I'll write in Obama and vote the downballot races.
I'm not going to reward her for stealing the nomination if she does.
I'm divorcing the Democrats if that happens.
So you would prefer to be responsible for a McCain Presidency?
A McCain presidency that would be held in close check by an overwhelmingly democratic congress. So, I'm with Tena on this one.
The tie-breaker, for me at least, is the Supreme Court. There could be as many as 5 nominations for the next president.
I understand the sentiment, but I'd strongly recommend against any action that would make a McCain presidency more likely.
The democratic congress has to approve the nominations. We'll just have to hope nobody on the SC keels over or retires.
Explain that to the soldiers yet to die.
The Democratic Congress so far has done little to impress me with their abilities to do much of anything.
Would a Democratic congress be more likely to facilitate Hillary going into Iran or McCain?
It's definitely not a black-and-white issue.
Hillary's not going into Iran, got off the Nonsense Wheel, it's making your head spin.
Four Senate democrats voted to confirm Alito.
All of this talk of not voting for the eventual nominee is really stupid, I think. Ben and others in their comments here are right.
The Supreme Court is at stake, and if one looks at the big picture one will see there is much more at stake than who is the demo nominee.
McCain would probably nominate more Alitos, Attila Scalias, and etc. who have ratified the great expansion of executive authority and the march toward fascism.
I detest Senator Clinton, and the manner in which she has run her campaign, but I think she would nominate more Ginsburgs and Breyers, both President Clinton nominees.
I think this talk of voting against the demo nominee if your candidate doesn't win is called biting off your nose to spite your face.
It is stupid. Grow up.
Absolutely and I've often said if given a choice between the presidency and Congress - let the Repugs have the presidency. I'll take Congress - they have the final authority if they'll use it - they can fire the son of a bitch.
You think we can lose the White House and keep the Congress?
I doubt it.
Well you just revealed how little you know.
The Democrats held the majority for 40 years - through many Republican administrations.
Honey, do your homework, for heaven's sake.
That was before the lunch box liberals had been kicked to the curb.
Do your own homework.
What are you talking about? "Lunchbox liberal" kicked to the curb?
I haven't got one clue. The people who took over the Democratic Party were the people who won in '92 - the DLC and the Clintons and that's when Democrats lost the majority - Clinton's 2d term.
Remember?
And the DLC has lost us every presidential election since.
Uh, that number would be "2", Alex. Though the footnote says that some think one or both were stolen.
No, Woodstock Nation took over the Party at the 1968 Democratic Convention and then gave us McGovern and it's been downhill ever since according to my History lessons.
The McGovern wing was interested predominantly in "Social Issues" not "Kitchen Table Issues" . The Elites ridiculed blue collar Americans and continue to do so.
Absolutely. This I think is the one point both Hillary and Obama supporters agree on.
I hope so!
The way people discuss this matter makes it seem as though a democrat voting democratic is always a virtue. I disagree. While I do not want to see McCain in the White House, and part of my thinks that democrats should vote democratic no matter who is the nominee, I also do not want to reward a party that acts in a way counter to its own ideals.
The voters are a check on the political parties. To make it seem like they must bear any and all burdens because of party association is quite unfair. People are permitted to have diverse interests, and that may bring about results that they wish they could have avoided but saw as necessary to some other end.
Wow, did you take a sedative after your Indiana-Kantor posting yesterday?
ha!
Indeed. It's called getting back to the parts of my life that matter right now.
Hillary Clinton is the one that would be far and away the most responsible for a McCain presidency, not an individual voter like Tena.
Okay , well, here's to the hundred years war!
The true Hundred Years War happens when we allow our candidates to succeed by running divisive, scurrilous campaigns. That is a recipe for more of the same.
People DIE in Iraq.
We are talking DEAD. And Worse!
Dead trumps principles for me.
"I will obliterate Iran." Sounds like serious death to me.
Yes, if Iraq nukes Israel, Hillary will respond to serious death with serious death. What exactly do you want her to say? "If Iran nukes Israel, I'm going to the UN for sanctions"???? "We'll airlift raisins into Tehran"??? Perhaps you want Leahy as Secretary of State to issue subpoenas to Iran that they can laugh at.
I would have my candidate reject absurd hypotheticals instead of coming across like General Jack D. Ripper. Apparently, you'd rather approach the hypothetical using Republican framing--"subpoena," indeed.
"I don't do hypotheticals." Where have I heard that line before? Try it in a job interview sometime, it's really effective, your interviewer will be really impressed at your fortitude.
marry me.
Pardon, if Iran nukes Israel.
I think we should make either Iran or Iraq change its name. If we're going to be obliterating these places it's too easy to screw up a letter and get the wrong one. Now was that "Buttle" or "Tuttle"?
The responisbility for the McCain presidency would lie with Hillary, for destroying the candidacy of the most electible nominee, and of the DNC for allowing the theft.
I don't think that will happen, however, so I am betting on seeing Obama's name on my Virginia ballot, and for the first time in my 60 years, seeing a Democrat carry our electoral votes!~
You are old enough to remember Viet Nam. How can you say you will allow a de-facto vote for more war?
How do you know that a vote for Hillary wouldn't be a vote for more war?
Between Hillary and McCain (hypothetically) calling for us to go to war, which would a Democratic congress be more likely to support?
Are you seriously telling me you think there would be no difference between McCain and Clinton?
No, I'm not. I can list at least 10 significant differences. I'd vote for her over them for those reasons. Their opinion on Iran doesn't seem to be one of those differences, however.
Do you understand that Congress would be more likely to support her then McCain if she were to attack Iran? (For the sake of discussion, ignore how unlikely you think such an attack might be.)
