TD full of BS
Josh, please pull <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/184931.php">TD's post </a> off your font page. On the front page of TPM, JMM posted TD's post. I find TD's post disingenuous at best
I got really emotional about it before I realized that I would vote McCain and a straight top to bottom GOP lineup if Hillary isn't the nominee and leave the party if Florida isn't counted.
This is not from a Democrat. This writer either has no convictions or is a GOP shill. Elections have rules, Michigan and Florida did not follow them, get over it. The elephant in the room is what will happen to the super delegates from Michigan and Florida? Those who sold us out? (I'm from Michigan).
Its not about winning anymore. Its about whether the Democratic party and its anti democracy is worth defending or if the most liberal GOP presidential candidate in decade is a better use of my vote.It is completly about winning, has DT not been paying attention for the last seven years? McCain is not liberal, that may be a matter of opinion. The top to bottom crap is not. The GOP has institutionalized corruption, they need to be taken out. We need two strong parties, today's GOP is not one of them, that is what is ailing the country. My old district is as red sa can be but <a href="http://www.house.gov/ehlers/">Vern Ehler</a> is a man of integrity illustrative of what the GOP needs more of to rebuild itself; the exception rather than the rule.
Obama has done the following
1) Sat idly by as Jessy Jackson Jr called Hillary a racist and Wright likened what Bill Clinton did to Monica to how he treated Black people.
Clinton and McCain have done no worse?
2) Acted to avoid democracy both in caucuses and in Florida and Michigan
Uh, no. He has followed the party rules. Why were Hillary and Kucinich the only names on the ballot in Michigan?
3) 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.
Hillary has done the same, as well as attempting to poach Obama's pledged delegates.
4) Called anyone a racist who challenged his 2 years on the national scene as not being enough experience for commander in chief
Please provide citation.
5) 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.
We've heard more than enough about the Clinton connections throughout the 90's. What about McCain's connection to Keating or Iseman. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022101131_pf.html">McCain's campaign is being run by Charlie Black.</a>. Please provide citation with regards to $600,000 fabricated bribe that the MSM is completely ignoring.
6) Claimed that his Independent and GOP voters are better than Hillary's Democrats.
Because they are; Democrates (unlike DT) will vote for whoever obtains the nomination. Obama wants to make the Democratic party a big tent party.
In a revolution words don't matter. Actions matter. I am at peace with my voting actions come general election.
Both matter, words lead to action. DT go shill for McCain on some right wing blog.
That's "DT" not "TD."
"DT" couldn't have staked out his position any better if he were a troll.
However, if real, he is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party.
If a troll, he's an embarrassment to the Republican Party.
Like many others, I think a good deal of unification is in order; not only in the Democratic Party but the Republican Party and the nation. But it had better not come at the price of mollifying dickheads.
March 22, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter DT:
Where's my ball? Cause I'm GOING HOME!
March 22, 2008 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Yes!!! I've said this elsewhere-- I could understand his level of disgust with the process if the candidates held different policies. But this is not a case of Bush v. Gore disenfranchisement. You could, I suppose, make a case that the people have been disenfranchised, but not that there are substantive policy differences between these candidates.
So, while this type of view could have merit as a matter of justice, it does not have merit as a matter of policy. Therefore, it makes no sense to advocate different policies (i.e. voting for McCain) simply because you believe those policies have been obtained unjustly.
This sort of analysis does have merit in an absolute ethical sense. For example, if Dennis Kucinich had murdered his rival Democratic candidates, and rose to power, establishing peace and justice by means of a bloody coup-- I could see, for ethical reasons, opposing him. But neither Obama's nor Clinton's path to the nomination has risen to anything close to this sort of ethical dilemma.
The Michigan and Florida situation is far too complex to give Obama's role in it the kind of ethical weight that would cause you to embrace the unethical policies of another.
March 22, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Before I saw this thread, I wrote a comment straight to Josh. I'm not sure why he's put this thing on the front page of his blog. It's obviously either a total crock or written by someone who has a serious emotional problem.
March 22, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dee Dee,
"It's obviously either a total crock or written by someone who has a serious emotional problem."
That was probably Josh's point. The e-mail speaks for itself quite transparently. All of us can form an opinion...
I think Josh posted an example of the kind of mail they are receiving, following up on his previous "Step 8: Acceptance?" post. Lalo's post below is another example.
(I would have liked a footnote or some kind of framing comment by Josh to accompany it.)
March 22, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The silly comments and explanations you provided to the original post make your post-rationalizing pathetic at best.
You start with your lofty pronouncement about GOP and winning but you continue with showing your candidate to be a beaurocrat hiding behind "the rules" or explaining how all candidates are "the same".
Because this echochamber is driving out Clinton supporters from here in drove, you obviously have no idea of what's going on the real world anymore.
People like you threathen a walkout on a convention floor. Guess what? It will happen.
And for someone who stated in this campaign with a donation to Obama, I'll be voting "uncommitted" in November.
I won't be voting Obama.
March 22, 2008 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've sat and watched as Obama supporters were labeled childish, young, and ignorant. I've seen the world cult tosses about enough times to make my stomach turn at its very mention, but the further we proceed in the nomination process the more I see Clinton supporters acting as the spoiled kids.
This I won't vote for Obama because of... is idiotic at best. Have you already forgetten the nasty tactics that Clinton has brought out again and again over the course of the campaign? Yet, if she were to miraculously win the nomination, I would still vote for her. I would hate to, but to vote for a republican is to vote for the continued failure of a nation that needs a new path so very badly.
So, I guess the point of this post is to suck it up and quit being so stubborn and selfish. Any, I repeat any democratic candidate is better the the warmonger McCain.
March 22, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
"nasty Clinton tactics" and "quit being selfish" in the same comment from an Obama supporter is exactly my point.
As I said before, Obama is embarking on a home stretch. It will be a string of losses, loss of momentum and the Wright albatross hanging over his neck. He cannot win unless he blocks FL and MI.
And you are urging Clinton to drop out?
March 22, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is that "exactly" your point. You're saying you won't vote because of Obama's tactics...so you will sit the election out. Where did I urge Clinton to drop out? All I did was address the statement you made about not voting in the GE. I just think it's so very absurd for Clinton supporters to say they're going to sit out because of big bad Obama when their candidate has tried tactics ranging from fear-mongering to even actively complimenting McCain while belittling Obama.
March 22, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
He cannot win unless he blocks FL and MI.
You keep saying that, but the numbers don't agree. What in the world do you mean?
March 22, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's nice to read from everyone how we all need to agree to get behind the ultimate winner, and it's true. But what doesn't get said enough, is that HOW you win does matter.
At this point, the only way for Clinton to win is to literally steal the election by having superdelegates overturn the will of the voters. That would be a very big deal, as we've been told from all sorts of people not connected to the Clinton campaign.
It's understandable why Obama people would be frustrated enough to stay home or vote Nader--not to mention that a lot of Obama people are independents or republicans who'd never vote for Clinton anyway.
It's a totally different thing for Clinton supporters to just say "we don't like the results so we are going home." They will have lost fair and square, most likely with Michigan and Florida included, but in any case--lost. They have the right to vote for anyone they want, but it will look a lot like sour grapes. And extremely sour ones at that, to be be voting for 100 years of war in Iraq, 2 or more McCain appointed Supreme Court justices, and everything else that goes with McCain winning
March 22, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I've come across so many of your barely coherent rants in comments, and I know one shouldn't feed the teh stooopid because it just keeps growing, but please, please, please, PLEASE go away from here in your "drove". You add NOTHING to the conversation. Ever.
March 22, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sweet. Are you going to be one of those people driving around with a Clinton 2008 sticker on your car in three years?
March 22, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! I'm still driving a '92 Tsongas.
March 22, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
DT: Good riddance to you.
March 22, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
DT's post is proof, if we needed more, that Clinton's campaign has succeeded in destroying the Democratic party. Would her supporters have been as angry and bitter if she had bowed out and started promoting Obama when the handwriting was on the wall? The polls have proven that she and her people care more about winning than they do about getting a Democrat in the White House, since way more of them say they will vote for McCain over Obama than the other way around. I'm not crying racism here although it's hard not to suspect it.
I don't know why Josh gave this post such a prominent position unless it's meant to demonstrate the points I just made; I don't think DT is unique in his stance or his crazy and skewed accusations.
March 22, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
i think a lot of people are missing something important that is going on... recent poll data shows that as many as 32 pct of Hillary supporters will either vote for McCain or stay home on election day if Hillary is not the nominee. Likewise, 21 pct of Obama supporters say the same thing if he is not the nominee.
obama supporters who are so quick to condemn DT as a republican troll had better think again...
first, there should be no attempt to short-circuit the nominating process even if it leads to a full-out fight at the convention. second, obama had better come up with some way to mollify democratic voters in FL and MI (as it stands today there are just enough of them feeling disenfranchised that obama would most likely lose both of those states in a general election.) third, both Hillary and Obama had better start working together to keep the democratic party from splitting (both are equally responsible for what's going on.)
dismissing posts like the one from DT and ridiculing him/her is the WRONG approach. either we are all democrats here and want to win in november, or we're throwing down the gauntlet by saying that my candidate is the only true democrat (and if you don't like it, then we don't need you in november.)
March 22, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
i think a lot of people are missing something important that is going on... recent poll data shows that as many as 32 pct of Hillary supporters will either vote for McCain or stay home on election day if Hillary is not the nominee. Likewise, 21 pct of Obama supporters say the same thing if he is not the nominee.
It was 25% of Hillary supporters, and 10% of Obama supporters, just ten days ago or so. That's a trend that looks ominous.
March 22, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"obama had better come up with some way to mollify democratic voters in FL and MI"
Obama does not run the country, does not run the DNC, and does not run Michigan or Florida. Obama did not create the Michigan/Florida mess. Yet you now say that it is Obama's responsibility to mollify Michigan/Florida voters!!?!??!!
March 22, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, that's what i say... and it is not because i support Hillary either.
obama has been put in the unfortunate position of resisting a re-vote in FL and MI as well as opposing the results from the january primaries. Hillary, on the other hand, has loudly proclaimed herself in favor of counting the first votes or conducting re-votes. that's just the way it is, and both sides positions are well established for the obvious reasons...
my point above is that enough voters in MI and FL are angry that their votes are not being counted through no fault of their own. go ahead and blame the DNC or the state legislatures, but that is not where the voters are going to show their displeasure. it will come in november and it will be (fairly or unfairly) directed at obama as he is the candidate who has been cast as standing in the way of a re-vote and opposing the results of the january primaries.
the republicans will make sure that voters in FL and MI are reminded over and over again how their votes were not counted by the democrats. it won't matter how it all came about...
as the frontrunner for the democratic nomination obama must find a way to satisfy voters in FL and MI that their voices were heard. if he wins the nomination by a narrow margin without having mollified the voters in those two states, he will pay a price.
finally, i would even go so far as to say that the dems will permanently give up the high moral ground surrounding the 2000 election in FL. by having the democratic party punish two critical swing states by telling individual voters that you have no vote in our party (regardless of the reason), the dems are making a mistake of historic proportion. obama should take the fearless position of allowing all voices to be heard so that there will be no quibbling over the legitimacy of his candidacy should he go on to the nomination.
blaming the DNC for this mess will get obama very little sympathy when it comes to gaining votes in november. politics is not fair. obama is in a tough spot here. he has shown good instincts when it comes to finding the high moral ground. i hope that he will not take a shortcut to the nomination by doing an end run around FL and MI regardless of whether or not the DNC rules says that he can.
March 22, 2008 5:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get a grip.
DT's 'Plan B' is being held up as 'Plan 9 from Outer Space'
March 22, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats who want to give the election to McCain are not thinking about the issues. If they're so irrational, it's not clear to me what it's possible to do to bring them around. Did any of them ever really care about the war, the economy, the Constitution, health care, women's reproductive rights, the Supreme Court, the environment, and (dare I say it) racial equality? Or are they all just playing some kind of Clinton loyalty game? There were some real reasons why I didn't like Clinton (her votes for the war, Kyl-Lieberman, anti flag burning legislation, among others) but I still would vote for her over McCain (although getting more and more dispirited about the prospect) because I care about the issues I listed.
March 22, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
What I just said, Ken's Dad--50% more Clinton supporters are willing to put a Republican in the White House, and for completely bogus reasons. Even though Hillary has conducted one of the most divisive primary campaigns in recent history Obama supporters will overlook it in order to vote Democratic. I'm not ridiculing DT, I'm just incredulous at his readiness to pee on his own foot.
March 22, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, and one other thing: I don't really understand the Florida and Michigan primary disenfranchisement argument. Most of the state primaries have been pretty meaningless for as long as I can remember because of the importance of the early states. This year was a different dynamic, so primaries were more important, but it's not as if every state had equal weight since the field of candidates narrowed. There is no way to recreate the past in Michigan and in Florida, and it's neither of the candidates faults - both agreed to follow the rules. If the voters of this country don't care about the issues, they really need to grow up. More and more people are going to suffer personally because of the Republican regime. Maybe people need to feel the pain themselves before they figure out that the issues are more important than hurt feelings.
March 22, 2008 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
They were only meaningless because someone won the required number of delegates to win the nomination. In this contest, no-one has. So all primaries have an added weight now.
March 22, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is completely insane is the "caucuses" statement. He or she accuses Obama of avoiding democracy through "caucuses". WTF? Did Hillary not participate in the caucuses? In the absence of further explanation it would appear that Obama avoided democracy by winning in caucus states. Had he lost, like Hillary, he would have been fine.
In my assessment there are two explanations that could explain poster DT. 1) He is not a democrat at all, and would vote straight GOP, no matter who was the nominee. DT is just causing trouble. Or, 2) He is so invested in the Hillary campaign, that he is throwing around any possible threat or smear, not realizing that the result is an insane rambling email, that will provide Hillary no benefit at all.
March 22, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dee, that's a good point that I've been wanting to make for a while--this is the first time EVER that my primary vote has counted for anything, so it seems a bit odd for people in Florida and Michigan to get so exercised about it. If they really will. They played chicken with the DNC, and lost.
March 22, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
DT's post exaggerates what this primary season has always been about, for me.
I should say first that I am not a "Democrat". But I think I could be. I am a progressive, and if the Democratic party became a more progressive party, I would probably be a Democrat.
Obama is the more progressive candidate, and the Democrats could become a radically new party the moment we elect him.
Or, we could vote for Hillary, a solidly Democratic candidate. An establishment candidate. And I, for one, am not so interested in that.
DT obviously is.
March 22, 2008 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
DT is obviously a fringe character. If nothing else, the bit about "a $600,000 bribe that likely comes directly from a Saddam loyalist" proves that.
That said, there's clearly also resentment among more mainstream Clinton supporters. It's not going to be easy to heal the rift, and it gets harder every day with an increasingly ugly race going on.
The important question is what will it take to reconcile these mainstream folks?
March 22, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
The letter, it is held up for our inspection. But it may be just a bit to inflammatory for the front page.
For all the Clinton supporters who say they'd rather vote McCain than Obama -- I dare you.
I dare you.
I dare you to put another Republican in the White House. One who will continue to support tax breaks for the most wealthy, hoping that the trickle-down will fix the economic crisis.
One who will pay back the support he's sought from the religious right with more "pro-life" conservative judges on the Supreme Court.
One who pretends to be a "maverick" yet goes to bat every time for lobbyists and corporate supporters.
One who has shown the same tendency toward gaffs and muddled thought in foreign policy that the current idiot has always shown.
One who will keep us in Iraq, plus get us into a tangle with Iran.
One who will keep the narrative of this century's history firmly Republican.
I dare you. You really want to think, a few years from now, that you helped elect President McCain? How are you going to be able to explain it to yourself?
I'll even vote for Clinton, if I have to.
Over the spring and summer, weigh your options.
March 22, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo!
March 22, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
'Americans are neither black nor white. We are all as mixed as Brazilians.'
Erica J's latest. Over at HuffPo. LMAO. EJ's batshit insane. Who knew?
Give DT a break. Lots of folks be spinnin' out now that this thing's been called. 'Bout time it was, but that don't make it no better for those who'd bought into the Clinton promise that - all evidence to the contrary - they had their secret plan to get us out of Vietnam, ahem, I mean, to cinch the nomination ...
Rather than pester us Obama supporters, y'all oughta be calling up your Rudy-lovin' friends and askin' them how they coped.
March 22, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
EJ's channeling Beavis and Butthead in that piece. Along with chiding the "idiot corporate press" for not being as incisive as she is.
"the sooner they bring the beaver and the stallion together, the better off we'll all be"
March 22, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure "DT" is either Joan Walsh or Paul Krugman.
March 22, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I do understand DT's frustration. If Hillary manages to win by some means that seems unfair, I would be strongly inclined to sit out November. It will probably take time for either side's wounds to heal, but it should be a long enough Spring and Summer for that, and hopefully most Dems come to their senses by the Fall.
However, if Obama is the nominee, as seems most likely, we are probably going to see some significant redrawing of the electoral and demographic maps from previous elections. Undoubtedly a number of so-called 'downscale' white Dems will vote for McCain. But as we have seen strong evidence already that Obama can make this up with independents and moderate Republicans who can be persudaded that McCain is not going to reform the train-wreck of their party, and who are anyhow attracted to Obama on his own terms.
March 22, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I can understand his frustration too. I think it can be very difficult to be an intelligent person, to choose to support a candidate, and then to watch helplessly as the MSM carnival/freakshow (as Greenwald often refers to it) completely invalidate both your intelligence and support in a way that can seem both undemocratic and unjust.
March 22, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think about it people. Josh doesn't normally print tripe like DT's rant on the front page. He's holding it up an example. He must have received a lot of angry messages in response to his Step 8: Acceptance? post, and he's showing people samples of the messages from people who haven't quite reached Stage 8 yet (perhaps not even Stage 1).
Thus, Bill Day's point-by-point rebuttal is point-less. DT's rant convinces no one and only reflects poorly on Clinton supporters. It's they who should be pissed off that Josh would post a message from such a nutball.
March 22, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Only 4 years ago there were a very large number of us who were devoted supporters of Howard Dean. When he dropped out I heard a lot about how we were going to form our own third party, and how we would never, ever support John Kerry. I felt some of those emotions, but after a week I felt better.
Many of us then fell for John Kerry just as strongly as we had fallen for Howard Dean. And, many of us campaigned enthusiastically for John Kerry. I predict that whether Obama or Clinton wins, the loser's supporters will end up doing the same. Meanwhile, because it seems obvious that Obama will win, Clinton's supporters are still in mourning. I know the feeling.
March 22, 2008 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of us then fell for John Kerry just as strongly as we had fallen for Howard Dean.
Not me, I volunteered for kerry after being a deainiac, but i hoped it was the last time i would have to work for someone who supported bush's deadliest blunder. i still have that hope.
March 22, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think a combined ticket would go a long way toward healing the wounds inflicted by this bloody primary. Whoever wins, I hope that the other candidate has enough party loyalty and good sense to swallow their pride and sit as VP on the other candidate's ticket.
That being said, I haven't heard too much about a ticket with Clinton as VP. She was pushing pretty hard a while back for Obama to be hers, but that seemed pretty desperate at the time. I honestly am not confident that such a "dream ticket" could be achieved. Cross your fingers.
March 22, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would it be such a dream ticket given Hillary's high and Obama's mounting unfavourables? Whichever one wins I suspect their VP will have to be someone fresh who can win over undecideds in a completely new way.
The tragedy of the Wright factor and all of this race discussion is that Obama's lost one of his previously most compelling features that attracted undecideds and independents in the first place: the perceived ability to unite. He has an enormous challenge ahead of him now - to try to get that back, especially in the face of his campaign's new scorched earth approach on Hillary's trustworthiness mode.
It seems to me that we're seeing the costs now of his campaign's lack of real politik. First rule of politics: get someone else to do your dirty work for you - they should be getting other people to do this attack stuff - not doing it themselves.
March 22, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
DT=Republican wearing a Democratic mask. Seriously, if you honestly think McCain is so liberal, you only need to look at his voting record. If women want their uterus protected, if people want a different brand of economics and if people want to get the Evangelical brand of Christianity out of politics, then you seriously can't vote for McCain.
People accursed Obama's supporters of being simply a cult, but polls have shown that more of his supporters would be willing to vote for Clinton if he lossed, whereas less of hers would. You tell me who is more cult-like; one side has more people who care more about the person rather than restoring order in the White House.
Regarding MI and FL, too f**king bad; if the rules are not enforced, what is going to happen in future primaries? What happens if a state pushes their primary too late or too early? I do feel some sympathy for FL though since their party didn't have complete control over the process, but again, its FL Democrats who killed the initiative to start up a new election. And there are legitimate concerns about a fair MI; we all know there will be Republicans crossing over to tamper with the Democratic process to prolong this out even further.
So whoever DT is, he can shove it up his whiny ass. He's obviously no Democrat.
March 22, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad Josh posted this on the front page. Every village has its idiot. "There but for the grace of God......"
March 22, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
In response to MrCee,
I completely agree with you. Any self respecting democrat, or for that matter, someone that disagrees with the GOP and thinks they are corrupt, should suck it up and vote for who ever wins the nomination. For my part I will not only vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination, I will campaign for her. McCain is absolutely, unequivocally unfit to be president. He has demonstrated this time and time again with his views on the Iraq war, and flip flopping on issues he used to be stalwart against (specifically Bush's tax cuts and stance on terror).
People are emotionally invested, I know. I am, myself. Personally I REALLY want him to win. I think he's the best choice our country could make right now. But that is not a reason for me to give my vote to the GOP in November.
March 22, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Didn't proof read! I meant I REALLY want Obama to win. It sounds like I am for McCain.
March 22, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry. Bill Clinton makes the same mistake quite often.
March 22, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
*snerk*
March 23, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink