel good about the party again.

[JackORoses]

120. admit it, you won't support anyone but Hillary

Immaturity is posting a thread letting everybody know you aren't voting instead of just doing it.

Immaturity is feeling the need to draw attention to yourself because you are so disappointed, hoping to draw in others with your point of view.

[MagsDem]

123. I don't agree

I think people need to know that the way they act turns off long term supporters. I'm hardly the only one.

I also don't think it's useful to just quit giving money or helping candidates without telling people why. In the same way if I had a group of friends and they started telling racist jokes it wouldn't be helpful for me to just walk away and not speak to them anymore. I would tell them why so that they could have a chance to modify their behavior so as not to offend other people in the same way. In that analogy, you would be the person that responded with yet another racist joke.

And no, it has nothing to do with Hillary. In fact, Obama is the only dem I can't support. Any of the others would have been fine with me, and I was originally and in 2004 an Edwards supporter. So you're still batting zero.

[JackORoses]

126. so the purpose of this OP is to stick it to Obama supporters

and let us know that you and 'many others' are offended and don't want to play with us anymore.

"One day, you'll learn!" you say.

*

Basing your opinion of a candidate on their supporters shows that you don't really care about the qualifications of the candidate.

"Any of the others would have been fine with me"

Exactly my point.

[hfojvt]

55. the thing is, you are not voting for supporters, you vote for a candidate

I have long made the point that many on DU are just as nasty, mean spirited and use ad hominem arguments far too much. This has been true since I joined in Novemeber of 2004 and was quickly called a Nazi in December. Why was I called a Nazi? Apparently because I had the audacity to use the word "weltanshauung". Then this was said to me also in December

"Shut the fuck up. You have no clue about living in poverty. I'm done. 12-29-04

Really, you people are just full of it. ibid

I still say you're full of shit and not telling the entire truth about your economic situation. ibid"

My point is, the nastiness has always been there. It's part of "heated anonymous discussion" particularly about politics or religion. It happens when people care about something, and it is not limited to one candidate OR one political party. There are plenty of thorns in this garden, but you can also stop and smell the roses if you so desire. The glass is more than half full.

And here's where I stand on issues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7pw0cFRTLE

with the "middle class" that is below the median income.

[MagsDem]

82. I realize that

Yes, there is always some nastiness. My problem with this is that it is pervasive with his supporters. But I saw the same thing at the caucuses, and heard reports from others as well.

There is something about this guy that makes his supporters just rabid and nasty. I think that is what people mean when they call it a cult mentality. I have a very bad feeling that if I hold my nose and vote for him and he does by some miracle win I will spend the next 4 yrs feeling about as some of Bush voters feel now. If I didn't live in a safely blue state I might consider voting for him anyway. His rabid supporters here are right -- they won't miss my vote.

I hope the dems do miss my campaign contributions and door knocking, phone banking, at all that though.

[hfojvt]

89. I didn't notice it at my caucus

and I started out as one of five Edwards supporters in a room full of Obama supporters. They were a rowdy bunch, but that's not too surprising and I am sure you can always find ten or twenty jerks in a group of 400 (which is how many Obama supporters we had). His supporters also include a fair amount of people who just plain do not like the Clintons or the DLC any more than they like the BFEE or PNAC. Unless the candidate is your family, you should not take it personally.

It's amazing to me that you would have done all that work for a corporate candidate but are not willing to do so for one who is more progressive.

[MagsDem]

104. I don't think he is more progressive

That's one of my problems with him. I also don't think HRC is a corporate candidate. Edwards is who I have done the most work for. I worked for him in 2004 as well, but held my nose and voted Kerry who I knew would cave during the campaign, and darned if he didn't.

But as far as Obama and HRC go, take a look at her healthcare proposal. Much more progressive than his. A look at his policies shows they are basically long time dem proposal that have been watered down to be palatable to conservatives. I struggle to see how that can be described as "transformational" or as "Change." He's got a lot of buzzwords going but I don't see any substance behind them.

