A Note to Hillary Supporters: Obama vs. Nobama --- How Punishing Him May Punish Hillary

by Damozel | First, let me emphasize that I am speaking only for myself and not for any of my cobloggers.

I'll say it again (and again and again):  I wanted Hillary to be the Democratic nominee and I certainly haven't cared for the way Obama's campaign and supporters have comported themselves during the primaries, but I am not going to cut off the nation's nose to spite David Axelrod's face.  Obama's political goals are more or less consistent with mine and that matters more to me at the end of the day than whether or not he's my ideal candidate.

So I am astonished that some Hillary supporters think it's more important to punish Obama than it is to repudiate the Bush administration and the GOP. Eight years, people!  Look at what eight years of GOP dominance has done to our standing in the world and our sense of ourselves as a people.  A few months of intraparty squabbling and Obama's very special brand of 'new politics' doesn't begin to compare.

Though I consider him less progressive than advertised and have serious issues with how he's run his campaign, at least he says the right things.  McCain doesn't.  That matters too.  While I am perfectly aware that neither one is likely to be able to carry out all his campaign promises, their obligations to their parties are going to matter once they take office.  I don't actually care that much about the 'sincerity' of a candidate; all that matters as far as I'm concerned is where his loyalties ultimately lie. 

Obama, for example, is right on the Guantanamo issue and right in praising the Supreme Court for doing the (difficult and dangerous) right thing, rather than going along with the Bush administration's War on the Constitution. 

Here's one reason.

Obama praised Thursday's Supreme Court decision to allow detainees at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their imprisonment in federal courts. Enforcing habeas corpus rights, he said, is "the essence of who we are."

Even when Nazis' atrocities became known in the 1940s, he said, "we still gave them a day in court" at the Nuremberg trials. "That taught the entire world about who we are," he said.

McCain sharply criticized the court ruling, saying it would hamper the war on terrorism.

Obama said McCain would be likely to appoint Supreme Court nominees who would allow states to outlaw abortion. "You're just one justice away from that," he said, alluding to the court's narrow ideological divisions. (AP)

Another reason would be the presidential veto power.  I would very much like to see certain legislation sponsored by, say, Hillary Clinton to be enacted.  I'm not going to go through the entire list. 

But I can't help boggling at the number of Hillary supporters who in their self-righteous wrath seem to have forgotten who Hillary Clinton is and what she stands for. No one who really gets Hillary would vote for McCain or fail to vote for the Democratic nominee.  As she herself has said and will continue to say.

Taylor Marsh wrote, and I agree:

Hillary Clinton made an historic speech last Saturday when she unequivocally endorsed Barack Obama, then asked her supporters to follow her lead to make sure he is elected. She was unflinching. She was unambiguous

I got the message. I will support Barack Obama for president in November. Many others did not....

I had Clinton’s back earlier than most. Stood up when others did not. Was vilified across the web for it. People are fickle. Frankly, I don’t care what people who once supported my efforts for Hillary say, do, write or believe. It’s their choice to turn a deaf ear to her, but I will have no part in it. They’re being tied to Senator Clinton and their unwillingness to accept what we cannot change at this point does little to help her, regardless of their righteousness, which is not in doubt....

Taylor Marsh has received numerous emails from furious Hillary supporters, all of whom seem to have become exactly what they deplored in Obama's partisans.  I myself reaped the whirlwind when I suggested to a pro-Hillary group to which I belonged (past tense intentional) that perhaps we should do as Hillary asked.

I know, I know.  I'm angry too.  But I am way, way angrier at the GOP for foisting Bush on the public and on McCain for selling out to the far right. 

As Taylor Marsh points out, this vindictive frame of mind is likely to hurt Hillary as much as Obama.   
Did Clinton delegate Debra Bartosevich give any thought to this when she announced that she had joined 'Citizens for McCain'?

This is the most dangerous threat   to Obama in November. It's what I've been talking about... . That Clinton supporters are going to ignore McCain's record,   because their anti-Obama feelings are stronger than what a McCain presidency   would bring. ...and so it begins. But this one comes from a delegate to the   Democratic convention....

