Angry At Obama? How Hillary Clinton Could Still Be The Democratic Nominee

PUMA still is a bunch of gop'rs despite your indignation. it is just more operation chaos
and it really doesn't take a genius to see it.. google the people involved yourself.

Puma is a site to fix the Dem. party and there are a lot of sites. The person you are talking about tried to help keep Bush out. Did you vote for him?She is for getting Hillary elected and does more with her time than you prob ever thought of doing. I have watched her and believe her to be a true Dem. and activist working to help party and country.SHE is a positive person not allowing mongering on her site. Wish Obamas people could take a lesson.

If you are supporting John McCain faux Democrats, YOU ARE NOT a true Democrat. Get over it, HRC will NOT be the nominee and she will NOT be on the ticket. We will win it without you and if we do not you can rest assured HRC will not be president either ever. Like I said, "BANK ON IT."

Carol,...Thanks. I agree with your program 100% but I don't think Mr. Obama's more fervid fans would allow it. They have already said if Obama wasn't the presidential candidate they would riot. I believe they would act on their threat. If Obama wins he can never live up to his hype.

Also both candidates are avoiding the issues. The "news" is all about Mr. Obama's testicles and psychosomatic recession. Both about as newsworthy as Brittany Spears crotch shots and Paris Hilton's jail time. The election is becoming the stuff of OK magazine.

FISA, public financing, gun control, late term abortion, faith based initiatives, etc

Don't forget vouchers!

Who cares if they riot? We won the Revolutionary War against the world's super-power of the time! Are we French now, to back down and let citizens filled with anghst set fire to our cities? HELL NO! PUMA: Fearless; Vigilant; Potent.

No, Obama's base is the far left. They have no where to go. Clinton's base are moderates and can stomach voting for McCain.

That is the difference. The progressives would never vote for a Republican.

Also, if they would stop obsessing over her personal life, they would see that Hillary is actually more progressive than Obama on many issues like Energy, Health care, Class action lawsuits - Obama voted with the Republicans on every single one! And now FISA.

Bipartisanship never enters anyone's mind, evidently. Part of the reason we are in the mess we are in is because all the actors want it their way or no way. My way or the highway. Or I'll take my toys and go home. The country is about evenly split between dems and reps - the winner will have to prove to the independents that he is not 100% conservative or 100% liberal and willing to work across the lines. Nothing gets accomplished with a stalemate.

Even HRC would have to 'refine' some of her stances. Incidently, she may have voted against FISA, but she did vote for the Iraq debacle.

You people have really, really serious problems. Like I said why don't you come out from behind your white lies.

#29.1

They have already said if Obama wasn't the presidential candidate they would riot. I believe they would act on their threat.

Jade who is "they" please clarify. As it is someone has already said blacks would take to the streets and riot so who is your "they?"

Do NOT expect black folks to take to the streets. Expect black folks to leave the Democratic Party in droves. Too bad some people seem to think that is how blacks solve their problems. No, the voting blacks will not riot they will take it out on the DNC by going Independent.

Riots. It's the young folks not blacks what a twist...

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/riots-in-denver-radicals-may-seek.html

People can't read between the lines. Politicians treat us like children because we act like children.

BRIAN,

Correct. He did not change his position on the Iraq war. BTW, I don't like the whole thing, (even though I respect an individual's rights). It seems
very devisive to me.

I'm not sure they want to win - they would like to see Obama lose so that they can say - told you so, HRC should've been the candidate. And they may do whatever it takes to make that happen. But, if Obama loses because of these shenanigans, HRC will take the lumps, along with the rest of the country.

What other excuses will you whip up?

He promised things to get the left to break from Hillary that he never intended to deliver on!

That is the truth and you know it.

Yeah, NY dem, and Hillary promised 300,000 jobs for NYS when she ran the first time - where are they? When asked, she blames the lack on jobs on Al Gore because he didn't win. She may have done something for your part of NY, but WNYers have yet to see any difference. Blue-collar republicans and democrats voted for her then, but I wouldn't count on them now.

What do I know about WNY - I'm too busy trying to pay $2100/mo for my one bedroom apt. LOL.

I think the economy did hinder her from creating 300,000 jobs. And local issues are up to the state senators. Also, like Obama, Hillary's been campaigning for 16 months. One upside to her being out of the national run for now is she's assessing the state.

Did you see her speech about using fast growing willow trees to fuel NY? I thought that was pretty cool.

Well, WNY is part of the state of New York - Buffalo, Rochester, Niagara Falls and all the farm country in between? The factories in this area went south a long time ago and, slowly but surely, we are coming back but with little help from anyone outside the area.

As for the jobs - she made the promise. There are probably people in WV still waiting for their 'gas tax holiday.' It's okay for her to make promises she can't fulfill? Yes, she has been campaigning for 16 months, but the jobs promise was made the first time she ran - years ago.

All I've heard is the Buffalo media asking questions about other promises she made that have been left by the wayside.

take note of McCain. He is moving to the right because he has not sewn up the religious right, and is likely not to do so. I think the polling is being generous to him and the news media certainly seems to be pulling back from talking about his problems recently so that this thing does not appear to be a total blow out this far in advance of the election.

so that this thing does not appear to be a total blow out this far in advance of the election.

Agreed. The media is trying to make the election appear close so they can continue to run stories on it.

The media is trying to make the election appear close so they can continue to run stories on it.

methinks the media would cover the race regardless of how close it is.

It's not like the person on the election beat is going to get moved to the Olympics shuffleboard beat or anything if it becomes a blow out for either side.

