!

“Carville and Begala off my fucking TV” -Jane —ILU – So true!

Hi, Jane!

I just want to go sleep and wake up with the primaries over, so we can get down to vilifying whichever insane wackadoodle wingnut fucknozzle wriggles out of the clown car first.

Bullsye, as per usual.

Many thanks.

ah thank you Jane- the anti-pundit. My antitdote to what ails us all on MSM….

agree completely about wanting to see a new set of Demo idea mavens and that the Clinton’s will offer some of the folks we love to hate, but they also had some good people, too. His supreme court picks were first rate, as well.
Just saw OB give a speech in SC and yes he is very much able to defend himself and not the “victim” of bullying clinton’s, as the media meme goes.

It shouldn’t have taken them having to repeatedly point out the obvious conflict of interest for it to happen, but it’s a friggin’ mitzvah.

LOL
Thank you! Yes it is.

Jane writes:

Jon Chait writes that Bubba’s “affair with Monica Lewinsky jeopardized the whole progressive project for momentary pleasure.” I’m awaiting the smug, insufferable essay on how JFK risked the Bay of Pigs ‘cos he couldn’t keep his pants zipped, because I’m pretty sure he’s probably the only other politician who ever had that problem.

Way too many politicians have “zipper problems.” How else to explain the Beltway view of Henry Kissinger as a “stud.” (shudders)

Thanks Jane. But what is the logic of Brack avoiding the votes in a heavily Democratic district that almost assuredly would never make an issue of his positions? In fact, I wouldn’t think that it would be an issue for Statewide office in Illinois.

So why did Obama “need cover”? Was he THAT ambitious? But doesn’t he have other pro-Life attachments that could be used against him? What’s the logic here? Did he miss other votes at the times he missed these?

It’s just damn odd.

And you are absolutely correct on Bill’s lame efforts to attempt to assert that Obama wasn’t opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning.

The excuse, threadbare as it was, is not that Obama was getting cover — it’s that he was giving it. Doesn’t make much more sense, but that’s what it is.

It is the Illinois chapter of Planned Parenthood that has been defending Obama’s “present” votes as part of their strategy, just to clarify. They also said it worked really well. Not sure if that means much, but in comparing to the CT Lamont race, and the difference between the national and local offices of Planned Parenthood. it seems like a good distinction to make.

Also, how about Obama’s shunning of Pox Newz? He first started that a year ago now. Then refusing their debates along with Edwards, and the recent brush-off of Bill O’Vibrator. Obama has done a lot to change the game in BigMedia. He’s living up to the “Change” theme certainly in this regard so far.

when the time is right the clinton camp will bring it. it’s not the 5hr
working relationship obama claims it to be. i’d say good luck with that.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/…..;cset=true

Whistling Past Dixie
and that’s the truth.

Just to be clear: This is not meant in any way as a complaint about the attention paid here at FDL to primary campaign strategy and the “horse race”. In fact, I have been a critic here in the comments of those who barge in and complain that there is no discussion of “the issues”.

I had forgotten about the Clinton campaigners, so Bill has been channeling the ragin Cajun, eh?
The thing is this: it is not to anyone’s credit to be compared with Lee Atwater, and my take is that Obama is not doing well in responding because he never can take it to a new level, is stuck in “your mama”; he seems weak and defensive to me.
You have promoted a turn and attack mode of responding, but your mama is not much an attack–”he’s lying about me” is pretty whiney. Obama’s deal to be credible has to be one in which he jiu-jitsu’s ad hominem attacks in such a way that he reminds people of the actual stakes at hand and how/why he will address them. As a woman I recently spoke with asserted, he appears to lack the spirit it will take, and that’s in my opinion because everyone is running to protect him, but because he doesn’t know how to integrate what is happening to what makes him an appealing candidate.
This who stimulus business (let’s five another sawbuck to the poor, and more of our treasury to business–that’ll solve the problem) and the FISA business–I want realtime action. I’m turned off by the direction the Dems have taken because it’s a direction in lieu of a direction.

I understand their argument, I just don’t buy it and it smacks of ex-post-facto covering for a candidate they are trying to ingratiate themselves with, something they do a lot on both the national and the local level.

And it was CT PP that told their membership to thank Lieberman, national NARAL. It’s a systemic problem.

Since you mentioned Samantha Power this piece over at EP is a good read and mentions Power.

DLC.
DemocraticLoathsomeCorporatist.

Somewhere (Kos blog?) I read about Andrew Young’s(a Bill Clinton supporter) comment to the effect that Bill loves blacks and probably has known more black women in his life than Obama. If Young really said this – Wow.

Having only lived in IL for 3 years, I’m not even close to understanding our state legislature but I have gotten numerous notes from IL bloggers saying the present votes were requested by IL Planned Parenthood and cheered on by them. I don’t understand how that works … at all but it is worth noting.

Still Obama has been less than feisty in the Senate and I prefer feisty.

At the same time, I really dislike the racial divide the Clinton campaign is using … and I think we will pay for that tactic for many years.

All considered, give me Alan Grayson from today’s Blue America and more like him! we sure aren’t getting that quality in our presidential choices so we really need to build the team for the day we do!

We are not hearing much about the affluent, upscale, well-educated whites who have been with Obama elsewhere. But I guess this being the South, such people are relatively scarce?

Huh? You mean that racist folks who were Pro-Choice would suddenly become “Anti-Abortionists” in his district if they learned that Barack Obama was supporting Choice? Yeah, that must be it.

But I still can’t figure out the argument made from the folks saying he needed to hide this in his record. Any group wanting to attack him on this issue would simply have to use his wife as their barometer.

I liked Andy Young’s recent insightful pronouncement that he’s sure Bill Clinton has “gone with more black women” than Obama. There’s a slogan for the ages.

Yeesh…thanks for the clarification. Systemic indeed.

Reminds me of why the Blue America races are probably the most important for us in the Netroots. This is where we have the most impact. We’ve made progress in influencing Presidential races, but this primary season shows we still have a ways to go. The previous thread with Alan Grayson is a good example of the kind of candidate we can definitely get to Warshington.

http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/18665

MSNBC yammering on about some dust up between McCain and Romney. What’s this about?

Democrats Loathing Citizens

He did … then tried to say it was just funnin’

Not the quality of campaign discourse we need, eh?

I think Obama is faced with a very difficult campaign problem … he needs to find the tone to slap down the smears without appearing whiny or reinforcing a black v white theme. I am very glad when he goes at it from the “distortion” angle … this could be much nastier if he chose a differnt course.

And I’d like to see John Edwards stepping up more with the adult theme – and would have loved seeing him actually take on the FISA issue … he had a chance to elevate an important issue and the overall discourse at the same time and he chose not to …

Interesting piece about Michelle Obama in the latest (okay, I’m behind on my reading, so maybe it’s last week’s) “Newsweek”.

Predictions on SC? I say Obama 40, Clinton 30, Edwards 30. Nice, even numbers for y’all to pick at.

Your quote is probably closer than mine. Still Wow. And Young is a Clinton supporter!

“No one could have foreseen that Carville and Begala were intimately connected to the Clintons.”

Democratscorporatist Loathing Citizens

fixed?

If Young did say that, it further illustrates why I think the Obama phenomenon is more of a generational shift, rather than race-based (whatever the hell that means). The BigMedia is desperately trying to make it about race and gender, but the numbers haven’t been backing that up so far in Iowa/NH/Nevada.

Yes. And even if he was funnin – there are some things/contexts one just don’t think of “funnin” about. The “joke” itself is noteworthy.

I don’t usually chime in with comments but, as a SC voter, I want to share a couple of thoughts with you. 1) I was sufficiently ticked off at the media hype about “white voters” and Obama, that it pushed me (a white woman) to vote for him. 2) I probably would have voted for Edwards otherwise, just because he seems slightly more progressive than the others, but certainly did not think that Bill and Hillary were way out of line. Our polling place was very busy and I look forward to casting my vote for any of them in November, even though the sorry Rupublicans will doubtless carry this state. Thank you Jane and Christy et al for continuing to fight the good fight.

Apparently yet another strong Democratic turnout in the South Carolina Primaries…apparently double that of the Republicans. That bodes well in the General Election and may mean that many more Democratics than expected may end up winning than expected. People are fired up for positive change.

I tend to get misty eyed when I see people going out to vote…maybe it’s because I’ve lived and visited in places where people never get a chance to, or have had the right taken away.

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/…..a_politics "> Voting in Rural South Carolina

http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/…..a_politics ">Voting In the Democratic Primay- S. Carolina

Polling in S. Carolina

Siun: Do you have your own blog space?

It’s about who is more committed to the pathetic surge. It’s about who can say we “can’t lose” in Iraq but won’t define what is winning. It’s about chickenhawk Romney keeping his five sons on American soil. We’ve lost sixty ways to Christmas, billions of dollars, and thousands of dead bodies in Iraq.

It’s about a surge whose only serious option is staying in Iraq forever.

Thanks for the insight!

sure :)

Jane: Not only do the pundits disappear JFK’s affairs (and those of pretty much every pol who isn’t a living and active Democrat), but they seem to have utterly forgot the name of Jennifer Fitzgerald. You know, Bush the Elder’s “good friend” and “office wife”?

DinosLickingCheney

Generational yes, and “change,” – i.e. sick of people who are subverting the progressive agenda to fund/support their own interests (Rahm), religious concerns (Lieberman, Schumer), and personal failings (B. Clinton)

Jane,
Thank you for the great post. When I comment here I hardly ever comment intellectually, I am not one, I have always operated right or wrong from my heart. I don’t know who it is that I will vote for but I do know in the core of my being that Hillary is the absolute wrong choice, not because she is a woman, but because she will further distance our party from the place it should occupy and send it down the river of corporate governance which is a grave mistake big enough to destroy our country in the end, and the inevitable inclusion of Bill does no one one any good. One of the beautiful results of this campaign Is thinking of Barak Obama as president without the b word coming into play, at least in my personal world, and that gives me hope because we are all in this together and color and gender mean nothing. And If he is the candidate, I think I lean that way, we are going to have to band together like brothers and sisters big time, the opposition is going to rip him apart.
Keyboard commando’s man your keys, together we will kick some serious butt
and if we get knocked down one can lift the other, as you have done for me when I wanted to quit.
Oh say can you see
By the dawns early light
Fingers enjoining the fight…sorry that was bad. the devil made me do it.(laughing

Andrew Young also said recently that “Hillary Clinton is as black as Obama“. Kamp Klinton is full of aging hacks like him who were once upon a time principled and relevant like they once were. They have become a cult of power-hungry dinosaurs who will indiscriminately trample everyone who gets in their way. Time to make them extinct!

We need to push the ”Hillary is McCain’s BFF” story, especially to the Florida Thugs. Go….Mittens!!!

And Bush’s back door “wife”- Gannon

Thanks for sharing “on the ground” info! Any other thoughts about what’s going on in SC will be eagerly accepted!!

So true.

Thanks for telling us about your polling place. I’m encouraged that it was busy — that bodes well, I hope, for November.

If I heard it right, McCain painted Romney as supporting an Iraq withdrawal date and Romney, fearing the surrender monkey label, protested. Basically two guys competing for who is the most wrong.

Time to make them extinct!

Where’s an asteroid when you need one?

Apparently yet another strong Democratic turnout in the South Carolina Primaries…apparently double that of the Republicans.

That can’t be right. 443,203 people voted in the Republican SC primary and the state went 71% for Bush in 2004. Your links aren’t working for me. Can you repost them?

Don’t think he meant it in the “Biblical Sense” IF he said it. Doiesn’t sound like something that Andy Young would say. Maybe someone is “interpreting” something else that was said.

Hi Jane.

I am tired of both Clinton and Obama already. Both Clintons actually.

If I heard it right, McCain painted Romney as supporting an Iraq withdrawal date and Romney, fearing the surrender monkey label, protested. Basically two guys competing for who is the most wrong.

Ha! That is so sweet! Each of them screaming “IRAQ 4 EVER!” louder than the other one. Great material in there for campaign commercials in the general election.

Funny you should say that…they just reported that a spy satellite that might have missiles on it and probably has hazardous materials, has lost power, and they’ve lost control of it, and it will hit somewhere on earth in late February.

i agree, no question. at andover they called him bendover.

I don’t understand. Edwards is more progressive which you like but you voted for Obama because you are angry with the media. Please explain.

That should have been a response to PhysioProf at #51…

It is exactly as you say it, Jane; it is the “[effing] hacks” that bothers me most about Hillary gaining the Whitehouse. Of course First Lad Bill will be instrumental in bringing back in all the regular old cronies that do the progressive movement little to no good.

But I’ve also had a hard time getting behind Obama. He seems to be a lot of hat and very few cattle.

Edwards? Maybe the same as Obama, but it seems to me his words contain more substance than Obama’s, or maybe that’s just me. Nevertheless come Feb 5 I’m voting for John Edwards, not that I really think it will make any difference. I’m fairly certain he has no chance of gaining the nomination but at least I’m still voting my conscience. Regardless, I’ll be voting come November for whichever Democrat gets the nod. At least progressives have more chance with the Democrats than the Rethugs. Ah, in theory, at least.

S. Carolina Rural Voters

S. Carolina Voters

Hi bonkers ..

I blog right hear every Sunday night …

Drop by!

Funny you should say that…they just reported that a spy satellite that might have missiles on it

I think they were asking if it could be safely shot down by a missile, not that the satellite has missiles on it. :)

Alan Grayson’s still responding in the previous thread. More and Better in ‘08!

Sharon – thanks for getting out and voting!

Let’s hope the turnout is big and energized – we’ll need a big turnout in November!

I saw the AP article on the satellite and the only thing about missiles was that it probably could not be shot down by them, not that there were missiles on the satellite.

edwards has a horrible progressive voting record.

Oh….but they did say it probably has hazardous materials on it/in it…

I view Hillary’s run as Bill Clinton’s crack at dictatorship.
When the rules governing Nevada caucus was not working in
their favor, they simply changed them. Bill Clinton’s behavior
in that room in Nevada during the voting, reminded me of the Republican staffers who burst into the room where the Florida recounts in 2000 were taking place and shut them down.
He will stop at nothing to gain back power even if it means
sacrificing his prestige and dignity.. No wonder Gore did not
want to run, because being attack by Republicans is one thing but
by Bill Clinton would have been very difficult to stomach.

From Bob Herbert’s column today in the NYT:

Here’s what Mr. Young, who is black and a former ambassador to the United Nations, had to say last month in an interview posted online: “Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He’s probably gone with more black women than Barack.”

“Gone with” means “in the Biblical sense” to me…

how so?

Where’s an asteroid when you need one?

There might be a teeny bit of collateral damage…

IMHO, that theory should be tested.

I am tired of both Clinton and Obama already. Both Clintons actually.

me too, TexB, me too.

In defense of Obama, just because some of us think Naral and PP have lost touch with their mission, it does not follow that Obama should have seen them as opposing pro-choice tactics and refused what they asked. If Planned Parenthood asks a pro-choice politician to support their tactics, I would think he or she would want a really good reason to reject them. Obama is pro-choice, and he has not tried to equivocate about it. In his case, he apparently thought he was showing his support by not casting a vote. You disagree with the tactic, but that doesn’t make him untruthful about why he did it. His explanation is here.

