Not again!

I’m assuming that the title is a rhetorical question?

zed?

Zeddish?

If the sexist and racist arguments are going to come up in the General Election, what is the problem with igniting them now?

I try not to watch or read this kind of shit, but it really does piss me off. Can’t the two sides see what they are doing to us and the cause? Where is Ed? I think he needs to be hired as a peacemaker.

Excellent, Jane. This type of rhetoric is such a turnoff.

Hello Jane…

I’d rather the GOP lizard brains like tweety did the dirty stuff.

Because we’re Democrats and we don’t go there? Because it’s evil and immoral?

Because women and African Americans are two of the biggest constituencies within the Demoratic party and alienating either of them is really, really stupid?

Just off the top of my head.

Hi, Biodun.

So much for their visions for the future.

But in the general, one side will be the good side and the other will be the bad side. This is happening to us on the good side.

Okay, that makes sense. Like, why try to allow anyone the ability to frame the democratic party as either harboring ’sexist’ or ‘racist’ elements in it?

I get it completely. Thankyou Dosido.

Jane, I have to tell you that I LOVE ED. We need to make sure he is everywhere. Please keep those txt messages coming.

P.S. Tell Ed I think he is cute, too. {{{ED}}}

Because we’re Democrats and we don’t go there? Because it’s evil and immoral?

Because women and African Americans are two of the biggest constituencies within the Demoratic party and alienating either of them is really, really stupid?

Just off the top of my head.

That is why Donnie McClurkin really turned me off on Obama…If that move was David Axelrod and not Obama, Barak had plenty of opportunity to correct it and he didn’t. And let’s not forget an early zinger…Clinton-Punjab-D.

OK, on the subject of race and gender, and the perilous antagonism between these two categories in this election, I have to do this:

I posted this on the (simulcast) Tula thread:

Why this feminist activist is not supporting Hillary:

The sad fact is that Clinton has felt compelled to run as a stereotypical male. In her own mind it is only a certain kind of man who is qualified to be president and she will be that man: tough on everything from war, flag burning, kids’ access to video games, illegal immigrants and Palestinians. She has missed the opportunity to talk about what it really means for women to be equal in this country. She has shown no interest in using her extensive international experience to push for more women in party leadership, state legislatures and even the Senate. A woman candidate who considered her gender a strength (as opposed to something she needed to overcome) would announce a series of measures specifically designed to ensure that women’s needs and rights were at the forefront of her agenda.

For example, she might begin by following the European example and create a Cabinet post on women. In addition to outlining her foreign policy in Foreign Affairs, she might write about women from a thoroughly modern perspective. As important as they are there is nothing new about talking about issues such as violence against women or research on women’s health issues or funding family planning at home and abroad. We need a candidate who advocates for the economic benefits that women all over Europe — and increasingly women in developing countries — have: better support for the retirement of women who do not work outside the home, paid family and medical leave, expansion of Social Security benefits to spouses (mostly women). And we need a feminist candidate for president who is not afraid of issues such as gay marriage, adoption and America’s changing attitudes toward women’s sexuality and all sexuality.

When John Edwards stepped up to the podium to concede victory to Barack Obama, he said, “The one thing that is clear here in Iowa is that the status quo lost and change won.” I do not want a feminism that is part of the status quo, and so I do not want the first woman president to be a Clintonian. Every time Hillary Clinton puts on the mantle of the Bill Clinton presidency and reminds us of how important it is to be practical and work with the other side to get things done, I think of every cowardly practical choice that Bill Clinton (or should I say the Clintons together) made. The “don’t ask, don’t tell” sellout of gays in the military; the abandonment of Lani Guinier; a failed healthcare reform package that would have sacrificed women’s reproductive health to the Catholic Church’s demands as moral arbiter; a welfare reform bill that actually hurt poor women and their families; and presidential approval of a permanent ban on Medicaid funds for poor women seeking abortions.

Think Lani Ganier. Think Marian Edelman. Think Zoe Baird. Think Kimba Wood. Powerfull professional women who have been thrown under the bus.

(Disclosure: I know Michael Eric Dyson personally. I published his first book when I was senior editor at the University of Minnesota Press.)

My take: race- and gender-bait at your own peril. As the French say: “Attention,” which means, Be careful, and Watch out!

Divide and conquor. How many times will people fall for this over and over? And while candidates wallow in the mud, the War College is crystallizing their plans.

Well it seems Hillary has Bill to campaign for her. Now Obama has Kerry. God, Please, Please, Please, pretty please, let Al Gore endorse and campaign for John Edwards. Please. A guy can have hope can’t he.

That would be off the charts sweet.

Biodun @18, one could make a similar argument about Obama.

The discourse and debates in this primary (and general) prez run should of course engage the issues of gender and race, inter alia, but absolutely should not be defined by them.

one could make a similar argument about Obama.

Yes indeed. And I said that last week or so at FDL. I said something like, and I paraphrase here:

Obama has said that race is part of his identity, but that he’s not defined by it. That’s all fine. But that doesn’t justify his elison of racial issues in his campaign.

Look: I’m a refugee from academia and have been involved in the 1980s and 1990s culture wars. I know how incendiary (and dangerous) these issues can be. You have to take a deep breath and tread very very carefully. We need to form tactical and strategic alliances across these categories of difference (like race, gender, class, and sexual orientation) to get things done.

Wanker Jonah Goldberg on Morning Joe. What a wanker.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/….._0110.html

Is it wrong to at least hope that maybe this will turn Democratic voters towards Edwards?

How Stupid Can They Be…

They are about that stupid. I’m not going to vote for Clinton or Obama in the primary, partly because of this kind of juvenile (as in kindergarten) behavior.

I hope whoever gets the nomination has the sense to see this kind of thing hurts the image of the Democratic Party and plays right into the GOoPer election strategy.

Obama has made a mistake that might bite him this election is polarized people are paying attention who is his Penn coming up with this bad advice?

I hope so. I like him.

Wanker Jonah Goldberg on Morning Joe. What a wanker.

What a fucking asshole. When asked by Joe Scarboro why Republican Party electoral prospects are so utterly completely fucked, he responded, I shit you not, “Conservatives are victims of their own success”. I actually thought that Scarboro’s sidekick was going to fall out of her chair when he said this.

Now Andrew Cuomo, scumbag machine politician par excellence, refers to Obama’s “shuck and jive” performance at a press conference.

No, no, no, no Jane. No.

He meant it as in, “bob and weave.” Anyone reading anything else into that is mistaken.

/snark

Just sent off to selise my 300th item for the scandals list. For those of you who can’t wait, and even for those of you who can, here it is:

300. On January 10, 2008, the Justice Department released an Inspector General’s report showing that the FBI was incredibly sloppy in paying its bills on wiretaps. In a sampling of 990 payments from 5 field offices, over half were not paid on time. The study went on to note, “We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence including an instance where delivery of intercept information required by a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) order was halted due to untimely payment.” One field office was behind $66,000 in its payments to a single carrier. The reason for this is that the FBI has no clear accounting system to process, track, and make payments. This allowed one FBI employee to steal $25,000 in such funds. She pled guilty in June 2006. This case raises two issues. The first is how much to trust an organization often engaged in secret and intrusive investigations that can’t even pay its phone bills. The second is just how “patriotic” are the telecoms for whom immunity is being sought with regard to the NSA warrantless wiretapping program when they are willing to cut off a wiretap for nonpayment of service.

Here also are the links:

http://ap.google.com/article/A…..gD8U35BRG3 The AP story
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/repor…../index.htm The DOJ OIG report summary

The brass ring at the carnival is ours for the taking…

Too bad we are our own worst enemy…

It’s time to grow up and stop this nonsense because it will only damage the credibility of both candidates.

In California it is true all sides need to dial it back a bit.
Until the first voting everyone was getting along pretty well but since the primaries have started people have gotten quite testy.

Hugh that’s awesome.

How was your radio interview about your List?

Democrats! Quick, form a circle!

Ready! Aim! Fire!

Hugh, I will update my post to reflect that.Also to reinforce my point that enough is enough.

“Conservatives are victims of their own success”

Oh, you know, like trust fund babies who eventually drink themselves to death out of boredom…

The way to convince Obama is to point out how much the pissing off women by the MSM hurt him in New Hampshire. Him personally repeating that mistake shows he learned nothing from New Hampshire and well…is he trying to throw this race to Hilary?
If the perception among African American voters becomes that he is trying to be Vice President and throw the race to Hilary could hurt him.
God is my sister going to be pissed.

Stick to The Issue Dems: The Bush Administration and their party’s illegal and immoral activities for the past 7 years.

All the campaigns were hoping to win the nominations without shitballing one another and without taking any firm policy positions- but they learned that ain’t a gonna work- so they will try shitballing first and resort to laying out policy firmly as a last resort.

Pssst- Hillary, Obama- there’s running room to the LEFT!

This thread was pulled between comments 23-24 and comment 25, yes? I thought maybe Jane (and the mods) thought the thread was going to explode, given the topic. I’m glad to see it’s back up. We at FDL should be able to handle these issues in a civil and respectful manner. Otherwise there’s really no hope for us, IMHO.

Most candidates still think that independants will select the next prez- and they are probably right.

If we declare the wire taps illegal the phone companies are not going to get squat after all there are laws against making money like writing a book about your crime.

Jane, while some may bang their heads against the wall, I’d say this post is a great attempt to bang some heads together, to try to knock some sense into them.

Good luck with that. Still, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

The Left wins the more we talk about issues the Center Dems win the more we talk about anything else. We can get back at Obama by listing his postions on the issues and what we like don’t like about him.
Of course to be fair we should do that for all the candidates. All FDL has to do is list the issues and we commentors can then list our opinions.
Ignore the distraction fight the real battle.

can someone please tell me- what is cuomo’s official position, within the clinton campaign?

I’m with you on this, IJ. Gore can tip the balance, but timing is everything, I suppose. Edwards is our best hope. And yeah, I said it. The four-letter word that is suddenly in disrepute. Hope, hope, hope. *snark*

I’m with you on this, Jane. We do not need to be tearing each other apart on this. Attack the Republican platform of greed and bad government, so many targets there it should be easier than shooting fish in a barrel. No need at all to be shooting each other.

“Several months ago, when Clinton’s road to the nomination looked considerably easier than it did in December, strategists at the Republican National Committee began to worry. Remembering how Bill Clinton and the Democratic National Committee pioneered the use of soft-money advertising to get — and keep — the jump on GOP nominee Bob Dole in 1996, the RNC began planning ways to prevent the Democrats from getting into position to maul their party’s eventual 2008 standard-bearer.

The Democratic nominee might find it difficult or impossible to gain that kind of upper hand this year, but Republicans will surely suffer if their side remains badly divided long after Democrats unite. Since its 2006 midterm election losses, the GOP has struggled to raise money, persuade incumbents to seek re-election, and build enthusiasm among voters.

The Republican Party will face an immense challenge if Democrats are able to negatively define the presumptive GOP nominee before he can recover from the final contested primaries. The party has enough hurdles this year without having to play that kind of catch-up.”

(Charlie Cook)

Perhaps we should reconsider our strategy and fly under the flag of “independent” so our point of view would be more seriously considered..

LOL…

egregious, Busted,

Thanks. Selise thought the interview went well. It was mostly about how the list came into being. I go to mention fdl and selise.

Ed called me today. I guess Jim Amman has announced his run for governor, so as a member of the Connecticut for Lieberman party I think that will keep him busy for a while.

Since Clinton seems so reluctant to set a fixed timetable for getting us out, and keeps talking about a “responsible” withdrawal, I’m not so sure SHE won’t continue it, if she wins the nomination and gets elected.

And as I remember, while Obama wasn’t in the senate to vote against it, or for it, he was publicly critical of the decision to invade.

And Clinton’s had plenty of chances to apologize for her long support the mayhem-opera, and has yet to do it.

The two candidates are not equivalent in their positions on the war; not even close.

No, I just stepped on Tula’s post, my scheduling mistake.

Neither Hillary or Obama can win a general election. Support Edwards.

this is truly alarming:

We know people have issues with polling in general and with Frank Luntz in particular, but sometimes survey results are just too important to ignore.

To wit:

In a poll that will appear in Playboy Friday, Luntz says that more Republicans than Democrats have sex at least once a week. Fifty-five percent of Republicans but only 43 percent of Democrats report hooking up at least weekly. On the other hand, 67 percent of Democrats but only 51 percent of Republican say they’ve watched porn with their partners.

Sometimes there’s a backstage glitch, and one post goes up early — stepping on the toes of the one that’s already up. When that happens, it gets yanked back until it is supposed to be put up. People who are already in the new thread can keep posting comments to it, but no one new can get in and it doesn’t show up on the front page. When the post is put back up again, all the old comments are there, and everyone can join in the fun.

