Obama Zed!

It’s pretty interesting to watch! Pass the popcorn!

rachel maddow was supposed to be on with KO….. instead we get wishy-washy margaret carlson – WTF!!!!

Todd Beeton says Joe Scarborough needs to go.

I have no idea whatsoever who Todd Beeton is, but I now respect him immensely.

Rachael, what a breath of fresh air!

“Clinton Derangement Syndrome” ~ Todd Beeton

This illness is everywhere. Joe Scarborough & Tweety are severely affected.

MoDo. Help.

Heh. Ms. Redshift kept flipping on MSNBC, saying “you’re not Keith!” (to Joe Scar, Pat Buchanan, or whoever) and switching it off.

Rachel!!!

Jane: “Whither Rachel Maddow?”

Where, indeed.

So what happened to Tweety???

If I was advising McCain, I’d tell him to throw free beer bong bashes on every campus on November 3rd.

I believe she and KO are doing the Florida primary Tuesday night.

Tweety had an “unbreakable” speech engagement.

Carolyn Kennedy endorses Obama in NYT op ed tomorrow.

OVER the years, I’ve been deeply moved by the people who’ve told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

Scarborough went off on Bill this morning in a wild rant and wouldn’t let anybody talk…He literally held up his hand in Mika’s face to make her shut up…

If we’re lucky he tripped over his shoelaces and sprained something that will keep him bedridden for weeks. Maybe until December if we’re REALLY lucky.

Maybe they noticed that he was incoherent and they gave him the hook.

No, she is scheduled for the FLA soiree on Tuesday, I was disappointed she wasn’t invited to this one too…

That is a *large* endorsement, imo.

I didn’t slap my knee.

FWIW, everyone in this household (except me) is delighted with the results. The 20 somethings are ecstatic.

Maybe they fired him when they made him apologize…or maybe he quit. Nah.

Maddow v. Carlson; Brilliant Extemporizing v. Pathetic Confabulating

Good question, LS. Saw you asked last thread and have been wondering.

That’s THE endorsement.

You give MSNBC way to much credit… He’s still on the air…! ;-)

That is a *large* endorsement, imo.

but is it enough of a reason when we have so much to fix that is broken, really really broken.

WTF is Bill Bennett talking about?

Remember Eugene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy and Howard Dean all had lots of youthful supporters too.

Bobby Kennedy was ASSASSINATED you dumb fuck!

Didn’t a reich wing loser say something like that about Lincoln this week? About how he was very unpopular just before leaving office? Getting killed five months after being re-elected, but that’s nothing to a wingnut.

So, should we call the supposed phenomenon of white voters telling pollsters they’re going to vote for a white candidate and then voting for the African-American candidate because the media has told them they’re recists if they don’t “the Edwards Effect”?

(No, I don’t think this is what actually happened, I just think it’s amusing after all the talk of the “Bradley Effect” and the naming of the “Tweety Effect.”)

What would we do without the hopefulness of the young ! Bless them and I hope their dreams don’t vanish.

McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Rudy. Or a Democrat. What your choice?

i just remembered KO did say to rachel that she’d be with him on tuesday doing analysis…. but i love the idea of rachel with KO

“You are the heir to my slain father’s dreams.” Can’t beat that with even a pair of Clintons.

Bobby Kennedy was ASSASSINATED you dumb fuck!

Similarly, Honest Abe, but, the Repugs seemed to have revised history…

the dems just blew the repubbles off the stage ;->

no endorsement can “fix” anything, obviously. But lending the Kennedy name to the Obama campaign brings the nostalgia of older Dem’s for the days of “Camelot”. Powerful endorsement, if just for the emotional power and lure of the promise of a return to better times.

Turnout amazing. South Carolina looks like a blue state.

I wonder if this means Senator Kennedy is in Obama’s corner, too?

;->

You and I both! Too bad, Rachel wouldn’t copulate with KO, I’m sure their progeny would be awesome… *g*

This talk that SC and the South in general are a write off bc they are red states. Didn’t the Dems just out primary the Repugs by over a 100,000 votes? Smells like a blue wave might be brewing.

…which means Tweety is probably talking to the walls in an insane asylum somewhere. LOL

There’ll be a whole crowd of people in Obama’s corner tomorrow morning.

I wonder if this means Senator Kennedy is in Obama’s corner, too?

Howard Fineman just reported that Teddy would probably not be endorsing anyone – is being given a “pass” for his seniority and healing powers for the party…

Ian’s post is live: The Age of Light

Let’s keep SC discussions here … and make sure we check out Ian’s latest … I hear it’s very good and I’m off to read it now.

What a great night.. to see Obama more than double the white vote that the polls had him at and taking more than 50% of the young vote, we might just be turning the page… but at least it’s going to be close race.

Mr. Purple

Look at this turnout!

With 93% reporting, the total Dem vote count (487,511) has surpassed the total Republican vote from last week! (443,203)

This is in a state that went 71% for Bush in 2004!

I’m stunned!

Wow who were all those young GOP men behind Charlie Crist? Didn’t those closeted gay Floridians learn anything after Mark Foley went down?

Obama is giving his victory speech.

Obama is giving his victory speech and he’s got the “colors of the rainbow” behind him. Nice to see. ;-)

If more African Americans register and vote, many Southern states will be competitive this year.

…after Mark Foley went down?

Ummm, Teddy?

The numbers, according to CNN, with 93% of Dem votes in:

Republican voters 442,918
Democratic voters 487,511

This is huge. This means that Democrats in SC may be feeling that they may have a chance to have their voices heard. I’m stunned by these numbers.

I’m wondering if this really is a big stfu to both the clintons and their quest? The SC voters too?

Also, the large spread between hillary and Obama….. the polls didn’t have that or even close from what I saw. Its a stunning loss for the Clintons.

Interesting that when Obama talked about fierce competitors being good, his supporters cheered …

When Bill Clinton mentioned Obama is his speech (Hillary did not give one yet) his audience booed.

When Bill Clinton mentioned Obama is his speech (Hillary did not give one yet) his audience booed.

Which is one of the main reasons so many people who are sick and tired of slash and burn and salt the earth politics have flocked to Obama’s banner.

I think I heard Rachel Maddow was at an ACLU thing tonight which is why she’s not on tonight.

Two people in my life say this about Obama:

1) A 21 year old Lehigh College student and son of a good friend, says he is excited about politics for the first time in his life and sees Obama as the right person for our country on all fronts. (Never once in the long conversation I had with him did he mention the color of Obama’s skin. Not once.)

2) The son of the family mechanic (his father has fixed my father’s cars for 50 years) says Obama would be terrific for foreign policy, because the people of the Middle East, especially, would feel they had someone in office they could relate to, meaning, he’s not a rich white man who is not one of those with the secret-society-mentality. He thinks the whole world would view America in a different light, especially after what they’ve witnessed over the past 7-8 years.

Yes we can…! Pass the popcorn…! ;-)

To: Scarecrow, Myrtle June and Savannah (me too, in Savannah)

I do not think it can be emphasized enough what was said earlier about Obama getting some 25% of the white vote in a Jim Crow State, in a three way race, where the white male got little more than 1/3 and the white female got little more than 1/3.

This is HUGE, me thinks. HUGE in that it bodes well for the “O-man” among white voters in non-Jim Crow states.

Holy hell!

At this moment, Obama alone has more votes (280,836) than the top two Republican vote getters combined! (McCain + Huckabee: 279,723)

PS – Too bad the MSM is brain dead when it comes to the different voting sentiments of white people in the Old South versus the rest of the universe.

And more Democrats (with 93% counted) voted in their primary (487,511) than Republicans did in theirs (442,918). Simply stunning, amazing numbers.

What would we do without the hopefulness of the young ! Bless them and I hope their dreams don’t vanish.

Amazing that they are the ones thinking with their heads and not feeling with their hearts. REPUBLICANS WANT HILLARY!!! They’ve been planning her run for president for 15 years! They know how to beat her!

Edwards has no chance and he’s turning his supporters into literal pawnage!

I can’t believe you people.

Iowa already established that… ;-)

Well, they’re brain dead about pretty much everything else, too. It’s easy, dontcha know — Old South = Jim Crow = stupid cracker bigots.

On Huckabees numbers – READ EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN RADICALS… FUNDIES.

Obama did very well among weekly to frequent church goers.

Whoo Hoo!

Hot damn, but he can deliver a stem-winder.

Republican voters 442,918
Democratic voters 487,511

Those numbers are way beyond the most optimistic predictions that I read pre-election. Amazing!

Obama could put the entire South into play for the Democrats.

They know how to beat her!

I totally disagree with that premise… The totality of the Dem turnout, to date, sends dire shivers down the Repugs’ spines, irregardless of the net result…

Excellent speech.

Obama is certainly an inspiring speaker. Everyone here is impressed. Me, I’m sad for Edwards.

damn, got all misty there… – lord but that man can give a speech!

Why can’t Obama give one of those rousing speeches in the support of SJC FISA bill. That would bring me to his corner.

“Bristling defiance. Undercurrent of anger” Who the hell was Pat Robinson listening to? These 4 pieces of dog poop on MSNBC need to STFU.

I am excited for Obama and I like what he says. We can move forward. I will vote for Edwards but I do like Obama.

MSNBC is fainting over Obama’s speech.

I just frickin’ love it when these Republican tools start yammering about the politics of divisiveness as though the Clenis invented it. I, for one, clearly remember a little shit called Newt.

Why can’t Obama give one of those rousing speeches in the support of SJC FISA bill?

Excellent point.

here too Jayt … he certainly presents a vision to strive for …

and yep, I’d love to see him do the same for the FISA fight.

It’s all about the undecided, CTuttle, and they will not vote to rehash all the sordidness of the 90’s. 33% Republican, 35% Democrat, leaves 32% that will not vote for more blowjob jokes. Doesn’t matter what she says or what she does – the independents will vote Republican if hillary is the nominee.

Those numbers are way beyond the most optimistic predictions that I read pre-election. Amazing!

And it is now:

Republican voters 443,203
Democratic voters 519,226

:)

edwards has lots of support…. so why doesn’t he garner more votes????

Edwards needs new material.

I am losing my sh%t listening to Obama’s speech and the commentary on MSNBC/CNN. It’s so demagoguish. There’s no substance whatsoever. Except when Obama “borrows” a John Edwards type anecdote or two. While shopping, I was forced to listen to a CNN(?) commentator say: *straight face* (paraphrase) now that Obama has this lead, do you think he will get into specifics about policy? Other commentater: No I don’t think he should. The Fairy Tale works.
Good grief. How stupid do they think we voters are? CNN. OK maybe pretty stupid if male voters who like war favor Edwards on his stance in I-rakThe man has a health insurance policy that’s basically negotiating with insurance companies. Bipartisanship, I hear. /Rant Off.

Well, it might have something to do with the fact that the only coverage he EVER gets is when they’re calling him a loser. Issues? We don’t need to talk about no stinkin’ issues…

If a Democratic candidate can win southern states it changes the entire politics, in one fell swoop.

Excellant point. Still bitter over Hillary and Obama preferring the fruits of campaign to defending the constitution and the rule of law and standing with Chris Dodd. Such rousing leadership from our two frontrunners.

I was forced to listen to a CNN(?) commentator say: *straight face* (paraphrase) now that Obama has this lead, do you think he will get into specifics about policy?

If he did do you honestly think it would be reported? Not bloody likely.

No matter what, given the logistics of being in DC Monday, Clinton and Obama could and should take the highest profile, active part possible in the Senate FISA fight. They should begin talking about it on Sunday. No doubt about it, and they should help lead.

There’s no substance whatsoever

You’re expecting a victory speech to be a ten point plan to end poverty or something?

I’m an Edwards supporter. That Obama speech was a good political speech.

Bill Bennet says Obama reminds him of Reagan…

whoa!

It’s empty Siun IMHO. He has no policy or leadership goals whatsoever other
than “bipartisanship”, staying out of fights that matter (FISA) and the war funding, and hyping social security threats (see Joe Conason article.)

He can do this during speeches. He can do this during debate. We can watch that.

Kieth Olberman: “A thunderous rout.” :o) :o) :o)

And, speaking as an Edwards supporter, and a citizen of the Palmetto state, I’m proud that South Carolina could help a good black candidate take a step toward becoming president. And I hope Edwards stays in until at least Super Tuesday. He takes votes from Clinton.

And Caroline Kennedy tonight endorsed Obama. Which leaves Al Gore with the opportunity to give the republicans what should amount to a coup de grace, if HE comes out for Obama.

Without Hillary to rescue them, the GOP candidates will be reduced to that herd of sacrificial goats. As americans take a good look at what bush and the GOP have done to us, the independents, and conservative democrats will, I believe, come to us in this election. The polls will start showing that, and the warpimps and corporate protectors running for their political lives this year will become astoundingly anti-bush. They will give up bush and the rest of his band of bloody-handed ciphers, for political sacrifice like they were so many Mayan captives.

I’d bet money that, as we speak, Gore is getting calls from the democrats in congress who do NOT want to risk a Clinton run, and whom are sick of her sucking up to the people who’ve dragged us to the edge of the precipice, to make the call for Obama.

Do it Al.

I think you’re off track on that analysis, undecided’s are crucial, but, I wouldn’t characterize them as leaning right, particularly, when the head-to-heads favor the Dems in all generic polls…

Of course Clinton is not going to make a concession speech and not take questions from the press. That’s the Senator Clinton I’ve learned to know and understand.

Yes, and I am so over Obama because I believe I heard the same exact speech when he was elected to the Senate. And then what happened.
Fire away.

RobZuber is right. It was a victory speech, for heaven’s sake. His supporters were there to celebrate, not be lectured.

Yes and I also said it is the same speech I have heard when he was elected to the Senate. It doesn’t exactly rouse me after all this time he pretty much played fundraiser for the DLC wing.

Obama countered Hill/Bill with Oprah… Game On… *g*

WTF is Bill Bennett talking about?

“Remember Eugene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy and Howard Dean all had lots of youthful supporters too.”
Bobby Kennedy was ASSASSINATED you dumb fuck!

Maybe he’s trying to suggest something to someone?

If you look at the age-group figures Obama handily won every age-group EXCEPT those over 60, in a three person-race! But maybe Bennet thinks that anyone under 60 is “immature”.

That fairy tale crap is being uploaded to YouTube as I type. A link will be posted as soon as it’s ready.

Evolute, they’re only a write-off if we’re stupid enough to nominate Clinton.

If it’s Obama, or, by some political near-miracle, my man Edwards, I will guarantee you that that many of those red states will flow-change from red to purple to blue. *g*

Oh you heard that too? I couldn’t believe it. MSM are telling the Dems to stick with the fairy tale demagoguery. Ronnie Reagan. Luv it.

Marion, do ya have any leftovers from this Morn? I always miss your offerings, however, Tex has an awesome Chuck Wagon…! *g*

Hillary is sounding shrill.

mui … as you know, I have very specific positions I want to see each candidate stand up for. *None* of them are …

I do appreciate the vision of our country Obama communicates … and I think we need to pay attention to his way of energizing voters across age and racial lines. That’s not saying he is right on the issues, but saying that we have missed some critical messaging that he has grasped and we should be taking notes.

Americans who are not political junkies and party partisans are seeing very little difference between the parties in terms of actual results in their lives so speaking against partisanship has appeal and in my book is ok *IF* it is speech on behalf of progressive actions. So keep the rhetoric and add the action please!

And now we get Hillary’s stump speech, without the courtesy of congratulating the man who beat her like a gong. Tacky, I calls it.

But I do agree with Mui1@90; it’s time for Obama to start seriously kicking some GOP ass, especially since Clinton can’t.

Shrill would be the operative word…! ;-)

Yes but the problem is we may have Republikan lite in the office. Singing “bipartisanship” and the joys of Ronnie Reagan togetherness. Health policy? Negotiating with insurance companies. This country has waited too long. And I would rather see the Clinton/originally Edwards plan.

Breakfast is all done, but I’m thinking waffles for tomorrow morning. Okay with you, or would you prefer something else?

Edwards on MSNBC right now.

The South has spoken…! *g*

you may be right about rhetoric. But Siun his lack of policy and leadership on issues like FISA scares the crap out of me.

Tanbark; I agree with everything you said, except for this: He takes votes from Clinton.

I believe the opposite. I believe in most of America, Edwards supporters are anti-Clinton as part of their support motivation for Edwards. Many would seem to be for Edwards simply because they want to win bad and have concerns whether a black candidate can win.

I think once the Anti-Clinton people who support Edwards — all the breakdowns in Iowa showed most Edwards people with a “2nd choice” of Edwards — are relieved of the angst about a black candidate being able to beat a Republican, they will get on board with Obama.

Edwards MAY just swing his supporters to Obama, and hopefully before Super Tuesday.

Enjoyed your comments except for this one technical error – IMNSHO – ;-)

Yes, and I am so over Obama because I believe I heard the same exact speech when he was elected to the Senate. And then what happened.
Fire away.

It ain’t about speeches. It’s about what will happen. It’s about the Clinton donors, including large Telco/Comcos and banks at the top of the list. It’s about her votes in the Senate, and it’s about her not getting anything substantive accomplished when she was in the White House except a lawyer choosing debacle and a failed health plan–nothing else significant; it’s about her keeping whatever her health plan was secret.

And I would rather see the Clinton/originally Edwards plan.

IMHO, there is no objective way to know whether Clinton or Obama would be more progressive once in the White House. It might be a wash.

It’s time for *all* of the Democratic candidates to take advantage of the embarrassingly target-rich subject of life under the GOP, 2000-2007.

Just point out the facts, folks, if a uniting of the party is what you really want. Independents will hear it too.

Here’s the Bennett fairy tale crap.

Edwards thanked the blogosphere.We raised more money from the net than we ever have.

Oops Correction: “Most Edwards supporters with a 2nd choice of Obama..”

Betsy, should be popping in soon, oh wait, she has the keys to the treehouse… Anything is appreciated… *g*

I’m thinking waffles for tomorrow morning…

with bacon and maple syrple?

sadly we see a lack of leadership from all three on FISA … they are completely caught up in the horse race and it’s sad that we’ve built a primary and nomination system that sets this kind of course.

Another thing. Are you really sure Obama wants to kick Republikan ass. He stayed away twice when the FISA legislation came up. He agreed with Pumpkinhead that Hillary was wrong about the republikan framing of social security. He caved into John McCain a few years ago when HoJoe asked him too. I don’t want to write a litany. I feel there needs to be much more balance in the evaluation of Obama. In many ways he is Hillary’s political twin.

Americans who are not political junkies and party partisans are seeing very little difference between the parties in terms of actual results in their lives so speaking against partisanship has appeal and in my book is ok *IF* it is speech on behalf of progressive actions. So keep the rhetoric and add the action please!

Suin — Right-on/Right-on/Right-on.

No, there’s no excuse for that. I expected something louder from Edwards than a letter to supporters on FISA. But I honestly don’t remember hearing much more than a peep from Clinton or Obama. The difference being, they are still in the senate. It is their job to show up. What makes them not want to show their hand? Maybe they support the telcom companies after all.

Marion@111;

Bone-marrow denial, I calls it. :o)

She got swamped; and remember, it wasn’t 6 weeks ago that everyone was talking about the coronation process.

I’ve been saying for months that she simply could not stand a lengthy primary campaign. She had to win it quickly, or not at all. Now, that is clearly not going to happen.

Undeniably, bubba doing her scut work for her, hurt her, and if she slips his leash in Florida, it’ll hurt her there to.

When Bill, totally on the sic, “praised” Obama as “an eloquent, youthful, afro-american”, it was dog-whistle racism. Especially in South Carolina.

I don’t think she and her staff are stupid enough to let him do it in Florida, but then, there was that speech some weeks ago, where she pounded Obama for being “too far left”, because years ago, he’d spoken out against the death penalty, and for, she said, “socialized medicine”.

If she’s stupid enough to use parrot two of the gooper bugaboos, she’s stupid enough to do anything.

Americans who are not political junkies and party partisans are seeing very little difference between the parties in terms of actual results in their lives so speaking against partisanship has appeal and in my book is ok *IF* it is speech on behalf of progressive actions. So keep the rhetoric and add the action please!

I’d say Iraq, FISA and a joke of a stimulus package that will have no significant impact on the economy are fairly significant. That most Americans have forgotten all of them is the failure of the media to feed them any information on them, and the fact that most Americans read very little.

Look at this turnout!

With 93% reporting, the total Dem vote count (487,511) has surpassed the total Republican vote from last week! (443,203)

This is in a state that went 71% for Bush in 2004!

I’m stunned!

Rob, I’m equally stunned. But as I pointed out a couple of threads ago the early voting and polling workers seemed to think that something was happening like this. Their impression was that more Democrats were coming out. The total will be something around 520,000…or about 77,000 (16%) more than the Republicans. That’s stunning! If, by some miracle all those Democrats came out and voted for the nominee and all the Republicans voted for their nominee…the Dems would, I believe win by 58% to 42% in S. Carolina. That’s not gonna happen…but then the Democrats weren’t gonna outdraw the Republicans in S. Carolina, either.

I’m coming up with 529,239 Democratic votes cast today between the top three candidates. (with 99% reported) Damn.

Mui … I keep reminding myself that none of the presidential candidates are our saviors. We need to save ourselves – with continued action and support of candidates for congress like Alan Grayson on Blue America today who can shift the discussion and the action a lot!

I didn’t notice Elizabeth Edwards with John. Is she alright?

Pat nailed it on the head, ‘How can you speak after Obama’… ;-)

Unbelievable!

Si Se Puede, indeed.

I can’t ever remember seeing such domination in a closely contested primary before. These numbers are simply breathtaking. Wow.

I believe the opposite. I believe in most of America, Edwards supporters are anti-Clinton as part of their support motivation for Edwards. Many would seem to be for Edwards simply because they want to win bad and have concerns whether a black candidate can win.

I think once the Anti-Clinton people who support Edwards — all the breakdowns in Iowa showed most Edwards people with a “2nd choice” of Edwards — are relieved of the angst about a black candidate being able to beat a Republican, they will get on board with Obama.

I think you’re wrong there. I’m an Edwards supporter, and like many others who are ardent supporters of JRE, our support is based on his stand on the issues, not a anti-vote toward anyone.

Further, many of us are ambivelent about the other two, at best. I doubt highly you’ll see a big rush to either side if JRE drops out. Most likely we’ll trickle reluctantly into one camp or another, or write in our candidate in November.

I was watching other coverage. I believe Hillary originally said that MLK Jr. needed a person in office, LBJ, to get civil rights legislation passed. Any activist knows that is all too true. It didn’t happen with Eleanore roosevelt(lynching) to the Kennedys. It happened with LBJ.
And today I heard some voter in SC saying that Hillary said: MLK Jr needed a white man to get the civil rights legislation passed.
How did the voter get to that? And I wonder how much MSM or even members of Barack Obama’s campaign helped mischaracterize her actual statement. From now i am skeptical unless I hear it directly from the candidates mouth.

I was wondering about Elizabeth too. I also think it was interesting that Edwards said he would like to join Hillary and Bill in congratulating Barack. Is John going to join Hillary?

She did in fact congratulate him, but one could be forgiven for missing it, it was lightning brief, and merely prefatory to saluting the voters. It was pretty astonishing, really.

Obama’s team has his speech up for any who are looking – here

Suin – Amen to that. I think Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee, and I think he’s going to win.

I’m hoping that the grass roots/progressives will push Obama hard to implement progressive policies — action along with the talk.

You’re spot-on about getting as many progressives elected to Congress. That would most certainly force a President Obama to sign progressive legislation.

That’s 529,239 Democratic voters that are gonna be really pissed if the Pukes win the general….and that is just for starters!!!!

…a joke of a stimulus package that will have no significant impact on the economy…

The stimulus package doesn’t amount to much more than a political move in the final year of Bush’s reign. It is not much more than the kibble that is used to distract the guard dog while stealing the jewelry.

IRT the number of dems voting:let’s remember no one has been purged from the rolls yet; no one has had to stand in line for 4 hours because of a shortage of voting machines; no one has been warned that the police will be on hand to arrest anyone who has an outstanding parking ticket; and of course, the sweeps of ‘felons’ won’t happen till late summer.

It is not much more than the kibble that is used to distract the guard dog while stealing the jewelry.

Well said!

Important reminder – and a good nudge to everyone to contact their local party to volunteer as poll workers for November.

Double the number of black voters than 2004 according to O’Donnell.

Yes, but a president without a good policy– as the Chimperer and Rethuglican preznits before him have shown–is a complete disastor. Significantly different from savior. Middle ground. Competence, policy that steers this country back from total abyss. I think that’s a modest request.

PuestoLoco; no explanation necessary. :o) We all basically want the same thing, which is to get the petroturds back in their board rooms, if not in the dock at the Hague. It’s just that we have serious disagreements on how to do that.

Everybody gets to take their shot. :o)

I put on my kevlar underoos when I boot up in the morning. :o)

As far as Edwards MAYBE swinging his support to Obama, especially, before Super Tuesday; I have mixed emotions. I am so afraid of what Clinton will do to us if she’s nominated, E.G.: of AIPAC being surgically implanted on her butt, that if Edwards gets trounced again in Florida, it may be time for him to pull out and pick someone.

If, God forbid, it’s Hillary, I will strangle on my own hurl, and publicly grovel on here for my support of him, like a little puppy wallowing around upside down while he pees himself drenched.

Please; soothe me; tell me that if push comes to shove for John, that won’t happen. :o)

I’m getting a bad link there, Siun…

only women sound shrill. Have you ever heard a man called shrill?

Or the RNC’s SC vote shenanigans… Go ahead and rain on our parade, eh? ;-)

IRT the number of dems voting:let’s remember no one has been purged from the rolls yet; no one has had to stand in line for 4 hours because of a shortage of voting machines; no one has been warned that the police will be on hand to arrest anyone who has an outstanding parking ticket; and of course, the sweeps of ‘felons’ won’t happen till late summer.

That’s a great observation Solia. I hope there is none of that Rethug crap going on. Is that because the Rethug and Dem voting days were separated?

I think that what you referred to is still very much in the Rethug playbook. They have no morals, no hesitation to pull this kind of sh*t. We’ll certainly see it done in Nov ‘08.

That’s why I despise Repugs/Rethugs as a general rule.

Dean’s Scream…? ;-)

Corrected link to Obama speech here

It’s gonna be ok, really. Nothing will change before Super Tues, guaranteed. Please don’t do that puppy thing, you’ll make me cry!

More number crunching for you. Totaling up all primary votes so far in IA, NH, NV and SC, the numbers are:

Democratic
1,174,770
58.2%

Republican
845,132
41.8%

In 2004, these states went a combined 53.3% for Bush. How do you like them apples?

I am very worried that progressive can’t do didly squat with Obama. See BlackAgendaReport.com. There are some scary articles there.

Mui … so who has good policies?

Hillary wants to leave large numbers of troops in Iraq for long stretches, Obama and Edwards seem to talk about getting more out but are less clear.

Hillary and Edwards are more militant re Iran than Obama who at least wants to talk (but who also wants a bigger military)

and it goes on and on …

it’s very important we not “convince” ourselves that any of the candidates are other than they are …

OkieDave@145 is on the money; If Obama’s our nominee, his coattails will be a mile long. If he keeps on being soft on the issues, I think they’ll still be there, BECAUSE of Iraq and the economy, etc.

And if we pack the senate and the house with fresh, pissed-off, democrats, then, I think we can lead Obama to the water and make him drink. :o)

One caveat for my 2c; if, as I expect he will if he’s nominated, Obama has a big lead getting close to November, and starts “reaching out” and refusing to go for the GOP jugular, I might could get emotionally distraught enough to sit it out.

Just sayin’ for myself; no one else, about how angry I am, over the past 7 years. :o(

I am very worried that progressive can’t do didly squat with Obama.

My personal fear too… I haven’t seen any inclination to listen to anybody but Rahm and the DLC…

Joe Conason on Barack Obama here and there:There’s no taking sides
Contrary to what many readers think, I am not endorsing Clinton or Obama for president — and have spared neither candidate my criticism.

But Goddam! It WAS a woodshed job. :o) :o) :o)

I’m sorry Edwards couldn’t sneak in and kick her to third, but I’ll take the hit, for this kind of repudiation of Clinton. :o)

The people at Clinton’s town hall in Nashville, look like they’re at the funeral of a close friend. I’d call the atmosphere late Rococco mortuary.

Rob; I likes ‘em a ton. :o)

Thanks for putting them up. :o)

No, did you watch the debate. Obama wants to keep troops in. Hilary does too. Edwards thinks Kuwait is a better I do too. The scariest thing I heard in regards to Iran, was the first debate when Obama had that knockup with Gravel about putting all options on the table including nukes. and so on and so on. If you want my honest opinion, I believe Obama is the most republikan of the three. I have not heard Edwards talk of Iran in a scary way.
I could be wrong

Goddess. Someone else is wearing the same tinfoil hat. Bless you.

Edwards does. Domestically I think. And since Hillary copies his ideas . . .

Edwards speech to the Herzliya Conference in Israel – read here.

As you know, I’ve spent the past year trying to get the candidates to make a stand for removing all residual troops – none of them have been willing to make that committment except Bill Richardson.

I like ‘em! Let’s have some apple crisp (since Betsy is busy at the treehouse).

Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough…they sound shrill to me!

I just got one of those “Obama” is a muslim emails,

Looking at those Democratic turnout numbers, I wouldn’t want to be poor Lindsey Graham running for re-election to the Senate this fall from SCarolina.

g’nite all … I’ve had enough for today …

but Alan Grayson on our Blue America today gave me hope!

and I hope lots of firepups will support him!

I don’t see where you can get that out of it. The reason he said “join in congratulating” is because he does have one thing in common with Bill and Hillary — they all just got pulverized.

Where do you think it originated??

Yes, I am absolutely sure Obama wants to kick Republican ass.

I imagine similar emails are flyin’ around all over the place tonight, unfortunately :-(

There is some article on blackagendareport.com which reported Obama promised 10,000 more troops to one of those hawkish veterans group for . . . .

It’s getting late. I’m probably sounding shrill. But Obama is the one I worry about being most Republikan. Sorry for the rant, but think another thing that bothers me about Obama, is that every debate, every speech I’ve heard, every commercial its all Raygun style demagoguery, and I fear that makes people more stanoffish about really evaluating the guy, his record and policies.

Who would Obama choose as a running mate?

Lindsay is running for re-election this fall? OMG, I didn’t realize that. I can google it, but does his opponent have a chance? Does he/she need money?

Put together with the private meeting Clinton and Edwards had after the debate. Just wondering…

Siun, I don’t think this Edwards’ most recent position. Don’t have a link right now. But during the debate he said troops only in Kuwait.

Who would Obama choose as a running mate?

I nominate D.L. Hughley…

Evan Bayh? Joseph Lieberman?
Okay should go now.

MSNBC: current panel

Joe Scar: Repug former congressman
Pat Buchanan: Repug former Nixon goon
Margaret Carlson: did I hear correctly that she dated Limbaugh?
Eugene Robinson: WaPo but we can only hope he is a Democrat

Does anybody really think Clinton and Obama delegates are going to vote for the other on the second ballot in Denver? I don’t.

Find the fact check on Snopes.com and send that back to everyone on the list that recieved that e-mail.

When I get that kind of shit from people I am ruthless with them.

-G

Eugene Robinson: WaPo but we can only hope he is a Democrat

He’s one of the good guys.

It’s either that or McCain and another hundred years in Irak.

My only hope is a brokered convention and a “Draft Gore” movement breaks out

Good point, neuro — why does one journalist have to hold up the entire Democratic & progressive & African American side of the panel? Could we have one Democrat? Or one progressive? Or another African American, especially on such an historic day that MSNBC could see coming?

This panel sucks. Pat Buchanan is yesterday’s news, especially when he sez that Obama sounds like he’s running against George Wallace. Whatever long-term contract MSNBC has with him, they should end it.

Margaret Carlson dated Fred08 Thompson. And moderated the LOGO gay debate of Democrats.

Oh great. Googled ‘lindsay graham opponent’ and one of the sites i clicked on looked like some soft, lightweight, semi-porn. Now I’ll probably be bombed with porn email.

Didn’t Margaret Carlson date Fred Thompson?

Reply to all comes in very handy at those times. I do the same thing with silly emails I get too.

Lieberman endorsed McCain and will likely be his running mate. There is no way Obama would choose him.

Didn’t Margaret Carlson date Fred Thompson?

Not sure if she did but the media revealed way too much of her personal life. Made her look foolish. I still can’t figure out why they did that. She’s a reporter. She shouldn’t have her personal life discussed that way.

I think Richardson would be a great running mate for Obama, although I doubt he’ll be the nominee.

She did date Thompson and revealed a lot of her personal info herself.

You don’t think Obama will be the nominee? Who do you think it will be?

I was thinking about the report that she kept calling him. The implication was that he wasn’t interested and she was a nuisance.

Pat Buchanan thinks the bigots are so prevalent in our culture that Obama can’t win. Iowa proves that he’s wrong.

Obama/Leahy

The Taylor Marsh crowd are smartin and don’t sound too gracious.

She needs thicker glasses because I heard her say that Fred Thompson was handsome.

-G

Another thought…it used to be that the Hispanic voters went Repub, because they thought the Repubs would invade Cuba and/or overthrow the dictators in their countries….not now…The Repubs are the biggest threat to their communities, and they know it. It is the Repubs that want to lock them up and/or deport them and separate them from their families. They are a formidable force in this country. I think the Hispanic vote is going to be a huge wake-up call to the Repubs. It will be interesting if they go for Obama or Hillary.

Sorry acid joke in reference to this flashback:

The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I’m going to go ahead and say it,” Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.
“I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf,” he said.
Obama received widespread attention for his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, delivered while he was still a state senator.
Lieberman became Obama’s mentor when Obama was sworn into the Senate in 2005. They stayed close at Thursday night’s event, too, entering the room together and working the crowd in tandem.

I wish they would listen to Edwards…but..maybe the stars aren’t right…sigh…so be it. You never know, a lot can change…

Hmm, I took it more as a dig against Hillary for not making a concession speech.

off to bed….night all.

Yeah, but times change, and Lieberman dissed him. I can understand that at the time, things were they way they were, but like I said, things changed…I used to be married to someone else for 28 years…but things changed…

That’s all I’m saying. I should have “known”, but I didn’t…:)

I think Richardson would make a fine Vice President, but I thought he was a terrible campaigner. The VP candidate needs to be a strong campaigner.

Aloha, Solai! Teddy, if ya don’t think it’s Obama, don’t tell me it’s Hill…! ;-)

I wouldn’t dismiss the taylor marsh crowd. I have read her blog in a while, but she’s done some standup pieces. And there are two sides to the story. And I am suspicious of how how Hillary Clinton remarks got twisted from MLK Jr needed LBJ to pass civil rights legislation to> Hillary said MLKJr. needed a white man to pass legislation (as I saw today on some local news coverage of SC). There is something bogus in some charges of racism.

And then when CT Dems chose Lamont, Obama supported Lamont unlike many other Dem Senators. Now Lamont supports Obama. We know you don’t like Obama. Got it.

I remember McCain dissed Obama and then Obama caved in at Lieberman’s request(before the Lamont primary though). I don’t have much faith in Obama’s “change.”

More than doubled Hillary’s votes. Really can’t get over that. Shocking. It’s a new era boys and girls.

Rachel got asked to be the keynote speaker at an ACLU Dinner and had to back out.

He “supported” Lamont but didn’t actually campaign for him, even going so far as to go between events in NY and Boston without stopping in CT. Yes, it’s better than the ones who supported Lieberman, but as with the FISA vote, it’s pretty much minimal effort.

Margaret Carlson: did I hear correctly that she dated Limbaugh?

She didn’t but Daren Kagen used to before CNN let her go.

Carlson who is usually pretty liberal had a “thing” with Fred Thompson who married someone younger than Margaret’s daughter.

GROVE (4/28/00): There was major heartburn yesterday in the office of Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) over the New York Post’s report of a “catfight” between CNN host and Time magazine columnist Margaret Carlson and former Republican staffer Jeri Kehn, who the tabloid claims are rivals for the senator’s affections. Kehn, whom the Post describes as a “33-year-old bombshell,” told the “Page Six” column that she and she alone is the 57-year-old Thompson’s “girlfriend,” and that Carlson, 54, and any other alleged competitors should just back off.

“She just won’t get the hint that he has a girlfriend,” Kehn told the newspaper. “She calls his apartment all the time. I mean, what is the deal with these women? Don’t they have any pride? It’s the joke all over Washington that Margaret has this huge crush on him. And Fred is clearly not interested.”

Carlson said a lot of goofy things about Fred Thompson when she was on Tweety after they stopped dating, but then I’ve always thought anyone who said Thompson was going anywhere particularly with his ambivalance over running and late getting in was wrong.

For example she said:

CARLSON: The theme song of Republicans should be “Some Day My Prince Will Come,” and they’re waiting and they’re hoping. And so Fred Thompson is not late at all. His moment is here…CARLSON (continuing directly): He does look like the dad. He has everything that Pat says. He’s handsome, he’s charming, he sounds like a president, he looks like a president. But Pat says he might not have the fire in the belly. That could help him, not having the hunger. Not being “willing to do anything” could help him.

My apologies to Margaret Carlson. Not that I admire her taste in men, nor that it is any of my business, but Fred Thompson is no Rush Limbaugh.

I support Edwards and I don’t see him endorsing anyone. I agree most of his core supporters are not really interested in anybody else. If you read what they say (and I do regularly) the staunch supporters say absolutely NO to Hillary–no way, no how. Could that change? I don’t get that feeling at all. And Obama is viewed to the right of Hillary, so again I cannot see a huge migration to him either. The thing of it is: Edwards supporters agree that Washington is rigged and voting for either of them constitutes a sell-out to a rigged system. You can argue all day long about whether it is inevitable or not, but you won’t convince many of us that supporting a rigged-system is a good idea for the nation, for the middle and working class. You only get more of the same and if you are lucky it may be “lite” or tempered, but it’s still more of the same.

I’m sorry I differ from you. The ”got it” part is kind of rude and honestly I’ll leave after this post, because now it’s time. (1) Actually I think Lamont has made a mistake and wrote him so. Rumor has it that the support was for Obama if he’d support the FISA legislation. (2) Now, don’t revise history, I was a Lamont supporter. Obama, I repeat, did not support Lamont. He took a train right through CT without stopping. Hillary on the other hand made better gestures. Edwards actually showed up.

Yeah, I guess I’m saying that endorsing McCain was the big “diss”…but, you know…Obama probably likes McCain as a person too. If they end up as the nominees…well, it will get real weird…

Goddess. Someone else is wearing the same tinfoil hat. Bless you.

Sorry, wrong persuasion, I answer to one, tho…! *g*

Merci! And goodnight. Bonkers try not to bend truth to what you envision Obama is supposed to be.

LOL–I’ve always thought there was only one unique repugnant Rush.

And then there is the matter of conviction. Up thread someone asked why Obama isn’t using his magnificient speaking skills on the Telecom Immunity debate in Senate Chambers. That is a very pertinent question.

Obama and Hillary display ambition, but I do not read an ounce of conviction about what they say they want. Edwards speaks to me distinctly and powerfully on this aspect of running for office.

I like Edwards too, but he cannot win the nomination. Edwards supporters need to decide, do they want Hillary and Barack and vote accordingly. If Edwards were out of the mix, the party would actually get who the majority wants. Edwards may spoil the mix. I know his supporters are split, but I believe the majority would go to Obama, but he may hand it to Hillary by being the spoiler.

God how awful Lieberman/McCain/Obama. What was that bipartisan crap they were working on. nighty, night for real.

Ummm…. I think I might need to clarify my post @54….

It was a big stfu to the clintons from South Carolina for what ever reason they decided to go with Obama. The result is stfu clintons. Since I can’t stand this reducing everyone to to gender/race politics, either they GOT his message and it resonated or they saw the clintons as over and wanted to let them know. Either way I love the spread.

I agree with you that this is HUGE. Best of all I think South Carolina understood the issues because they are on the front lines of so many of them hitting on them directly…. across gender/racial lines. They could have split the vote so drastically that clinton could slip through and this would have been over. Its not over and we have the good people of SC to Thank.

HUGE for whatever reason in voter turnout and HUGE for Obama and HUGE for us all.

I saw his speech I want him to speak out more like that. I’m sorry but being so familiar with John Edwards speeches, it sounded just like one. I’m fine with that because that’s the message that will put down the pubs in the general. I like that he spoke of having the pubs to do the crossing over instead of this this horrible bipartisan word. That’s a distinction that I’m glad to see.

It was a speech and he’s just damn fine at ‘um and I’ve thought that since 04. I’m still concerned about the lieberman/neocon connection BUT we’ll see what he does about FISA and really he should be giving a speech on the floor of Senate. He said so many good things in that speech. He must show up to vote and must vote against immunity.

I’m still voting for Edwards as he seems to hold the dnc’s feet to the fire and gets our message out there. Without his message in this race it just wouldn’t be quite so exciting :-)

PuestoLoco……. yep, HUGE! Great to see! :-)

Obama sent Lamont as much money as Hillary did. Lamont had a meeting with Hillary, and Lamont’s chosing Obama. What does that say?

How about Bill’s rousing speeches for Lieberman actually in CT? Funny how these things get left out of the Obama critiques.

If McCain and Obama get the respective party nominations, I imagine McCain will demagogue on war and “terror” and try to make Obama look weak on it, or at least look the other way while the swiftboaters do that on his behalf.

And as Obama has shown tonight, those old tricks aren’t working anymore. We cannot be afraid of what Lush Limpballz or Bobo Brooks is going to say about us anymore. They’re quickly becoming irrelevant.

Richardson has loose lips and gets caught saying the wrong thing impulsively. The GOP would have a field day with him. Richardson also has about 20 minutes of speaking material and then he repeats it over and over. It won’t play well in a long campaign.

The size of the turnout is great. If the General Election is this well attended, it’ll make it much harder for vote suppressers, cagers, and voting machine hackers to play games.

That is why I think Obama already threw out the Pakistan and Iraq stuff early on…you are right…but what I see as “why is Obama seemingly a little hawkish?” is necessary for him to have said as a backbone, for a fight against the Puke charges that will come if he’s nominated, as being a weak Dem….something like that…It is posturing…he who pisses best on the bush wins.

I said before but it didn’t make it up for some reason, given the logistics that Clinton and Obama are going to be in DC Monday, there is no reason at all they can’t get there in time to lead and participate in one of the most important situations (it’s hard to call it a debate because Rethugs are using Senate rules not to allow debate) and ther are a lot of things that can happen outlined very well by CBoldt. But there is no reason why those two can’t show up in the Senate and lead like hell as intensely as they participate in debates Monday–absolutely none. And they’re both lawyers who know enough about constitutional law to understand the huge stakes who went to two of the best law schools in the country.

It dumbfounds me.

I think Edwards is essential to the Democratic effort to push-back against Bush and what will be 8 yrs of being shit upon. Baby steps back to a healthy country are not what we need. Somebody has to keep the pressure on Hillary and Obama now. Left to their own devices, they’d migrate back to Reaganism.

It’s become obvious that the Netroots aren’t powerful/large enough yet to greatly influence Presidential campaigns. We’ve made great strides, but we’re not quite there yet.

On the other hand, we’ve proven we can have a lot of impact on Congressional races. Maybe we should come together and focus more on the Blue America races, especially the campaign of Alan Grayson who was here earlier today. Truly a remarkable candidate most all of us will support I suspect.

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

On FISA, I think the sad truth is that the vast American public does not know what that is and doesn’t particularly care. That’s no excuse for not leading on the issue, but I suspect it’s part of the calculus.

I agree. They should both show up. Didn’t Woody Allen say 85% of having a job is just showing up?

Mui, I could go on and on about key votes that Edwards missed during his tenure as Senator. And more than that I could rattle off scores where his votes hardly resembled the progressive he claims to be. In fact I could so a whole bunch where, not only did he bother to vote with the progressives, he actually was one of one or two Democrats that allied with the unanimous Republican Senators. We’re not simply talking about his position on the Iraq Authorization (which 22 Democrats in the Senate voted against), or the Patriot Act (in which almost all Democrats were cornered). These are bills supported by the Republicans and opposed by all but a handful of Blue Dogs. He also took actions that killed Amendments supported or authored by progressives and supported by a majority of Democratic Senators.

Usually Edwards was a typical vote with the Democratic pack Senator. When he varied it almost always was to shift right.

Here’s just a few. He opposed Campaign Finance reforms such as the Harkin Amendment (#155) that provided public funding to those that adopted voluntary spending limits (and did it again when Kerry introduced a similar Amendment #148). He opposed Wellstone’s efforts (Amdt #145) to restrain targeted electioneering by tax-exempt groups.

He voted to support changes in the tax rates and estate tax cuts and opposed the Graham Amendments that would amend the 10% tax bracket and decrease the base of the Estate Tax limitations. These were opposedly unanimously by the Republicans and joined by Edwards and 11 other Blue Dogs. Later he did the same when Senator Dodd (#695) made an effort. That time Edwards was joined by one more Blue Dog. 28 Democrats supported Senator Dodd, not Edwards.

During the mad-cow epidemic he opposed efforts by Wellstone and others to increase Farm Safety regulations on sickened cattle, improving the environmental quality of livestock feeding operations, or on the practice of meat packers actually owning the feeding operations. Again, these were measures supported by the bulk of Democrats and all the progressives. Edwards and a small number of Blue Dogs joined the solid Republican bloc to reject these efforts.

He opposed restrictions on Internet purchases of firearms, and supported the “Sense of Senate” Resolution by Trent Lott (Amendment 3150) saying that “militias are just any citizen that has a gun” (not organized bodies under the authority of the Congress and State governments).

He joined with the Republicans to override Clinton’s veto of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendment Act of 2000. That effort by Edwards, 13 Blue Dogs, and the unanimous Republican Senate delegation fell a few votes short. LKater he supported the Republicans on the SS Resolution 34 “Yucca Mountain Bill”, along with 15 “Conservative” Democrats.

Granting Federal voting rights to felons who served out their sentences (and paroles) and met other qualifications (Amendment 2879)? Again Edwards joined with the Republicans and a small number of law-and-order Democrats (like Torricelli and Blue-Staters) to block its passage. The vast majority of Democrats and all the progressives supported that effort. Sen. Schumer tried to make drug elimination grants for low-income housing areas available. 11 Democrats (inc. Edwards) and the Republican bloc stopped it.

He supported Zell Miller’s Amendment (2998) to prohibit feul economy standards for pickup trucks…again supported by a mere handful of Blue State Democrats and the Republican bloc. Then he turns around and joins the same crowd in tabling Sen. Boxers fuel and fuel additives environmental liability bill (Amendment 3139).

Senator Lugar stood alone amongst his Republican colleagues and offered an Amendment responding to the farm economic crisis (#1190). Senator Edwards was the sole Democrat to jump the aisle on that one.

Admittedly Edwards comes from a State where military base closures and military reductions are a hot-button issue. That’s why he consistantly voted against the base-closure process supported by the other progressives in the Senate.

Regarding the Iraq Authorization of Force. Edwards not only was in a minority of the Democrats who supported it, he also blocked the Durbin Amendment that would have granted authorization only if an IMMEDIATE threat by Iraq could be established (rather than a “continuing threat”) and Byrd Amendments that would have terminated the IAUF after a year. He embraced folks like DIFI, Hillary, Joe Lieberman, Hollings, Landrieu, Zell Miller, Jelly Rockefeller, Harry Ried, Carnahan, and the cowardly Tom Daschle. Somehow he couldn’t find the courage to support Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, Dodd, Harkin, Levin, Leahy, Byrd, Fiengold, Wellstone and others in the Democratic MAJORITY.

He constantly joined with the Republicans to impede Democrat efforts to limit and delimit the authority of the Dept. of Homeland Security. He aided them in invoking cloture to the Gramm and the Thompson Amendments (#4901) and opposed the Byrd Amendment. 28 Democrats (including Wellstone and Feingold) supported Byrd.

He voted to table Wellstone’s Amendment (2487) to condition trade to the Caribbean to international human rights standards. 48 Repoublicans and 18 Democrats opposed Wellstone…but a majority of Democrats supported him. He also joined 43 Republicans and 12 Southern Democrats + JoLie) to block Senator Dodd’s efforts to terminate travel restrictions and prohibitions to Cuba.

Wellstone proffered an Amendment (#2752) that would have established a moratorium on large Agribusiness mergers. It would have also established a Commission to investigate mergers and market concentration in agribusiness. 19 Blue-Dogs (inc. Edwards) and the Republicans voted against it.

The Wellstone Amendment (#1747) that would have increased funding to the Veterans Health Admin by $1,300,000. 44 Republicans and 19 Democrats killed it. Edwards was one. In a rare case of Mary Landrieu doing something that reflected her fathers heritage, she submitted Amendment #2323~ which called on the Feds to support the education, economics, and medical needs of familes with disabled kids. Edwards and 10 other Dims supported the 40 Republicans to block this. Boxer, Dodd, Feingold, Kennedy, Leahy and Wellstone must have wondered what happened…even DIFI and Joe Lie supported the bill).

It goes on and on, hate to say.

Pete – I’m looking at it right now. #92.

Funny, I wasn’t talking about Clinton, so criticizing Clinton (and accusing me of failing failing to do so) is not an argument in Obama’s favor.

On FISA, I think the sad truth is that the vast American public does not know what that is and doesn’t particularly care. That’s no excuse for not leading on the issue, but I suspect it’s part of the calculus

.

It happens on so many issues that have to do with government–never in an environment like here where people do everything they can to get informed, but on the street.

That’s obviously true and I’ve talked to a number of people who are “successful” but know nothing about it and don’t seem to care. I don’t know what the answer is to changing that.

The number of people who think that their Rethug Senator knows what’s best for them and whatever they do is okay, or Democrats doing whatever the Rethugs tell them to do is high and simply tragic.

Teddy; Solai; I’m in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Graham, in 2002, defeated Alex Sanders, a moderately good (for S.C.) democrat.

In 2004 in the race for the other senate seat here, James DeMint defeated Democrat Inez Tennenbaum, who was a two-term Superintendant of Education here, by about 10 points.

(I think we’re about 48th in that category, for the kids’ SAT scores, etc., so draw your own conclusions…:o) )

Anyway, DeMint was so far right that he stated during the campaign that unmarried schoolteachers living with their boyfriends shouldn’t be allowed to teach, along with some other flat-earth bullshit.

Tennenbaum, the wife of a wealthy S.C. backer of Bill Clinton, tried to out-kneejerk DeMint, by coming out against gay marriage; for the death penalty; and supporting bush on his war, and on most of his tax cuts for the rich. It didn’t work, and for the first time in South Cackalack’s history, we had two republican senators.

Nice context for what happened tonight, huh? :o)

So. We need SOMEONE new to take advantage of Mr. Graham’s staying the blood-bullshit-and-Koolaid course. :o)

Jane and Christy are EXCELLENT at keeping track of this, and they will keep us informed, and I’ll post on it, too, when we find that someone. Of course, we may get stuck with Tannenbaum again, since she’s got bucks, and some name recognition from her earlier political forays. But even she would be better than Graham. We’ll see how it plays out.

And, of course, this aint over. If Clinton wins in Florida, she’ll be back in it, and we’ll have it to do, all over again, to keep her from throwing the goopers a life preserver. Which is why I’d like for Gore to man-up and make the call for Obama within the next few days.

Whatever. It’s gonna be one hell of a nine months.

Bonkers, curious about the idea that the netroots don’t have that much influence on presidential campaigns…I’m imagining Obama’s netroots have been humming. All those young people?

Good point. I’ve always thought of the Netroots as places like FDL, DailyKos, etc. Perhaps that term could use some clarifying? Maybe I should stick with Liberal Blogosphere or some such thing?

Seems many of the things that are championed at the blogs I like are often ignored at the Presidential level. That was the thought behind my comment.

Obviously, there are conservative blogs, and the younger audience using Facebook/YouTube more, and so on, so not sure how those distinctions are usually made in language.

Didn’t accuse you of anything.

Yes, bringing up the Clinton’s lame handling of the Lamont campaign is not in Obama’s “favor.” That’s why I pointed out the things Obama did do which wasn’t all that bad, especially in comparison to other Senators. Remember Barbara Boxer’s vehement support for Holy Joe in CTBob’s video? Oops…suppose that’s not a point for Obama since I’m bringing up Boxer’s support of Traitor Joe.

I’ve felt that there has been a lot of hypocrisy around the Liberal blogs regarding Obama. Many have talked about the “cult of personality” around Obama, yet at the same time John Edwards gets a pass for all sorts of failings, as pointed out in cinnamonape’s comment above, yet many will continue with the “I’m still with Edwards” line (which I was until tonight I think). People were actually questioning Russ Feingold’s Liberal cred yesterday since Russ has been critical of Edwards. Now that’s silly.

The Obama/Traitor Joe theme is a frequent one as well where the same critique could be levied against many of the Dem Senators, yet many around here have been singling out Obama on this point, and ignoring the others like Clinton. Perhaps their behaviour suggests a certain reality Senators were facing with the Lamont/Traitor Joe race? That’s all I pointed out in the comment you responded to.

It is nerve wracking times like these that Scarborough’s republicanism rears it ugly head. If you think he’s a neutral commentator, think again! When push comes to shove, Scarborough is republican through and through. Where is the ‘fair’?

He joined with the Republicans to override Clinton’s veto of the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendment Act of 2000. That effort by Edwards, 13 Blue Dogs, and the unanimous Republican Senate delegation fell a few votes short. LKater he supported the Republicans on the SS Resolution 34 “Yucca Mountain Bill”, along with 15 “Conservative” Democrats

Edwards said during the deabte he is actually opposed to nuke plants period since he now thinks (science) there is no safe disposal. The Republikan lite positions were inexecusable but I tend to think that Edwards has gone through the syndrome of what Al Gore and others have as well when out of office. I don’t hear a mea culpa coming from the other Blue Dawg candidates. It almost sounds during the debate that Obama is not going to scrap for instance No Child Left Behind. That’s alarming to me. He said something about making sure teachers no it’s not a punishment. So basically with Obama, he talks of making shitty legislation a shinier poop? That’s scary. Edwards on the other hand has some interesting ideas on second chance schools etc. etc.
I see you opposing Edwards and I actually appreciate you doing so about the record. I am not one of those people who gets all confrontational when presented with the ugly facts. But honestly why do you think the DLC is so happy with Obama and Hillary, but not Edwards?

I couldn’t stand to watch it yesterday. Even KO doesn’t make it worth wading through all the crap MSNBC has to offer. CNN is just as bad. A caller to CSPAN this morning said that the 24/7 cable channels just need to stir up something because they need something to fight over.

The real issues must be beyond them. I think they could talk about health care, FISA, unitary executives, earmarks, environment and other important issues in depth for many hours if they would just put some effort into it. Ah, that’s the problem. It would actually take some research and study to produce this kind of analysis. Side by side comparisons of the candidates platforms are just too hard for them. Something that would really give the public information is way beyond the MSM of today.

It’s not singling out. Obama seems to get a free pass, because the mentality is “anyone but Hilary” and I think that is a harmful, in light of the fact all candidates need to be analyzed equally. There are too many people that react aggressively any time Obama’s many faults are addressed in regards to record, lack of policy etc etc. is mentioned. Why is that? I have seen that while volunteering for Lamont. People tend to have a set idea of what a candidate is and then react aggressively when told for instance the cold hard truth about Holy Joe. David Sirota, I believe, wrote at least one article. one indicated Obama was the worst in terms of support (something about doing nothing then reluctantly mailing some lame flyers). Hilary got a slightly better grade if I remember correctly although hers was also a lame endorsement.Here is another. It looks like a shorter article

It wasn’t just that people like Illinois Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former President Bill Clinton refused to campaign for Lamont even though they had both whispered official endorsements of him. It was that most of those who did nominally help the campaign only agreed to voice positive statements about Lamont, but refused to forcefully take on Lieberman for attacking the Democratic Party or violating campaign finance disclosure laws

As for Lamont endorsing Obama, I can’t help but think there’s some political naivitee involved. Wasn’t there a rumor that Lamont endorse Obama, thinking that Obama would support Dodd’s FISA fight? We don’t know what’s going on with Lamont. All we have is his official statement (see website) which amounts to fine words and that it.

Yes, Mui, the truth IS: “anybody but Hillary”. For the simple reason that Hillary Clinton is the ONLY politician in america who can keep the white house in GOP hands and return the House and Senate to them.

If we’re asinine enough to nominate her, she’ll be worth 20 points to the republicans. St. John or Willard will be able to practically skate out of talking about Iraq, and the other issues, such as the economy, will be minimized, too. It’s not much of an exaggeration to say that either of their campaign speeches will consist of basically three words:

“Hillary and Bill!”

In this, nothing has changed. If she makes it to the general, conservatives across the board, repubs and democrats, as well as a ton of independents, will get out of their death beds and crawl to the polls on bleeding stumps to vote against her.

I used to be an admirer and supporter of hers, but I’m sick of her now. A few weeks ago, when she called Obama out for “being too far left”, because he had spoken out against the death penalty years ago, and because, as she claimed, he was for “socialized medicine”, it was just one more instance of her sucking up to the kneejerks. It was appalling, and frightening, to me, to see the leading candidate for our party’s nomination speak those words.

What will it take for her defenders to stop trying to get the rest of us to award her the democratic nomination as a bandaid-slash-consolation prize for the hits she’s taken from conservatives, both repub and democrat?

Just because they hate her with a white-hot hatred is NO reason for her to be our candidate. In fact, if she had stopped supporting bush’s loon crusade early on, or had even finally and unequivocally (as John Edwards has done, numerous times) raised her hand and made a straight-up apology for HER part in helping create it, instead of farting and tap-dancing around it, or if she had risked one micron of her political ass on behalf of we progressives, then she might have some claim to at least a share of our support. But she has done nothing of the sort, and most progressives know it, which is why she got hammered on here when Jane took that straw poll last October. And why she has gotten hammered on every progressive poll I’ve seen.

The cheap-shot support she’s gotten from her defenders, as they call those of us who post the facts about her track record “sexists” and “misogynists”, is worthy of ridicule.

They accuse us of using “republican talking points” against a candidate who has spouted off GOP shitspeak, of the kind she used on Obama, like she was a trained parrot. It’s getting to the point of dementia. Please, stop it. We HAVE to win this election, and either Barak Obama, or John Edwards, if he can pull a rabbit out of a hat on super Tuesday, has a huge advantage over Hillary Clinton in doing that. Anyone who thinks that either of them would carry the same negatives into the general that Clinton carries, needs to climb back on the turnip truck.

The bottom line on Edwards, and why I support him, is that he’s the only candidate with the courage and the smarts to repeatedly identify our biggest problem: That corporate america has, practically speaking, a stranglehold on our government.

It’s why george bush got within a Supreme Court decision of the white house.

It’s why we’re in Iraq.

It’s why the price of a gallon of gas is nearly twice what it was when Bill Clinton left office.

It’s why, for most of us, owning our own home is either out of reach or involves giving a bank or a mortgage lender a lien on your life.

They all talk about what they will do, but I’ve seen Edwards speak twice now, and he is genuinely passionate about reversing these things. How that translates into reality, we may never know, since his campaign has not caught on yet, and may not.

BTW, CinnamonApe, you gonna post those links for us, about all of Edwards for us? I admit, he’s not perfect, and unlike Clinton he’s not a sacred cow about whom facts about his track record shouldn’t be posted, but it would good if you could trouble yourself to give us the source for all of John’s transgressions. I suspect you may have played a bit fast and loose with some of them.

There’s no guarantee that that White Hot hatred won’t be turned on Obama, unless he triangulates. And all indications is that he might. His health plan, and attitudes on No Child Left Behind, like I said, seem to consist of shining shit that should be scrapped. (Lamont was against No Child, I am surprised by his endorsment.) He tends to be into the Republikan hype on social security (see Joe Conason). He talks of bipartisanship and has shown “respect” (too much) for John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Ronald Raygun. In that case, progressives have a bigger problem than Hillary’s “negatives” which I see Obama emphasizing enough on teevee, for me not to want to side with the “underdog” here. (Because I despise Obama taking the Republikan “negatives” line on the Clintons, and the rabid right-wing Clinton hatred, almost more than I hate their triangulating.) And maybe you have to be a women riding the train on Metro North, say during rush hour, with your office skirt and blouse, to recognize that je ne sais quois on Russerts despicable face and his attitude during the debate (shaking a little like a pervert, barely perceptable except to those who recognize the look of man whose about to peek down your blouse.) The misogyny is real. racism is real. How it’s being used by the campaigns and the MSM is a different story alltogether.
tanbark, it’s easy to look up the legislation Edwards was involved with that cinnamonape points out. Everyone may have a different take, on what Edwards was doing back then and what he’s doing now. I tend to think he’s gone through the Al Gore syndrome. And as you probably know I will not vote for Clinton or Obama.
I’ll let youhave the lost shot, since I’m all worn out with primary contentiousness for now, but please remember we’re all progressives, we want the same things. The candidates and their records are up for grabs. It’s better to weigh each with a cool head, then run off with “anybody but Hillary.” since Edwards is being ignored, that essentially gives Obama an obfuscating “halo effect”. And if there is anything I hate its lies obfuscation, denial and halo effects. I got my share of that from Lieberman.

Okay, Mui, but just let me ask you a few quick questions:

Do you think that burning an american flag should be a federal crime?

Because Hillary does.

Do you think that the Iraqi government has “failed to do it’s part” in Iraq?

Because Hillary does.

Do you think that for her to show up at that FauxNews birthday bash in New York, in 2006, to schmooze with the people who have savaged she and her family and ALL progressives, for years, was a “savvy” thing for her to do?

Do you, as a progressive, feel like you should support a candidate who rips another democratic candidate for being “too far left” because years ago, he was critical of the death penalty, and because (Hillary says) he supported “socialized medicine”? I only ask because, as I’m sure you know, those are two bedrock republican talking points.

What happened in South Carolina was a revelation, and what was revealed was just how tired of the Clintons, and their attitude of entitlement to power, rank-and-file democrats have gotten.

Hillary unleashed Bill to do her scutwork while she, knowing that she was in for a political hiding of gigantic proportions, bailed and went off to Arizona. She would have lost anyway, but Bill’s rants at Obama and the press were probably worth an extra helping of double digits to Obama.

The fact that neither she, nor her staff, were “savvy” enough to yank on his leash, or to prevent him from doing it altogether, for me, is dead-lock evidence of how politically dumb she, and they, are. And it’s scary to think of this crew representing us in the general election.

When Bill pulled that “praise” of Obama out, and said he was an “eloquent, youthful, Afro-American” it was nothing but a little racist dogwhistle for all the confederate flag-fondling right-wing peckerheads down here. One more ass-rub offered to the people who are most responsible for the situation we’re in.

I hope he repeats the perfomance in Florida, and on Super Tuesday, if he does, it just might sink her, once and for all, but I have an idea that there’s an intramural debate going on among her staff, about putting a muzzle on bubba, that would make ours on here seem tame by comparison.

BTW, those things that Cinnamonape put up about Edwards were specifics. That’s fine, no sacred cows, but there were a lot of them, and I have my doubts that he went through old copies of the Congressional Record to dig them up.

I ask again, can he, or you, give us your source for all that? It ought to be easy enough. :o)

No to the two above, but I thought I made it clear that I am sick of the Clinton pitchfork, Obama halo effect. I didn’t say I agree with Hillary on all issues the majority of the time. I could go through a list as well.
Do you think we should keep troops in Iraq? Obama does.
Do you think we should keep No Child Left Behind, just spruce it up again so teachers don’t think it’s a punishment? Obama does. He said something about that during the last debate.
do you believe the social security hype a la Republikan? Obama does (see debate. See Joe Conason for that. Check out david sirota as well. It wouldn’t surprise me if he’s covered Obama from all ends.)
Do you think all options should be on the table, including nukes in regards to Iran? Gravel certainly seemed alarmed with Obama said it during the first debate.
Do you think “parents, particularly black fathers (”who are generally more absentee?”, according to Obama, should learn to be more “responsible” (in answer to the question of improving education)? Who’s racist now ? Obama says this without addessing the reasons for parental absenteeism of any background.
Do you think we should improve health care by negotiating with insurance companies? Obama does.
And so on, I have to stop because I feel I could go on for pages. He may actually be worse than Hillary to tell you the truth in terms of conservative leaning. And I think “dog whistle” is a little far for a rather awkward statement, meant to be patronizing for sure, but definetly not trying to appeal to the ex-segregationists. Those people from what I’ve read tend to be anti-Clinton.
South Carolina was not a revelation in my book. It was a repeat of the old formula. Demagoguery works. Obama knows it. He admires the woohaha “togetherness” of Raygun or whatever he said in the Russert(?) clip.
Again tanbark. Use Thomas (loc.gov). There are plenty of ways to look up legislation. You can even use key words. I don’t think Cinnamonape has to link every single assertion. We are limited in number of links.
Okay that’s it. Done with this argument, because in essence what it boils down to is: Clinton (pitchfork). Obama (halo)

Here’s some help: Motion to table Wellstone’s ammdt.yeas and nays

He opposed restrictions on Internet purchases of firearms, and supported the “Sense of Senate” Resolution by Trent Lott (Amendment 3150).

You can even google. Especially on statements. It’s easy once you get the hang of it.
The above hasn’t changed my opinion that Edwards has probably had a political epiphany of some sort. I could be wrong.

I am utterly amazed and the parrotting of the MSM here by those who consider themselves, I suspect, educated and enlightened. All the inneuendos and “paraphrased” lines sound more apporpriate in the “liberal media” or copied right from it!

First, I am “uncommitted” …

I don’t like Edwards’ voting record when he was in the Senate one bit. I don’t like that he has been dismissed by the powers-to-be and his “populist” message is nowhere to be found! Partly his problem because he doesn’t have the money but our fair and balanced media would rather pontificate about gender and race then about a white guy – why have none of our elite pundits seen fit to talk about how broad-minded it’s been of black and female voters to mark their ballots for white guys in all past presidential elections? It’s easier to send a few attack dogs like Ann Coulter who can call him a “faggot,” talk about his $400 haircuts and his elite lifestyle (made from hedge funds) or his lawyering and send the Breck Girl to the back of the pack. After all, we shouldn’t take women seriously, now, should we? But, he’s my first choice maybe. If he decides to hang around and then commit his delegates to a specific candidate I want to know who that’ll be before I vote for him because there is someone I don’t want to be the nominee but would have to hold my nose and vote for him anyway in November.

Oh! then we can go to Hillary. Or now should that be Billary? The two headed gargolyle – you know who I mean. The one that Matthews actually showed twice (and one a pix in a pink skirted pantsuit from god knows when and the other a recent one) but he raved and ranted about Bill for 10 minutes this morning. Had to pinch myself twice to remind myself that Bill wasn’t running. And remind myself that Obama won because his meme was “Bill Lost.” The most investigated couple in US History carrying all their baggage, embroiled in scandals – I count ONE – it invovled a blue dress and a lie but I also remember years of a militant republican Congress conjuring up any kind of partisan BS they could, hundreds of thousands of dollars investing everything (and some we don’t even know about probably) by a partisan Ken Starr and when it came right down to it, all they had was a blue dress – maybe! Oh! he had to fess up in case they did have it. After all, the love of your life has jilted you and gone back to his wife and you save the sperm-stained dress for posterity! Don’t we all? Meanwhile Ms. Goldberg and her fan club tape messages and set up the idiot who saves ruined Gap dresses in her closet – all because Ms. G didn’t get the job she wanted at the WH and to make sure her son had a career! But that was ONE = singluar, not plural. Then there are the years of misognistic attacks of Hillary – and subsequently all women – by the MSM and they scratch their heads and woonder why the Clintons don’t like them? We know Hillary. We know too much about Hillary. We know her proposals and her record. We know where she will try to take us. She’s sponsored some 200 bills in the Senate and at least half have had a Republican co-sponsor. She learned lessons about government and DC the hard way. She’s intelligent, she’s atriculate and she can think on her feet. She’s strong and she’s a fighter. If she weren’t she’d have slithered back to NY or AK or wherever. In the mud and gutter fights she’s had. Because she had to go there because that’s where the fights were staged. But we know it is really code for “trailer trash” – that’s what the Clintons were who dared to do things differently in the DC establishment – they were the “outsiders.” She has been involved with women’s and children’s issues for years. For those of us near her age, we’ve hit those same glass ceilings, fought those same fights and saw change – created change. My first job had a clothing code and women were not allowed to wear pants! Then, we could wear pantsuits – only! And now people knock her because she wears pantsuits! Sometimes knowoing where you came from and where your opportunity was fought for and who fought for it deserves more than you acknowledge. She got a whopping $19,000 a year (and $1500) a meeting for 6 years on the Wal-Mart board but Sam and Bill saved an American shirt manufacturer that was going out of business and Sam W underwrote her AK school reform! She became a “thorn” in his side.

Then there is Obama. No politican comes to the table with clean hands! I’m sure if we don’t hear about it now, we’ll hear from the Rove’s and everyone else if he is the nominee. This is playtime. And he runs off and whines they are picking on me! And everyone sends him all the love and the attention so he’ll feel all better! Oh! he can speak and call on lofty ideals of Hope, Unity and Change (TM). But how the hell is hoping for change gonna bring unity to a bunch of obstructionist republicans who won’t even compromise on a “Stimulus Bill” and then sneak nice percs in for the ones who don’t get the few dollars in a tax refund but a whopping opportunity to refinance their jumbo loans because everybody – up to 3/4 of a million is subprime now! And mortgages can be written up to 125% of the appraisal and guaranteed by the government – that’s what caused a big part of the problem to start with! A bunch of republicans who won’t pass SCHIP for poor children so they can have health care! He has absolutely no problem with “gosh! I didn’t mean to say that” and then everyone rushes in to tell us what he said. In 2004 he stated that he leaned towards Bush’s invading Iraq. The same year he said he didn’t know how he would have voted. But we don’t either. You can’t “know” something that never happened. And his and Hillary’s voting record are identical on the war and funding (except for one vote to promote one of the artichects of the war). He stayed home for Kyl-Lieberman. How many glorious articulate speeches have you heard coming from the Senate floor about his opposition to the war? Probably the same number I’ve heard, ZERO! Oh! he’s a “clean slate” all right and that’s a risk but when he puts social security on the table again, when his talking points against Hillary come straight from the Republican playing book, and when he denies his cheap shots like the one about MLK, it’s infuriating. Not that he does it but that he plays like he is above it! He has all the media love and he’s playing it better than Slick Willy ever did! Why is he sarcastic and patronizing, “You are likable enough, Hillary,” when he wants nothing but kumbuyah moments! If Obama is whining now about the attacks, just wait if he is nominee. They’ll have him sleeping with his BFF, Rezko, before its over. It’s the tip of an iceberg that they’ll even invent if they have to! Michelle sat on the board at TreeHouse Foods for some $60,000 a year. Seems that TreeHouse was Wal-Marts biggest supplier of pickels and such! They closed at least one factory in Calif putting some 150 people – mostly hispanic – out of work!

Listen to the snark from Michelle Obama and see the chip on her shoulder, well … they’d make a great pair! She’s brillant too! A another wonderful speaker. “If you can’t keep your house in order, how will you keep the WH in order?” Of course, the press won’t show you that and it really was about herself – Right! I have a bridge to sell you! It’s more sport to go after the Clintons!

This is not an American Idol Contest who can be the prettiest or who can sing the tune the best. It’s the lyrics that matter – make them talk about the economy, jobs, health care (and how Obama’s leaves 15 million out), poverty, education, wage gaps, foreign policy, the enviroment, the deficit and how our grandchildren are going to pay for those refund checks we’ll get in June or July! That’s what counts … not all the rest of the crap. And anyone even thinking that the Clintons are racist is whistling Dixie or blowing smoke where the sun doesn’t shine. I keep asking about Obama, “Where’s the beef?” He’s pretty to look at, and easy to listen to but when it’s all done and said, what’s he really said?

Do we really want a republican-lite? It’s bad enough that the DLC is winning and has the top slots. But this is supposed to be the Democratic Party – not the I can look and act just like all you guys across the aisle party!

It’s like What’s behind Door #1, #2 and #3. And so far when I open #3, there isn’t much there but talk – and not so pretty and smooth unless he’s reading a telepromter.

“…whistling Dixie…”

Cassie, methinks you’re a Clinton supporter, who, after last night, has gone halfway back in the closet. :o)

If you think that Bill Clinton going into a VERY red state, and talking about an “eloquent, youthful, Afro-American” is not a dog whistle, then you aint never heard one. I’ve listed so many of Clinton’s disgusting idiot lurches to the right, that this is just one more of them, and I’m not going through the roster again. (In your little screed, you didn’t trouble yourself to discuss ANY of them. :o) )

But, the same questions apply to you, that apply to her other supporters:

Do you think that flagburning should be made a federal crime?

Think that Obama was “too far to the left” when he spoke out against the death penalty years ago? Was he too far left when he spoke out for “socialized medicine”, as Hillary has accused him of doing?

Again, these are classic republican accusations. They have been used to HAMMER democrats and progressives for decades. Do you think that we should be dumbshit enough to support a candidate who parrots them, and to award her the democratic nomination simply because a substantial part of the american electorate despise she and her husband?

I’m not into risking this election to put a bandaid on your, or Hillary’s political bruises from the 8 years Bill and she were in the white house, and while we’re on the subject of how unfairly persecuted they were, let me point out again, that she willingly hied herself down to FauxNews’ big 10th anniversary birthday bash to schmooze with the people who were doing some of the worst of the persecuting.

Edwards is not perfect; none of them are. But John is the only one who’s accurately naming the source of most of the things that are wrong with our country, which is the amount of control over our government which corporate america exercises. That nitty-gritty position, nearly by itself, gets him my support.

I freely grant you, he may be lying, as may any of them. But he hasn’t taken a dime from AIPAC, and Hillary’s sure as hell taken from them, and regularly appears before them to tell them what a great job they’re doing, as they work their asses off to keep us in Iraq, and to GET us into Iran.

We pays our money and we takes our chances. And I’ll take my chances, first, with John Edwards, and if he can’t make it, then with Barak Obama, instead of a candidate who is callous enough and cynical enough to parrot the bushCo obscenity that the Iraqi government, hiding out in the green zone from the hell-on-earth that bush, with Hillary’s help, have made of their country, “isn’t doing enough”.

We are NOT going to hand Hillary, and Bill, the nomination, as ass-salve for the wounds they received at the hands of the republican’s. If Bill had had the brains to keep his fly zipped, they wouldn’t have BEEN skinned like a rabbit. It WAS unfair, and as someone who voted for Bill twice, I was angry about it, too, but it’s too late to do anything about that, and what you and the rest of her supporters now need to do, is get up in the morning, look in the mirror, and speak one word to yourselves, so that you can have at least that degree of honesty.

“Electabilty”.

Well said and don’t listen to the suspicions ” I think you are a shill for Clinton.” Like I said, it’s the Clinton-pitchfork, Obama-halo effect and not many progressives have caught onto it with the exception of BlackAgendaReport.com, and a few others. It’s sort of a bind to protest and ask for more scrutiny on Obama’s record and the charges levelled at the Clintons. Either you are for Israel or against it. There are no in betweens for some people. I really hope you stick around because I am becoming sick of the pitchfork/halo effect.

Correction @268. Comment was addessed to Cassie@266

When did Obama say he would keep troops in Iraq? I think you’re dead wrong on that. Happily enough for us, that’s McCain’s campaign talking point. Somehow I don’t think it will play, if he makes it to the general. :o)

Richardson was the democrat who was most definitive about getting us out, and after him, Edwards. And then, Obama.

Hillary, as she’s been doing a LOT, is following John, with a chorus of “me too!’s”

For all of them, it’s getting like a damn dutch auction:

Of the three left,

She starts out by refusing to set a timetable at all.

Then, when Edwards says “all the combat troops out in a year” (depends on what you mean by “combat”, John.) Hillary starts talking about 6 months, the last I heard; but we keep hearing the “Responsible withdrawal” from her. And since bush is already “responsible” for about a million dead Iraqi’s (ALL of whom had jackshit to do with 9-11, I would like to hear SOME candidate point out) it would be nice to see her talk about our “responsibility” to let the Iraqi people decide their own future. And incidentally, what to do with their oil, because, that is, of course at the very crotch of the matter.

Mui, I’m glad you don’t agree with Hillary on that stuff. Really. I never know just how far her defenders will go with her; sometimes I think she could be campaigning in an SS Madchen outfit, and they would be sobbing about blue dresses and Chris Matthews.

Bottom line; she’ll turn a potential landslide for us, into a cliffhanger. We can’t risk it. Just can’t. Too much riding on this election to nominate the great Triangulator.

Well, Mui, either you’re for the Kyle-Lieberman amendment, or you’re against it.

Which is it, with you? :o)

Hell, let’s cut to the chase. Is there any rightwing position, any piece of bush’s bloody policy that Clinton could support, or at least, countenance, that would have you defenders of her, bailing?

tanbark, you keep repeating the same accusations. I have seen enough of the-Clinton-is-a-racist crap to want to scream, because it was Obama who said last debate “particualry black men need to be more responsible parents, less absentee” (paraphrase) and that took a good part of his answer on how to improve education for children. you haven’t answered neither mine nor Cassie’s concerns about Obama or rebuttals, and continue to say and reiterate Republikan talking points about the Clintons themselves, with the exception of the flagburning part (which was horrendous on Hillary’s part, plus the war support.) I seriously think you should check out Blackagendareport.com. In fact I’m daring you to read the articles on Obama straight through. Particularly the one where they talk about in his book: Obama apparently has a very Republikan “I am a self-made man and others have no right to complain because they need to try harder attitude.”

When did Obama say he would keep troops in Iraq?

Last debate “to protect the embassy.” (with some wiggle room I suspect. Obama is vague enough always, more so than Hillary and always gives himself wiggle room.)
His policy was the same as Hillary. You can get the transcript.
Yes Hillary has been doing a lot of me toos with Edwards. That’s the beauty of Edwards.

Of course I don’t think flag burning should be a fed crime. I am insulted you would think so. But Hillary wasn’t alone. We can look up the roll call vote. That’s easy and you can see how many congresscritters besides Hillary latched opportunistically onto that piece of shat legsilation. I don’t see Hillary as a “nazi” but I certainly see others that promoted that legislation as walking the fine line of fascism.

Last but not least. The DLC likes both it’s frontrunners. Both of them are triangulators. Howie Klein has linked to an article about the DLC/Harold Ford pushing Edwards out and cackling about it. They’re pleased about both Obama and Hillary. Do you know why that is?

Actually Roll call flag burning amendment Hillary did not vote for it. I repeat did not vote for it. Now I recall, Lieberman, pretending to be a Dem didn’t either. And there was a lot of last minute “I don’t knowing on a lot of Dems,” don’t remember if Obama was one of the prevaricators. But I have watched him prevaricate enough to know him capable of being as opportunistic as Hillary or any of the others. He is not a saint.
tanbark, if you don’t be more accurate, your argument falls to pieces.

“…if you don’t be more accurate…”

Thanks, Mui. I’ll try to be.

Hillary, along with Utah republican Senator, Robert Bennett, INTRODUCED the damn bill.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..01887.html

How’s that for “accuracy” starters? :o)

Sorry, Mui, but this is like shooting fish in a barrel. :o)

Originally, back in Feb. of 2007, for Hil, it was a 90 day deadline to start pulling troops out.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/new…..850511.htm

Then, by September of last year, Hillary said she “would not make any pledges regarding a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3639881

That has obviously changed. (with some help from John Edwards.)

Now, here she is, 13 DAYS ago, with Russert, on MSNBC, as she says that on the first day of her presidency she will being planning and will being withdrawing troops within 60 days. :o):

http://hotnewstimes.blogspot.c…..in-60.html

Now, Mui, I’m all in favor of bringing our troops home, but when someone is bouncing around like this, I have to think that she’s not saying anything out of conviction, but is very tailoring the message to fit the situation.

She has never expressed the outrage for what bush has done to Iraq and to us, that is due. In point of fact, she has never risked one scintilla of political capital to get out front of the criticism of the war, or of bush. How could she? Unlike John Edwards, she has consistently refused to unequivocally apologize for her part in helping bush gin up the quagmire.

She “discovered” how bad the war was, as the mid-term polls forced her to do it.

She, much more than either Obama or Edwards, is nothing but republican-lite on the war, on attacking Iran, and on getting control of the fatcat lobbyists whose money she’s been taking for so long.

Norman Hsu, who has been indicted for bogus fundraising, gave her $850,000 in funds. At first, when he was indicted, she only returned 35k, but when the story started getting legs, she decided that it would be best to return it all.
To whom, we don’t know, since Hsu was using bogus names as “donors” for a lot of it, to get around the restriction on how much someone could donate. At any rate, his trial is probably going to start up in the middle of the campaign, and I hope you don’t think the GOP won’t drag her into it, if nothing else, as a witness.

Would you like to talk some more “accuracy” about Hillary? :o)