(Mumbling to self)
-Do I dare to say Hillary?
(It is no joke that she did talk about obliterating -with nuclear weapons!- another country. And I take it seriously. Was this more campaign pandering? Was it for real? Who knows what she just says and what she means! When I look at her I see a scary leader.)
Do I dare to say Hillary?
That was my implication. :)
Reasonable people can disagree on how likely she'd be to attack Iran vs. how likely McCain would be. (I really don't think either is that likely, but either is possible if they were President.)
However, given that one of them did decide to attack Iran, I think it's clear that a Democratic Congress would be much more likely to go along with Hillary's decision than McCain's. Hence, if you assume they'd both be equally likely to want to attack Iran (a debatable assumption), she'd be more likely to lead us into a war with Iran.
You cannot guilt me. Experts have tried. I don't do guilt.
I made a considered decision here - and I'm old enough to make my own decisions, thank you.
You can apologize to the soldiers yourself - Clinton voted for that fucking war.
And you can apologize to Iran after she obliterates it.
I've compromised in every election of my whole life. I got John Kerry forced on me in '04 by the DLC. That was my absolute limit.
If she steals the election I'm turning my back on all of it: The party and politics. Over.
No problem, the Clintons have already dealt with whiners spouting "you stole the election" for 8 years.
The choice you present (assuming it'll be Hillary against McCain) is one between two awful people.
Lessee, do I want Juan Peron or Evita. So hard to choose, so hard.
I will do as Tena suggests, in all probability. If Hillary 'wins' after the kind of campaign she's run, it will accelerate the fundamental shifts taking place now, up to and including real revolution. We have our chance now. Let's see if we blow it by picking her, or not.
If the Democratic nominee is Clinton, then no. It will be downticket all the way.
I am with you. Especially knowing that we would have a majority in Congress.
If Hillary does indeed steal the nomination* this year may become Nader's golden chance.
*I don't think it is possible for her to achieve such. She would need more than 50% of Supers to be ready to commit Party suicide.
You really think Reid and Pelosi are going to be able to stand up AND what about the coat tail effect?
Will Democrats RETAIN control if a Republican takes the White House?
Nominating Clinton already destroys our chance at significant coattails, win or lose.
How so?
She'll mobilize Republicans--downtickets will suffer, particularly Dems in red states. It's quite possible that we'd do worse in Congress with a Clinton victory than with an Obama defeat.
Dear stravu9,
First of all, welcome back.
I have no doubt at all, after watching Hillary in action (gas pandering included) that she would not care to stand up for the people AND that she would have no coat tails to ride on. Her hold on Power would be what would guide her Presidency.
That is my thinking -right or wrong- and my thinking is what will guide my vote.
(PS: I would never vote for McCain.)
I agree with JDW.
To go a bit further, I don't think Hillary is running as a democrat in the traditional sense.
By accepting more money from corporate lobbyists and special interests than any other candidate, I'm getting a better idea of who she'll really be working for. More defense contractors support Hillary. Rupert Murdoch supports Hillary. Pharmaceutical giants support Hillary.
If she wins the nomination, then the Republicans will have two candidates in the GE. And I don't believe they think John McCain can win. Nor do I believe they're thrilled with McCain.
I also don't believe that Republicans are attacking Obama because they want to run AGAINST Hillary. To some extent, there are those from the GOP who want to bring her down.
But to me, it makes more sense that the GOP wouldn't risk giving up power just because they hate the Clintons. Big money and corporate special interests are no longer committed to one
party or the other.
Think about how Hillary has been positioning herself. Think about how she has been pursuing reparation with old
with the Republican establishment.
Even if Hillary is on the ballot in November, a vote for her is not a vote for a democrat.
It is a vote for a Republican who used to be a democrat.
ONE HUNDRED YEARS IN IRAQ.
that's all i have to say.
Versus "I will obliterate Iran." Clinton is more of the same.
Bitch - she voted for the fucking war do not put that on us.
Your candidate authorized that piece of shit - you are culpable here.
And what about Iran? Man you really get me - you Clinton people.
Actually, IIRC, stravu9's candidate is Obama. She's merely arguing that if we're forced into this undesirable situation, we shouldn't facilitate a McCain victory.
I truly understand both sides of this argument having wavered myself. I would vote for Clinton in this hypothetical (but extremely unlikely) scenario, but I understand why some would not.
Thank you, Ben! That is exactly the point I am making.
I work with the people and their families who have been in Iraq and it is a NIGHTMARE!
I will support my Party even though the Clintons are , on many issues to the right of Nixon!
I like Obama best, but I cannot sanction a de-facto vote for McCain by digging in my heals on this. IF I thought that way I would still be writing in Edwards!
Well, fwiw, I think the war is the worst argument in that particular regards. The environment, Supreme Court, energy policy, upholding the Constitution—these would all be valid reasons.
There's an old saying: Only Nixon could go to China.
For the same reasons: Only Hillary could go to war with Iran.
(OK, Obama could, too, but he'd be much, much less likely to want to do so.)
As I say elsewhere in this thread, in my daily work I see the human costs of this War and I want it over. Tho Courts absolutely TERRIFY me! I'm afraid they are lost for a good long while, which is the reason I worked day and night for a Bush defeat 4 years ago!
I truly believe almost ANY Democrat is better than any Republican.
I support Obama. He is my candidate but I just can't dig in my heels over this.
Bitch yourself! ( You kiss your Mother with that mouth?)
I came out to support Obama long ago!
I am a DEMOCRAT!
And I support my PARTY.
Go have a wine cooler and calm yourself!
I have been an activist for the Democratic party since before I was old enough to vote.
You know, I bet you think the soldiers at My Lai were wrong to follow orders that ended in a massacre. Well sometimes you finally reach the point where there is a clear moral choice. That's where I am.
