Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
get your hands on a copy of the book by Matt Welch, "McCain: The Myth of the Maverick." You can find excerpts and reviews on line.
"You may be unaware, but we have actually had a president for almost eight years who also ran on Character. And Integrity. And Honesty. And..."
And he won. twice.
And there were no weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11. And, and and . . .
Look, I respect your research on McCain and the fact that it infuriates you that he's getting a pass from the media and Salon. But what is going to change that?
And if it comes down to red state / blue state again . . . we are going to lose . . . again. If Gore couldn't win that way and Kerry couldn't win that way, then I am pretty sure that Hillary won't win that way.
Hey, you can support Hillary all you want for whatever reasons you want. All, I am saying is that at the end of the day I would like to see the democrats stop doing the same exact thing and getting the same exact results.
I was a Kucinich and then Edwards supporter. I don't know who I'm voting for next week. My point is that it really doesn't matter whether Clinton or Obama is the nominee. It won't change a single big red or big blue state. (One or two tiny red or blue state changes are not enough to make the difference.) The nationwide popular vote is not relevant.
The race will be decided in Florida and Ohio. Voter intimidation, voter suppression, and voter fraud will be the lot of the Democratic nominee - ANY Democratic nominee. We need to focus on that.
I voted for Obama today. If HRC wins, I will most likely vote Republican in the GA....better get use to that calculus. HRC will lose in the general with the biggest gender gap to date.
I voted for Obama today.
As a southerner and as a democrat, I fundamentally believe that if we continue to write off the South we will continue to lose national elections. The only democrats elected to the presidency in 40 years were both Southerners. This is not a coincidence.
It is also not enough to have a Southern VP. Edwards couldn't deliver a single state with Kerry at the top of the ticket in 2004.
By turning out a coalition of blacks, young people and poor southern whites who's kids have been dying at a disproportionate rate for this damn war, I believe that Obama can cherry pick a few Southern states away from the GOP. I would include Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee. I also think he can slam dunk Ohio given the right running mate.
I believe that breaking up the solid south is the key to getting past the red vs blue paradigm and, with Edwards out of the race now, Obama seems like the person who has the best chance to do that.
Anonymous -- You're entitled to vote any way you please. But don't try to insult our intelligence by pretending that there is any principled basis for voting for Barack in the primary but voting Republican in the fall if HRC is the Democratic candidate. Only a fool could support Obama AND McCain (much less Obama and Romney). Their policies, who they are likely to appoint to the Supreme Court, where they are likely to lead the country are so profoundly different. So, by all means, feel free to use your vote to register your irrational, bumper-sticker hatred of HRC -- your kids will pay for your McCain vote (oh, please god tell me you're not actually a parent...)
which is, of course, part of why they are so vehemently anti-Hillary ... iow, they were never before, aren't now, and won't in the future be Democrats, ever, except for their annointed bespoke candidate ... D.I.N.O., democrat in name only and only for Obama (telling ain't it?)
But now you can only post as "Anonymous" and all the fire has drained out of you. Where are you posting from now, the public library's free computers?
Pttttht!
I repeat my previous post and hope that this time, it is not deliberately distorted by a racist.
"The great thing about that photo leading this article is that from an anthropological standpoint, the country will eventually become non-melanin specific as races inter-marry and reproduce to the point where there is just "us."
I'm sorry I won't live to see that day because all this racial bullshit has been continuing to drag our country down since its inception."
<<"The great thing about that photo leading this article is that from an anthropological standpoint, the country will eventually become non-melanin specific as races inter-marry and reproduce to the point where there is just "us."
I'm sorry I won't live to see that day because all this racial bullshit has been continuing to drag our country down since its inception.">>
I think there's a possibility that you will see the day you hope for. I think it would already be here but for all the dishonest incompetence in the media, and true racists in politics not being hounded out of office by the media, instead of sucking up (or on) them.
In a way, I hope Hillary wins (the presidency), not only because I think she's the best candidate, but because it would be such a smashing defeat of the media, and could help end the careers of so many jerks, like Matthews, Russert and their little constellation of also-rans, or at least, end their credibility quite effectively.
--Ron
Joan Walsh summarizes the candidates' struggle for California nicely, but an even more concise summary might be simply that now, at the point when it really matters, Obama's campaign is not yet as polished as Clinon's but is close enough. He has a way to go before he's ready for prime time, but he's done enough to compete.
So Editor, it's worth asking: what has really, truly been surprising? There were always open questions in this campaign — could Clinton's opponents get up to speed in time? Would she keep her own campaign's dirty tactics under control or would they backfire? But these are questions that simply couldn't be answered in advance. To describe (most of) what's happened in the Democratic primary as a surprise is something of a misuse of the word — like being surprised when a forecast 50% chance of rain turns into a sunny day.
It's also worth asking — without the challenge that Obama represents, would Clinton have bothered with, say, Latinos? The great virtue of competitive elections is that they allow the electorate — us — to exert more pressure on our would-be leaders than if they were cruising along to a predictable win.
Each of the candidates (including Edwards, though he never found a way to raise his campaign to the necessary level) has made the others more accountable and in so doing been essential to the most inspired, impassioned political campaign in over a generation. Democrats would do well to remember the power of that frisson in November, and beyond.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