So why is anyone surprised that when Clinton delegate Debra Bartoshevich announced   she had joined "Citizens for McCain" she was quickly made an example?....

It's only one delegate vote, but trust me, there's a lot more where this one comes from, on the local level. The trouble is that this could end up hurting Hillary too. But no one seems to care about that repercussion, or that Hillary will be working against a McCain presidency. They should, because big time political party payback can be a bitch, as Bartoshevich is quickly finding out. It would be worse for Clinton, because if anything but an all out effort for Obama isn't made the blowback would be devastating, as it would if the candidates were reversed and Clinton were the nominee....

I have no doubt whatsoever that Hillary would disavow Bartoshevich's actions, as well as any other Clintonite who tries to sabotage Hillary's own power inside the Democratic Party. All that will happen from this is blowback against Clinton. That these party people don't know this boggles the mind.    

However, all this is playing out at the party level. At the average voter level there isn't a payback   system. That's the level Obama and his team should be worried about.

Of course, if Hillary voters continue to insist that they will never, never support the party's candidate, the party is also likely to take it out on Hillary.   To demonize Obama is in no way supportive of Hillary's interests.  The more productive response --- for those who can't bring themselves to praise him --- is to take a long look at McCain, the GOP, and what they represent.

I'm confident that one way or another there will be a backlash in Hillary's favor --- if only her supporters don't keep whipping up the opposition.   True, it won't get her the nomination or the presidency.  But a Democratic president is going to need the Clintons (both of them) and their power and influence, and is going to need the New York Senator.  I'm sure she'll turn the tables just as effectively as Al Gore --- if only her supporters don't undercut her.

RELATED BN-POLITICS POSTINGS

 Obama vs. Nobama --- How Punishing Him May Punish Hillary

Another Reason to Vote for the Democrat:  Guantanamo Decision to Become a Hot Button Topic in the Election?

Campaign Official Thinks Obama Got "F*cked" in Florida?

McCain Weighs in on Bush's Failed Detainee Policy

Further Proof that the Obama Campaign Needs to Grow Up

Media Finds Itself (Mainly) Innocent of the Charge of Sexism Against Hillary

Fox & 'Baby Mama' (Updated) More Hypocrisy Within the Obama Campaign

Comments

[Dave_Not_For_Obama]

Obama is Chicago style thug politics!

I'll suffer 4 years of McCain before I vote for Obama!

[NeverObama]

"No one who really gets Hillary would vote for McCain or fail to vote for the Democratic nominee."

I am truly amazed when I see anyone make a remark such as the one quoted. It seems to imply that you are all knowing regarding HRC, and if we disagree we are not.

I know nothing of your background in politics, only what I see written here.

However, I will be glad to compare my political knowledge with yours in any format. Here, e-mail, your choice.

Hillary Clinton is a politician, but she is also human. There is no way you, I, or anyone else could be as bruised, hurt, and dismayed as she is regarding this campaign, with the exception of Bill Clinton.

I along with many others feel that she is "being the good soldier" regarding Obama, yet going against what she really feels. There is no way she could currently feel a kinship with either the Obama campaign, nor the Democratic Party.

So you believe what you will about "getting" Hillary. Others like myself will continue to believe we "get" her and you and your "must support Obama" cohorts do not.

All we ask is that you and others stop dismissing us as less astute than you. As I said, earlier I know of nothing that makes you, nor Taylor Marsh for that matter, an oracle. I do not profess to be one either. I simply feel that my suppositions re HRC have as much validity as yours.

I will not support Obama, and I feel that in actuality I am supporting HRC's human views as opposed to her political obligations.

[Sparky Duck]

If the shoe was on the other foot, yes I would have been angry, upset, annoyed, because my guy would have lost. And I may not have been making too many donations leading up to the election. But I would also realize what the repercussions overall to the country would be with McCain as president, no matter who the Democratic nominee was, that I would have done my best to not let that happen.
Somewhere, HRC supporters who are defecting will see that.