You tell’em, Jane. I am sick to death of the media narratives.
But, to be perfectly blunt, all of the campaign people, no matter *whose* campaign they’re from, sound like hacks to me. Joe Trippi makes my eyeballs shrivel and my ears bleed. Make him go away too.

Jane sez:

I’m awaiting the smug, insufferable essay on how JFK risked the Bay of Pigs ‘cos he couldn’t keep his pants zipped, because I’m pretty sure he’s probably the only other politician who ever had that problem.

Was that like the Cuban Missile Crisis??

One more observation from the peanut gallery.
I think Hillary as the candidate would polarize the people far more than Barak and it would surprise me not at all that those who can move and shake on the right would put effort into this.
Not an original thought I am sure

Yes, I often try to “tune in” for those. Was just wondering cuz you so often seem to handle any issue, not just Irak, so evenly and smartly in the comments here. Hope to read ya tomorrow!

What did Obama give up to Claire McCaskill to get her endorsement and help in MO –immigration is a big issue for her and she supports deportation.

What about Tom Daschle and how does he and his entire family get around the no lobbyist rule

There are plenty of hacks to go around and Obama has his share

but they did say it probably has hazardous materials on it/in it

That’s true. I couldn’t find any reference to it, but if it is a spy satellite, it might have a power source based on nuclear decay (the same kind of power sources that power some solar system space probes). Hopefully, they can figure out where this thing is going to land.

I can’t see a non-Biblical interpretation of Ambassador Young’s remark. Classy.

Minor technicality.

I have ceased caring who sleeps together and how often.

I think the views of local planned parenthood are much more meaningful than national. My local is strong, loaded with good people and with strong outreach to younger people. National is better than NARAL, but my money goes to local, and when national calls, I tell them I’ll give to them when they measure up to my local.

Can we make suggestions? There’s a pig farm in Crawford that could benefit from a spy satellite.

And a lot of it will probably burn up as it enters the atmosphere too…

I’m wondering how Edwards will do today.

Re what it took to get McCaskill to support Obama, I think I know. I have a friend who worked for several of her campaigns and knows her. He says that the Missouri legislative leaders did some polling that showed if Clinton was the nominee, a bunch of rural state Democratic candidates would lose. It scared them. Her endorsement makes sense from that standpoint alone.

I may have been mistaking some early absentee ballotr returns in a few precincts with being more indicative than the actual voting Statewide. There is a comment in one of the stiories below that absentee returns in his precincts for Democrats were twice that of Republicans.

Here are a couple of more muted projections about todays possible turnout.

Democratic Turnout Projected to Be High

S. Carolina Primary Could Set Record

And you are absolutely correct on Bill’s lame efforts to attempt to assert that Obama wasn’t opposed to the Iraq War from the beginning.

What? Bill Clinton questioned his voting record on Iraq.

As far as the pundits saying Obama must do well w/ Whites in SC…..
oh, man. That’s why since comming back from my sabbatical awy from the campaigns, I’ve stuck mostly with the local stuff -which there’s alot of ’cause there’s a primary Tuesday. it’s like goin’ in the ocean when it’s cold- a little at a time. That’s how I have to deal with the msm.

Agreed; the theory does need to be tested. I sadly suspect the theory may not hold much water in fact.

I’m really getting tired of politics and politicians. It seems that few, if any, are not all crooks and liars at the end of the day.

listening to randi rhodes the other day and she went through all 3 voting records. he voted for the bankruptcy bill. he voted for the war. i’ll find the info and post it tex.

I would like to see a pure process as much as anyone. I would like to see pubic funding and campaign ads free on broadcast TV in exchange for their licenses.
But right now, politics aint beanbag and if you can’t take the heat and sling it, you had better stay home. You have to expect the Clintons to fight for the nomination. You have to expect OB and Edwards to do the same. It is a fantasy to look for some smiling and happy opponents in the primary. They are in this for real and would we even want a Demo candidate who didnt know how to deflect it and sling it?
You need to get over Bill being Bill. Obama can defend himself, and when the press bothers to show him on the stump rather than whining that he is being race baited, he does just fine.

Just the phrasing of it seemed to be sort of “in joke.” Again, what it did was to remind everyone about who/what Bill was/is.

I, too, have been taken aback that the pundits absolutely dismiss the fact that Obama totally crushed in Iowa and did incredibly well in New Hampshire, both states not exactly known for their diversity. The press keeps spinning this thing as if Obama is being rejected by all whites if he somehow doesn’t get a good chunk of whites in SC. And they somehow assume that if he’s the nominee that white Democrats just won’t vote for him or something.

Odd.

For future reference, here’s a link you can click on when results become available in about 2 hours:

http://www.scvotes.org/

Great suggestion! Those folks LOVE them some spying. They’d probably find a use for it.

MSNBC…Russert….black…white…black…white…STFU

Oh, that’s where I had read it. Even more wow. By the way, I also think it was a Young attempt at an Obama putdown – i.e. that he is nerdy, uncool, one of these old fashioned sick by your woman men.

“John will win delegates”

That’s what his e-mails say. I liked them better when they were delusional and talked about winning primaries.

They are in the coronation process of giving the crown to Hillary, a very divisive weapon in their favor.

Thanks for that link! I was scrounging around trying to find something like that and hey-presto, there you were. Thanks again.

Excellent. Thanks. I’ll be watching the turnout closely.

South Carolina Democrats aren’t going to make a difference to us in November: the state will go GOP for sure and re-elect Lindsey Graham as well. So why are we letting the media make it a make-or-break state for anybody’s candidacy? It’s ridiculous.

His voting record isn’t the best but in my view, he’s still talkin’ about more of the things that need to be talked about than the other 2. Now, maybe in view of his voting record, I’m supposed to think he’s bullshitting now. I just don’t.

, because I’m pretty sure he’s probably the only other politician who ever had that problem.
May I say that I just adore the ham, ham, hamsher humor.
I can’t really call it snark, ’cause it’s not mean spirited.
And, it doesn’t have the cruelty of the generic brand of sarcasm.
Just love it.

Okay, to describe something accurate you need to be accurate, even if it’s scatalogical. Will Democrats elect a change candidate? Place your vote.

http://prouddemocrat.dailykos.com/

IMHO Hillary has been acclaimed as the nominee by the MSM since, well, forever because they don’t particularly want a Democrat in the White House and think she’s the girl to lose it. For what it’s worth, everybody I’ve talked to down here, Democrat or Republican, is vociferously opposed to her and convinced she would lose. That being said, if she is the nominee I’ll vote for her because she’s better than, to quote PhysioProf @3, “whichever insane wackadoodle wingnut fucknozzle wriggles out of the clown car first” on the other side.

Absolutely true. That’s why these multiple primary days are good. media doesn’t go to some backwater place for a week and just fill time and make it all seem significant. Funny, but two of the biggest states – FL & MI- didn’t have a Dem primary to speak of and understandably got ignored. In their place we get Nevada and SC? Gimme a break.

The only ‘real’ candidate is Jane “fuck off” Hamsher but she will not throw in her hat so that leaves us to choose from one of the imperfect candidates.

In no way do I defend the media’s asinine coverage, but I wouldn’t agree with the notion that the SC results have zero meaning. These are actual voters. Americans. And what they think, feel and vote does tell us something about what other Americans will do in other states.

Clinton using robocalls against Edwards in Sc http://www.dailykos.com/story/…..768/443655

Question: Are they directed against Edwards, in fact, or is it to get Obama people to vote for Edwards out of anger. The Clintons play a more complicated political game than even Rove did. (Did he learn from them?)

I’m awaiting the smug, insufferable essay on how JFK risked the Bay of Pigs ‘cos he couldn’t keep his pants zipped, because I’m pretty sure he’s probably the only other politician who ever had that problem.

Given the blank stares routinely on Laura’s public face, and the blanker stares from Shrub when his earpiece misfires, I’d surmise that may be the only problem not confronting this administration.

Thing is, Young’s remark might be true, and that’s since the Clenis has been married. Bill had a long history of affair rumours even before 1992. I was my school’s campus campaign manager for Jerry Brown in 1992, and people were sending all kinds of articles from Arkansas about this, but we chose not to stoop to that level. Unfortunately, the Clinton’s trotted out all kinds of false stories about Jerry.

Obama’s been married to one woman for quite some time, and there are no hints of infidelity at this point.

If you’re going to be the President, I think this issue matters and it should. Yes, I know “character” was a Repube theme during the Monica craziness but shouldn’t that count for something? As a husband and father myself, I can’t imagine doing something like that, and then to lie about it under oath. Pathetic.

Sorry, but I still think Bill’s lack of control did a lot to diminish the DemocratIC Party in many people’s eyes, including hurting Gore greatly in the election through guilt by association. I know that’s not a popular opinion around here, but it was formed at that time by talking with many people and watching how BigMedia told the stories. Yeesh…can’t The Clintons just go away and get some cushy corporate jobs and leave us alone? We’ll take it from here, thank you.

tells us something? sure. Much? No, not much. It’s just not an important place.

And with Frederick of Hollywood out of the race, Vampire Mary Matilin is also out of work for the time being.

tells us something? sure. Much? No, not much. It’s just not an important place.

prior post didn’t i.d. as a reply.

MSNBC…Russert….black…white…black…white…STFU

Yeah. Four middle-aged white guys sitting around a table telling the rest of us what we should think. I bet Russert didn’t even notice the lack of diversity on his show.

re: bonkers @ 116:

It’s one of those things, though…… most of the same people who made Clinton’s infidelity a big deal just love Gingrich. if there was any constincey with people on this issue, I’d take it more seriously. But consistency? In politics? May be too much to ask. You’re right though that, on a practical level, it hurt thr party for a time and hurt Gore.

As a lifelong Dem and lifelong IL resident, who’s voted for every Dem presidential candidate since 1968, I’m saddened and confused by the level of anger toward Hillary and her advisers. I thought the important aspect of all of this was to get a Democratic president in place. I really think it is Jane and some of the posters here who are much closer to Rovian tactics than the Clintons or their advisers, because everyone seems more intent on destroying Hillary than staying focused on the ultimate goal. I thought judicial appointments and civil liberties and minority rights and peace were more important than the kind of character assassination that may cripple our ultimate candidate. Anyone who says that if Hillary is the candidate, they are staying home or voting for the Republican, is not much of a progressive as far as I’m concerned.

I don’t mind saying that a Hillary presidency concerns me less than an Obama presidency. But, I would never say anything even remotely as angry against him as some of the things posted here against Hillary, including by Jane. The level of enthusiasm over Obama feels a lot like the enthusiasm many of us felt many years ago about a guy named Jimmy Carter. He gave a great speech, expressed heartwarming thoughts about unity that made us all feel good, but was otherwise untested by experience.

There are many positives and negatives attachable to both candidates. Anyone who thinks Obama’s campaign manager is not wily and not as capable of dirty tricks as Hillary’s folks is hopelessly naive. Anyone who thinks that Obama is safe from further taint, or even prosecution, relating to his very close relationship to Resko, is simply not following the in depth articles in the Chicago Sun-Times.

I think the level of enthusiasm for both these candidates is great. But, I also think the level of anger against any other Democratic candidate is not only very sad, but quite literally risks the possibility of more Roberts’ and Scalias and Thomas’ in our court system, more of everything tragic that our country has already gone through, if it contributes to the election of a Republican president.

MoDo and her MSM colleagues are just pining for a president who has sex that they can complain about – it made their careers – or as an excuse to return to what they imagine as the Clinton family’s greatest scandal, no matter how irrelevant it is to current politics. It gives them an excuse not to do real reporting; that’s such hard work and makes them miss the best parties on the Vineyard. Russert, I hear, refuses to delay the barbecue even when his juniors have to work.

My shorthand is that Obama has to prove he’s tough enough in the campaign as a substitute for proving he’s tough enough to be president. Mrs. Clinton has to prove she’s willing to put on the brakes rather than speed up for the body in the roadway.

O/T SC: Don’t know if it’s been mentioned but Mel Martinez endorsed McCain. He’s from the City Beautiful and also Cuban so the love him in South FL. Don’t know how much it helps McCain but it’s just another thing to write about in the same paragraph as “Rudy’s dead.”

I agree that it hurt Gore to be running on the record of a President who had just been through a monumental uproar over a sex scandal. I hated the impeachment mess, and hate the impeachment managers, every last smug one of them. But the moment Bill C. stood there wagging his finger at the press corps (I did not have sex, etc..) I knew it was a lie, and I felt as though he let every one of us down. He helped get us eight years of Bush by giving the wingers an armory full of ammunition to use against him and Democrats generally.

If Clinton is the nominee we will get to relive every delicious second of the 90’s. It is a depressing thought.

I agree with you 100%.

I really think it is Jane and some of the posters here who are much closer to Rovian tactics than the Clintons or their advisers

That is extremely unfair to Jane. And wrong. I was a HUGE fan of Bill Clinton in 1992. But over the years I learned more about some of the advisers they associate themselves with. And Jane describes them accurately. I suggest you learn more about them. You can still support Hillary, and that’s fine, but please understand some of the serious concerns we have about her (and the other candidates as well).

I think CNN removing these clowns from the air should have been done the instant Clinton II announced her candidacy. Too little, too late. The meme was created and msm and, really the DNC/DLC, should have some people removed for their singular promotion of “first woman/first black” decision. The media didn’t come by this on thier own. Had the DNC not asked for a loyalty oath and really held the candidates to the actual Democratic issues that we could have obliterated the republicans with, well, we’d have an adult (read: SANE) dicussion going on right now. However, with the former head of the DNC running one of the campaigns…..and with one of the Candidates on the board of the DLC this course for dynasty and coronation was set.

According to the msm, the dnc, and some major blogs, all that was left was those pesky little voters and surely, they thought, they’d done their jobs. Iowa said no, Thank YOU, Iowa!!! I mean, when a candidate comes out with “I’m in to Win” as a slogan…… no one stopped to ask themselves “What about our Constitution, our country?”. This has gone too far now so sure its safe to start banishing people from the airwaves….. its a done deal. So now its safe for CNN to pat themselves on the back.

When you put all the same losers in charge, well, yer gonna get more of the losing. Yer gonna get more of the same to retain their jobs, they capitulationist ways. Feingold included. I mean his goal for 2008 is “bipartisanship”… fuck that. His goal for Health Care is to run pilot programs in states so the states can decide how they want to do it. Fuck that. I think its clear the only path to universal health care is to somehow cut out or at least severely limit the stranglehold of big pharma and insurance companies that freakin’ own msm airwaves and society’s new hypocondria. They’re banking on that.

I can’t believe we’ve had a candidate who’s been paying attention for the last 5 or 6 years and made some real hard decisions on how he would live his life and got his priorities in order. John Edwards has correctly identified the problems and speaks to finding real solutions to them. There is a difference as wide and deep and long as the Grand Canyon between him and the two candidate who are currently members of the Senate. They’re playing around with identity issues to retain their hollow power, and that goes for Feingold too,and successfully shutting down the only chance we had at getting a working government. People weren’t up for the fight to actually take the power back from the corporate elitists. Okay. More of the same coming right up!