And his pledge to work with rethugs and the way he courts them doesn't strike me as progressive either. Look at congress. Everytime we "work with" rethugs we get screwed. I want a candidate that will fight them, and now that Edwards is out HRC is the only candidate we have that will do that. Kumbaya doesn't work with the rethugs, and I think that is what Obama is offering. I also don't like how he cozies up to homophobes to get the black Christian vote. Makes me think he is a panderer.

Lastly, I think he is horribly naive about foreign policy, and I think his lack of experience and the way I hear him talk means he will be more of an interventionist. Throughout history we have seen it is inexperienced politicians that get us into wars. I think HRC has enough experience to make smart decisions in this area. And a weak president in foriegn policy will do to us what we have been paying for as a party since McGovern, and what Bush has done to the rethugs.

[hfojvt]

116. I don't think of it as "her" healthcare proposal

She had nothing specific until a month after Edwards came out with his, and then she copied it to steal his thunder. She has been trying to talk like a progressive to win the nomination, but it does not show in her/Bill's record, nor if you dig deep into her proposals.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/hfojvt/73

although the video I posted earlier shows it better.

[MagsDem]

122. Oh come on....

She was working on healthcare issues before John ever even ran for office. It's not fair to suggest she is some johnny come lately on that issue. I can tell you that we would not have SCHIP if not for her. That's not myth. Healthcare policy is my business, and one of the things that originally got me involved in politics.

I did read your journal. Good read.

I do think Bill was the best republican president we've ever had, so I don't disagree with you there. But I do think she is more progressive than Bill. Not as progressive as John Edwards of course. But you know his voting record didn't always match his populist rhetoric either. What people forget is that they guys have to get reelected to be able to do ANYTHING for us, so I try to be practical in my judgments.

None of the candidates that were viable is really as progressive as this country needs. We're hungry for a progressive though. My opinion is that Obama supporters have convinced themselves that he is a lot more progressive than he actually is. It's really not difficult to be progressive in the IL legislature, or in a safe blue state. But he started tacking right the minute he got into the senate. That tells me he has had a presidential agenda for himself since day one. And again, as a long time observer of dem policy I read his and I think the ones that really matter, like health care, social security, trade, and so forth have been watered down to rethug consumption. Doesn't seem very bold to me. Rhetoric bullshit meter goes off big time when I read them.

For example, he has bought into the rethug ideology that there is a problem with SSI. There is nothing wrong with SSI that a balanced budget and less wasteful military spending can't cure. Does he buy into it because he is inexperienced, or just because he wants to attract rethug voters? Either way, I can't support him.

We need a president that is brave enough to gently bring this country back to being progressive. Doing that is going to take experience, and someone that really understands how the game is played -- gentle with the public, and hardball with the congress. John could thread that needle, and HRC can too, IMO. He can't do that, and seems to have no intention to do that when he states he will work with rethugs.

[Not a robought]

111. Pull your money

even better would be to organize and pool the money somehow. $10K will be noticed but several threatening to pull their tens, thousands, hundreds will be noticed even more. If you can't get your candidate to be a real progressive and stand behind human rights for all, "swiftboat 'em".

on edit: spelling

[oviedodem]

58. Mags, I respect your opinion but I will say this.

Both sides have their share of arrogant stupid supporters, however, make your decision based on the issues not on the supporters. In reality ALL politicians exhibit a "Me" factor; Hillary and co. are notorious for that.

At the end of the day it is who do you think has the best chance of changing this country. I happen to think its Obama but you are certainly entitled to your own opinion.

[Horse with no Name]

66. The BIG problem is one

that many refuse to address.
This Obama phenomenon is turning off MANY of the party loyalists--the grassroots money and the shoe leather that the party has never pandered to but has always counted on for support.
Many are leaving politics because they feel the same way you do.
What will the party do without them? I don't know--but it is about 30-40% of the voting block so it will be definitely be missed.
Hopefully all of the republicans and Independents that are crossing over to vote will make up for the party abandoning the base in votes...but I have to wonder how that will add up in volunteer hours and contributions?...:shrug:
Not my problem.

[Little Star]

73. Ya think????? My mom says if they don't straighten out FL & MI

and count those votes, she will leave the dem party, that she has been part of all her life. I was to afraid to ask if she would go R. I think she would go Indie.

[Little Star]

75. Bringing in new people is great, losing long time Dems not great.

[MagsDem]

84. Well you can read it on DU

They won't miss us. My attitude for the past 30 years is we need everyone we can get. But hey, Obama is going to win in a landslide according to these folks. Hope he can do that without GOTV. I can tell you the older folks at my caucus were appalled by his supporters behavior. I heard the phrase, hey, were all democrats here more than once from party regulars trying to get them to calm down.

Last time were in this place four years ago we were mobilizing to take our country back. Four years from now we may be mobilizing to take our party back like the rethugs are trying to do now that the neocons have trashed it for them.

[Little Star]

115. Wish I could Rec this post!!! How true.

[Indenturedebtor]

71. Another one of these "I will not vote for Obama because u suk"

Good grief. Give it a rest would you? Go and vote for McCain if that's what you feel comfortable with.

[miceelf]

72. Well

yes, his supporters can be real jerks. Just like many of the Clinton supporters. I don't see much difference in the partisans from the two groups. Perhaps you're just more predisposed to notice his jerks than her jerks?

But if you're willing to allow McCain to win, then that's your right and your decision.

[MagsDem]

88. McCain is not going to win in WA

And yes, it is much easier to vote or not vote based on principle when you live in a blue state or a full on red state. And I will vote in down ticket races for dems. Just not going to ink the box for Obama.

I hope they do miss my money and my volunteer time. They definitely don't deserve it, that's for sure.

[miceelf]

92. sorry

Sorry you feel that way. I have certainly seen a lot of jerks who are Hillary supporters as well. But i'll still vote for her if she's the nominee.

Of course, I live in Illinois, so it doesn't matter here either.

And, fwiw, I know MANY folks (loyal, active dems) here who will not vote for her in the general. Their thinking is like yours- easy to send a message in a blue state. And, like you, the party will lose their money and time. I don't think you're alone in this at all, or that most of the people with that attitude are confined to one side or the other.

[not_too_L8]

95. Niether the OB nor HRC camps have a monoply on nasty

We all feel passionate about the candidate of our choice and want to fight for them.. but.. will lead to our own demise in the end.Remember the last eight and vote DEM no matter what!!!

[bpeale]

132. i haven't noticed a lot of nastiness from HRC supporters like i have

with obama supporters. its really bad with the obama supporters. i must have 200 of 'em on my ignore list. it's the only way i can stand to be here is with my ignore list.

[RiverStone]

81. Boy are you living in a dreamland...

Mags - I live in WA and our caucuses were very civil, respectful, and positive.

Obama won.

Your hatred is spewed out to such a high degree that I have no clue why you repeat the same hate filled mantra - over and over and over and over on DU.

If, as you said, your no longer going to contribute to the party, WTF still post here?

What is your motive???

Fine, don't support the Dems anymore - but that equals placid support of the war mongering pukes.

No oft repeated hate filled rationale will change that.

If its good by - then BYE!

[MagsDem]

86. I'm sure if it was all Obama supporters you were respectful to each other

I live in the 'burbs and there were a good number of Clinton supporters at mine. You don't seem to have a problem being civil to each other. You seem to have a problem being civil to other people. And then of course you expect civility and respect back when you offer none.

And yes, I know, anything said against your candidate is "hate speech." Yes, I think we've all got that one down pat. Must not question or critisize Obama. If you do it's hate speech, racism, awful, awful, awful.

Here's a brilliant example from your post:

"Fine, don't support the Dems anymore - but that equals placid support of the war mongering pukes."

I don't agree with Obama and will not vote for him, hence I support "war mongering pukes."

Yes, I see. Obama supporters, you are fast becoming a parody of the rethugs we have known for years now.

[RiverStone]

91. We are talking about dissing the Dems here...

The primaries is all about a spirited debate - that's normal.

However Mags, you have clearly stated your disdain for remaining in the party.

Ultimately, how does your posts help us win the GE?

Rail against Obama - your right - but you have slipped into making sweeping falsehoods about every Obama supporter.

Using that kind of a broad brush is not only bad for DU - but patently untrue.

