Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Reinstate the draft. See what happens. Charles Wrangle agrees.
A reality check? I'll see if I can reserve a bed for you at Bellview. Hang on. The help and the Thorazine are on the way.
That is an immoral method for ending the war. Only people who volunteer to kill people should have to do it.
Who is winning? The Roomba or the cat?
nydem08, I don't understand your statement that you were 'shown the door' by others within the party. Can you provide specifics?
Are you referring to the various political figures who called on Clinton to step aside late in the race, when the electoral math made her chances of success extremely slim?
As a longtime democratic voter, and a longtime admirer of Hillary Clinton, I lost a great deal of respect for her when she voted to grant President Bush his "blank check" to invade Iraq. I thought it was disgraceful to surrender the powers of the Congress to a demagogue; I felt that anyone who could read could tell that Bush and his cohort were lying to the american public; and I believed that voting to send soldiers into battle as an act of personal, political ambition was a stain on her character. I did not believe Clinton's subsequent protestations that she voted the way she did because she was lied to. The lie was bald faced and unconvincing when it was told, making it impossible to hide behind with a straight face.
What pushed me strongly away from supporting Senator Clinton was President Clinton. That man's erratic, narcissistic behavior during the campaign convinced me that he would be unable (not merely unwilling) to play a supporting role to his wife. I think that a Hillary Clinton unburdened by Bill would have been a stronger candidate.
When Senator Clinton began comically padding her resume and inventing stories to bolster her image, I became embarrassed for her. I believe that the people publicly calling for her to step aside were trying to spare her further embarrassment, not trying to forestall her victory. Remember that these calls did not come when Clinton was perceived as the inevitable nominee, or even merely close in votes; they came when she was so far behind that victory was impossible, barring a miracle.
During the campaign I did not see any indication that Senator Clinton or her followers were systematically marginalized. Maybe I just wasn't looking, or not looking in the right places. If you could point me to a specific list of grievances, it might help me to better understand your extreme frustration.
"A reality check? I'll see if I can reserve a bed for you at Bellview. Hang on. The help and the Thorazine are on the way."
Petty insults are used by frightened sheep who can only parrot the desperate spin of the MSM. You can't make a case for him winning and you know it.
I'd also like to ask you a few questions.
1. Why do you want McCain to win?
2. Why do you hate America?
3. What the fuck is wrong with you?
There's an idea. Arts and crafts are on teusdays.
With the hyperbole.
I cannot understand why Obama supporters are always saying that Clinton supporters are emotional, when they are so often the ones reaching for emotional language.
Okay, NY, you'd better confess: Why do you hate America?
Are you still beating your spouse?
Hey, I don't think you're crazy or maybe not even wrong. But if you do vote for John McCain, then you have no standing to make fun of Nader voters.
Same if you write in Clinton.
The two party system is pretty rigged. You either vote with one of the big crowds or you risk getting the opposite of what you wanted rather than just something slightly askew.
You just happen to be feeling what third party folks have been feeling for a long long time. If you're going to vote a protest vote, try voting for Green Party or Peace and Freedom Party candidates. The results will probably be the same, but you'll have helped a third party have a bit more of a voice.
The motive is irrelevant. The end result is the same.
NYDem08 is actively working to prevent Obama from being elected. I don't care if he/she is a Republican, a PUMA, a Naderite, or a Klingon. The end result is the same, a third Bush term. That is UNACCEPTABLE. I repeat:
That
is
NOT
ACCEPTABLE.
And I have no problem countering NYDem08's ham-handed and deceptive sophistry with hyperbole and ridicule. This person's argument is not anchored in any form of rational thought whatsoever. You may choose to coddle the idioticaly insane, but I refuse to.
mikemcc, I appreciate your thoughtful post.
Getting into the entire list of grievances that built up during the primaries will only rile people here up. My original post was directly addressing the panel in this article who were under the wishful-thinking misconception that PUMAs were some sort of GOP swiftboating plot.
I will address a few since you are surprisingly interested in understanding PUMA rather than minimizing it which has been the strategy since early June.
As far as the AUMF vote, this was Obama's key campaign issue. And yet there is a strong feeling among Clinton supporters that Obama was completely let off the hook by "saying" that he would not have voted for it IF he'd been in office. It seemed a ridiculous argument to many of us. This was confirmed after the FISA vote. It is incomprehensible he would have stood up to Bush when actually faced with that extremely tough decision.
To the contrary, Clinton's vote was seen as black and white by most progressives. Did they ever bother to read her floor speech? No. If you feel like it, read it. It may provide some context.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
More hypocrisy ensued as Obama supporters sang the praises of Biden, Edwards, Powell and just about anyone else who voted for the war, except Clinton.
As far as her "entitled" campaign, well, that was a strategic spin from the Obama campaign. John McCain is now using the same spin against him. It's obviously very effective.
But no need to rehash the whole campaign. I'll address your other questions:
I don't understand your statement that you were 'shown the door' by others within the party. Can you provide specifics?
The literal answer stemmed from an interview with Donna Brazile on CNN after the NC primary. When confronted with the possibility of Clinton voters not getting behind Obama she said, in effect that there would be a "New" Democratic party and that the party would win without its traditional base, the quote was something along the lines of "we don't need them." Big mistake.
The online battles in the blogosphere in which Clinton and her supporters were cavalierly being called racists by their fellow Democrats highly contributed to the feeling that we were no longer a part of this party and/or no longer wanted to be. As evidenced by this thread, when we raise the issues of Democracy or a fair vote, there's been a "get over it or go away" response from bloggers to party leaders. Now millions have heeded this advice.
Democracy issues:
MI and FL was a huge issue for us. Four other states also moved up their primaries: NV, IA, SC and NH. None of these states were penalized as Obama was expected to win them all. MI and FL where Clinton polled to win were set to be penalized. Obama took his name of the ballot in MI a strategic move to ensure there would be a controversy over the votes. If MI and FL had been counted in full from the beginning, Obama would not have had the illusion of a lead and Clinton would not have had the media screaming at her to get out. Penalizing states that they knew Clinton would win is widely seen as a manipulation of the system by the DNC. Now, as predicted, the delegates are being seated in full. Too little, too late.
There's also Federal investigation of caucus fraud in a dozen states. Do you see Huffpo or MSNBC reporting on that? Of course not. There will be no conclusions until after Nov.
The Suspension.
When Clinton was forced by the media and the Supers (many of whom Pelosi's PAC paid off in June) to suspend her campaign (again, unprecidented - most candidates don't endorse until the convention), the news networks instantly declared Obama the "winner" as we all know.
This is NOT historically what happens when neither candidate reaches the delegate threshold. Even in races far less close. It was a reckless manipulation intended to confuse people.
In other words, has been DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN for two months all in the name of this forced "unity." What about Democracy?
Finally: Roll Call. This is the true birth of the active part of PUMA. We found out in early June that Obama wanted to block a roll call.
This leads back to the media and the party misinforming the public.
Primary candidates ALWAYS have a roll call. Jesse Jackson, Jerry Brown, Ted Kennedy and on and on... even Howard Dean in 2004 with 114 stinking delegates! A single ballot in race this close is absurd! And yet the pundits feign a look of surprise. Obama "allows" it. Unacceptable.
Historically many important nominations have been decided AT THE CONVENTION.
In 1932 FDR was 90 delegates short of the nomination and the DNC wanted another candidate (ironically from Chicago)... it took FOUR BALLOTS and he got the nomination. Kennedy was also short and it took two ballots. Yet this year, suddenly the democratic process is so threatening to our own party?
This last ruthless move by Obama and the party to control this election was the final straw.
The convention most likely will be a scripted sham instead of a real vote. But what the party can't seem to understand is their desperate attempt to control the election is the very thing that will make them lose it.
Hope this helped.
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