[Phylise]

"at least he says the right things." "I don't actually care that much about the 'sincerity' of a candidate; all that matters as far as I'm concerned is where his loyalties ultimately lie." Good Gravy! Has it really come to this? How much evidence do you have to be presented with to see that Obama's loyalties lie with himself alone? What you and Taylor Marsh say and do to keep a tenuous grip on your own relevancy is your prerogative. This is out of Senator Clinton's orbit now, and for you and Marsh to be exhorting democrats in exile to jump from the cliff you have been warning them about for months, is disingenuous to say the least. In Taylor Marsh's own words to a commenter who dared question her rapid 180 degree turnabout "that's politics baby!"

[rawdawgbuffalo]

never looked at it that way, interesting perspective and way to keep me on my toes

[damozel]

FROM DAMOZEL:

Again, I am speaking for myself and not for my co-blogger. She does not agree with me.

I am also speaking from the heart. I might be wrong, but I don't think I am. That's all any of us can do --- speak as we find.

Whatever you may want to believe, Hillary Clinton is a lifelong Democrat.

I don't know her personally, true. But I've been following her career for 20-something years. She's lived her life according to a particular set of principles and has spent her life trying to get them implemented. I respect her BECAUSE of this. If she really wished to see McCain win the next round, I'd lose all respect for her. My respect for her is bounded on my belief that she exemplifies the principles that Democrats hold dear.

As for Obama, I don't really care about the personal character of the candidate ---yes, it has 'really come to this' --- if he or she is committed to implementing the right outcomes. I don't care for what I know of Obama, but he has promised to carry out some of the reforms that I -- and Hillary -- would like to see.

I won't believe of her that she is so self-centered and self-serving that she doesn't want this for the nation. She is the nominee I wanted and didn't get, but I believe in her ability to prove everyone who reviled her wrong. I don't think I further that end by deserting my principles or by turning the government over to the Republicans. I have faith in her.

And if she WERE happy to see the Republicans returned to power just to be revenged on Obama, it would prove the GOP and her other enemies right about her and prove me wrong. I won't believe it. I don't believe it.

It's BECAUSE I trust her political acumen that I listen to what she says about what she wants. It's those who say 'she doesn't really mean it!' who are engaged in mind-reading, not those of us who are going along with what she says she wants. I don't have anything else to go on, but I don't think Hillary is a liar. Furthermore, if I'm wrong about her --- if she'd sell out her principles to settle a score, as her enemies often allege --- then to hell with her. But I don't --- I WON'T --- believe that of her. She's better than that.

Vote for whomever you wish, of course. Just don't kid yourself that you're doing it for Hillary, rather than to vindicate your own anger at how she has been treated. But don't pretend you are serving her interests thereby or that you are privy to her secret wishes and somehow carrying them out.

As for vindicating my 'tenuous relevance' ---see above --- I have none. I am a Hillary supporter trying in good faith to work out what she, as the best of the Democratic candidates, would expect of me.

[Danny]

Nice of you to opine. Not interested in your view on why I should vote for Obama. I am not ever going to do that! Maybe you have yet to view the videos of his church folk and so many of his brothers and sisters carrying on cheering, whooping, whistleing, praising Jesus as the Preachers Wright and Pfleger denagrated - chewed to pieces and spit out Hillary bashing and then popped her again to make sure she was buried. FUCK OBAMA and his PEOPLE.

I'm not a racist - but I can plainly recognise racism and that Obama comes from a part of Chicago that plainly is racist towards me and other Caucasions is real simple I will never vote for him because of his RELATIONSHIPS! He can throw the all under the bus and it won't change my mind. Obama is WRONG for this country and if McCain is the only other choice he gets my vote - LIFE LONG DEMOCRAT as I am!

The problem is the candidates the liberal elite like to give us to vote for - We don't like them. They are not our skinfolk or kinfolk as Sharpton said.

[damozel]

DAMOZEL RESPONDS to Danny:

'Nice of you to opine.'

Well, yes. It IS my blog. That's basically what it's for.