Given that Tula’s post went up at 10:30, I’m guessing that when this post first went up around 10:45, that was a glitch and it got yanked back. Not because this topic was too heated, but to give Tula’s post the attention it deserves.

We need our side to put up ads in African American and Spanish MSM. The white vote is ours they are informed we need a bigger turnout of minorities. The GOP fears the sleeping giant.
Lets give them fear.
Oh and for the record I’m Mexican.

BTW, as far as I’m concerned, Michael Eric Dyson and Pat Buchanan can duke it out every night, as they seem to like doing from time to time, on Hardball (or on whichever show is trying to get ratings up by having them on air).

Consultants really have the candidates over a barrel telling them to run against their competition. Once the nomination is decided then the nominee will go after the other party. But until the candidates wean themselves from the political consultants (yeah, right) they’ll keep attacking each other.

Agreed, wholeheartedly. Racism and sexism are not what we are about, as a party. When people start fueling racism and sexism, I get a physical reaction, a knot in my stomach. We really, really have to knock it down every time it rears its ugly head.

Mexican-Americans and Mexicans seem a hell of a lot more informed than the average white American, to judge by their marches and protests.

I visit my small home town in rural Wisconsin fairly often. What do i hear in the boonies? Lots of folks expressing a preference for one or another of the Dem candidates with the disclaimer, “but any one of them is preferable to another Republican!”

Also in small town america i hear frequent wish from a number of folks that the whole slate of Dem contenders form a new government, then the discussion turns to an animated discussion of which candidate for which position, Sec of State, Attny General, VP, etc. Instead of Fantasy Football league, Fantasy Government is the new parlor game.

I normally enjoy Dyson’s commentary but don’t know too many campaigns that have been run successfully where the candidate said they weren’t the best person for the job.

Just my two cents.

Luntz says that more Republicans than Democrats have sex at least once a week.

Does the fine print explain that Democrats are 95% more likely to have sex with another person, as opposed to flying solo?

Oh for the record I’m African-American…*g*

Which Beltway blowhard wrote:

The endorsement Obama really needs is John Edwards, whose continued presence in the race is preventing a true referendum between the likely nominees

?

There will be a test in the morning.

Did they Poll Mexicans given our birth rate these numbers seem well…Loony.
The only way to make these numbers right is to claim the GOP numbers on their use of abortion are false.
The GOP is not using birth Control or teaching it in their states the SnarkCassandra has some posts about Texas not teaching birth control in that state.

The Democratic Party is notorious for it’s ability to snap defeat from the jaws of victory.

To be part of a minority population is to generally be an activist by birthright…

(by the way I’m Filipino/French Canadian)…

And not in the Minneapolis/St Paul International Airport?

Dyson yesterday was a real turnoff–busy spewing vitriole, not looking at the camera, totally into himself. Not a pretty sight.

Richardson stepping up to the microphone soon says CNN talking head.

OT, but I have been thinking about the coming 5-4 decision on the non-existant voter fraud cases. If Indiana’s Id law addresses ease of access to these cards,and voter interest is high, why not do a 1965 sign up campaign organized by the netroots? Beat them at their own game despite the onerous rules?

wish I’d thought of that one – heh.

Andrea Mitchell?? She wrote off Edwards this morning on MSNBC.

JayT: What? You got something against a cute little gooper sweatsock?

:o)

But do you agree with what I’m saying and what does *g* mean?

Stop It! Partisanship is good. It’s what competitors do, especially in an election where Main Street voters are desperately hungry fot it. But they want the right kind of partisanship fight. They are exhausted by the lies and timidity of Kneepads Lieberman and his, “How do you like it, sir?” bipartisanship. They are tired of the Harried Reid cave-ins to White House whimpering. They want to see someone standing up for them.

Clinton and Obama and Edwards have been given a gift. Their real opponents in this election are Cheney and Bush. The GOP’ers, Ron Paul excepted, are simply falling over themselves trying to be like them, with more Gitmos, more Homeland In-Security, more tax cuts and more foreign wars and blank checks to pay for them.

Whichever of the Dems demonstrates that they are the most unlike Cheney and the Shrubster, whichever of them appears competent and dedicated to the issues of Main Street America, will win in a landslide. Of course, they have to be street smart in order to fend off the sociopaths of the GOP slime machine, to fend off the wolf-pack of the MSM. They have to know how to motivate and inspire, to get volunteers and voters off their butts and into their checkbooks and the voting booths.

But they can’t win by slamming each other. No doubt, there are Kennedy-family like feuds and grudges among the top contenders. Only the idiots among them would admit to them, much less fight them openly. Voters want to see them fight the Cheney machine, not each other. Cut.It.Out.

I’m quite happily mixed. Somekindacaucasian/hispanic/black. XD Also female so it kinda adds a very distinct thing when i look at the political world in general. So the general want to slap both the Candies across the head for being twits about those issues is there.

(I’m also adopted so the lineage thing is kinda foggy for me aside from the genotypes that i know i’ve got.)

Precisely…

Nice discussion but have to go from the lake…

Take care….

two OfT’s:

there’s a Repub debate tonight? Ooh, live-blogging ahead.

and – Mrs. Greenspan’s back on the teevee doing her tiny-little-self best to torpedo Hillary on MSNBC.

Just voted for Edwards (and against every ballot initiative as usual). Yer on yer way now John!

I support Edwards. And I think there is plenty of material to use to against BO or HRC but unfortunately as HRC said herself, their records are pretty similar!

Talk about the issues and achievements or lack thereof, not if they are black, female or mormon.

*g* = grin

*G* = face-splitting Grin

JayT: What? You got something against a cute little gooper sweatsock?

I’m gonna go with “Don’t ask – Don’t think”.

*g* = grin

*G* = face-splitting Grin

what’s the emoticon for “sh*t-eating grin”?

OT..but kinda funny..

Maureen Dowd weighed in with a column yesterday that made a big splash, pissed off lots of people, and became part of the political conversation about Hillary’s New Hampshire victory. The column — called “Can Hillary Cry Her Way Back To White House”? — was datelined “Derry, N.H.”

The column struck some people as taking a holier-than-thou tone to Dowd nemesis Hillary. But you don’t know the half of it. The column, apparently, was filed from half a world away — from Jerusalem.

link

Is she traveling with the commander?

Andrea Mitchell?? She wrote off Edwards this morning on MSNBC.

