Why I cannot support Obama in the GE

by Ignored and Disgusted, Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:04:19 AM EST

    The 2008 democratic primary election began as a veritable win-win scenario for the party. After all, givng voters the historic chance to choose between an African American and a woman for the nomination would be sure to spark an increase in turnout and create excitement within the various factions of the Democratic Party. (with the exception of white men) However, this so called "fair nomination process" was almost immediately marred by the incompetence of DNC chairman Howard Dean. In his ineptitude, he permitted four rather small states pivotal easrly positions in the nominating process: Iowa and New Hampshire to preserve their first in the nation status, Nevada to appease the bumbling Harry Reid, and South Carolina to satisfy the African American faction of the party, which includes such notables as Senator Obama and Rep. Clyburn. By the same token, he stripped the crucial GE swing states of Florida and Michigan merely for their desire that their large caches of delegates would actually receive the same weight in the contest as those from the traditional early states. This, of course, has been of great benefit to Senator Obama, who not only lost the Florida primary by a wide margin, but also took his name off the Michigan ballot so that he could claim that there had been no contest there and that he was simply "following the rules." Virtually all of Senator Obama's wins have been blown out of proportion by the media, who thinks that Obama merely has to win a state to declare a victory. The burden of proof has been much harder on Senator Clinton has been much higher, with some Obama supporters here and on Daily Kos (including Kos himself) saying that a CLinton win in Pennsylvania would require a twenty point margin. Senator Obama is already trying to discount the results of the Indiana primary because of Republican involvement but why is there no mention of the ovberwhelming support he receive from that 20% of the electorate in the Wisconsin Primary that identified themselves as Republicans. This is not Senator Obama's fault directly but he has certainly been aided by the what I now call the "liberal media." For me however, one of Obama's more egregious mistakes is his cynical use of race to advance his campaign. He used racial tensions in South Carolina to shore up that voting bloc while simultaneously denouncing former President Bill CLinton. (see: 1990s, Clinton first black president). The numerous allegations of racism against Senator Clinton and party elders such as Geraldine Ferarro have been completely unfounded and Senator Obama has continued his disdain for blue collar workers, essentially ceding them to the Republican nominee, the (perceived) moderate and maverick John McCain. The traditional process of selecting a candidate based on who is more qualified and ready to assume the office has been largely shunted to the side by Senator Obama, who continues to rack up victories in contests that cannot genuinely be called competitive due to the large numbers of African
Americans that have residences there. In most if not all of the debates, Senator Clinton displayed a breadth of knowledge and experience unparalled by that of Senator Obama, most notably on foreign policy and healthcare. I am not trying to exonerate Senator Clinton from her perennial politcal expediency, as her appeal to gun owners is more oriented towards the GE in states like West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. I am simply trying to say that Senator Obama's lackluster debate performances, not to mention the damage inflicted by the Wright and Rezko scandals, are not indicators of his potential competence as president. Rather, they serve to warn voters of Senator Obama's narrow coalition of voters, African Americans and young voters, who alone are not enough to win a GE. (but are to win a primary)
The premature calls for CLinton to exit the race need to stop, as do the presuppositions that the people of WV and Kentucky are racist. The supporters of Hillary CLinton have been ruthlessly lambasted, insulted, and cursed out (see the rantings of Daily Kos for confirmation) and many will not forget the dripping condescension of Obama's campaign (Axelrod, anyone) come the General election. This does not necessarily translate into votes for McCain but aty this point in time, many of us feel that McCain is more qualified than Obama to assume the Presidency.




Tags: Obama, Clinton, general, election, support, yet another McCain fool (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 205 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (2.00 / 5)

sooo everything Hillary stood for was a lie, McCain ISN'T that bad his polices are good for America.

got it, seriously vote for him, then and if he wins congratulations.

p.s. those of you who say you can vote for McCain can you please STOP telling us how great Hillary's plans and policies are because they cannot be THAT great if you are already saying you can do a complete 180 and vote the complete opposite of every plan and policy position Hillary has had for the last 16 months. just tells me you never REALLY thought her policies were that important.


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:07:43 AM EST

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (1.20 / 5)

If senator Obama had any policy positions, rather than those stolen from Clinton, your point would still lack merit. Also, insulting millions of her supporters is not exactly a stellar way to win the GE, sparky.


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:09:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (2.00 / 2)

Where did she insult Clinton supporters?


by Mostly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:11:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Actually, your diary is quite insulting (2.00 / 2)

to the supporters of Hillary, like myself, who continue to passionately support her but will gladly vote for and support Obama should he win the nomination. Obama is not your enemy. Please redirect your anger.


Obama supporter working to defeat McCain.
by Rumarhazzit on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:44:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Right (2.00 / 4)

And insulting millions of Barack Obama supporters IS a great way to win the general, yes?

You're trolling here.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:13:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right (2.00 / 3)

Indeed.

This person's last diary was saying that the superdelegates should choose based on electability.

Apparently that was a lie, if McCain is acceptable to them.


by Mostly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:16:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right (2.00 / 1)

Maybe to some of you toeing the party line is much more important than choosing based on qualification but not to me. I would continue to support the Dem. Party on the local level because I believe in its principles, not the nonexistent principles of Obama.


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:20:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right (1.66 / 3)

you do NOT believe in its principals you JUST said you are voting Republican, exactly which McCain positions fit in those those Democratic principals you believe in so much?

tax cuts for the wealthy?
no GI Bill?
no affordable healthcare?
the GOP energy policy?
Attacking EVERYONE in the middle east?

please if you think these are Democratic principals are you sure you know which party this site is?


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:23:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right (none / 0)

My God where did I say I would vote for McCain????? Oh thats right, I DID NOT!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about misinterpretation, I merely said that I strongly disapprove of both Obama and McCain and would probably not support either. (lesser of two evils ring a bell? kerry-Bush, though Kerry was obviously much better than bush in that case though not to many voters)


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:25:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right (1.75 / 4)

many of us feel that McCain is more qualified than Obama to assume the Presidency.

Right.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:45:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right (2.00 / 1)

so then many of Obama Supporter's assertions that they would vote for McCain over Obama are indicative of treachery to the Dem party? HYPOCRITE!!!!!!!!


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:16:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

No... (2.00 / 2)

They're being foolish, too, and I'd work to get them to vote for Clinton if she were the nominee.

It's very surprising to me that such a smaller percentage of Obama supporters would vote for McCain or stay home instead when a much larger percentage of them are first-time voters, independants, and Republicans.  It's very odd how Clinton supporters have gotten so wedged.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:30:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right (none / 0)

I don't suppose you could even approach proving that assertion wrong. Everything Obama claims to want to do, McCain has already done. I suggest you take a break from sipping the kool-aid and think about what somebody else has to say.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:40:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

stop with the threats (none / 0)

you are not going to win any support from HRC supporters if everytime they express discomfort with OBama you:
1.accuse them of being repug

  1. call them a racist
  2. accusing them of wanting roevwade over turned
  3. accuse them of wanting war in the middle east.

Get off it, please.  The intimidation drives me away from obama, not toward him.


by 4justice on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:20:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Expressing discomfort (none / 0)

is different from saying "I will not vote for Obama and will work to defeat him"


The American people; they were for the war before they were against it.
by nrafter530 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:06:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Right (2.00 / 1)

WOW, the arrogance and condesencion in your comment is astounding.


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:27:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You think that's good? (none / 0)

Check out my analysis of your entire diary below.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:46:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You think that's good? (1.00 / 2)

Dramaqueen isnt know for his critical thinking skills.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:47:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (none / 0)

I am sorry I doubt MILLIONS of her supporters say one day, we NEED to reverse the bush tax cuts, and the next day say eh you know those tax cuts weren't so bad.

do you?

the percentage of those who really can vote for McCain will be small and we don't need them, i believe a MAJORITY of her supporters liked her for the issues, meaning they would never vote for McCain because hey thats the COMPLETE opposite of her plan.

and there is nothing wrong with voting republican if you agree with their platform, Millions do.

I just don't see how people last week were saying things like we need healthcare, we need to cut the bush tax cuts, we need to stop a third bush term, and this week are saying well a third bush term isn't that bad.

to me that is basically a spit in the face of her platform, and just says Hillary didn't have voters who actually cared about the issues, otherwise those issues are still important even if she isn't the nominee.

I think there are enough VOTERS in America that care about the issues, and care about the Democratic side, because they know a 3rd Bush term won't help them, so I believe enough WILL vote democrat. so no don't expect me to waste a breathe hoping you stay democrat. hell I have republican friends they know I won't vote GOP they wont vote DEM. its fine, its about what does the rest of America want, and we shall see in the fall.


Obama said, as Bill beamed. "Thank you, President Clinton."
by TruthMatters on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:15:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (none / 0)

So if his policies are exactly the same as Hillary, that's a reason to vote for him even if you dislike the guy, right ?


by Benjaminomeara on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:02:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Charismatic but not qualified for the office (2.00 / 3)

Well, truthmatters [snarky name for you] if experience and qualifications for office are fundamental requirements, then Clinton supporters may justify voting for McCain over Obama on that basis.

Some people recoil at the thought of voting for a candidate based on his charismatic cult of personality. They require a president with experience, and a record of accomplishment.

I'm one of those people. I can't find any reason to vote for Obama, who has divided this party along race and class lines, who has repeatedly proven his lack of judgment, and who has no experience, accomplishment, or qualifications for office except for his charisma.

Celebrity of Obama doesn't warrant putting him in the most powerful position in the world.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:56:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

it does beg the question, though... (1.33 / 3)

why are you here?  this is a democratic site, a site designed to help elect democrats.   if mccain is your choice -- or you feel the need to swiftboat the presumptive nominee -- you need to go elsewhere.  the whole purpose of this site is to help democrats win elections, not tear them down.

i'm sure that your views will be welcome at a republican site...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:04:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it does beg the question, though... (2.00 / 4)

I'm not a Republican, and I've already stated that I am not voting for John McCain, so if it "begs the question," there's your answer.

I am a Democrat, have been a precinct chair for the Democratic Party and worked long and hard to elect Democrats in elections at the local and state and national level.

But, I am not persuaded that Barack Obama is a good candidate who should be the president of the united states. There are many other Democrats who feel the same way. Some of them WILL vote for John McCain in November--approximately 30% of Democrats in the primaries, say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the nominee.

That is a big problem for you. And my post above was simply outlining the many different reasons that Democrats are giving for not voting for Obama in November.

You may not like to hear it, but that's too bad, because whether or not you hear it, it is what polling is trying to tell you.

I am not an Obama supporter, and in fact, I have grown to dislike him more as time goes on. I do not plan to vote for him in November. But I do not plan to vote for John McCain either.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:39:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

the question is, why are you here... (1.00 / 1)

not who will you vote for.  your comments violate blog standards, as you are trying to tear down the democratic party and swiftboat our presumptive nominee.

i don't give a flying crap about your reasons.  you don't seem to be a rational, reasonable person to me at all.  losing sucks, but if you did actually care about the party -- and especially about down ballot races -- you wouldn't be spouting this "democrats are idiots" line.

my big problem is finding supporters, not finding the people who don't support barack.  you are a giant waste of real democrats' time...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:03:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: the question is, why are you here... (1.00 / 2)

Oh please.  Take that bullying BS back Daily RepubliKos.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:49:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it does beg the question, though... (none / 0)

Cult of personality is RICH on a site where people talk about Hillary the way they do here.  The simple fact that this diarist is going to help McCain rather than elect a dem with positions way closer to Hillary's proves that s/he and those like him, are more interested in Hillary than in her issues.  That cult stuff is a load and you and I both know it.


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:55:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: it does beg the question, though... (none / 0)

Cult of personality is RICH on a site where people talk about Hillary the way they do here.  The simple fact that this diarist is going to help McCain rather than elect a dem with positions way closer to Hillary's proves that s/he and those like him, are more interested in Hillary than in her issues.  That cult stuff is a load and you and I both know it.


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:55:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Charismatic but not qualified for the office (none / 0)

Mitt Romney has experience and a record of accomplishment why don't you vote for him?


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:08:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Charismatic but not qualified for the office (2.00 / 1)

I'm not a Republican and I don't support Republican candidates.

I'm a Democrat and I support Hillary Clinton. I think she is the most qualified person to be the President.

I won't be voting for Barack Obama in November because I don't believe he is good for the country, or the party.

As I still have the right to vote my conscience on the presidential ticket, and vote my party on down-ticket races, I believe that is what I'll do in November.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:41:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

but you don't have a right to be here... (1.00 / 1)

we are about electing democrats.  you aren't.  that's fine.  no one cares who you are voting for, all we care about is that you violate our standards and blog culture...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:04:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but you don't have a right to be here... (1.00 / 2)

Facist!


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:50:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (1.75 / 4)

I will write in Hillary as a protest vote.


by orion1 on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:08:58 AM EST

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (1.75 / 4)

What will you be protesting?

Civil liberties?  Checks and balances?  Peace in Iraq?  Maybe Hillary Clintons own positions?

Good luck with that.


by Mostly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:12:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (2.00 / 1)

It would be against the what many of us feel is the disenfranchisement of millions of voters. (see: PacificDem's Texas caucus fraud diary)


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:17:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (2.00 / 3)

No proof has been presented that the Obama campaign had ANYTHING to do with that.

And for the 30th time, The Obama Campaign does NOT control the recount efforts in FL and MI.  They broke the rules, not him.


by Bobby Obama on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:29:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (2.00 / 1)

They oppose any plan that in any way incorporates some of the results from the original primaries, so I call that obstruction.


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:30:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obstructing disqualification? (2.00 / 2)

Those results were invalid because the voters were told they wouldn't count.

I won't even get into Clinton's positons because you don't support her.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:48:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obstructing disqualification? (2.00 / 3)

What would it take to convince you that I am not a Rebublican racist intent on starting a schism in the Democratic party? Oh... wait.... why do I have to even subject myself to that kind of treatment from you? I don't. Thanks again for your vitriol.


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:18:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are inferring a lot of stuff that was not in.. (2.00 / 1)

Dramicron's comment.  Please reread it.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:31:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Racist?" (none / 0)

Never said you were a racist, friend.  Odd that you would bring that up.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:32:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Racist?" (1.66 / 3)

Oh?? implying that I was discounting the African American vote that is so "crucial" to Obamas's win? hmmmm...to speak against Obama supporters means racism apparently. Your attempt to sow the seeds of enmity is quite pathetic, to say the least.


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:36:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In the words of Jesus: (none / 0)

"Those are your words."

You're probably discounting the black vote because they vote in great numbers for Democrats every year, not because you're a racist.

I'm just saying you can't take them for granted anymore.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:13:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Temper tantrum (1.00 / 1)

Nonsense.

Obama agreed to the plan put forward by the MI Democratic party. Hillary rejected it. She never cared about the voters, not when she agreed to 'disenfranchise' them, not when she reversed her position when she discovered she needed the votes and not when she flip flopped again and now refuses to accept the MI party's plan to seat them.

Yes all those cultists, like more then half the elected party officials, labor unions, nobel prizing winning economists, flag officers and those super delegates that you kept telling us had the superior experience and knowledge of the politics to pick the right candidate are choosing Obama over Hillary.

To justify your temper tantrum that you have not got your way you have to create a fantasy about how evil Obama is and how poor Hillary had the election stolen from her. She lost an election where she had every advantage because she was not ready on day one. Hillary has no one but herself to blame. It was hers to lose and she blew it.

All the excuses and tortured logic in the world will not change the reality. Get over it. Hillary  will go off with Bill and rake in more millions from various dictators, sleazeballs and oligarchs. She will be fine. A 3rd Bush term and a war with Iran could mean there will be millions who won't be doing so well though. There will be a lot more families mourning more killed and maimed loved ones but none of that is as important as you having a sulk.


by hankg on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:24:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

but it's not about facts... (none / 0)

it is about raw emotion and irrational judgment...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:32:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Temper tantrum (2.00 / 1)

Here's the nonsense: The plan just put forward in Michigan would have deleted some of the delegates Clinton earned in the state, while giving Obama delegates he didn't earn in the state.

Clinton agreed to the earlier proposals in Michigan, while Obama's campaign threatened legal action to stop them.

So, all things being equal, any proposal that takes away delegates Clinton legitimately earned being on the ballot in Michigan should be rejected out of hand.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:45:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Temper tantrum (none / 0)

So now MI leadership is evil too, and only Clinton is in the right?  I'm sure they had some good reasons for the proposal - like realizing that Obama would have closed the gap if they had campaigned, and knowing that many dem voters didn't vote because they didn't think it would count.  There is no way to suppose that the primary results reflected the true will of the people in MI.


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:59:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We're trying to bring in Clinton supporters... (2.00 / 1)

insulting Clinton does not help in that effort, especially so vituperously.  TR'd for that.  


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:45:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (none / 0)

FAIL.

Obama just got behind a plan that incorporated "some" of the results. It would have seated all the delegates in MI and it was proposed by the MI leaders themselves.  HILLARY turned it down because it didn't favor her.


John McCain isn't evil. He's just wrong about a lot of things. Vote Obama!
by proseandpromise on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:57:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Michigan Update. (none / 0)

Yesterday Hillary Clinton refused to consider a plan put out by Michigan Democrats to seat the delegation out of hand.  The Obama campaign has expressed interest in it.  So it would seem that now Hillary is the one blocking Michigan being represented at the convention.


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:22:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Michigan Update. (none / 0)

The plan most recently put forth by the Michigan Democrats is ludicrous as it would give Obama votes that were actually earned by true candidates also on the ballot in that election.  While it's true that only a revote would allow the true representation of the people, Obama rejected a revote when it would have been possible--so in lieu of a full revote, the only way to reflect any kind of reality or will of the people has to take into at least partial consideration the votes truly cast.  If the 69 delegates for Clinton, 59 delegates for Obama were to be used, representing a total of 128, that equates to 53.9% for Clinton (which is actually fairly close to being representative of her actual vote tally), and 46.1% for Obama--and therein lies the problem if you look at the actual votes below.      

The results of Michigan's votes, according to CNN (source: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari es/results/state/#MI )

DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, Michigan, January 15, 2008
Open primary: No delegates (of 157 original)*

Candidate    Votes    Vote %

Clinton      328,151  55%
Uncommitted* 237,762  40%
Kucinich      21,708   4%  
Dodd           3,853   1%
Gravel         2,363   0%

*Uncommitted included Obama, Edwards, & a 3rd candidate.  

So to now suggest giving Obama a 46.1% allotment of total delegates seated would award Obama ALL votes placed for Uncommitted, Kucinich, Dodd, and Gavel as well as some actually placed for Hillary.  How in the world could anybody think it is fair to negate votes actually earned by others and give them to Obama???  Even giving Obama the full 40% Uncommitted category (which would also be greatly flawed as I'm certain at least Edwards earned a fair deal of those votes) would only result in 51 delegates (8 less than this proposed plan).  At most, logically (and again only in lieu of having been able to take a true revote), he could be assigned one-half of the 40% uncommitted vote, which would equate to 26 delegates (33 less than this proposed plan).  But I personally feel it would be most appropriate to assign only 1/3 of those uncommitted votes to him, which would result in 17 delegates (42 less than this proposed plan).  Again, nobody forced him or anybody else to take his name off the ballot, it was a maneuver on his part--so it was his own action that prevented any kind of true count for being known for his votes, and it's very well known that there was campaigning for that "uncommitted" vote.  In hindsight, I guess that maneuver turned out to be a very bad move since the subsequent turn of events has turned out how it has--and yet, it is somehow Clinton who's being made to be punished by his maneuvering.  Unbelievable!  


HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"
by ChargedFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 02:53:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This was a compromise (none / 0)

That was decided on by the Michigan Democrats themselves.  They were trying to make the best out of a bad situation.  For Clinton to dismiss without any discussion or attempts at a compromise gives lie to her statement that she wants to seat the Michigan Delegation, when what she means is that she want to seat the Michigan Delegation to the greatest advantage to herself.


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Sat May 10, 2008 at 05:35:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This was a compromise (none / 0)

I realize, as Clinton's camp has indicated, there will likely have to be some compromise.  But these numbers seem like an obvious attempt to give Obama far more than any compromise would logically result in--in fact, to accept these numbers would require only Clinton compromising while Obama would benefit greatly--and therefore does not seem like a legitimate attempt to reach a "fair compromise."  If the Michigan Democrats wish to find a resolution, they have to offer something that in fact indicates they are trying to reach a compromise for both parties, that is somewhat fair to both candidates--otherwise, it's no wonder they wouldn't be taken seriously.  And this proposal is ridiculous!  (Again, even the maximum logical compromise would result in giving Obama the full 40% allocation for Uncommitted voters, which would give 8 less delegates than they're suggesting here.  So how is their suggestion supposed to be taken seriously?) I don't think there's anybody who can honestly argue "seating the Michigan Delegation simply for the sake of seating them" without any semblance of basis on true numbers is a fair or just outcome.  


HRC: "...not a vote to rush to war--it...puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President, we say to him 'Use these powers wisely and as a last resort.'"
by ChargedFan on Sat May 10, 2008 at 06:57:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This was a compromise (none / 0)

But the Clinton camp is not for any compromise.  What they want is that the Michigan delegation be seated as is.  This is patently unfair as no candidate campaigned in the state.  there is ample evidence that the vote was skewed by the fact that people stayed home because they thought their vote did not count.  To try to force acceptance of a tainted vote is just wrong.

The hypocrisy of the Clinton position is pointed out by the candidate herself who on 10/11/07 in an interview on New Hampshire Public radio, said the it was not a big deal that she was the only one on the ballot because "the Michigan vote won't count".  For her to now become the champion of Michigan is pathetic.


"You might well think that. I couldn't possibly comment"
by xenontab on Sun May 11, 2008 at 02:45:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (1.50 / 6)

Perhaps some will be protesting the insidious race-baiting and corruption of the Obama campaign during the primaries.

Others will be protesting the bigotry [because sexism is just bigotry though it is still considered socially acceptable bigotry] expressed by the nutroots during the primary.

Some will be protesting the destruction of the Democratic Party base as expressed by Donna Brazile, when she said we don't need working class white voters, seniors, women, latinos, asians, or Catholic voters--because we will build a new coalition.

A large number will be protesting the disenfranchisement of 2.3 million voters in two states in order to install the candidate the DNC chooses for Democrats for November.

And, there will be some who will resolved not to allow a man with a history of opportunism, alarming associations with criminal elements, and a shocking record of mendacity about his associations with those associates.

Finally, there will be a large number who will vote for the candidate with the record of experience, the qualifications for the office as earned over years of dedication to our political process, to our country, and to our values as a country. Those people cannot find any values, experience, or dedication to democratic ideals in Barack Obama, a man who has spent his entire political life in pursuit of nothing but his own self-aggrandizement.

All of those reasons add up to a large number of defections from the Democratic Party nominee if it is Barack Obama.

Friday, May 09, 2008
What if No One Comes to the Revolution?
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:08:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i seriously doubt there are more than a hundred... (1.00 / 1)

democrats who share your views as expressed above.  regardless, this site is dedicated to electing democrats, not tearing down the democratic party...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:27:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, you'd be very wrong about that... (2.00 / 2)

Since more than 30% of Democrats have said that they won't vote for Barack Obama in November if he is the nominee. I have simply outlined the reasons they have offered.

Your demands that this site is dedicated to electing Democrats is irrelevant to me. I am a Democrat, and I still have the right to vote my conscience, unless you are a totalitarian thug and don't think I have that right any longer.

This is a perfect example of blogosphere authoritarianism, in my view. What you don't get is that it is not persuading people to vote for Obama; it is, in fact, persuading people not to vote for Obama.

Calling me a troll, calling me a Republican, calling me a Republican troll, attempting to exclude my voice because this is a site "dedicated to electing democrats," are all tactics of fascists, jack-booted thugs, who demand total obedience to the party line, the party diktats.

Check yourself out in the mirror. It's not a pretty picture.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:51:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

i've not seen any poll that says that... (none / 0)

given your comments, you probably just don't understand polling.  but you are in an extreme minority in your views.  i stand by my comment.

no one thinks that when i look in the mirror it's a pretty picture.  that doesn't give you a right to violate blog standards.  i understand that you are angry and witness that you are acting childish.  time to move on.  i'm sure you can find someone on the internet that shares your bizarre point of view...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:08:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: There are many polls that point it out... (none / 0)

I don't know how you have avoided them for the past 3 months:

More than six in 10 Democratic primary voters who support Mr. Obama in the CBS/NYT poll 10 days ago say they would be satisfied if Mrs. Clinton wins the nomination. But among Mrs. Clinton's supporters, just 49 percent say they would feel satisfied if Mr. Obama wins, while 50 percent would be dissatisfied. Nearly a quarter say they would be very dissatisfied.

*

Interesting result from a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:

"One-in-five white Democrats (20%) say that they will vote for McCain over Obama, double the percentage who say they would switch sides in a Clinton-McCain matchup (10%). Roughly the same number of Democrats age 65 and older say they will vote for McCain if Obama is the party's choice (22%). Obama also suffers more defections among lower income and less educated Democratic voters than does Clinton."

http://www.delegatehub.com/archive/?id=6 333

May 10, 2008

Why Barack Obama may stumble if the House of Clinton falls

...But if Mr Obama has his sights on a general election against John McCain, he has a more immediate and equally testing challenge: how to unite a party, and a Democratic electorate, where large, crucial swaths of voters - especially white, blue-collar and the elderly - remain passionately loyal to the Clintons, and openly hostile to him.

As Mr Clinton's barnstorming performance in Fairlea proved, he is still a potent force, and Mr Obama is going to need him, his wife and their supporters on side if he harbours any hope of reaching the White House.

It will not be easy. Such is the hostility among many of their supporters, that nearly half of Mrs Clinton's backers in Indiana said they would not vote for Mr Obama if he were nominated. More than a third in Pennsylvania said the same. Not one Clinton supporter met by The Times in West Virginia said they would turn out for the Illinois senator.

"You'd have to twist my arm a long way," said Lonnie Ward, 62, a retired miner queueing to see Mr Clinton next to Cowboy Dan's Meathouse. "Bill's my main man." Peggy Bland, 69, said: "She's a strong, strong, strong lady." And Mr Obama? "Oh no, I wouldn't vote for him."

Matthew Towsley, who has been selling Hillary and Obama badges, said: "It's got real bad. Unless they can put them on the same ticket, there's going to be trouble."

Mr Obama's big win in North Carolina last week, and Mrs Clinton's narrow victory in Indiana, means the nomination is within his grasp. He is planning to declare a victory of sorts on May 20, after the contests in Kentucky and Oregon, when he expects to have secured a majority among the pledged delegates on offer.

Yet Mrs Clinton and her husband passionately believe that she is a better candidate to take on Mr McCain. She correctly pointed out on Thursday that she has a much broader base of support, even plunging into the minefield of racial politics by declaring that Mr Obama's backing among "white Americans" was weakening.

In recent contests, she has won Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana with overwhelming backing from whites, blue-collar voters, women, and voters over 45. Mr Obama has been propelled toward the nomination mostly by African-Americans, the young, and the well educated. Paul Begala, a former Clinton strategist, inartfully summed up their case: "We can't win just with African-Americans and egg-heads."

Howard Dean, the Democratic party chairman, whose once-promising 2004 presidential bid collapsed in Iowa, said he spent months trying to persuade his supporters to rally behind John Kerry, the nominee. And they did not even dislike Mr Kerry. Gary Hart said that after he lost his divisive primary battle against Walter Mondale in 1984, he worked tirelessly - and held more than 40 campaign events - imploring his supporters to back the nominee. "And I was not able to move [them]," he said.

Even if Mrs Clinton loses, she will return to the Senate one of the most powerful politicians in the US. Yet for now, she has tens of millions of supporters across America that believe the House of Clinton must not fall.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo rld/us_and_americas/us_elections/article 3905569.ece


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:27:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

as i mentioned, nothing supports your claim... (none / 0)

Since more than 30% of Democrats have said that they won't vote for Barack Obama in November if he is the nominee.

once again, given your specious claim, do you have any evidence that supports your assertion that "more than 30% of Democrats have said that they won't vote for Barack Obama in November if he is the nominee?"

or where you just making that up?  i suppose it's also possible that you simply don't understand what information is out there and the fact that your assertion is wrong hadn't occurred to you...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:10:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, you'd be very wrong about that... (none / 0)

My sentiments exactly


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:22:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

TR'd for being a troll... (none / 0)

I don't toss that term around.  In fact, I think you're the first person I ever called that, but you're comments on this blog combined with your profile convince me of the fact.  Anybody who thinks that McCain is more qualified to be president than anyone of our Democratic (Gravel too) does not belong on a Democratic blog.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:35:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: TR'd for being a troll... (2.00 / 2)

Obviously, you do toss that term around, and you have just proven it.

There is nothing in my comment above that warrants a troll rating, except you don't like the content of the points made.

Certainly, I'm not a troll, or a Republican, as I've said many times. I'm a Democrat, and I will not be supporting Barack Obama in November.

Many other Democrats will not be supporting him--some polls put the number at 25%, others put the number at 40% of Democrats who won't be voting for Obama. I simply outlined the reasons they've given for saying they won't vote for Obama.

If that makes me a troll in your view, then your view is extremely authoritarian.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:54:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

There is nothing authoritarian about my comment... (1.00 / 1)

I see nothing in your comment or in your profile that is about promoting Hillary Clinton.  It is all about tearing down Barack Obama.  Furthermore, after 8 years of horrible Republican policies, that you are willing to (perhaps not vote for) but essentially support through inaction John McCain demonstrates that you're a troll.  B/c no person who is a Democrat and has lived these past eight years under GWB would subject it to another four years of those policies.  What happened to I would elect a postage stamp over this fool?

Fuck John McCain.  I don't care what he did in the past, I care that he is going to destroy this country.  


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:15:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: If I Don't Vote How You Dictate I Vote.... (2.00 / 1)

Are you truly this stupid?

You are clearly rating me a troll because I won't support Barack Obama or John McCain?

Can you not see how utterly craven you have become? Jesus. That is pathetic.

Let me point something out for you:

You do not have the right to DEMAND that I vote for Barack Obama, or to demand that I support Hillary Clinton in my posts, or to demand that I do anything. That is AUTHORITARIANISM. And, troll-rating me because I won't acquiesce to your demands is coercion, and thuggishness.

If you re-read my post, you'll see that I am pointing out the reasons Democrats have given for why they won't vote for Barack Obama.

**

You are free to believe that Barack Obama is the best candidate; but troll-rating those who disagree is not only a violation of the rules at this site, it is thuggery that would make any totalitarian proud.

Your troll-rating is hypocritical as well as childish. Suppose Clinton supporters troll-rated YOU for supporting Obama, or for refusing to support Clinton, which is precisely what you have done to me?

So, shame on you, for not having the courage or the commitment to your own candidate necessary to defend him and persuade others to support him, without having to resort to thuggery to demand support for him by troll-rating anyone who doesn't support him.

It's the height of arrogance; and it's destructive to your candidate to deny anyone else's right to a point of view. It's just another reason why I won't vote for Barack Obama, albeit a minor one. His online supporters are thugs, sexists, and adolescents.

So, troll-rate away. The more you do it, the less I'll be inclined to believe that Obama belongs in the White House. Fully 25% of Democrats plan to vote for McCain. Do you think you can beat them all up and troll rate them into supporting Obama?

Whoo-boy. You're snorting the Kool-Aid these days.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:51:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

nice change of claim... (none / 0)

feel free to provide evidence of your revised claim that "Fully 25% of Democrats plan to vote for McCain."  i understand that facts are exceedingly difficult for you...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:16:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Simply put, I did not demand anything of you... (none / 0)

I troll-rated you b/c you have contributed nothing to this blog.  You attack Obama without supporting Clinton is there any further evidence necessary to demonstrate that you are a troll.  But just b/c I labeled you as such, I didn't hide you and your comments are still visible.  Express your opinion all you want (I don't find anything substantive the opinions you expressed, but whatever).  I don't dismiss other people's pov.  I've attack and TR'd people who maliciously attack Hillary Clinton.  And I've said I would vote for her.  And if I said I wouldn't, I would expect to be TR'd, b/c this is a Democratic blog and we work to elect Democrats.

If you can't accept that your party choose somebody different and vote for that person, then why are you here.  Throughout your comments you have been open to discussion or listening to our sincere efforts to gain your support.  No, you reject that out of hand.  Well I'm sorry, if I can't appeal to you by telling that we are working to advance the policies supported by Hillary Clinton, then I don't think you are sincere in said support.  And thus I rated you as a troll.  If you want me to change said rating, change my opinion.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sat May 10, 2008 at 12:53:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (2.00 / 1)

What will you be protesting?

Civil liberties?  Checks and balances?  Peace in Iraq?  Maybe Hillary Clintons own positions?

Cult of personality...vague symbolism...facist election strategies...

Do you need more?  With Odrama I could list these all day.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:51:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (2.00 / 4)

You're attacking Obama for the primary process that Hillary signed off on.  How does that make any sense?

And if you feel that McCain would be a better president, then why were you supporting Hillary Clinton in the first place?  Did you watch any of the debates?  Are you aware of how different their policies are?

How can you support a candidate who calls "How do we beat the b*tch?" an "excellent question"?


by Mostly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:11:04 AM EST

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (2.00 / 1)

If one comment were to decide my vote, then I would be as bad as many of the African Americans who chose to interpret President Clinton's South Carolina remarks in a certain way. Also, as evidence by your claims that Obama won Texas, this primary system has been on of the most twisted in recent history.


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:14:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (none / 0)

Well we couldn't have that!


by Mostly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:18:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (1.33 / 3)

And wait a minute, where did I claim that Obama won Texas?  What are you talking about?

You're a repub troll, no doubt about it.  You came here to stir things up and I fell for it.


by Mostly on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:19:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (2.00 / 1)

Oh yeah sure accusing me of being a Republican is a great way to try to pacify me for the GE. "Your" was a reference to the outpouring of support from many Obama supporters that his Texas delegate win constitued a win. I'm sorry if you felt offended by my word choice but I am curious to know your thoughts on the Texas results.


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:23:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

politics is about addition... (1.00 / 1)

you've already subtracted yourself from the democratic column.  democrats, thus, need to ignore you and go after voters more likely to vote democratic.  you are, in the parlance, a 5.  there is absolutely no need to waste time on you.  there are many more likely sources of support for the presumptive nominee...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:09:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: politics is about addition... (none / 0)

Oh but whatever happened to everyone is important, all of the solidly republican states are going to back Obama, EVERY vote is important??? kinda pathetic anyone?


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:25:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (2.00 / 4)

Precisely. The typical tactic of Obama supporters is to demand the support of their candidate and attack anyone who resists their demands. They don't try to persuade based on policy; they demand total subservience based on personality.

That's why many Democrats will not be voting for Obama in November.

Why should anyone vote for Obama? What are his accomplishments, his policies, his qualifications for office? What character traits recommend him? Does he have dedication to the party, or just to his own ego-gratification? What judgment recommends him? Does he represent the ideals of Democrats?

I can't find a reason to support him. I've been offended by his tactics, his judgment, his arrogance, his frivolous flirtation, his sexist comments, his petulance, his adolescent machismo, his complete lack of experience, his cowardice on votes, his mean-spiritedness, and his egotism.

Why should I vote for this man, when he has shown me NOTHING that would make me want to vote for him?


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:16:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no, the rules of this site are to support... (2.00 / 1)

democrats.  it's pretty simple.  you clearly cannot conduct yourself within the standards of this blog, so the question is, why are you here?

i'm sure you would feel happier at another blog dedicated to tearing down the presumptive nominee and destroying the democratic party...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:29:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, the rules of this site are to support... (2.00 / 1)

OK, we get it.  Anyone who disagrees with Obama is a republican, and not allowed to post here.

We get it.  Your 'UNITY' claim is bogus bs.

Youre an Obamafacist.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:53:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no, the rules of this site are to support... (2.00 / 1)

well, we already knew that based on her diaries that promoted Obama and slammed Clinton

Rich coming from her about "supporting" democrats and not tearing them down, when she has been doing it all along.


by colebiancardi on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:10:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We've told you time and again about... (none / 0)

his accomplishments, you just don't listen to us. I would link back to soome diaries or some comments where I or someone else described his varied experience and excellent record, but I don't believe you'll click on it, so what' the point?  How do you think he got to where he is?  You have to be pretty intelligent, accomplished, persuasive and effective to become the first black nominee of a majority party for the presidency of the United States.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:51:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (2.00 / 1)

Again, I did not say I would withold support or vote for McCain. As to the charge that I am mentally deficient, lets have a look at Obama's various gaffes, scandals, etc. I am not saying that Hillary Clinton is clear of guilt; Obama simply needs to expiate his various scandals and cold remarks (not needing blue collar workers) to have even a small chance of earning Clinton supporter's votes.


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:41:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Seriously. (none / 0)

many of us feel that McCain is more qualified than Obama to assume the Presidency.

Notice the "us."


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 08:49:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (2.00 / 1)

Maybe that I am truly undecided and want Obama to atone for his various questionable actions? (Rezko, Wright, Bittergate, etc.)


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:20:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (2.00 / 1)

Atone for other people?

How can he atone for Rezko and Wright when what they do isn't his fault?

The very fact that you're still harping on Rezko after the prosecution rested without drawing any connection to Obama wrongdoing shows me that you think it would be a good attack wedge and don't care about the truth.

"Questionable actions?"  Let's talk about McCain accepting the endorsement of a man who thinks that Hurricane Katrina was sent by God to kill gays, shall we?


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:36:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (2.00 / 1)

Drama QUeen,

shhhh....


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:54:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Shhh? (none / 0)

Is that all you've got?


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 11:02:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Shhh? (none / 0)

Its all the response you deserve.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:10:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Oh. (none / 0)

I see. I've been good, so I've earned the right to carry on without your ridiculous arguments.  Carry on, then.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:59:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (none / 0)

You should just shut your arrogant mouth and figure out how to string a sentence together (A myriad, not myriad of). Oh I forgot, you think you can do no wrong and anybody that says otherwise is just an idiot. I'm glad you're not working for a campaign I support.


by Ignored and Disgusted on Sat May 10, 2008 at 01:29:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (none / 0)

Thank you for making it perfectly clear that you have no capacity for reasoning. I had assumed that you were simply displaying your stupidity in your tirade against anyone who crosses Obama but now you have shown the root cause to be a more serious problem. If Obama has supporters like you, he is guarenteed to lose the ge.


by Ignored and Disgusted on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:31:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

if president clinton had only used racist frames.. (1.00 / 3)

once or in one state (south carolina), THEN you'd have a point.  given the fact that black blogs like jack and jill started tracking the racist frames used by people supporting hillary (including bill) SEVEN MONTHS BEFORE SOUTH CAROLINA, you were either ignorant of what was happening or you simply choose to ignore it.

more than likely, you have no rational excuse for how you feel other than your disbelief that VOTERS rejected your preferred candidate.  so, that begs the question:

why are you here?  this is a democratic site, a site designed to help elect democrats.   if mccain is your choice -- or you feel the need to swiftboat the presumptive nominee -- you need to go elsewhere.  the whole purpose of this site is to help democrats win elections, not tear them down.

i'm sure that your views will be welcome at a republican site...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:07:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Why I cannot support Obama in the GE (1.75 / 4)

This comment just exemplifies my comment above about the typical tactics of Obama supporters when they are confronted with anyone who questions his qualifications for office. They immediately attack, dismiss, and smear, instead of seeking to persuade or discuss.

Not voting for Obama? You're an idiot.

This may not exactly help to EXPAND your narrow and limited base of voters, Obamabots.

In fact, it is your problem for November. You've alientated and your candidate has alienated a huge chunk of the Democratic base. Now you're anxious about that and cannot believe that anyone could possibly resist jumping on the kool-aid bandwagon with your charismatic candidate.

Well, some of us have been around a very long time, and we've seen charismatic candidates come and go. We want to know who he is; what he'll do; and where he's taking this country.

If you can't define that, then you've got a problem. It's sort of like what my mama always said: You made your bed, now you get to lie in it.

Some of us see a clear choice in November, with Barack Obama as the nominee: We can vote for McCain; We can write in Hillary; We can choose not to support either and just vote in down-ticket races as we choose.


"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." Harry S Truman
by Tennessean on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:23:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

we are doing fine without your assistance... (none / 0)

and to prove this, the obama campaign has won more votes, more delegates and more states.

thanks for your concern, but no thanks...


"Anyone who voted for me or caucused for me has so much more in common with Senator Obama than Senator McCain." -- Hillary Clinton
by bored now on Sat May 10, 2008 at 09:33:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: we are doing fine without your assistance... (2.00 / 1)

And there, my friends, is the crux of the Obamafacist position.

They don't need us, or our votes.  They don't wish to convince, or debate.  It's either with them or against them.

I am now most certainly against them, and will do what I can to make sure their facist leader never gets his untested hands on the reins of power of my country.


Until recently I was selling drugs, and now I'm selling Obama T-shirts.
by switching sides on Sat May 10, 2008 at 10:58:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]