If you think McCain will do a better job of protecting your interests, by all means vote for him. If not, and you still want to cut off your nose to spite your face, also your choice.

Hate to say it, but the tone some of you are taking with me reminds me very much of some of the surlier Obots. Again...your choice.

[Danny]

Damozel - You're right about the Obamamites, bots, nuts, amd thugs! The thing that most bothers me about reading blogs and e-mails is you don't always get the right feeling or jest from what was written. What's wrong with blogs in my opinion is we intone what we think the tone is and we do it in e-mails too you can't always get the right tone and some how we often hear anger first but that is not always what is being communicated to you personally but we always take it personally. Now you might think I said that all snitty - but I didn't.

Never meant to hurt you Domozel => SORRY - I just disagree with you on voting for Obama and you gave it right back to me with all the passion you feel about voting for a LOSER! ha ha ha ha ha ha

Yes it is your blog and now you can ban me - Hey then it would be three blogs that banned me but somehow I don't think that is what this blog is about. It was so weird when the blogs I went to for 4 almost 5 years and supported even wrote letters adn made phone calls for all the right progressive issues THEY BANNED ME WHEN I DIDN'T SUPPORT OBAMA all these people who spew freedom of speech until someone disagrees with them and then as much crap as spewed about Hillary I gave it back and then I was the one banned. Yes it's your blog and you can write good stuff. You can get pissed and take it out on your supporters when they don't agree with you too. I just wanted you to know how I feel about Obama. I got your attention and that is what counts! Obama will be downright dreadfull for this country. He will be a disgrace in the same way he took the nomination that was disgracfull, full of deciet and cheating I CANNOT OR WILL NOT REWARD THAT FOR ANYONE OR ANYTHING. Not yelling just making a point.

I have said that Obama is GWB from the opposite spectrum but just the same (does that make since is that how I should fraze it). This Obama Character will do the same evil shit just from the other end of the feild. I don't trust the boring chalkboard boy at all. He scares the shit out of me I don't care what he say's he believes from where he comes from it sounds like all lies to me as a means to an end. He will be as bad from the left as Bush is bad from the right.

I won't vote for another Bush even if he is Obama on the FAR LEFT. That would be doing to this country what the Republicans did to us with Bush.

I don't like what I see when I envision the Obama campaign in the White House. I see that what Obama did and what it took for Obama to get where he is and I saw every dirty trick and lie and underhanded play in the book thrown at Hillary Clinton who took the high road every single time and won more votes and respect than Obama (i erased the cursing). Obama is a complete crapshoot a gamble and I don't do that. He doesn't deserve nor should he get even ONE vote that belonged to Hillary Clinton before the DNC and the backroom rules and bylaws committee with the likes of Donna the cheater Brazile stole the election for OBAMA!

FUCK THEM AND THE HORSE THEY ROAD IN ON!

sorry I still get upset and passionate about the whole god damn charade.

not mad at you and you can ban and delete. I'm just not voting for him and you can vote for who you want to as well.

[Dave_Not_For_Obama]

What it comes down to is a rather very large common denominator, that being that Obama's past corrupt luggage and dirty politics do NOT deserve my vote. It's a principled stand that I take , even if that means I will have to suffer 4 years of McCain until Hillary runs again.

Unity IS NOT about squashing my principles because Obama or the DNC says I must do as they say, principles is about making a hard choice, even if it means 4 years of pain to achieve an end result that makes me proud of my principles.

The guilt trip and nonsense that the Taylor Marsh's of this world spew out does not affect me in the least. You have to remember Taylor Marsh and others have a VESTED INTEREST in keeping their readership, even if that means changing hats to stay in the ratings game.

The Obama campaign clearly has no clue how badly they will be beaten in Nov without us Hillary supporters, reckoning day is not far off. That's not vengeance, it's a principled PAYBACK!!

[damozel]

FROM DAMOZEL

Well, Dave, I don't have any sort of readership on Marsh's scale so that's not my motive. I don't think it's hers either. She has stood up for Hillary against tremendous opposition. But if you look at her blog site, she calls herself DEMOCRAT Taylor Marsh. Her first loyalty is --- as it should be -- to the principles and not to the persons who represent them.

