Blackstar 20 posted:

Hilary supporters aren't special, this feeling of being trapped isn't new and what's funny is they don't even feel this way because of policy (like say African Americans who consistently elect centrists that don't help them that much...

Let's get past this black vs. white resentment, shall we? I thought Obama's campaign was suppose to overcome such obstacles, yet it seems you are manifesting it in silly, baseless remark like this...women vote in larger numbers than any other group...and women who voted for Hillary do more than other blocs...so, sad to say, they DO matter, if Obama wants to win...of course, every voting bloc matters in an election, but elections are about numbers.

OH, BTW...curious you mention about centrists and black voters...where has Obama been on issues involving inner city kids, crime in cities that has been rampant in the black community in his hometown of Chicago, no less...where has Obama been on food shortages in Africa, the atrocious political situation in Zimbabwe or on AIDS in Africa??? Besides his showboating speech on Father's Day, WHAT HAS HE DONE for black voters, besides pander to their fears about white attitudes about them?

Salon, please stop this self-destructive fixation on Hillary

By constantly hitting the same tired notes vis a vis Hillary and her supporters, you're giving credence to the views of a few fringe feminists for whom the "perfect" is the enemy of the Good.

Knock it off. I'm beginning to think you want Obama to lose.

-- subterraneanne

Rebecca doesn't need to knock off anything for you and anyone like you who spouts such witless tripe.

Kelly Q wrote:

Lamenting the nomination of the first black candidate because you were only interested in a white female nominee is the mentality of the old, white feminists... and it’s a very unfortunate view.

Obama's nomination is historic...but he is A MAN! Or don't you get that distinction?...his race is secondary (if not lower) in this equation, and ALWAYS will be. The fact that white men overwhelmingly like him in different demos says alot about what was going on here...clear, simple, unadulterated misogyny...also practiced by many clueless younger women who were obviously trying to reject what their mothers believed in. Time, as always, will prove the wayward and hopelessly confused daughters misguided and wrong.

It turns out Obama is becoming EXACTLY what many of these women complained about: a calculating politician who will flip flop if it means securing a few more red state votes...something Obama's people whined about Hillary doing.

Although it may pain you to admit it and realize the truth of it, but Hillary supporters dislike Obama on substance.

This guy seems perfectly suited to McCain's lackluster campaign...not that I am impressed with anything Obama has done either so far...once again, are we going to have to hold our noses when voting?

Joan, you are exactly right on praising Greenwald's criticism of Obama on FISA and pointing out Markos' pathetic Obama brown nosing.

Too many Obama supporters continue to excuse the increasingly evident signs that Obama is playing politics as usual, behaving in a way that is exactly opposite of his "change" sloganeering. To stand on the same side as McCain on FISA is scandalous and unbelievable. I am glad that Greenwald and Feingold are holding Obama's feet to the fire.

As for Nader, I was very dismissive of his earlier runs, except what he is saying about Obama now, I frankly agree with...why does Obama feel he has to appease the political power base with flip flops on NAFTA, FISA? Or why does he feel he has to try to angle for independents by jumping on the pro-death penalty bandwagon? Does he seriously think that will garner him votes among anyone except people who have a bloodthirsty appetite for killing? Obama can't cater to progressives in the primaries and dump them in the general and be taken seriously as a candidate who is looking for a new era in Washington. Aligning oneself with Blue Dog Dems and the corporatists who feel the telecoms deserve immunity is a repulsive sell out...the only reason he must be doing this are twofold: telecom campaign dollars and not wanting to be labeled soft on terrorism by McCain and Repubs. Both are illegitimate reasons to support FISA bill...stooping to Nancy Pelosi's math that winning a few extra seats is more important than showing backbone against Bush and his neocons.

Galileo and Copernicus dealt with similarly ignorant minds centuries ago. The advances that the world has made has never come at the hands of those who hold anti-scientific views.

Thanks, Mark, for exposing these details...one more nail in the coffin for this deeply criminal and lawless administration.

Would every paying airline passenger flying on a commercial airplane be mandated to wear one of these devices? I cringe at the thought. Not only could it be used as a physical restraining device, but also as a method of interrogation, according to the same aforementioned letter from Mr. Ruwaldt.

Any thoughts, Patrick?

-- Serai1

Your post is truly Orwellian, and scary as shit. If this were to ever be enforced, the outcry should be deafening, and I suspect, a giant drop in passengers would send a clear message to the TSA and airlines that this will never be allowed by the public.

I should listen to what some guy who use to work for Howard Dean says? We saw what happened with him...evidently this guy, as well as myriad others, including Dean, didn't have a clue about what they were doing. Dean still doesn't, and it looks like this guy doesn't either.