Siun – I don’t know what you wanted Edwards to do. He’s not in Congress. He issued a press release challenging Obama and Clinton to get back to congress. Leaving the campaign trail was a false thing to ask him to do. He needs to be out there trying to wake people up. It would have been him giving up for him to leave his home state. He did what he can do. He did hammer the “adult wing of the Democratic Party” on David Letterman…. that’s about the biggest audience he can get on msm. So, I just don’t see what you wanted him to do that he didn’t do.

So as the lady up above said: she voted for Obama because of the media. Job well done media!!!! Your vote, your choice and I am absolutly not banging on you for it. I glad you voted! I am banging on those who had a hand in spewing this false choice though and for not doing more to stop it earlier.

Its done now. I’m considering wearing my favorite blue dress, the one with the hand lotion stain on it, to my polling place on Feb 5th where I will vote for John Edwards.

Go Edwards!!!! :-)

If there’s a more unpleasant specter looming in a potential Clinton presidency than the return of the the 90s rogue’s gallery….

Former senior DOJ lawyer Jamie Gorelick, now an immunity-4-telecoms lobbyist, comes to mind. I agree, the return of their ilk is among the least attractive parts of a Clinton administration. It would derail progressive change, and make Lieberman look centrist rather than like the smallest guy in the GOP prison shower.

I agree that it hurt Gore to be running on the record of a President who had just been through a monumental uproar over a sex scandal.

Clinton was at a high-point of popularity when he refused to cave to the Republicans and beat the bogus impeachment. Many believe that Gore *lost* votes by trying to distance himself from Clinton.

I think many people find Obama’s narrative unfamiliar. They have become acustomed to politicians telling them they will do this or that and fix all the problems. Yesterday, I heard Hillary tell a group of black college students that when she is elected she will “double” the funding to black colleges. Oh really? Obama is saying he will lead (like grass roots organization) but it will require the people to be part of a movement (like the Kennedys in the sixties) and other succcessful global movements. That is the only way to enact real and permanant change. Because our country has been so passive for so long, this kind of leadership requires a vision and hope from the people as much as the candidate, but it is the most compelling and force leadership that creates real change.

That’s more the way I recall it. Gore did a very delicate little dance, and pretty much tried to pretend he’d never met Clinton.

I’ve felt for years the DemocratIC Party was purposely infiltrated from within by BigBusiness interests, and it’s called the DLC of which the Clintons are leaders of. The goal was to make sure none of the social upheaval of the 50s and 60s could happen again, while at the same time throwing just enough Liberal bones to the voters so that we’ll still keep voting for them, since any Democrat would be better than a Repub, as you said.

Maybe I’m just paranoid, but the actions of Bill Clinton throughout the 1990s, and especially this last year of DemocratIC “leadership” have essentially proven this theory for me.

Since I feel this way, just voting for anyone that puts a (D) after their name doesn’t work for me. In fact, I think it feeds into their nefarious plan and allows it work.

Now, because of Blue America and the infrastructure now in place in the Netroots, I may be willing to do this in the Prez Election this year, since we can create change now and fight back against the DLC, but the Clintons actions of late are making me waver on that idea even more. Time will tell.

RE: marydon2 @ 122.

Look, Jane’s a big girl and can take care of herself, but here’s what i think:

I think Jane and some of the posters can be called Rovian only in the sense that they’re no bullshit people when it comes to backing a candidate.
But Jane has, in my view, been fair to Hillary. She’s been critical of all of them. Edwards probably the least. Maybe she feels sorry for him. I dunno. But I’ve seen absolutely no evidence – none- of an “intent to destroy Hillary.” To the contrary she’s been fair and balanced, I think.

I do agree, though, that anyone who says they’ll saty home if HRC or BO or any Dem gets the nomination are waaaaaay wrong.

Just a couple comments:

First, not sure what the talk is of spy satellites and missiles however…it is NOT possible to “safely” shoot down satellites, if by “safely” you mean without doing any harm. The debris from a destroyed satellite can (and does) endanger any other satellites that share the same or similar orbits, endangers any astronauts operating in a similar orbit/altitude, and endangers future satellite/shuttle/capsule launches. It spreads debris all over bejeesus.

Second, I DO hope that everyone here is still observing the boycott of NARAL and Emily’s List from way back when at this site when we all agreed to cut those bastards off for their repeated perfidy in supporting Lieberman, Collins, and a host of other Dem/GOPers that say they are pro-choice but always end up voting for judges that are anti-choice. I chew them a new bunghole every time I get a call from either group seeking money/support. I use their self-addressed, stamped envelopes to do the equivalent thing in writing when they make that error.

I understand your point, and I certainly respect it. But, I think you miss mine. My goal is to see a Democratic president in the White House in 2009. Period. I’ll be well satisfied if any one of the three remaining candidates is that person. I hate to see comments, whether by Jane, or Hillary’s advisers, or Obama’s advisers, or anyone else, that might contribute to a Republican win. That was my point.

You can be sure, I like Jane. I’ve been a reader of FDL for quite some time, and 99% of the time I agree with her. I certainly respect her intelligence and writing ability. Sadly, I do not think my observations about Jane’s attacks against Hillary and her advisers were inaccurate.

There were a lot of people who loved Clinton at the time who were disgusted by what they perceived as Gore’s woeful tin-ear for the political winds. (Sorry for the fucked up mixing of metaphor, but you know what I mean.)

Wow, and just this morning someone else accused us of being a shill blog for Hillary. This primary season is truly a lesson in people seeing what they want to see, isn’t it?

If you want to see what destroying Hillary will look like, I’ll share a link that came to me in email yesterday. It’s making its way around the internet after slithering out of the RNC film closet. Criticizing her hyper-aggressive campaign tactics and tenuous relationship with the truth is mild compared to what’s coming in the fall. That sound you hear is moisture hitting the ground because the goopers are drooling.

I think most Democrats will hold their nose and vote for her, although certainly not all. I tell my neighbors who declare they will not vote for her that I have two words: Supreme Court.

What is going on here in this thread is not destroying Hillary, but choosing a nominee. She presents serious detriments as a nominee and Democrats are entitled to consider and discuss them, imho. Obama is not perfect either, nor Edwards.

I wouldn’t worry too much about robust primary campaign rhetoric impacting the general.

If anyone wants to see what a Democrat really sounds like, visit the previous thread:

http://firedoglake.com/2008/01…..son-fl-08/

You damn shills need to figure out who you’re shilling for!

THe answer is simple. Simply having a “D” by one’s name on a ballot is NOT enough. All too often it means the same thing as having a “R” next to one’s name. It does NOT serve the greater good (progressive politics) to vote for people who WILL (and do) vote against any an all progressive bills (and FOR any reactionary/winger judicial nominee). One must actually CHOOSE the right “D” for one’s vote to ensure you are not voting for a “R” in “D” clothing.

Sadly, Hillary is a corporate “R” that speaks the language of “D”. There will be very little progressive gain under a Hillary President, just “friendlier” pro-corporate policies.

this makes me sad—voting in response to media idiocy will not get us health care or better policies or anything.

Maydon2 I don’t think people, sensible people, are bashing Hillary as a cheap shot here. She and her husband, and you have to include both, have consistently favored policies that enable big business at the cost of the rest of us, and that is not recipe for a healthy country, it only diminishes us, and turns those who participate into shills with no maneuvering room to do the important things for all of us because they have been bagged tagged and beribboned as presents to those who never want anything but more of what they already have.

sorry–that was in response to this: I don’t usually chime in with comments but, as a SC voter, I want to share a couple of thoughts with you. 1) I was sufficiently ticked off at the media hype about “white voters” and Obama, that it pushed me (a white woman) to vote for him. 2) I probably would have voted for Edwards otherwise, just because he seems slightly more progressive than the others, but certainly did not think that Bill and Hillary were way out of line.

BTW, what i said above about jane being a no-bullshit person when it comes to backing a candidate….. she isn’t using this blog to back a candidate. That’s clear to me, anyway. I didn’t mean to say that anything she’s saidf here was “backing a candidate.” She’ not. When she does, as with other posters here – you’ll know it.

I’m among the “certainly not all” who will NOT cast a vote for Hillary. If I cannot vote for a good 3rd party candidate for Prez (if it is Clinton v any GOPer) then I will simply abstain from the Prez vote.

I refuse to hold my nose and vote any longer. If I have to hold my nose then the candidate is not worthy of my vote at all.

Sadly, Hillary is a corporate “R” that speaks the language of “D”. There will be very little progressive gain under a Hillary President, just “friendlier” pro-corporate policies.

One thing to keep in mind–and one of the avowed purposes of this blog, as I understand them–is that the more we advocate for more progressive candidates, even if they cannot ultimately be elected, the more we force a shift in the ultimate Democratic general election platform to the progressive direction.

We can’t self-censor ourselves just because it’s a primary. Most voters aren’t paying much of any attention to this, if at all. We should be free to criticize.

Hillary is a DLCer, a group that openly fights against progressive values. It’s fair to criticize her on those grounds. Some of her advisers are the worst of the worst.

To be fair, none of the other candidates “inspire” me, either, but I’ll proudly vote Democratic in November.

Cut, nose, spite, face.

I’m goin’ t’ check out the Salon. Anybody been there?

Glenn great as usual

Well, you don’t even seem to acknowledge Edwards at all…it is as if he doesn’t exist. There are more than two running. Just sayin’. I have a problem with the media leaving him out of the discussion and ramming HRC and Obama down my throat. I’m personally for Edwards during primary season, but I will vote for whichever Dem candidate makes it.

I am sure he did, but Gore was in a tough spot either way. My point was that if Clinton had managed to control himself while in office, and Gore could have run on four more years of prosperity, we would not be in the deep doo-doo we’re in at the moment, with wars, and a shredded constitution, and drowning polar bears, and well, never mind…

What LS said. Twice.

Need another good reason not to put the Corporatists in charge for another four years? Contemplate this financial stimulus package…circa 1929.

Learn from history, or ….

Perhaps. And just to be clear, it wasn’t Clinton’s extramarital pecadillo that led to his popularity; it was, I suspect, his new-found willingness to go toe-to-toe with the right-wing bastards who were trying to scuttle his presidency.

marydon2 – I’m a life long Democrat. I will not vote for a Republican. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. I will vote, but I will not vote that line. If the voids my entire ballot, that’s the choice the DNC made in forwarding the Clinton II candidacy. I’m pretty damn pissed off about it too. Your concern is my concern. Hillary does not guarantee the stop of the march of the neocons on on any front.

The netroots, as whole, made the determination to support the loyalty oath and to forward the “woman as president” premise for voting before the first vote was cast. It was all about hillary and when you consider the marketing value of keeping the name on the tip of everyone’s tongue, good or bad, it was a resounding success. That’s their choice. I disagreed with it, not only on fdl, but elsewhere. I can tell you that shut-up stick we every bit as stinging as the bushco “patriot” shut-up stick they deployed. I’ve been glad to see a more balanced approach specifically in Biodun’s posts so its nothing personal for me. I think this blog has some hella smart women and I feel free to disagree with them when I do.

So, no. I will not pledge loyalty to powers that be that seem hell bent on retaining their personal power. I won’t vote for a Republican.

:-)

It seems to me you and I are pretty much on the same page. I’m just not sure that the issue is self-censorship. Might we not just suggest that we focus more on candidates’ strengths, and criticize any candidate somewhat less violently than many, including Jane, have done. I don’t disagree at all about many of the disgusting things the DLC has stood for, and I not only consider myself a progressive, I’ve given many dollars to the candidacies of true progressives all over the country. But, I really do fear for our country if any “R” is elected as opposed to any “D”. I just have to shake my head at those who write that they will stay home rather than vote for HRC.

LS @154 – I didn’t mean to leave Edwards out as any kind of snub. Hell, Kucinich’s ideas were the closest to my own. I was just trying to be realistic because of my concern about the 11/08 election.

I supported him in that toe-to-toe stuff, unequivocally. But I was furious with him for handing them the stick to beat him with. And now that HRC is running, we get to revisit all of it. Yesterday I was reading comments in the WaPo attached to Dana Milbank’s latest. From that one encounter, l saw links that connected to speculation about a Bill C. liason with a Canadian politician named Belinda, with a model named Gershon or something like that, about his party flights with his buddy Burkle, and pieces in Salon, The Nation, and Slate about his weaknesses of various kinds. I really feel like screaming at him to go back to Harlem and be an elder stateman and get the hell off my TV.

The netroots, as whole, made the determination to support the loyalty oath and to forward the “woman as president” premise for voting

Wow. That statement is really disconnected from reality. Hillary has absolutely not been the choice of the netroots. That’s a fact.

If you won’t vote D in November, you are hurting everyone in the country and around the world, period.

[G]o back to Harlem and be an elder stateman and get the hell off my TV.

PLAN!

But, I really do fear for our country if any “R” is elected as opposed to any “D”. I just have to shake my head at those who write that they will stay home rather than vote for HRC.

Absolutely. While I support John Edwards during the primary season, and hope he wins the nomination, I will vote for whomever wins the Democratic nod in November. Someone earlier summed up one of the main reasons in two words: “Supreme Court.” Of course there are MANY other reasons why the specter of another 4 years of a Republican in the White House curdles my blood with horror…

I understand. I’m very worried about 11/08 and beyond too. :)

Hey, hold your nose. In my case, I may require a good stiff scotch before I go door-to-door in an Iowa November and GOTV for Hillary. But I will do it.

Supreme Court.

KO on MSNBC.

lol

I see Sen. Clinton as far and above the choice of the party establishment, the beltway, the money wing of the Democratic party.

She was way down on most net-rooters lists from what I saw.

-G

re: 122 the idea of accusing Jane of Rovian tactics is, er, absurd. Jane is honest and straightforward. And she and other FDL posters call out any of the candidates when they do things that are unproductive for the progressive cause. To turn a blind eye to this really would be unproductive. We need as much information as we can get, because that is an important part of speaking to power, and raising public awareness, by what ever means we can, about issues that each of us find important. We may disagree on various issues, but, for myself I have to say that FDL, posters and commenters, has been a great resource for me in raising my political awareness, and in being able to “make my case”, whatever that might be. Kudos Jane, Christy and all. And, thank you for leading.

Candy Crowley has either gone “gothic” or is a biker!!!

Is track lighting uni-sex?

What is really sad is whether you support Hillary or not, Bill is connected and you virtually have to take them as a piece and that bodes ill for democratic success, I would say imo, she is unelectable but that means nothing it isjust what I think and open to discussion.

Also, check out the great coverage from The Young Turks.
Christy will be on at 6:50 PM.

http://www.theyoungturks.com/

The netroots absolutly has forwarded the loyalty oath and many blogs! They also kept the conversation about hillary good or bad but still all hillary all the time for months prior to Iowa. It was stunning to see it. Calling other women misogynists and sexist for not supporting it. Have comments held up for lenghty times and actually being told to get behind a push or stfu absolutly occurred. It stemmed from a series posted at open left then it was referenced here and on gnb. The freely given guarantee that you will support “the candidate” give too much power to the dnc and doesn’t really hold their feet to the fire to get us better candidates. It means something to have a Democrate who won’t turn all republican in the general. hrhclinton will go alllllllll republican in the general and that’s how we always lose.

So, yeah, my experience in finding the thought of bush/clinton/bush/clinton repulsive and saying so was very different than yours, but reality just the same :-)

Where’s the black leather, Noron?

Hey, it *is* Saturday night…

I can vote for that PLAN!!!! :D

Thanks Ron, I tried to watch through another link and couldn’t and had forgotten the video feed at YT.

Absolutely. that can’t be said enough: Supreme Court. All the federal courts. But Supreme Court is shorter and you don’t want to have to be saying “supreme Court, all federal courts, NLRB, EEOC….. .”

Not enough people know or care. Say what you will about Bush. I’ll enjoy it (if I haven’t already said it myself). But the one and only thing I can think of that he was up front about was sayuing he’d appoint judges/justices like Scalia. That didn’t scae the shit out of enough people as it should have. He got reelected and Bush did exactlywhat he said he would. You can’t count on the Senante to keep these people off the bench. You gotta get it right at the top. So, everybody, repeat after Susaniniowa:

Supreme Court.

Candy Crowley has either gone “gothic” or is a biker!!!

Candy Crowley would scare the shit out of most bikers…

Thanks for the post, Jane.

It might be helpful to have a post on Obama’s “present” votes and what that really means in Illinois.

707

Candy borrowed it.

Not enough scotch in the world to make me vote for a republican and be a party to enabling the continuation of the imperial dynasty. For me it ends with the primary if hrhclinton is the nom. I see her capitulating on the Supreme Court appointments in the name of bipartisanshit. Sorry. I’ll send some likker yer way thought if ya like. You’re going to need it :lol:

The netroots absolutly has forwarded the loyalty oath and many blogs!

No, that’s simply wrong. I don’t know what blogs you’re talking about, but the activity on the top progressive blogs has been decidedly skeptical of Clinton.

Don’t miss the interesting discussion with Jonathan Schell for Book Salon – he’s been such a key driver of sanity on nuclear issues for so long – and has some interesting takes on the presidentials if you just can get enough.

Borger/CNN: The Clintons defined Obama, not in a racist way, but said that he has narrow appeal…to black voters. WTF?

will not vote for hill under any circumstance. her husband recently met with richard mellon scaife. murdoch had a fundraiser for her. i have my “i smell cat shit face” on.

I’m trying to get a read of what Timmeh, Keith, David Gregory, Noron, etc. on MSNBC think about South Carolina. Since the polls haven’t closed yet, they appear to be filibustering, reluctant to make predictions. Lots of what-ifs.

Isn’t it a good thing, though, that some networks don’t follow the FOX style of only allowing blonde bimbos on screen? Cindy and CNN should be applauded not ridiculed.

Wait. She is fuckin’ scary.

So which Republican would you prefer?

Candy borrowed it.

Oh my – can I just take your word for it?

Please?

Candy Crowley has either gone “gothic” or is a biker!!!

Candy Crowley would scare the shit out of most bikers…
reply

BRAIN BLEACH! can’t…get…tube…top…outta…my…head…..

BTW, the video song is SOOOO hilarious! So very “Jane-esque”

I always call Candy, Cindy. Now Cindy is a FOX chick name. Do they have any Cindy’s.

FYI, gang — I’m going to be on with the Young Turks around 6:45 pm ET this evening. They are doing live SC primary coverage along with Brave New Films. You can listen live here.

Jane said, “If one more pundit shakes their head in dismay and says that Obama needs to do well with whites in South Carolina to prove he can appeal to white voters in the general I might scream.”

I’m pretty sure I just heard the MSNBC pundits say something like that. Not sure which pundit said it.

Do I hear Jane screaming?

Ron….. open left, gnb, digby, fdl……. dude…. its there. I will support the candidate regarless of who it is. Its there. Its not wrong or I’m wrong in thinking these are progressive blogs? The loyalty oath just makes them not have to listen. I just disgree with it. I wanted to progress…. move foward not have the discussion over bill clinton’s inappropriate thingeries again. Progress…. change… different…. leap of faith …… not hrc or giving the dnc a free pass to more of their losing ways.

I am a fighting liberal. I do mean fiiiiiighting. :lol:

So…. errrr….. I’m not wrong that this existed and continues. It just is what it is. Some agree, some don’t. :-)

CNN is posting some exit poll results, the Economy was the top issue…

Good for Clinton?

I won’t speak for any other blog, but you are not accurate when you include FDL in your list.

Marion in Savannah @ 192.
So which Republican would you prefer?

What about that Black guy from Mass.? Brooke? He’s a republican I could maybe live with.

If there has been a loyalty oath somewhere, no one bothered to forward it to me. Don’t make accusations you can’t back up with facts. Not here.

Chuck Todd suggests Obama, Clinton, Edwards could all “do well,” depending on which part of SC you’re talking about. He doesn’t seem to have an overall prediction.

Now why you want to drag candi cindy crowly through the mud like thaaat. :-(….. Looky, you made me cry. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL You guys are a hooot!!! :D

Only topical info, no real poll no.s…

Howard Fineman rehashing the race issue and its future implications.

Not sure but I think he’s been dead for 8 – 10 years now.

Dang…no one ever tells us anything.

Back in the ’60s there was an African American U.S. Senator from Mass. named Ed Brooke. Republican. Don’t think he ever sought the presidency.

Me neither. Anybody else get that loyalty oath?

I don’t think they know what the turnout is yet as the polls have not closed. I heard the Democratic Party Chairwoman of S.C. mention that absentee ballots were running 2-1 Democratic. It usually runs 3-1 Republican.

Too bad Rachel wasn’t invited to this soiree, tho, she was invited to FLA’s on Tuesday… ;-)

Can I sign a loyalty oath, please?

Candy Crowley? Mud?

Christ. Talk about brain bleach.

Loyalty oath? since when is there loyalty in the liberal left, as someone said it is like herding cats, and the only loyalty I see is the desire to do what is right for America, what ever that entails. You certainly are not going to get free thinkers to bow to any one icon on demand.
You go CHS

I think Brooke is still alive and living in Florida.

-G

Me too. Me too. I wanna sign. I wanna sign. Who or what are we loyal to? Well, lemme sign first an’ you can tell me later.

Well, he’s not running. But he was okay, back in the day when there were actually Republicans you could vote for.

Yeah. he is.

Joe Scar, Pat Buchanan, Margaret Carlson weighing in for MSNBC now. Pat predicts campaign will be rough “until the Clintons wrap it up.”

My mistake – he was not real impressive when in office and I thought I’d read an obit a few years ago.

Why is my “reply” thing not working? Am I being punished for not signing the loalty oath?

From Wiki:

The father of two daughters and a son, Brooke currently lives in Miami with his wife, Anne.

-G

brooke lives in s.fl. last i heard. I think he’s alive.

I’ve noticed that sometimes I have to mash it twice… I’ve confidently typed what I thought was a reply, only to see a comment floating around untethered to it’s cause.

Corporate geniuses got us into the current mess = BushCo.
Corporate geniuses got us into the crash of ‘29.

Edward William Brooke III is apparently still with us (Wikipedia).

This is good for Dems: Exit polling:

Roughly four out of five voters would be satisfied if Clinton or Obama wins the Democratic nomination. Slightly more Clinton voters would be dissatisfied with Obama than vice-versa.

Slightly more Obama voters say Clinton would be more likely to be the eventual Democratic nominee than vice-versa.

AP

So Pat Buchanan seems to be pushing Hillary as a foregone conclusion? My alarm klaxon just went off.

While you’re at it, could ya send me a signed blank check… I’ll write in the amount… Mahalo! *g*

I’ll sign an oath if I get paid. I’m not shilling for free, man.

it’s time for the tough love approach. this country is going to have to hit rock bottom and face it’s demons before it can be healed. just going along the same old shit doesn’t help anyone. there is so much in our past we refuse to look at. i just might stand at the edge of the cliff and watch everyone go over and then wait for the super nova.

I’ve noticed that sometimes I have to mash it twice

A true person of the South.*g*

Well, if Jane and Christy won’t come up with a loyalty oath we’ll just have to write it ourselves. Any takers? “I ____________ hereby swear undying fealty to ____________ for ever and ever and ever.” That seems a little flat. I’m sure one of you can do better…

Also doesn’t fit with the MSM meme that Obama supporters, especially AA’s, will stay home if Hill is the nominee.

Really? I’m not wrong. I’m not going to argue with you because you’ll probably invite to to leave again….. .or delay my post er sumpin’. :-)

Anyway, it was certainly the case that there are posts saying to support the candidate in november. Absolutly is there. I recall specifcally the open left series that promoted this loyalty oath being a front page post here and gnb. Honest. If you’d like I can try to search for it or you can.

FDL never came out and directly supported hillary. If you are reading that into what I’m saying, that is not what I’ve said. FDL has never directly supported hillary or endorsed her. Not at all. They, and others, promoted the thought that as a loyal Democrat saying you’ll support who ever they choose.

I got an email from howard dean, dnc, on the day of the Iowa caucus’ that asked you to do the same thing. So it is a DNC driven thing…… I just feel its like giving the DNC a free pass to choose anyone and drive them down our throats as has been done with Hillary clinton’s name.

So, its there RBG. Its not wrong to say that it is. :-)

This heading is up at HuffPo: Clinton Campaign Tactics Turning Liberals Against Hillary

May this white seasoned liberal woman in a red state say: Amen.

Edwards/Obama ‘08…still livin’ the dream

Christy two threads up.

Cool. I’ve been hanging in down here because we’re supposed to behave and stay on topic in Book Salon and I was SO not in the mood to read/talk about nuclear proliferation.

MSNBC exit polls saying a high number of voters thought Clinton had attacked Obama unfairly or vice versa. 70 percent Clinton unfair, 56 percent Obama unfair, 50 percent both were unfair.

I pledge my loyalty to the Constitution and freedom. How that?

I’m glad FDL did not endorse a candidate. I like the way they critique the candidates, it refreshing to see. And Rovian tactics at FDL is just plain laughable.

I hate to say it but the tenor of the comments by “liberals” is turning this white seasoned liberal against liberals.

That defines it quite nicely.

Hey Christy, I’m not making an accusation at all. Its my observation. I’m sorry you’ve taken it personally. It was a post referencing an open left series that said to “get behind the push” who ever was the candidate come November. I observed this on the blogs I mentioned as well as here. Not trying to bang on you for it, especially not personally at all.

Dang, now I will go searching for the exact post and forward them to you. It a thought that I disagree with as I have on this thread. I’m not attacking anyone personally, here. Everyone is free to make their own choice in my book.

The current status of the SCROTUS is the Dems fault. Period. At no time did they EVER say “no” to a candidate put forward by the shitbags nutcases of the GOP. From the time of Clarence Thomas on the Dems have caved, caved, caved, caved. They had the only tool necessary to kill any one or all of those nominees in the Scalia/Thomas mold and they NEVER took it up. NEVER. They are at fault, just as they are at fault for the continued war in Iraq, the CONTINUED illegal spying on Americans (and trying to perpetuate it forevermore, amen).

A “D” by a name means very little. I don’t vote partyline anymore and I wont in November. I will vote AGAINST the D candidate whenever they are DLCers. For instance, Evan Bayh is NOT a real D but he has a D by his name – I will NOT vote for him. He is a sniveling limpdick. I will either not cast a vote in that race or I will cast a vote for even a Libertarian who is running against him.

Same goes for Hillary. I will vote 3rd party or not vote at all on that part of the ballot. She is Evan Bayh with ovaries.

I’m absolutly in for that oath!

THere isn’t an official loyalty oath push here or at the other progressive sites. There ARE those that push the next best thing: vote D no matter what because a D is ALWAYS better than a R.

This is factually not so. Some Ds ARE, for all practical purposes, Rs. Any who complain about those of us who will NOT vote for a D if they are, in fact, and R, or try to pressure us to vote R/D because an R/D is better than an R is objectively seeking a loyalty oath in all but name.

I have never gotten this from FDL site powers, but it does show up in the comments. There are a number of such comments claiming that we MUST vote for a D no matter what. Loyalty oath in all but name.

I don’t vote party line anymore. It really is that simple. I quit the party and became an Independent after Alito. I am a progressive and will not vote for ANY candidate, D or R, who votes counter to progressiveness. It’s that simple.

Hey there MM! Great comment.

Christy, RBG, RonZuber….

Here’s one….. from the DNC email dated 1/2/2008 (the day hillary lost Iowa) and website. Howard Dean:

“No matter who you plan to vote for in the primary, there’s one simple fact we can all agree on: Any one of our candidates will be better than four more years of failed Republican policies.

Pledge your support for the Democratic nominee in 2008, and then ask your friends to do the same. Everyone – from the nominee to the media to the Republicans – should know just how many people are behind our candidate this year.

Help us make a big statement:

http://www.democrats.org/GetUnited

Thanks for signing on,

Howard Dean”

http://www.democrats.org/page/s/GetUnited
“Pledge to unite together as a party and support our nominee, whoever that may be,”

I go to look for the fdl post I’m referring to :-)

MSNBC says Obama won by a substantial margin.

It’s not absolutely ridiculous to call Obama on his record. He gave a speech, and got into office and then his opposition disintegrated. He funded the war. I have not been following the Bill Clinton in SC saga, but I do think Hillary’s words were twisted when she said MLK, Jr. needed someone in the office (LBJ) to help get civil rights legislation passed. That is an obvious obvious to those of us who know have the hair-pulling experience of activism and lobbying. I don’t know what context the words were pulled from but various figures from Eleanore Roosevelt to the Kennedys were unable to do what LBJ accomplished (not mean enough maybe? I blame LBJ for MLK, Jrs death as well, since he apparently pulled security in retaliation for MLK, Jrs anti-Vietnam war stance.) Just now I heard persons interviewed in SC, regular voters, saying that Clinton said “MLK needed a white man to pass civil rights legisaltion.” Where the hell did that come from? Thats not what she said from what I heard on MSM. I will say that as a politician formerly mentored by noneother than down and dirty Holy Joe, Obama is not toothless. By no means whatsoever. I am also believe that this whole “racial” issue was started by friction between both candidates. With willfull misinterpretations on both end no doubt. And a lot of distortions from chattering MSM. And who knows? Maybe flyers in church parking lots are part of the puzzle as well. (Just love those corrupt old establishment dem tricks). It is more obvious to those who work inside the campaigns as to what is going on. But this stuff doesn’t come out till later. I am not going to call Hillary and Bill a race-baiter. Nor am I going to call Obama on any of this MSM shit, because I don’t have enough knowledge the kind that comes from working on the ground. This may look like a defense of Hillary. It is. I want the score to be even between them, because I think Obama and Hilary are alike on every score. They are political twins. May they duel each other into the political graveyard, and a pox on their campaigns for not showing up on now two occasions, to support Chris Dodd, the rule of law, and FISA legislation without telcom immunity.
Go Edwards. Grab their supporters!