I am just astonished that you think it is more important to punish Obama than to repudiate Bush or the party that enabled him --- particularly given the neocon influence on the Supreme Court and the near-certainty that another vacancy will arise in the next four years.

You'll do as you wish, of course. But you should bear in mind that no one who reaches the Senate gets there with clean hands, and that at the end of the day, the commitment of a public servant to serve your interests is probably more important to your interests than your assessment (from a distance and through a media filter) of his character.

I don't like Obama either and I'm furious with the way Hillary was treated by the media and the DNC. I intend to find ways to show my displeasure to those who brought it about.

But with Bush gearing up to strike Iran, the economy in the sort of downward spiral it's in, America's pathetic standing in the world, the endless war in Iraq, the ever-increasing threat of climate change, and everything else that's bearing down on us, I wouldn't wish four more years of Republican leadership on my country just to express my displeasure at my party's choice of nominee.

Frankly, I think you "Nobama" supporters have lost the plot. You've become what you initially deplored --- fanatical partisans, like the worst of Obama's supporters, who have been so carried away by emotion that there's nothing left but hatred and vindictiveness. It might be better to take a step backward and think about what Hillary Clinton has stood for all these years. She and Obama have the same goals. I agree he is nowhere near as prepared to carry them out, but sometimes in political life, things don't work out the way you'd wish.

You're not serving Hillary's interests, so I hope at least that McCain's goals are consistent with your own. It doesn't sound like it to me.

[FF]

Will I vote for McCain? No. Will I vote for Obama? No.

Yes, I'm a life-long Democrat and a liberal, but Obama is simply NOT qualified to be President. There is absolutely nothing in his background, nothing in his ad-hoc remarks (in unscripted appearances, he is every bit as incoherent as the Shrub and shows an equal lack of command of any issue on which he has not obviously been prepped)to demonstrate to me that he deserves to be President. We are hiring the leader of the most powerful nation on earth; it is not an entry-level job - although, quite frankly, that's the way it is increasingly being thought of.

But there is another reason. The Democratic Party during the past two years has shown itself to be absolutely spineless. Pelosi and Reid are a disgrace. And what the DNC did during this primary campaign is abhorrent to me.

We need a real opposition party in this country - and if the only way I have of sending a message to the Democratic Party that it must earn my vote from now on is to abstain from voting for President - well, that's what I'm going to do.

[Bea]

As a former DNC member and former state chair person from New Mexico, I find it uncionscionable for anyone to put a 'guilt trip' on me or any other Clinton supporter for not 'jumping in bed' with Obama; he's not qualified to be the 'leader of the free world'; his judgment is perverted, can't even have the guts to stand up to his own preacher ---how in the HELL is he going to stand up to Russia, China Iran or any other despots out there ---the pundits are all about Obama's picking the person with the strongest 'foreign policy' experience ---WHY? because he's unqualified to 'pick up the Whitehouse Red Phone at 3:00 AM' without calling a CHENY-type adviser ---NOW THAT'S A REALLY, REALLY SCAIRY PROPOSITION --COUNT ME A SMART DEMOCRAT FOR MCCAIN --

[Bea]

If Hillary could 'really' tell you what's on her mind ---I feel confident, having observed her for many years, that she'd ask each of us to 'do what our conscience' tell us is right; she would, further, not put a guilt trip on any of her supporters to vote Obama --because 'it might hurt her' --GROW UP EVERYBODY ---the most extraordinary woman in the world just suffered the most dehumanizing treatment ever dumpbed on a woman running for office --and you think she's some 'fraidy little scaired kitty kat? Give me a break --she's stronger than ever --she's the new WOMEN'S MOVEMENT all wrapped up in one person --she's earned the right to have her legacy be remembered for the extraordinary things she did ---so let's now dishonor her by talking about trying to 'protect her legacy' ---she's already won in that arena --and Dean, Pelosi, Obama and Company can't take from Hillary the legacy which is already hers

[Bea]

CORRECTION TO LAST BLOG: I meant to state 'let's NOT dishonor her (HRC) by talking about trying to 'protect her legacy'---

[Sparky Duck]

I guess Roe V Wade or throwing no Child Left Behind out is not that important. What rage will do...

[damozel]

DAMOZEL AGREES WITH SPARKY DUCK AND RESPONDS TO BEA AS FOLLOWS:

Unlike you, I don't have the power to read Hillary's mind. I've observed her pretty closely myself and I refuse to believe that the principles she expresses are not the ones she'd urge her supporters to fulfill. As a Senator with a long list of legislative reforms that she'd like to see implemented, I seriously doubt that she wants her supporters to pick a president who is likely to veto them. (either by going for McCain or by NOT voting for Obama).

I wish to believe that she is extraordinary precisely because she IS all about the principles.

In any case, it's not down to her. I want to send a message to the party and I intend not to let them forget my anger --- but I am astonished at you, and any other Democrat, who thinks that getting back at the DNC or David Axelrod is more important than repudiating the eight years we've had of GOP governance. To vote for McCain --- or not to vote for Obama --- is to send the GOP the message that you can live with their policies (and it will be interpreted is such).

it is also to subject your fellow citizens to more Republican-appointed judges.

No one can make you feel guilty but yourself. There's no reason for you to care what I think. But since you brought it up, I DO sort of think you should feel guilty, for making your anger at Obama more important than the graver issues. Hillary's supporters who desert the principles of the Democratic party have lost the plot. There are other ways of punishing the DNC. As for Obama, you lose any influence you have if you decide to become a Republican.

But of course you can do what you want.

[NeverObama]

Demozel, respectfully, you still miss the point and seemingly talk down to us.

You apparently fail to realize, or accept, that this "new" party is not the Democratic party we have known, respected, donated to, and worked for, over many years.

The party you now support, and claim to be dedicated to because of its principles, has become foreign to us. Especially because of what we see as an abandonment of its stated principles of the past.

We know the Democratic Party of old. As I stated earlier we have supported it in every way for years, suffering loss after loss as the "powers that be" chose losers.

Bill Clinton, with HRC at his side, is the only winner we have had, the only 2 term elected Democratic President in 63 years, since the death of FDR in 1945.

The DNC, Dean, Brazille, Shrum, Kerry, Axelrod, Gore, Edwards, etc. are all losers, either as candidates or past advisors. They are the "new" Democratic party. We are tired of losers!

Now, all these losers have supposedly "chosen a winner" for us. It is like having a coach that has never won a ballgame telling years worth of alumni how to be winners.

We do not want to go through another election cycle with a deficient, ego-maniacal, self-destuctive (ie, this primary), rule-breaking, rule-flaunting, Democratic party. We want it destroyed from the top down.

We know what we see and feel regarding this party. Contrary to your labeling it is not about revenge, it is ironically about "change"! We want reformation. We want a return to the Democratic party we grew up with, that tried to govern for everyone, and was inclusive to everyone. The party of FDR.

The only way we can accomplish our goals is to stand steadfast, stand by our "old" Democratic principles, against what we see as a "non-principled" DNC, and bring them down.

To give in now, would be the worst we could do. Then this country would be stuck with a far-left and a far-right period. Both are contrary to our beliefs and our value system. If we must endure 4 more Republican years to have at least one party that considers the center, as Clinton did, then so be it!

We are willing to take that risk! Not out of revenge, out of concern.

[damozel]

DAMOZEL REPLIES:

I am NOT talking down to you.

I think the party --- and certainly the primary process --- needs a makeover too. I don't like Obama.

So far we are in agreement.

I doubt that the party has changed. It's the same as it always was. You just are seeing a side of it you didn't realize existed --- as are we all. You assume that the primary process is the same as the election process. It isn't. It's a head count. The primaries are to give the party a chance to assess the field. They could change the rules to allow them to pick the leader without consulting the rest of us, as the Brits do. We need to get those rules changed.

But you can't change the Democratic party from outside. You can't influence political events, or punish the people who deserve it, from outside. You can go off and sulk in your tents or you can hold your ground and fight back.

Handing a victory to McCain punishes EVERYONE, even the people who know too little about the structure of government to understand what another victory about the Supreme Court, the vetoing of legislation that Democrats ought to want, etc.

You're also forgetting what the GOP did to Bill Clinton and the way in which it's continued --- till Obama --- to try to lay the blame for its every failure at Clinton's door.

And if you let the Republicans win this next round, you're more or less saying that the Bush administration's truly horrifying excesses matter less to you than your disappointment with the Democratic party. The 'losers' and 'winners' argument doesn't hold water. It assumes that Hillary would inevitably have won --- I think it would, at best, be a close call --- and that Bill Clinton's (I love Bill Clinton) administration didn't nearly get put out of business by the GOP. Hillary and Bill aren't saints --- anything but. I love them, but they are professional politicians through and through. They got out-gunned this time. And in the end, I think Hillary benefited from it. She's far more of a personage than before --- she's achieved icon stature --- instead of just being a freshman senator. The Clintons know how to exploit an advantage.

I think the Obama people are arrogant, high-handed jerks who are riding for a fall. I look forward to it. But I don't want their fall to destroy America or put off for four more years universal health care, stem cell research, etc., etc.

However you and the people who think like you rationalize it, you're still making it about your emotions and not about your country's current dire need. We NEED a president who will not put neocons on the Supreme Court. We NEED a president who won't veto universal health care legislation (because no way are we going to get enough Senators to override a veto). We NEED a Commander-in-Chief who will be under pressure to sort out Iraq and put an end to war profiteering.

I called your attitude a bit self-centered, considering. I am not 'talking down' to you; I am speaking as I find. However the 'Never Obama' people rationalize it, it always comes down to 'It's my party and I'll piss on it if I want to!' Even if it means effectively endorsing the GOP, who claimed a 'mandate' with only half the country (if that) behind them in 2000.

[NeverObama]

This says it all basically about how the far-left is now out on a limb with only good-hearted, well-meaning, yet mis-led AAs and some women as support. They miscalculated, even though warned, and now are set for another loss, the third in a row. They insulted, ignored, and denied us, telling us to leave. We have.


From http://nobho.blogspot.com/: Democratic Leadership Council Chairman Harold Ford has a prophetic post dated August 7, 2007 about the danger of the Democratic Party being influenced by the far left liberals of the party:

The Washington Post | Opinion | August 7, 2007
Our Chance to Capture the Center
By Gov. Martin O'Malley and Harold Ford, Jr.

With President Bush and the Republican Party on the rocks, many Democrats think the 2008 election will be, to borrow a favorite GOP phrase, a cakewalk. Some liberals are so confident about Democratic prospects that they contend the centrism that vaulted Democrats to victory in the 1990s no longer matters.

The temptation to ignore the vital center is nothing new. Every four years, in the heat of the nominating process, liberals and conservatives alike dream of a world in which swing voters don't exist. Some on the left would love to pretend that groups such as the Democratic Leadership Council, the party's leading centrist voice, aren't needed anymore.

But for Democrats, taking the center for granted next year would be a greater mistake than ever before.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=110&subid=65&contentid=254410.

The DLC, ie Harold Ford and others, has not had an impact from the inside, this cycle, though they have tried as the above "warning" indicates. I have no reason to believe that we humble, no-longer-wanted members can either.

[Anne Larsen]

NOBOMA!!! A vote for Obama is a vote for baby killers. Please join us and millions of PUMAS in saying no to obama and abortion. Help John McCain overturn Roe v Wade!!!!

[Retro Jordan]

Excellent post. It makes me realize the energy of words and pictures. I learn a lot, thank you! Wish you make a further progress in the future.

[ugg shoes]

I just walk around, suprised by your blog,please give more information.

[ugg boots]

I just walk around, suprised by your blog,please give more information.