So you can get all Church Lady on my language - don't care.
I am what I am and I'm old enough to make a reasoned choice here, and that's what I have done. I am not quite the yellow dog Democrat I once was. I have other moral priorities since this country went insane.
I am a Social Worker who began my career working with Katrina victims. I now work with Medicaid, I see, daily the cost of this War in human terms. I want it over and I KNOW a Republican will not do that.
My activism is actually getting my hands dirty for the disenfranchised.
Katrina? That was almost 3 years ago. That's your bonafides? If that's your photo, I'm considerably younger than and have been active since my teens--1986. Don't get in a pissing match with activism. Don't think that just because you "began your career" almost 3 years ago with one of the most poorly managed natural disasters in recent American history that that wipes out what most of us were doing when you were...not beginning your career.
I can't apologize for my age. Yes, I BEGAN my career after having finished Grad School. Did I work on campaigns when a student? Sure I did. I have also built houses with Habitat for Humanity, traveled to disaster zones with the Red Cross and worked with The ASPCA and PETA.
What is your point?
That is my photo. I'm 29 years old and will be 30 in the fall. In 1986 I was in GRADE SCHOOL!
Why so antagonistic?
Well you can get all indignant if you like, but calling you a bitch is no worse than you trying to hang the Iraq War around my neck on the basis of my vote.
You can stuff that right now.
Tena = TROLL.
I think the propensity some here have of calling folks trolls is just as stupid as is Obama supporters saying they won't vote for Clinton if she should somehow weasel the nomination.
It really is pointless.
I have my reasons, which I state below in detail.
I'd like it much better if we could all refrain from guilt-trip-accusations and back-and-forth insults...
Perhaps you can sign up for Subtlety 101 at your local Community College, so you can understand the different issues going on with getting inspectors into Iraq and dealing with a stubborn President who wanted to invade no matter what and had a solid majority Congress to back it up and with a Secretary of State she'd worked with 8 years who happened to be lying this time (along with Tony Blair).
And for what it's worth, we won the war, but we stupidly stayed. And even that might have been managed with a plan, but doubtful.
Oh my, it's so tough when it gets past easy information.
And for what it's worth, we won the war, but we stupidly stayed. And even that might have been managed with a plan, but doubtful.
We won the war?
O brother.
I mean o brother.
No
I have stated this before. I will also not give a penny to the DNC until BO is the nominee. If not they can go hang.
Thanks Hamsun.
I've never before done this - I've voted for every damn Democrat running for a national office in my life.
And this time I won't do it. I can't do it. It's wrong. She will destroy the party if she gets the nomination and I am not interested in the party that will be left.
They won't be my Democrats - just like the Bush Republicans are not my husband's Republicans.
My god - why is this so difficult to grasp?
Win the battle; Lose the War.
If they don't understand this they can piss off.
Tena, you are acting like a Republican troll again by shitting on everyone's comments. Take a break, bitch.
stravu9, please don't engage Tena. She's just a troll.
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
Thomas Paine
*SIGH*
If someone badgers me repeatedly, I bite back.
If you don't want to fight, don't keep pushing me - I don't push.
I learned how to stand up for myself in two places: the criminal justice system and 6 years of commenting on political boards, mostly with men, and brilliant and deadly.
I seem to come on too strong for some people.
I'm sorry that is the case but I'll tell you what - if I was a guy, I wouldn't get this grief. Since I'm not, I'm used to it.
I have an "attitude."
Actually, I think a guy using the word "bitch" might get an even stronger reaction—most likely including being called a misogynist.
I'm not into being a member of the language police, but I have to say that using some words harm your argument instead of helping your argument.
On the other hand, I've always been much more of a detached arguer. I realize this style does not work for everyone.
I don't believe I "pushed " you.
I view this forum as an exchange of ideas, not a cat fight.
And have asked for civility many times.
Tena
I love the way you fight. I just can't put up with those who use an incoherent line of reasoning much like their candidate.
My candidate is Obama, silly!
McCain has been flip-flopping so many times he doesn't know what he's saying. Even if he did want to stay in Iraq for 100 years, the U.S. has no money to pay for it. We haven't for the last eight years. I think the push to drill in ANWR is for collateral.
McCain, facing a democratic majority and a debilitated military, may be more of a lame duck type of president.
I'm not pushing anyone to vote one way or another. I think it helps to debate these things. To play these scenarios out. Keep an open mind.
I agree. Thank you!
I refuse to support a candidate that blows whichever way the political winds favor- she voted for Iraq war, she voted Kyl-Lieberman, she's threatened Iran with obliteration if they attacked Israel (despite Israel's capabilities and Iran's lack of nukes), now she's pandering on the gas tax. She is no democrat and I don't even trust her to bring our troops home.
Its a silly scenario. Hillary is not going to steal the election. The reality that Obama supporters don't want to consider is what happens when he gets the nomination. Clinton supporters will bolt in sufficiently large numbers to maybe throw the election to mcCain. I'm not saying that to convince you or the supers to vote for Hillary. I know that won't happen. I don't think this site, especially the reader posts, has any significant effect on the election.
Clinton supporters will vote McCain because many of them are centrists or center right. So they don't see McCain as evil or even bad. Others will leave because of the disenfranchisement of Florida, perhaps Mi as well. Though it appears that MI voters aren't as upset about that as Fl voters. Shout all you want about the "rules" many don't buy that argument. Many see it as disenfranchisement.
For many voters Wright is a legitimate issue. I think its a legitimate issue though not very important to me. For other voters its much more important. Some will not vote for obama over it. Others won't vote Obama over the clinging to guns, religion, antipathy to people who aren't like them to explain their frustrations statement.
