Damn, you’re good.

Morning Attaturk!

Morning Attaturk,
Out of 3 million Americans this is the best we can come up with?

I’m sorry. There are a lot of writers who are better than me for this blog.

Oh, you’re talking about McCain?

Oh, and McCain legitimized the association of Hamas with Obama.

Hamas our “mortal enemy”.

Since when, Cap’n Queeg?

What was up with Stewart asking McCain to declare Hillary his running mate? I think he sounded serious.

McCain unleashed his own version of Bush’s evil smirk when he claimed to be Hamas’ worst nightmare.

Either that or his prune juice was causing a little intestinal distress…

Caught that, too.

Dunno.

Stewart is sneaky, though. Could have been a Kerry/McCain ‘04 reference.

Yeah, I wondered if it was to set up a gotcha on that, but he didn’t follow it anywhere, so I just ended up confused.

O/t -

Early this morning was lucky to catch a C-Span rerun of Wednesday’s hearing re. the EPA chaired by Sheldon Whitehouse. It’s putting it mildly to say I adore the man….hope to be around long enough to see him elected president. Lucky the pups who live in his state!

Sorry not you ,although you could do much better than Mc Cain

No.

It is, however, the best the GOP can come up with.

Of course, that’s not saying much these days. The GOP has gone from Lincoln to Ford and now the Maverick. If you don’t remember the Maverick, you can take it from TRex:

I think John McCain is a Maverick, in the sense that when I was nine or ten, my dad bought a used, blue Ford Maverick. It was highly temperamental, already too old for the job, and in the end the muffler fell completely off.

So, yeah, John McCain? Total Maverick.

OT–Blockbuster from McClatchy: Did Bloch block investigation of Condi to help re-selection of Bush?

FBI agents investigating government watchdog Scott Bloch have subpoenaed any records that would reveal whether concerns about the 2004 elections prompted him to clear Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of ethics violations.

Bloch, the U.S. special counsel who investigates federal employee whistleblower complaints, found no merit to allegations that Rice, then President Bush’s national security adviser, timed some of her trips to boost Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign.

perfect.

(and I very much like Mr. Whitehouse too, Waccamaw @ 10)

philippe sands is being interviewed by amy goodman on democracy now!

Arrrgh, I have to wait until noon to catch it.

Mornin’, fellow seeker of truth.

Given the fact that information is coming out of Mcclatchy, I put a little more credence in it than other “news” sources (blogging progressives get a lot more credence *g*). Still scares the spit outta me that davis (R-Va) is involved.

selise @ 15 -

Ta much. Did you catch the extended interview yesterday with Moyers? That was an especially good’un.

Is it even possible, wise pups, that someone will challenge McCain at the Pugly convention? And btw, prepare yourselves to be endlessly solicited for your condolences because that event is happening in my fair cities. Girding loins etc.

not yet, but i have the pod cast to listen to to later.

morning SD, pups.

I saw that. I thought Stewart was going after Hagee with that Wright stuff at the beginning, until he made it into Bush – that more people approve of Rev. Wright than approve of the President, and what do you do about that?

Then, when he followed up with the Clinton thing, I was wondering if he was trying to lure that famous temper out? Think what great television Stewart would have had if McCain had blown and referred to Clinton as McCain has referred to his wife in the past (NOT that I believe Clinton should EVER be referred to in that manner.)

I also thought it had the added advantage of snarking a bit on HRC’s recent run towards her inner Bubba, drinking, shooting, Rovian-ing. But I could have been seeing what I wanted to see!

New parlor game. Salon has a semi-serious thingie up this morning to check your personal preference for VP possibilities.

leinie, re inner Bubba: LOL.

Morning, everyone…

Colonel Sam Gardiner, retired, has made a brave statement on the similarities of the Iraq propaganda and current “news” articles of Iran…he stated the hairs on the back of his neck raised up when he read Michael Gordon’s articles in the NY Times.

Link here:

arrgh…

let me try the link thingy again…

link

Morning, Attaturk

So you’re saying this guy McCain might not be all that?

… Al-Zawahiri hopes that the US struggle with Iran will destroy the latter and weaken the former, putting al-Qaeda in a position to administer the coup de grace.

Al-Zawahiri must be a neo-con.

Can someone instruct me on how to put a link in with just a word “here” (or whatever)?

Oh, and Attaturk was right. The dude is not funny.

Made a point of talking about how he lets differing opinions into his townhall meetings. Nice to hear he gets protesters, though.

And speaking of fluff pieces on mcbush:

There’s one near the top of the news section over at DU.

Sorry, no linky; have been having lots of problems recently with copied URLs looking O.K. but, on preview, they have an additional %22 http….. and won’t work. :-( Maybe some good soul with better ‘puter skills than I can diagnose what’s causing that to happen.

i needed to read this today. thought it might touch some here too.

cut from a longer piece from chicago dyke:

The ability to feel love for people is one that I wish more people could nuture; indeed I believe they can, and so I write this now.

Bottom line: the candidates, all of them, have little more than contempt, derision, and mockery for you, Little Person. If you’re not writing a 000000$ check, believe me, they aren’t thinking about you, let alone worrying about what you say, for whom you pull a lever, etc. This isn’t a “democracy” anymore, you’ve noticed that I’m sure. “Superdelagates” will decide who is to be our Next Leader; Iraq will slog on; none of us will enjoy universal health care or cheap gas any time soon/ever. No Bush Administration crony will go to jail for a long, deserved time, and the rich are going to get richer, at least until the Revolution comes. I hope you all know how I have used that term ironically and with black humor. Life for the Progressive is always hard, and we always fail to acheive our objectives…until the day we don’t.

But that day won’t come by fighting each other. Go ahead, mock me for being Missy Kumbaya. I can hack it. I will still love you, fellow progressive. And I will still love you one year from now, when these arguments are forgotten and President Gore/Obama/Hillary/McCentury is in charge, and our economy is still tanking, and the environment is still dying, and global warming is even more pressing…do you understand my point?

I am weeping, true and bitter tears, to learn and understand that the people I love and respect most in this world still succumb to the media game that is designed to keep us all down. Fight for your candidate! Yes! Be Nasty, be dirty, say untrue things, even…this is the age of the Bush Republican. I believe in “The Chicago Way;” if your enemy kicks you in the balls, you knife him in the back, send his to the morgue, etc. But not within the family. Goddess no. No, it’s just not worth it. Kerry/Dean/Clarke, anyone? Doesn’t anyone remember what that was like, or how little that all matters now? Please, try.

Like it or not, progressives like us, and I mean *you,* we’re all Family. If you were all Black or Brown people from poor circumstance, you’d know exactly what I’m trying to say here. Sticks and Stones… Blood is Thicker…A Rolling Stone… Or let me end on a brutal note:

While we all tear each other apart, millions are dying, millions more are going to die, for no good reason. As an American, like it or not, you have an incredible responsibility to do what you can to make sure your power isn’t used for evil, oppressive reasons. Turn off the TV, goddammit. Stop reading the Wanker of the Day’s latest bullshit. Reach out your hand to those who are on the side of Good. Learn to say, “I’m sorry. Let’s get down to business.”

Or, not. But don’t say I didn’t warn you. If you do the work of the Evil for them, you have no one but yourself to blame.

this post is not directed at anyone in particular, but everyone. you, you and you. i curse edwards in Emesal ritual language for dropping out/ not going all the way to the convention to broker this. you broke my heart, you stupid fuck. you may have even killed American, i guess we’ll see.

Please, just stop.

That one leaves ya speechless and breathless! Selise, dear heart….you just won your wings for the day, month and year for sending that along.

so I just went into the al-qaeda 7 seven eleven and they have three differant newspapers on sale

all of them say the dem leadership is telling hillary to hang up her boots

I wonder how long before it happens

I have an epiphane though, if she does stay in it means she has been told there is something on barak that will kill his electability and they are waiting till the last minute to unleash

I believe she is counting on that kind of catastrophy, it’s the only explanation if she does not withdraw by the beginning of next week

Copy the link to your clipboard. Type in the word or words you want to be the link in the comment box and then highlight the word(s). Click on the link (the chain) icon at the top of the box (you may need to do control-click if you are blocking popups) and then copy your link address into the box. Note that http:// is already in the box but is highlighted, so you can paste your entire address from the clipboard without erasing what is there.

paste your link in the comment box
highlight it and click on link icon
paste it in link box

go to the 2nd ‘>http…. and delete all through to here

type in whatever you want in that space, eg link

ps – doesn’t show up in preview, but your abbreviated whatever shows up when you hit submit – you can test it out in an old thread

Mornin’ All

Thanks, Jim, I’ll try that again, just for practice:

Link here

don’t forget, in ie, once you hit the link button in the respond applet you have to right click and allow scripts at the top of the browser

sorry boogiecheck !

my “delete all through here” should have ended with “bracket-slash-a-closed bracked” which doesn’t show up of course

more coffee

Why is it alright for 5 candidates to drop out but such a big deal for the last one to give up the ghost?
Follow the money trail and remember what the Beatles said so long ago”love is all you need”.

Peace now,damn it . Not tomorrow ,next week,not next year, NOW,starting this morning.

But I could have been seeing what I wanted to see!

Maybe. Are beer and bowling different?

Just who does Obama plan to unite anyway. Now it’s age jokes?
What does unity entail?

You are now a pro.

lets differing opinions into his townhall meetings

…then allows them to be physically removed from the building (commonly known as “thrown out”.)

Thanks, all…

Cbl2 – no worries – I’m having one of *those* days, er..week, too.

or told to “stop it”

oh, sorry, that was here

There are some suggestions that she may be staying in to prevent an embarrassment for Obama in WV. She is so far ahead in the polls there and is on the ballot, so there would be a chance of him losing to her even if she drops out before the primary. This one is about the only explanation that I would accept, because it could be seen as her staying in for the good of the party and to increase Obama’s chances in November.

Allowed to ask the question…but then questioned by the Secret Service.

Assault with a deadly tongue?

What Waccamaw said.

I heard that suggestion on NPR this morning and did not believe one word of it. Clinton2? for the good of what party may I ask?

For this question one must define ‘dumb’. Who..but only the dumbest of the dumb would vote for any Republican in 2008? The Rich don’t count, they are a mostly forgone conclusion. I asked this question in 2000 and 2004.

Having cheap gas is a progressive goal?

There was a discussion last night on Dan Abrams to the effect that the HRC and Obama supporters were currently so emotional and adversarial that Clinton’s withdrawal needed to be slow and controlled to allow unity of the divided components. Clinton staffer Lisa Caputo was part of the panel and sort of agreed by smiling non-denial. Some of yesterday’s comments on FDL suggest the difficulty of any quick unification.

I don’t know if it’s true, or even a valid concept, but it beats the other alternative explanation that she’s no longer sane. In the possibility you note, I don’t know why they wouldn’t have realeased such information before now in order to win the nomination. But, there’s a lot I don’t understand about what the Clinton campaign is doing.

It does make a certain ammount of sense. If Obama looses to somebody who has quit the race, no matter how recently, it would look bad.

Yo.

I answered your question last night but you’d either split or were lurking only. It’s at 229 on the “Blank Checks” post. I wanted to make sure you saw it and, hopefully, understand where I’m coming from.

I lurked last night and read the back and forth with interest…was too tired to wade in. It will take change from the very top to clearly and unequivocally change our strategies and tactics on the ground, and that change is still months away. And it may be too late. Sounds mealy-mouthed, but it’s true, I think.

There was a discussion last night on Dan Abrams to the effect that the HRC and Obama supporters were currently so emotional and adversarial that Clinton’s withdrawal needed to be slow and controlled to allow unity of the divided components. Clinton staffer Lisa Caputo was part of the panel and sort of agreed by smiling non-denial. Some of yesterday’s comments on FDL suggest the difficulty of any quick unification.

she has been speaking about unity so I buy it

Yea, I read it and I appreciate your stance. “Both sides of an insurgency”, not last night.

perris at 31=”so I just went into the al-qaeda 7 seven eleven and they have three differant newspapers on sale”

great opening line for a comedy routine, or a ’modern day’ marlowe novel………rofl…….

rofl, it’s too early to laugh that hard…….on the other hand need to get movin’, dark and rainy here, and that sure woke me up…..

cat diving after her tail, stare, turn, jump/pounce, twirl around…..stare, turn, jump/pounce, twirl around…….gonna be an interesting day.
lol

For the sake of party unity, I really want to believe this.

I think Clinton is staying in for two reasons: she is not one to quit so long as there is any chance of winning, and until the SDs make their decisions and seal it for Obama, there is a chance that she can still be the nominee, no matter how slim;

she truly believes Obama cannot be elected in the fall (apparently she has told the SDs she believes this) and feels strongly about keeping McCain out.

Clinton’s campaign style has shown, to me, at least, that she has a better understanding of the American electorate than does Obama (ugly as it is), so I think she may well be correct.

Rule #1 in diplomacy is to allow your adversary to lose/withdraw/fail whatever by saving face.

The Obama camp might do well to heed this (and calling Clinton insane isn’t a good beginning).

since everyone is all gaga about this, what’s the difference:

the candidates, all of them, have little more than contempt, derision, and mockery for you, Little Person. If you’re not writing a 000000$ check, believe me, they aren’t thinking about you, let alone worrying about what you say, for whom you pull a lever, etc.

I rest my case.

Thanks. I thought it important that you knew the difficult position I find myself in when it comes to specific topics. I really appreciate it.

Off to work. Sayonara.

Peace Love Light

heard that one on Tuesday night – but prolly from the meatpuppets

however, it would be the one bargaining chip her campaign has wrt to assistance in paying off campaign debts

a little too tidy in that none of the kewl kidz are blathering about it

Me too.

Juno @ 59:
“Rule #1 in diplomacy is to allow your adversary to lose/withdraw/fail whatever by saving face”

That may be what is happening. I have not heard anybody from the Obama camp call anybody from the Clinton camp “insane” or anything like it. Some supporters, maybe. But campaign staff – no.

I’m with you man.

I think Hillary should stay in. I don’t think this is damaging the “Democratic” party. I think there is good dialogue mixed in with all the cheap shit and dirty politics, and I think it needs to be heard.

I don’t want the nomination decided before it ever gets to the convention. I am not a Clinton or Obama supporter either way yet, and I think we as a nation need this.

The “barbarian” US is gearing up for another invasion

Pentagon steps up prep for Myanmar humanitarian mission

1 hour ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. military is stepping up preparations for a humanitarian mission to Myanmar.

Though the country’s military junta has not accepted the offer of help, the U.S. Air Force is moving more airplanes to a staging area in neighboring Thailand.

And a U.S. defense official says the Navy has started sending helicopters to be closer to Myanmar as well, should approval come.

The Navy and Marine Corps happen to have ships and thousands of service members in the area this week for a multinational exercise on humanitarian missions.

An official said that because it would take the ships several days to get there, some of their helicopters are being sent ahead.

When the ships are finished off-loading their helicopters, they will get under way later Thursday.

Rule #1 in diplomacy is to allow your adversary to lose/withdraw/fail whatever by saving face.

and this is how we need to get out of Iraq I might add

Newsfolks this morning (can’t remember who) reported that the Obama campaign’s very top levels told all staff and spokespeople to back off and allow Mrs. C. to have time, space and room to make decisions in her own way and timeframe. They expect she will be in the race through June. Obviously, we little people don’t always follow their advice…

I think that is just cynicism, the emotions of one person, certainly contains a grain of truth but also falsehoods (I believe there are a lot of public servants who really do want to do good things for the public, and i happen to think Obama and Clinton are two of them. Is the system corrupt? Sure.).

I think this is the sort of thing that appeals to those looking to read something that merely affirms what they’re thinking and doesn’t have much meaning.

A right winger would put up a similar rant only in the Hobbesian style and it too would get heads nodding in agreement and be treated as gospel truth.

Neither is.

I found it interesting that this person who wrote that nonetheless refers to McCain as “McCentury”. How you unite people and heap love on people by ad hominem attack is a tad confusing to me. We’re to love the ones we love already?

His supporters ARE his campaign, esp. in Obama’s case since he’s the grass roots candidate and the one preaching change, change of tone, hope, inspiration…

…if he’s inspiring people to refer to Clinton as insane, I’m not sure that’s the kind of inspiration that’s going to bring about the change he seems to want.

I think Hillary should stay in. I don’t think this is damaging the “Democratic” party. I think there is good dialogue mixed in with all the cheap shit and dirty politics, and I think it needs to be heard.

you know, if she had listened to people like yourself from the start she might be the candidate or a legitimate contender today

I was a clinton supporter before I saw her attacking our our brand by attacking her oponent

if all she did was attack mccain I believe she would be in the lead today

live and learn

Absolutely! Which is one reason it’s hopeless with this administration.

Elizabeth Edwards was incredible on CSPAN just now.

big hug to her and hers.

many blessings.

The latest “guesstimate” is the toll will reach 100,000.

Whoa, link please. I’d like to see where Obama or Plouffe, someone at that level called HRC insane. Some commentors on the toobz don’t count.

As far as this whole “she must drop out” thing goes, no she mustn’t. She gets to fight until she’s out of money or out of contests, and OR and WV and KY and anyone else I forgot get to have their say – and both candidates get to work on building the party in those areas.

I can hope that she will stop with the destructive stuff, and be the stateswoman we all know she has in her, showing leadership and grace by not giving the GOP any further ammunition for the fall than she has, but she doesn’t have to do that either.

As far as the destruction of the party thing goes, read Digby. Seriously. Read Digby.

Lance Armstrong and Tom Harkin were amazing too.

(cspan3)

I never claimed anyone “at that level” called her insane. I was responding metaphorically to a post here in which an Obama supporter indicates that this argument has been made.

(Btw, I think Obama has run a very nasty and dirty campaign. I think he’s run a good cop/bad cop style campaign. At least Clinton has the integrity to do the fighting herself. One may recall that Bush also never said anything negative about McCain either and remained “above the fray” too. That is a campaign style I find very dirty because it’s very manipulative).

If the Democratic party can’t withstand a close race to the finish, then it needs to reevaluate itself, and maybe it needs to change how the primaries are held. If they don’t want it going so long, why do they have primaries still to be held?

I also find it interesting that Obama’s supporters have been calling for her to drop out since before PA. This to me clearly indicates that they just want him to be handed the nomination, which is ironic since they often refer, with scorn, to Clinton’s supposed early attitude of entitlement to the nomination. It’s also suspect when you consider that Obama has run unopposed his entire career, including sending operatives out to get another opponent, also a woman, knocked out and prevented from running against him. I find that troubling.

While I truly hope I’m wrong, I really do, I see trainwreck coming.

lenie,
Perhaps now you can understand the problem. I’m hoping that what we see is evidence of a fringe and not the bulk of Clinton supporters. It certainly doesn’t represent the ones I knew when I supported Clinton.

So McCain believes that candidates are responsible for the views of anyone who supports them?

So he can’t denounce or disown anyone, just the fact that someone endorses him makes attacking him on the endorsement okay!

Why would he go there?

Apropos ‘nothing’ …

We, and our nation, stand posibbily, at the threshold of a GREAT MOMENT.

Will we step through the door?

Will America, the world’s last Great Empire, elect a black man to take the helm of the ship of state?

Legion are those who say, “No!”

“Not this person …”

“Not yet …”

Those who caution us proclaim that they, personally, are not prejudiced, but that too many others are.

There is no reason to doubt them …

Consider, for a moment though, what it might mean should the apparently unthinkable actually happen …

It would suggest that our nation had begun to acknowledge and understand our history, much of which we deny, as well as our common plight …

But it would mean that this black man would be willing to continue the killing …

To be ‘fair’, the ‘policy’ of ‘CONTINUATION’ in Irak and quite possibly in ‘obliterating’ Iran is shared by ALL of the would-be ‘Presidents’.

So, you might ask, does it make ANY real difference whom we ‘elect’ or whom our betters ’select’?

The simple answer is “No” and “Yes”.

“No” because the power ‘interests’ will have their way regardless …

“Yes” because it is within the realm of possibility, however slight, that the black man might, in his heart, have some meager grasp of consequence, humility, and humanity …

He has young children and cannot harden his heart completely to what world they shall inherit …

In a nutshell, that last speculation is the only peg upon which I might hang my small hopes.

Otherwise, of hope, I shall have markedly less. Of worry, of concern, and even of despair, I shall have no less than haunt my dreams, making them nightmares; which visit me waking and, almost, every single night …

i don’t think you can make those assumptions about obama – hope for them, yes – just like we hope for a change of heart, or even a bit of marginally better action from all of us. including clinton and mccain.

i reject – utterly – the notion of looking to obama or any politician for our “salvation” – political, moral or otherwise.

that is once again to take the path of asking someone else (a great leader?) to take on what ought to be our own responsibility. that path is reserved for children. we’ve got to learn to stop letting it be ours.

selise, I agree with you, my hopes are meager, indeed.

By the way, the ‘narrative’ you discussed at Siun’s post last evening is in full ‘play’.

That is really what I’m suggesting.

There are NO saviors, selise, and please do not think that I ‘believe’ so or think so.

As to acknowledging our history or common plight, I suspect we have to start somewhere. Usually with ourselves, selise, as I know you agree …

please do not think that I ‘believe’ so or think so.

i don’t.

just felt a need to say it. probably to convince myself most of all.

;~D

re: the ‘narrative’

yeah. i fear if i wrote candidly about what i think of that it would get me banned. and more importantly, i think at this moment it would be destructive to all that is good here.

Usually with ourselves…

yeah, i know. but that doesn’t stop it from being easier to wish everyone else would go first.

like i said above, after typing my comment @82 i realized i was really just trying to give myself a pep talk.

probably what i really need is some coffee. catch you later.

I understand your caution.

But I wish to thank you for all the many things you have stood for these last few weeks and days.

I can always count on you to really understand.

You are one of the few who can admit being wrong with true sincerity, and thereby serve as a most honorable example.

However, from my perspective you are rarely wrong.

And I would urge you, in these perilous days, to speak from your heart.

Your moral compass is the best.

Let the chips fall where they may.

There you go … truth.

‘See’ you, selise …

Thank you for your extremely kind comments at the end of last night’s thread. Didn’t see it until this morning.

I’m quite certain that I read a post of yours in which you said that another argument is that Clinton is not sane.

I was merely responding to what you’d written. That makes me fringe?

Interesting.

What I said, Juno, was that a prolonged winding down of the Clinton campaign, according to some, offered a necessary cooling for the unity of heated party divisions. It offered a much more understandible and admirable reason for continuation, rather than the continued division of Democrats on the bases of gender and race, which verges on the insane. I have no problem with Hillary continuing her campaign and expressing, her positions on issues, and garnering as many votes as she can. I do object to any continued statements that the likely candidate against McCain is less qualified than he is, or any antagonism based on race or gender. I would have resented those things if Obama had done them. I did not see that. I know you say you did, but I saw it from the other side. That is how I decided to favor Obama.

Also, you have to know that your extreme sensitivity to any reverence to sanity runs counter to your initial advent on FDL with multiple refences to delusional Obama followers. Again, I took offense, when I tried to express my views and reasona for differing and you called me dishonest and guilty of resorting to Republican spin. I actually stopped trying to reason with you after that, and actually don’t see how you believe you are supporting any Democratic candidate or any reconcilliation.

well, here is the exact quote from your post:

“I don’t know if it’s true, or even a valid concept, but it beats the other alternative explanation that she’s no longer sane.”

I think reasonable people would read that as your saying that an explanation for her continuing her campaign is that she, Clinton, is not sane, not of sound mind, insane. (You do use the subject (she, ie: Clinton) in conjunction with the adjective (sane) rather than a motive in conjunction with it. It is a direct comment on her state of mind, which you indicate you have heard an argument somewhere that she is not sane. It is that to which I responded. I am making an assumption that this argument you apparently heard, that she is no longer sane, came from an Obama supporter since it likely did not come from a Clinton supporter or a McCain supporter.

I have never referred to Obama supporters as delusional. That is your word, not mind.

I am an Obama supporter. I do not speak for the Obama campaign, and I’m sure the Obama campaign would never make any reference whatsover to her sanity. In my view, a determination to pursue a course which has been conducted in a manner destructive to party and national goals, based on some very slender (invisible to others) possibility of success for the pursue amounts to megalomania. I prefer to view that she has better motives and he though processes are clearer. Your comments suggest to me that your perspective is so different from mine, that there is no possibility of reconcilliation. Therefore, I hope that the majority of those supporting Clinton place a priority on Democratic victories in November, rather than harbor your feelings. You may not represent a fringe, but I certainly hope so. Your train wreck may occur, but I choose to hope for better. In the future, I’ll try to disregard your comments, if you’ll igonore mine. Mine will be a discussion with someone else, and truly won’t be intended for you.

I’ll respond to any posts I wish. You are welcome to ignore my posts or not. It is you who clearly has a personal animus toward me, not the other way around. I’ve not called you fringe or gone after you personally in posts to others or with silly swipes just for the sake of it, but you have done so consistently toward me, and I’ve not responded to any of it since I think it’s a waste of space and energy. I also happen to feel you have a right to say what you feel like saying, rude or not. But it is you, Crosstimbers, who made this a personal thing against me, not the other way around.

Indeed, I’ve not been responding to any of your posts precisely because I’ve not wanted to provoke this personal thing you have for me.

As an Obama supporter, you do speak for the campaign, and I think calling Clinton insane is contrary to what Obama’s own message is. I also think calling her insane is not evidence of a desire for party unity. I do think Obama supporters have one standard for themselves and another for Clinton and her supporters, and I object to it. I also feel perfectly free to voice my opinion on in when I see it.

I also do not agree with you that there must be reconciliation. People do not have to be in agreement on everything, but it might help to hear different perspectives instead of only wanting to sing to the choir or have the choir sing back at you.

I merely addressed your very clear inference that one alternative to Clinton continuing the campaign is that she is not sane. I’ve never commented on Obama’s sanity since I believe it is an ad hominem attack to do so, is unhelpful, is uncivilized, and contributes nothing to make such inane and irrational attacks on people who are obviously quite sane.

It is supposed to be Obama supporters who’ve been inspired to a higher and more positive politic and unity. I do not see how referring to Clinton as not sane supports that. You’ve been very angry at me rather than listening to my point of view in a detached manner. I merely think people should practice what they preach, and if you (generic you) preach inspiration and hope and unity, you ought to practice it. I’ve not seen a lot of it from Obama’s own supporters, which leads me to question his ability to in fact succeed.

Alright, you’re fair game then.

Of course groups do not have to reconcile. They can lose elections, launch revolutions, or anything else.

My exception to you is based on your apparent single minded goal to undermine the Obama campaign. As I told you before, you enter discussions which are in no way related to the candidates and, after a few innocuous comments, find a way to disparrage Obama. Additionally, I have previously explained that you argue both sides of a case, so long as it’s derrogatory to Obama. Initially, you begin with the argument that he is naive, idealistic, and his followers have their head in the cloud, and that he will be dead meat for the Republicans. Only Hillary is though enough and willing to stoop to the Rovian tactics necessary to win. Then you reverse, and argue that he is mean, underhanded, and unfair to Hillary. A number of people have asked you what your purpose is. You aren’t cnvincing or converting people to the Clinton cause. Honestly, I’ve wondered if you aren’t a McCain supporter and don’t spend the other part of your day trying to sow discord on some blog which includes a number of HRC supporters.

Right on.