Even the liberal Joe Klein …

Good response people just how many nonwhites do we have here? The perception that the Blogs are all White and male seems to be in error. Maybe its time for another survey?
I wonder how will we count the Lurkers? Showing the MSM that they can not dismiss us as having only a white male base would be cool.
Although if we did have only a white male base what would that say about the GOP who depends on White male support for this election.
Hah! either way we win!

I guess we’re all coming out of the closet in this thread…*G*

what’s the emoticon for “sh*t-eating grin”?

*~~g~~* ?? *g~~~~g* ??

Gov. Richardson announcing the end of his campaign right now on CNN.

As one might imagine, Pam Spaulding has a few choice words for Mr. Cuomo — and she, too, notes the misogyny aimed at Clinton as well. Says Pam, toward the end:

This campaign is going to be extremely messy and divisive; the question is whether people are going to actually engage these problems head on, or keep playing whack-a-mole when uncomfortable, offensive events like these pop up. Pols, pundits and people in general are doing everything they can to make this election “post-racial” and too much is emerging that not much has changed.

Not that we’re going to leave it with “not much has changed,” but let’s not pretend we’re past it yet.

It’s a marathon, not a sprint.

My fingers are crossed for him to be Sect. of State

And at the end of the nomination process, we’re all going to have to come together no matter who the winner is or we’ll be looking at a President who wants to continue George Bush’s immoral war.

au contraire we are looking at (D) candidates who will continue Bush’s war already. Clinton voted for it, and continues to fund it. Obama continues to vote to fund it, his claims to end the criminal war reek of poll driven pandering, not principle.

the fact is, if the (D)’s nominate a candidate who claims that aggressive nuclear strikes on another country that poses no threat to the USA (as the recent NIE has confirmed) is an “option that is on the table” then one cannot vote for them if peace and the value of human life mean anything.

a vote for Hillary is just that, a vote for continued slaughter in the quest for empire. Why else are the “defense” industries donating so heavily to her?

More proof the swamp is still full is the fact that only four of the top 10 senators in defense campaign contributions in the 2006 election cycle were Republicans. According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, Democrats Kennedy, Clinton, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, Dianne Feinstein of California, Bill Nelson of Florida, and Democrat-turned-independent Joe Lieberman of Connecticut collected 60 percent of the $1.4 million the industry lavished among the top 10.

Andrea Mitchell?? She wrote off Edwards this morning on MSNBC

Yep. She said rather authoritatively to Monica Novotny: “John Edwards is not a viable candidate at this point.”

Ugh, you all have been reading Time again!

Joke Line is such a jerk. And do you notice how as much as everyone wants to write off Edwards, they keep plagiarizing his debate speech? Ticking me off Big Time.

Change was the keyword lifted from Obama, but Personal is Edwards turf. Hillary used it in her “emotional moment”. In Joke’s column, Mitt is now saying the race is personal for him.

Get your own thousand points of light, god bless it!

Thank you though I still think we need a dictionary of terms for all the new people out there to help them understand what we are saying.
Academia has closed itself for to long with a specialized vocabulary inaccessible to new comers to get respect for their respective studies.
We cannot afford to make that mistake!

TCU, don’t you know you’re on a feminazi blog, absolutely teeming with rabid lambs and Jane Hamshers of the left?

Both Obama and Hillary are owned lock, stock, and barrel by the Zionist Shadow Government — which is paying for their presidential campaigns.

Net Free & Borrowed Reserves of Depository Institutions just spiked to a new low number, a number not seen in the last 100 years. I’ll bet neither Obama or Hillary have a clue about this monetary crisis.

But Ron Paul will know about this crisis and how to cope with it.

…looks like Richardson is making the announcement officially on msnbctv

Oh yes, I completely agree with what you’re saying. g means grin; G means big grin…

If this stuff goes on and scares the Dems enough, wouldn’t there be a push behind the scenes to get Edwards — canonical white male — to be the candidate. Of course, he is now anathema because he is anti-corporatist. So then Bloomberg runs in the middle, some wingnut runs on the right, and, just maybe, the Dem candidate does well. (Don’t want to jinx anything, there …)

Honestly here is where I stand. And I feel very very strongly. BlackAgendareport calls Obama Hillary’s political twin:

The scam of this still-new century enthralls and envelopes the nation, a narrowly-packaged farce in which political twins Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama pretend they are not joined at the hip on every public policy issue that has been allowed to enter the corporate media-vetted discourse: health care, Iraq, trade. Even these points of (non)contention disappear in the din of purely commercial marketing mantras with infinitely malleable meanings: “Change,” “Hope,” “Reform.”

I admit I am very frustrated as to why people see Obama as a reformer especially when it’s clear that he’s determined to be status quo, what with both him and Hillary signing onto the Peru Free Trade agreement as of late. At least Hillary has said she doesn’t think the SocSec “problem” should be framed in Republikan terms as Obama did at the Russert debate.Watching Obama throughout the years since elected as senator has been nothing but disappointment(his equivocating positions that spin out into the void) and sometimes sheer anger, (support for Lieberman and lack of support for the Lamont campaign and Dodds FISA fight.) One thing is that I do not expect too much from Hillary. She’s a good Republikan-lite. What I can’t stand is a person who campaigns as a progressive, or tries to fool folks into thinking he’s a real Dem, and not a DLC-bot. I have never felt this sheer frustration before watching Obama’s campaign and the hyped up reaction to it, except when I was phonebanking for Lamont and trying to convince people that Lieberman (1) lies about not wanting war (2) lied about his social security record etc. etc. *scream* Can we stop talking about hope promise change with these two? They’re the same, only Hillary’s more honest about it.

Agree!

Since Obama endored Lieberman and Clinton endorsed Lamont I will take Clinton. Sucking up to Republicans is going to insure no progress regarding health care, social security, Supreme Court nominations, on and on ad nauseum. I an sad to see so many progressives blinded into submission by their disdain for the Clintons. Hillary is one shrewd operator, and if the corporations think they can buy her off, let them try. Barrack is not seasoned enough for what awaits him in Washington. Just ask Bill “No Honeymoon” Clinton how they handled him in his first 100 days. That bipartisan group hug thing never has worked. Why does my party always have to be the one to “make nice”. Lets elect Hillary and 61 Democratic senators and change the direction of our county for good.

Obama should come out and say he will not accept the support of any race baiting done in his name, as should Hillary Clinton. Cuomo should be denounced by all…..thrown to the lions of political correctness for his “shuck and jive” comment…..

What a bunch of stupid men.

One of the most toxic memes (and very appealing to the rethug base–just read she-who-will-not-be-named malkin) is that it is the Dems who are racist, and more specifically than that, POC are the most racist of all.

And so, we get JJ jr and MED, attacking Hillary in ways are so overt that there is no way to say that it is not calculated on their part–while giving ammo to the rethugs in the general election that it is the Dems who are racist, and then Andrew Cuomo, the thug in waiting comes along and proves their point.

Nice.

In a poll that will appear in Playboy Friday, Luntz says that more Republicans than Democrats have sex at least once a week. Fifty-five percent of Republicans but only 43 percent of Democrats report hooking up at least weekly. On the other hand, 67 percent of Democrats but only 51 percent of Republican say they’ve watched porn with their partners.

I wouldn’t take this too seriously. Republicans lie about sex twice as often as Democrats.

Dyson is hyperarticulate, and so is Buchanan, even if I don’t always agree with what they’re saying. I meant my comment half- tongue and cheek. But last night wasn’t pretty.

In response to IrishJIm @ 76
Andrea Mitchell?? She wrote off Edwards this morning on MSNBC

Yep. She said rather authoritatively to Monica Novotny: “John Edwards is not a viable candidate at this point.”

Bite me, Andrea. It ain’t over til it’s over. All the anger about Bush and the recent insult over misinterpretation of polls makes me say again, Bite me, Andrea.

White, female, older than dirt, reporting for duty, sir.

So, is this what it comes to? There are so few differences in policy between Clinton and Obama that their people are resorting to race and gender bashing?

Is this the Craig-Foley Poll?

I admit I am very frustrated as to why people see Obama as a reformer especially when it’s clear that he’s determined to be status quo

Agreed. To paraphrase, there is none as so blind as the schmuck who will not see.

But see minorities are normally portrayed as conservative on social issues I am rabid try to be Feminazi but I resist the type casting the MSM wants to portray me as.
The most likely to vote Mexicans are the least likely to hold GOP social views! If they Comment or have blogs.

Clinton and Obama even voted together on last spring’s war supplemental. They voted “no” but both snuck in at the very end and quietly recorded their vote, likely with eyes darting about — then tiptoed out.

Some leadership.

Assigning “labels” to people gets complicated. I really never gave the subject a lot of thought until my nieces husband (50/50) West African/Euro said he doesn’t call himself African American because he doesn’t have the social and ethnic history of “African-Americans”.

DLC all the way and I have no idea what his positions are on anything except “hope” and “bi-partisanship” – why doesn’t he say WHAT he will do?

Yep. She said rather authoritatively to Monica Novotny: “John Edwards is not a viable candidate at this point.”

You would think the media would be a little more circumspect in their pronouncements after their track record in Iowa and New Hampshire, but I guess not.

The next debate for Democrats in NBC and the last time
Russert practically gave Obama a blow job on the air.
Clinton better come prepared to fight not only Edwards and Obama but the moderators as well.

this is truly alarming:

We know people have issues with polling in general and with Frank Luntz in particular, but sometimes survey results are just too important to ignore.

To wit:

In a poll that will appear in Playboy Friday, Luntz says that more Republicans than Democrats have sex at least once a week. Fifty-five percent of Republicans but only 43 percent of Democrats report hooking up at least weekly. On the other hand, 67 percent of Democrats but only 51 percent of Republican say they’ve watched porn with their partners. pages.

Fixed.

Correction:

Swedish-American female blogger, older than dirt, reporting for duty, sir.

Is he giving his support to Hillary? He wants to be her VP.

Oh god, just ignore me as usual. blew my joke at 122.

For a defintion of most if not all FDL terms and shorthands, please go to urban dictionary.com.

This is why Edwards needs to stay viable — even if only as a King/Queen maker. So far the arguments seem to be ‘great taste’ vs ‘less filling’

I wouldn’t take this too seriously. Republicans lie about sex twice as often as Democrats.

Fixed.

I’m that way too, Steve.

I have no connection with the US African American culture, especially due to my adoption. Which leaves me closer to the canadian side of my family than the american one. I never thought of my race as an issue, when i visited grandparents and cousins (and a slew of friends too!) over in Ontario and they didn’t give a crap about my skin color. I was just family, and that was that. It still very much IS it. Though my dad’s side, the american side? Is just as color blind too. *grin* Led to a very quiet, but different kinda childhood.

Maybe he’s keeping his cards close to his vest. Saying you opposed the war in 2004 got you blackballed by the media and the Democratic Party. His kumbayah is preferable to known quantity and notorious warmonger Hillary Clinton. Okay, he’s not as progressive as John Edwards…who voted for the war. The optimist in me says he’s the most skilled of the three politicians. I’m all for electing this blank slate. We can fill it in later.

We got it anyway, dosi.

Lord all Friday, we’ve had quite enough of kings in this country. Edwards needs to stay viable to compete for the presidency. Anyone know how SC is looking?

The longer a candidate can stay within an acceptable abstraction, as opposed to getting specific about something, they tend to do so because that’s they way they feel they can hold onto the most support. Otherwise — the more specific, the higher the risk they’re going to alienate somebody.

Just my take.

wouldn’t there be a push behind the scenes to get Edwards — canonical white male — to be the candidate

Actually and ironically (for me), that would be fine by me, thanks very much. I am an Edwards supporter, and I am because he is the only candidate who is talking about poverty.

This whole mess reminds me of a quote GregB posted last night:

We spent the next 8 years giving the truth such a furious beating everytime it showed its face that it eventually stopped coming around altogether. Candidates, voters, the press-noone wanted anything to do with it. The reporters gave up asking serious questions, the voters stopped reading past the headlines, and it was a very cozy arrangement for everyone.

-Allen Raymond, How to Rig and Election

We know the Big media has turned around an filled our air waves with Dobbs and Tweety’s fumes. Big campaigns seem to refuel the whole fiasco by hiring costly consultant pundit gamers. I don’t know how to end it but fighting idiocy with idiocy sure maintains an issue free campaign season with little room for hope of change.

Good point. No more ‘unitary executives’ for me!

no problem, saw where you were heading with it.

They also have more experience hooking up with one another in Men’s restrooms.

This is why I want us to focus more on the issues the candidates support. I don’t want people to argue the petty stuff to much. Sure Obama was a jerk today and he should be called on it.
But I want to here what he stands for. Even more I want all of you to comment on what he and the other Dems stand for because I don’t have a mastery of all the issues.
I would like to argue with all of you as Socrates would have to see if we can find the truth.

Right. But the more obviously stupid the MSM looks, the better I like it. They were certainly squawking alot this week and it was great fun.

Also, any mention of Edwards is probably good at this point. I’m sick to death of H v. O framing. GOP is really counting on the white male vote as though a white male would never consider either one of these two. which I think drives the fricking so called narrative (another word I’m tired of).

Then, whatever you do, don’t let anyone vote for Romney! Please!

Yesterday showed:

Obama 42%
Hillary 34%
Edwards 15%

I wouldn’t take this too seriously. Republicans lie about sex twice as often as Democrats.

Fixed.

those College Republicans are the real out-liars.

See? On Kyl/lieberman Hillary voted yes, Obama stayed away which amounted to a “yes” vote since the legislation would pass. Staying away from Dodd’s FISA fight certainly seemed like a tacit nodd to telcom companies to me. How many times have they both done that? I am sick of the shell voting. I am sick of the dishonesty (Personal history: This is what enraged me about Lieberman, about the time of the Alito nomination) . If hillary and Obama are running for a leadership position, they should both be called on their DLC-Bot histories.

Instead of fighting each other – voters already know that only one of them can win – the Dems should devise and sell what they’ll do once in the White House. Getting there will be the easy part.

Voters want to be told that what they see with their own “lying eyes” is really happening. To hear what they already know, that aspiration and inspiration aren’t just electioneering: we’re gonna need ‘em, because we’ve got a heckuva job in front of us. The federal govt’s tasks are as hard and resource limited as any working single mother’s on minimum wage. But.We.Can.Do.It. Just like they do. Somehow. But only by pulling together.

We need to stop torturing, and stop lying about it. To stop ignoring inconvenient laws, and writing secret ones and spying on friends and neighbors without warrants. To stop taxing middle America but not the rich. To stop needless foreign wars. To stop subsidizing the richest corporations and agribusinesses in America. To stop lying about it.

We need to recognize what Main Street never stopped seeing. People are losing their homes and hopes of college or betterment for themselves and their children, but that all Bush and his GOP successors want to do is bail out the lenders. Our boys and girls need to come home from Iraq and Afghanistan; and we need to fix the broken ones, not dump them on the back streets like a Los Angeles hospital.

Lastly, Main Street needs to hear and beleive, that as new problems come up (yea, “problems”, not “challenges” or “opportunities”), the interests of Main Street will be heard, not discarded like an inconvenient White House e-mail.

Assigning “labels” to people gets complicated. I really never gave the subject a lot of thought until my nieces husband (50/50) West African/Euro said he doesn’t call himself African American because he doesn’t have the social and ethnic history of “African-Americans”.

Yep. My kids are biracial and their heritage spread across many nationalities and ethnicities. So they go experience all this all the time. But they really embrace it and IMHO, they’re the richer for it.

That is my hope. Hillary and Obama tearing each other up leaves Edwards to pick up the pieces.

Hi Mommybrain,

I respect those who are not crossing the picket line and I hope I am not a scab for telling you that I watched Jon Stewart last night. He had the most skewering bit on Mitt and his shapeshifting. Which is why I missed these shows so much.

It’s interesting that the guests on both TDS and TCR are decidedly rightwing. The bookers probably have the corporate bosses calling in favors to keep the show going.

I think their number also includes children, which would explain part of the gap.

And they both were no-shows on the recent war supplemental.

The American political system spawns multimillion dollar fees for people like Howard Wolfson, Mark Penn and Patti Solis Doyle–he of media relations for Senator Clinton. A cap has been imposed by both Republicans and democrats to limit the millions divided by people who run campaigns for these candidates, say from $5 million split by three people as Schrummie did from Kerry to a little less.

Clinton added Maggie Williams, a longtime confidante to the former first lady, and Doug Sosnik, who served as White House political director under Bill Clinton last night to do exactly what Jane abhors.

Unfortunately, these people are not going to check facts and are going to play on the lowest primitive, lizzard brain instinctsrticularly Senator Clinton’s campaign. One venue she does have experience in is campaigning, as opposed to foreign policy or legislation that actually protects your civil rights.

Because of this, it’s fortunate that Obama has developed a rapid response team that will be answering all the lizzard brain fictions spun out by the Clinton campaign.

I understand Jane is posting in a non-partison tone, expecting that both sides adhere to common sense and ethics. I don’t expect that to happen unfortunately.

Instead of fighting each other – voters already know that only one of them can win – the Dems should devise and sell what they’ll do once in the White House. Getting there will be the easy part.

Voters want to be told that what they see with their own ”lying eyes” is really happening. To hear what they already know, that aspiration and inspiration aren’t just electioneering: we’re gonna need ’em, because we’ve got a heckuva job in front of us. The federal govt’s tasks are as hard and resource limited as any working single mother’s on minimum wage. But.We.Can.Do.It. Just like they do. Somehow. But only by pulling together.

We need to stop torturing, and stop lying about it. To stop ignoring inconvenient laws, and writing secret ones and spying on friends and neighbors without warrants. To stop taxing middle America but not the rich. To stop needless foreign wars. To stop subsidizing the richest corporations and agribusinesses in America. To stop lying about it.

We need to recognize what Main Street never stopped seeing. People are losing their homes and hopes of college or betterment for themselves and their children, but that all Bush and his GOP successors want to do is bail out the lenders. Our boys and girls need to come home from Iraq and Afghanistan; and we need to fix the broken ones, not dump them on the back streets like a Los Angeles hospital.

Lastly, Main Street needs to hear and beleive, that as new problems come up (yea, ”problems”, not ”challenges” or ”opportunities”), the interests of Main Street will be heard, not discarded like an inconvenient White House e-mail.

Since Obama endored Lieberman and Clinton endorsed Lamont I will take Clinton

No more complicated than that. Obama and Clinton both endorsed Lieberman during the primary. Then Obama weakly endorsed Lamont, and didn’t do sh*t about it. Hillary was a little more helpful.

so will you sit out the general if the (D)’s run with a corporate, neo-con candidate?

a pox on both their houses, tend the autumn garden in November.

don’t bring the blood a militarist (D) will shed onto your conscience by endorsing their actions in the voting booth. easy.

or, sign on to team (D), but stop talking about war and peace as if it is not just a wedge issue to gain leverage for the (D) faction.

Heh, I like that idea a lot.

See? We could come up with a list on those two.

