*wild applause*
Thanks for your post. You did a so much better job than I ever could on it.
One very slight quibble. I chose to call Senator Clinton "Hillary" to differentiate being one of the "Clintons." Plus all these years I have always thought of her as Hillary.
It's also something that her campaign pushes. Probably because it's harder to hate someone as a person than a title. It's also important to humanize her given the ferocity that folks use toward her. (By the way, the same ferocity that will soon get directed at Obama if he is the nominee. It's a Republican specialty.)
Finally if you look at it the most hateful screeds against her most don't use Hillary. It's Clinton, HRC, Empress or some expletive. Probably for the reasons I stated above.
But you have given me something to ponder.
Excellent jwe. As Woody Allen once said,
just showing up will get one at least 80% of whats wanted.
It hurts the party?
Could care less.
If it hurts the country, I might consider.
Thank you so much for this. I no longer read the comments on this and many other of my favorite blogs because of the vile screeds against Clinton.
I guess it never occurred to me that we have as many Tom Delay/Mitch McConnell personality types on our side as the right does.
That makes me very sad.
Jesse, well stated.
My only exception is, that for me, and a lot of other people, this isn't about the Democratic Party.
I could give a shit if the Democratic Party as the thing itself ever got an EV or another Senator. I'm not among the Party faithful who believe--and they do, these are my friends and colleagues--that we all owe loyalty to the Party because without It, progressives have nothing and are nothing.
I'm a progressive. If the least odious guy in this race were Joe Biden, whose incompetence and corruption in his role as the Senator from MBNA have impacted my life more than any other candidate, I'd be walking my precinct for him. Because I'm an adult and I'm serious about stopping the bleeding.
The Dems as the symbol of resistance to another 8 ruinous years of Republican misrule? I'm with them.
Oh yeah, and I have a strongly worded 'shut up ya whiny losers' at my blog because I have so much more to say about them than is polite to express on your bandwidth.
What R said up top.
While I'm voting for Hillary (hey, I'm comfortable calling her that 'cause her campaign's own website calls her that!) tomorrow, if Obama gets the nomination, I'll work for him in a heartbeat.
As your silver-and-black Oakland compatriots used to say, "Just win, baby"!
< Jessica Rabbit voice > Ticking off purists...My favorite sport... < /voice >
Seriously. Sometimes I think nothing was learned from 1968, 1980, or 2000.
lectric lady
I'm trying to stop the anti-Clinton screeds. This is simply not a place to bash candidates.
It drives away the conversations I want people to be able to have.
I am still not sure who I am voting for in the primary, but I know who I'm voting for in the general; the person with (D) behind their name.
I am still not sure who I am voting for in the primary, but I know who I'm voting for in the general; the person with (D) behind their name.
tamens -
That is a GREAT line.
I may well steal it. *grins*
Hell fucking goddamn YES.
I preferred Dodd, then I preferred Edwards, now I prefer Obama. If Clinton wins, I'll vote for her.
The country just cannot survive another Republican president.
excellent job jesse. if a second bush term did not teach these idiots what's at stake i don't have any idea of what will.
i sent my ballot in friday for the california primary. i haven't publicly said who i voted for and i won't. i have publicly said that i will support, financially and with sweat equity, the nominee of my party.
Jesse, as I read your words, I heard Steve Gilliard's voice. I sure miss that fighting spirit, and am glad to see it hasn't left this site.
I've been informed (snippily) when I complained about it sounding disrespectful or diminishing, that Senator Clinton wants to be called "Hillary."
Great post - especially the part about cowardice.
BOOOYAH!!!
Go TELL IT on the mountain!!!
What a rousing way to start my Monday morning. Props to you, big time!
I'm in it to win. I'm an Obama girl until he isn't in the race anymore, (which isn't going to happen, but still) and in the unlikely event he isn't the nominee I will dutifully jump right on the Clinton Express!
You're right - this IS a team sport and Team Sane America simply must overcome the Dark Lords of Evil and Greed this time around or there won't be any bats and balls left for the next fight. People need to wake the fuck up and smell the coffee.
Thank you - this makes me so damned mad, I could spit. As I keep telling people, I don't care if the nominee is the freshly dug-up and re-animated corpse of TED BUNDY, I will be voting for the Democratic nominee this November. And I certainly expect that either one will line RIGHT up - a nanosecond after conceding - to support the other. They are GROWN UPS.
The "Hillary" thing - it is her designation, not mine; undoubtedly, she is drawing a distinction beteeen herself and Bill. It bothered me when I first heard of it - I ALWAYS introduce myself using both names - anything less diminishes one, something women in particular have to watch out for. I am sure she knows this and decided that she was choosing the lesser of two evils.
Of course, I also don't think Hill is the antichrist like the rest of the tubes... I personally think she might just be a kick ass president. With Edwards "suspended" (what does that MEAN??), I am leaning toward Obama ONLY because I think racist hate might be less than Hillary-hate - that is, that he might be more "electable." And that is the ONLY reason for my lean.
Might this "I'm gonna hold my breath until my face turns blue if you don't pick Obama" attitude be a function of the youth vote he has aroused? Shorter Punkster: Kids these days, I'll tell ya...
And I'm seeing the same shit from pro-Clinton folk saying they're “Americans First, Democrats Second”.
Those are the words of a prominent, pro-Clinton blogger (who shall remain nameless, but I'm pretty sure you know who it is) who is so far 'round the bend on their anti-Obama kick that it's almost scary. That person also claims to be a former Reagan Democrat ironically enough, but then claims that they will NOT back the Dem nominee should it not be Sen. Clinton. Jim Jones? Purple courtesy phone!
I'm seeing the same sentiment in other places too. In comment sections and in posts. This cuts both ways. Folks are going fucking native (I'm seeing it a LOT from rabid Edwards supporters who in their grief are talking about how their choices were removed and so on) and it's crazy, because as Jesse said, the GOP is tearing itself up over this same thing—but those evil fucks if they peep us doing the same shit will come together to at least get SOME of what they want.
This stupidity I'm seeing on our end guarantees we won't get any of what we want if we keep it up.
People have fallen in love with their candidates. But in too many instances, it's a deep, adolescent, immature kind of love. Tiger Beat, posters-on-my-wall, love notes with the “I's” dotted with hearts kind of shit.
Which of course manifests itself as hate for anyone else who supercedes their Shaun Cassidy/Bay City Roller/Usher/Mandy-fucking-Moore candidate.
Goddamn.
Use your fucking brains people. Use your fucking brains.
This is a straw horse, Jesse. I haven't read a single comment on here, or at FDL, or at Digby's, to the effect that Obama supporters (of which I am now one) will bail on Hillary. I will hold my nose and vote for her. Weeping tears of frustration as I do it, in the sure knowledge that we are, in all probability, getting ready for another Kerry-slash-Gore defeatsnatch.
But let's talk about the little Edwards voter phenom, of which you, as full-on "neutral" have had nothing to say.
Because, a lot of his supporters are talking about writing in HIS name tomorrow. And that little act, will be of substantial benefit to one...taaaadaaaa...Hillary Clinton.
At this point, Edwards is becoming a double disappointment, for not endorsing Obama, whom he KNOWS is closer to his positions, and whom is far more electable than is Clinton, ahead of Super Tuesday;
and for not at least telling his supporters to NOT waste their votes on a foolish write-in campaign.
There is some talk of increasing John's "influence" at the convention, by padding his delegate count. It's bullshit. If Clinton wins big tomorrow; and perhaps, if she wins at all, then she can come into Denver and wipe her butt with Edwards little delegate stash.
Even if it were true, a brokered convention would be a Clinton wet dream. She generally has the mossbacks of the party in her pocket, and if we haven't put Obama over the top by the convention, it's going to be nearly impossible to do it AT the convention.
It's curious that a blogger so outraged about people deserting the party, has had so little to say about Hillary's doing it with nauseating regularity.
Great post, Jesse. You are *my* kind of Democrat!
And for all you people who say you are "progressives" first and Democrats second, you are FOOLS if you think you can form any kind of mass movement without the Democratic Party.
Stand on your principles. Fight for them. Take over the party if you can. But you can't win jack shit without it.
So you had better be about forming coalitions and not about standing off by yourselves wallowing in the illusion of your moral purity.
And Jesse, putting up this, again, is not "bashing": it's factual.
Or, do you think that this, and all of her other frenching of rightwing butt, is cool?
http://search.myway.com/search/
G...ert+and+Hillary
tanbark:
Actually, according to Krugman, when it comes to healthcare it's Hillary's plan that comes closer to what Edwards was asking for, and Obama has been badmouthing single-payer.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/0.../
04krugman.html
I'll take a dissenting view.
First, I'm not a regular, but I haven't seen anyone here say they'd work to help defeat Hillary (sorry, "Sen. Clinton," even though it's her own supporters and campaign who prefer using her first name) in the November election. That's a different thing from working against her getting the Dem nomination. As I noted earlier:
If Obama gets the nomination, he gets both my vote and my support in the general election. I don't agree with everything Obama says and think he lacks the experience and partisan street-fighting ability of Edwards, but since Edwards is now out Obama's the best option given the severe limitations of the Democratic Party.
If Hillary gets the nomination, she does not get my support. And she only gets my vote in the unlikely case that November shapes up to be a close (3% or less margin) race. And it's not because I'm in love with Obama or think he's better than her on all issues (he's not, healthcare being as case in point). It's that I loathe her pandering to religious nuts and panicky safety moms, her bent toward a public-private partnership surveillance state, her arrogant refusal to even apologize for her part in enabling of the Iraq war (not to mention her support of the "surge" and Kyl-Lieberman), and her continuing alignment with the failed triangulation policies of the DLC. You may call that bashing, but I call it a statement of facts based on her votes and policy initiatives.
Anyway, that's the closest I can get to balancing strategic voting (i.e. doing my part to make sure we don't have another 4 years of GOP destruction) with principled voting (i.e. not voting for a DLC Dem who dropped the ball when she was my Senator). If principle had no role in my political life, well, I'd be a Republican. 
I'm an independent voter, not a Party man. I reserve total loyalty for people and organizations that have earned it, year in and year out. The only reason the Dems get my conditional loyalty is because, like it or not, we have a 2-party system and they suck way less than the GOP.
At the moment, though, it's not a circular firing squad or cowardly to state your opinion about who should or shouldn't get the nomination, and why. The only organization barred from doing that until August 28th is the Democratic Party. And, apparently, the GNB.
OK, I'm not gonna gush about LM again, because it's getting embarrassing. But he is absolutely right about the Tiger Beat Love that people seem to have for their canddiates this year.
Are we electing a president, or forming a cult? Are we electing a president, or deciding who does and who doesn't get into the Kool Kidz Klub?
I'm an Edwards supporter who's voting for Obama tomorrow. This means I'm not one of the pathetic souls on the Edwards blog who are parsing the definition of "suspended" and insisting he can still get the nomination if we just wish rilly rilly hard and say "I DO believe in fairies! I DO I DO I DO!!"
This also means that the kind of slamming I got at my place for daring to say about the "Yes we can" video that gee, this is a really good video...and if it just cast a wider net and included more older people; not just boomers but real icons of 20th century working class progressism and thought; guys like Studs Terkel and Howard Zinn, it would be perfect -- and make the candidate unbeatable.
And what I got was a bunch of slamming by Gen-Xers who want Obama all to themselves, as if he were the latest hot music star.
The crap going on at the Edwards blog of people saying "I will not vote for Obama" is as pathetic as the nastiness going on at Le Grand Orange. When we turn politicians into demigods, we're no different from the people who so worshipped the Mighty Codpiece they couldn't admit when he fucked up mightily.
I don't care about being a traitor to the Democratic Party, because I think this party is as rotten to the core as the Republicans. And I live in Bergen Country, NJ so I know from corrupt Democrats. What I do care about is the future of the Constitution and this nation -- and unfortunately, the Democrats may suck, but they're all we've got.
Jesse, as oen of your targets on this post I need to poitn out soem factual erros.
First I am not a dem, partisan or otherwise. I could care less about a polititions party membership. I am an american, and want what is best for this country. over the last ~30 this nation has been trending more corprate, and more authoritarian, every president has pushed us in that direction after carter...every single one. even clinton. that is my issue. that is why I will nto vote for clinton. I have seen thsi crap before.
Yes I like obama, I have thaugh of him as a good choice for preisdent sience the time that he was my state rep...but that is irrelivant. what is relivant is that the corprate take over of this nation has to be curtailed clinton nwill not do that. they may slow down the rate at which we head towards a facist state (marrige of authroitarian social viwes and corpate croniasim at its base) but they will keep us movign down that path for four to eight years.
then after probably four years of neocon lite the voters will once again be fully apathetic (as there is no diffreence between parties, we get stripped of our rights either way). and the fundies will [ush the hard line neocons back into power.
the clintons even brag about htis shit, their thrid way crap, their 30 year plan to reshape the democrats as "corprate friendly". their attacks on teh rest of the canadate feild for beign too "liberal" too far left....they attack other dems from the right and you claim its best for the democratic party???? Look the dems have gone for thinking people...which is good, but you need to understand that there are less sheeple on the left then on the right. the republicans can count on most of there voters voteing for "their team" regradless of how repugnet that canadate is personaly to them....you cannot rely on that on the left...yes there are some left wing authroitarian types...and people that lean that way (you have to vote for the party choice because its THE PARTY CHOICE) but there are not that many. if its an election between the hard core REPUBLICANS and the hard core DEMOCRATS the replublicans will allways win.
Most of us currently allied with you don't care about party affiliation. I for one will not vote for more authoritarian rule regardless of the party affiliation. the fact that clinton is also in bed with the corperations and has rather disturbing ties to verious dommininist groups in DC just seal the deal.
Honestly I am hopeing for one of two outcomes this election. a progressive president (with edwards out, obama is our best hope). barrign that a president that is so nutered by a hostil congress adn a pluridaty of voters as opposed to a majority that they are irrelivant (addmitidly we could achive that with hillary, but a republican is a better bet there)
“The crap going on at the Edwards blog of people saying "I will not vote for Obama" is as pathetic as the nastiness going on at Le Grand Orange. When we turn politicians into demigods, we're no different from the people who so worshipped the Mighty Codpiece they couldn't admit when he fucked up mightily.”
You've seen the same stuff I have. Talk of conspiracy theories, death threats, being “Feingold-ed” (God help me—I saw it), and utter deification. I happen to have really liked Edwards, but i also know he wasn't pulling the votes, he was trending badly in comp to the other two, and he made a pragmatic, if unpopular decision.
I've seen the Senator Clinton-lovers go simply apeshit when the thought of having to consider voting for Obama come November comes up. Talk of “because there are more women than Blacks, women should get the first crack” shit. The same racial/sexual divide that fucked progressivism post-Reconstruction between Frrederick Douglass and Susan B. Anthony.
And yes, I've seen some serious “Hillary as Medusa” demonizing goin' on too. She's doubly wounded by her exposure over the years. There's so much to hang your hat(e) on that her long period of prominence in the public eye actually works against her. Too much “the bitch, the witch, the shrew” and all manner of Mrs. Gulch cum-Lady Borg from Star Trek projecting.
I want to yell “Eyes On The Prize” but motherfuckers have got their blinders on...in the fog...and in the dark it seems. 
What concerns me is that the pro-Hillary team will be very sore winners if Hillary gets the nomination, and alienate pro-Obama voters off the Dem campaign by hammering them with their man's loss.
"Nyah-nyah-nyaaaaahhh" does not build party loyalty.
moonglum -
There weren't any factual errors that I know of.
I didn't think of you once while I was writing the essay.
This was an essay written to Democrats.
If you're not a registered Democrat, I'm not talking to you. Someone who isn't a Democrat but claims to support progressive values, lacks, in my view, even the courage to put their ass on the line as a member of the party most likely to make progressive change happen in THE REAL WORLD in the United States.
They can talk all they want about progressive change, but if they don't have the balls to register as a Democrat, they're nothing more than a coward who talks big, in my eyes.
Finally, I believe you're very wrong about how party affiliation doesn't matter to most people at GNB. Most people at GNB who are also American citizens -- we have a wide-spread international readership as well -- understand that like it or not, the United States has a two-party system. That's just the way it is. If you're going to get anything done in politics, you are either a member of the Republican or Democratic parties, and the rare exceptions prove the rule.
Work through the parties, quit politics, or admit you are not serious about making real change happen in the real world of professional politics.
One note of hope in this silly circular firing squad bit... wait for John McCain to become the Republican candidate and pick Hucklebee as his Vice as a sop to the Religious whackjobs... talk about a "come to Jesus" moment.
All those dainty Obama or Clinton supporters hearing about McCain's promised "100 years war" and the Baptist Minister being a very old man's heartbeat away from the Presidency should focus their loyalties. Or if it is Mr. Bossman Romney with another corpratist VP like Dick Cheney...
If business is a game played for money, politics is a game played for blood. The end game matters.
Jesse and LM rock my world.
I think one reason we're seeing so much petulance in both camps is that so many new participants have been drawn into the process. The Democrats -- both the party and the individual candidates -- have gotten much better at on-the-ground organizing than they were before. As a result, they can actually take advantage of the GOP's implosion in ways that the 2000 and 2004 versions couldn't have done; on the other hand, they also have to contend with a lot of new voters and volunteers who are either single-issue activists, in love with their candidate rather than the party, or simply unfamiliar with the game and how rough it's really played. Once we reach the endgame, I suspect most of the new people who backed the runner-up will get on board with the nominee despite the "take my ball and go home" talk we're hearing now. The ones who do fade out, whatever their reason, probably weren't in it for the long haul anyway.
I'll add my "amen" to LM's observation that this is not a phenomenon limited to any one candidate. I will also admit to being a little infatuated with my preferred candidate, but you know what? I'm not dumb. I'll vote for whomever in the general and I have tried not to cross the line from "vigorous endorsement" to "nutty cultishness."
You're right Jesse, there are lots of reasons why ANY democratic president is better than ANY republican one. My particular hobby horse is the Supreme Court, but there are lots of reasons.
I was explaining to someone the other day who said "McCain's at least better than other Republicans," that one needs to examine how things actually will work. If McCain's in the White House, he's going to have to shore up the suspicious base with knuckle-dragging judges and red meat on issues he's not that concerned with (how's a big push for school vouchers grab ya'?). And the one issue he's really passionate about also happens to be the one he's colossally, murderously wrong about. That's how it works-he'll give the wingers whatever they want to get what he wants in Iraq, and the media will let him get away with literal murder because he's a post-partisan uniter, don't ya' know.
A similar dynamic will happen with any Democrat. The differences between Obama's and Clinton's health care proposals are very likely to come out in the legislative wash one way or the other.
All that said-as a member of a notoriously "apathetic" generation, I am pleased as I can be to see such passion-just don't let it go until November.
Obama till Denver -
Hey, you should support your candidate, till it isn't time to support your candidate any more.
No problem there.
As for voting based on percentages, just remember, there are sometimes 10% swings in a state on election day in polls.
You just can't trust them. Unless the state you are in has a 20% margin, on November 7, vote D. Anything over 20%, sure, go with a protest vote, no problem. But under 20%, you just don't know what's going to happen. Anything from vote tampering, to weather spots, to the polls being way the hell off, to people not being willing to admit to the pollster they won't vote for a woman who is also a Clinton. Who the hell knows.
I will pull the lever for either Clinton or Obama and be happy to vote for either of them. I see good and bad in both of them. I could sign on with joy to either campaign. Perhaps because I am clear that perfection is the enemy of the good.
You and I don't have a beef. You have your reasons for having a problem with Clinton. But when it comes right down to the nub, you'll do what needs to be done to put a Democrat into office. That's called playing professionally. Because it really isn't about the person in the office, so much as it is about the thousands of executive office appointments she or he will make, and the general direction the office will take under a Democratic administration. That's what you're voting for.
Thanks for your comment. I do appreciate it very much. *smiles*
JPsy: and that little matter of her enthusiastically applauding bush's surge-koolaid a few night's ago, while Obama spoke volumes by sitting as stone-faced as the Sphinx?
One more time, class:
We cannot win this election if we don't hammer the GOP about Iraq.
And the hard, cold, truth is this:
Hillary Clinton aint got no hammer.
For the better part of the past five years, she's been cutting it up and trying to trade the pieces to republicans for votes.
I hope, JP, that you (and Paul Krugman, whom I generally admire) understand that that $3 billion dollars a week that we are pissing away in Iraq (and counting) is going to have a little something to do with the realities of EVERY govenment program that is being talked about; primary and general.
That's why, in her most recent statement about health care, Clinton said she's willing to garnishee the wages of workers, in order to pay for their insurance.
When she said it, I would like to have been in the crowd, to hold up that photo that was on the internet a while back, of those pallets full of bricks of $100 dollar bills, so many of which have disappeared into the vastness of Mesopotamia.
The Clinton-heads are trying to hide behind the same old democratic "safe" issues, as they hope to slide her into the nomination. I don't think it will work.
EXACTLY like bush and the republicans, she HAS to hope that our troops can keep the lid on in Iraq long enough to reduce the election impact for she and her fellow surge-supporters in the white house.
Conversely, Obama is in good position to flay John McCain's ass to pieces as he prattles about staying a "hundred years".
There is a very good chance; a probability, that in 3-6 months, and maybe even sooner, the political landscape here, and the interntional landscape, will look nothing like they do now. Both the Brits and the Aussies will be gone by the election. We will, essentially, be alone in Iraq. What that will mean, no one knows with certainty, but I don't think it will make for the kind of "stability" that both Clinton and the GOP are praying for, to reduce the impact of five years of bloody idiocy there, on each of them as they campaign.
Tellingly, there are two words that her supporters do not voluntarily speak.
Iraq.
and:
Electability.
If insisting on bringing them up qualifies me as a "misogynist" basher of Hillary, then, that's a coat that I will proudly wear. :o)
I'll get behind Hillary if she's the nominee. Hell, I'll campaign for her and donate. I think she's a determined, smart, accomplished woman.
But I'm voting for Barack in the primaries, and really hope he ends up with it.
Also, I generally use "Hillary" instead of "Clinton" to refer to her, not because I'm trying to diminish her, but because saying "Clinton" is often ambiguous in this campaign, what with Bill's ubiquity.
Also, there's something flattering about a public figure being recognizable by their first name. I don't think that Ms. Winfrey is diminished by being "Oprah" around the world.
AT this point, in the middle of a primary season in what is, by far, the most important election in recent american history, every call for "Unity" is nothing but a dog-whistle for:
"Lay off Hillary!"
"By the way, why is it that some people call Senator Clinton, "Hillary" and not "Clinton?"
-Maybe to differentiate her from "Bill" Clinton.
Also, trying to convince people by insulting them is not a tactic I would endorse; I don't think it works (my 2 cents).
Test 1-2-3...:o)
eople have fallen in love with their candidates. But in too many instances, it's a deep, adolescent, immature kind of love. Tiger Beat, posters-on-my-wall, love notes with the “I's” dotted with hearts kind of shit.
Which of course manifests itself as hate for anyone else who supercedes their Shaun Cassidy/Bay City Roller/Usher/Mandy-fucking-Moore candidate.
Goddamn.
Use your fucking brains people. Use your fucking brains.
boooo-ya.
tanbark, I think I can safely say after watching your activities in a number of the comment sections I follow that there really isn't anything you're likely to say at this point that's going to affect my opinion about your misogyny, likely because it has far more to do with the way you speak to women who disagree with you than it does with your views on Senator Clinton.
I'm a new yorker. I knew who Gerry Ferraro was before she was the *breakthrough* VP nominee, so I had many years of thinking that gender wasn't any better a qualification for high office than Dan Quayle being, to Republican tastes, cute. Lieberman? Another first, another disaster.
When you're playing on that level, your life is far enough removed from the reality of mine, or of any working, poor or middle-class person that what bathroom or worship hall or level of sunblock you use isn't a trump card for me. I haven't changed my mind about that.
My candidate dropped out. Now I have to pick between two candidates with strengths and weaknesses in the areas that are most important to me. Do your candidate a favor you didn't do your last candidate and let people make that decision without having to battle the feeling that he's an adolescent bully by association.
tanbark starts down the right path. any heathcare taht is nto universal but manditroy is a gift to the insurance company...have you ever looked at nongroup care, its less then worthelss as it takes mony away from you that you will ahve to spend on none covered medical issues (read, all of them). the issue isn't taht we don't want health car, its that we can't afforid it. More over she is tyeing her heath care to a subdermal tracking chip...hell thats one of its big "pluses"....how is this a good policy...how is this a progressive policy...this is a gift to busniess and allows deeper control over the rest of us....Just because a neocon calles them selves a democrat dosn't mean that they aer a democrat. Just because someone calles themsleves a democrat dosn' mean that they are progresive.
sure you may get to keep Roe v Wade for four more years...whooptd fucking doo, it will be irrelivant when the rest of your freedom vanishes...but just liek the gun nuts you can cling to your one issue while the rest of your rights errode.
If have a chance to move forward...if the dems don't take that chance I for one will try to do my small part to make sure we at least tred water for four years adn dont' contuinue the slide backwards.
slowing the rate of declien is not progress.
Errr.... It is the PRIMARY and actually the cowards in this whole mess are the ones with microphones who are refusing to use them to foward the actual Democratic agenda.
The JohnEdwards.com bloggers are in an intense sense of grief, and quite understanable so. It was a huge crushing disappointment. They may be right in their conviction to vote for John Edwards anyway. But they made a DECISION from their hearts. That's to be respected.
I disagree with their choice, but at least they made a public statment as to what that was. Hats off to that.
I don't know if my choice to go for Obama and pray for a tsunami like SC showed us, to at least show the world that the United States is done with the past of the clintonbush era.... AND indecisiveness... and moving forward to a new era..... come what may. Leap of Faith here.
What I do know is I made a decison. I've made a stand that is in my heart true to my soul. I will never vote for more republicanism in the form of hrh clinton. If she comes out the winner of super tuesday...... it is lost already because its an all republican general. They'll be no difference in her and the R candidate. You'll see.
What's chickenshit is taking a loyaly oath to the clinton loyalist run DNC ....... ewwwww. Smelly pooo poooo. So call all the names you got. Its still smelly as all hell.
Jesse you and i grew up in diffrent places.
whre i came from we had defacto one party rule (dems win the city, republicans win the coller. end of story. they ahd a nice cosy deal going where they would nto challange each others turf). That leads one, espcialy if one is of a progressive, or at least noneletist bent to abandone faith in a PARTY. I am terrribly sorry if my not siging on to your team is upsettign you. I chose not to have a tribe as I have see nthe tribes switch sides in the past and take msot of their sheep with them.
the republican and democratic party of today are not the same as the party of the past that held those names...nor will it be the same as those parties in the future...tieing your self to a name...attachign yourself to a tribal identiy just garuntes that you get taken for a ride...by the time you open your eyes you may find that the party you BELEIVE in is not the party you singned up for (a lot of libratarian type republicans are startign to wake up to that sicking relization right now).
LM you accuse canadate supportes of adolesent blind love for canadates...I would sugest that discription also fits some of your fellow writers adn there party affiliations. Its about doing what is best for the nation and my family, RIGHT NOW the dems are teh best bet for that...that may change and it may change quickly. You got to do a hell of a lto more then slap a D after my name to get my loyalty.
And you can "kiss my ass" too, Jesse Wendel. The only thing driving people from your site is your crazy "skin pealing off in my hands" mantra of just way too graphic self agrandizing "its all about me" posting. But then, I can see why you gravitate to "its all about me" Hillary and The Clinton's third term. Perfect match. Way to "fight back" dude.
Ick Ick Ick......... Hazmat crew en route.
So go ahead with your hissfittery then blame it on your meds. I can take it. Its not any different from the righties and I've withstood years of that. Ready.Set.Go! 
Oh and if you want my IP, just ask. Happy to provide it
Okay, Jesse, can we get this outfront?
Here's the email I just got from Jesse, to a comma:
"Larry. Enough. You are banned from talking in any way about Hillary Clinton for 24 hours. Violate this and I'll ban you for GNB for a week. Violate that and I'll just throw you off the site for as long as I feel like it.
I would have made this ban longer but I didn't want to knock you out of Super Tuesday.
WARNING. You are one of three to five people, I am stopping cold in your rampage against Hillary Clinton. You are costing GNB readership. People are complaining to me about your posts, and how they make GNB comments unfriendly.
Stop it now, if you can't stop yourself, I will ban your comments completely. Absolutely no more slamming Clinton. None.
Talk nice about other candidates if you want, but stop slamming Clinton.
You're done with that topic. Again, if you can't control yourself, I'm going to delete your post, and ban you for a week on your next offense, then throw you off GNB for good, the following time.
I repeat, people are complaining to me specifically about the tone of the Hillary bashing. It ends now.
You don't need to reply to this."
That was it.
Well, I did reply to it, and it was brief:
"Okay; how about just posting bare links to her statements and speeches? Is that OK? :o)"
I mean, I think that, in some perverted spirit of Mr. Gilliard, that busting people for pointing out the hypocrisy of complaining about people threatening to desert the democratic party, while the same "cop" has squat to say about you-know-who's schmoozing with FauxNews and Rupert Murdoch, and banning someone for, among other things, putting up the link to prove it, is not protecting the blog; it's protecting you-know-who. :o)
Jesse, I don't actually know how much you read Steve, but it GOT "unfriendly" on there, sometimes. More so, than anything that's going on on your most recent thread.
You-know-who has some huge and VERY real negatives for democrats, and for progressives alike, and as I've pointed out, fairly, I think, AND factually, that is why she gets pounded on progressive polls.
I hope you don't ban me, and that you re-think your decision to protect you-know-who from those of us who insist on pointing out the truth about her "progressive" credentials, and about how electable she is, or is not.
But, it is, after all, your blog...now...and if you want to turn it into an echo-chamber for you-know-who, then, maybe you need to ban me, and the others who want no part of the attempted coronation process.
Good luck to us all in the election.
BTW, do you think that the surge is worth applauding?
I do see a naritive building. those of us who wont vote for clinton...its not a "my canadate lost so im going home" type of thing (I would have happly voted for edwards, or kunnich, or gravle, I could have held my nose for richerdson). Its a no way in hell am I voteing for another clinton type of thing. Kinda kills your whole premis jessy. Msot of us don't care if our guy dosn't make it as long as it anit a clinton....I wonder how that is going to play out in the general if hillary is the nomine??? you get hard core republican partisan and hard core democrat partisnas...I am guessign the right winngers have a lto more Jesse's then teh democrats do.
I'm seeing more and more posts like this but sorry Jesse, this is a straw man. Invariably the posts like yours link to content I had not seen before. What I see is criticism of Clinton, not belittling or childish threats to stay home on election day.
I oppose Sen. Clinton with every fiber of my being because I have lived through enough Clintonian garbage to last me a lifetime. If Clinton gets the nomination my blog will shut down and, while I'll vote, I make no guarantees as to who I'll be voting for.
As a progressive my votes have almost always been about compromise. Voting for Obama will be a compromise. Voting for Clinton would, however, be a betrayal of what I believe in. I'm fighting Al Franken here in MN because I believe that NO COMPETENT CANDIDATE COULD EVER VOTE FOR THE IRAQ WAR.
And yes, I studied John Edwards' apology for a long time before I accepted it.
FYI, the top of Clinton's campaign site says HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT.
Jesse, on that one count, you're just recycling an empty talking point from HRC backers. The point about diminishing women by calling them by their first name or nickname is valid, but Senator Clinton has copyrighted, patented and registered Hillary
â„¢ so faulting people for using her first name is a low blow.
Democrats fight because we're Democrats. When we don't, it means no one cares and we'll lose for sure.
Thanks for addressing my comment.
"Hey, you should support your candidate, till it isn't time to support your candidate any more."
So why aren't you guys coming out with your own opinions (LM's choice is pretty obvious, but he's still playing coy). This is one of the few places in the great big mediasphere where we might have a civil and substantive debate on the two nominees, based on issues rather than the "black guy vs white gal" and inside-baseball nonsense.
It's your blog, but why not tell us who you prefer (especially if members of yourGroup have different opinions)? I promise, you GNBers have made it clear you'll all vote for the Dems in November whether or not your person is nominated.
"As for voting based on percentages, just remember, there are sometimes 10% swings in a state on election day in polls."
I'm in a state where the electoral votes and the popular vote regularly goes Dem, so I'm not worried on that count. If Hillary is nominated, I'll be looking at the national popular polls from September through November to get a handle on the trends, and correlating with our crappy electoral college system.
I highly doubt we'd see a 20% national margin between Hillary and St. John. That's landslide territory. I'm thinking more like a 5-10% delta in the popular national vote against Hillary, most of that in so-called Red States. So 3-4% or less, I'll (unhappily) pull the lever for Hillary (but no more than that) to do my tiny part. Otherwise, I'm sitting this one out, because whether she wins or not in that case will be completely out of my control, so I might as well salvage some principles (which would also preclude a Nader vote).
Of course, YMMV depending on your state's situation and your devotion to the Democratic Party.
"You and I don't have a beef. You have your reasons for having a problem with Clinton. But when it comes right down to the nub, you'll do what needs to be done to put a Democrat into office."
No beef, but I think that's our core difference: I'll do what needs to be done to keep a Republican OUT of office. The intended result is the same, the game can be played just as professionally, but the motivation and means are very different.
Based on the comments here, I think you'd find at least half of us really don't think being a registered Dem or supporting the Party "no matter what" is all that important. In the general election, it's not necessary to be a registered Party member to vote for the Democratic candidate, and the Democratic Party isn't the only organization (and I'm not talking about other political parties) that can effectively push for progressive values.
Over the past 20 years, the Democratic "leadership" (Dean excepted) has demonstrated a stunning ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and to cave to their opponents on critical issues. They have a long way to go to earn the sort of loyalty you're expecting.
Whatthefuck?
I pay pretty close attention to this and I haven't seen more than a couple of examples of what you're describing about Obama supporters. They're on a roll, they're not threatened, and as a group they're not reacting defensively as you're describing.
You can't walk through Daily Kos without running across a bitter Edwards supporter saying he or she will vote for Nader, and there are a couple of Clinton supporters who screech constantly about Obama's unelectability compared to HRC. But the Obama supporters I see are mostly enjoying the ride.
Got anything specific to show that what you're saying is a pattern of behavior specific to Obama supporters? If you don't, I think you need to check yourself.
Here's the email I just got from Jesse, to a comma:
"Larry. Enough. You are banned from talking in any way about Hillary Clinton for 24 hours. Violate this and I'll ban you for GNB for a week. Violate that and I'll just throw you off the site for as long as I feel like it.
I would have made this ban longer but I didn't want to knock you out of Super Tuesday.
WARNING. You are one of three to five people, I am stopping cold in your rampage against Hillary Clinton. You are costing GNB readership. People are complaining to me about your posts, and how they make GNB comments unfriendly.
Jesse - is this post really about three to five people?
tieing your self to a name...attachign yourself to a tribal identiy just garuntes that you get taken for a ride
This post Jesse is further proof that U DON'T GET IT.
And that's fine. If you honestly beleive that those of us who refuse to vote for Clinton are taking our bat and going home becaus our cadidate didn't get chosen or it's because we have some LOVE for Obama...you don't get it.
If you think this about Obama supporting Clinton should she get the nomination...you don't get it.
You don't get it. You want to reduce this conversation to something aas simple as a bunch of spoiled unemotional children who don't understand how politics works and their throwing a tremper tantrum 'cause they're guy may not be chosen...well so be it.
But you miss the point. And I'm not the only who feels this way. To dismiss legitmate concerns by the democratic party's most faitful and reduce those concerns to temper tantrums by spoiled children...well..we'll see how that works for you should Clinton get the nomination.
So, Julia. As a parting shot: Do you think that the surge is worth applauding? :o)
I'm an Edwards supporter in Maryland and our primary is 2/12. I don't know if I will even vote. Can't stand Hillary (Iraq vote, etc.) and can't stand Obama (feel good speeches that will grow old real quick). BUT...I will be voting in November for the Democratic nominee. I don't give a rat's ass about Clinton or Obama, what I care about is our Republic. Therefore I will vote for either Clinton OR Obama.
Tanbark: "It's curious that a blogger so outraged about people deserting the party, has had so little to say about Hillary's doing it with nauseating regularity."
Used to agree with you a lot in the past, but your anti-Hillary tirades have gotten to be too much.
Jesse: "And just so we're clear, the Democratic Party is going to win this fall, one way or another."
Your overconfidence is simply scary. The ReThugs (with the help of their korporate media allies) are not going down without a fight.
Tanbark - Dang, that's so sad. Sorry that happened to you!?!?!?! Man, this primary is now and that's still to be decided. How are Democrats to decide if the discussion is curtailed? That loyalty oath has curtailed it though.
Let me ask you this: Did Steve ever write you nasty letters full of threats for your spot-on views? I only read there for 10 months but I don't think I ever saw him scold in quite this manner.... or at all except to ether. Just curious, thought you'd know.
"Larry. Enough. You are banned from talking in any way about Hillary Clinton for 24 hours. Violate this and I'll ban you for GNB for a week. Violate that and I'll just throw you off the site for as long as I feel like it.
I would have made this ban longer but I didn't want to knock you out of Super Tuesday.
WARNING. You are one of three to five people, I am stopping cold in your rampage against Hillary Clinton. You are costing GNB readership. People are complaining to me about your posts, and how they make GNB comments unfriendly.
Stop it now, if you can't stop yourself, I will ban your comments completely. Absolutely no more slamming Clinton. None.
Talk nice about other candidates if you want, but stop slamming Clinton.
You're done with that topic. Again, if you can't control yourself, I'm going to delete your post, and ban you for a week on your next offense, then throw you off GNB for good, the following time.
I repeat, people are complaining to me specifically about the tone of the Hillary bashing. It ends now.
You don't need to reply to this."
Sad this email from Jesse is Tanabark. Thanks for sharing that.
to all Hillary AND Obama fanatics: the past seven horrible years have proved that for the Republic to survive it is life and death vital NOT to have a ReThug president elected in 2008
if you can't understand that then this country is truly doomed
grow the fuck up
whooops that last line should be "Sad, this email from Jesse, Tanbark".
I'm getting REALLY tired of posts like this. It's not justified nor is it appreciated. Contrary to what one commenter claims above thread, I don't think Steve would have gone in for your attitude at all.
So far this is, at least, the second "STFU and just vote for the D" post by you that I can remember. The anti-Clinton crowd (which I am proud to be a memeber) only brings up documented issues/fears with the candidate. That's all.
I understand that you are one of four editors on this website and you have the right to publish what you want. Fine. At no time do I think that the anti-Clinton commenters have displayed the "take my ball and go home" syndrome that you seem to think is rampant. We question; we wonder; we worry. No circular firing squad.
First, Digby turns off the comments - now this. Why?
Full disclosure: I was an avid Edwards supporter; tomorrow, Obama will get my vote. After that, I'll see.
Oh, by the way, Jesse: if it comes down to Clinton getting the D nominee, get used to saying "President McCain." Bet on it.
Because of idiots like you, all of you, the Democratic Party is controlled by a bunch of old white guys (DLC) who are anti-ecomonic justice, and mildly pro-social justice -- as long as it doesn't cut in to the bottom line of their corporate masters. As long as you Yellow Dog Democrats (I'd vote for a yellow dog if he had (D) after his name) refuse to exercise progressive principles in voting and funding candidates, you will continue to get what you deserve, or rather, what the corporate media wants you to have.
People get serious: Obama shilled for a slumlord, Hillary shilled for freakin' Wal-Mart! They both authorized every freakin' Iraq spending bill. Neither has done anything to repeal the horrible bankruptcy bill, the Patriot act, or the Military Commissions Act.
What makes you believe that if they get in office, they're gonna respect that progressives pulled the lever for them with a taste of bile in the back of their mouths? What makes you think 'netroots' progressives who vote for decidedly unprogressive candidates haven't already become the Democratic Party's CHRISTIANISTS!?!
The WGA all stood together for economic justice. Hillary has a plan to give back to the middle class by taking more from PACs and lobbyists. Obama thinks the Republicans are gonna give the middle class something or other he is so delightfully non-partisan. Get real!
You people are fools. The party will not change because you go along with the candidate that's been chosen for you by 'The Establishment.' You will get exactly what you deserve. Four or eight more years of anti-economic justice anti-social justice policies. Triangulation for or fear of antagonizing the corporate masters.
Maybe the Democrats NEED to lose one more time, to purge the corporatists from our party. Maybe then the candidates will feel they can talk about getting out of Iraq in less than eight years without risk of losing their backing.
Prof.
P.S. I decided long ago that whoever the nominee is, I was not gonna play Charlie Brown to the Democratic Party's Lucy. I will vote green or I will vote socialist, but I will be damned if I will swallow my integrity to vote for some corporatist hack, just so I can win.
Win what, Jesse?
LM - People saying they will not vote for hillary in the general are using their heads. They are retaining their power in the primary. And its the primary now. Ask youself why in the world the dnc would need to float such a notion in the primay, even before the primary? I'll tell you why, they want permission, which taking this oath is giving them, to coronate hrhclinton. There's no other reason they'd be asking for a pledge other than to get people to accept their pre-selected candidate.
Look at the make up of the DNC board; their histories. The majority are clinton loyalists. Look at how clinton was spotted some 150-200 "super delegates" prior to any votes having been cast. Look at how Dean is just a sockpuppet for Mccauliff who is now running hrhclinton's campaign. This loyalty oath business is only rubber stamping the dnc's plan to coronate hrh clinton. Now what's Democratic about that? The first letter requesting "the pledge" I got from the DNC was on the day Hillary placed third in Iowa. The media blitz to that point had not been enough so they were getting people on board. The only right response to the DNC is: ask me when its the general. I go further, because I've said this for two years. I cannont and will not vote that line if its Clinton III. Its just unAmerican to me to float another round of dynasty and mccauliff will have her go all right again just as he has done with the last two candidates..... that lost. Its bad strategy and I see no need to say yes, I'll drink the blue koolaid when I want all the koolaid stand torn down. The DNC asking people to drink the blue koolaid sounds just like a republican question and I can't participate in anything republican. Ever.
So people are thinking. And they're debating the candidates in the primary by first stating who they're for or by saying they're confused. They're willing to discuss though by stating where they're at and why. We should have focused on the primary discussion. It was shut down by the koolaide stand question from the DNC.
Professor Challenger, I agree with a lot that you wrote. However, as a FORMER Democrat, it is very apparent to me that the Democratic Party cannot be rebuilt by Election Day 2008. You think it doesn't make a difference whether a Democrat or ReThug gets elected this year? Have you been asleep over the past 7 years? You think electing a ReThug after Bush won't make things worse??? You think this Republic will survive waiting for a perfect Democratic Party to show up?
Gay Veteran voteing antiauthroitairna is needed for the republicas survival...if we have an authroitarian REGARDLESS of party affliation , well tehn we better hope for a contencious congress...that is why a republican with a dem congress is better then hillary. if hillary wins in four years we will have and authroitarian president with an authritarian congress.
a slow road to hell is still a road to hell.
i do think we are watchign teh end of one of our political parties and of two party rule...whcich party is endign I am not sure of....the elietes of both parties are clinging to the old ways which ever grass roots sucseefull prys the controlls away will survive.
Win what, Jesse?
A Supreme Court without six to eight "clones of Alito" (what McCain's promised to nominate) in their forties.
Me, I don't think that if I go where they are, I can face the spirits of people who faced guns and dogs and firehoses and ropes and fire for the right to vote that in the end holding my nose was too much of a sacrifice for me to make.
YMMV, of course.
Jesse Wendel,
I think some of Obama's base support is among people that aren't traditional Democratic Party activists and hence will not support Hillary if given the choice between her, McCain, or staying home. So excoriating them on who the support isn't going to be that helpful.
Hillary Clinton is a fine politician whom I would vote for easily over John McCain or any other criminal Republican, but her nomination does present us with many additional problems. John McCain is far to the right of Ronald Reagan, but the media has him pegged as the new Teddy Roosevelt. This persona matters a lot more in a Clinton-McCain matchup than a Obama-McCain matchup because Hillary would automatically become the stand-in for the establishment(it doesn't matter that McCain has supported Bush almost 100 percent, this is a media phenomenon not a real one).
The Democratic candidate must win this election and the Democratic Congress must act quickly to preserve all the information that this current administration will start to immediately destroy. If people need to know one reason that Obama or Hillary is better than McCain it's that the first executive order either one will issue will be to lift the gag on health clinics overseas. The "Mexico City Rule" denies any clinic seeking US assistance from ever talking about abortion even on a consultation basis. This has led to literally tens of thousands of deaths over the great reign of George W. Bush. That massacre must stop.
^ and explain that
When I see comments like this:
"Based on the comments here, I think you'd find at least half of us really don't think being a registered Dem or supporting the Party "no matter what" is all that important. In the general election, it's not necessary to be a registered Party member to vote for the Democratic candidate, and the Democratic Party isn't the only organization (and I'm not talking about other political parties) that can effectively push for progressive values."
and this:
"P.S. I decided long ago that whoever the nominee is, I was not gonna play Charlie Brown to the Democratic Party's Lucy. I will vote green or I will vote socialist, but I will be damned if I will swallow my integrity to vote for some corporatist hack, just so I can win."
It makes me want to p-u-u-u-u-k-e. What vehicle do you think people will coalesce around to form a true MASS movement? Your little pure splinter group?
The party will not change from you waving your little rhetorical or emotional magic wands. This is not about validating YOU. This is about arresting the slide into corporate absolutism, and although I do not like Hillary, if it's her or the GOP, I will vote for her without a qualm because it is a FIRST STEP.
For the people who don't even want to take that FIRST STEP, fuck you altogether. Vote Green and be damned, the lot of you. There are 10 disaffected Republicans for every one of you, and we damn sure WILL recruit them.
moonglum: "if hillary wins in four years we will have and authroitarian president with an authritarian congress."
NO, things will return to normal, the korporate media attacking a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress fighting with the Democratic president.
Thinking that only Obama can beat the ReThug candidate is self-defeating and frankly delusional. You don't think the korporate media will turn on him? You don't think the American people will tire of his fell good speeches?
whoops! "feEl good", not "feLl good" 
ivan - I think you miss the point. The only point is it is the primary! It is not the general. This "I don't like Hillary, but" only encourages the DNC/DLC to keep on the coronation path. If you really don't like hillary the least you can do to make sure she's not the nom is stand up to the DNC for asking such an insane question in the primary season. I ask you ..... why else are they even asking such a thing?
wengler: what did clinton do last time in office...oh thats right they assisted bush I in distroying recoreds and endign investigations into his missdeeds...why do you think it would be idffrent this time. Again I see all of our rights as a package deal...you can't throw me a bone on one (be it abortion or gun ownership) and expect me to sit by complacently as you strip me of the rest.
ivan you are correct as to the point, but i see a slightly slowed slide in that dircetion as a bad thign as well....how exactly did the last clinton administration not furtehr our travle down the path of corperate rule...or are we allsupposed to forget abotu that because bush II ran down the path instead of jogging.
Jesse, my thoughts of staying home in November have nothing to do with Barack Obama.
I was and still am a supporter of John Edwards and I am not sure if I will be voting for Obama in the MD primary on 2/12.
Anyway since you had your chance to explain how you felt let me give you my feelings on the matter.
I tried to explain this before and apparently not many people saw what I wrote but let me make myself clear as an African-American will not vote for anyone Democrat or Republican that engages in racially divisive tactics to win an election. No one.
In a post below you accused JJ of introducing the fact that you are white as a strawman. I know and understand why you wouldn't like an accusation of a certain racial ignorance thrown in your face but I think that there is a point to be made about the fact that white Democrats by and large have probably never considered just WHY blacks support the party. There is just an assumption that we will show up like clockwork on election day and give our 90% and go home.
Blacks in America don't support the Democrats as much as we don't support the Republicans or should I say are so disgusted with their race baiting that we can't fathom supporting them.
That is despite the fact that blacks in this country are much more conservative that the conventional wisdom suggests. There absolutely are some of us who would support Mike Huckabee, Romney or McCain.
Dems get that 90% because they are the major party that doesn't engage in those tactics. I'm not saying we don't care about policy but believe me the slightest stench of racial politics is going to make most of us run the other way.
Now what does this have to do with my vote?
The Clinton campaign in my mind has been using racial attacks against a black candidate. I don't think they are racist but I do believe that they have made a petty and pathetic calculation that insulting the black voters who have supported them for so long and also trying to pit blacks against Latinos is in their political interest.
I'm not naive I know that all sorts of dirty shit goes down during a campaign but these kind of racial tactics I would have never expected from a fellow Democrat.
You only have to spit in my face once to let me know exactly what you think of me. I'm not going to come back for seconds. And I'm sure as hell not going to shake your hand after you've done it.
If someone is willing to tell me to go fuck myself when they should be begging for my vote what the fuck are they going to do when they win the election?
I don't trust the Clintons at all at this point. I don't trust that they will give a damn about me and mine when they get into the White House. And don't blame me for that suspiscion look at those who thought that calling a grown accomplished black man a drug dealer, a terrorist madrassa student and passed of his accomplishments as irrelevent.
You live by the sword and you die by it and Hillary and Bill have gotten burned playing some Rovian shit that they shouldn't have touched anyway.
Because at the end of the day the most damning thing I can say about what they've done is that is plain fucking stupid.
It's stupid to piss off a core of your support in a way that will make many of them consider not voting for you in November.
Don't try to sell me some line about 35 years of experience and political wisdom when the Clintons have deployed what may be the absolutely dumbest and unnessary political gambit in the Democratic parties history.
Please someone tell me what the fuck they thought was going to happen to their black support after all this shit?
Do you think we have no pride in ourselves?
Since we've come to the shores shackled we have been told to sacrifice our lives, our wishes and our futures for some future benefit to be generously doled out by whites in this country. And time and time again when we keep silent when we let these slights go by with a hope in our heart that what we've given up will be remembered we are NEVER repaid.
I'm tired of it and I will not tolerate standing by while others are treated with the respect we all deserve and don't have to grovel while we are expected to get to our knees because our society seems to think it's ok to treat us this way.
I'm not taking my ball and going home. I'm taking my ball sitting it on the ground and kicking it in the face of two bastards who should have known better.
gay vet. two years after clinton you will have a republican congress again, during those two years she will be attacked for beign too far left all the while pushing us furtehr and furhter right...this WILL happen, we witnessed 8 years of it last tiem clinton was in office.
(there Jessy I a museign the last name, happy)
I can't speak for other people, but I haven't taken to using "HRC" because I have anything against Hillary Clinton. I simply wish to differentiate her from her husband, whereas just saying "Clinton" might confuse a casual reader, and it takes less time to type "HRC" than "Hillary Clinton".
I will say "Bush Junior" or "Dubya" [when I'm not calling him "the Chimperor" ] for the same reason--to differentiate him from his father, the first President Bush.
And I, too, will vote for whomever has the "D" after his or her name in November.
I must prepare to return to the Ministry of Silly Walks, so ciao for nao.
baltogeek - Well said! There is no denying that truth right there.
IBW - We have an actual snow day! No school, no work! "Ministry of Silly Walks" I go to shove the new 2feet in my driveway.
baltogeek: its nto jsut the blacks, this is the socioeconamic eleites of our nation (who happen to be rich whites irrelivant of gender) telling us to take and like what they are offering adn they may condesend to throw us a bone or two. Thank you Miss Hillary Iwould love to pay for wothrless health care...sure fell free to garnish my wages, and yes I would love a trackign chip implanted...of course you neeed to know where I am...fell free to ahve me fallowed..why yes DO expand the police powers of this nation what a great idea can I please have my birht controll with that? (wich you will need, most individual health plans DO NOT cover pregnancys or birth)
Look there ahs been attacks on the middle and lower class in this country for 20+ years. every president...every single one, in that time span has adavnced that process. we are startign to wake up to this process, even partisans on both teams are seeign the issue (why do you think huck and paul are seeign support) the middle class is fed up. Historicaly where do revolutions come from again???
I got one canadate talkign about makeign the wealthy pay their fair share and lessinging the burden on the rest of us, closeign teh corperate tax loop holes and moving us in the right direction.
I hear another canadate talking about GARNISHING MY FUCKING WAGES to give a gift to the insurance companies.
and you wonder why i despise one of them
"And any Democrat who doesn't throw their full support behind the nominee, whoever he or she may be, is a fucking traitor to the Democratic Party, and can kiss my ass."
When I was in graduate school my favorite professor once told me that you can tell a lot about a person by the language they use in arguing with people of different points of view. I'll not go into the context of his comments...let me just say that I find much of the language on the so-called liberal blogs to be off-putting. In my view, there is too pontificating and sermonizing. Why not try to bring people to your point of view by using logical and persuasive arguments? That was the approach that our late and beloved friend Steve used.
baltogeek: Well said!
Thank you.
LM, right again. Edwards was the most progressive of the 3 big contenders, and I'm sorry he dropped out so early. Let's see how thing run in the next couple of months, and in the end, throw the gop out on it's liver-spotted ass.
Edward Deevey:
*Ahem*:
http://stevegilliard.blogspot.co...old-you-
so.html
-Just sayin'...
Myrtle June:
"If you really don't like hillary the least you can do to make sure she's not the nom is stand up to the DNC for asking such an insane question in the primary season. I ask you ..... why else are they even asking such a thing?"
----
It's utterly irrelevant. Who cares what they do? They're trying to raise money at the national level for whoever the candidate will be. You're wasting your time worrying about trivia.
--
Moonglum:
"ivan you are correct as to the point, but i see a slightly slowed slide in that dircetion as a bad thign as well....how exactly did the last clinton administration not furtehr our travle down the path of corperate rule...or are we allsupposed to forget abotu that because bush II ran down the path instead of jogging."
----------
That was then and this is now. We are much better organized to deliver *our* message from the bottom up, and deliver it we will. If this "netroots" (god I hate that stupid word) thing has any meaning at all, it is in our organizing and coalition-building potential, and woe to us if we don't use it, every day and in every way, no matter what party is in the White House.
Baltogeek speaks for me in many ways, but for me I'd rather arrest the slide than plunge even deeper into the abyss. My expectations for a Hillary presidency are low indeed, but like Curtis Mayfield said, we have to keep on pushing.
"It makes me want to p-u-u-u-u-k-e. What vehicle do you think people will coalesce around to form a true MASS movement? Your little pure splinter group?"
I'm a pure little splinter group of one, so I'm definitely not expecting a mass movement to coalesce around me. When there's a lack of choice, I do sometimes align myself situationally with organizations that have not earned my loyalty. So in our 2-party system I generally vote for Dems (the Greens, especially under Nader, are a total waste). But I haven't voted for a Dem happily in a long time, I don't feel that the Party has proved itself worthy of my membership, and I draw the line at voting for anyone they nominate.
Which is why, given an absence of other choices, I'm pushing for Obama over Hillary: overall, he's less of a proven corporate authoritarian than her, and I'd rather see the party headed in that direction. It's the same reason (with a much larger difference) that I tend to vote for Dems over the Republicans.
You're a Democratic stalwart, and that's fine. I don't p-u-k-e because in order to exist, the Party needs people who'll put the organization before specific candidates and issues no matter what. But after 20+ years of waiting for a concrete "first step" from the Dems that didn't involve sacrificing core principles in place of devising a competent campaign strategy, I just can't give the Party the sort of loyalty that you can.
Instead, my approach has been to put specific candidates and issues before the party, and follow up with the party by rewarding its good behavior and punishing its bad behavior in regard to those candidates and issues. Fortunately, I don't have to be a member to contribute my time, my money, and my vote, all of which (or the absence of which) impact them anyhow.
Thank you to everyone for pointing out that Hillary is how Hillary Clinton's own web site differentiates her.
I was thinking more in terms of how I'll read in some comments, or even in the occasional paper, or hear on television, Obama this, Edwards that, McCain this, and Hillary that. I even caught myself doing it automatically a few times. It simply was in the air, so to speak. Which makes space, especially if her own people have been pushing Hillary.
To Mark -- I hope you're simply speaking in the heat of the moment. If your blog were to shut down, that would be a real loss for everyone.
Myrtle June -- I'm going to use you to speak to everyone holding your position. You speak with such fire and emotion. But to me, it doesn't let you off the hook in the slightest. Because your emotions are strong, because you are speaking from your heart, you say that means something. It doesn't buy you anything with me except credit for authenticity. But I believe people who listen to their emotions as the prime indicators of their actions, end up frequently acting against their own intelligent best interests. Tell me Myrtle June, how is following your heart, any different than George Bush following his gut? Why should I trust your heart more than I trust GWB's intestines which have led us into Iraq and killed at this point, over a million people? If your heart becomes angry, will it tell us people should die, and if so, should we listen to you?
baltogeek - I think if you have pride in yourself, you should focus on what is best for you and your community, not on what offends your ego.
It gets tricky here, because yes, I believe there are offenses which take people past being able to be worked with. But I draw the line much further than most people, and I am willing to extend reconciliation to almost anyone, regardless of what they have done. What I insist on is being able to find common ground, common interest we can work towards. I don't insist the people I work politically with share my values; few do in every regard and why should I waste precious time trying to convert someone. It is enough to find a place where we can work together.
When it comes to issues of straight-out offense to the core of what matters to us, I always ask, is what is being attacked, what I have at stake (what I want) or is it simply my ego which is being damaged? Almost always, it is my ego.
Here, is seems to me -- and I am not you and don't presume to know for certain what you say was attacked; this is just how it looks to me standing outside, looking in -- there are two issues, maybe three in play.
1. The damage to your ego by the attack to you (and I really mean y'all) by the Clinton campaign, on Obama, by its race-baiting tactics. Which like you, I assess as more political, than racial, but that doesn't make then any less painful.
2. The breakdown in trust that this attack comes of all people from the Clintons, and especially from Bill Clinton, whose word with the Black community has been solid for so long. Trust by definition can only be destroyed by those whom we have granted it to.
3. Finally, the potential loss of power, if Obama does not win the nomination. To see the possibility of an African-American as President of the United States, with everything that means, and to have all this bullshit happening around it, must trigger every negative racial memory since Black people were dragged to the Americas. As you mentioned. And if it's like this for you, imagine what it's like for the people close to Senator Obama. Or how it must be for his Secret Service detail.
Let's talk about these briefly.
The attack on your ego, and the breakdown in trust, both of these can be handled simply by setting your eye on the prize... a seat at the table and power for your community.
If you fail to deliver the votes, while Clinton will no doubt be blamed for her failure with the Black community, the cost of the failure will not be to Clinton. She'll go back to the Senate and enjoy a successful career with lots of money, married to the former President. The black community on the other hand, will be stuck with four more years of Republican rule, and after the Supreme Court is stacked with two more Republican Justices, will be so fucked over by the police and the courts, that YOUR young men will never get out of prison, YOUR young men will never get out of the slums, YOUR young men and women will never get the education they need because no will is ever going to fund it.
So go ahead. Choose what matters most to you. Saying screw you to Clinton because her campaign did something breathtakingly stupid, or pissing all over your own future.
Keep your eye on what matters to YOUR future. Fuck Clinton. What matters the most to you?
When I got divorced, what mattered most to me was all four children living with me. I ate SO much shit. For months and months and months, I ate shit. But at the end, all four kids were living in my home, and my ex, was living with her boyfriend.
You have to focus on the one thing that matters most of all, and give up everything else. That's how you win.
Frankly at this point I don't have a dog in this fight, My list was Gore, Edwards and Dodd. I'll back the results of the convention to the hilt and do everything in my power to get a Democrat elected.
But it is most likely that in the primary tomorrow I'll vote for Clinton. Why? Because things are going to get way ugly in November and nobody is better than the Clintons in terms of close-in knife-fighting. Because if she gets in nobody conservative or progressive is going