[MagsDem]

112. What spirited debate would that be?

I posted a rational opinion about the issues, about Obama, and his supporters. I used specific examples. Did you respond by telling me why you don't think that's true? No. Your response? I'm "on the side of warmonger pukes." A very rethug like "you're either with us or against us, and if you against us we will call you names and smear you"

That's not "spirited debate." In plain language, that's what we refer to in my neck of the woods as being a jerk.

And me saying it's bullshit is not bad for DU. Posts like yours and people like you are bad for DU, and the party.

[bpeale]

133. and just why do we have to help the dems win the GE?

they can't wait to throw us under the bus.

[jpak]

96. You can always vote for Ralph Nader

Lotta good that did in 2000....

[Johnny__Motown]

98. We define "Cynical" differently. IMO it was

[robbedvoter]

102. Obama has his new friends now - the GOP-ers and indies - we're no longer needed

anyway. They transcended parties now - so we should dismantle our party - and hope GOP will do the same.
It's what I got from their celebratory posts:
"Obama is not seen as a democrat"
Those new friends who wouldn't vote Hillary - but they are sure - would vote Obama in November
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4560756
I for one will vote democrat in November. Whatever that would imply.

[MagsDem]

113. That's one of my biggest problems with him

I see him as a wolf in sheep's clothing. We already have a problem with weak congressional reps that will not stand up to the rethugs. I cannot for the life of me understand how our base, that has bitched about that ceaselessly (and rightly so), can get behind someone who is promising to basically institutionalize the practice and make it part of our party platform.

[not_too_L8]

149. Here is a piece of liberal info

HRC was ranked 16th most liberal in the Senate, she actually differed from Obama on just two of the 99 selected votes one being the creation of an outside ethics office, and the other allowing certain immigrants to stay in the country while their visas were being renewed. A comparison of Obama and Clinton over the last three years shows that Obama had an average "liberal" score of 88, which is higher than HRC's average of 77.6.

I think you need to do some real research and ask your self am I making an honest assessment of the candidates

[Catherine Vincent]

103. LOL.

Barack Obama - the Democratic George W. Bush.

:)

[DemGa]

118. Thanks. You've summed it up nicely

Except that I will go further and state that Obama's use of the right-wing against a Democrat is a betrayal. No way in hell he gets my vote.

[arthritisR_US]

121. I am just an observer of your political processes (Canadian, eh)

so I literally have no stake in this fight. You state that Obama, IYO, is untrustworthy but you never said what it is he has said or done to earn that esteem of yours.

You find his supporters to behave like "a 10 yr old kid who's been sleep deprived"...the RL supporters to be "Rude, pushy, insulting about Clinton". On this board and elsewhere, I too have seen the same. However, I have witnessed it from all sides, i.e., Clinton supporters, Obama people, McCain and Huckabee supporters. There is no shortage of passionate vitriol from people to wards their candidates and against their opponents.

The only candidates, IMO, who wanted to really fight the rethugs was Kuccinich and Edwards. Unfortunately, Dems let the media whores quietly muscle those two out of their candidacy.

I too see tactics reminiscent of rethugs but I see it from both sides. For the good of your country I dearly hope that the two sides can come together. Since 2006 all I have seen is a gutless Democratic party continuously prostrating themselves at the feet of the rethugs or simply bending over for them. The net result, the American people are getting screwed and your Constitution is nothing more than toilet paper.:scared:

[MagsDem]

125. you make good points

We disagree on which side is less palatable (and I'm not a huge fan of HRC, just think she's much better than Obama -- actually an Edwards supporter).

As far as this: "You state that Obama, IYO, is untrustworthy but you never said what it is he has said or done to earn that esteem of yours." I have posted about it fairly extensively and just didn't feel like beating the horse on it. Suffice to say I think he misleads people about how he has voted in the senate in regards to the war.

But the last straw for me was his "Tony who" type response in a debate when asked about his 18 yr relationship with a guy who has gotten rich off govt money running slums in Chicago. He has been Obama's political patron since he first entered politics, and he has done some favors for the guy. They also had a land deal together. But all of the sudden he doesn't know the guy. That pretty dishonest.

[arthritisR_US]

128. If he did that then clearly he's being dishonest and if he makes

it to the general this will no doubt come to plague him. I wish you guys had viable third party candidates (I wish we had them too because believe me there is little difference between our Conservatives and Liberals here in Canada). But, I think at this juncture it's really important that people get as many Dems in office so their "not enough votes" mantra can be laid to rest and we can see them in all their glory.

[arthritisR_US]

129. If he did that then clearly he's being dishonest and if he makes

it to the general this will no doubt come to plague him. I wish you guys had viable third party candidates (I wish we had them too because believe me there is little difference between our Conservatives and Liberals here in Canada). But, I think at this juncture it's really important that people get as many Dems in office so their "not enough votes" mantra can be laid to rest and we can see them in all their glory.

[not_too_L8]

138. Why do you spout this retoric?

When you know the truth!

Factcheck.org ...search rezko

Here’s what happened: In 2005, Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, bid $1.65 million for a house on the south side of Chicago. According to newspaper reports, the owner was also trying to sell an undeveloped parcel of land adjacent to the property Obama was buying, and he wanted the sales of the two to close on the same day. Obama has said that he mentioned he was buying the house to a longtime political patron, Antoin (Tony) Rezko, a developer. Rezko’s wife wound up buying the lot adjacent to Obama’s. At the request of the Obamas, who were seeking a bit more space for their yard, she later sold them a 10-foot wide strip, or about one-sixth, of her land. The Obamas paid $104,500 for it, or about one-sixth of what Mrs. Rezko had paid for the entire property.

Obama doesn’t appear to have reaped any financial advantages from the transactions. The reason the deal has received a good bit of attention is that Tony Rezko – whose political contributions to Illinois’ former governor, Obama and others totaled in the hundreds of thousands of dollars – was known to be under federal investigation at the time the Obamas were purchasing their home. In 2006, Rezko was indicted in three federal cases: Two involved fraud schemes in which he allegedly demanded payments from firms wanting work from the enormous Illinois teachers’ pension fund and from those wanting favorable rulings from a state board that regulates the building of new hospital facilities. In the third, he was charged with fraudulently obtaining more than $10 million in loans for a pizza restaurant business; in December 2007, prosecutors added more fraud counts to that indictment.

[foerschie]

124. Couldn't agree more.

[Avalux]

127. You certainly don't have a problem criticizing others.

You accuse Obama supporters of turning you off, yet your posts are some of the most vitriolic posts I read here. And refusing to support the Dem nominee? I supposed you'd be happier with John McCain.

Regardless of how I feel about Hillary, I will support her if she becomes the nominee. I am a Democrat above personal candidate preference.

If it makes you feel better to change your party affiliation to Independent because Democrats are just as bad as Republicans, go for it. You will not be missed.

[nonconformist]

134. K & R. nt

[VotesForWomen]

139. O supporters are vey forgiving when it comes to O's votes, or lack of them. nt

[Spider Jerusalem]

142. If you have a problem with CERTAIN Obama supporters...

then by all means, refute them individually in the discussion threads you disagree with.

Starting a topic and tarring ALL Obama supporters with the same brush, using insulting language, tossing about offensive generalisations, is, to be honest, a very fine specimen of hatred and nastiness in its own right.

Mote and beam.

[Radical Activist]

143. You're a rude, irrational fanatic and you're projecting.

In the shot time that I've noticed you hear you avoided anything remotely resembling a reasonable point about issues and went straight to nasty insults. Go back to your cave, troll.

[JTFrog]

144. Project much? Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn.

What a vile filled post.

It reminds me of that Pee Wee Herman apology.


I'm sorry I took the money!!!!!





I'M NOT SORRY I took the money!!!!!

[William769]

146. K&R!

[Danger Mouse]

147. Considering that you've been one of the most bile-filled and hateful Hillary supporters...

...your words ring quite hollow.

[snappyturtle]

150. You're easily upset. This is all politics as usual. I thought Sen. Clinton

was the seasoned one in withstanding attacks. Apparently, some of her supporters are not. Has there been an official response by Sen. Clinton to this missed vote issue?