Once Upon a Time on DU ...

[NanceGreggs]

I remember when Democrats were infuriated when the Supreme Court announced a recount of votes in Florida was to be stopped, so that they could decide who the next president would be.

Now I hear some Democrats applauding the idea that another group, the SDs, should ignore the votes of the delegates who represent the voters, so that they can decide who the next president will be.

I remember when Democrats believed in the absolute separation of church and state.

Now I hear some Democrats pointing to a candidate’s affiliation with his church as a legitimate means to question his suitability to hold office.

I remember when Democrats rallied together when a Republican attacked one of our own.

Now I see some Democrats posting links to GOP ads, or quoting right-wing hacks, delighting in the fact that they vilify one of our own.

I remember when Democrats demanded absolute fairness and legitimacy in our election process.

Now I hear some Democrats demanding that votes garnered in illegitimate voting processes be counted, regardless of the unfairness that would result from doing so.

I remember when Democrats were passionate about having another Democrat in the White House.

Now I hear some Democrats discussing how it wouldn’t be so bad to lose this election to a Republican – because it would give their candidate-of-choice another kick at the can in four years.

I remember when Democrats could easily see through the pointless, pandering proposals – like “gas tax holidays” – by those on the other side of the aisle.

Now I see some Democrats supporting such nonsensical ideas, simply because their candidate-of-choice supports them.

I remember when Democrats demanded that once rules were set in place, they were to be followed by everyone.

Now I see some Democrats demanding that rules be changed mid-stream in order to benefit one candidate, to the detriment of the other.

I remember when Democrats circled the wagons when under attack by the GOP.

Now I see some Democrats cheering the attacks of the GOP, as long as those attacks are on the other Democratic candidate and not their own.

I remember when Democrats laughed at the ludicrous idea that things such as flag-pins were a measure of one’s patriotism.

Now I see some Democrats pointing to such trinkets as a measure of the patriotism of one of their fellow party members.

I remember when Democrats passionately deplored the saber-rattling threats of war-mongering Republicans.

Now I see some Democrats dismissing a threat of “obliterating” another country as being nothing of importance.

I remember when I was secure in the fact that all of us here – at the end of the day, when all was said and done – were ultimately all on the same side.

Nowadays, I’m not so sure.

[Eurobabe]

1. K&R, excellent Nance.

[DearAbby]

2. Woot Woot

:applause:

[bhikkhu]

3. All good sense, and well put.

One of these days....

[Cronus Protagonist]

243. Well, not all of it

"Now I hear some Democrats demanding that votes garnered in illegitimate voting processes be counted, regardless of the unfairness that would result from doing so."

Hahaha, on the contrary, I remember when Democratic mantra was "COUNT THE VOTES".

[shraby]

4. Nancy, I'm glad there are people like you

who are eloquent to voice what people like me are thinking but aren't talented enough to express adequately. Thank you and a recommend.

[gateley]

5. Wow, Nance. nt

[smiley_glad_hands]

6. My sentiments exactly. K&R

[DerekJ]

7. You always manage to put together what goes on my mind best Nance. Thank you. Bookmarked.

[PinkTiger]

8. Yeah? Well, Once Upon a Time DU wasn't a place that pimped one primary candidate

at the detriment of another. Unfortunately, that DU is now gone forever.
I'm not sure that DU will ever be the same.
The American people will probably be OK, but this place is now a pandering pestilence of its former self.
If the people running the board weren't so blatantly partisan, it would really help.

Of course, I'll be flamed and this will be deleted. What else is new? Cannot criticize the man behind the curtain, y'know.

[crimsonblue]

28. I remember a time when candidates who cannot feasably win would drop out..

Tell me, why does she deserve to still be in this election? She cannot win the pledged delegates, and the only way she can win is by stealing the election. Polls, shifting goals, and theoretical attack angles are not valid reasons. Unless you can get the real math on your side, then you have nothing.

[chknltl]

39. I say this as an Obama supporter:

I believe Senator Clinton stays in the race in the hopes that Senator Obama will stumble HARD. Then she will be able to make the case to the super-delegates to back her instead of Senator Obama. Am I happy thinking this? HELL NO, this strategy is causing obvious harm to our party and to BOTH Obama and Clinton. That said, she has every right to stay right where she is and continue throwing kitchen stinks in Senator Obama's path in the hopes that he will stumble. In the end it is my belief that Senator Obama will come out as a stronger politician and as the once in a lifetime POTUS that this war weary world needs right now..

[crimsonblue]

54. I could use some of that optimism...

[chknltl]

71. (Sometimes I do too!)

:grouphug:

[Shae]

132. The funny thing is

the longer she stays in, the worse SHE looks. Many people have taken a second look at Hillary Clinton (and her husband) in the past few months, and they don't like what they see.

[CubicleGuy]

216. It worked for the Clintons before...

I believe Senator Clinton stays in the race in the hopes that Senator Obama will stumble HARD.

If you remember correctly, way back when, Bill Clinton ended up with the party nomination because he ended up being the last guy standing, and not so much because he was all that much better than everyone else running at the time.

I think Hillary is just hoping for the same thing to happen again.

[Daphne08]

236. This is exactly what I told my husband this morning. n/t

[NanceGreggs]

40. The fact of the matter is ...

... there are more Obama supporters on DU than Hillary supporters (or so it would seem from the discussion threads and replies).

Given the numbers between the two camps, it could have just as easily gone the other way.

To say that DU, as a website, is "pimping" for one candidate over another is simply unwarranted. The tenor of the site is set by the posters, not the admins.

[acmavm]

137. So what if there are more Obama supporters here. Are you saying

Hillary supporters should just shut up and go away? Well, isn't that just special?

And this was blatant pimping for Obama.

I don't like either one but I wouldn't tell anyone here that they have no right to support the candidate they prefer. I think all the praise that you get from your fan club has gone to your head.

It's crap like this that's ruined this place.

[redqueen]

144. Where did you get "shut up and go away" from?

Who said they have no right to support the candidate they prefer?

Supporting a candidate is all well and good. Supporting changing rules midstream, spreading lies to try to pretend that those rules weren't agreed to... that's the kind of stuff that's honestly baffling to see here.

[acmavm]

151. Oh bullshit. Read the damn post. Another pile of crap from another

Obama supporter who thinks everyone's vote should belong to them.

[redqueen]

153. I did. Where did you get that?

Please... I sincerely would like to know.

[acmavm]

170. Because all she does is slam Clinton and Clinton supporters.

Seriously, why am I having to explain that to you? And this is another veiled 'Clinton supporters are unAmerican, undemocratic, and should just surrender their votes to MY candidate' post. Only this one isn't as foul and nasty as a lot of them.

I don't want to start a fight but that's bullshit. This place will never be the same after this election. And why? Because of the nastiness of some people who truly believe that they are the only ones to have the right to support a candidate. And anyone who doesn't support that candidate is un-American, ignorant, whatever. There was one really nasty thread referring to Clinton supporters as filth of various descriptions. I think it's gone now but it was truly something. And this stupid thread is just a sanitized version. We have elections to allow people choice. We have held primaries, and although this one seems like its gone on forever, they end when they end. NOT WHEN ONE SIDE DECIDES THE OTHER CANDIDATE SHOULD DROP OUT OR THAT THEIR SUPPORTERS DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHERE THEIR VOTES SHOULD BE CAST.

Honestly, I hate being in the position of having it look like I'm defending Hillary Clinton. At first, after my candidate dropped out (Edwards), I thought maybe I could 'hold my nose' as they say, and vote for Hillary although I don't really want another Clinton anywhere near the White House. Now I find I probably can't. I do not know what to do.

Obama is another story. I find him deceitful and arrogant. He misrepresents his record (its pretty much the same as Hillary's) but he tries to make himself out to be this big defender of the downtrodden, the candidate of and for the common man/woman. But he's a lobbyists wet dream. But so IS Hillary. The truth is there isn't much difference between the two of them. This is THE most important election of my lifetime and its come down to an Affirmative Action popularity contest.

This whole primary has been a never-ending nightmare.

[redqueen]

172. No... not all Clinton supporters have bought into the FL & MI lies & spin.

Not all Clinton supporters do all of the things she complains about above.

So... it's clearly not a slam at all Clinton supporters.

And considering how often we see threads started solely to complain about the Obama supporters who get on people's nerves with their behavior... this is kind of rich, this getting all upset becuase this time it's Clinton's obnoxious supporters in the spotlight.

You supported Edwards huh? Do you remember what he said about Clinton? That she has no conscience? That she is the candidate for the status quo?

[acmavm]

200. Again, I don't like either candidate. I do not know what is going

to happen and I don't know what I'm going to do. If lobbyists and coporate CEOs could appoint the president, they'd be sitting around arguing which one of the two to give the job to (dammit, ended the sentence with a preposition).

[redqueen]

205. Ending a sentence with a preposition is acceptable, now.

Language is an ever-changing thing. :)

As for lobbyists and CEO's... well... none of us have the benefit of omniscience... so we all have to use our best judgment. As an Edwards supporter... his comments in those debates do carry some weight IMO.

[bpeale]

185. this DUer is clapping wildly for your post acmavm

you said in your post what i find impossible to put into words. at this point in time, i am STILL voting for Edwards in the GE. i cannot and will not vote for either of the other two candidates. i am sick to death of being told WHO to vote for or voting for the lesser of 2 evils. never again. unless someone else comes along to vote FOR, i am voting for Edwards. the only other candidate that represents me is Nader and I may yet decide to vote for him. there is no democratic party anymore.

[apocalypsehow]

294. Cry us a river.

:cry: :cry: :cry:

:eyes:

[Usrename]

219. Don't get your sheet all bunched up in a knot.

Affirmative Action popularity contest?

How about you just get over all the racist crap and take a long hard look at the facts.

President Clinton is the one most responsible for unleashing this criminal cabal on our country. He refused to pursue any kind of criminal sanctions against the BCCI and Iran/Contra conspirators. So now they are all back with a vengence.

Will Hillary do anything to try and reign in this group of corrupt monsters? She says she won't do anything like that because she thinks that cronyism and corruption are what makes Washington so effective, the best government money can buy, and that she knows from experience how to work with these special interests in order to win on all the issues.

At least Obama sees the same problem that Edwards saw. That Washington will continue to screw the public as long at it continues to be run by the lobbyists. That is a major difference. And he says that his Atty Gen will have authority to look into charging folks in this administration for criminal conduct. He dosen't think that they are above the law, or are entitled to any special treatment for political considerations.

Edwards wanted to confront the special interests head on, and although that sounds good it probably would not work. Things have deteriorated to the point where the courts are even on their side, so even if they were confronted head on they would still win. Or there is a good chance they would. Obama has a slightly different approach, perhaps the only approach that has any chance of success. He wants to organize a popular movement so large that it becomes impossible for the special interests to stand up to it. It could work, and it't the only non-violent approach that seems to have a chance.

So there you go. There is a great deal of difference between the two. Just look at the health care issue and how Clinton expresses a willingness to garnish our wages in order to enforce a mandatory decree that we all must purchase insurance, while Obama refuses to go there. Who's side do you think she is on when she advocates mandatory payments to the health insurance industry? Is she trying to help the people?

[acmavm]

222. Racist? You idiot. I was talking about Hillary too, a white woman.

Some of you people are soooooooo pathetic.

[jgraz]

246. What's pathetic is a racist who's too stupid to know they're racist.

*plonk*

[Usrename]

262. You think admitting misogyny will somhow erase your other bigotries?

The only racists I can respect at all are the ones that are proud of it and don't even try to deny it. I can respect their honesty.

It's the ones who try and pretend not to be racist assholes who are the very worst of the worst.

[acmavm]

270. Oh lookie who's back again. The same clown who thinks throwing around

hollow terms like 'racist' will impress someone. The word has lost all its impact and meaning because fools who don't know what they're talking about can't think of anything else to say.

And I stand by what I say. This election was set up by the MSM so they could play off the ignorance of creatures like you. They could get you intellectual lightweights all stirred up and force feed the country these two candidates by ignoring all the rest of 'em. Then we'll play out this tacky, tawdry little soap opera until we lose because we didn't field a real dem, just two lobbyist wet dreams practically identical voting records.

And if you think I'm hoping to gain your respect, you are out of your mind. That's like someone handing you a handful of shit and telling you its gold.

[Usrename]

276. Oh, I get it now. You're just a poor misunderstood poster.

You didn't mean to use that phrase "Affirmative Action popularity contest" in any derogatory fashion at all.

Yeah, sure. Right. Try and tell it to jesus, maybe he'll listen. You're backpedaling pretty quick now, aren't you?

Who is this imaginary white master race candidate that you think could have beat either of these two, if it weren't for the machinations of the Affirmative Action media?

[acmavm]

277. Oh no, I meant it. You damn betcha I did. And I don't back-pedal tough guy.

I fucking meant what I said.

All this primary race boils down to is a media driven soap opera of the two worst candidates the dems could have possibly fielded. Who would be better? Any of those that already quit, but Edwards was the best.

These two even make Joe Biden look good. And that takes some doing.

[Usrename]

287. Hey acmavm, Edwards ran against them in THIS race. He lost!

Biden ran against them too. He lost by even greater margins. Are you really that out of it not to know that they lost?

So I ask you again, where is this imaginary white supremacist that you think can beat either of them?

You must be smart enough to understand the question, aren't you?

Who is the person that makes their candidacies into the "Affirmative Action popularity contest" that you claim it to be?

Or were you just spewing a bunch of racist lingo like I said before? Can you back it up? Or are you another racist asshole?

[acmavm]

288. He didn't lose a damn thing. He was run out by the MSM and

the political drama queens who bought into their manipulations.

You are a prime example.

[acmavm]

291. Call me a racist asshole. I don't care. You on the other hand are

an asshole of the generic variety.

They didn't loose a damn thing. The media played to moronic idiots. And if you were to look that term up anywhere, I'm sure you'd find your own picture as the definition.

[apocalypsehow]

296. Before he dropped out, I was an Edwards supporter. It embarrasses me to see you are claiming to

have been one, too - the incivility and lack of couth you display is typical of an HRC booster, not an Edwards supporter, even a former one.

[acmavm]

299. Oh for God's sake, get a life. I don't care what embarrasses you

And of course, you thinking you're such a hotdog, accuse me of being a Hils supporter. DO NOT EVER plan to earn a living by your ESP skills.

[apocalypsehow]

300. Yeah, you "don't care" so much that you just had to rush right in to reply.

:eyes:

[acmavm]

306. You're such a fraud and a phony. If you were an Edwards supporter, or

even a real democrat, you'd be outraged at how this primary was rigged.

And that is the main reason why I don't care about people like you. Not only are you fakes and frauds, you don't have the faintest clue that we've been had and manipulated.

But that would take intelligence. So far, there's been no evidence that you have any.230931934

[chimpymustgo]

224. GREAT post acmavm. My feelings precisely!

[pipi_k]

157. I don't think that's what was said at all

I think it's what you're reading into what was said...for whatever reason. Maybe some people like to feel persecuted...who knows...

But anyway, there's a discussion group I've belonged to for a long time. It has nothing whatsoever to do with politics, but occasionally politics comes up as a topic of discussion. For some reason, this particular site just happens to be made up of more "Liberals" than "Conservatives". The discussions/debates can, and have, gotten quite heated, but that's really the fun of it, I think. The mental stimulation.

Anyhow, a couple of the "Conservative" members of the group will sometimes whine about how mistreated they are and how they're "not allowed" to express their thoughts. In essence, they're feeling persecuted (familiar theme) just because they're in the minority. They feel personally attacked even if someone merely attacks the political views of the party they support. Say something negative about GWB and they act like their entire families...three generations back...have been physically assaulted. I mean, it's ridiculous.

I like discussing things just for the mental stimulation, and really, in the end, I don't want so much to change anyone's opinion, but for that person and myself to at least understand where the other is coming from. People who disagree often have more in common than they think....

So if anyone tries to make Hillary sound like the next Savior of the Free World, I'll argue....by the same token, if anyone tried to convince me that Obama is the next Savior of the Free World, I'll argue against that also. And yes...I've seen some posts on DU that make Obama seem almost god-like...and even though I support the man, I want to retch.

My first choice (I even wrote to him last September and begged him to run) was Al Gore, but even he isn't perfect.

I think it's time for people to stop identifying on such a personal level with our choices of candidates and, as a result, connecting them with our egos....

[acmavm]

171. You misunderstand. I don't like either one.

[NanceGreggs]

183. My SIMPLE point was ...

... that because there are more Obama supporters here, there are obviously going to be more pro-Obama threads than pro-Hillary threads.

Jeeezus.

[acmavm]

203. If you were making a SIMPLE point, you would have stated

EXACTLY THE WAY YOU DID HERE.

Not the long-winded screed that you posted.

[NanceGreggs]

210. I didn't realize ...

... that three sentences was a "long-winded screed".

[acmavm]

211. Cute. You know what I was referring to.

[lumberjack_jeff]

253. I say this with the greatest respect for the mods and admins

the term "ignorant white fucks and Clinton supporters" would not have been tolerated in an evenhanded world.

The fact that it (and similarly abusive posts) was tolerated was seen as carte blanche for the most antisocial Obama supporters.

This has had some spillover effect on even the best DU'ers.

[shaniqua6392]

307. Or there are many Clinton supporters who left.

Or there are many Clinton supporters who do not wish to get into the mud on DU. There were many more Clinton supporters here a few months back. Where did they go? Why did they go? I don't believe that DU is pimping for a certain candidate. But it is an ugly place for anyone who supports Clinton. I am sure they went off to somewhere more welcoming. An example of the climate here would be when I see someone post that Clinton's poll numbers went up in a certain primary state. I see a bunch of responses criticizing the op by saying: This poll has been posted several times before.....Don't you look before you post?.....If the "tenor of the site is set by the posters", we should be ashamed of ourselves that we have stooped so low against our fellow Democrats and made them leave a place that used to be really awesome for us all.

[Ken Burch]

97. Obama gets most DU'ers support because he stands for what we stand for.

We want a progressive, idealistic candidate who challenges the country to follow what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature".

Why can't you accept that HRC simply hasn't given us ANY good reasons to prefer her?

Or that your campaign simply doesn't have compelling arguements as to why we should prefer her?

[bpeale]

186. that's a bunch of crap. his record is no different than her record, so

i don't know how you can say with a straight face that he is more progressive. i think you have blinders on my friend ... or you have been imbibing too much of the koolaid.

[VotesForWomen]

298. right, but he's a blank slate so he's so much easier for the naive to project on to. nt

[stillcool]

313. He's an open book...

with more legislative experience than Hillary has. The problem with some people, is they choose not to read the book, but prefer to trash and bash according to the latest slur they pick up in the school yard.

[Name removed]

228. Deleted sub-thread

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

[lumberjack_jeff]

261. Welcome to oppositeworld

Hillary falls on the slightly more progressive side of all the substantive campaign issues (Gay rights, healthcare, ending the war).

The good reasons to prefer Hillary are reasons of substance. The good reasons to prefer Obama are reasons of style.

[apocalypsehow]

295. Excellent post, and spot-on.

:thumbsup:

[Rockholm]

117. Excellent Post, PinkTiger.

[Terran]

182. god, you illustrate the OP's point exactly by cheering that post

Perhaps you'd be the one to prove how the admins have shown any preference for a particular candidate?

[Rockholm]

283. Whatever.

[redqueen]

142. What makes you think your post would be deleted?

As for "pimping" one primary candidate... DU is not doing that. Most DUers support one candidate, so the rhetoric isn't balanced.

Perspective is key.

[PVnRT]

173. Please post a link to the official DU endorsement of Obama

If Clinton supporters want to whine and go somewhere else, that's their problem.

[Terran]

180. I demand that you prove

how the admins of DU are partisan toward a particular Democrat. NOW. because your attitude stinks and it's led you to make this most revolting of all possible bullshit accusations. Prove it or take it back.

[Name removed]

187. Deleted message

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

[Terran]

190. How typical

and I wasn't even addressing you. Alerted, and enjoy your stay.

[Name removed]

192. Deleted message

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

[kay1864]

196. And how's that alert working out for ya?

:rofl:

[Terran]

206. LOL, I will enjoy my stay

and have since 2001.

Maybe you don't realize how offensive it is to long-time members of DU when they see an allegation that the admins are biased toward one candidate during a primary season. The DU Admins are above reproach in that matter, and for Pinktiger to make such an accusation is beneath contempt. I have every right to demand he/she prove her offensive allegation.

You need to go read the rules, newbie. DU doesn't let people tell each other to "f*ck off and die, motherf*cker".

[40ozDonkey]

244. Awww, looks like someone's got a case of the Mondays.

And on a Tuesday to boot. :rofl:

[papau]

209. Indeed - Once upon a time Nance was in favor of winning via the popular vote - now not so much

[druidity33]

250. back that up

with a link or call Nance out...

otherwise, you're sliming.

[LiberalLovinLug]

215. Maybe its you

To you it seems like most of us are pandering pestilence to Obama's candidacy, but you're looking through Hillary tinted glasses. How do you think it happened that the majority of DUers, and majority of Democrats for that matter, are now backing Obama?

I was open to both from the start. Probably leaning more towards Hillary out of the both of them. But like many here, as the contest evolved I got to learn more about her character and his. And so its not that we'all are brainwashed, or the Obama camp is paying us, its that we read, and watch, and think. I'm sorry that your choice hasn't come through for you, but that is entirely on HER shoulders. You must have a strong stomach to put up with her GOP style tactics, but don't whine about the rest of us that don't.

[chimpymustgo]

223. Thank you for speaking up PinkTiger! Once upon a time, DU didn't allow sexist crap hurled at a

Democratic candidate. Once upon a time DU didn't have gangs of muggers that descended on anyone who didn't think ONE candidate was a saint.

Once upon a time, DU was for Democrats.

[texastoast]

230. People who run the board are the posters

Believe me, the freedom of speech around here should be celebrated (though some of the speech PISSES ME OFF!).

[akbacchus_BC]

9. Nance, great post as always. Kudos to you and K&R n/t

[hayu_lol]

22. Couldn't agree with you more Nance. Eight years ago, DU fought the MSM and the...

talking heads(Matthews et al)no matter who our personal choice was. We attempted boycotts to get the guilty off the airwaves and out of the print media.

We all looked for the good and the bad about our candidates--we did not attack anyone's choice of candidate. Just laid out the facts as they appeared and compared notes. We not only did things this way on DU, but on Online Journal, Media Whores Online, Dems.com, Smirking Chimp and all the others.

I am a Hillary supporter. You, Nance, support Obama. We could have cooperated 8 years ago to defeat or stop the Repugnant machine that took us all by surprise. We were not then capable of standing them off. But we tried.

We did have common interest then. It is missing now.

[akbacchus_BC]

hayu, you replied to me and not to Nance, hon. Nance keeps us

on track when we waiver. Do let her know how much you value her threads. I really do value all of Nance's posts.

[JeffR]

50. Hayu, I don't back Senator Clinton,

though she'll have my vote if she wins the nomination.

Your post shows that I damn well have an interest in common with you. Posts like yours remind me that we're gonna win this damn thing in November, whoever the nominee. We can still cooperate, and we're going to. Hang in there.

[DFW]

126. As they say in Germany

Dein Wort in Gottes Ohr.

I'd actually prefer "Odins" to "Gottes" but the Germans forgot to consult me
when putting together their folk expressions of the 17th century............

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[NanceGreggs]

17. I have never compared myself to Molly Ivins ...

... but the fact that you just did will be taken, although you didn't mean it as such, as a compliment.

[akbacchus_BC]

33. Nance, no you haven't, but you are similar to us on here. We just love you n/t

[H2O Man]

79. I have.

Many of the qualities that I liked the most about Molly Ivins are the same qualities that I admire about you. The insight, humor, honesty, and communication skills stand out. More, these qualities allow you to be comfortable being yourself, and that means that you are able to say what is on your mind. Obviously, that is something that the majority of people on DU like, a lot. There are always going to be a few people who are nay-sayers, and who will disagree with anything you say. That's a good sign.

Keep up the good work. I always appreciate the opportunity to read your contributions here.

[immoderate]

105. YES!

--IMM

[acmavm]

140. Believe me, you are NO Molly Ivins.

[Fovea]

269. That's ok

you're no Dick Morris.

[Hepburn]

164. Add me to the list, Nance, of the DUers who see you as Molly.

I love your stuff ~~ so very glad you are here. :hug:

[cui bono]

25. What a cheap shot.

[John Q. Citizen]

29. I remember too. Molly didn't much like the Clintons, as I recall. I bet if she were still

alive we would see her being attacked by primary partisans.

[mcctatas]

60. You remeber correctly...

I will not support Hillary Clinton for president
January 20, 2006

AUSTIN, Texas --- I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.

Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.

http://freepress.org/columns/display/1/2006/1304

[beezlebum]

100. thank you for posting that.

i lost all my bookmarks- just recovered one.

and added a DU thread. :)

k/r/b

[redqueen]

145. "Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling..."

*sigh*

I wish she were here.

[Baby Snooks]

154. Especially after her latest column...

She would have already written the column about last week's "Celebration of Reading" event in Houston and about the Bushes and the Clintons and about how they are just one great big happy family.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/life/society/5734264.html

She would have had fun with this. But she wouldn't be laughing. Instead she would be banging the pots and pans. Not about the war in Iraq. About the war in this country. The Republicrats versus the American people.

She would have been offended most by the total lack of any real concern by anyone over yet another photo of the family. Smiling as always. And shooting the bird at everyone. Playing everyone off each other.

A picture is worth a thousand words. How ironic that the latest is tied into literacy. The vast majority of Americans apparently can't read the thousand words.

[bleever]

35. Sad.

Very sad.

[Breeze54]

41. Here ya go!

[CaliforniaPeggy]

11. My dear Nance...

What a sad day this is...

And you have expressed it so beautifully, with so much wisdom...

It makes me feel like weeping...

Thank you

K&R

:patriot:

:cry:

[reflection]

114. You feel like I do today.

I see a chance for greatness needlessly slipping through our collective fingers. :(

[crankychatter]

12. k/r

I can't remember what I had for breakfast

but I'm glad somebody does

[donheld]

13. I hear ya Nance

Kick and Recommend

[americanstranger]

14. K/R

I remember the good old days, too, Nance.

What the hell happened?

- as

[FrenchieCat]

15. Yes, my 5 year tenure here is on term limit.......

Won't be long now.

Thanks for the memories! :hi:

[PinkTiger]

20. WEll, by all means don't let the door hit ya

where the good Lord split ya.

:hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi: :hi:

[JeffR]

24. Don't you dare, Frenchie!

I avoided this place like the plague during the last primary season, other than to check for news stories or see what sort of righteous, well researched things some were saying. After Kerry "lost" I wandered around in a depressed daze for weeks, and ended up back here, where the anger and determination and fellow-feeling made me realize that it wasn't the End Times and that other Murkans felt as I did.

This primary crap is mostly ludicrous. Don't let it get to you. DU would be much diminished by your absence. Don't you go anywhere!

[QC]

30. Have you set a date yet? n/t

[FrenchieCat]

65. As soon as you kiss my grits.

[NanceGreggs]

48. You can dye your hair, change your name ...

... and move to another country - but we will track you down and drag you, kickin' and screamin', back to DU - where you belong.

Surrender, FrenchieCat - there IS NO ESCAPE from your DU destiny.

[FrenchieCat]

66. Undergo a heart and brain transplant, and wear dark glasses......

who knows......it is afterall Underground! :)

[ekwhite]

125. Frenchie, don't go

Your posts are one of the things that keep me coming back to the garbage dump DU has turned into.

[lumberjack_jeff]

256. Please don't go

Us "ignorant white fucks" don't get enough abuse.

[FrenchieCat]

257. Aren't you a Hillary Supporter?

:shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

260. Yes, but I'm first and foremost a masochist.

I see I forgot something from the previous post.
:sarcasm:

[knixphan]

16. Real Dems, kick this

[cliffordu]

18. K&R!!!

Thanks Nance.

[John Q. Citizen]

19. The DLC isn't going quietly into the night. But I never expected them to. I can't wait until

May 20th.

At that point Obama almost certainly will have won a majority of the pledged delegates. And I expect we may witness a week or so of extreme outbursts and then things should get back being a little bit more peaceful around these parts, by comparison.

[dana_b]

21. a standing ovation!!!

perfection! seriously great post. Thanks. :applause:

[cui bono]

23. Pretty scary stuff.

[JeffR]

26. I miss Bob Boudelang, dammitall!!!!1111

Oh, sorry.

[Umbram]

174. Clinton supporters would be defending him these days... (nt)

[TahitiNut]

27. Being a life-long independent liberal means never having to say I'm sorry.

Blind partisanship just brings out some of the slimiest rot in some people. :shrug:

[Double T]

31. Be sure. Divided WE stand.

[grantcart]

32. You have a good memory and an excellent point

I remember when we made fools out of ourselves by defending the self centered world of a narcissistic party hack whose only interest is expanding a familial control over our party at a time when that family was selling our interests down the river so that they could survive their scandals.

Nowadays I see millions of new people coming in and taking up the battle for a new party, a new majority and a new mandate.


See somethings are better now lol

[Tresalisa]

34. K&R from a long-time lurker, short-time poster. n/t

[housewolf]

36. Nance, you nailed it once again...

Thanks be to * (insert word of your choice) that you're here, always helping us find some clarity. Your contributions to DU are priceless.

:toast:

[SeattleGirl]

37. Well said, yet again, Nance!

:applause: :applause: :applause:

[The_Casual_Observer]

38. I remember when DUers didn't bash the Clintons.

Including you.

[Breeze54]

42. I don't...

Bill's always been a target since NAFTA and Hillary has been since her induction into the DLC!

[NanceGreggs]

44. I never "bashed" the Clintons (plural) ...

... and I have yet to say anything against Bill (who I adored for many years).

However, once Hillary became a candidate, she was open to criticism, as is any candidate.

If by "bashing" you mean I have criticized her constant moving of the goalposts, her virtual endorsement of McCain over a fellow Dem, her lies about sniper-fire in Bosnia, etc. - then yes, I have done so.

Because if, as she herself has said, she can't stand the heat, she shouldn't have stepped into the kitchen.

But I have never posted a link to a GOP ad against her, nor quoted a RW hack who dissed her qualifications, nor suggested that had she won the majority of delegates, the SDs should overturn the will of the people and install Obama as the nominee instead.

[baldguy]

115. I remember when the Clintons supported the Democratic Party instead of trying to destroy it.

[redqueen]

147. You missed a lot.

The Clintons were never revered as Reagan is. His controversial decisions have always been discussed here.

As for actual "bashing", that's happened pretty often, too. Though not nearly as often as harsh criticism of his neo-liberal policies.

[PVnRT]

176. Where have you been?

Hillary has been criticized continuously on this site ever since the IWR vote in 2002.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

208. I remember when the Clintons weren't red-baiting racists.

Oh well.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

43. K/R

[Breeze54]

45. My conclusion is that not all at DU are Democrats....

... and some never were.

:kick: & Recommended

[satireV]

46. Pot .... meet kettle!

{quote}
Now I hear some Democrats applauding the idea that another group, the SDs, should ignore the votes of the delegates who represent the voters, so that they can decide who the next president will be.

{reply}
Gov. Bill Richardson, a SD from New Mexico, is voting against his own state's popular vote results by supporting Sen Obama. Not only is Gov Richardson a Judas to the Clinton's he is a Judas to the Democrats in his own state. As Carville said, if he had stabbed them in the back in July he would have called him Benedict Arnold.

But I understand your discontent, what with Rev Wright dissing Sen Obama now. Apparently, Rev Wright didn't appreciate his prodigy disowning his mentor's words and sentiments.

It's been a bad month for Barack.

Maybe next month will be better.

I won;t address many of your other logical fallacies because too many of them come straight from the GOP. Mainly the silly non sourced Clyburn crap.

[NanceGreggs]

51. Straight from the GOP? Clyburn crap?

Links? Sources? Facts to back up what you've just said?

[satireV]

59. You used Clyburn's crap first sweetie. But you never backed it up with sources

He never once sourced his lame claims. His sources are just like FAUX News sources... invalid . . . till Clyburn gives a source. Which of course he will never do. Now ask yourself why he didn't provide the sources. Because he is just sliming Clinton... a Rovian dirty trick.

But I noticed you didn't reply to the Richardson fact. Shame on you for including the lie about SDs should follow state popular votes. SHAME! Ivins is spinning in her grave watching you do that.

[NanceGreggs]

61. I honestly don't know what you're talking about ...

... re Clyburn and "sources".

Funny how the Hill camp thinks SDs should 'follow' their constituents' lead when advantageous to Hillary, but should ignore them when they are not.

As for Molly's take: "I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.
I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president."

So much for alleged "grave-spinning".

[satireV]

149. Youi claim not to know anything about it

But your OP had this:

(quote)
Now I hear some Democrats discussing how it wouldn’t be so bad to lose this election to a Republican – because it would give their candidate-of-choice another kick at the can in four years.

(Reply)
That deary is straight from Clyburn and his.."Oh I heard people say this" lame assed FAUX News kind of spew. But now suddenly you know nothing.. You know nothing about Clyburn. And you have never heard anything of the sort. You just spread lies, innuendo and gossip. Your Procrustean logic is as bad as faith based initiatives.


And Please post one time from the Sen Clinton campaign where they said the SDs should not follow the party rules and vote their conscious. The Sen Obama campaign has numerous times said the SDs should vote the way the popular vote went in the state, yet Gov Richardson goes directly against that advocay. You have still not shown how Gov Richardson's actions is not a betrayal of this advocacy. And you never will.

I think you need to go on the ignore trash heap. You add nothing to this discussion but right wing illogic.

[Hepburn]

165. With all sincerity, I say to you....

...STFU.

[satireV]

251. Are you channeling Dick Cheney now?

LMAO!

[Emit]

67. What was the margin? Something like 48.8% to 48%, iirc. n/t

[cascadiance]

189. I can't fault a SD for voting what his state vote for...

... not can I fault a SD for voting what he perceives THE NATIONAL delegate totals voting for either.

I DO have a problem with a SD that votes against what his/her state's choice AND what nationally the delegate totals show. But that is happening. And as long as THAT happens, then I think Richardson is justified in his choice of voting for Obama to counterbalance those that don't follow either their state's choice or the national delegates.

If Clinton were currently ahead nationally in an insurmountable lead of pledged delegates, and Richardson voted for Obama against what his state voted (and I recall his state was very close in its vote totals), I'd then have a problem with that too.

Ultimately this nomination isn't about personal loyalty in who we make a choice for. It is what is best for our country in who we pick. Early on, I'd hoped for Feingold. That didn't happen after 2006 election results came in. Then I'd hoped Gore would enter the race. That never happened. Then I'd hoped that Edwards would surge forward after a close showing in Iowa. That didn't happen. I now want to support who I think is a reasonable nominee who has the support of the party. That is Obama. I think he represents the best shot at representing our party's values, and does so with a majority of delegate support that represent what our consituency wants. Not someone who has a backroom deal to put them in as supposedly our choice when they aren't really, because the "politburo" of our party thinks differently than the expressed will of its members.

Richardson I believe is putting what he perceives are the party interests ahead of personal loyalties. That's not a "Judas". That's someone who I think is doing what he perceives is best for the country.

There IS a difference. It is sad that some of the Clinton supporters don't see the validity of supporting what's best for our party and its members, and our country in general than just supporting "their candidate" at the expense of everything else as if this were some sort of sporting event.

[satireV]

252. Changing the goal posts... almost literally

(Quote)
... not can I fault a SD for voting what he perceives THE NATIONAL delegate totals voting for either.

(Reply)

There is no National total of the popular votes at this time. Primary voting is not completed! It's wishful thinking from the Obama supporters. When you change the criteria for how SDs can vote by including so called NATIONAL totals, this begs the question...... what was the national totals beack in Feb? oops.. there is a problem Houston.


No, there was never an argument by Obama claiming SDs should vote the way the national total is... it was only how each STATE primary voters voted. Obama would have been laughed off the stage suggesting NM SDs should vote the way some other states primary voters voted.. Your idea illuminayes brightly the desperation of the Obama camp in doing anything to make sure their cobnlcuions remains intact.

[cascadiance]

264. The REAL problem is the flawed superdelegate process interfering with things to start with...

I and others are just trying to sort out what would be what most of us would consider voting as a super delegate in a responsible fashion, since doing so, you're exercising in effect more than just your own personal preference with a vote that represents far more than just you in relative power of the nomination decision.

Now if it were me as a super delegate, this is how I'd vote:

1) Vote for the candidate that won my state (if I supported that candidate). That's an easy choice and justifiable after your state has cast its pledge delegates. Note that in Texas this was after the caucuses were also done, since arguably this means that super delegates should only vote for Obama in this instance this way.

2) If I didn't support personally who my state voted for, I personally would wait until all of the primaries/caucuses are over (or if there's a clear majority of PLEDGED delegates already decided at that point at a national level). I then would feel justified in voting for what the national vote asked me for, as I wouldn't be overturning the will of the people then in any case. I'd probably wait longer and still be uncommitted at this point. Right now the pledge delegate difference makes it a near statistical certainty that Obama will take that vote, but I think delegates should still be obligated until it is clearly impossible for that delegate count to change to affect the outcome. As Carter said, come June when all of these primaries are over, one should be able to vote this way. Now if super delegates were REQUIRED to vote like item 1, then I wouldn't feel the need to vote for 2, as noone would be allowed to vote to "overturn" the will of the people, but then it seems that even having super delegates is rather useless.

3) If there is no clear cut majority (i.e. if Edwards had stayed in so that there is only a plurality leading the votes and not a majority), then I'd probably stay uncommitted until the convention.

If there is no requirement that SD's vote #1, then there will always be the SD's that will vote in a partisan fashion against their state's vote AND against what the national pledged delegate count shows. THOSE are the people that are working against the system. And unless Obama's campaign completely collapses over the next week or so, all of these SD's will be in Clinton's camp. Not ALL of Clinton's SD's would be in this camp though. Those SD's from places where she won in my book would be entitled to vote for her there.

In my book the only time that super delegates should be used to overturn what the national total winner of pledged delegates provides is if that candidate has a recent event that really forces them to be reconsidered (aka they just got caught committing a major crime, they died or were injured/had an illness that would prevent them from holding office effectively, etc. Then the party needs another avenue to select a different candidate. The super delegates could help in this instance, though even in some cases there might not be enough of them, if the candidate who was nominated did so with an overwhelming majority of votes. This certainly could be possible if we had an assassination like what happened to Bobby Kennedy. But then I think a better mechanism than super delegates the way it is set up now could be used to remedy that situation.

Overturning the pledged vote total winner because a candidate is "too far left" or some other lame excuse like that is just plain unacceptable. That is the start of a rule by politburo, which we don't need.

[kid a]

47. ooops...how'd I miss this...k & R

[QC]

49. How do you feel about alleged Democrats posting stuff like this?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5728229&mesg_id=5728229

We didn't used to see this kind of thing here.

[NanceGreggs]

56. I hadn't seen that ...

If there is ONE thing I will maintain my position on, regardless of the fact that I am not a Hillary Clinton supporter, it is this: The personal lives of candidates SHOULD NEVER BE open to public comment or scrutiny - unless, of course (as we have seen with people like Vitter, Craig, Foley, etc., politicians actually make an issue themselves of the faultlessness of their personal lives).

Had Bill Clinton run for president on the premise that he had been a faithful husband who never looked at another woman, he would have been justifiably crucified when the truth came out - not on the basis of morals, but on the basis of hypocrisy.

But he never said any such thing.

I am not a Hillary supporter - BUT it still riles me to think of how her personal and intimate relationship with her husband was made the stuff of tabloid-headlines and tabloid politics by the Republicans. And I deplore the idea that any Democrat would now use the same shoddy tactics as a means to discredit her candidacy.

I dislike Hillary due to her own policies, positions and statements during this campaign - but the details of her marriage are still, as far as I am concerned, off-limits to Democrats and Republicans alike.

(Sorry - I got off on a little rant there. But that entire episode, and its current exploitation, still infuriates me no end!)

[QC]

57. I agree! Thanks! n/t

[NanceGreggs]

58. No, thank you ...

I just went back and alerted on that thread. It has no place here, and that has nothing to do with which candidate it was allegedly trying to support or bash.

:hi:

[beezlebum]

106. there is just no place for it here

i can not understand how a candidate's spouse's affair has anything to do with candidate herself, how it is used against her.

if it were the spouse who committed the act running, i still wouldn't understand it (with the exceptions you listed- primarily that hypocrisy that is the family values platform certain ppl like to prop themselves upon, even crying for legislation against crimes they simultaneously commit).

i have resented the seeming "pop culture" references, by which i mean, oral sex or kinky sex being referred to as "lewinsky'd" or "they had a cigar incident," as if bill clinton is the only person to have ever had an affair, that truly despicable acts, such as abusing minors (foley, pages) are hushed and shushed and even defended and disappeared and damned near forgotten within a matter of months, while a decade later, we still have gross attacks about an intimate and personal relationship between consenting adults.

it is one of the few hurtful irrelevancies i'd defend either of the clintons over, but especially hillary, as it is absolutely unfair to bring such an attack on her. she had nothing to do with it, and bringing it up is just plain cruel and juvenile.

her policies- not so much. personal life- off the effin table!!!

[Scurrilous]

52. K & R

:thumbsup:

[bunny planet]

53. Another great post NanceG.

Thank you

[Connonym]

55. Excellent points, all

:thumbsup:

[Frank Booth]

62. There are some genuine Hillary supporters here who really dislike Obama.

There are people who pretend to like Obama and then miraculously see the light and switch to Hillary. And then there are posters who don't give a rat's ass about Hillary and post the anti-Obama crap nonstop just to anger and discourage Obama posters.

A lot probably aren't even Republican. They just like seeing people get riled up.

[barack the house]

63. You summed it up well, if lose a part of ourselves to win then what do we win.

[Apollo11]

64. Obama has praised J Wright as his personal mentor and source of inspiration

for his book The Audacity of Hope.

This issue is about character and about accepting aggressive and divisive messages being preached from the pulpit.

It has nothing to do with separation of church and state.

But I agree with you about the "gas tax holiday" ...

[NanceGreggs]

69. "Obama has praised J Wright as his personal mentor ...

... and source of inspiration for his book The Audacity of Hope."

When did he declare Wright as the inspiration for his political platform, his foreign policy, his domestic policy, his economic policy, his stand on education, his position on the place of diplomacy in dealing with other nations, etc.?

[Apollo11]

84. The title of the book was borrowed from one of Wright's sermons

So either it is authorized inspiration or just plain old plagiarism.

But I am not saying that every word in the book is borrowed from Wright.

This is about a close personal relationship with this particular preacher.

Don't try to tell me it's only about Obama's choice of church.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Audacity_of_Hope

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=219081

[NanceGreggs]

195. I know about the book - I own a copy.

What does the book, or Wright's inspiration, have to do with Obama's suitability as POTUS?

[ekwhite]

129. Since when was a progressive preacher anathema to progressives?

Rev. Wright might be difficult for progressives to hear, but I certainly can't disagree with "chickens coming home to roost," or "GD America" for the atrocities our government has committed. I am frankly sick and tired of faux outrage by so-called 'progressives' over comments that were mostly true.

[Apollo11]

133. Maybe Jeremiah Wright just ain't my favorite flavor of "progressive"?

What exactly is so progressive about yelling that "Hillary ain't never been called a n*****r!"?

[ekwhite]

138. Provocative language, but in context it makes sense

What you are doing is taking something out of context, and turning it against him, just as Fox News did with the continuous loop of Rev. Wright. His point is that she doesn't have the experience of racism. And I doubt she ever has been called the N-word. I have been called N-lover quite a few times, but not the N word.

I am so farking tired of the Jeremiah Wright bashing I don't know what to do. This reminds me of the crap said about MLK, Jesse Jackson, Malcolm X, Huey Newton, and every other black man that dared to speak out in the 60's.

[PVnRT]

177. "No Viet Cong never called me no n*****r" - Muhammad Ali

That was his reason for ducking out of the draft. I guess you don't like that statement, either?

[DWilliamsamh]

293. She hasn't....

And the POINT of saying without the usual couching is to SHOCK. It is to make you realize that she cannot claim to be in touch with the experience of being black in this country in the way Barack Obama can or Rev. Wright for that matter. Why does it matter?

Because it is dishonest for ANY white person to say whether or not a black person should or should not be offended by the marginalizing of the first black man (as defined by the general culture and until recently by the LAW of this nation) to actually have a better than 50:50 shot at being President of the United States. It is intellectually dishonest for any white person to pretend to know what it is to be black and therefore have superior knowledge of what is and is not a bigoted or racist remark. It is not an act of racism to point out these facts or indeed acts of bigotry or racism.

If there is one thing I CANNOT accept is for any white person to tell me that after living as a black man for 40+ years that I don't recognize (or more likely am being ridiculous) a bigoted and/or racist implication in someone's speech. Oh and by the way I am also realistic on the "other side." Not all black people who get fired are fired because they are black. I have told friends who where trying to suss out this that they probably got fired because they f'd up.

The REASON Rev. Wright used NIGGER instead of "n word" was to convey the REAL idea he was speaking of and not the sanitized milque toast shadow that has become the only way we can speak in this country.

[thoughtcrime1984]

68. The left has been moved way to the right by the DLC

Time to take our Party back.

[bigtree]

70. You've forgotten a few things

One *campaign won't insist the votes in Florida are counted, despite record turnout and Obama's lone advertising there. There's this bending to the constructions and obstacles put in place by party leaders and insiders, including the republican governor, against the voters, but there's nothing but resistance to counting THOSE votes. I remember when we cared about counting Florida's votes.

The complaint about lifting a finger to fight off republican attacks seems to be for the benefit of your own candidate, since there's been nothing but encouragement from your campaign, whispering behind the scenes, of the resurrection of Ken Starr's old Whitewater-based tyranny that he constructed for republicans to use in their attempt to unseat our two-term Democratic president. Where do these defenders of Obama who are piggybacking on these right-wing attacks think they originated? It's worse than Rovian. It's pure Atwater wedge politics, meant to divide our party. And these mindless partisans just can't get enough of the republican slime they've dredged up.


You criticize the gas tax proposal because it has republicans giving it lip service, but not a word about Obama's vote in favor of Dick Cheney's Energy Bill that we fought tooth and nail here at DU. Now there are actually defenders of that rag who are allowed to portray it as some benefit rather than the giveaway to oil producers and the like that we know it was . . . all in political opposition to the one candidate in this race who refused to vote for the administration bribe to Bush and Cheney's energy buddies:


from 2005: http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13980

The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy: Summary of Industry Giveaways in the 2005 Energy Bill

Since 2001, energy corporations have showered federal politicians with $115 million in campaign contributions—with three-quarters of that amount going to Republicans. This cash helped secure energy companies and their lobbyists exclusive, private access to lawmakers, starting with Vice-President Dick Cheney’s Energy Task Force, whose report provided the foundation of the energy bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bush on August 8.

Remember that??


Then, there's the portrayal by your candidate and his campaign of Hillary Clinton as some trigger-happy warmonger, despite Sen. Obama's identical military posture and platform. Try and distinguish who said this:

"We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. Bolstering these forces is about more than meeting quotas. We must recruit the very best and invest in their capacity to succeed. That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training -- including in foreign languages and other critical skills. Each major defense program should be reevaluated in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios. Our military will have to rebuild some capabilities and transform others. At the same time, we need to commit sufficient funding to enable the National Guard to regain a state of readiness.

Enhancing our military will not be enough. As commander in chief, I would also use our armed forces wisely. When we send our men and women into harm's way, I will clearly define the mission, seek out the advice of our military commanders, objectively evaluate intelligence, and ensure that our troops have the resources and the support they need. I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened."


here's Obama on Iran:

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, said that he would work to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians but that he would "take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons, and that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region."

Iran need understand, he said, "that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, ...one whose security we consider paramount, and ...that would be an act of aggression that...I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action."


This used to be a place where you couldn't hide behind cute words like 'no options are on the table' when we all KNOW that means NUCLEAR force is contemplated as an option. And, that ANY nuclear confrontation would be 'obliterating' to the recipient. And here's Obama threatening a preemptive attack on Iran to ward off an unproven threat, just like his rival.

I think you've forgotten a few things, yourself.

[NanceGreggs]

72. No, I haven't fogotten anything ...

... but some here have a penchant for 'remembering' only what is convenient in terms of their candidate-of-choice.

I remember when we cared about counting Florida's votes, too - and so did a particular candidate, when she agreed with the idea that they wouldn't be counted under certain circumstances, and even signed a pledge to that effect.

Funny how she didn't appreciate the unfairness of it all until she was losing, and realized she needed those votes.

[bigtree]

73. you forget

the voters had no say in all of that.

they spoke when they voted though.

[NanceGreggs]

74. And YOU forget ...

... that Hillary AGREED that those votes would not count.

So why is she insisting they be counted NOW?

You also forget that the voters were TOLD their votes would not be counted - which meant many voters (for both candidates) didn't bother to vote at all.

But by all means, let's change the rules after-the-fact, so long as they benefit the candidate who's behind.

[bigtree]

75. voters were told their votes wouldn't count and they voted anyway. Bravo!

That's as American as it comes (not inferring that you're un-American or anything). And you oppose that.

Which campaign wants to dictate how the SuperDelegates vote? How is Obama the nominee without having achieved the necessary amount of actual votes to nominate him? That would be a change in the rules to assume he's won already as many of his supporters insist.

[avrdream]

86. I love that:

"voters were told their votes wouldn't count and they voted anyway."

I love that those voters stuck up for themselves when noone else did so. Not just a few voters but MILLIONS of voters.

I remember when we watched the Iraqi elections and wept when we saw all those purple fingers because we were so happy that the Iraqi CITIZENS felt empowered by their choice. That wasn't that long ago. We, in the U.S. were empowered this way many, many years ago.....one vote, one voice. I don't understand why we seem to have gone backwards in respecting the individual vote in the past decade. What happened to America?

[ekwhite]

131. Bigtree, you are better than this

This is just spin, and you know it.

[bigtree]

184. It's all spin here

all the time . . .don't fool yourself.

[PVnRT]

178. Answer her question

Why is Hillary suddenly so concerned about Michigan and Florida voters now, and not last fall when she agreed to the party's ruling on their status?

[BzaDem]

78. Who cares what Hillary says? Why shouldn't votes count regardless of what anyone says?

Oh, because you are shilling for Obama. I see.

[Usrename]

265. Because it's in the party rules. How hard is that to understand?

It comes with being a member of this party.

We accept and follow the rules.

In this case the rule is being enforced to prevent total anarchy.

[beezlebum]

108. actually,

the only thing i have time to refute is what obama said with regards to iran and nukes. you can interpret and pretend to know what he meant all you want, but he did not mean to imply a nuclear attack, as he added:

"I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance involving civilians...There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

far from the dick cheneyesque "we will attack iran, we will obliterate."

[DeeDeeNY]

76. Once again, you've put into words what I was thinking

:yourock:

[BzaDem]

77. Don't even get me started.

I remember a time where we actually cared what Floridians thought. I remember a time where Democrats championed voting rights, and protested when people's votes weren't counted. I remember a time were everyone here was in favor of the popular vote.

But now I realize that anyone, Democrat or Republican, will throw away whatever principles necessary to support their candidate and bash their opponent.

[JTFrog]

80. I'd be happy to get you started.

Should we start pulling out the videos of Clinton speaking out of both sides of her ass on your one big issue? The one where she was FOR the states getting penalized for moving their primary dates, or the one where she signed the agreement that the rest of the candidate's signed pledging to uphold the DNC penalties to the states that moved ahead. Maybe the one where she said Well we all know Michigan isn't going to count for anything.

Or how about those where she and her surrogates do an about face on all of their previous positions when it's politically advantageous to her.


Please do get started.

[BzaDem]

82. Hillary was wrong then, and she was right now. The point is that you were always wrong.

You think that because Hillary says x, or because Florida's state legislature does y, or because the DNC does z, that 1.7 million people shouldn't have a say in who our nominee is. That is not the view of a real democrat.

I wonder how many people who keep chanting this garbage would have had the same position in the 60s, when southern state legislatures prevented minorities from voting.

[JTFrog]

85. I WAS ALWAYS WRONG? WTF IS YOUR PROBLEM?

How did I have anything to do with what they've done? I didn't elect the fucktards in charge in that state that's for sure. And I sure ass hell don't put that kind of weight in anything Hillary says.

But yeah fuck me for thinking that the the DNC rules matter. Fuck me for placing the blame on the Florida State DINO's who joked and laughed and put up no resistance to the change of date. Fuck me for caring about the system and rules that had been put into place and went unchallenged before any results were ever counted.

And fuck me for caring about ALL of those who got disenfranchised just by the fact that the process was tainted when their representatives decided to jump on board with the rethugs.

The people in the 60's would have listened to the warnings being given to their State DINO's and put up a little resistance. YOU DO REALIZE THAT HAD ANY DEMOCRATIC BODY PUT UP ANY RESISTANCE TO THE CHANGING OF THE DATES THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO PENALTY FOR ACTIONS CAUSED BY REPUBLICANS, RIGHT?

Fuck you and your I was always wrong. Seriously.

[BzaDem]

87. Yes, you were, considering you didn't support their right to vote then and you don't now.

I don't care who you place blame on. You are saying that because Florida State DINOs joked and laughed, 1.7 million people shouldn't be allowed to make their voices heard. Not only are you wrong, you couldn't be more wrong. Nothing should prohibit voting rights. Not DNC rules, not state legislatures, nothing.

[JTFrog]

88. You have no idea what I support.

I supported a re-vote in Florida. There was plenty of time and resources to get that done.

What I DO NOT AND NEVER WILL SUPPORT IS CHANGING THE RULES MID GAME.

Now consider this: HOWARD DEAN HAS SAID THEY WILL BE SEATED AT THE CONVENTION.

So all this pathetic whining is really a big fat hypothetical being twisted in order to make it appear that Hillary has a fucking chance in hell if they do get seated. SHE CANNOT WIN. SHE CAN ONLY STEAL IT.

Spin spin spin little bot.

[BzaDem]

92. They have no chance to influence who becomes the nominee. That is the essence of voting.

Whether they go to a convention is not the issue. It is whether the people in Florida have any say in who the nominee is.

[JTFrog]

93. Spin spin spin little bot.

Good luck and can't wait til this shit is over.

[Ken Burch]

98. It can't be legitimate for the Florida delegation to influence the nomination

Since no candidate was supposed to seek delegates in Florida.

It would have been enough to have them vote on the second ballot.

[HockeyMom]

237. Personally, I could care less about Floridians

or the state of Florida.

They need to be taken down a peg anyway.

[greiner3]

167. Mellow dude;

Zit whatever looks like a republican plant. 800+ postings in 7 weeks. Chill, save your rage for the machine and not against a straw man!

[Bluebear]

81. I remember when Democrats didn't run anti-gay entertainers in their events

'I remember when Democrats believed in the absolute separation of church and state.'

I have had my fill of religion from both Clinton and Obama. I never thought that the Republican would be the least "holy" amongst the candidates.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

181. I remember when Democrats didn't say that anti choice people were answering a "moral calling"

Well, most of them don't say that, anyway.

[TragedyandHope]

83. Thank you! Your words are a brilliant light shining through the darkness, as always!

:kick:

[But....]

89. I'm unsure how much of this is our own fault...

lets face it, we are no longer ignored. Of course campaigns try to spin us like any other group, we're just a little more resist to it. :grouphug:

[quickesst]

90. Another bullshit.....

attack on HRC supporters to garner more kudos for "creative writing", and points for the "Hate Anything Clinton Contest". One thing mentioned that is not indisputable though.

"I remember when I was secure in the fact that all of us here – at the end of the day, when all was said and done – were ultimately all on the same side.

DU Obama supporter hatred made sure that came to an end. Yeah, yeah, I know some have tried eloquently to separate themselves from the "cult-like" atmosphere that is Obamania, but hate is hate, no matter how big, or poetic the words are, and the op is just another example of that hate, sprinkled with perfume to mask the smell. Thanks.
quickesst

[guyanakoolaid]

91. K&R

:kick:

[cornermouse]

94. Glass houses and all that......

[GoldieAZ49]

95. I remember when Democrats wanted to nominate strong candidates that were electable

Nowadays, I’m not so sure.

[mckeown1128]

122. If you don't like the way the party votes...

then leave.

[baldguy]

130. "I didn't leave the Democrat Party, the Party left me" was always an adage of the Old South bigots.

Seems its happening again with the Hillbots.

[Perry Logan]

96. Notice how often Clinton-bashers insert nasty comments into nondivisive threads--like provocateurs.

Every day, someone at DU starts a humorous, friendly thread--or an old-fashioned thread devoted to bashing Republicans...

...and sure as shootin, a Clintophobe will show up specifically to inject some anti-Clinton bile into an otherwise friendly thread.

Heaven forbid we should have even a moment of unity, right?

There can be no motive for doing this other than lowering morale and increasing divisivieness at DU (though, in truth, I suspect Clinton-bashing is a purely compulsive activity). I have never seen a Hillary supporter do the equivalent. This suggests Clintophobia is the real root of our problems.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

118. "I have never seen a Hillary supporter do the equivalent."

You oughta get out more.

:rofl:

[bridgit]

99. As a practical matter, I find disingenuous they that have contributed to a chasm...

who then ponder the scene; the malady, as though disenfranchised apprentice to some sorcerer elsewhere and even further away

I remember when Democrats used to win elections

[phrigndumass]

101. Well said, Nance

It seems that desperation can cause some to downplay their own principles, even though their principles are what makes them Democrats in the first place. When you grab on to anything that sticks to support your candidate, sometimes you're grabbing onto a cactus.

:hi:

[me b zola]

102. Nance!

:applause:

[Spider Jerusalem]

103. Principles matter...and if it comes down to it, I'd rather lose with Obama than win with Hillary.

That's a response to the crazed doom merchants and fearmongers running amok in this forum over the past few days, bleating 'Obama is unelectable!', not a reflection of my actual considered opinion; I don't think Obama will lose. I think that the Clintonites have reached a point of wanting to think he'll lose, of needing to believe he can't win, as a justification for Hillary's increasingly untenable candidacy; they speak with the voice of bitter desperation.

[rasputin1952]

104. Passions have clouded the thought processes, and the only

losers are those that don't care about such banal notions such as onther's passion based on ethereal "arguments". Not long ago, there were numerous posts about/against both candidates about race and gender, and I was accused of being either a racist or a misogynist, sometimes both, simply because I would not support either overtly according to some inane "rule" that some brought to the discussion. For the record, to support either candidate simply because of race or gender is incredibly stupid...that's it, cut and dried, stupid; let me say that again...STUPID.

Both candidates have both good and bad points; dwelling on the bad, and going to RW jugheads to find the points one "needs" to defame the candidate of personal choice is not just absurd, it goes against everything we say we stand for. Over the months, I have lost respect for a good deal of DU'ers whom I have had respect for for years. It is a sad state of affairs when those who refuse to be tolerant demand it of others, and in some corners, that is where we stand now, much to the delight of those who would see us crumble in almost inevitable victory in the race for the WH against McCain, and on the verge of turning both houses of Congress into solid majorities of D's.

I don't know about others, but when I see a sure thing dropping dead, not only do I mourn the demise, but I move to finding the next best option...since McCain doesn't fit that mold, the only thing I can do is ask that people shut off the rhetoric that demeans another's candidate, and rally around the reality that if we mess up this opportunity, this nation will be little more than a playpen for the very wealthy, and we will watch the demise of the "Noble Experiment" known as a Democratic-Republic, and we will be subject to the whims of those who will hold absolute power.

Simply put, if people don't realize that their "arguments" are absurd, after the next inauguration, we shall all find that our voices will be silenced forever, and our nation will regress into a hybrid that is run by the wealthy landowners, and a new form of royalist banshees. Finger wagging and blame would be the calls of the day...but we better take a look in the mirror before we burst into tears at the loss of the greatest democracy the world has ever known, as the blame will rest upon our own shoulders.

We hold the future in our hands, let's not destory it, let's ensure demcocracy does not become a footnote of history.

[GoldieAZ49]

112. Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent

Thank you!

:applause:

[ekwhite]

135. Good post, Rasputin

I mainly support Obama mainly because of his coalition politics and his willingness to reach across the aisle and work with Republicans. This may blow up in his face, but I think it is time to back away from the politics of personal destruction that have been practiced for the past 20 years. There are things I don't like, such as his healthcare plan, but the overriding factors in my decision are his coolness under pressure and his willingness to listen. Both of these are refreshing after the last 8 years.

[Baby Snooks]

158. But Molly wouldn't do that...

And there is no one who represents "progressive" thinkers in this country better than Molly Ivins. There were Republicans who admired her. Read her. Enjoyed her. Thought about it. At least in Texas.

If Hillary is the nominee, would Molly hold her nose and tell everyone to hold theirs as she did once before? I doubt it.

Molly was beyond partisan politics. She was about the people. And she probably would have told everyone to skip the presidential race and concentrate on the congressional races. To accept that the White House was lost regardless of whether Hillary Clinton or John McCain won it. And to accept that the best defense of the people was a Congress, a new Congress, with the power to override a veto.

And she would have probably told those who demanded she endorse the Democrat to stick it.

[knixphan]

199. ding ding ding!

"...the best defense of the people was a Congress, a new Congress, with the power to override a veto."

Baby Snooks has the phrase that pays!

[rasputin1952]

272. I can't speak for Molly...but I know that in my heart...

the though of a McCAin presidency is more than I can bear and keep my sanity.

I can also tell you that all of the i bickering on DU is counterproductive, and is being carried on by a few people that believe they know better than everyone else how this nation should be led. They do it with blinders on, and for what it is worth, anything is better tan a McCain administration...I think a rock would be better than McCAin, at least a rock wouldn't help to destroy the nation.

[Shoelace]

207. amen, I say amen to that!

thanks for reminding us all of what it will be like of we don't support either candidate next November. If the Republicans manage to win, our country will slip slide into feudalism.

I support both candidates because I'm a Democrat to the depths of my soul. It's gut wrenching to see the divisions now as they only serve to strengthen the Republicans.

[rasputin1952]

273. I agree...the division is indeed gut wrenching...

:(

[totodeinhere]

107. I understand the spirit of what you are saying, but...

you make it seem like before this primary campaign started Democrats and specifically DU Democrats always agreed on everything. But that just isn't so. The beauty of our party has always been that we are thinking people who can sometimes disagree. Compare that to the Rethugs who almost always march in lockstep behind their glorious leader.

[Jennicut]

109. This is just a symptom of the broader state of things in the godod old USA: government is broken

I don't know if anyone can fix it, Obama included. Its been "broken" since Clinton won in 1992 and the Rethugs stopped governing and went on attack mode. The Clintons decided to go in their own attack mode to fight back and I don't necessarily blame them. 2000 only fueled the fire that we live in "two Americas" (sorry Jon Edwards for borrowing. We are progressive (liberal) or conservative. You either believe George Bush and his cronies stole the election or Al Gore tried to unfairly take it away from Bush. This created hurt feelings on all sides. Then the infighting in both parties started. There were cracks in the the Rethugs with Bush's dirty tactics against McCain in 2000 but they eventually unified behind Bush. The Dems, however seemed split on how to go after the Rethugs and get the country back on track. What emerged in 2008 was two ways: there was the old way, the past, attack at all costs and bring the enemy down even if they are in your own party or there was the new way, rise above the attacks and try and change the system. I believe the system needs changing and that is why I voted for Obama. Attacking is useless and breeds contempt and hatred from the other side. That does not mean one is weak and lets the other side unfairly attack him. That means one is tough and resolute but not a bully, one has complex and intelligent thinking on issues where more than a soundbite is required. It means standing up for one's beliefs with class and grace. We had two fine candidates in Al Gore and John Kerry. Both intelligent men who were complex thinkers. Unfortunately for Al Gore the election was stolen from him and the country was given a leader with so little respect for other's opinions he came off as a dictator not a president. John Kerry was attacked after serving his country by men who were too wimpy to do the same. The media, broken as well, complied. Just like they repeat the Rev. Wright thing over and over ad naseum. Who cares? What about healthcare? What about the deficit? What about the wars in Afganistan and Iraq? What about immigration, social security, the economy? What about the problem that could wipe the human race off the planet, climate change? Nope, its about lapel pins and pastors and bitter people and their guns. In my opinion we are doomed if nothing changes. We have so much against us as Dems. The media, uniformed citizens and ignorant citizens, and a Rethug party that will not take blame for the terrible mistakes they have caused. The system is broken. Healthcare, government, the media, etc. is all being run terribly. The system needs to be fixed. I don't know when it will be fixed or if it ever will. But I do know that the candidate that says things are not working because things are broken and the system is what is at fault is more correct and a better choice than the candidate that says things are broken but we need to play within the existing system. If we come together after the primaries and support that candidate, Mr. Obama, I believe we might just beat McCain. After all, he is part of the past as well.

[The Wizard]

159. The fly in the ointment

"That means one is tough and resolute but not a bully, one has complex and intelligent thinking on issues where more than a soundbite is required. It means standing up for one's beliefs with class and grace. We had two fine candidates in Al Gore and John Kerry. Both intelligent men who were complex thinkers."

We're the dumbest country in the industrialized world. That the Republicans are still competing for political power is testimony to America's unbridled idiocy.
The majority of Americans have the attention span of a six year old.
The Republicans have fostered and exploited the great dumbing down. They have taken money out of circulation, looted the treasury and put their ill gotten gains in off shore tax havens where it will never help bring our economy back. And there are those in the lower income bracket who still support them out of fear and loathing and the crazy notions that universal health care is somehow against our principles; tax breaks for the wealthy are good for the poor; science is our enemy, and facts are the enemy of faith based government.
Every thing is simple in black and white. To Republicans, slavery is a traditional value.

[Jennicut]

290. We are a dumbed down society. Its like we are back to the dark ages in terms of thinking

The world is grey, not black and white as the Rethugs have tried to convince Americans. I do think that many people are waking up. The majority of Americans in poll after poll do not support the Iraq War. They want a "major overhaul" in the healthcare system. They agree with raising taxes on the richest Americans, which is essentially not going back to Bush's deficit-busting tax cuts. However, we have little power. We are not wealthy and powerful. Our voice is heard less and less every year it seams. Perhaps Obama's revolution of raising money for small donors will help. However, he has to live up to his promises and politicans rarely do. I do not have him on a pedestal but I do think he is the best alternative.

[acetylyne]

110. great post

[reflection]

111. As usual, home run. n/t

[liberaldem4ever]

113. Great post-K&R

:bounce: :kick:

[BlueJac]

116. Another outstanding post Nance!

:applause:

[ekwhite]

119. You go Nance

I'm pretty disgusted with what passes for Democrats these days.

[bluescribbler]

120. K&R

I wrote many months ago asking people to stop bashing Senator Clinton. At that time, I was undecided as to which Democrat I would support. (We had a lot of great candidates to choose from then). Now that I've decided to support Senator Obama, I refuse to participate in the circular firing squad.

We need to win in November! It matters less whether we win with Senator Clinton or with Senator Obama, than that we win!

[woo me with science]

121. Oh, please.

This is the silliest broad brush I have seen in a long time.

[DeanDem10]

123. Bravo! n/t

[merkins]

124. Kick & Rec'd

Well stated Nance .. thanks!

[City Lights]

127. Those were the days, my friend, we thought they'd never end...

:thumbsup:

Recommended.

[frickaline]

128. What I hate most is the lack of solidarity as Democrats

Now I haven't been here long enough to 'remember when', but I can certainly comment on what I see now. There is no cohesion here, and not much discussion, mostly just an obsession with back-and-forth sniping about my candidate versus your candidate. And frankly, this thread is NOT excluded, some of the comments here make me cringe.

I think if people here could come together as rational democrats and discuss issues without attacking each other for our candidacy choices (yes our individual CHOICES - which we HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO) we'd be in a much better place.

And if you are thinking this behavior is one-sided or candidate based, you couldn't be more wrong.

[berni_mccoy]

134. Whoa Nance, that's powerful! KICK AND REC!

[Wind Dancer]

136. Excellent post!

The "divide and conquer" strategy is in full force on DU!

Recommended!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

139. I remember when we advocated that Florida's votes should be counted.

Now I see some Democrats saying Florida's votes (including my vote) should not be counted on account of some archaic DNC rule because it may be inconvenient to the candidate of their choice.

We'll put the party rules over democracy, so long as the ends justify the means.

Yes, superdelegates may be undemocratic and contrary to the will of the voters, but is so is excluding the will of the voters in Florida on account of the party rules. I don't care who did what or who should have done what, I voted. Count my vote.

[redqueen]

141. Oh Nance... so very well said.

Hard to put into words how bizarre this primary season has become. You did a fantastic job of outlining some of the reasons for the acrimony. Thank you.

[nichomachus]

143. Great post -- one quibble

The Supreme Court's involvement in the election was not a part of the process. It was an intrusion into the process.

The SDs are part of the process -- and their role is not, and never was, to rubber stamp primary results. Their role was to make sure that the good of the party prevailed. How they interpret that is something else again, but their involvement is not wrong.

[Lugnut]

146. K&R n/t

[kentuck]

148. Dazed and confused...

As from the old Led Zeppelin song. DU is confused and divided. What the hell is going on? We love playing checkers. It is so simple.

[Eric Condon]

150. K&R - as always, thanks for putting exactly what we all feel into amazingly eloquent words.

[TooBigaTent]

152. I remember when Democrats knew that the GOP and its media, money, and minions

were the enemy.

Now I see the leading Democratic candidate "reaching out" to the other side while abandoning the liberal/progressive agenda in his obsession with obtaining power. And most on DU support that position.

Where is standing up for justice and equality instead of catering to the bigots in the search for votes?

Where is the courage to embrace and defend the meaning of a spiritual leader instead of throwing him out to placate conservative Amerika?

Where is impeachment? Where is accountability? Where is stopping the god damned war?

And where is the real liberal who should be our standard-bearer against the right - out on his ass because the corporatist candidates truly run this party.

One true thing you say is that we are not all on the same side.

[Career Prole]

155. K & R

Because I remember, too.

[Perry Mason]

156. Speaking for myself

I love what you had to say, NanceGreggs.

Once upon a time I was registered as a Democrat, I worked in any way I could to support the nominees and positions of my party.

Today, I am an Independent, and I cringe as my party fields one candidate after another who are beholden to corporate interests, afraid to dispute the outrageous and dangerous ground the GOP has made "main stream", will not support nationalized health care because the insurance lobbyists are lining their pockets, and in summation are not any kind of Democrat I ever knew. There are no true liberals in elected office on a national level today, the term is merely used to identify anyone left of George War Bush.

My sense of hopelessness is escalated through the ceiling when I turn on the television or pick up a newspaper to witness the most shocking Orwellian propaganda shoveled at a largely unquestioning public. Heaven help me if I let down my guard and am unwittingly drawn into a political conversation in the workplace, as I must maintain my dignity and try to play nice and politely debate points with someone armed only with misinformation. I see an alarming amount of these Big Brothered mind control subjects even here at the Democratic Underground, raging at one another over Clinton vs. Omaba, when in fact neither candidate will end the war, nationalize health care, or subvert the illegal usurpation of our government by corporate elitists.

I too greatly miss the bygone unity of our party; but it is not we who need to return to the party, it is the party who needs to return to us.

[helderheid]

160. Ditto, Nance!

;)

[greiner3]

161. So many damn republicans;

On this board over the last few months. I see you've listed how to zero in on them Nance; thanks from a true Democrat!

[OnyxCollie]

162. K&R. nt

[Hepburn]

163. Amen, Nance, this needed to be said.

Hopefully those who are acting like they are Repukes will leave here and the DU will return to being a place for Democrats and not for DINOs.

:applause:

[guruoo]

166. So you believe SD Kennedy is obligated to vote for Hillary?

Kennedy is a Super Delegate, which according to the way our primary process
is set up, means he is supposed to vote according to his best personal judgement,
irregardless of the citizen voter's wishes.

Therefore, according to current rules, the Hillary camp has just as
much right to lobby SD's to her as the Obama camp has to lobby SD's to him.

I don't like it, I'd like to see it changed,
but right now dem's the rules.


Hillary Wins Massachusetts
By Greg Sargent - February 5, 2008, 8:53PM

MNSBC and Fox call Massachusetts for Hillary. Early on, she had a huge lead in
some polls against Obama in that state, but Teddy Kennedy's endorsement of Obama
caused the race to tighten up.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/hillary_wins_massachusetts.php

[Barrymores Ghost]

168. Reason has been abandoned by zealots...

...who want "a woman at any cost and by any means necessary." They either cheer madly at or remain conveniently and blissfully ignorant to the countless ways that Hillary trumpets neo-Con talking points, promotes the GOP candidate, and coldly poisons the well of the Democratic Party's hopes of a sweep in November. They don't care that she cannot possibly win, or that she is hell-bent on knee-capping Obama, the inevitable nominee, so that he limps, blood-covered, into the general against a fresh a rested McCain. Hey, anything it takes - just so long as she has another shot at it in 2012.

Is this reverence for fairness and democratic ideals? Hardly. More like allegiance that is so blind, these folks could be staring into the morning sun on a cloudless day and would swear it was midnight.

[ElboRuum]

169. The so-called "Reagan Democrats" are alive and well, Nance...

And they've found themselves another Reagan.

[knight_of_the_star]

175. I remember the day when Nance took the side of the Democratic Party

And didn't use her rants to pimp one candidate over the other...

[Awsi Dooger]

201. Stack and Tilt

That's a term for a type of modern golf swing, but it applies perfectly to the recent rants.

I remember a DU when dozens of prominent posters understood mathematical demographic realities in a given county or state, and the rest of the community benefited, recognizing absurd poll numbers for what they were. Now it's comfy, and basically unchallenged, to spit out simpleton themes that one candidate was expected to lose by 20-25 points in a given state, at the same time the Intrade price was only 70/30: :rofl:

I remember a DU when we had no problem recognizing the natural weakness of newbie candidates in major races, and it could be honestly debated, without an onslaught of petrified ignore.

[DemExpat]

232. Hear, hear....

I find her very disappointing lately.

DemEx

[jgraz]

249. I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that NanceGreggs would have an opinion on the primary race!

Pardon me while I die of not surprise. :eyes:

[knight_of_the_star]

281. My issue isn't her having an opinion

Its her using her status to push said opinion. Big names on here SHOULD HAVE stayed above the fray instead of diving into the gutter knife in mouth.

[jgraz]

282. Pure crap. This is an opinion board. If you don't like opinions, go somewhere else.

Please.

[ElboRuum]

302. Her status is not of issue here...

Aside from her enormously well-received contributions, Nance is just another DUer, and entitled to an opinion. Moreover, she is entitled to speak/write her opinion.

[JackBeck]

179. Went to bed last night thinking about your third and fourth statements.

Before you even posted this.

It wasn't too long ago we were raking the Religious Right over the coals and holding Bush accountable for pandering to his religious base. Many of the DUers who were screaming for separation of church and state are the same ones shamelessly tearing Obama apart over his religious affiliation, perfectly content in their hypocrisy.

[zabet]

188. Once upon a time...

I remember when it was COUNT ALL THE VOTES, and now it is DON'T COUNT ALL THE VOTES.

I remember Bill Richardson ignoring the wishes of the voters.

I remember Obama said his affiliation with Rev. Wright WAS a legitimate political issue.

I remember Republicans and Dems alike in the past several months attacking the Clintons but, that must be OK because no one got upset until it happened to the noob.

I remember even Dems crying 'anyone but Clinton' since the beginning of the race...it is a phenomenon of media hypnosis with the 15+ years of negative press about the Clintons - I remember when Dems were too smart to buy the RW tripe but, the RW gained a big Dem audience when they trashed the Clintons.

I could go on and on picking apart this post from another point of view but, this is the whole point of my post....You are writing from the perception of a die-hard Obama supporter...whose point of view and perception is totally different from an undecided or a committed Hillary supporter. That does not mean I am right nor does it mean you are right, it just means we have different points of view.


Please work a new style for a while, the bullet list repetitions are tiring. Construct it into a nicely coherent essay for a change...I really think it would read a lot better.

[cliffordu]

191. Kicked again.

Thanks again, Nance.

[katty]

193. Sanity reality check - thank you

[Raster]

194. Kicked HIGH and Highly RECOMMENDED!

Wake up America!:kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick::kick:

[knixphan]

197. Kick for 'I miss Molly'

[Preston120]

198. Not all who say they are Democrats are democrats! K & R

[FreeStateofWinston]

202. Truly sad facts....

But all very true!

:applause:

:patriot:

[PVnRT]

204. Once, people condemned Rush Limbaugh for doing racist songs

Now, they find "technical" reasons to defend him.

[Bjorn Against]

212. Too true.

We have always had disagreements on certain issues on DU, but it never got to the point in which people were attacking the patriotism of those who did not wear a flag pin on all occasions. The "issues" the Clinton camp has chosen to focus on are nothing more than baseless smears about pastors, flags, and bitterness. It is time for people to get a focus on what really matters, and flag pins don't matter.

[iamthebandfanman]

213. scary isnt it ?

i feel so outa place on du now sometimes.

everyone has seem to forgotten policy.

[Xenocrates]

214. Never lose your soapbox, Nance! (nt)

[TBF]

217. I thought of Molly when I read this and I smiled - I think she would've too.

She actually wrote a piece years ago detailing why Hillary Clinton shouldn't be president. It rings true today as it did then. Bill Richardson is actually the politician I agree with most closely on the issues, but I'm supporting Obama because Bill bowed out early. I wish Hillary would just accept defeat gracefully and rally her troops to put a dem in the white house so we aren't stuck with another facist, but I don't see it happening. It is really sad.

[suffragette]

218. This needed saying

and you said it perfectly.
:yourock:

[knixphan]

220. yep, It needs saying TWICE A DAY!

[knixphan]

221. dismissing a threat of “obliterating” another country as being nothing of importance

...that just hit me.

[Divine Discontent]

225. K&R We're not all on the same side, and I think we all know this.

Sadly, there's a pretty sizable group on DU who I believe behave in the manner like the weakest of Germans did in the run-up to WWII. They don't care about the sins of their gov't as long as the person they believe in gets in power. They will turn a blind eye to fairness, decency, and the rule of law if their beloved candidate gets a bump from the slimy attacks. I believe there's fascists aplenty out there. Scary thought. But, I'm glad there's people like you!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

234. Godwins Law?

You know, the Nazis had pieces of flair they made the Jews wear....

[Bread and Circus]

226. There are two cancers on DU. The pro-Hillary cancer and the pro-McCain stealth cancer.

[knixphan]

233. 'stealth cancer' - good term.

[jgraz]

245. It's getting harder to tell the difference.

[paulk]

227. I remember when you weren't a partisan hack.

[texastoast]

235. There are a bunch of us did our damnedest to not choose sides

Since the final two were not my first choices, it was easy for me to stay open to the process and be objective.

But there is a line in the sand and one of the candidates crossed it. I'm just so disgusted that I might have to take a clothespin to the polls with me in November, depending on who the candidate is. That's what's sad.

[jgraz]

248. Got anything but bullshit personal attacks, paul?

If you have a problem with the OP, maybe you should try a reasoned response.

[ElboRuum]

303. I'll buy partisan...

I mean, come on, this is Democratic Underground. If you aren't a partisan, you're likely somewhere else.

But "hack"? That would imply ineptitude at one's chosen craft. Inept is one word I'd never used to describe Nance as a writer.

[paulk]

304. "partisan hack" is often used the way I used it

it doesn't necessarily denote someone as a "hack" outside of their partisanship...

[ElboRuum]

305. Well in that case...

As I said before, this is a partisan board. So, hack being nothing more than the expletive to give the insult a little staccato punch, you aren't really saying anything.

But I think you meant to say something... perhaps you think that Nance, as someone else suggested, being some sort of DU "luminary" should keep her opinions to herself?

[paulk]

309. when you set yourself up as a pundit, which the OP has done

and then go on a rant, which is what the article referenced is, then you endanger your credibility. When a pundit destroys their credibility, then their opinion becomes worthless.

Ms Gregg has every right to post her opinion, and the members of this board have every right to judge it.

[ElboRuum]

310. Obviously.

Yes, everyone has a right to judge everything.

I judge your judgment of "partisan hack"hood to be misplaced and a bit unfair, considering where "here" is and when "now" is.

Just exercising them old rights, you know.

[ooglymoogly]

229. KR for good common sense

[texastoast]

231. Excellent as always!

:yourock:

The GOP is winning as long as we behave this way.

Karl Rove is smiling at us. We played right into his hands.

[jordi_fanclub]

238. K&R

[Deep13]

239. For the irony impaired.

"I remember when Democrats were infuriated when the Supreme Court announced a recount of votes in Florida was to be stopped, so that they could decide who the next president would be."

This time FL isn't even allowed to vote because party idiots have disenfranchised the whole state and Michigan too.

"Now I hear some Democrats applauding the idea that another group, the SDs, should ignore the votes of the delegates who represent the voters, so that they can decide who the next president will be."

The party created SDs to prevent another 49-state sweep after 1972. Not that it worked. The point is they are not being imposed on us. They are trusted members of this party who know a little more about the mechanics of electoral politics than the armchair (or computer chair) politicians do.

"I remember when Democrats believed in the absolute separation of church and state.

"Now I hear some Democrats pointing to a candidate’s affiliation with his church as a legitimate means to question his suitability to hold office."

That's the whole fucking point. We want to make sure it stays seperate. Membership in Falwell's church or Opus Dei or the 700 Club surely has a bearing on fitness for office. You are blind if you think this does not. We were jumping on Romney for his Mormonism and rightly so. So far there has been no indication as there was with Kennedy that Obama will leave his irrational beliefs at the WH door.

"I remember when Democrats rallied together when a Republican attacked one of our own.

"Now I see some Democrats posting links to GOP ads, or quoting right-wing hacks, delighting in the fact that they vilify one of our own."

Yes, a lot of people have an irrational hatred of Mrs. Clinton. There are grounds to be critical and we all know what they are, but she does not deserve the character assault she gets here. I really think if she had outdoor plumbing it would be assumed that she should fight on.

"I remember when Democrats demanded absolute fairness and legitimacy in our election process.

"Now I hear some Democrats demanding that votes garnered in illegitimate voting processes be counted, regardless of the unfairness that would result from doing so."

So, no fairness for Florida and Michigan then. And both votes were perfectly lawful. Voting laws are based on state authority, not DNC regulations. In the case of FL it was perfectly fair. The fact that canddiates voluntarily agreed not to assault voters with campaign messages doesn't mean they were too stupid to decide. Even in Michigan, no one was required by that state's law to withdraw.

When we shouted for fairness and legitimacy, we sure as shit were not shouting for this fiasco.

"I remember when Democrats were passionate about having another Democrat in the White House.

"Now I hear some Democrats discussing how it wouldn’t be so bad to lose this election to a Republican – because it would give their candidate-of-choice another kick at the can in four years."

Who said that? I think you are either making shit up or listening to extremists. I've not seen anything about either candidate coming back to challenge a sitting president in '08. Unless you are talking about a prediction that one of the candidates will lose in '08 which seems like a dead certainty at this point. There's nothing wrong with arguing that as a ground for presenting the alternative candidate this year.

I'm on the fence whether a D. who looks an awful lot like the 2000 Bush to me will really be better than McCain. Sorry, that's where the facts of this race have led me. And evertime I think Obama will not be so bad, one of his worshippers convinces me otherwise. Do I really want to give those with mindless loyalty that kind of power? Well, no, I don't. I have to weigh that against more war and more debt.

I support the D. party with large checks and a lot of words. I OWE THE PARTY NOTHING! My vote is mine and I have an absolute right to put it where I want. It is my ball and I am not required to play with bullies.

"I remember when Democrats could easily see through the pointless, pandering proposals – like “gas tax holidays” – by those on the other side of the aisle."

When has that been proposed before? And what is Obama suggesting as an alternative? Oh, yeah, hope and change. "Getting worse" is a form of change you know.

"Now I see some Democrats supporting such nonsensical ideas, simply because their candidate-of-choice supports them."

Propose a better short-term solution. Anyway, HC is not suggesting it is the only thing we can do.

"I remember when Democrats demanded that once rules were set in place, they were to be followed by everyone.

"Now I see some Democrats demanding that rules be changed mid-stream in order to benefit one candidate, to the detriment of the other."

You've covered that with the voting issue.

"I remember when Democrats circled the wagons when under attack by the GOP.

"Now I see some Democrats cheering the attacks of the GOP, as long as those attacks are on the other Democratic candidate and not their own."

Well, I haven't sen that. What I have seen is guilt by association because the Limbaughs of the world effect to want HC ostensibly to beat her in November but really to stay employed with a ready-made punching bag for the next four years.

"I remember when Democrats laughed at the ludicrous idea that things such as flag-pins were a measure of one’s patriotism.

"Now I see some Democrats pointing to such trinkets as a measure of the patriotism of one of their fellow party members."

You are outright lying here. If anything we are concerned with how it will be perceived by the public. Nobody here thinks a flag pin makes one patriotic. I'll go one better and say a candidate has no duty to be patriotic at all as I do not consider it a virtue.

"I remember when Democrats passionately deplored the saber-rattling threats of war-mongering Republicans."

When was that? I recall the IWR being pretty popular and military action against Afghanistan being hugely so.

"Now I see some Democrats dismissing a threat of 'obliterating' another country as being nothing of importance."

You are being dishonest. I am aware of the context of the remark and have to agree with her.

"I remember when I was secure in the fact that all of us here – at the end of the day, when all was said and done – were ultimately all on the same side."

Frankly, your effort to further the villification of one of your own team members in the guise of righteous indignation is pretty transparent. I remember one of Bush's tactics has always been to accuse us of what they were guilty of. They avoided the draft, but we were cowards. They bankrupted the country, but we were spend-thrifts. They ignored health-care costs, energy costs and tanked the dollar, but we are anti-business. And the list goes on and on.

I now see the same shit coming from Obama surrogates. I am afraid of him because his people have the same lock-step-holier-than-thou mentality as Bush' stormtroopers. Plus, he is weak in the swing states and therefore can't win.

[RiverStone]

240. You will be sure we are on the same side again...

But not before it gets even worse.

The storm is close to it's apex now....

Though it will pass, and in it's wake we will be left with one nominee.

Barack will stand in such stark contrast to McSame.

People do heal, forgive, move on - most anyway.

Look at DU this October, it will look very different and yet - familiar.

Really :)

[Duder]

241. Democratic values...

Keep writing NanceGreggs!

[psychmommy]

242. nance, that was right on the money.

keep ranting.

[JuniperLea]

247. "Democrats cheering the attacks of the GOP"

And furthering the bullshit... repeating the GOP meme...


Nailed it! K&R!

[lumberjack_jeff]

254. Right. This is just like 2000

... except the Katherine Harris fan club are "democrats".

I'm disappointed.

[dchill]

255. K&R for a great post.

[walldude]

258. I remember when Democrats dug up the dirt

not spread it around.. Thanks Nance...

[lwcon]

259. Nance, sorry I don't have time to do a point-by-point takedown

But this is so below the standard of what I used to read from you.

Yes, you prefer Obama. I get it. But your examples here are so shoddy.

To delve into just one of these areas, "changing the rules..."

1. The DNC has always had the option of recognizing the FL and MI votes
2. The rules were changed for Puerto Rico in midstream, and no one is too troubled about that
3. Obama proposed to cheat his way to 50% of the FL and MI delegates (he wanted them simply assigned to him, even though he took his name off the ballot in MI rather than face a rout there, and he isn't very popular in Florida, either)
4. You suggest no regard for enfranchising the voters of two essential swing states. Hillary wanted a re-vote, which likely would have shrunk her victory margins, given Obama's frontrunner status. For some reason, that's not good enough for you.

Also, here's one more for your list:

I remember when Democrats didn't use false charges of racism to tear down other Democrats.


___

The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, now at my new home: Correntewire.com

[TexanIndian]

263. Obamath works in wonderful ways..

Because I am leading in more states and more popular votes, I should have gotten more votes in states that I lost also.

So long as I keep reminding that I wasn't on the ballot, but that alone should guarantee me 50%.

I did not campaign in Florida. (I won't tell that my rival didn't either).

I will not support a revote in either state because I am so confident that I am going to win (oops).^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H

[ProgressIn2008]

278. Indeed, good post. nt

[RamboLiberal]

266. K&R - Well Done Nance

:kick:

[maddiejoan]

267. When you stop having a double-standard

you'll get some cred back.

This piece is so incredibly lop-sided, I had to throw a few bricks up under the left side of my laptop to straighten it out.

[NorthCarolina]

268. The problem arises when one (or more 2BPC) of the candidates adopt the very tactics

you decry here. It's a leadership issue, and when the leadership is corrupt, so is the entire process. It's good to know that Obama has clearly identified this as a problem, and is dedicated to CHANGE.:patriot:

[Dr Fate]

271. I remember when racist codes & racist button pushing was only used by Republicans....

...as opposed to being incorporated by a major DEM candidate & her supporters.

[sfam]

274. We're not on the same side anymore. And yeah..we WILL lose...

It's pretty farcical to think that whomever wins can put the Humpty Dumpty Democratic party back together again. The only way I see victory at this point is an absolute collapse of John McCain, either by his own actions or our insane smears. In either case, I doubt we have anything more but a divided country for yet another four years. I really was hoping for more, lots more in fact. Such is life I suppose...

[gordianot]

275. I too long for the good old days

[MadMaddie]

279. Nance...you always say it the best!!

It really comes down to common sense doesn't it?

[tavalon]

280. Nance, thing is, I'm still finding your articles in GDP

You want to restore your faith in your fellow Democrat? Get out of GDP. These people are temporarily insane. I'm able to hold that point of view because, with the exception of your threads and the occasional thread I see on the DUzies, I don't come to GDP. Sometimes people who hang out here come out to play in the bigger world, but generally they know how to clean up and be respectable but they aren't expected to be that way in her. This place is like the id, run amok. If I spent anywhere near the time you have in this place, I would have grave doubts about my fellow man, too. I left this fetid place to preserve my hope. I would implore you to do the same.

[MrMonk]

284. Re: the OP

Almost 300 posts in this thread, and most of them illustrate your points.

[Veracious]

285. Clinton Broke The Rules

What a bunch of sneaky underhanded crap this post is. Your note of wanting to count all the votes! Clinton KNEW and AGREED to no contest in Florida and Michigan! SHE broke the rules! Are we a country of laws and rules, or men/women? Endorsing McCain! Playing the Race card! SHAME ON HILLARY! There will be no voting for her EVER!

[L0oniX]

286. NanceGreggs for president ...the best choice for our party.

[Indi Guy]

289. Don't be feint of heart...

Democrats will always an unruly bunch...

[knixphan]

292. I remember when Democrats believed in the absolute separation of church and state.

needed to be said again.

[VotesForWomen]

297. your perspective is a little biased. that's what being in a cult does to you. nt

[jonestonesusa]

301. VotesForWomen, your reply is more than a little biased

to say the least. Thanks for showing us the objectivity of HC supporters and their respect for progressive-minded voters who plan to vote for Obama!

[Scurrilous]

308. Kick

:kick:

[Texas Hill Country]

311. seriously, who is resurrecting all the old threads?

[Greyskye]

312. Illustration of the current state of the Union...

...as typified in GD-P :