For these and many other reasons and issues people along the margins will be moving to McCain in the general. At this point no one knows how large that group will be but my sense is its significant. If it weren't for 100 years of war McCain and bush hatred Obama wouldn't have a chance.
OceanK
I'll take that bet any day of the week.
I don't think many of the people you are mentioning will vote for McCain once he is really placed under scrutiny. Some will, but not all. Right now he is enjoying a nice Holiday.
As for the people who do not want to vote for Obama because of Wright, Michigan, & Florida, so be it. No one gets every vote.
Ben said, wisely:
Actually, I think a guy using the word "bitch" might get an even stronger reaction—most likely including being called a misogynist.
In a misogynistic culture, plenty of women are misogynistic too, as this election has revealed. Women internalize it just as men do. Tena may be an example; however, we don't even know if she's a she. Just because we think Tena is a female doesn't mean we should give "her" special privileges to act like an asshole!
What we know about Tena is that she has never contributed anything of substance to the comment threads at TPM. Not once. Never. Never discussed a topic calmly. Never offered a valid argument beyond hot-headed bullying opinion. Never advanced the discussion threads with reasonable debate. Never supported her argument except by browbeating or goading others, or by encouraging other trolls. Never provided links except to inflammatory opinion pieces. She craps throughout a thread and then leaves to go crap throughout another thread all day long.
She's a troll, and I'm positive that she's been banned from other sites for her behavior. After her insistence about Mickey Kantor yesterday, I am sure I'm right. I am sick of her.
She's a very good little troll. She's been shitting on everyone for months. If she doesn't clean up her act, please join me in flagging her to Josh. Thanks.
She's a bitch....and now an asshole?
You are ready to blow aren't you?
Yes, I am, actually. Don't know if you saw Tena pushing the bullshit Kantor vid really, really hard yesterday. She was insistent. I'd provide a link to her comments, but TPM expunged those threads, probably for legal reasons.
Actually, she's often calm and reasonable. She also displays strong emotional responses at time. I suspect that you have some selective perception going on and only remember the times she displays strong emotional responses.
In some ways, this reminds me of Desidero's behavior. For a long while, I was certain that Desidero was a troll. I eventually realized that Desdiero is merely someone with very, very strong emotional responses who either has a hard time restraining those emotions or who sees no reason to.
Having said that, I actually think that Tena shows more restraint than Desidero, although that might be at least partly because I'm much more likely to agree with Tena. (No offense intended towards either.)
Ben, I respect your opinion and fair-mindedness. You're right, my perception is selective. Know why? Because I support Hillary, and Tena always shits on Hillary supporters, not Obama supporters. She does it every day. This is a key difference in our relative experiences of TPM. Ask any Clinton supporter if what I say is true.
Since you support Obama, your own perception is selective, about Tena's and other Obama-supporter's comments among other things. Everyone's perception is selective, that's the nature of perception.
I don't think dragging Desidero into a comparison with Tena is fair for a number of reasons. For starters, I can't comment on your experience of Desidero. In other words, I can't say that it's wrong.
I've said before that to exist as a Clinton supporter on this site you have to be super tough. Clinton's supporters actually do take sniper fire. We are expected to defend our arguments more substantively than Obama supporters ever are, and even when we do support our positions, our posts are not recommended, our points are rarely conceded. Whatever, I don't care about that because it helps me like and respect Clinton even more than I did before I was forced to defend my arguments.
I'm sure Desidero has had to fiercely defend her right to free speech on this site. No one gave me a pass, no one gave me the benefit of the doubt. The minute I revealed I wasn't pro-Obama, I was attacked, called names, insulted, ridiculed, you name it. By some of your friends, Ben.
Yesterday Tena pushed the Kantor video relentlessly, even after it was debunked. I can't abide that, nor should I. Her behavior yesterday on that issue was the breaking point for me.
You might not abide it if I pushed that Obama is a Muslim. In other words, if I pushed something that wasn't true. The reason you like me is that I don't do that. But pushing falsehoods qualifies someone as a troll.
I'm done with Tena.
Yesterday Tena pushed the Kantor video relentlessly, even after it was debunked.
Well, I'm not so sure it was debunked, so I can't fault her for not believing it was debunked, either. I heard the same phrase even in the "original" version (interestingly enough, in the supposed "debunking" version, all other phrases were amplified while that phrase appeared to be noised up), although I've already admitted that there could be a priming bias at play there. Also, I never saw her pushing it—just expressing her opinion of what she heard (like I did as well). Maybe I'm wrong, and if so, you'll probably be able to provide me with a link.
You're right, of course, that I also suffer from selective perception.
I don't think dragging Desidero into a comparison with Tena is fair for a number of reasons.
I didn't think it was completely fair, either, but for the opposite reason. I very rarely have witnessed Tena being rude. That said, Desidero has grown on me, but it's taken quite a bit of time, and you're right that most of the commenters on this site are friendlier to Obama supporters than Clinton supporters.
If Hillary steals the nomination, I'll be writing in Obama and vote straight Democrat on the rest of the ticket. Hillary is a war-mongering Republican in disguise. A vote for her is a vote for a continuation of all of the failed policies of the Bush years, plus a vote for a bunch of lying, race-baiting hypocrites.
Excellent point Opus. I agree. A vote for Hillary is saying - "hey, its perfectly OK for the SD's to overturn the popular vote." That is not a party I want to associate with, nor encourage.
no.
I'll write in Obama and vote the downballot races.
I'm not going to reward her for stealing the nomination if she does.
I'm divorcing the Democrats if that happens.
May 3, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
So you would prefer to be responsible for a McCain Presidency?