While Obama and Hillary go stoopid with each other Edwards could (should) move above the fray and call for peace while making his case and NOT joining in the knife fight while doing so.

He can benefit here while the two front-runners screw up. He could then either move up in the race or make significant gains and, in so doing, perhaps teach Obama and Hillary the error of their ways (and demonstrate the danger of what they are doing). I can’t help but think that if this crap goes on and gets even worse that it helps Bloomberg – who could time his jump into the race properly.

Did I say I would not vote Democrat? What led you to that assumption?Is asking for a little more honesty and specificity in how we debate the differences or similiarities between candidates the same thing to you?

Sorry but the spector of “bomb Iran” McCain, and creationist science ed Huckabee is far far scarier than any of the Dem candidates. I didn’t mean to sound testy.

I’m an advocate of not voting (D). very telling that this position is mistaken for sarcasm. good posts, good stance mui1.

but if enough is never enough with ‘progressives’ or the ‘Left’, what is to stop the (D) party from turning into a power seeking faction barely distinguishable from the (R)’s?

oh, yeah, that already happened.

This is solipsism.

LOL

hose College Republicans are the real out-liars.

Thought I heard they tended to be non-out-liars.

the word you might be searching for is “Apostasy” or “Heresy”.

questioning groupthink assumptions is not solipsism, for many do not choose to be sheep, and can explain their reasoning.

You’re the regular second coming. What annoys me is that you’re hectoring someone, mui, who actively worked on the Lamont campaign, if I’m not mistaken.

You may actually be right here, BT. Andrew Cuomo may have just been trying to sound cool, and flopped. Something similar happened to my son, James. Once, when he was in 3rd or 4th grade, he was out on the playground with his (mixed) group of buddies. They were jiving around and James said something to the effect of “What up, my N**ger?” Boy! did the fecal matter hit the fan after that! I had to explain to the principal and the other kids’ moms how I wasn’t really raising my kid to join the KKK. The point is, that a) African Americans are very lingustically influential, even in white bread American culture; and b) Some of the language that blacks use freely among themselves causes gets a very strongly negative reaction when innocently (giving AC the benefit of the doubt) used innocently by us honkies. Just sayin’.

Regularly hectoring? Excuse me. I don’t regularly hector anyone. What does Lamont have to do with not understanding whether or not Sporkovat was asking me whether I was going to do “autumn gardening” instead of voting Dem? Then chalking up the misunderstanding to “group think”.

Oh I am sorry, does this really have to do with the little A*P*C disagreement? Now its hectoring. Scratching my head, and trying to understand where this is coming from.

Mui, brendan was defending you

OK, I don’t know why the Clintons got involved with Andy Cuomo, or if they felt they couldn’t avoid it, since he’s the second most powerful Democrat in NY (they certainly didn’t do it to oblige the Kennedys), but given that they made that questionable move, he’s somewhere between well-known, notorious and infamous for being unstable and having a mind like a sewer.

I question their taking him on, but I’ll be honest with you, nobody has to coordinate assholishness with Andy Cuomo (Ed Koch still blames him for the Vote for Cuomo – Not the homo signs when he was running against Mario, who was popularly thought not to have been involved).

He was. OK I am confused. Hi Mommybrain.

Sorry brendanx. *slaps head*

Hi Mui. S’okay, that’s a regular part of my day, being confused.

Mine every once in a while. It’s the punctuation I tell you.

For me, I’m telling you, it’s the 9 yr old.

For me the hypoglycemia is the kicker. Try to eat that protein lunch but . . .

Stop it, Jane. Read the whole transcript and you will see you are simply wrong on this one. There is enough racism in this nation; you need not conjure it up from nothing. The expression clearly was not targeting Obama. Furthermore, as a number of readers have noted, it is commonly used now to describe clever dissembling free of any racist connotation. I know righteous indignation is a thrill, but you are far off base this time.

This election is way too important to waste on the “I will say anything to get quoted” ramblings of Jesse Jackson, Andrew Cuomo and please someone take Chris Matthews off the air.

We need to support “talking heads” who refuse to encourage inappropriate comments, and demand they confront racist/sexist remarks at the time they are made.

The candidates have to take responsibility for the comments made by aides. We have had enough of the “it wasn’t my fault” mentality.

I want to know how the candidates are going to change the status quo. How they are going to pay for change and how they will assimilate with Congress.

One thing New Hampshire did prove is that the American People have a far better understanding than they were given credit for.

Jane: I think you underestimate how perfectly you said it. I searched all that others said and your word was the most succinct, clear and unyielding.

Kudos for that.

Let’s play a drinking game and slam one every time some yahoo uses the Time-speak work “kudos.” And Jane, show us you can belly up to the bar and admit when you are wrong. Check the usual blogs and you will see how far far off your take on Cuomo’s comments is.

Wow.

friend of tanbark’s, douglas?

And another thing, although Digby added a quick reference to first takes on Cuomo’s comments, the whole point of his piece was that we need to be very careful about reading racism into everything, particularly in this election. So, yes Digby had it right, but because he warns of what you are doing wrong. Congratulations to Digby. (By the way, for a while another Time-ism was popular, their word for suicide by jumping out of a window was “defenestration.” And no, Jane, the protector of all that is pure, I am not suggesting you or anyone else do that. Please don’t whip up another batch of indignation over that.

I don’t understand the comparison to Tanbark. Did you parse some sexual innuendo in my posts?

Digby’s a “she,” Mr. Sensitivity.

Wow, Jane, you cut right to the heart of my arguments about your finding a racist in every closet with that rebuttal. You often make a lot of sense, but apparently lack the sense to admit when you jumped the gun. How does your knowledge of the sex of a pseudonym add to our debate?

And Eric Dyson has lost his damn mind! My God, first the women in NH were marked as stupid or silly by the press and now they’re racists!

You have got to be kidding me. Things are going to get ugly in SC. Obama will still likely win, but damn, will it leave everyone battered.

What sexist arguments has Obama spoken? Or, for that matter, and of his campaign staff?

Because it sounds to me like her supporters are trying to smear the tweety-crud on ANYONE who is opposing her. I’d like to see the links to Obamas sexist arguments.

I welcome a little mud-slinging. Hillary’s looking at a tough primary to win, in S.C.. Maybe two, counting Nevada. I think the “unity” calls are the same old dogwhistles for “Play nice and don’t talk specifics; that way we can get on with the coronation process.”

We’re about to the point that any criticism of Clinton, no matter how specific or factual, is sexist. It needs to stop.

Jane, this has to be the first time I’ve ever thought you might be even the slightest bit naive.

It takes a certain kind of person to apply for the toughest job in the world to obtain, and this type of person doesn’t give a shit.

IOZ is right on this one.

Which, I have to add, does NOT mean you are not absolutely spot-on, viewed in larger terms.

They just can’t help it. And in some respects, it is our fault. Not us political junkies, we get it, but the electorate at large, comprised hugely of morons.

The focus here regarding the Obama campaign is the charge of racism against HRC and her voters.

The press is the one that has been overtly bigoted in terms of misogyny.

The press rules all things political. TV, the worst “press” of all, is still the overwhelming choice for voter information.

Which is why candidates spend so much dough on TV ads, and why we are so totally fucked.

haven’t run thru the comments yet and assume this has already been said, but the MSM would love nothing better than to push a gender/race war… Matthews would be in HEAVEN!

needless to say, United We Stand, Divided We Fall…

Conflict eqauls money, folks. For all concerned (primarily about money) parties. Like, oh, I don’t know, individual entities with shareholders.

It is spectacular how many people still cannot connect the dots. Not in a good way, though.

ANY conflict, no matter how small.

On this we can be clear when it comes to the Corporate Media.

” And at the end of the nomination process, we’re all going to have to come together no matter who the winner is or we’ll be looking at a President who wants to continue George Bush’s immoral war.”

And if said party did not forward a “do over” candidate, and all the party faithful did not jump on the band wagon and start dutifully repeating “Hillary is THE candidate” get behind and push, why we would have had an actual candidate to evaluate.

Jesse Jackson Jr’s statement was spot on. “Hillary cried about her appearance but didn’t cry over Hurricane Katrina”. THIS is not a sexist statement and could be said of any gender and be just as true. This reveals her ploy. And make no mistake, it was a cold calculating ploy. Worked too.

Right now everything anybody says against either Clinton or Obama is sexist or racist according to many who would rather obscure the actual issues than discuss a way out of this mess.

The two currently leading candidates are part of the capitulation Congress. Both are bought and paid for by the people they claim they want to take on. Now, without mentioning race or gender, how’s that square up with where we need to go? It doesn’t. Both would have you believe reaching out to the rabid right bushies is going to build a bridge. It won’t.

Both are varying degrees of more of the same.

Truer words never spoken, Jane.
Let’s leave the low road to Karl and be done with it.

You can get “best,” folks, you can only get “better.”

You’re both right, John and Myrtle, but it doesn’t matter this year. The country’s future is at stake this time, and an even borderline election will increase the odds that the future is not so good.

I do not agree that Hillary’s watering was in the least bit contrived. I can’t stand it when people think they know others’ motives, because most people should be self-aware enough to know motivation is infinitely unique, both in terms of substance and timing. It’s equivalent to suggesting to us YOU would be the one that dove on the grenade to save all your pals. Well, OK, maybe.

But running for President is obviously the most exhausting quest on the planet. I know, I know, they just shouldn’t ever crack. Especially if they’re a woman.

This notion that Hillary, whom I do NOT SUPPORT, is not a human being is truly weird.

Everything you two know about these two is filtered through an infinite number of biases and agendas, too. What ever happened to, “walk a mile in another person’s shoes?”

Don’t care what you think, nor about whom. Just cast a vote for your country this fall.

Democrats! Quick, form a circle!

Ready! Aim! Fire!

Two participants: Obama & Hillary.

High noon!
Out in the street.
Big guns by their side.
They take aim at their opponent.
The advisers scurry for cover.

Meanwhile, John Edwards sits in a rocking chair in front of the general store and chews on a hayseed while he watches them blow each other to smithereens. When it’s done the camera zooms in on Edwards and his fantastic smile. heh

I want all of you to comment on what he and the other Dems stand for because I don’t have a mastery of all the issues.
I would like to argue with all of you as Socrates would have to see if we can find the truth.

You’re a little late to the party (the campaign started in January ‘07), but here’s the fundamentals.

Obama – from Chicago by way of Harvard Univ., Columbia Univ., Hawaii and Indonesia & Kenya; Muslim father, one father died one deserted; raised in Hawaii, school in L.A. where he partied, smoked weed and snorted coke, Columbia Univ where he finally excelled, Harvard Law where he really excelled and became editor of the Law Review (very prestigious); went to Chicago where he ‘organized’ grass roots, did civil Rights law work, never saw a courtroom, taught Constitutional law, got into government and ascended very quickly; he campaigns as a Progressive, but reaches out to independents and Republicans with both idealism and rhetoric/policies.

Clinton – from Chicago her family was middle class, her parents were Republicans and her father owned a small business (dunno what); off to Wellesley in the East where she did great (voted most likely to become first woman president!); Yale Law, married Bill; flunked D.C. bar exam, helped kick out Nixon, off to Arkansas to live politics and corporate law (first woman in historic Rose law firm); Bill won elections; ‘88 convention speech went okay, ‘92 presidential campaign, you know the nastiness through 2000; Hill runs for the senate in NY (their new home), she defeats Rudy Giuliani (who was ill), she wins re-election and begins to run for president; she campaigns as a traditional Dem with experience and good intentions and a mix of liberal policies with hawkish foreign policy (very Joe Liebermanish)

Edwards – born in S. Carolina, moved to NC young, lived in poverty in a mill town; went to Auburn briefly, on to NCState Law school at UNC (I think); 20 years as a trial lawyer where he fought corporate stupidity and won repeatedly, became wealthy; ran for senate and defeated a Republican and the Jesse Helms machine; ran for president in ‘04, V.P. on ticket with Kerry, cheated out of win by Bush & Co in Ohio; set up program in NC to help kids get better education; worked for a hedge fund (not sure what capacity) until Katrina and the fund treated people badly; dealt with his wife Elizabeth’s cancer; running for president now as a Progressive populist Democrat who has all his best lines stolen by everybody Dem and even Huckabee and now Romeny on the Repub side.

Questions?

Amen. Back from the protein ingestion and apologies again to Brendanx.
MarkH, maybe we can come up with a list: Hillary/and Obama twins, because there are similarities in their voting patterns. The only difference is that Obama gets styled as some new modish “progressive” type charismatic leader which we all know is BS. Then after we list the similarities in record down to each and every bill, we can point out the lines that actually originated with Edwards. I am so frustrated with the media. Trying to convince folks that Obama is not exactly different from Hillary is like pulling teeth.