DT is being willfully ignorant, purposefully provocative to get the goat of Obama supporters, or is simply an overheated supporter who drank too much coffee before writing.

So DT, a challenge to back up some of your statements - I will give you the right to your opinions but some you stated as facts:

1. "Acted to avoid democracy both in caucuses and in Florida and Michigan." So Obama is responsible for the Caucus system? Can you prove that he is and that he acted to avoid democracy in caucuses. Fl and MI I will give you as an opinion, but caucuses?

2. "Threatened the party both in terms of his voters not voting and in terms of his supporters often threatened rioting in Colorado if the rules are followed where super delegates vote as they please or with the majority vote not as the pledged delegates which are mostly determined by caucuses." Did Obama threaten rioting? Show my the quote. Did he threaten the party? SHow me the quote. And again with the caucuses - he did not set up the system - if you are upset he won caucuses, just say so but those are and were the rules and they have been in existence and know to both campaigns for years.

3. "Called anyone a racist who challenged his 2 years on the national scene as not being enough experience for commander in chief" WOW is all I can say. Can you show me even one quote where he called someone a racist who challenged his experience?

4. "Minimized the connections with Rezko while refusing to answer questions about what appears to be a $600,000 bribe that likely comes directly from a Saddam loyalist." Can you substantiate a 600,000 bribe? Sources? Or perhaps you have this confused with Bill Clinton and his ties to wealthy foreigners who use his foundation and use Bill to achieve business deals while he praises dictators and goes against US foreign policy (see Giustra, Clinton, Kazakkstan).

5. "Claimed that his Independent and GOP voters are better than Hillary's Democrats." Boo hoo if he did. Each side says the votes they got are better than the others. HRC has said the same of her votes as well.

So I for one will not miss your presence in our party since I thought we were a party that prided ourselves on intelligent and rational debate.

McCain is absolutely, postively, NOT moderate in his politics -- not even a little bit. And we'd all do well to remember that when we consider the kind of president he would make when weighed against the alternative.

I know some of you would like to believe otherwise, especially since its clear that both of our Democratic candidates have managed to make themselves look pretty unattractive to various factions within the party. But don't let the endorsements of the New York Times, Rudy Guiliani, and Arnold Schwarzenegger fool you. Remember that McCain also has the hearty support of such stauch social conservatives as Govs. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) and Rick Perry (R-TX), fellow senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and and Tom Coburn (R-OK), and former senator Phil Gramm (R-TX). And for god's sake, don't put any credence in the endorsement of Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT); in fact, that should give you pause. The allegiance of a turncoat is not a valuable statement, nor can it be trusted.

Just take a look at McCain's voting record on progressive issues, on social issues, on labor issues, on education issues, on women's issues. In the 109th Congress, he had a 20% voting record with the American Association of University Women, getting credit for a vocational education vote that went through 99-0. He has a ZERO percent with AAUW for 2007. In 2006, McCain had a 7% voting record with the AFL-CIO, having only voted the right way on the Voting Rights Act -- another popular measure that went through largely unopposed. That same year he received a 15% rating from Americans for Democratic Action. There are more voting records on my blog if folks are interested (http://thezaftigredhead.blogspot.com), where you can guage McCain's support on issues you care about. Take a look, but even on the issues where you might be reassured -- like his vote against the marriage amendment last year -- don't count on the fact that his position will stay firm now that he's got Pennsylvania Avenue on his mind.

Remember that immigration compromise he worked on earlier? McCain is now back-pedaling from that bill -- which he co-authored -- as quickly and as publicly as he can. In truth, he may be one of the bigger flip floppers in the campaign, having seen the error of his ways in 2000 when he had the gumption to skip Iowa and diss the evangelical, conservative block in the Republican party. As a result, on issues like gay marriage to making the Bush tax cuts permanent to repealing Roe v. Wade -- McCain has changed his mind, pandering to the religious right since his speech at Bob Jones University, and even more so the closer he got to the nomination.

On other critical issues, like judicial nominations, healthcare, student aid, broader reproductive rights, pay equity issues and the minimum wage, McCain has been depressingly, consistently conservative. This, despite always being a target of the civil rights community as a potential swing vote on the issues that matter most, McCain rarely comes through -- in 2007, only about 15% of the time, according to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.

So let's just be clear. Despite whatever appeal he may have, whatever we might admire in his life story, no matter how frustrated we may become with one or both of the Democratic candidates, McCain is a true conservative. Indeed, he kept saying so himself -- over and over and over again, in every Republican debate this campaign season. We should take him at his word on this one. On the issues that matter most to progressives -- from civil rights to the war in Iraq, from domestic budget priorities to his selections for the U.S. Supreme Court -- he will be a socially and fiscally conservative president. (NOTE: I do not believe that fiscally responsible and fiscally conservative are the same thing.)

McCain is not, in fact, all that much different from President Bush in his social positions -- just as McCain is not all that different from the president on Iraq. While I don't think McCain would be as bad as the unprincipled leader we have now -- we have nowhere to go but up -- I do believe John McCain would be a consistent president. Consistently conservative.

It is unfortunate that the silliness one often reads in the "reader posts" and comments has been elevated to the TPM front page.

Just to be clear, I am talking about the responsibility FL and MI Dems had to make their voices heard back when their state parties were making the ill-fated decision to risk their state delegates at the National Convention by moving the date of their primaries.

Calling/writing the DNC after the fact to complain about the enforcement of the rules your state party knowingly violated is not exactly proactive political involvement.

This is a repost that I believe is relevant:

This is not in response to your comment per se, but to the idea of caring.

I can somewhat follow a thread of logic that goes something like this: "to call for the election to end is to advocate injustice!" It is a little harder for me to follow the thread further, but if I close my eyes, I can see it: "to advocate injustice angers me, and the tactics employed in advocating this injustice are like crimes!"

I can both understand and sympathize with these arguments, because they are about the desire for justice. But what I fail to follow is how someone can passionately prefer either of these candidates. Where does the passion for, say, Senator Clinton come from? Both candidates, to varying degrees, have sold-out on essentially every leftist cause. From where comes this passion for slightly less authoritarian corporate military rule?

To put it in a less inflammatory way: dude, they've got pretty much the same policies. So, while I can understand preferring one candidate to another, I cannot understand doing so passionately.

And since these candidates are essentially equal, for pragmatic reasons I am of the Math And The Good Of The Party Camp. To oppose TMATGOTPC could be an exercise in justice, but to oppose us vigorously? You might next find yourself refusing to drink your Pepsi, when you ordered Coke.

Do us all a favor, just drink the Pepsi-- it's the same thing.

"It is unfortunate that the silliness one often reads in the "reader posts" and comments has been elevated to the TPM front page."
Posted by Chris Brown

I disagree. It seems to me rather to be an excellent example of where it's coming from, just how far it has descended, what it would choose to do, and just how lame that direction and game is.

That is, considering the source, the results are no wonder.

Also, if this is a clue about what we're up against -- if we can't win over that kind of deep pit of sorry, well we're just not ready to play at all.

I'd bet on us though--after all we're very much still alive! with a radiant and appealing glow of good health! and not self-destructing already ...

hip hip--humanity prevails!

if you think DT is alone in not voting for OBAMA than you folks are way wrong. many democrats are ultra moderate democrats that was already having a problem with extreme left politics of OBAMA. you seem to forget this. although i can not stand McCain’s amnesty and war position I dislike OBAMA's immigration pandering positions here in chicago even more. as far as the war...if democrats win in the state and in congressional races we will have enough votes to stop McCain. i and many other moderate democrats CAN AND WILL live with that. if OBAMA wins i either will vote for McCain or not vote and stay at home for the first time in my voting age life and i have no problem with that.

if you want to say that OBAMA did not have his surrogates accuse hillary and bill of racism while he stood by then you keep believing that BS. while i remember jesse jackson junior on television when hilliary cried about her feeling how important this election was and jesse jackson junior immediately stating he did not see hilliary crying for the victims of katrina. then professor clay (another OBAMA surrogate) going on and on about racism and the bradley effect playing out. as a black woman i watched and listened to OBAMA's surrogates play the race card over and over and played it hard. Jesse Jackson Junior intimidating Black delegates and superdelegates stating and pressuring them on how will they feel if they are the reason that a BLACK man did not win the presidency and their need to change their vote. When OBAMA surrogates were all out to campaign and to mischaracterize the Hillary statement about martin luther king that was way over the top. OBAMA’s folks sent out mailings to promote racial discord and tension and they did not have any problems with doing so where was OBAMA to step in and stop that crap from his team? no where of course he sat back and benefitted from dividing us again and for OBAMA to put in his race speech not to judge hilliary on statements farroro made was really disgusting and wrong as he didn’t own up to the fact that his campaign pushed this accusation along with his own statements harder than anyone else. OBAMA used racism repeatedly to push his candidacy forward. if you try to say he didn't you are dishonest or blind to when it is really being played. he allows the damage to be done and then jumps in and acts like he is above it all. he is no better than McCain who knew the over the top radio shock jock was going to say all the rabid racial venom and then comes after to denounce it. he comes off smelling like a rose to dumb arses not intelligent enough to see he just manipulated the entire event.

Now in my opinion what you have not realized is that blacks supported the Clintons and the democrats in mass for years…what you don’t see is by OBAMA destroying their faith in bill and hilliary and by convincing them bill did nothing for them over the years they are now strongly behind a BLACK candidate but they are no longer strongly aligned to the democratic party. You have NO IDEA how much DAMAGE OBAMA has done to this party and you will learn over the years. My belief is McCain will be the next president and BARACK help him walk right into the white house.

Finally OBAMA has not been a bonehead as he likes to say when he makes a mistake but a very calculated self serving politician. he has done more to damage this country through dividing the party and through race bating then i have ever seen and i am ashamed of it. yes his speech may help in our racial discussions over the years but his speech was too late, calculated for political expediency, not enough to separate himself with a hateful anti american racist minister (who has also done some good things i am sure) and who has been an obvious liar on numerous occasions. so for me and my family we will vote for Hilliary or McCain.

hit peace??? i am just saying what i feel and have seen.

why can we vote for mccain:

because with the exception of mc cain's recent iraq stance and amnesty pandering for the hispanic vote...when i and many of my friends took the computerized testing online for fun in 2000 to electronically pick your candidate without knowing who he was we found and were all shocked to find that mc cain was our first choice and al gore second. you should do the same electronic test and you may also be surprised. many blacks are more conservative/moderate than you think but the race baiting in the republican party for many of us have always kept blacks in the democratic tent. i am and so are my many black friends and family very disturbed and angry at what WE FEEL has been a constant drumb beat of race bating and distortions from OBAMA's camp. to say he is not responsible for his surrogates or what others have done blows your argument against hillary clinton out the water. many here have repeatedly argued about her surrogates as well as tieing her to bill clintons NAFTA policy as her own sins. people for both sides have continuously looked the other way when it suits them as you are doing now. i know clintons faults and rate them not as important as OBAMA's shortcomings. but i do not try to infer the OBAMA transformation of the world BS as folks here have. i attribute it to youth and naivety. is it insulting to folks it may be but i don't mean it to be but just the reality as i have lived it.

what i also have a problem with is i find OBAMA extremely duplicitous and manipulative. i think that is more dangerous than a straight out and obvious hack like hilliary can sometime be. i prefer hillary but can stomach mc cain easily knowing democrats will be the majority party in the senate and congress. i strongly believe in divided government for moderation and middle ground and OBAMA folks here are wayyyyy to liberal for my taste. the country is better served in the middle. i believe hilliary would have been more moderate than OBAMA...the senate and congress will keep McCain on a short lease and the country will never allow amnesty so that will work itself out.

Mc cain is saying whatever it takes to win as well but his past voting record shows me he is much more moderate than most republicans. once president he can do whatever he wants to do and flip the extremist on both sides of the parties the bird.

No link, eh. Oh well, I tried to help you with an out...a way to back up what you've said. As far as McCain, what is his voting record? Where did you look to find out whether he has voted yes or no on certain issues? What were the amendments to the legislation, who sponsored them, what's the background, and what are the marginal costs of the policies that make it beneficial to someone of a progressive or moderate persuasion? He says he's a conservative above all else (http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/02/mccain_says_hes.html), why should I believe you over him? And, quite frankly, I have no problem with conservatives whatsoever. They have their place and their voices should be heard. But if you think McCain is moderate because every so often he said Bush was wrong, I must respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree.

I put my thoughts forward, take them for what their worth, an opinion. I just want you to realize I don't see what you've posted as fact. You might feel that way, but the comments seem hateful and I literally can't figure out where it's coming from. You say they've been race baiting...I think it's your own frustration with how this election is turning out and as a result, you're grasping at whatever you can find to say why you won't vote for Obama...whether what you see is true or not.

And if it really is the news you get this from, we must be watching completely different coverage...you're not watching Sean Hannity for your facts are you?

I called it a hit piece because it seemed more like red meat than analysis, but I think it's not really a hit piece as I don't think you work for the Clinton's or are malicious in your remarks. I think you're frustrated and you're lashing out. The same way the Clinton campaign has done. Remarks by Ferrarro that were construed as racist? I don't think they were racist just a Clinton supporter grasping at any reason she could think of that would let her explain how a virtual nobody is picking apart one of the most vicious and long lasting political machines around. I think the same applies to you wanting to come up with some reason, any reason not to back the source of your frustration. Any narrative that allows you to defend a vote against Obama, you will use. It's a visceral human reaction to something out of your control. I could be wrong, though, but the more posts I see from angry Clinton supporters, the more sure of this I become.

you are really a piece of work..if you want to look at the clips of jesse jackson junior on the news discussing hillary and race bating as well as clay look it up. OBAMA's gave his own speech and was on television numerous times saying farraro was racists in her comments. just like he was in calling for IMUS to be fired for his racist remarks. when he got busted for his associations to wright he did not distance himself but told us we should understand him. that he has done a lot of good for blacks and the poor. well last i check don imus did a heck of a lot more than OBAMA and comparable work to wright. again, you guys want to try to intellectually creat your own reality by "trying to help us out to see the light.

i am not frustrated at all. mccain is not so bad as you want to make this out to be. why do you think he is polling better than hilliary as well as OBAMA. why do you think we were all worried about him winning the primary in the first place. i think it will be the democratic party of which i belong that will be frustrated again as we have lost another election by our own mistakes...as usual.

visceral human reaction..i do not need the psycho babble but thanks anyway. i do appreciate you "helping" me out but it's not necessary. again the electronic software to pick your candidate is clearly based on positions closes to your own. you select them and they select the candidate closests to your position. i do not need to read the legislation when the process has been electronically created to simplify the process. i would rather trust the electronic algorithym than your telling me i am clueless to mccain's voting record.

what OBAMA folks will need to do is deal with the reality we will lose another election. cwill you be frustrated with mccain as the president. i can, hence no frustration on my part. do i think hilliary would have been better, yes but hey, shyte happens.

now what we can focus on as democrats is trying to pull the party back together after the elections and see internally who is left and viable for 2012 to run against mccain.

You've posted four posts that are almost identical and not a single link to back anything up. Not one detail. We'll have to agree to disagree on all this ity seems.

Vote for your boy all you want, we're gonna pound him and his camapign into the ground, either with Clinton or Obama, it doesn't matter. He's screwing up even before the pressure's being brought to bear on his campaign. The polls will change. You'll be stuck holding the wrong ticket on this, I'm afraid. And I'm not convinced he's moderate...war hero, yes, knowlegable enough about the economy to do anything to help, no.

And Jackson, jr isn't Obama last time I looked and Obama never called Ferrarro a racist. You could give a link to prove it, but it ain't out there.

drosz:

it shouldn't be too difficult to create another 'electronic' test to reprogram Michelle, and we know she'll trust that!

but imagine her confusion when the results of a modified electronic test don't match the programming she absorbs from faux news etc ...