May 3, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
A McCain presidency that would be held in close check by an overwhelmingly democratic congress. So, I'm with Tena on this one.
May 3, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The tie-breaker, for me at least, is the Supreme Court. There could be as many as 5 nominations for the next president.
I understand the sentiment, but I'd strongly recommend against any action that would make a McCain presidency more likely.
May 3, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
The democratic congress has to approve the nominations. We'll just have to hope nobody on the SC keels over or retires.
May 3, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Explain that to the soldiers yet to die.
The Democratic Congress so far has done little to impress me with their abilities to do much of anything.
May 3, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would a Democratic congress be more likely to facilitate Hillary going into Iran or McCain?
It's definitely not a black-and-white issue.
May 3, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's not going into Iran, got off the Nonsense Wheel, it's making your head spin.
May 3, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Four Senate democrats voted to confirm Alito.
All of this talk of not voting for the eventual nominee is really stupid, I think. Ben and others in their comments here are right.
The Supreme Court is at stake, and if one looks at the big picture one will see there is much more at stake than who is the demo nominee.
McCain would probably nominate more Alitos, Attila Scalias, and etc. who have ratified the great expansion of executive authority and the march toward fascism.
I detest Senator Clinton, and the manner in which she has run her campaign, but I think she would nominate more Ginsburgs and Breyers, both President Clinton nominees.
I think this talk of voting against the demo nominee if your candidate doesn't win is called biting off your nose to spite your face.
It is stupid. Grow up.
May 3, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely and I've often said if given a choice between the presidency and Congress - let the Repugs have the presidency. I'll take Congress - they have the final authority if they'll use it - they can fire the son of a bitch.
May 3, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think we can lose the White House and keep the Congress?
I doubt it.
May 3, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you just revealed how little you know.
The Democrats held the majority for 40 years - through many Republican administrations.
Honey, do your homework, for heaven's sake.
May 3, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was before the lunch box liberals had been kicked to the curb.
Do your own homework.
May 3, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are you talking about? "Lunchbox liberal" kicked to the curb?
I haven't got one clue. The people who took over the Democratic Party were the people who won in '92 - the DLC and the Clintons and that's when Democrats lost the majority - Clinton's 2d term.
Remember?
And the DLC has lost us every presidential election since.
May 3, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, that number would be "2", Alex. Though the footnote says that some think one or both were stolen.
May 3, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, Woodstock Nation took over the Party at the 1968 Democratic Convention and then gave us McGovern and it's been downhill ever since according to my History lessons.
The McGovern wing was interested predominantly in "Social Issues" not "Kitchen Table Issues" . The Elites ridiculed blue collar Americans and continue to do so.
May 3, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely. This I think is the one point both Hillary and Obama supporters agree on.
May 3, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope so!
May 3, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way people discuss this matter makes it seem as though a democrat voting democratic is always a virtue. I disagree. While I do not want to see McCain in the White House, and part of my thinks that democrats should vote democratic no matter who is the nominee, I also do not want to reward a party that acts in a way counter to its own ideals.
The voters are a check on the political parties. To make it seem like they must bear any and all burdens because of party association is quite unfair. People are permitted to have diverse interests, and that may bring about results that they wish they could have avoided but saw as necessary to some other end.
May 3, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, did you take a sedative after your Indiana-Kantor posting yesterday?
May 3, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
ha!
May 3, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed. It's called getting back to the parts of my life that matter right now.
May 3, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton is the one that would be far and away the most responsible for a McCain presidency, not an individual voter like Tena.
May 3, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay , well, here's to the hundred years war!
May 3, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
The true Hundred Years War happens when we allow our candidates to succeed by running divisive, scurrilous campaigns. That is a recipe for more of the same.
May 3, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
People DIE in Iraq.
We are talking DEAD. And Worse!
Dead trumps principles for me.
May 3, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I will obliterate Iran." Sounds like serious death to me.
May 3, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, if Iraq nukes Israel, Hillary will respond to serious death with serious death. What exactly do you want her to say? "If Iran nukes Israel, I'm going to the UN for sanctions"???? "We'll airlift raisins into Tehran"??? Perhaps you want Leahy as Secretary of State to issue subpoenas to Iran that they can laugh at.
May 3, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would have my candidate reject absurd hypotheticals instead of coming across like General Jack D. Ripper. Apparently, you'd rather approach the hypothetical using Republican framing--"subpoena," indeed.
May 3, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't do hypotheticals." Where have I heard that line before? Try it in a job interview sometime, it's really effective, your interviewer will be really impressed at your fortitude.
May 3, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
marry me.
May 3, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon, if Iran nukes Israel.
I think we should make either Iran or Iraq change its name. If we're going to be obliterating these places it's too easy to screw up a letter and get the wrong one. Now was that "Buttle" or "Tuttle"?
May 3, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
The responisbility for the McCain presidency would lie with Hillary, for destroying the candidacy of the most electible nominee, and of the DNC for allowing the theft.
I don't think that will happen, however, so I am betting on seeing Obama's name on my Virginia ballot, and for the first time in my 60 years, seeing a Democrat carry our electoral votes!~
May 3, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are old enough to remember Viet Nam. How can you say you will allow a de-facto vote for more war?
May 3, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
How do you know that a vote for Hillary wouldn't be a vote for more war?
Between Hillary and McCain (hypothetically) calling for us to go to war, which would a Democratic congress be more likely to support?
May 3, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you seriously telling me you think there would be no difference between McCain and Clinton?
May 3, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, I'm not. I can list at least 10 significant differences. I'd vote for her over them for those reasons. Their opinion on Iran doesn't seem to be one of those differences, however.
Do you understand that Congress would be more likely to support her then McCain if she were to attack Iran? (For the sake of discussion, ignore how unlikely you think such an attack might be.)
May 3, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Mumbling to self)
-Do I dare to say Hillary?
(It is no joke that she did talk about obliterating -with nuclear weapons!- another country. And I take it seriously. Was this more campaign pandering? Was it for real? Who knows what she just says and what she means! When I look at her I see a scary leader.)
May 3, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was my implication. :)
Reasonable people can disagree on how likely she'd be to attack Iran vs. how likely McCain would be. (I really don't think either is that likely, but either is possible if they were President.)
However, given that one of them did decide to attack Iran, I think it's clear that a Democratic Congress would be much more likely to go along with Hillary's decision than McCain's. Hence, if you assume they'd both be equally likely to want to attack Iran (a debatable assumption), she'd be more likely to lead us into a war with Iran.
May 3, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You cannot guilt me. Experts have tried. I don't do guilt.
I made a considered decision here - and I'm old enough to make my own decisions, thank you.
You can apologize to the soldiers yourself - Clinton voted for that fucking war.
And you can apologize to Iran after she obliterates it.
I've compromised in every election of my whole life. I got John Kerry forced on me in '04 by the DLC. That was my absolute limit.
If she steals the election I'm turning my back on all of it: The party and politics. Over.
May 3, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
No problem, the Clintons have already dealt with whiners spouting "you stole the election" for 8 years.
May 3, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The choice you present (assuming it'll be Hillary against McCain) is one between two awful people.
Lessee, do I want Juan Peron or Evita. So hard to choose, so hard.
I will do as Tena suggests, in all probability. If Hillary 'wins' after the kind of campaign she's run, it will accelerate the fundamental shifts taking place now, up to and including real revolution. We have our chance now. Let's see if we blow it by picking her, or not.
May 3, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the Democratic nominee is Clinton, then no. It will be downticket all the way.
May 3, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am with you. Especially knowing that we would have a majority in Congress.
If Hillary does indeed steal the nomination* this year may become Nader's golden chance.
*I don't think it is possible for her to achieve such. She would need more than 50% of Supers to be ready to commit Party suicide.
May 3, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
You really think Reid and Pelosi are going to be able to stand up AND what about the coat tail effect?
Will Democrats RETAIN control if a Republican takes the White House?
May 3, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nominating Clinton already destroys our chance at significant coattails, win or lose.
May 3, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
How so?
May 3, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
She'll mobilize Republicans--downtickets will suffer, particularly Dems in red states. It's quite possible that we'd do worse in Congress with a Clinton victory than with an Obama defeat.
May 3, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear stravu9,
First of all, welcome back.
I have no doubt at all, after watching Hillary in action (gas pandering included) that she would not care to stand up for the people AND that she would have no coat tails to ride on. Her hold on Power would be what would guide her Presidency.
That is my thinking -right or wrong- and my thinking is what will guide my vote.
(PS: I would never vote for McCain.)
May 3, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with JDW.
To go a bit further, I don't think Hillary is running as a democrat in the traditional sense.
By accepting more money from corporate lobbyists and special interests than any other candidate, I'm getting a better idea of who she'll really be working for. More defense contractors support Hillary. Rupert Murdoch supports Hillary. Pharmaceutical giants support Hillary.
If she wins the nomination, then the Republicans will have two candidates in the GE. And I don't believe they think John McCain can win. Nor do I believe they're thrilled with McCain.
I also don't believe that Republicans are attacking Obama because they want to run AGAINST Hillary. To some extent, there are those from the GOP who want to bring her down.
But to me, it makes more sense that the GOP wouldn't risk giving up power just because they hate the Clintons. Big money and corporate special interests are no longer committed to one
party or the other.
Think about how Hillary has been positioning herself. Think about how she has been pursuing reparation with old
with the Republican establishment.
Even if Hillary is on the ballot in November, a vote for her is not a vote for a democrat.
It is a vote for a Republican who used to be a democrat.
May 3, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
ONE HUNDRED YEARS IN IRAQ.
that's all i have to say.
May 3, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Versus "I will obliterate Iran." Clinton is more of the same.
May 3, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bitch - she voted for the fucking war do not put that on us.
Your candidate authorized that piece of shit - you are culpable here.
And what about Iran? Man you really get me - you Clinton people.
May 3, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, IIRC, stravu9's candidate is Obama. She's merely arguing that if we're forced into this undesirable situation, we shouldn't facilitate a McCain victory.
I truly understand both sides of this argument having wavered myself. I would vote for Clinton in this hypothetical (but extremely unlikely) scenario, but I understand why some would not.
May 3, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Ben! That is exactly the point I am making.
I work with the people and their families who have been in Iraq and it is a NIGHTMARE!
I will support my Party even though the Clintons are , on many issues to the right of Nixon!
I like Obama best, but I cannot sanction a de-facto vote for McCain by digging in my heals on this. IF I thought that way I would still be writing in Edwards!
May 3, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, fwiw, I think the war is the worst argument in that particular regards. The environment, Supreme Court, energy policy, upholding the Constitution—these would all be valid reasons.
There's an old saying: Only Nixon could go to China.
For the same reasons: Only Hillary could go to war with Iran.
(OK, Obama could, too, but he'd be much, much less likely to want to do so.)
May 3, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I say elsewhere in this thread, in my daily work I see the human costs of this War and I want it over. Tho Courts absolutely TERRIFY me! I'm afraid they are lost for a good long while, which is the reason I worked day and night for a Bush defeat 4 years ago!
I truly believe almost ANY Democrat is better than any Republican.
I support Obama. He is my candidate but I just can't dig in my heels over this.
May 3, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bitch yourself! ( You kiss your Mother with that mouth?)
I came out to support Obama long ago!
I am a DEMOCRAT!
And I support my PARTY.
Go have a wine cooler and calm yourself!
May 3, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been an activist for the Democratic party since before I was old enough to vote.
You know, I bet you think the soldiers at My Lai were wrong to follow orders that ended in a massacre. Well sometimes you finally reach the point where there is a clear moral choice. That's where I am.
So you can get all Church Lady on my language - don't care.
I am what I am and I'm old enough to make a reasoned choice here, and that's what I have done. I am not quite the yellow dog Democrat I once was. I have other moral priorities since this country went insane.
May 3, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a Social Worker who began my career working with Katrina victims. I now work with Medicaid, I see, daily the cost of this War in human terms. I want it over and I KNOW a Republican will not do that.
My activism is actually getting my hands dirty for the disenfranchised.
May 3, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Katrina? That was almost 3 years ago. That's your bonafides? If that's your photo, I'm considerably younger than and have been active since my teens--1986. Don't get in a pissing match with activism. Don't think that just because you "began your career" almost 3 years ago with one of the most poorly managed natural disasters in recent American history that that wipes out what most of us were doing when you were...not beginning your career.
May 3, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't apologize for my age. Yes, I BEGAN my career after having finished Grad School. Did I work on campaigns when a student? Sure I did. I have also built houses with Habitat for Humanity, traveled to disaster zones with the Red Cross and worked with The ASPCA and PETA.
What is your point?
That is my photo. I'm 29 years old and will be 30 in the fall. In 1986 I was in GRADE SCHOOL!
Why so antagonistic?
May 3, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well you can get all indignant if you like, but calling you a bitch is no worse than you trying to hang the Iraq War around my neck on the basis of my vote.
You can stuff that right now.
May 3, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena = TROLL.
May 3, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the propensity some here have of calling folks trolls is just as stupid as is Obama supporters saying they won't vote for Clinton if she should somehow weasel the nomination.
It really is pointless.
May 3, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have my reasons, which I state below in detail.
May 3, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like it much better if we could all refrain from guilt-trip-accusations and back-and-forth insults...
May 3, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps you can sign up for Subtlety 101 at your local Community College, so you can understand the different issues going on with getting inspectors into Iraq and dealing with a stubborn President who wanted to invade no matter what and had a solid majority Congress to back it up and with a Secretary of State she'd worked with 8 years who happened to be lying this time (along with Tony Blair).
And for what it's worth, we won the war, but we stupidly stayed. And even that might have been managed with a plan, but doubtful.
Oh my, it's so tough when it gets past easy information.
May 3, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
We won the war?
O brother.
I mean o brother.
May 3, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
No
I have stated this before. I will also not give a penny to the DNC until BO is the nominee. If not they can go hang.
May 3, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks Hamsun.
I've never before done this - I've voted for every damn Democrat running for a national office in my life.
And this time I won't do it. I can't do it. It's wrong. She will destroy the party if she gets the nomination and I am not interested in the party that will be left.
They won't be my Democrats - just like the Bush Republicans are not my husband's Republicans.
My god - why is this so difficult to grasp?
May 3, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Win the battle; Lose the War.
If they don't understand this they can piss off.
May 3, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, you are acting like a Republican troll again by shitting on everyone's comments. Take a break, bitch.
stravu9, please don't engage Tena. She's just a troll.
May 3, 2008 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.
Thomas Paine
May 3, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
*SIGH*
If someone badgers me repeatedly, I bite back.
If you don't want to fight, don't keep pushing me - I don't push.
I learned how to stand up for myself in two places: the criminal justice system and 6 years of commenting on political boards, mostly with men, and brilliant and deadly.
I seem to come on too strong for some people.
I'm sorry that is the case but I'll tell you what - if I was a guy, I wouldn't get this grief. Since I'm not, I'm used to it.
I have an "attitude."
May 3, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I think a guy using the word "bitch" might get an even stronger reaction—most likely including being called a misogynist.
I'm not into being a member of the language police, but I have to say that using some words harm your argument instead of helping your argument.
On the other hand, I've always been much more of a detached arguer. I realize this style does not work for everyone.
May 3, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe I "pushed " you.
I view this forum as an exchange of ideas, not a cat fight.
And have asked for civility many times.
May 3, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena
I love the way you fight. I just can't put up with those who use an incoherent line of reasoning much like their candidate.
May 3, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
My candidate is Obama, silly!
May 3, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has been flip-flopping so many times he doesn't know what he's saying. Even if he did want to stay in Iraq for 100 years, the U.S. has no money to pay for it. We haven't for the last eight years. I think the push to drill in ANWR is for collateral.
McCain, facing a democratic majority and a debilitated military, may be more of a lame duck type of president.
I'm not pushing anyone to vote one way or another. I think it helps to debate these things. To play these scenarios out. Keep an open mind.
May 3, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Thank you!
May 3, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I refuse to support a candidate that blows whichever way the political winds favor- she voted for Iraq war, she voted Kyl-Lieberman, she's threatened Iran with obliteration if they attacked Israel (despite Israel's capabilities and Iran's lack of nukes), now she's pandering on the gas tax. She is no democrat and I don't even trust her to bring our troops home.
May 3, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its a silly scenario. Hillary is not going to steal the election. The reality that Obama supporters don't want to consider is what happens when he gets the nomination. Clinton supporters will bolt in sufficiently large numbers to maybe throw the election to mcCain. I'm not saying that to convince you or the supers to vote for Hillary. I know that won't happen. I don't think this site, especially the reader posts, has any significant effect on the election.