If it appears a blow out, people will tune out. it is in their interest to make it look close, or at the very least, close enough to be a competition.

Exactly and that's why the long primary benefited Obama by having on the news 24/7. He's got name recognition, it's the other stuff some don't get.

Name recognition?

John McCain and Hillary Clinton have been household political names since before Barack Obama was even in the Senate, long before.

The exposure didn't hurt him when he became presumptive nominee.

She didn't vote for Cheney's energy bill, FISA and other issues that Obama caved on.

From TalkLeft in February:

"Her record shows a 100% backing of progressive votes on "Aid to Workers Negatively Impacted Upon by International Trade Agreements." and on General Union Rights and on Outsourcing of American Jobs Overseas. Here's her record on Preventing Workers' Rights From Being Eroded by International Trade Agreements. Solidly progressive with the exception of one bill in 2002.

"Hillary has a 100% progressive voting record on issues related to corporate subsidies and on housing. She ranks as the number 1 progressive among all senators on these issues.

"She is also ranked as the number 1 progressive among all Senators on Darfur, nuclear weapons, arms control treaties, military spending in general, intelligence oversight, general U.S. military intervention overseas, and the well-being of military personnel."

Her progressive record is fantastic - she kicks Obama's rear end. But no one cared about that in the primary. They were too busy being outraged over stupid gaffes.

If it appears a blow out, people will tune out. it is in their interest to make it look close, or at the very least, close enough to be a competition.

My point is there a common misconception - one of many about reporters - that their is a connection between the quality, quantity, topic and response to their pieces - and their salaries. At least in the case of newspaper reporters they get paid the same whether it's read by 1 person or 1 million.

I don't think McCain will do half the harm of Baby Bush.

Obama will do plenty of harm, he's a collectivist, all about an interventionist government that he's all for arming to the teeth with more cops carrying more guns, while disarming citizens. Oh, and a side of FISA with that, never mind warantless surveillance, he'll soon enough have warantless arrests, home entries, and seizing of records, all to keep us Secure.

And god forbid the police state should find a gun at your house.

If that's what you think, then I believe you need to do your homework on McCain. He and Bush agree on most things; Hillary and Obama agree on most. And Obama was far from alone among Democrats who supported FISA, so I guess that means the rest need to go to...

Once again, Democrats eat their own.

Yes, Democrats do have to learn to come together and stop eating our own. That's why HRC needs to be our nominee. SHE WON MORE VOTES AND had her votes and delgates ASSIGNED to Obama. To those who say, those were the rules, the fact is...THEY WERE NOT the rules. They made them up after private meetings. If the rules said that upon such an occasion each FL vote would only count as half and Michigan votes would be given to a candidate who CHOSE to not even have his name on the ballot in said state, well then, we wouldn't be ARGUING about it right now, would we? We'd still have to say, however, that HRC won more popular votes, all the 'swing states' and is the only viable democratic candidate. However, most of us wouldn't have been SO OUTRAGED to have kept searching every day until we found Just Say No Deal and PUMA. We'd have grumbled to ourselves, as we have for the past two presidential elections. However, stealing votes and delegates on LIVE TV was simply TOO MUCH for any American who believes their vote should matter. I don't know about you, but to me, being a democrat means many things. None of them are, falling in a line drawn by corrupt officials. Not one. That's actually anti-democratic.

Great article, you are right on, and so is your comment here. As a lifelong Democrat, I have been so hoping for a candidate who could accomplish much and not have to compromise. Here is our chance. Yet, Senator Obama is tacking right, and he lacks a record that could give us reassurance about any core principles.

I am hoping Hillary gets the nomination in August. It is still possible to change the party from within in a good direction, and I cannot imagine from what I have learned about Barack Obama that he has the ability to accomplish those goals. Hillary has the world-wide respect as well as the history of working with those across the aisle to get things done.

Thanks again for the article!

semOl,.. Baby Bush is Damian. Don't tell anyone. OK?

Sem if you are a Democrat please turn in your card as you have been fooling yourself into thinking you are.

To the rest of you DINOS happy warmongering, happy unequal pay for women, happy overturn Roe v Wade, happy voodoo economics, happy, happy, happy...

You'll have to deal with McCain as your next president.

Why? Because people like you will vote for McCain for whatever reason just to get back at Obama? Teaching Jr High was easier than understanding all these threats and that's saying something.

LOL, that made me laugh.

I didn't say I was voting for McCain, I'll probably vote green party.

I just don't think Obama will win. He missed his window to bring in the HRC voters. If he'd put her on the ticket right away, maybe, but he hard-balled them, told them to "get over it" and write him a check. Not a good strategy. And what are the chances the Repugs would be running the most moderate candidate in decades?

That aside, Obama's biggest problem now is credibility. That is something that is VERY hard to get back once lost.

The middle of the country will never go for someone who they don't trust.

well as of right now the majority of the country trusts Obama and voting Green Party is a wasted vote. PLEASE dont waste your vote on the Green Party. They know that they are just pulling votes away from Democrats. This is never good.

I see more and more seeing him finally as he is. Flip flop not proud of this country and now seeing the effects of sitting under Wrights teaching more and more. Now he is embarrased because we arent all bi lingual.Know what bothers me most? The fact he talks like a stand up and laughs at American people and gets them to react same way. Just like Wright did when he was damming my country. The supporters of both react over the line. It is like the time his people went crazy clapping when he blew his nose, This doesnt make me feel safe with this type of hype.When he made all those people laugh at us did they all speak more than one langueage? I would really like to know. Where did he find them if they did (like his wife planting whites makeing blacks move and he made Muslim women move .yes his aids did it but they had to know his thoughts or they wouldnt think of it.)If they didnt speak more than just english(he voted against English 05,06)why would they make fun of them selves and us. No I dont want this kind of non thinking dictateing to me and my country.

You are ignorant. Obama has never even suggested that he is not proud of his country but I will say that I am not proud. I am not proud of what it has become. Obama can take this country in a new direction. Half of what you have said is lies. When did he laugh at the American people? He is just as American and you or I. He doesn't flip flop he just isn't a cowboy like your man George Bush. It's good for someone to change their views when presented with new information. Don't be so arrogant and lets have a real discussion based on truth.

You're wasting your time trying to make them see logic - I beat my head in on a thread relating to Karl Rove skipping out on his subpoena and it was the same circular logic. All they can do is parrot their talking points and show their ignorance, but when you call them out, YOU are the one shouting, berating, belittling, insulting, etc. You can always tell the mouthbreathers though since they all say the same BS and have the same typos and mispellings.

I at least find peace that this whole PUMA movement is going to go nowhere, I can't wait till after the convention where OUR nominee gives an acceptance speech before 70k+ NORMAL people! THAT'S people powered politics for you!

There is hope, and no matter what THEY do to smear Obama, he can actually lead us out of this mess the GOP and people like Hillary put us in.

webslinger:

Yeah that will definitely be a monumental time. I was thinking about attending that.

I agree and gave you a brownie point because you hit the nail on the head in my opinion. Despite the very, very, very long-winded, repetitious arguments of the so called "PUMAs" here, it is HILLARY and not OBAMA who is suffering from the apparent integrity deficiency. She has had a cloud above her for a long time and I think the fact that she became a carpetbag senator for New York speaks volumes not just to her ambitions and selfishness, but also her complete lack of scruples and integrity. She moved to a state where she knew she could get into the senate, where all she would do would be biding her time for her big White House run. Of course, every pundit favored her and started talking White House back in what, 2002, 2003? Saying she wasn't ready in 2004, but next time....She had the polling lead, she had the money, the machine, the support and what happened? Her EGO got in the way and she blew it.

Now her supporters are crying foul, sexism, bias, the DNC is catering to the blacks, waaaaaaaah. ENOUGH! I'm so sick and tired of it. Any person of integrity would have bowed out as soon as it became obvious that it was over, but not her. She tried to manipulate the system, she appealed to the rules committee and her SURROGATE acted as a disgrace, her supporters embarrassed us - live, on national television. Now, when we NEED unity and SHOULD be working to end the dark times we've been going through, but no - once selfish and childish, always selfish and childish. Thanks Hillary supporters, you show your true colors.

The sad thing about Hillary is she's trying to get people to believe the vote was stolen from her. Regardless of whether or not I believe the vote was stolen from the Dems during the last election - for her to play that card now is just wrong. There is nothing similar about it.

katrix,...I thought she was trying to give her energy to Obama's campaign. Is that unacceptable?

It's a little late for her to do that now, imo. She already made it clear she thought the vote was stolen from her.

and what does the endgame in Iraq look like and when is it going to come? We broke it, but we can't fix it unless we institute a Marshall Plan of sorts, dividing it into 3 ethnic states (which cannot work either). The bottom line with Iraq; which I don't understand why so many people don't understand is that WE CAN'T fix it no matter how long we stay. We are not fighting a war, we are not fighting the terrorists and WE. CAN'T. WIN!

The major strife in Iraq dates back thousands of years as it is a fight between different nomadic tribes. Its not just Shi'itte, Suni and Kurd, its so much more complex and the only way it can be kept in check is through the actions of an iron-handed despot. People think that if we leave, Iran will take it over - WRONG! The individual tribes and factions will fight each other and whoever is strongest will emerge, and the weaker will remain as insurgents or sorts. This is tribal warfare.

The only way to fix it (for ourselves, not for them) would have been not to go there. No Westerner can even begin to imagine how a tribal person thinks or feels; how their loyalties differ; how they'll die for their beliefs, not for their land, because they have no "country" that they think of as we do. We can never "fix it" for them and they don't want us to anyway.

Dividing it into three ethic states wouldn't work, as you mentioned, and would get us into it with Turkey. It would be even stupider than when these tribes were divided into countries after WWI.

100% right about tribal people. We have no remnant of that loyalty left here. We really don't get it. The soldiers of the Revolutionary War understood. Divided we fail.

Kerri,...Ireally don't understand why you took offence at my posts above. I was just going to let it pass. I don't think you read me carefully. I am a mature American. I will make up my mind in my own sweet time. You remind me of Hotspur.

I didn't take offense at any of your posts, Jade-log. I'm not sure why you thought so. The only posts that actually irked me were the ones that said PUMA is a handful of republican plants or the ones who said democrats will not vote for Mccain. The one, because we are a grass-roots organization that is literally just that. We don't have any kind of real leadership, we don't have any money, we are opposed by every political official, because I mean, who's going to support us? Yet, we are MILLIONS of Americans (and I believe quite a number from other nations as well, who viewing the process from outside our media are very saddened at the state of the home of democracy). The others, who say disillusioned and fed-up dems won't vote for Mccain, because I abhor the idea of another republican term and yet am convinced that unless the nomination is given to Sen.Clinton (and by nomination I mean Presidential) that's what we'll be stuck with. I've seen hundreds of people, with my own eyes, declare they're voting for Mccain rather than Obama. Knowing how I feel about having BO as president, myself, I am quite certain that they will do as they say. I've gone back through the posts here, however, and I see no response from me directed at you, nor any post by you that would be offensive. I'm sorry for the confusion.

PEOPLE!!

It's really hard to determine if I agree or disagree with your positions because your posts are so difficult to read. Learn how to use paragraphs! Eliminate run-on sentences! PLEASE!

Kerri,...I guess I misread you. Sorry sometimes I stay up too late and my focus shifts.

Norma,

I hate to tell you this, but you need to pay better attention.

Yes, Obama voted FOR the new FISA law with retroactive CIVIL immunity, but there are flaws in the rest of your argument:

1. Campaign financing - he never PROMISED to take public funds....and frankly, because of HOW his campaign is funded, it would have been a foolish move, especially when the GOP slime machine is in full swing.

2. "New support of the death penalty" - I don't recall him saying he was opposed to it - if I'm wrong, I'm sorry.....personally, I favor the DP, but that's me.

3. Embrace of faith based programs - WRONG!!!! listen to his words, read about it, etc - he wants to work WITH faith based groups, churches, etc, but wants to clearly respect the Establishment Clause - nothing like Bush's plans - No ID in schools.

4. Support of ban on late term abortions - he supports the current law, where's the problem? 3rd trimester abortions may be restricted unless the health of the mother is at issue - this is Planned Parenthood v. Casey, written by O'Conner.

5. Pro-Isreal - Isreal is our ally and has the right to preserve itself - why should we not support Isreal? Clinton and McCain do as well, the difference is that Obama (and Clinton) are not advocating that Isreal attack Iran like Kristol, Cheney, Bolton and McCain (by proxy) are.

6. NAFTA - I don't know much about this to speak intelligently, but if we want to compete with Europe and China, perhaps NAFTA is a good idea.....but that's not the only economic policy - NAFTA is not a bad thing, unless its the ONLY thing. - sound economic policy can use NAFTA as a backbone, but in a global economy, it is suicidal not to grasp the link between foreign policy and domestic, economic policy.

7. FISA - see above

8. Keep oil companies rich - What did he do? not support the gas tax? Vote FOR war?

Honestly, if you think that McCain is better than what you've got here, then by all means, vote for the crazy old man.

Well put! I do want to add to that your second point. Obama has been an advocate against a National Death Penalty but believes that according the constitution that states should have the right to decide if a particular rape is "heinous" enough to impose the DP.

I personally am against the death penalty but its a hard issue for me and I completely understand Obama's response to the ruling because it all comes down to the Constitution.

Your post is lovely. Thank you for so clearly stating the facts.

Maybe those people you refer to actually know HRC better than you do. S'pose?

You're using YouTube as your references? Sure anyone could produce any thing on YouTube...

I reference the videos because, as I said in my post, one can see and hear Dean and Brazile in their own words. That means there is actual footage of them speaking. As I also suggested, those who refuse to open their eyes to the truth will not look. It's incumbent on every voter (no pun intended) to be as informed as possible before making their decision.

To simply dismiss YouTube out of hand is, I think, a grave mistake. It's become a great leveler and a place to see what the mainstream media, in their collective zeal to foist and proffer their chosen one, will not show you. It may not matter to you that you'll hear Ms. Brazile say that the party is now an "urban" party and "no longer needs Hispanics or white blue-collar voters to win anymore," but it does matter to Hispanics, white blue-collar workers, and those of us who love, care about them, and know their worth and who do not take kindly to disposing of a loyal base that is no longer, she presumes, needed. That's just downright UNdemocratic.

At the least, it would behoove you to look before criticizing.

CapitalK:

Are you implying that because Dean, et al., know Hillary personally and share an irrational hatred and jealousy of her it gives them the right to highjack the party, deny the will of more than half the voters in the primary, or justifies their efforts to keep her name off the ballot and deny her a roll call? If so, why vote at all? Just have the party hacks decide and install the nominee.

In fact, their job is to ensure that every vote counts and counts fully so that the most qualified candidate with the best chance of winning the general election emerges as the party's nominee, regrdless of their personal feelings.

Ok - it did behove me, so out of respect, I looked. Now I'll criticize!! Please do not take this as a nasty article on my part (I dislike intensely the insult that are thrown from all sides because of differences of opinion!!), but I do love to debate things so here goes.

I watched all 9 minutes and 24 seconds listening to that YouTube reference. There are at least 2 quotes from Howard Dean and Donna Brazile worth mentioning, both excerpts of a conversation taken out of context. (Context being the buzz word for why YouTube should never be used as a reference) For example, Donna Brazile did not just say/mean that America no longer needs hispanics or whites or blue collars etc, what she was saying in essence was that you can't rely on the traditional voting blocs any longer, particularly due to the increase in younger voters etc. The thing with Dean was with regard to the Florida votes, which by the way, were not stripped by Obama. Nor was it mysogynistic to strip Florida of it's votes - presumably Florida has both male and female voters, alot of whom were pro-Obama. There was nothing mysogynistic about it, unless the YouTube piece is implying that the DNC just did not want a female candidate and so stripped only the HRC supporters of their vote - not very likely you'll admit. Had the shoe been on the other foot it would be the same argument in vice versa. They came up with the best solution possible under some very tough circumstances.

I can also tell you that Northern Ireland did not officially "honour HRC for her active role in the Northern Ireland peace process". That was President Clinton, who was given an honorary conferring for his very active role in the Northern Ireland peace process. Blatant use of the name for a different headline - Other than being there, and probably in on meetings etc, she did not have any official role in the peace process, her name was not on the Good Friday Agreement. HRC was given an honorary conferring by a republic of Ireland University on a separate visit to Ireland - not quite the same. The YouTube piece insinuates that she was somehow responsible for peace in Northern Ireland. She wasn't.

Other than that, it is 9 minutes of pieces of clips from films or cartoons making certain innuendo's but hardly a de facto piece put together to 'let the truth be known' methinks.

Just my opinion

Donna Brazile said what she said, and there is no context in which it is acceptable. Even if you wish to ascribe your own interpretation or essence to her statements, they are still wrong, both morally and factually. The party needs the base--all of it and always, as we will see come November. If what you contend were true, why would Obama be courting votes from LULAC and La Raza?

I never said anything about misogyny regarding reducing the Florida delegate count to half votes (less than that of a slave, I might add). To "punish" Florida voters for the machinations of a Republican legislature--or on any account--is ludicrous. I don't remember any rank-and-file Democrat being surveyed beforehand about what we thought about such a decidedly undemocratic tactic.

But you remind me of another related point. No one--not any of the candidates, including
Sen. Clinton--should have agreed to any such rules and punishments. That said, if Obama were truly the agent of change he proclaims to be, he would have run as an independent and not under the cover of any party umbrella.

At the very least, having aligned himself with the Democratic Party, he should have immediately stood up to the party "leaders" and spoken out against any and all manner of disenfranchisment and refused to go along. That's what a genuine trailblazer--a "different kind of politician"--would have done. He'd have been a hero of democracy, a true leader, and such action would have instantly united the party behind him. He had a chance, like Sen. Clinton, to put things right, but he wasn't willing to do so.

A primary this close, in an important election cycle, demands that all the votes be counted. Why did he deny Floridians the chance for a revote? Why would he want to "win" the nomination under false pretenses? Where's the dignity and integrity in that? It served his purpose to reduce the delegate count; ergo he is no more than a typical politician.

And unless I missed it, why didn't you address Brazile's self-contradiction regarding the super delegates choosing the nominee? Did you not hear her say she would quit the party if that happened? I heard her myself when she said exactly that on CNN. And did you not hear her tell the delegates, at another point in time, that they could "elect the nominee"; that they could give the numbers to Barack? In retrospect, it is clear she meant she would leave the party only if the super delegates chose Sen. Clinton.

Regarding the Northern Ireland peace accord, I did not make the same extreme inference that you did. No matter, since I never brought it up as an issue. Although, as an aside, any input at all is more than no input. Even as an observer, one gains experience.

"Methinks" you have cleverly missed the salient information.

I can't let this go!

Don't get me wrong - it was not my own interpretation and context is everything. I could probably find footage of the Pope saying there is no God, but if you don't know what preceded him saying that, then it is not necessarily what he means - certainly not what you'd expect him to say. Same goes here, and it makes a huge difference to what someone actually says in the context of a) what they were asked, b) what their full sentence was and c) the time and climate of their speech. My contention is more that the YouTube 'montage' is not "true" rather than what I think is true. I am neither for nor against either Democratic candidate. Of course, for a presidential election a candidate needs all the voting blocs they can get, but that interview with Brazile was taken out of it's original context and timing. I know that because I remember the interview.

With reference to the other Brazile 'contradiction', as I remember it, she said she'd quit her job at a time when it was clear that Barack Obama had the delegate lead, and HRC was pushing for superdelegates to push her over. When she said that she meant if the supers went against the will of the people I believe.

You're right, you never said anything about either mysogyny or Northern Ireland, but you asked people to take heed to this video, which clearly implied both. Re Florida: Noone objected to Florida (not even Floridians at the time) because noone anticipated what was to come - I think you'll agree that never before has a Primary been so well supported, heated or knife edge...it will go down in history. If I was any kind of politician I'd choose my arguments carefully and if the situation at the time does not require one to go against the status quo, then I wouldn't. Otherwise, I'd get a rep for being a constant whiner. The term disenfranchise only surfaced late into the Primary season when it became clear that the Florida vote would be an important factor..ie, noone expected the unexpected about the amount of votes Obama got.

As an aside, did Barack Obama certainly and without doubt deny Florida a complete revote? For certain? I was under the impression that Florida and the DNC denied it due to financial obstacles? I thought Obama only objected to the votes being counted as were...I'm open to correction on this.

As for Donna Brazile's other statement, I don't know when she said it, nor do I know the context, but I think that I have sufficiently (for my own part at least), taken apart alot of the other innuendo's of that video, so you'll have to excuse me if I don't take it at face value.

Look, I didn't really get involved in this thread to argue the rights and wrongs of either candidates, I got involved because there's a frightening amount of people who will believe everything they see on YouTube.

Not only did I not miss the information - I also don't think I missed the point about the use of YouTube as verifiable support for an argument.

Mike Frazier, excuse me while I vomit!

Obama has no integrity?!!?!?! WTF? Hillary DOES?!?!?!?! McCain has proven with his life that he puts his country before himself?!!?!?! Ok, he was a vet, he served, he was a POW, I GET IT ALREADY!!! But just as Wes Clark tried to say and got blasted for, being a POW does not ENTITLE him to the presidency.

As for Hillary's integrity, need I remind you of the dirty campaign she ran? Need I remind you that she was the candidate who pretty much whined when she didn't get her way? She always played the victim, she claimed sexism, she claimed bias and the only way to get her to stop embarassing herself was basically to not only show her the door, but practically push her through it. I used to support her and Bill, but I was embarassed to be a Democrat after her antics.

If you think that McCain is truly a man of character and that Obama isn't, then by all means, vote for the man. However, I will quite DISRESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. Obama is NOT the Messiah, he's a man, but I am sick of the frame that he can't be trusted. People like you truly make me sick.

When are you people going to realize we CANNOT GO BACK TO the 1990's. Oil was a problem then like it is a problem now. America is STILL dependent on it over 30 years AFTER the oil embargo.

You Democrats crack me up. You have bought the cable news line hook, line and sinker. If you consider yourself this loyal Democrat, then you will get behind the presumptive nominee and quit your @!$%#in'.

Vote in McCain or do whatever with your vote to ensure McCain wins. You complain about food and oil prices who in the world do you think has been in charge these past few years? REPUBLICANS...So yeah DINOS, bash Obama, put your girl Hillary on a pedestal but when you elect McCain don't run to your closet and hide like all the morons who voted for Bush twice.

MaryGJ:

True. This matter will only get worse if Democrats waste their vote on McCain over Obama. But oil as it relates to gas prices was not a problem in the 1990's but I wouldn't neccesarily credit this to Clinton however he did keep it under control. Whatever the cause may be, when Bush entered office oil was 28 dollars a barrel. By 2005 it had double. By 2007 it doubled against and it is not at like 145 dollars a barrel. It doesnt matter now whose fault it is the problem will exist either way but yeah come on people dont waste your vote on McCain because your angry at Obama.

Nonsense.

Until America decides it does not want to be beholden to oil companies and the fat cats over in the Middle East living like kings and controlling the world. We need alternatives YESTERDAY and drilling in the Artic is not the answer.

I ask you oilers this? Say McCain gets the ban in the Artic overturned. Uh, how is this new found oil supposed to be refined? Isn't refinery capacity already part of the problem?

Funny but just as I am writing this CNN is reporting on a $10 billion oil refinery in South Dakota.

Anyone interested in alternative means of energy, and I suppose that would be all of us, might find it interesting to hear that a company called LS9, near Silicon Valley, has found a way to extrude crude oil from microbial bugs. They plan to run their first test at the end of this month. I don't know a soul at this company, nor do I have any financial interest in it. Even if I did have money to invest, it is a privately owned company. That said, the company has stated that by 2010 they will be able to produce tens of millions of barrels of this oil. In its unrefined state, it can be pumped directly into diesel engines (trucking industry, take note).

To be used in non-diesel motor vehicles, gas stations around the country need not retrofit their current infrastructure.

I urge everyone, regardles of your politics, to go to www.ls9.com. Click on their "news" page to see the press coverage they've gotten thus far.

I firmly believe in American ingenuity and it's ability to move us from foreign or even domestic reliance on oil stripped from the earth. It will take a variety of methods to accomplish the task, but we can and will do so. In spite of ALL the politicians.

Hillary Clinton is not the savior of this country and she does not give a hoot about anything except herself. She and Bill are in this for the history, the power and the money that comes along with it. Her whole campaign was run like a republican and now that some of her top people have joined the republicans in various ventures I think we know why.

I guess she will pull us out of this sad fix like she did the New Yorkers she promised thousands of jobs to then when asked what happened to the jobs she blamed Al Gore for not winning in 2000. What?

Correction: Obama didn't reach the delegate number either :)

It's not about personality, it's about what voters want in a president.

For HRC's base, her Washington experience is not only a huge positive, it's a MUST for someone to run the country.

For Obama's voters, he made it a negative. He ran on big ideas that would be very difficult to execute even with a Democratic congress. (and for the record I heard him speak last September and thought he was green then too)

He fooled everyone during the primaries, but his lack of experience is dreadfully apparent in every move he makes now.

THAT is why people are having an extremely difficult time getting behind him.

They want something in a president that he simply cannot offer.

HRC has 8 years of "Washington Experience", not 35 years. Yes, as First lady in Arkansas and in the White House, she was exposed to things, yes, she actually got to set an agenda, but SHE. WAS. NOT. ELECTED. End of story.

She's a smart, charismatic, female attorney and she has used name recognition to her advantage to secure her carpetbag seat in the senate. But being First Lady does not prepare someone for being president any more than being a POW or being a state legislator and community activist. I kept hearing the BS claim about her experience....how many times was SHE in the "Situation Room"? How many times was SHE called on to veto a bill? How many times did she have to give the State of the Union address? No, her LIFE experience is what qualifies her, but when it comes to life story, Obama's story is a better tale - hence why she lost the primary.

Now we see who the "delusional" people are that HRC mentioned--they are her supporters. NYDem you have serious issues if you think Obama ran the kind of campaign you describe in your comment. YOU, "my friend" (get used to it DINOS if you elect McCain), are definitely out in right field somewhere--you darn sure are not in left field.

OMG!!! It's the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy redux...

One of the most sensible posts I have seen on this subject.

How anyone calling themselves a Democrat could even consider voting for McCain is beyond comprehension. Beyond stupid, too.

How anyone calling themselves a Democrat could even consider voting for McCain is beyond comprehension. Beyond stupid, too.

The prejudice and stupidity in the Democratic Party has been exposed. As a lifelong Democrat, it is absolutely hurtful to watch what is happening in this party. I never thought I would see the day that racism or a Clinton would bring down the Democratic Party.

Troll alert.

Now come on I am an Obama supporter but I will admit Hillary Clinton has done good things for this country. I was not happy about Obama's vote on the FISA bill although I know the complexities behind passing a Bill through congress and I know that Obama probably spent allot of time on his decision. Hillary does do allot of things that simply help her in the polls but shes also done allot of good so lets not slander her reputation.

I am not slandering Hillary Clinton I am speaking the truth. She does NOTHING that is not politically calculated otherwise SHE would not have gotten Bill Clinton elected.

I am expressing my opinion not slandering her. I guess when she dismissed Obama's WHOLE career in an effort to elevate a republican over a fellow Democrat was okay. I guess her agreeing to the rules then wanting to change them towards the end of the game for personal benefit is just what we want in a leader. There is much, much more--there is no need to rehash it.

Sorry, but Hillary Clinton showed us how she would run her WH and it wasn't pretty. To you Hillary Clinton supporters who will cut off your nose to spite your face by voting for McCain, have at it and I hope you can sleep at night when the warmongers bomb Iran and throw the Middle East into further turmoil. I hope you can sleep knowing that the voodoo economics of the republicans is safe because some disgruntled Democrats think it is okay to vote republican.

To the feminists who vote republican I say YOU deserve whatever you get. A man who does not respect a woman's right to equal pay. A man who will send your children to fight old men's wars without a second thought. You know what McCain and the republicans have done to this country yet you would vote for them because Hillary Clinton did not get the nomination? Ridiculous.

John McCain pays his female staffers more than Barack Obama. How do you know that Senator Obama's soundbites represent his real values? Experience shows otherwise.

hlf2810, please cite your source.

I have no statistics or links to back this up but I have a theory that may blow your comment out of the water. If you look at the AVERAGE pay for staff, perhaps Obama's staff appears to get paid less than McCain's because Obama has more VOLUNTEERS!

I don't know what, if any significance that has, but I am willing to bet that many of the females that campaign (work the phones, block walk, etc) for Obama don't get paid a dime, but they are doing what they are because they believe in him and his views.

Be careful, statistics can be highly misleading, so unless you can cite your source to prove me wrong, I'm sticking with my theory - because its rational, logical and probably true!

Mary G., you know not of what you speak. I wrote Hillary's office about FISA because it was very important to me. She sent me emails explaining EXACTLY where she stood and how she would vote.

Let me cut n' paste:

Thank you for writing about the National Security Agency (NSA) domestic wiretapping controversy. This is an issue of grave importance not only to residents of New York, but to all Americans.

As I have long maintained, protecting the security of our citizens and our homeland is the most important responsibility I bear as a U.S. Senator. I firmly believe that the government must have the ability to use every legal tool necessary to root out terrorists so that the United States can prevent another terrorist attack on our soil. But that commitment to our national security does not mean that we must sacrifice the rule of law and our Constitution. We can be both safe and free.

Last year, the Administration asked Congress to expand President Bush's powers to conduct domestic surveillance. The proposal rewrote the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to limit judicial oversight of the Administration's apparent practice of listening to Americans' calls overseas and gave the Administration far greater power to compel telecommunications companies to cooperate with surveillance operations. In my view, the proposal went too far. I voted instead for a Democratic alternative to give the intelligence community all of the tools it needs, while preserving important congressional and judicial oversight of the executive branch's activities. Although Congress ultimately passed the Bush Administration's proposal, it did so while imposing a six-month sunset to allow Congress to revisit the bill.

Now, the Bush Administration has vowed to block any surveillance legislation that does not provide retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies. I believe that granting retroactive immunity under these circumstances is wrong and undermines accountability. To that end, I supported and co-sponsored efforts to strip this provision from the FISA legislation. I was discouraged to see that amendment fail the last time it was considered in the Senate. In the weeks to come, I will continue to work with my colleagues to pass an improved bill, one that takes the needed steps to defend our homeland while also defending and respecting our Constitution, our laws, and our privacy.

She CO-SPONSORED the Dodd amendment to strip immunity. Obama DID NOT.

She said she'd vote against it and she did. End of story.

Oh, and another thing. Obama pays his female staffers $6,000 a year less than the men.

Oddly enough McCain pays them more.

So don't talk out of your rear about equal pay.

MaryG,

You're missing the forest for the trees.

Hillary supporters who are planning to vote McCain aren't doing so because they agree with his policies. For us, the matter has gone BEYOND the usual issues. There are LARGER MATTERS at stake.

In the simplest terms, it's about whether or not we're going to elect a man who stands for nothing but HIMSELF, a man without honor or integrity, to be the Chief Executive of this nation. This man is the Democratic version of Richard Nixon; do you remember him? This man will say anything, do anything, promise anything to anyone to secure their vote, then turn on them with frightening speed as soon as it becomes convenient. This man CANNOT BE TRUSTED. It doesn't matter WHAT he says he's for. Haven't you been paying attention, as he has reversed himself on position after position? NAFTA, FISA, public financing ... the list will never end, because at the bottom of it all he believes in NOTHING. Obama is about HIMSELF ALONE.

You need to realize that this kind of man can do more damage to the nation than anything McCain will do in 4 years, because of the kind of man he is. He is the political equivalent of the wastrel, the pretty but worthless husband, who dazzles you down the aisle and then whom you end up supporting by working two jobs. He will take this country through hell, he won't even understand why, and HE WON'T CARE. His final answer, when all is said and done, will be, "WELL, YOU ELECTED ME." That is, it's your own fault. That's the kind of man he is.

McCain may be ugly, and he may not drive a flashy car. He may not even be exciting in the bedroom. But he'll work two jobs to support you and the kids. That's the kind of man he is. He's not perfect, he'll make mistakes and we won't applaud every decision he makes. But we'll know he'll put the country before himself, and that he'll do what he thinks is right for the country's sake before he'll consider his own.

So, get it out of your mind that Hillary supporters are miffed, petulant, candy-assed malcontents. This isn't about pique. This is about our country.

Country before party! PUMA!

Glad to know Obama is not OVERPAYING people with the hard earned money of his many, many small time donors. THANK YOU OBAMA.

And you all want Obama to help payoff all her overpaid staff.

As for John McCain, it is the least he can do since he does not support paying women throughout the country equal pay.

MaryGJ:

Haha very funny! Great post. Thank you Obama.

McCain may be ugly, and he may not drive a flashy car. He may not even be exciting in the bedroom. But he'll work two jobs to support you and the kids. That's the kind of man he is. He's not perfect, he'll make mistakes and we won't applaud every decision he makes. But we'll know he'll put the country before himself, and that he'll do what he thinks is right for the country's sake before he'll consider his own.

Now this is one of the most ridiculous statements I have seen about McCain. You are making me go there. Now, did McCain work two jobs to support his family ever? No. When he came back from Vietnam and a couple of years later committed adultery--do you think he was thinking of his wife and 3 children then? McCain's not ugly that's in the eye of the beholder. When he married the $100 million heiress do you think he was driving a some cheap car IF he drove himself at all? How about the private jet? Tell us please when has John McCain worked any regular job like the common man or woman?

I hope he will do what is best for his country and not do us in like he did his first wife. We won't be so nice to him. Did you know that when McCain left his first wife the Reagans helped her? Yeah, she stayed with Ed Meese for a while. The Reagans also helped her (Carol McCain) get jobs and she worked for Nancy Reagan as well in the WH. Nancy Reagan cannot stand McCain because of what he did to Carol McCain.

So, yeah John and Cindy McCain make a great First Couple--poster couple for the religious conservative right wingers. NOT. He'll put his country first like he did during the Keating 5 scandal, like he did for his second wife's drug stealing incident that they covered up and prevented from becoming a career ending scandal for him, like he did for his crippled wife and their 3 children.

You can have him DINOS...

Now, now, MaryGJ ... we have agreed on some things on this thread ... but you can't hold McCain's adultery against him after when Clinton brought the phrase "oral sex" into every child's vocabulary, and had everyone talking about white stains on dresses. And for those who want to complain about Cindy McCain's being rich, were they also complaining about Kerry's Heinz heiress? Some people were, but those were the Republicans, weren't they? Kennedy was a Democrat and a womanizer, and came from a rich family. Liberal and Conservative spokespersons and politicians have committed adultery, been rich, pardoned people they shouldn't have, and so on.

You seem rational to me, so please think about what I'm saying here. This is why I'm an independent - both parties do these things.

Clinton's oral sex did not break up someone else's family. Cindy and John McCain are part of a party who tout and claim a moral authority. If the republicans had not been so ruthless and relentless against Bill Clinton the youngsters would not know about cigars and oral sex.

They are all rich. But Cindy and John McCain act like the rules do not apply because they are rich. John Kerry did not leave his wife to marry for money. The Kennedy's did a lot of things for people in this country. They did not start a charity then steal the drugs.

I am rational. Both parties do things but only ONE claims to have the moral authority and that would be the republicans.

Cindy McCain had no problem twisting her mouth to criticize Michelle Obama about her "really proud" remark when she (Cindy) has benefited tremendously from being rich, white and privileged (helps when you steal drugs) which would make one proud no matter what your country does.

The McCains and the republicans stand before us and criticize and try to bring down the Obama's while they have a closet full of skeletons.

I'm a life long Democrat whose (sic) voting McCain

If you vote for McCain, then you will no longer be a life-long Democrat.

I'm a life long Democrat whose voting McCain

Oxymoron: Democrat McCain.

How can a life long Democrat switch to McCain? If you are a lifelong Democrat, who have you been voting for all these years, republicans? I am trying to think of a Democrat who has run in the past 20 years that fits.

How can this be? McCain doesn't understand what this country needs. He's admitted that he doesn't know much about the economy and his only policy is Iraq. We need a President who is set on changing THIS country for the better. McCain will simply continue what Bush has already started and that is not a good thing.

can you please articulate for me who the "Moveon.org crowd" are? Seriously, I am so tired of the media frame. MoveOn.org has done wonderful things for this country, but if all I ever did was listen to Bill O'Reilly, I'd think that MoveOn, DailyKos and the ACLU were truly working to undermine all that is good in America.

I'm a poster on DKos and I actually applaud what both the ACLU and MoveOn have done. Does that make me an uberliberal? Does that make me part of the lunatic fringe? Last I checked, I was a rational person who was semi-intelligent and informed about issues. I have been a Democrat my whole life, supported Clinton, Gore, Kerry and now Obama, but does that mean that I'm not a centrist? Or not left enough? Please explain it to me, because my open-minded, free thinking, liberal self can't quite figure it out.

I think the ACLU crosses the line sometimes.

Web I think Moveon is a Democratic activist organization that was started during Clinton's impeachment proceedings. They have since moved on (pun intended) to other issues especially opposing the war.