Clinton supporters will vote McCain because many of them are centrists or center right. So they don't see McCain as evil or even bad. Others will leave because of the disenfranchisement of Florida, perhaps Mi as well. Though it appears that MI voters aren't as upset about that as Fl voters. Shout all you want about the "rules" many don't buy that argument. Many see it as disenfranchisement.
For many voters Wright is a legitimate issue. I think its a legitimate issue though not very important to me. For other voters its much more important. Some will not vote for obama over it. Others won't vote Obama over the clinging to guns, religion, antipathy to people who aren't like them to explain their frustrations statement.
For these and many other reasons and issues people along the margins will be moving to McCain in the general. At this point no one knows how large that group will be but my sense is its significant. If it weren't for 100 years of war McCain and bush hatred Obama wouldn't have a chance.
May 3, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
OceanK
I'll take that bet any day of the week.
May 3, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think many of the people you are mentioning will vote for McCain once he is really placed under scrutiny. Some will, but not all. Right now he is enjoying a nice Holiday.
As for the people who do not want to vote for Obama because of Wright, Michigan, & Florida, so be it. No one gets every vote.
May 3, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben said, wisely:
In a misogynistic culture, plenty of women are misogynistic too, as this election has revealed. Women internalize it just as men do. Tena may be an example; however, we don't even know if she's a she. Just because we think Tena is a female doesn't mean we should give "her" special privileges to act like an asshole!
What we know about Tena is that she has never contributed anything of substance to the comment threads at TPM. Not once. Never. Never discussed a topic calmly. Never offered a valid argument beyond hot-headed bullying opinion. Never advanced the discussion threads with reasonable debate. Never supported her argument except by browbeating or goading others, or by encouraging other trolls. Never provided links except to inflammatory opinion pieces. She craps throughout a thread and then leaves to go crap throughout another thread all day long.
She's a troll, and I'm positive that she's been banned from other sites for her behavior. After her insistence about Mickey Kantor yesterday, I am sure I'm right. I am sick of her.
She's a very good little troll. She's been shitting on everyone for months. If she doesn't clean up her act, please join me in flagging her to Josh. Thanks.
May 3, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's a bitch....and now an asshole?
You are ready to blow aren't you?
May 3, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I am, actually. Don't know if you saw Tena pushing the bullshit Kantor vid really, really hard yesterday. She was insistent. I'd provide a link to her comments, but TPM expunged those threads, probably for legal reasons.
May 3, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, she's often calm and reasonable. She also displays strong emotional responses at time. I suspect that you have some selective perception going on and only remember the times she displays strong emotional responses.
In some ways, this reminds me of Desidero's behavior. For a long while, I was certain that Desidero was a troll. I eventually realized that Desdiero is merely someone with very, very strong emotional responses who either has a hard time restraining those emotions or who sees no reason to.
Having said that, I actually think that Tena shows more restraint than Desidero, although that might be at least partly because I'm much more likely to agree with Tena. (No offense intended towards either.)
May 3, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, I respect your opinion and fair-mindedness. You're right, my perception is selective. Know why? Because I support Hillary, and Tena always shits on Hillary supporters, not Obama supporters. She does it every day. This is a key difference in our relative experiences of TPM. Ask any Clinton supporter if what I say is true.
Since you support Obama, your own perception is selective, about Tena's and other Obama-supporter's comments among other things. Everyone's perception is selective, that's the nature of perception.
I don't think dragging Desidero into a comparison with Tena is fair for a number of reasons. For starters, I can't comment on your experience of Desidero. In other words, I can't say that it's wrong.
I've said before that to exist as a Clinton supporter on this site you have to be super tough. Clinton's supporters actually do take sniper fire. We are expected to defend our arguments more substantively than Obama supporters ever are, and even when we do support our positions, our posts are not recommended, our points are rarely conceded. Whatever, I don't care about that because it helps me like and respect Clinton even more than I did before I was forced to defend my arguments.
I'm sure Desidero has had to fiercely defend her right to free speech on this site. No one gave me a pass, no one gave me the benefit of the doubt. The minute I revealed I wasn't pro-Obama, I was attacked, called names, insulted, ridiculed, you name it. By some of your friends, Ben.
Yesterday Tena pushed the Kantor video relentlessly, even after it was debunked. I can't abide that, nor should I. Her behavior yesterday on that issue was the breaking point for me.
You might not abide it if I pushed that Obama is a Muslim. In other words, if I pushed something that wasn't true. The reason you like me is that I don't do that. But pushing falsehoods qualifies someone as a troll.
I'm done with Tena.
May 3, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I'm not so sure it was debunked, so I can't fault her for not believing it was debunked, either. I heard the same phrase even in the "original" version (interestingly enough, in the supposed "debunking" version, all other phrases were amplified while that phrase appeared to be noised up), although I've already admitted that there could be a priming bias at play there. Also, I never saw her pushing it—just expressing her opinion of what she heard (like I did as well). Maybe I'm wrong, and if so, you'll probably be able to provide me with a link.
You're right, of course, that I also suffer from selective perception.
I didn't think it was completely fair, either, but for the opposite reason. I very rarely have witnessed Tena being rude. That said, Desidero has grown on me, but it's taken quite a bit of time, and you're right that most of the commenters on this site are friendlier to Obama supporters than Clinton supporters.
May 4, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary steals the nomination, I'll be writing in Obama and vote straight Democrat on the rest of the ticket. Hillary is a war-mongering Republican in disguise. A vote for her is a vote for a continuation of all of the failed policies of the Bush years, plus a vote for a bunch of lying, race-baiting hypocrites.
May 3, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent point Opus. I agree. A vote for Hillary is saying - "hey, its perfectly OK for the SD's to overturn the popular vote." That is not a party I want to associate with, nor encourage.
May 3, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink